Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment just made by the hon. NDP member, he knows very well that the former prime minister of the Liberal government was very committed to Bill C-82.

We must ensure that Canadians are not deceived again, which is more or less what the Conservatives and the current Prime Minister are trying to do with the environment. In fact, they are trying to do the same thing with the criminal justice file and, unfortunately, the NDP has abandoned its principles here in this House.

Bill C-10, which the Liberals tried to amend in committee, was blocked by the Conservatives and the New Democrats. The amendments were intended to ensure stronger mandatory minimum sentences for convictions for a first offence.

Furthermore, case law clearly shows that in cases of recidivism, a judge can take into account any aggravating factors, including the recidivism itself, the impact on the victim, the impact on the community, special circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and so on, and can ensure that the penalties imposed are more severe than the minimum sentence.

I have a number of motions to table.

I move:

That Motion No. 5 be amended by deleting all the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

7. (1) The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of

(2) Paragraph 95(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years; or

I also move:

That Motion No. 6 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

10. Subsection 99(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows“ and substituting the following:

11. Subsection 100(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) by possessing a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 8 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

13. Subsection 103(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 9 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

17. Section 239 of the Act is replaced by the following:

239. (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

I move:

That Motion No. 10 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

18. Section 244 of the Act is replaced by the following:

244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person--whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

I move:

That Motion No. 11 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

19(1) Paragraph 272(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 12 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

20(1) Paragraph 273(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 13 by amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

21(1) Paragraph (279)(1.1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 14 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

22(1) Subsection 279.1(1) the following:

279.1(1) Everyone who takes a person hostage who--with intent to induce any person, other than the hostage, or any group of persons or any state or international or intergovernmental organization to commit or cause to be committed any act or omission as a condition, whether expressed or implied, of the release of the hostage--

(a) confines, imprisons, forcibly seizes or detains that person; and

(b) in any manner utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat that the death of, or bodily harm to, the hostage will be caused or that the confinement, imprisonment or detention of the hostage will be continued.

(2) Paragraph 279.1(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 15 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

23(1) Section 344 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 344(1).

(2) Paragraph 344(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

Finally, I move:

That Motion No. 16 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

24(1) Paragraph 346(1.1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

[The Environment, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006 alone, greenhouse gas emissions increased dramatically. Canadians expect their government to address the problem of climate change immediately.

Why is this government willing to waste at least five years before beginning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Why does the government refuse to act immediately?

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his question because it provides me with some time to expound on the issue of investing in our young children.

The phenomenon of street gangs began in the United States in the 1980s and has now moved its way into Canada, and now into Montreal. Originally the gangs were made up of young men. In the 1980s the overwhelming majority of the membership of the Crips and the Bloods which appeared in the Los Angeles region of California were young men. They were of legal age, but as time went on, we began to see younger and younger and younger members recruited.

The phenomenon began to appear in Canada toward the mid and late 1990s and it has become a real issue. Initially in the Montreal area we saw it in Montreal north and Saint-Michel, but the street gangs have now moved into my riding and I am on the west side of the island. Just to situate it geographically, Montreal west and Saint-Michel are on the east side of Montreal Island in the centre and north. My riding is in the southwest and part of it is the west island. I have spoken with police and with the community organizations on the ground. The street gangs are now in NDG and they have now moved further west in my riding into Lachine.

Let us turn to the issue of the young children and young people in their teens and early twenties who have been recruited into the gangs or who have become wannabes. We already know there are higher rates of pregnancies among young people who have dropped out of school, et cetera. The young woman may be the girlfriend of someone who is either in a gang or considers himself to be a wannabe and she dresses her three year old in the gang colours of her boyfriend or her partner.

This is the phenomenon that Harry Delva talked about. We already know that children are very intelligent and have such fertile minds. I remember that my daughter, who is now 14, at five years old was actually teaching me how to use the DVD.

We have to ensure that the parents of these young children are provided with the proper resources. They must be provided with parenting skills. We must ensure they are provided with affordable housing, social housing. They must be provided with the appropriate programs.

I can talk about one program in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine which is called Elizabeth House. Elizabeth House receives funding from the provincial government, and part of that funding obviously comes from the social transfer from the federal government, in order to provide, for example, parenting skills, cooking skills, budgeting skills to young mothers. There are two homes where these young women can live.

The problem is there are gaps and when the young women have to leave, if they are unable to get into social housing, or even if they get into social housing, their development and skills are not necessarily at the level where they really can raise their children autonomously. Therefore, working with Elizabeth House a number of community activists and I supported a plan for a transitional home. That home saw the light of day in December 2005 in NDG, where? On Benny Farm. Benny Farm, which formerly was veteran housing, has been renovated. In many cases it is green renovation. The architects have won prestigious international prizes for the work that has been done.

There are now a number of units in one building where young women who leave Elizabeth House with their families can go. The children are under five years of age. They are provided with the additional assistance that they require. They are encouraged to go back to school or to seek the skills they need in order to become employable and then they are provided with assistance in job seeking. Once they are able to stand on their feet, they are assisted in finding their own place off the area.

The point, though, is there are virtually no programs that the Maison Transitionnelle 03, which is what it is called, can find to pay for the program and case workers. It is not just young women, I should say. A young man is there who lived, from the time he was two years old, in foster homes and never felt that he had an identity or was worth anything. He has several children. He lives there and for the first time in his life feels like he is someone who can actually contribute. Those are the kinds of needs that the government needs to be addressing and is not addressing.

The national crime prevention strategy that the Liberal government put in place in 1998, I believe it was, needs to continue. It needs to be expanded. It needs to have a component of sustainable, or in French “durable”, core funding.

These organizations need to know that in six months' time or in three years' time they are not suddenly going to have to be scrambling to develop some project to get another year or two years funding. They need to know that they will be able to continue to provide the support in the ethnocultural and visible minority communities, but also in the wider communities.

In Lachine the overwhelming majority of the population is francophone de souche, white francophone Quebeckers. That is where the level of poverty is high and the dropout rate is high. Guess what? When one looks at the criminality rate in Lachine, that is where the criminality rate is high.

The 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is clear. It is making clear recommendations to the House and I hope that each and every member in the House will vote in favour of concurrence.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing House Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, February 28, be concurred in.

I must admit that it is an honour for me to seek concurrence of this report, and I will read the motion:

That this House take note of the importance of the contribution that the ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders and rapid growth of safer communities and that it recognize the need to ensure every means and resource to allow police departments, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board and the ethnocultural communities to respond better to the new needs of the increasingly diversified offender and prison population.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held a special meeting to hear testimony from various experts from police forces, our judicial and justice administration system, and experts working in the field with communities that are victims of violent and foul crime, but which are also communities where these delinquents live, where they are made and trained, in a manner of speaking.

The committee members unanimously passed this report and this recommendation. The committee members understood that if our government and Canadian society truly want to tackle crime in our communities, if they truly want to reduce crime—especially violent crime—and if they want to ensure that Canadians are safer in their communities and their homes, then greater effort is needed. Of course we will have to pursue the efforts made by our police services for preventing crime, for finding criminals; our crown attorneys still have to try the defendants; our judges still have to make rulings and decide whether the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt and whether the defendant did indeed commit the criminal act he is accused of; our correctional services have to continue to work with those who receive jail sentences; and our parole services have to continue their work. But more is needed.

Crime prevention starts in our communities. We need to implement policies and programs to help communities tackle this issue, to really focus on prevention and discover how this can be achieved. The former Liberal government understood that and had started working on crime prevention. It went beyond the traditional method—dependence on our police service—by involving the communities.

Year after year, data from Statistics Canada show that cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic diversity is on the rise. Some 25% of the Montreal population is non francophone and the large majority of this 25% is anglophone.

Moreover, the most recent data shows that, in the anglophone community, racial and ethnocultural diversity is much greater than in urban communities from other provinces. It also indicates that, despite an educational level much higher than that of the average Canadian, ethnocultural communities are underemployed and underrepresented in the labour force. When members of ethnocultural communities and visible minorities have a job, they are often underemployed, in the sense that the quality of their job does not reflect their academic training and work experience. This is particularly true with immigrants, but it is also the case for members of visible or ethnocultural minorities who were born here, in Canada.

All the studies also show that when we make resources and means available to communities, these communities and the surrounding areas experience a real drop in crime. I urge all hon. members to read a book published in 2006 by Irvin Waller.

The title of this book is Less Law, More Order: The Truth About Reducing Crime.

Any government, any political party, which wishes to claim that it is serious about reducing crime has to look at all of the elements of crime. Those elements are not just at the level of arrest, at the level of prosecution, at the level of sentencing, at the level of incarceration and possibly rehabilitation subsequently, and the reinsertion into the community. It is also about prevention.

The studies are consistent that a dollar spent in prevention can easily produce $50 and more in the reduction in cost at the arrest, prosecution, incarceration and parole section of the dollars that we spend there.

Irvin Waller's book is actually a compilation of major studies that have been done with thousands and thousands of children in the United States over the last 40 years, in the U.K. and in Canada. It has shown clearly that if the government and Canada wishes to be serious about getting tough on crime and effectively reducing crime, we need to invest in parenting and child development.

We need to invest in helping kids to succeed by the use of mentors, by providing resources to our schools, our colleges and our universities. We need to invest in making our schools safe for our children. What does that mean?

We know that there has been a rise in bullying, for instance, in our schools. We began to notice it in the 1990s. At that point in time, we found it primarily in the high schools, but today we are finding evidence of bullying in elementary schools.

One of the ways we can ensure that our schools are safe is to invest in our schools. We can provide our schools with resources to, for instance, put into place programs of non-violent conflict resolution. That is one example. We can give training to the professionals who work in the schools to enable them to identify the children and the youth who may be at risk of becoming delinquent, of becoming offenders, or of becoming bullies.

We also need to invest in keeping youth in the communities. We have to ensure that youth have available to them jobs that are more attractive than crime.

Studies have shown consistently that ethnocultural and visible minority communities are at higher risk of being victims of crime than in larger communities. For instance, we are talking about the rise of street gangs today. Where are many of the potential members of these street gangs being recruited? They are being recruited in the very communities which are at risk. Yet those communities, which wish to work on this issue, which wish to invest in their children, are not being provided with sufficient resources.

If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you some of the testimony that we received from a young gentleman, Harry Delva, who works for la Maison d'Haiti, which works in the street. It has caseworkers in the street working with the parents and the children to ensure that children do not become eligible recruits for street gangs in the Saint-Michel area of Montreal and Montreal North, but also to assist parents so that they are provided with the resources, parenting skills et cetera.

Harry Delva had this to say very clearly about prevention:

Getting back to prevention, yes, I think we have to work very hard to do it. For a very long time, we've been trying to work with youths in the Saint-Michel and Montreal North neighbourhoods doing prevention. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to fight this phenomenon, this plague. This phenomenon has been promoted on TV with billions of dollars, with hip hop music and artists like 50 Cent and others, but it's unfortunately very difficult for the various community groups, which are in the field, which every day experience what the youths are experiencing and exactly report their day-to-day experience to us.

Unfortunately, we can't find the funding to be able to keep caseworkers who can continue working with these youths. Today, we've definitely realized that we have to start earlier. Unfortunately, we have to start in kindergarten, with children five or six years old, because they already have a red bandanna or a blue bandanna in their pocket and they already know... I don't mean these youths belong to gangs, but they already know their allegiance. That means that, if they belong to the Bloods, they know they have to hate and detest the Crips, and if they belong to the Crips, they know they have to hate and detest the Bloods--

There is an expert in organized crime who has been used by our courts across Canada to assist in providing evidence so that a judge can determine whether or not the individuals who have been accused of being part of a criminal organization, that organization is in fact a criminal organization. His name is Retired Sergeant Guy Ouellette. He has been retired from the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec provincial police, for the last six years. He said:

It's not normal for a guy like Harry Delva, who, as he told you, is in the field in Montreal North and Ville Saint-Michel to tell you that, every day, in the pool of emerging street gangs he sees youths of five, six, nine, 10 and 15 years of age, which corresponds to the real police definition of street gangs. However, every six months, he's forced to fight with various departments in order to authorize a program to train a successor. There's nothing permanent in his work, and he has no security. However, it's announced there will be 2,500 police officers or more and $10 million to invest in prevention programs. But, every six months, he is forced to fight for $90,000 in funding. And yet he's the one who has them in his face very day.

The purpose of the motion passed unanimously by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was to show all the members of this House—including government members—the urgent and pressing need to put more resources at the disposal of the communities. Indeed, these communities must, to some degree, look after their own safety, after crime issues and after crime prevention. This will ensure that children are raised in good and quiet communities that support their development.

Ethnocultural communities must—not “should”—be involved in crime prevention from the very beginning. This government and this society have an obligation to take note, as the motion says, of “the importance of the contribution that the ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders and rapid growth of safer communities”. In other words, we must recognize the need to use all the means and resources available.

I also want to mention another point very quickly. I talked about the need to invest in our children. All the studies show that investing in our children means investing in early childhood development and daycare programs, and providing means to families.

That is the first thing. Second, it is also about housing. It is about ensuring access to programs for the poorest, the most marginal, and who are they? They are the ethnocultural communities and visible minorities. The level of poverty is the highest there. Our first nations also have these problems. It is about ensuring that these communities have access to programs that they can help design, in early childhood development, child care, investing in our schools, investing in conflict resolution, investing in our communities and our community organizations in the ethnocultural communities, in the visible minority communities. It is about ensuring that they can participate all the way along in prevention, in the administration of justice, in policing. The police use the majority of the organizations in these communities that work on these issues as their experts, as their entry for intelligence, and yet it is amazing that those very organizations literally have to beg for resources from the government.

I urge this House to adopt the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I urge the government to make sure that its policies and programs are improved to provide the--

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our troops have served honourably in Afghanistan for seven years and have carried out major combat operations over the past three years. We are committed to doing so until February 2009. Today, we have to give NATO a clear response concerning our future involvement so that an effective changing of the guard can take place.

The government must inform our allies immediately that we will cease combat operations in February 2009. What is it waiting for?

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, news reports are suggesting that Canada is now calling up 500 reservists for combat duty in Afghanistan. Canadians are trying to understand what is happening with this mission.

Yesterday the Prime Minister had an opportunity to provide clarity to our troops, to Canadians and to our NATO allies. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to throw around insults rather than simply say that our troops will end their combat role in southern Afghanistan in February 2009.

Why will the government not tell us its real plan?

[April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am simply astonished. In March 2007 the head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the organization with which the Canadian Armed Forces signed a deal so that it would do the tracking of Afghan detainees that are handed over to the Afghan authorities and detained, said that it would do the actual surveillance and monitoring to ensure that detainees are not being tortured and they are not being abused.

That head, Abdul Quadar Noorzai, told reporters that his commission is not in a position to do a whole lot since it has next to no staff, one of the provinces in Afghanistan is too dangerous to enter, and that his people have been denied access to prisons. So how can the Minister of National Defence stand in this House, as he has done repeatedly, to say that the Afghan detainees, people who were captured by our armed forces and then handed over to--

[April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked a question in the House, directed to the Minister of National Defence. I will repeat it:

--in January the Military Police Complaints Commission received a complaint about allegations of abuses suffered by Afghan detainees captured in April 2006 by members of the Canadian Forces. As part of a regular National Defence policy, the minister [of national defence] was informed about the fate of these detainees in a confidential report. Why did the minister wait for months before investigating these reports?

The minister had the gall to say:

--all these various issues are under investigation. When the results come out, we will all learn the truth.

In my supplementary, I made it very clear that I did not ask “how many investigations there were”. I asked the minister “why it took him so long to start the investigations” when it was clear, under his department's policies, that he was informed that Canadian Forces had taken Afghan individuals, detained them, and had handed them over.

The Chief of the Defence Staff submits reports directly to the minister about the transfer of Afghan detainees and about the health of these detainees. However, it took a complaint from an Ottawa professor to the Military Police Complaints Commission about the allegations of abuses allegedly suffered by Afghan detainees captured in 2006 to force an investigation.

My question, again, is why, having been briefed about the transfer of Afghan detainees and about the health of those detainees, did it take the minister so long before an investigation was launched? Why did it take a complaint from an Ottawa professor to the Military Police Complaints Commission before an investigation was launched? We all know that at one point DND attempted to block that investigation. There is a letter to that effect.

I cannot believe that the Conservative government, which prides itself on its so-called transparency and accountability, would not immediately institute an investigation as soon as the minister had received the report about the transfer of the Afghan detainees and about their health. That is the first thing. That is lesson A. That is A, B, C.

The second thing is that we already know that the minister has had to apologize to this House for misleading it. He had to stand in this House for misleading the House. It is shameful behaviour for a minister to mislead the House. Thankfully, he had sufficient honour to acknowledge that he misled the House and to apologize for it and correct the record.

I would now ask that the minister correct the record on this issue with regard to his frivolous answer, his non-answer, about why he took so long to have an investigation launched into the alleged abuses. I did not say abuses; I said alleged abuses of the Afghan detainees.

[Firearms Registry, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the current government has already reneged on a promise made to police forces and has not committed one cent to the hiring of new front line officers to patrol our streets. Now, the Conservatives intend to take away from the police the tools at their disposal for protecting our communities.

If the Minister of Public Safety is serious, will he hold a vote on the firearms registry and will he respect the will of Parliament once and for all?

[Firearms Registry, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Police Association was on Parliament Hill to meet with all members. One of the key messages we heard was to fight tooth and nail against the government's underhanded attempt to scrap the gun registry.

Yesterday the president of the association said, “The registry has always been useful to us”.

Why will the minister not listen to rank and file police officers who use the gun registry more than 5,000 times each day of the year?