Serge Ménard

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering that we are debating here today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government has failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the US Administration and the US Congress fully understand the critical importance of our shared border to trade and economic security in both Canada and the United States; and must ensure that the Canada-U.S. border remains an efficient gateway through which our national security, personal, and commercial interests are properly promoted and defended.

It is a fact that we live next to a country with a much larger population and much more economic clout. Indeed, it has been the richest and most powerful country on the planet for some time. It is practically a universal law that more powerful are generally oblivious to what is happening to the less powerful. As a result, it is up to us to maintain our relationship with the United States, if we do not want it to develop certain prejudices, which, once again, are generally part of human nature. One such prejudice is that when one does not know the source of something bad, one assumes it is coming from somewhere else.

This opinion has been confirmed by certain things I have noticed in other areas of life. For instance, when people complain about crime, they always think it is coming from somewhere else. Much the same is true for other misfortunes. I was not really surprised by this, but the universal nature of this notion was confirmed for me when I saw someone as educated, intelligent and reasoned as Ms. Clinton reacting that way. At the time, she was already a New York state senator. When the great blackout occurred on this continent, Ms. Clinton thought it came from Canada. I have also noticed other situations. For example, in August 2003, she said:

Our best understanding right now is that whatever did happen to start these cascading outages began in Canada.

I noticed that she made comments along those lines about another matter. And yet, Ms. Clinton is certainly one of the most educated and competent individuals in the United States. She was a very serious contender for the position of first female president of her country. If even she is unable to steer clear of the unfortunate tendency of the more powerful lording it over those who are weaker, there are many others who give in to temptation more often than not. Those who have parliamentary relations with American legislators have noticed that, as you move further away from the Canadian border, U.S. senators and representatives are increasingly ignorant of what is happening in Canada. That is also the case for security measures.

Although they are based on prejudice that is deeply rooted in too great a portion of the American population, comparisons are made between security measures along the U.S. border with Canada and with Mexico, and demands are made that they be the same.

We should be cognizant of this state of affairs. Anyone who has had dealings with our neighbours realizes this. Therefore, the motion rightly states that the government has failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the American administration is aware of our domestic security measures. In any case, one thing is certain: this government certainly has its weaknesses and the way it conducts its foreign policy is definitely one of them.

In this regard, it was quite striking to hear the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière blame the members—

[Firearms Registry, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister`s representative is quite right. They also use handguns, yet the Conservatives believe in the handgun registry. They need to be logical here.

The Minister of National Revenue very candidly admitted that the government had no intention of respecting the decision of this House.

Now that it is clear that the Conservatives want to dismantle the gun registry at all costs, will they transfer the resources and powers to Quebec, so that it may create and manage its own gun registry? That is what the Government of Quebec and all stakeholders are calling for.

[Firearms Registry, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable just how much contempt this government has for institutions that form the very foundation of our democracy. It completely disregards Federal Court decisions, as well as decisions reached by the majority of members in this House. Instead of enforcing legislation, this government finds all kinds of ways to circumvent the law and encourage delinquency, as is the case with the gun registry.

Will the government enforce the law, respect the vote in this House, maintain the firearms registry and stop shirking its responsibilities?

[Firearms Registry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it sets a fine example for our youth when the government itself encourages non-compliance with the law. Canada's and Quebec's police forces are unanimous about gun control. Its application is a matter of public safety. Instead, the government encourages crime by allowing the amnesty from which those unwilling to register their weapons have benefited for the past three years.

For the Conservatives, not obeying laws that people find troublesome is no big deal. Is that the message?

[Firearms Registry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue said that his government had always had the intention of abolishing the long guns registry, regardless of what federal MPs think. In effect, the Conservatives are trying to indirectly what they cannot do directly. When a law does not suit them, they get around it. The Minister has irresponsibly admitted that his government does not care about respecting the law, and he is comfortable with that.

Will the government enforce the law, respect the vote in this House and keep the firearms registry up to date as the law requires?

[Firearms Registry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are well aware of what I do to focus on organized crime, and of how effective my actions are.

This is the same government which will in future require a person wanting to operate a boat with an electric motor on a lake to pass an exam in order to obtain a licence, and we agree with that. But the minister told us yesterday in the House that it will no longer be necessary to have a certificate to have a rifle.

Why is what is right and necessary to operate a boat not required to possess a gun? Can he explain this to us?

[Firearms Registry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the debate in this House on the Bloc Québécois motion on the firearms registry, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services stated that, by extending the amnesty period for another year, “we eliminated the tedious requirement for experienced owners to take the Canadian firearm safety course to obtain a possession and acquisition licence.”

Can the minister explain exactly what he meant about eliminating the firearm safety course?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there have been amnesties for four years. The people who do not want to register their firearms are not registering them. If those people are not registering their guns, does that make the registry more or less reliable? Should we be surprised that it is not working at full capacity if it is less reliable?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that some people have inflated the numbers. I believe he is one of them. I do not know where he found that registering a long gun costs $300. Right now, there is no fee to register a long gun. Registering my cat cost me $10. But whatever the cost, in civilized societies, dangerous objects are registered. Cars are a good example of that.

Then the member said that the registry cost went from $2 million to $1 billion. The numbers are huge, I agree, but the cost of the registry did not go from $2 million to $1 billion. It was supposed to cost $83 million and produce $81 million in revenues. There is the $2 million. The cost of the registry has not been multiplied by 500.

We already have a registration system. Is the member opposed to the fact that police can know whether or not there are registered guns in a house where they are called because of domestic violence?

To operate, the system has to be computerized, which means centralized. It is the computerization that was expensive. But I agree that it could have been done at a much lower cost.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I much appreciate the way the member tackled the problem from the start. I understand that we are pursuing similar objectives, and I even think she used almost the same terms I did in my speech. We all agree that firearms are dangerous and must be left only in the hands of responsible people.

Those responsible people, who need an acquisition licence to buy a firearm, must know that they cannot give it to another person, since the firearm is registered in their name. If it were ever used by another person to commit a crime, the police would trace it back to the owner.

There is another aspect, and I have a hard time understanding it. I would like my colleague to explain. I do not understand why she talks about the registration of a firearm being a burden. My goodness, many different things must be registered. In my municipality, I had to register my cat. People will have a hard time convincing me that my cat is more dangerous than a rifle. I do not feel like a criminal simply because I have to register something. If I buy a dangerous object that can kill, I am being asked to be very careful with it and to register it in my name.