Maria Mourani

[Firearms Registry, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members from Quebec think that their ideological agenda is more important than protecting people. They have ignored all appeals. Yesterday, the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution once again asking federal members from Quebec to maintain the gun registry.

Will the Conservative members from Quebec heed this appeal, or will they insist on voting to dismantle the gun registry?

[Committees of the House, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I met this Conservative expert in committee and I asked him whether the handgun he was carrying in the photo was his. I showed this photo because the discussion revolved around it. He answered yes. I asked what kind of gun it was, and he said that it was a Smith & Wesson revolver. I asked whether it was registered, and he replied that it was, of course. I asked him how many weapons he owned, and he said that he was not sure, that it varied.

So I repeated that he did not remember how many weapons he owned and asked if he had any long guns. He said that he was not sure; it varied. I repeated that he did not remember. He said that he was getting old. Fortunately we have a firearms registry for those who are getting old and who have forgotten how many guns they have in their home. I mentioned this only to show the absurdity.

Another thing I found extremely striking was when Mr. Cheliak, the former director of the Canadian Firearms Program, appeared before the committee. I say former director because unfortunately, he has been sent to complete other tasks, namely to learn French. After nearly a year, people suddenly realize this man is not fully bilingual and he is removed, in a matter of speaking, a few weeks before the major debate we are having here.

What he said that was so disturbing is that in 2009 alone, 7,000 registration certificates were revoked for public safety reasons. I asked him whether the certificates were for handguns. He told me that registration certificates for 7,000 long guns were revoked for public safety problems. This might come from judges, spousal violence complaints, or simply a school reporting a slightly disturbed young person in order to have the police check whether the parents own a firearm. This can save lives.

We have clear evidence that 7,000 firearm registrations were revoked in 2009 alone for mental health reasons or reasons directly related to public safety.

The registry clearly saves lives.

I would like to talk about something that came to light on September 15, 2010. Heather Imming said that the gun registry saved her life. The registry helped in removing guns belonging to her violent ex-husband. She survived a final savage beating. She truly felt that the only reason she was at the conference was because the registry made it possible to remove the guns belonging to her ex-husband. Otherwise she would not have been there to talk to us.

As for Mr. Vallee, author of Life with Billy, he said that according to research, a gun in a house increases the risk of women being killed. He has travelled across the country and has heard horror stories from women in rural areas who have been terrorized and mistreated by men with permits to own rifles and shotguns.

He is talking about a gun in a house and not an oven in a house. Having a gun in the house is not the same thing as an oven.

These are established facts. We are not inventing or massaging the numbers, as the government seems to think, as it does any time something does not go its way. There is no conspiracy.

These are the facts. In 2009, the registry cost $4.1 million to administer, a little more than 12¢ per citizen. That is $4.1 million, not billion. They need to stop lying to the public.

A long gun can be registered or the possession transferred by phone or online in a couple of minutes. It is free to register or transfer a long gun. In addition, there is another important statistic related to preventing crime and protecting police officers: of the 16 officers killed by guns in Canada since 1998, 14 were killed with long guns. Police across Canada consult the registry 11,067 times a day. Of those requests, 2,842 are linked to public safety.

I could also talk about suicide. There is very relevant information that shows the usefulness of the registry. The public health department stated the following:

...suicide is by far the leading cause of death by firearms in Canada and, in the majority of cases, the gun used is a non-restricted one such as a hunting rifle...Members of a household with a firearm are approximately fives times more at risk of committing suicide...

It is a firearm, not an oven. And while you can attempt to commit suicide with an oven, there are more risks with a firearm.

I could continue, but the important part of this debate is tomorrow's vote. I wholeheartedly hope that all of my colleagues from the Liberal Party will be here—

[Committees of the House, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's motion that recommends not proceeding further with the study of Bill C-391.

I would like to begin by saying that we heard from over 30 witnesses between May 4 and May 27. In a way, all of the angles in this debate have been covered. We heard from victims' groups. We heard from women's groups. We heard from as many supporters of the bill as detractors. We heard from spokespeople, such as chiefs of police. We even heard from the gun lobby. We heard from a lot of people. Of course we also heard from the Fédération des femmes du Québec, Quebec's public safety minister, and many others. More than 30 people came to share their opinions with us.

I will try to share some of the committee's more interesting moments with the House, the moments I found to be most extraordinary. One such moment occurred when the bill sponsor came to testify. In a nutshell, she said that stoves are as dangerous as firearms. Everyone knows that stoves are meant for cooking food and that guns are meant for killing living things during a hunt or under other circumstances that can prove tragic.

So she said that a stove is as dangerous as a gun and gave us some interesting statistics from a report written by a professor who appears to be the Conservatives' expert and that of the member introducing the bill. According to this professor, people who have firearms permits are two times less likely to commit a gun crime than those who do not. I asked her where that statistic came from, and she told me that it came from a report by the great professor, Gary Mauser. This gun-toting gentleman is the Conservatives' expert.

So this gentleman—

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, given that there are still no Liberals asking questions, I will ask my colleague a question myself.

I have two points to raise. First, will the committee study the training that consultants receive? Second, will there be resources or methods for monitoring these consultants, not only in Quebec and Canada, but overseas as well?

[Firearms Registry, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a coalition for women’s equality and human rights made up of over 40 organizations is calling on the Conservative government to cancel its plans to dismantle the firearms registry. The coalition reminds us that the registry helps reduce violence, particularly against women.

Why is this government insisting on dismantling the firearms registry, one that saves lives?

[Firearms Registry, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the new ombudsman for victims of crime has added her voice to those who support the firearms registry. She has noted that the majority of victims' groups have clearly indicated that the long gun registry should be maintained.

How can the government so offhandedly dismiss the opinion of its own ombudsman for victims of crime?

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. I would like to know what he thinks of the change in the Liberals' position. In 2007, there was some unanimity about the fact that these provisions did not serve any purpose and should not be renewed or extended. However, the government has introduced the bill again, so we now have Bill C-17 before us. The Liberals have suddenly changed their position. Yet, there is absolutely nothing new here. There have been very few changes.

I wonder what my colleague thinks is going on with the Liberals? Is this a matter of simple demagoguery and security one-upmanship?

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending my colleague on his excellent speech. He was successful not only in laying bare the pointlessness of this hot air and bluster bill, but also in showing us how dangerous the bill is, to the extent that it may infringe upon our human rights.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about certain allegations that, in fact, are verging on no longer being allegations. A Canadian Press headline reads, "CSIS would use torture-tainted info”.

What does my colleague think about that allegation? Does he think that this kind of legislation will lead to both instances of abuse and arbitrary decision making?

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, as my colleague was saying, all of us—including the Liberal Party—voted against extending these provisions. Now all of a sudden the Liberal Party has changed its mind even though Bill C-17 does not introduce any fundamental changes. These provisions are still useless, because other provisions already exist in the Criminal Code to allow agencies and police officers to take action, whether with regard to investigative hearings or preventive arrest.

Does my colleague understand the Liberals' change of heart? I am still trying to figure out whether it is just one-upmanship in a world where everyone tries to come across as protecting public safety by fuelling the fear of terrorism and the fear of crime. It is nothing more than grandstanding. I do not know who is better at it, the Liberals or the Conservatives.

That is how I interpret all of this, but perhaps my colleague has another way of looking at it.

[Firearms Registry, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, instead of negotiating with the NRA, the Conservative government should listen to the vast majority of Quebeckers who are calling for the gun registry to be maintained. The National Assembly, police, families of victims of crime and public health experts all want the control of long guns to continue.

Why does the government choose to listen to the NRA and not to Quebeckers?