Serge Ménard

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Ajax—Pickering for his brilliant speech in favour of the motion. Not only was he as eloquent as he always is, but he was also particularly well prepared. I found his arguments very appropriate.

I would like to ask him to comment on the position of the Conservatives that is slowly coming to light. Several of them began by telling us that an amnesty was necessary to allow those who have not yet obeyed the law time to do so. Maybe we should ask if they will need four, five or ten more years.

Then, they talk about the weaknesses and the uselessness of the system. We must also point out that the Conservatives have been saying for four years that gun owners do not have to register their guns yet.

Do you really believe that if they oppose the motion, it is because they want more people to abide by the law? If you do not believe it, what do you think of people who are trying to convince us we should believe it?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who just spoke for his flattering remarks towards me. It is more a case of my experience than of my personal values. Perhaps, my experience is also part of my personality.

This morning we heard the Conservatives say that the purpose of the amnesty is to allow those who have not yet registered their weapons to do so. At the same time, we also heard some very strong criticism of the firearms registry and they do give us the impression that they want to abolish it. How do you think someone who has not registered a firearm will react? Will that person want to register a firearm as a result of this amnesty? Indeed, if he or she wants to register a firearm, could they not do it before May 16? Or on the other hand, will he or she rather have a tendency to believe that they do not need to register it until the Conservatives succeed in their ultimate goal? The answer to that question is too easy and I know it, of course.

For that reason, I will ask a shorter question. There are two ways of fighting against crimes committed with a firearm: by control or by dissuasion. It is true that the Conservatives emphasize dissuasion. Control is prevention. How does the member believe that we should seek a balance between control and dissuasion?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the previous speaker to explain how he could begin his remarks by saying that amnesty is necessary to convince more people to comply with the law, then go on to say that the law they would be complying with is no good and should be eliminated.

Does he know what percentage of the budgets he referred to was allocated to the establishment of the long gun registry? Does he not realize that all the other measures, including approving possession licences, account for the largest part of the cost?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker and myself have an excellent working relationship at committee. In light of his past experience, I would like him to tell this House how come the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Professional Police Association are among the numerous organizations which support a complete gun registry. As I recall, every police association in all the provinces but one, namely Saskatchewan, also supports this registry.

Next, the hon. member could perhaps explain how maintaining the amnesty will result in more people registering their firearms, as he suggested, if I understood him correctly. Personally, I think that, if the amnesty is maintained, many of those who refuse to register their firearms will continue refusing to do so. They will not do it and they will only do it once the amnesty period, for which there is no good reason now, especially after more than four years, has been eliminated.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, gun ownership is not necessarily the only factor that affects the homicide rate. I recognize that the homicide rate may be lower in rural regions than in the cities, and that is why it is lower in Newfoundland or in certain communities. But the rate is different is major urban centres. People call for gun control in the United States every time there is a violent incident involving a gun.

The figures are so important. People will say—and the National Rifle Association does as well—that the homicide rate is low in certain states and very high in others. Because the average homicide rate in the United States is so high compared to ours, there are states where it is much higher than in Canada as a whole. In addition, when you register something, you take better care of it than if you had not registered it, even though you would have taken care of it anyway.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I have not demonized rural people, nor do I intend to.

Rural people realize that this is the preferred approach in the cities. The law cannot be applied in the cities and not applied in the country. I am well aware that most hunters use their gun responsibly, but we must not let thugs use holes in the law or in its application to get guns more easily.

For heaven's sake, what are we asking people to do? They register their farm tractors, they register their 4x4s when they go hunting. They register their snowmobiles in winter. It costs nothing to register a gun. It is easy to do and costs nothing. Are 4x4s or snowmobiles the most dangerous instruments rural people use? It is not demonizing rural people to ask them to register their guns.

Are we demonizing them because we ask them to register their snowmobiles? Come on. They register them willingly. Registering a gun costs nothing and takes almost no effort. They need to help us protect people's safety.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can see what the Conservatives are up to, and I do not want to be overly cynical, but it is clear that the Conservatives want to do away with registration of long guns.

The first private member’s bill would, indeed, make it easier to transport weapons that are considered dangerous. However, he has indicated that he would like to remove that from his bill. We shall see whether he does so.

I think that in my speech I explained all the reasons why the law as we passed it here, regardless of what it costs, is a good law, and I believe I said that all firearms can be dangerous. Certainly it does depend on whose hands the firearms fall into. In my opinion, we all share the objective of ensuring that these weapons are always in responsible hands only. However, having them registered them strengthens enforcement of the law, particularly because we cannot say that the law will not apply to responsible people without determining that they are responsible.

We must have a law that provides what it does at present: first we have to get a possession and acquisition licence, and then we are assessed, and then go ahead. We shall see what the result will be when this bill goes before the Senate. I do not know whether this is some sort of tactic. I think the senators, who do not have to get re-elected and who are not subject to pressure from the firearms lobbies, will have a wiser and fairer perspective on this issue.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, what I said is that 75% of firearms deaths in Canada were suicides. That is the information I was given, and I can mail it to you. The research service provided it to me. I did not know this myself. I believe that information is also published by the Coalition for Gun Control.

Now I would like the other thing I said, which I repeat clearly, to be plainly understood. The law provides that you may apply to a court when a family member or someone you know is depressed and you are afraid that the person will use a firearm to commit suicide. The law provides that a court order may then be made to require that the person turn over their firearms. However, we cannot be certain that the person has turned over all their firearms, unless they are actually registered. I imagine that all honest people will have registered them.

However, if the person has not registered any firearms, and you know they still have a firearm in their home, it will be even more distressing if the person commits suicide.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should not extend the amnesty on gun control requirements set to expire on May 16, 2009, and should maintain the registration of all types of firearms in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like everyone listening to understand why we are presenting this motion. It is precisely because the government has three times extended the amnesty which allows people not to register long guns, while according to the law all firearms had to be registered.

No doubt the reaction from the other side of the floor will be that this was set out in the law under the Liberals. That is true, but at that time there was a good reason for amending the act in that way. So many people were registering their firearms at the last minute that the computer system was incapable of handling them all, and this would have meant that the people would have ended up registering too late. A decision was therefore made on the possibility of an amnesty to allow people who registered after the deadlines not to be guilty of any offence. That was the purpose of the amnesty.

When the Conservatives came to power, however, they systematically extended this amnesty when it no longer had any reason to exist. The amnesty serves just one purpose, therefore: to allow people unwilling to register their long guns to remain legal. So there is a negative outcome: the registry itself becomes less and less reliable, because there are more and more unregistered guns. By so doing, the Conservatives are hoping that the police forces,—a large majority of whom are the first to support the registry—will finally conclude that this registry is not reliable, and that will become grounds for abolishing it.

Why do we want to register guns? Because there is a direct relationship between gun control and homicide rates. There is, for example, a huge difference between the homicide rates in the United States and in Canada; the U.S. rate is three times the Canadian.

Incidentally, the U.S. homicide rate is by far the highest of nearly all western countries. No doubt it is higher in some other countries, but it is top ranking among the countries most like ourselves.

Why? Ask any intelligent American why there are so many homicides in that country, and he will tell you that the main reason is that it is so much easier to obtain firearms there. In Canada, we have had gun control for a long time, well before the registry was created. That makes us a different kind of society.

In my opinion, anyone who has travelled to the United States will have noticed that the gun culture there is not at all like the gun culture in Canada. I believe that most Canadians consider guns to be dangerous objects that should only be in the hands of responsible owners. That is the basic goal of the gun registry. And I think that most of the Conservative members support that. Guns should only be in the hands of responsible owners.

Obviously, gun control will not prevent all crimes committed with firearms. Such measures might not even have prevented certain tragic events that have hit our society hard, such as massacres. The important thing is for us to realize that there is a relationship among gun culture, lack of gun control and the homicide rate, and that is why the registry is a good thing.

The same could be said about drug laws. Drug laws do not prevent addicts from acquiring drugs illegally.

Does anyone think that we should therefore get rid of laws that prohibit the use of drugs? We do not want Canada to become like the United States when it comes to the prevalence of guns. We often hear people say that this will not prevent thieves from getting guns, but I want to point out that they are not the ones doing most of the killing anyway. People kill for all kinds of reasons: hatred, anger, vengeance. In one case, a lawyer killed his associate to collect the life insurance policy. People kill because they have a vested interest. In the United States, people in the middle of a fight can go out, get themselves guns, and come back to the scene of the fight. In Canada, people cannot do that. That is one thing that makes our two countries different. Guns are instruments of death. They are dangerous. The state should take charge, just as it takes charge when it comes to other dangerous objects, such as cars.

Guns are also the quickest and easiest way to kill, the one that requires the least effort. With the flick of a finger, someone’s life can be endangered or he can be killed. There is no greater way to intimidate than to threaten with a gun. All firearms are inherently dangerous, therefore, and should all be subject to controls.

Our resolution deals with the consequences of the amnesty because the less guns are registered, the more uncontrolled guns there will be and the less reliable the registry will become. It is also necessary to have a firearms registry in order for certain provisions of the act to be fully enforced—an act that was passed by the House and is still supported by many of the members here. For example, a street gang member who manages to acquire a firearms licence could be prevented from buying several guns to distribute or sell to fellow gang members who could not obtain a licence.

There are also some particular uses. For example, if there is an outstanding court order forbidding someone to own a gun, the authorities can check whether he has any and how many they should go and collect from him to ensure that the order is enforced. Some provisions of the act enable the police to take action, usually in marital situations that have turned ugly, for example when a woman fears for her safety because her husband’s attitude has changed completely over time and she is afraid he will turn his guns on her some day. That has already happened in Montreal. The Fraternité des policiers et des policières de Montréal told us about a case where the woman knew her husband had guns. She was afraid he would use them against her in one of his numerous rages, but she did not know how many he had. The police looked at the registry. Frankly, he had an entire arsenal. I have forgotten exactly how many, but it was more than 50 guns and ammunition of all kinds. Once they had obtained a court order, the police knew what to go and get. They could leave the woman’s house knowing all the guns had been removed.

Other provisions of the act are very effective at preventing suicide attempts. Seventy-five percent of the gun deaths in Canada are suicides. If a family sees a family member being overcome by depression and is afraid that he will use his hunting gun or another firearm but does not know what to do, the family can seek a court order.

The court order is issued and, again, the registry allows us to ensure that any firearms are indeed taken away from that person. That is why suicide prevention organizations are the strongest supporters of this legislation and of the fact that it covers all types of firearms. It is also important for planning police operations. That does not mean that police operations will never again end tragically, as it happens each year unfortunately, but it will allow the police to take precautions. All police forces want their officers to know how many firearms there are in a home when they respond to a call.

It must also be understood that the registry drew a lot of criticism. It was said to be a waste of money. I admit that establishing the gun registry was very costly. I will even admit that it was a fiscal scandal. But it is there and it is used every day. It would truly be a waste not to use it fully.

Would anyone think of destroying a bridge that cost 10 times the initial estimate, even if a scandal were involved, to build another one at a lower cost? Of course not. Now that we have it, let us use it.

What is the current cost of gun registration?

The RCMP tells us that it spent $9.1 million last year to register all firearms. It estimates that two thirds of that amount was for the registration of hunting rifles. So this means that it is now costing us $6 million to benefit fully from the law that was passed by this Parliament. No one can call that a waste. I do not want to go overboard here, but how much is a human life worth? I think that $6 million in the federal budget is a not very much when considering the objectives it allows us to achieve.

Since 2004, it no longer costs anything for people who must register their guns, and those who did pay have been reimbursed. Where is the disadvantage? It is very easy to register one's gun. First of all, it is very easy to register it at the gun dealer at the time of purchase or at any gun dealer when a gun is purchased from a private individual. One can go to the police station or do it over the Internet. It can even be done by telephone at the time of purchase. Of course, when someone has a gun registered in their name, it is very important to transfer the registration if someone else buys the gun. This also requires a certain amount of attention. An individual will not sell their gun to just anyone, knowing that it will not be registered, in case it is misused later on. The same is true with a car. We register our vehicles and we do not entrust them to just anyone.

Obtaining a firearm licence is more complicated. That said, obtaining a licence is not the subject of this debate, but even the Conservatives are in favour of maintaining that policy. Once again, registration is necessary to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Now, I know we are up against some tough opposition on the ground. The National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful, well organized lobbies in the world. I know that, especially during campaigns, members are often bombarded with objections to the gun registry and much of what is said about it is simply not true.

I know that these lobbies are experts at making an impression on elected representatives, having delegations go to them and say that they voted for them in the past but will withdraw their support.

This may not be a good reason, but we too believe in polls. Even at the time of the scandal over the cost of the gun registry in 2006, a survey by a major firm—Ipsos Reid, if I am not mistaken—showed that, in Alberta, the province most hostile to gun registration, 51% of Albertans supported some form of registration for gun owners. Gun owners was the expression used in the survey. In Quebec, 76% were in favour. Understandably, a member of Parliament cannot poll his or her 85,000 constituents—that is the average number—and organizations sometimes come to us trying to scare us into voting differently on an issue.

To conclude, we all agree on maintaining this cultural difference between the United States and Canada with respect to weapons and gun control. As requested by many Americans anytime violent incidents happen, gun control legislation will have to be passed, which will apply to all firearms, even though we know that a majority of people will use them wisely and prudently. That is our goal: to have registration for all firearms the same way that there is registration for all cars.

The amnesty presented is a breach of this law, which has had such good results and is the envy of other countries. The registry must continue to be reliable for the purposes of preparing police operations and applying all court orders pertaining to firearms. I spoke about how the registry could be used to prevent domestic violence before it results in death. It can also be an effective tool for suicide prevention. The registry should continue to cover all firearms in order to make it more difficult for petty thugs to obtain guns from third parties.

We must also realize that the reason given the first time for such an amnesty no longer exists. Currently, there is no backlog in the computer registration of firearms and we do not believe that there would be one if the amnesty were not renewed. This reason, if given, borders on hypocrisy.

I can understand that MPs wish to be re-elected. There is something noble about that, because it means they wish to express the will of their constituents. However, we should not be the victims of lobbies. For my part, even if 75% of my constituents were against the gun registry, I would continue to support it. My professional experience with crime—as a young crown attorney, criminal lawyer, minister of public safety and minister of justice—has shown me that comprehensive gun control is one crime prevention measure that works.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely broad topic. Personally, I completely disagree with this government's policies and the way it deals with crime. This government knows only one solution for everything: tougher sentences, and they definitely do not work. The United States has proven this, since their crime rate is much higher than that of Canada. Their homicide rate is three and half times higher than Canada's, and five times higher than Quebec's, I might add.

I would remind the hon. member that in the past, I introduced a new method for dealing with organized gangs, and that was the integrated teams. When I was the Quebec minister of public safety, together with the chiefs of the Montreal police and the Quebec provincial police, I founded the famous Carcajou squad, which finally managed to break the back of the Hells Angels. I never asked for tougher sentences. The crimes committed by these people were serious enough that the Criminal Code allowed for extremely tough sentences, which they were given.

As for warrants to tap into devices other than telephones, it seems to me that we have already seen a bill on that. I am for it. I think we must find ways to tap into these new technologies. I could go on at length about this. The current government, with its tendency to follow the worst example of our neighbour to the south, is overlooking intelligent approaches that have been taken in other provinces. Once again, this demonstrates that we are indeed two very distinct nations. If we were one people—