CFN – Our MP says so little locally it’s always surprising to see him stand up and spout bullet points in the House of Commons. I sometimes wonder if he actually understands what he’s saying and how evil some of it is?
Here’s what Guy Lauzon had to say in the House of Commons.
February 6th, 6:10 p.m.
Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act
Mr. Speaker, I am definitely honoured to speak to Bill C-19, the ending the
long gun registry act.
We are delivering on our government’s commitment to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. We have been clear and straightforward with Canadians. It is no secret that we have consistently opposed the long gun registry.
For going on 17 years we have said that we are going to scrap it. I am truly excited to say that this is finally coming to fruition.
I’m block quoting some of the really insane stuff.
Last May Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to carry out their priorities. That means jobs. That means economic growth. That means a fair immigration system. That means safe streets and communities. That also means ending the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.
Other than killing the LGR, something whose only crime seems to have been its initial cost, how are you doing on those other points Skippy?
Every member on this side of the House and every candidate who stood under the banner of the Conservative Party of Canada has stood shoulder to shoulder with law-abiding farmers, hunters and sports shooters all across this great land.
Our government believes that the requirement to register long guns has needlessly and unfairly targeted law-abiding Canadians. This may seem like a simple statement, but it is worth repeating. Criminals are predisposed to breaking the law and going against society. I say it is simple, but it is very clear that the NDP, the Liberals and all those who support the long gun registry do not understand this simple truism. If people are predisposed to breaking the law, why on earth would anyone think they would comply with
needless, complicated paperwork? The answer is simple and clear to all reasonable people. It does not happen. Criminals do not register their guns.
I am confident when I stand here to assure everyone that the government has carefully examined all sides of the argument. I can unequivocally state that the long gun registry has been nothing but wasteful and totally ineffective.
You mean like some in the Conservative Party that think the world started 5,000 years ago and man frolicked with Dinosaurs?
Bill C-68 was introduced by Allan Rock and the Liberals in 1995 in the wake of the tragedy that took place at École Polytechnique. The horrific events that unfolded on December 6, 1989 are truly unbearable not only for the victims but also for Canadians as a whole. Let me state that the long gun registry did not, could not and would not have prevented Marc Lépine from taking the lives of those innocent women. There is no evidence that the long gun registry has ever stopped a single crime or saved a single life.
According to our state broadcaster, the CBC, since the long gun registry was created, it has cost Canadians in excess of $2 billion. That is money that should have been used to crack down on real crime and real criminals, not law-abiding farmers, hunters and sports shooters.
The majority of homicides committed in Canada did not even involve long guns. Statistics show that rifles and shotguns are not the problem. In reality, they are not the weapon of choice for criminals. The weapons used in crimes are primarily handguns which will continue to be registered. They are also usually illegally smuggled across the border or stolen and are not being caught by the registry.
Our government does believe that the right gun control laws do save lives, and our government will continue to take action to make our streets and communities safer.
It’s so odd that each of the points our esteemed MP make are not related to what the LGR is actually supposed to do. Yes, the LGR cannot make an egg salad sandwich. I know. We paid a lot of money; but surely we shouldn’t scrap what’s working now because it can’t make good egg salad?
Bill C-19 would continue the strict system of controlling restricted and prohibited firearms. Firearm owners who wish to acquire a firearm or ammunition would still require a valid licence. That would mean they must maintain a clean criminal record, pass a firearms safety course, as well as comply with all firearms safe storage and transportation requirements.
What Bill C-19 would specifically do is repeal the requirement for licensed firearms owners to register their non-restricted firearms. It is simple and it is practical.
And sadly will lead to loss of life for Canadians.
All reasonable people agree that there is no need to continue a regime that has had no discernible effect in accomplishing its goal.
So if you don’t agree with Mr. Lauzon and his pals you are “Unreasonable”. Isn’t that Mr. Hitler did in the 30’s?
This bill would also delete all the records of law-abiding long gun owners in the registry, as well as records under the control of chief firearms officers.
Some have criticized this portion of the bill. I would like to discuss why it is fundamental to fully scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. By force of the Criminal Code, the strongest power available to any government, data on law-abiding firearms owners has been collected over the last several years. By eliminating the registry, we would be returning some sanity to Canadian firearm laws. We could focus our efforts on real measures that have real results.
This is such an insult to Canada and Canadians.
The question remains: What would happen to the data that was collected during the unfortunate period when the government decided to turn on its citizens and needlessly infringe on their privacy? To members on this side, the answer is very clear. In order to fully scrap the long gun registry, one must eliminate it in all its forms. Future gun owners would not be required to register their property. Current gun owners should be afforded the same protection of their privacy. Upon royal assent, the data would be destroyed.
To draw an analogy to illustrate this point, I would like to reference comments made by the Minister of Public Safety. He said that ending the long gun registry but keeping the data is akin to a farmer saying that he will sell his farm to someone so long as he gets to keep the land.
I have had the good fortune of campaigning in the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for the last five elections. The good people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry decided to elect me four of those times.
During those campaigns, not once did a person tell me that he or she would not vote for me because I supported the long gun registry. On the other hand, literally hundreds of people stopped me when I was campaigning and asked where I stood on the long gun registry. I told them that I supported the abolition of the long gun registry and they said I had their votes.
Mr. Lauzon doesn’t get out much locally. There are many people who support the LGR; some right at the Cornwall Police Department; the largest city in his riding.
I heard some comments earlier about police officers. I can tell the House that police officers in uniform stopped me when I was campaigning and asked me that very question. When they heard that I supported the abolition of the long gun registry, they said they would vote for me and support me. As a matter of fact, in the last few elections off-duty police officers distributed lawn signs for me because I was in favour of abolishing the long gun registry.
Last May, when Canadians went to the polls, they made their choice loud and clear.
Sadly I have to agree with Mr. Lauzon. Canadians made their choice and hopefully they realize their error at the next election. Hopefully we can still recognize Canada at that time; and that some of the damage can be healed that is being caused by people like Mr. Lauzon.
Here are some of Mr. Lauzon’s follow ups:
Mr. Speaker, we cannot eliminate the gun registry without destroying the data. With all due respect, I wonder how that question could originate on the NDP side.
With all due respect, many New Democrats lost the last election over flipping on the gun registry. I find it a little bizarre that members of the NDP are questioning the government going ahead with eliminating the gun registry. Canadians want to eliminate the gun registry. How much clearer can that be? They voted the Conservative government into a majority position partly for that very reason. What is it going to take for members of the official opposition to get it? Canadians do not want this wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.
Mr. Speaker, this is wonderful. I cannot believe this, coming from a member of a party that wasted $2 billion of taxpayers’ money on a totally ineffective gun registry. It is unbelievable that he would ask that question. I have an answer for him. The people in my riding are telling me we cannot get rid of the gun registry without destroying the data and to please ensure the data is destroyed.
No Mr. Lauzon. I don’t think “the people” of SD&SG voted on the LGR.
Here are some of the opposition comments during this dumping of rhetoric:
Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, first I want to comment on the government House leader. He walked into the chamber and declared that he does not have the ability to negotiate with the House leaders of the opposition parties. Once again, he gave notice of time allocation, which is another form of closure, preventing members from having debate and asking questions on important legislation.
This is indeed important legislation. The Province of Quebec sees value in the gun registry. It says that if Ottawa wants to cancel the gun registry, it still wants to go ahead and have a gun registry for that province.
What does the member think his constituents would say if the Prime Minister said we could give the data bank to Quebec, but instead, we are getting rid of it? The Conservatives would spend millions of dollars to get rid of the data bank. Yet the Province of Quebec would have to spend millions more dollars to regenerate that same data bank. The taxpayers in his riding say that is a waste of tax dollars.
Does he not see the waste of tax dollars? Does he not see that money could be better spent providing more community police officers in the province of Quebec?
Elizabeth May Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to try to clarify for the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry that there is a reason there is an exemption in this piece of legislation. It is so unusual to require that data be destroyed. We could indeed end the registry. No one would update it. It would not be used for purposes. The registry would be over, but the data would remain in place for archives and research of sociologists.
The archives of the Government of Canada are full of information from regimes that are no longer being used. The information is available for research. I really find it troubling that this key point is so hard to communicate.
Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, over two decades ago, on December 6, 1989, 14 women died in the Montreal massacre. Their murders devastated our country and changed the lives of students at school, women around the country, and all Canadians and their families.
We went to vigils, we walked the street in take back the night marches, and we said, “Never again”. Their senseless deaths triggered the Canadian movement towards stronger gun control. In 1995 the Firearms Act was passed. The law is recognized by the victims’ families as a monument to their memory.
The government claims to stand up for crime prevention, victims and police officers. However, victims are asking in whose interest is loosening gun control in Canada. Chief William Blair, past president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that this is about public safety. He said:
The registry has made Canada a safer country. The registry has saved lives. We lose it at our peril.
Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and his work in policing.
My perspective is from having worked for many years with young people at university. I taught women’s health and I worked at shelters. Every year when I talked about violence against women, my students would come up to me at the end of the class and tell their stories. I had one student who was not only threatened by one man but also by two other men with a weapon. The reality is that at the YWCA, women have told us that the guns used in the north predominantly for hunting, that is long guns, are also used to intimidate, subdue and control women. We hear this over and over again in small communities without the RCMP and in large communities with the RCMP.
Women do not want these guns to be unregistered. They do not feel safe expressing this opinion other than in whispers to people who may be able to voice these unpopular opinions and who may be heard. From the shelters in my riding, they want me to express the position of women.
My question to Ms Duncan is will women remember this come next election?
Jack Harris St. John’s East, NL
Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, we have heard a lot about the so-called strong mandate of the government to get rid of the long gun registry. Of course, the Conservatives only have a small majority in the House, but 65% of Canadians, I understand, want to keep the long gun registry. They believe it performs a valuable public service.
Does the member agree with that statement? Or does he agree with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry who very excitedly, a few minutes ago, was saying that people want to get rid of the registry and that they elected them and so the government should get rid of it? Or should the Conservatives listen to the will and the voices of lots of Canadians other than those who continue to write them letters and cheer them on?
And those were just a few of the comments. Of course it’s very clear that Canada has given a majority government to a party that really doesn’t heed what the majority of Canadians wish or want for their country. It’s very sad indeed…
What do you think Canada? You can post your comments below. And here are some clips of Mr. Lauzon in action.
Bashing the CBC
Baiting a crowd with his Lauzon Math
Mr. Lauzon caught telling porkies over the Bridge Crisis
And of course this clip where Mr. Lauzon threatens this reporter with the Minister of Justice over a non-governmental issue.
And that ladies and gentleman are your tax dollars at work….
(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)