Maria Mourani

[Privilege, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, you know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I voted for you to be the Speaker. You are a young face in this chamber, a young Speaker, the youngest Speaker in the history of Canada, I believe. I am convinced that a young Speaker such as yourself will breathe new life into the rules, customs and practices of this chamber.

I was pregnant while a member of Parliament and I had a premature baby. I was told that I could not come and vote with a baby in my arms. Is there a rule against this? A custom in this regard? I do not know, but that is what I was told. I was very upset that I was unable to do my parliamentary duty from start to finish, that I was unable to vote when I should because I had my baby with me.

I bring this up now because, as you know, the situation has arisen again in the House. I read what you said to the media to the effect that there is reportedly no rule on this subject and that you did not intend to remove a baby from this chamber. I am sure that you did not intend to do so because I know that you are a very honourable person. You are a father, and I am sure that this was not your intention. However, there is now some ambiguity because I experienced a similar situation.

I would humbly ask you to clarify whether or not there is a rule. If there is a rule, I would like you to do away with it. If there is not, I would like you to clarify this situation so that we women of childbearing age will know how to mange our family lives and achieve a work-life balance.

By so doing, you will also send a message to Quebec and Canadian society saying that women can participate in politics even if they are in their childbearing years and that they have a place in this chamber. This is a key message from both a political and human standpoint.

Right now, we are like the cobbler's barefoot children. It seems that we do not have the right to vote when our babies are with us. I am speaking of newborn babies, not children who are five or six years old and who can be taken to daycare. I am asking you to consider this issue.

There is another thing that I would like to mention. It is like a scavenger hunt to find the infamous change tables in the Parliament buildings. I remember very well that it was extremely difficult for me to find them. The washroom right here still does not have one. I would like to have a few more change tables and the tools for us take care of our small babies while still doing our duties as members of Parliament.

I would like to thank you and tell you that you can rest assured that I will vote for you again if the constituents of Ahuntsic vote for me again in the next election.

[Justice, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in their many presentations on justice, the Conservatives have made fine speeches about the importance of helping victims. However, the report of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and the emotional appeal of Isabelle Gaston, whose two children were killed by their father, reveal the lack of support for victims of crime and their friends and families.

Will the government stop its grandstanding on justice issues and support the Bloc Québécois bill, which would provide tangible assistance to the families of crime victims?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to hear what she really thinks of clause 29 of this bill, which, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

[Justice, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday a Conservative senator talked about reopening the debate on the death penalty. Today, a Conservative member is asking that the debate on abortion be reopened by presenting a motion to redefine the concept of a human being.

Is this government doing indirectly what it claims it does not wish to do directly, that is, reopen the debates on the death penalty and abortion?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech. Earlier, we heard a member from the Conservative Party rhyme off a list of myths by number.

I have two myths to offer my colleague, and I would like him to say a few words about them. First myth: the Conservative government and the Conservatives stand up for victims. Answer: false, given that two ombudsmen for victims of crime—the current one and the former one—say that at the end of the day, the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing for victims.

Second myth: the Conservative government and the Conservatives are fighting crime. False: in my opinion, they are making a spectacle of crime. From time to time they use victims and their suffering to try to explain or justify unacceptable bills. The best example is Bill C-10—if memory serves me correctly—with which they are going to completely change the way we deal with young offenders in Quebec.

What does the hon. member think about these myths?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. She spoke about the consequences of abolishing the gun registry, including the theft of legal guns used for hunting. Long before the registry was created, most criminal groups—those who did not have a gun trafficking network but had hand guns—could obtain shotguns simply by stealing them from homes. They would saw off the shotgun to make it even more dangerous than a hand gun and easy to conceal. It is easier to conceal this type of gun.

If we abolish the gun registry, do we not run the risk of an increase in this type of theft and the use of these types of modified guns because they will no longer be registered and therefore will be easy to use?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been watching this government since 2006, particularly concerning this issue. I simply cannot understand its position, because all experts agree on the relevance, value and importance of this registry. Furthermore, one of the experts called upon by this government even wrote a book entitled “How to Manipulate Public Opinion”. This just goes to show the kind of experts the government relies on.

That said, the Conservatives have still not implemented the regulation that would allow imported weapons to be registered and documented. The United States has similar regulations. In the U.S., when a foreign weapon enters the country, they know where it comes from, which company made it, what year it was made and so on. Canada has yet to implement that regulation, although it exists. Yes, this does facilitate weapons trafficking.

This government claims that it wants to fight weapons trafficking and violence in our streets, but at the end of the day, what is it doing? It is allowing weapons to circulate freely. Tomorrow morning, anyone can go and purchase a weapon, without registering it of course. Thus, the authorities will never know this person has a weapon, let alone how many. Imagine that. People can easily import weapons because, in any case, although the regulation on importing weapons exists, it has not been enforced. This government has been influenced by the firearms lobby—

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Unfortunately, he is absolutely right. This is nothing new. They have been singing the same old song since 2006. The government says that it speaks on behalf of victims and protects them. Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman, also said that this government was not doing anything for victims.

Before the election, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill in the House to protect victims' families, and it will reintroduce that bill. The NDP and the Liberals all supported the bill, but the Conservative government never supported the bill, which would have helped victims, including men and women who have lost children or whose children have committed suicide.

This government could have done the right thing for victims, but it did not. This government does not protect victims; it just uses the law to get revenge. The problem is that public safety should not be based on vengeance and backward ideology. It should be based on rehabilitation, prevention, an intelligent response to crime and, most importantly, victim support.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the important issue of the gun registry. We have been fighting this battle for quite some time and have devoted more effort to it since the arrival of this government in 2006.

In my speech, I will address three fundamental aspects of the motions that we have introduced. The first aspect is that we obviously want to try to prevent this government from abolishing the gun registry. All experts told us that the registry is relevant, including women's groups, the police and victims' groups. Without exception, they told us that the registry is an important public safety tool, a tool that saves lives, that helps police with their investigations, and that helps keep police safe as they go about their daily work. The gun registry costs around $4.1 million per year, which amounts to 12¢ per capita.

We do not understand why the government is saying that it is extremely expensive. I will talk about another paradox. This government is prepared to spend $7.5 million on a queen's jubilee, including $3.7 million on medals. That amount could pay for the gun registry for a year or more. The government prefers to spend money on a queen's jubilee rather than on the public safety of the women and children of Quebec and Canada.

The president of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal was very clear about this on May 13, 2010. This shows that this is a long-standing debate. He said:

...rarely has there been such unanimity among Canadian police—namely the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Police Boards—who concur with women's and suicide prevention groups that the registry must not be touched.

...If Bill C-391 is passed, the Ruger Mini-14—used by the killer at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989—will no longer have to be registered. That makes no sense.

Many experts agree that abolishing this registry makes no sense, but the government will not listen. Since 2006, these experts, including police officers, as well as women and victims, have told the government time and time again that it is wrong and that its actions will have serious repercussions on public safety.

The Barreau du Québec even said that the Firearms Act must be maintained as it currently exists and that scrapping the firearms registry will put public safety at risk.

This is not a good start for a government that claims to be tough on crime. I think my colleagues would agree that the people who came and gave evidence knew what they were talking about. They were experts. They were people who work in the field in this domain and who told us that this does not make sense.

The question remains: where is the problem? Registering a firearm, even transferring a firearm, is free. Furthermore, it can be done in just a few minutes, either by phone or online.

The firearms registry is an effective crime prevention tool, and I will give some examples. Of course, this government believes that all the statistics we quote are fictitious, but we will quote them nonetheless. In Quebec, the rate of homicides committed with a firearm dropped by 40% between 1995, when the registry first came into effect, and 2006. Of course, this registry has also had an impact on the rate of suicides committed with firearms. Several studies have been done on the matter.

Access to a firearm combined with a temporary or long-term depression can result in a person using a firearm to take their own life.

Both homicides and suicides are prevented thanks to this registry. Prevention occurs thanks to the registry and the numbers are there to prove it.

This registry has also contributed to reducing the theft of hunting rifles from hunters. How so? A registered weapon is undesirable to criminals because it is easier to trace the weapon used in a homicide or any other crime if it is registered. It is therefore beneficial for hunters to register their firearms because it prevents their firearms from being stolen.

This registry also makes police work easier. According to the numbers released by the RCMP in August 2010, the registry is consulted 11,000 times a day across Canada and, of that number, 2,842 consultations are linked to public safety related events. As we can see, the registry is not consulted for nothing.

The very troubling thing about this bill is that it includes no provision to restore the requirement for businesses to keep sales records for firearms. That requirement existed from 1977 until the bill to create the firearms registry was passed in 1995. That requirement was dropped because now we had a registry. Not only does this provision no longer exist, but it is not included as a guideline in the current bill. It is not there. When we look at it, we get the impression we are going back 35 years, but with this government we are starting to get used to living in prehistoric times.

This second aspect is underscored in the motions we have moved: I am talking about verifying the validity of the permit when a firearm is sold. Under this bill, such verification becomes optional, which means that, in the case of a person whose permit has been revoked or who falsifies the documents, the firearms vendor would not verify the validity of the permit. We know that 7,000 long gun registrations were revoked by judges in 2009 for public safety reasons, including mental health and many other reasons. In other words, someone whose permit has been revoked can easily buy a firearm since no one is checking the validity of the permit.

The third factor mentioned in our motions is, of course, the destruction of data. This government was clear. During the last election and in previous elections, the government has always been clear. We cannot criticize the Conservatives in that regard. They always said that they would abolish the firearms registry. However, they have never been given a mandate to destroy the data. In any case, it was never clearly specified during the last election. As an aside, 80% of the population of Quebec did not vote for this government. We see that this government is completely out of step with Quebec values.

That being said, it is unacceptable for the government to destroy the data because, for one thing, it does not even have the mandate to do so. For another, there are provinces that want the data to create their own registries, perhaps later on, which is only fair. I think these provinces have the right to have their own registries. Quebec made the request and Quebec taxpayers have already paid for this registry. We have already paid. Taxpayers across Canada paid for this registry. Quebeckers paid for it and they have the right to have the data from this registry.

The president of the Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec, Mr. Côté, said that, next to the physical evidence of the weapon, the starting point for an investigation is often the data, which make it possible to identify important witnesses or even a suspect.

In short, the people who will benefit from this bill are criminal gang members, simply because they will now be able to easily steal firearms that will no longer be registered. They will be able to acquire weapons since, in theory, everyone can now have them and commit crimes.

Now, I am calling upon the Government of Quebec to keep the promise it made to all the victims of the Polytechnique and Dawson College massacres and women's groups by creating a Quebec firearms registry no matter what happens, whether or not the Conservatives transfer the data.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 29.