Debates of June 12th, 1995

Firearms Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Just to be helpful to the House, in group No. 1 Motions Nos. 1, 10 and 158 stand in the name of the member for Algoma; Motion No. 167, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville; Motion No. 266, the hon. member for Kamloops; and Motion No. 267, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I will begin the order of debate by recognizing each of these four members and then we will follow the normal sequence for debate. I will begin with the member for Algoma, followed by the member for Yorkton-Melville, the member for Kamloops and the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Then we will follow the normal sequence of government, opposition and so on and so forth, according to the wishes of whoever may be seeking the floor.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after many months of discussion and debate we have come to an important point in time as far as Bill C-68 is concerned.

My three motions in this group deal with one of the most fundamental issues I have tried to express over past months both in this place and in my constituency. They concern the need to be respectful toward the legitimate gun owning community in Canada. I am speaking particularly of the many hundreds and thousands of legitimate gun owners in my riding of Algoma who feel strongly with pride about their firearms ownership. They believe as I do that they properly own and use firearms.

My first motion deals with the title. The current title of the bill states:

An act respecting firearms and other weapons.

It is my proposal in this motion that we simply refer to the act as an act respecting firearms and related matters. The inclusion in the title of the word weapons places a negative nuance on the legitimate gun owning community in Canada. In the hands of legal gun owners firearms are not weapons. They are only in the hands of criminals.

It is important to send the right message. In so doing if we could amend the title by simply saying an act respecting firearms and related matters we would send the right message.

My second amendment in this group relates to the purpose clause. I am proposing an amendment to the purpose clause which I should like to read to the House. It states:

(a.1) generally to promote firearm safety and reduce firearm related crime without jeopardizing the reasonable uses for firearms in Canadian society or imposing an undue administrative and financial burden on Canadian taxpayers, including legitimate firearm owners;

The message that I have consistently tried to convey throughout the months leading up to this point is that we have many situations where firearms are misused or are improperly stored. The message the government wants to give is that those who

commit crime and in so doing use a firearm need to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

The message must also be that those who legitimately own firearms and use them for recreational or sustenance hunting, for target shooting, for collecting or for use in occupations deserve our respect. They represent Canadians across the country who properly own and use firearms.

I would have preferred a preamble to the bill, but that not being possible I believe this statement in the purpose clause would clearly state to Canadians, to the legitimate firearms community, that the bill is not intended to be a punishment for them because they happen to own firearms. The bill is to deal with crime and criminals. The provisions that deal with the legal firearms community are simply part and parcel of a bigger program to deal with crime and firearms abuse.

The final amendment in the group I am putting forward, seconded by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka, is that there should be a periodic review of the legislation by the minister. This is to acknowledge that no piece of legislation can be perfect. It must be our duty in this place and the duty of the minister to look on a regular basis at how effective and how efficient the legislation is operating, on the one hand as it operates in relation to the legal gun owning community, and at on the other hand how it is operating with respect to the criminal abuse and misuse of firearms.

Periodic review is very important. it cannot start tomorrow because the bill has not yet passed. It cannot start on January 1, 1996 because the first stage of the program will just be starting. However I believe a few years after the program is in place there should be a first review. I suggest the following amendment:

112.1 (1) The minister shall periodically conduct a review of this act and the regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons within 12 months of commencing the review.

(2) The first review must be conducted no later than December 31, 2003-

And every five years thereafter.

I have chosen the year 2003 because it is the end of the first five-year period after the beginning of the registration program.

I am hopeful that this set of amendments, which I encourage my colleagues to support me on, will help to assure the legal firearms community that there will not be reams of red tape involved in what I expect to be a simple and inexpensive system for firearms owners; that it is not a tax grab by government; that it will not be an untoward invasion of privacy; and that it will not lead to the mass confiscation of firearms.

Instead of discouraging young people from entering target shooting sports or recreational hunting, the various provisions in the act will continue to encourage the pursuit of those very legitimate and honourable undertakings.

I encourage the House to look seriously at these amendments and I look forward to the House's support.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and all the responsible firearms owners who have written me over the last year and a half, it is an honour and a privilege to be one of the few members of Parliament who will have an opportunity to speak during the six hours of limited debate granted to us by the arrogant and dictatorial Liberal government.

While I have the privilege of representing my constituents in the debate against Bill C-68, literally dozens of members of Parliament will be denied that right because of the six-hour time allocation imposed by the tyranny of the Liberal majority.

Voters send their MP to Ottawa to be their voice in Parliament, and what do the Liberals do but take the voters' right to be represented away from them by using anti-democratic measures like time allocation and closure and by making MPs vote according to the wishes of the Prime Minister, not the people of their riding. It makes me sad and it should make every Liberal member who did not oppose this abuse of power sad too.

The Liberals abuse their majority to do anything they want because they know there is nothing voters can do to stop them until the next election. I know there are about seven million gun owners who are just waiting for the next election. Considering what happened to the Liberal Party in Ontario last week, I think there are some Liberal backbenchers who are pretty worried about the direction in which their party is taking them.

Last Thursday the Liberals abused their power by limiting the time for debate on three bills, Bills C-68, C-41, and C-85. In doing so the Liberal government limited debate on three of the most controversial issues ever to be debated in the House, gun control, sexual orientation and MP pensions. By forcing time allocation the Liberals have declared their highest priorities to be gun control, MP pensions, and including sexual orientation in the sentencing legislation.

Personally, I do not believe these controversial issues are priorities for the people of Canada. I am sure that if the people knew how democracy was getting a kick in the teeth here in Ottawa there would be a lot more concern expressed. I wonder if the Liberals are hoping voters will forget this by the time the next election is announced.

Today I am introducing two amendments to Bill C-68 that would automatically repeal any and all gun control measures in five years unless the provisions have proven to be cost effective by the auditor general in improving public safety and reducing violent crime committed with firearms. If any gun control measure is not cost effective in improving public safety and in saving lives, it should be discontinued in favour of more cost effective measures. Is that not common sense?

It will be difficult for the Liberals to argue against my sunset clause amendment because they will have to argue that they support gun control measures even though the auditor general cannot find any evidence to show the measures to be cost effective at reducing violent crime involving firearms. If the Liberals oppose this amendment it will be clear to everyone in Canada that public safety is not their primary purpose in bringing forward this gun control bill.

Will the Liberals really stand up and say they support gun control measures that do not work? Will the Liberals tell Canadians they do not care whether gun control measures are cost effective or not? Will the liberals tell Canadians they cannot afford to implement new criminal justice measures that would save more lives because they are wasting money on ineffective gun controls?

There should be a sunset clause in all legislation. We have too many laws. If they are not cost effective, they should be tossed out. We are creating a huge bureaucracy and we need to spend money in this place more carefully. We are the stewards of the public purse, and all legislation should be examined to see if it is cost effective, not just the gun control measures.

The reason we need a sunset clause in this legislation is because gun control in general and most of the measures proposed in Bill C-68 defy all logic. First of all, gun control will not improve public safety. It will do the exact opposite. Gun control and registration of all firearms will mean more crime, more injuries, more expense, more deaths and more victims. I wish I had time to prove each of these, but the debate is very limited.

The justice minister says he has no intention of confiscating guns and then he proceeds to ban over 550,000 handguns and 19,000 rifles. What are the people to believe, the minister's assurances or his actions? The justice minister says he no longer believes that only the police and military should have firearms, and then he proceeds to give himself the power to prohibit all firearms in Canada without bringing any of the prohibition orders before Parliament. The people do not believe the minister's slick lawyer talk because his actions speak louder than his words.

Bill C-68 will give drug dealers more rights than law-abiding responsible firearm owners. This bill will run roughshod over every Canadian's fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to own, use, and enjoy private property; their right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure; their right to remain silent; their right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty; their right to legal counsel; their right to freedom of association; their right to be represented in Parliament; their right to be treated equally before the law; and their right to privacy. All of those rights will be run roughshod over by this bill. Bill C-68 will not withstand a charter challenge on many of these points.

Bill C-68 also intrudes into areas that are the sole constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, namely administration of justice, regulation of private property, issuing of licences, assessing of licensing fees and user fees, education, and contributing to increases in provincial income taxes and municipal property taxes. Bill C-68 will not withstand a constitutional challenge by the provinces.

The final piece of illogical behaviour is the government's claim that they have broad public support for the measures proposed in Bill C-68. If this is true, then why is the government ramming this through Parliament? If the support is so broad then why not let democracy run its course? If there is broad public support then why not allow free votes? If there is such broad public support, why discipline liberal backbench MPs who are voting their constituents' wishes? If the public support is so great, why impose time allocation during second reading debate and leave at least 30 MPs waiting to speak?

If the public supports this bill, why did the standing committee on justice limit the amount of time for public hearings and deny to hundreds of people who wanted to be heard the opportunity to be heard? If support is so great, why did the standing committee refuse to hear expert testimony from individual independent experts in various areas? For example, we have been in contact with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada and have learned that insurance companies do not ask their applicants if they own a gun because they are not an identifiable risk group. There are so many people who wanted to come before this committee and were denied the opportunity. We have a problem.

This proves the justice minister and his supporters are wrong when they say gun owners are a risk to themselves or others. If gun ownership represented any risk or liability, insurance companies would charge gun owners a higher premium for life, health, and property insurance. They do not. This is just one of the many areas that have not been fully explored by the justice committee.

If the minister is so convinced that the public supports his proposals, then why is he not prepared to do the rigorous evaluation recommended by the auditor general before implementing further gun controls? Let us see if the measures implemented in Bill C-17 are working before spending even more money on measures that are not cost effective in achieving the stated objective of improving public safety. If there is broad public support, why invoke time allocation at report stage?

I am introducing this amendment so that we will always evaluate this gun legislation to see if it is working, if it is effective. Those parts that are not working or not effective

should be repealed. Everything the government does defies common sense.

This sunset clause should be supported by all members of the House. I cannot think of any reason they would oppose it. I hope we will have some common sense when we examine it.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation.

As my colleague, the previous speaker, has indicated, it is unfortunate that many members of Parliament will not have an opportunity to speak at report stage, since the government has introduced closure and will limit the debate at this stage of the legislation. However, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a couple of remarks about the bill itself.

I am certainly not a spokesperson for what people would refer to as the gun lobby. Yes, I have been a fur trapper with my own trapline. Yes, I have been a big game hunter. Yes, I have been a recreational shooter, but that was some years ago.

The fundamental question I asked myself was whether this legislation will curtail the number of people who are killed each year by firearms. That is fundamental.

I looked at the details and noticed, for example, that about 1,400 people die of gunshot wounds each year, which has fallen substantially over the last number of years. How does the 1,400 break out? Eleven hundred people die as a result of a firearm wound through the commission of suicide. In other words, people who have decided to take their own life are using a firearm. If that firearm were registered would the person interested in committing suicide likely not commit suicide? I could only conclude that it would probably have little effect at all, recognizing that suicide is a fairly thoughtful process and that people normally think about it for some time. That takes care of 1,100 people who die of firearm wounds.

About 150 people die each year as a result of domestic violence, when one partner decides to shoot the other partner. Would that be reduced if firearms were registered? Would people not shoot their spouse or their partner? I concluded that probably would not have any effect either. If things have deteriorated in a relationship to that extent, whether the .22 is registered someplace will probably not deter the person from committing the act.

Then I noticed that about 100 people each year die who I will define as gangsters. I suspect that gangsters do not register their sawed off shotguns or pistols, so I concluded that would not have much of an impact.

About 50 people each year die in Canada as a result of shooting accidents. A shooting accident will take place, I presume, whether or not a firearm is registered.

When I looked at the 1,400 people who lose their lives each year as a result of firearms, I could only conclude that no one would not die as a result of the legislation.

Will our streets, neighbourhoods and country be safer because of the legislation? We have to acknowledge we will tie up the work of the RCMP and police forces, which will spend hundreds and thousands of hours doing evaluations and filling out forms. When I talked to many of the RCMP officers in Kamloops, I did not find a single one who actually supported the legislation. With respect to the tens of millions of dollars that will go into the registration system, they said put more members of the force on the street and it will make Canada a safer place, as opposed to a gun registration system that by and large will not be effective. Then I listen with interest to some of the aboriginal members of Parliament when they say the law ought not to apply to First Nations peoples.

When there are people in the Senate and in the House of Commons saying this legislation should not apply to First Nations people, what kind of system will this be in the end?

I will give the Minister of Justice credit. I suspect he was honourably motivated when he brought this legislation forward. I believe he thought it would make Canada a safer place as a result of many people urging him to take some kind of action. Will Canada be a safer place? By and large, no. I wonder if it does not get the government members off the hook so they can go across the country saying: "Look at the tremendous action we have taken to combat crime in our streets".

The legislation is by and large a smokescreen. It is a scam, it is a sham, it is an illusion the government is taking action against crime when very little change will occur. I will not say there is nothing good in this legislation, of course there is. Every year I have been here I have supported changes to Canada's firearms' legislation but not this one. This is a phoney piece of legislation that gives the impression of real action when very little is taking place at a tremendous cost both in terms of abusing the lives of legitimate firearms owners and, more important, taking so much time of the RCMP and other police forces.

Is it a priority to tie up hundreds of thousands of person hours in this type of activity? That energy, time and money are misdirected. I assume because of the muscle the government is using in Parliament that the legislation will pass. That motivated me to put forward this amendment. I will read the amendment: "In the year 2000, no later than June 1 and every three years

thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as the House may designate for that purpose".

I appreciate that the previous speaker indicated the interest in the auditor general's evaluating legislation prior to action. I support that because the auditor general has said on numerous occasions that in his judgment the present legislation has not been evaluated to see whether it is effective.

Even the justice department has stated time and time again the evaluation of the effectiveness of present legislation has simply not been done. Why then is the government so determined to proceed with a whole set of changes on existing legislation that has yet to be evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness?

Basically this is an attempt through one of 267 amendments to say that if the government is to proceed with this anyway as a result of its parliamentary muscle, let us at least include a provision so that this changed legislation is evaluated on a regular basis to see if it is effective, whether the registration system is effective, whether the whole initiative is cost effective and presumably to identify areas that need improvement.

It is meant to improve the legislation. I hope government members take it seriously and give some thought to building in some type of process by which this legislation can be reviewed on a regular basis.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk at debate on Bill C-68 on my amendment which, like a couple of the others presented, calls for a review of this legislation. I have suggested a period of five years.

The purpose of the legislation, the intent of the minister and of the government to attempt to curb violence in Canadian society is a worthwhile objective and the legislation in many respects addresses that.

There are items in the legislation that have beyond a shadow of a doubt proven to have an opportunity to do that; increasing the penalties for the commission of certain violent acts with a firearm, increased penalties for possession of stolen firearms, increased penalties for smuggling, all of which most of us accept. The idea of more policing of the borders is a proven thing which most people would support.

On the other hand there is the question of universal registration of all firearms, going beyond what we have now which is for handguns only. There is an open question whether that provision will achieve the purpose of the bill which is to reduce violence in Canadian society.

I and many Canadians believe that with any piece of legislation there has to be a balance. There has to be a relationship between what is being done, the cost and what the result will be. There are four areas we should take a look at and which I intend to address briefly in this speech. We must look at what registration is likely to do and what is not likely to do, what it will cost and what it may do. There is a difference between what it will do and what it may do.

What is registration attempting to do? It is trying address what we know, that a firearm normally begins its life as a legal firearm and through its lifetime it goes through a process and becomes illegal. Registration is an attempt to arrest that process. It is not an attempt once a firearm becomes illegal to stop somebody from using it in a certain way. That will not happen. It is an attempt to stop the process of going from legal to illegal. It does that a number of ways.

A large number of thefts occur from bulk shipments. Registration will record those items as they reach the border and then can be tracked to their point of destination and hopefully stop theft from those shipments.

It will give police an opportunity better enforce prohibition orders issued by judges. Under this legislation and previous legislation a judge can put a prohibition order on individuals to stop them owning firearms based on their past behaviour, for instance being convicted of a serious criminal offence. Registration will make it easier for a police officer to know exactly what firearms they want to collect and execute the prohibition order.

On safe storage, if somebody has a firearm stolen from his or her dwelling and it is used in a criminal offence there will be the possibility to trace it back exactly from where it came. That might encourage certain people to practise better safe storage.

The licensing part of the registration system will give authorities the opportunity to examine somebody's past behaviour and to determine whether it should preclude them from owning a firearm. Those are some of the things registration is likely to do.

There are some things it will not do and people should be clear on this as well. Once a criminal has a firearm in their possession, whether it is registered is very unlikely to stop them from committing a criminal act. That is not what registration will do. Anybody with that in their mind is probably mistaken.

If somebody is intent on doing harm to themselves and is in possession of a firearm, that the firearm is or is not registered will probably not have a lot to do with the actions of that person. The registration part is to stop the process from becoming illegal. Once the firearm is illegal the legislation will not have a lot of impact.

There are some concerns about what it may do. I am concerned it will increase the cost of hunting. A lot of individuals in my riding hunt. It will preclude them from participating in that sport. On a more broad basis, hunting is an important economic activity in my riding which is pursued by a lot of people. A lot of individuals come into the area and spend their money on lodging

et cetera. The concern is whether it will decrease the number of people who will participate in that.

The fear of many legitimate firearm owners is whether this system of registration in the hands of a future government may be used to prohibit firearms normally used in recreational activities. It is a concern they genuinely hold and one we need to address and take into account when looking at this legislation.

We must look at cost. The cost individually to begin with will not be that high, $10 for up to 10 firearms plus acquiring an FPC. There is the concern that if that is the opening cost what will the cost be in five years, ten years, fifteen years. It is a legitimate concern not just with firearms but with anything that has a fee attached to it.

There is also a concern about the global cost for it. It is set at $85 million to implement and then there will be a cost to keep it in place. That has to be a concern in a day and age when we have fiscal challenges facing us as a government.

There are a number of considerations we have to take into account. We have to take into account what registration will do. We have to understand what it will not do. We have to understand what it may do or at least have an appreciation of what it may do. We also have to understand what it may cost. We need to evaluate considering all of those components.

Will it stop violence? Will it be reasonable? Will it hurt legitimate firearms owners? Those are the things we need to know. Those are things being debated in the House, things quite frankly that have been debated for the last year. I do not think it will possible at this point to get any clear consensus on that or a clear understanding.

In that respect I have proposed an amendment which will mandate a review after five years so we will have an opportunity as Parliament to understand whether the legislation is achieving its objective to curb violence in society and understand whether we need to modify or change it to make it more effective in order to have an understanding as to whether some of those negative consequences or concerns put forward will take place.

Therefore I urge my colleagues in the House today to help and assist me by voting for this amendment requiring a review of the legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to advise the House that we have gone through the first round of debate and I recognized the speakers under whom the motions stood. Now to a more general debate I will look to the government, followed by the official opposition, the government and the third party. We will see who might be seeking the floor at any time.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-68 at report stage.

I listened to the suggested amendments put forward by different members. The member for Yorkton-Melville worked on the committee and spent a good deal of time with other members of the committee working on this bill which I feel is a much better bill as a result of the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I do not agree when members say we tried to shut down debate. We have had a lot of debate on this subject. We will have report stage today and third reading tomorrow. Members may want to speak to the bill at this stage. The important thing is members have spoken to us about their concerns on this bill and their thoughts and ideas have been taken into consideration; not all but a lot. As a result changes are reflected in the revised edition of the bill before the House today at report stage.

I will speak to the amendments that have been brought forward. The first amendment is by the member for Algoma who wants to change the title from other weapons to related matters. I understand what he is trying to do but unfortunately the wording he wants to use is too general. What we want to do here is relate it to weapons.

There is not a negative connotation meant in this this bill relating to the use of weapons. A weapon is not something that has a negative connotation in the opinion of the government. If it had not been for weapons we would not have our free society today after the first and second world wars and the Korean conflict. We are not trying to downgrade or malign weapons. This is not something we want to do. For that reason we feel the wording as stated is what we would like to use.

He also mentions in section 4 on page 4 that the wording is ineffective because some of the objectives are not stated. He wants certain objectives stated. The problem is that while some of the objectives are stated by the hon. member in his amendment, other objectives are not. We feel that the section to which he refers adequately states what it is the government is trying to do.

I turn to Motion No. 158 relating to the review: "The minister shall periodically conduct a review of this act and the regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons within 12 months of commencing the review".

The review is something many members wanted to see in the bill and it was given a good deal of study. The problem is that we will be registering the gun owners from January 1, 1996 until December 31, 2001 and firearms themselves from January 1,

1998 to December 31, 2003. That is when the act will really be in place. Any time after that would be the logical time for a review if one were to be brought forward. If we are looking at a five year review the year 2008 presumably would be the time for a review.

It is not felt at this time that a review should be included in the bill. We want to give the bill a chance to work. We want to have the bill passed, to have Canadians understand what is in the bill and to have an opportunity to look at the regulations.

There certainly will be an election prior to the registration of the firearms commencing on January 1, 1998. This could be a subject of debate during the next federal election. I am sure all members will be prepared to discuss this subject and I welcome that. I think that is the way it should be. We would then have the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the act and regulations which Canadians will have had an opportunity to review and of which they will be better aware. To leave that out at this time would be the most appropriate course.

The member for Yorkton-Melville has stated in Motion No. 167: "Sections 3 to 129 expire on December 31, 1999 unless prior to that date, with respect to each section the auditor general has prepared and caused to be laid before Parliament a report on whether the section has been or will be a successful in the cost effective use of public funds to achieve an increase in public safety and a reduction in the incidence of violent crime involving the use of firearms". Certainly a review in my opinion would be preferable to this.

We have stated we want Parliament to have the control over legislation, particularly this legislation. The motion gives the powers over the act to the auditor general. While the auditor general has a very worthwhile and important function in our system of government, he is not an institution to which we want to give control over our legislation and control over whether legislation is going to be successful or not.

The member is placing the responsibility on one man and one man's report as to whether or not legislation is going to continue. This is not a review by Parliament but a review by one person. If this precedent were instituted and followed up in other legislation then Parliament might as well stop functioning. It might as well shut down because the auditor general would declare whether he or she thought bills should continue to be in effect.

Motions Nos. 266 and 267, one by the member for Kamloops and the other by the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, once again call for reviews of the act and I would say the same thing. This is not an appropriate time to implement a review. If it is felt there is still a lot of concern with the act later on, it could be the subject of an amendment perhaps after the next federal election.

The act has to be given the opportunity to work. We have to see the regulations. Many members of Parliament will be very pleasantly surprised.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 is about public safety. To ensure the safety of the public we need certain measures that will not necessarily please everyone.

When restrictions are set on our freedom of choice or freedom of action, most of us start asking questions and there is bound to be some protest against new measures. Only time will tell whether these measures are effective.

Firearms registration is one such measure that has raised a lot of controversy. Apparently harmless, this measure has caused one of the most emotional debates I have ever seen and in which I have taken part. At the time, even Bill C-17 did not seem to raise arguments that were so emotionally charged.

One that recurs ad nauseam is that the measures adopted in 1991 were entirely adequate and that it is unnecessary to change anything at all in the existing legislation. However, during the debate on C-17, the pro-gun lobby argued that the proposed measures were redundant and would put an additional burden on honest gun owners.

Apparently, the pro-gun lobby has managed to live with the provisions on storage, display and transportation of firearms. If they are satisfied with the existing provisions, it is because they are effective, and only time will tell whether a legislative provision produces the expected results.

Perhaps I may draw another analogy. I well remember the controversy that it raised in Quebec when the government wanted to make wearing seat belts mandatory. A whole range of arguments was raised against this decision. It was an attack on individual freedom, was one argument we often heard. First prove it will save lives, was another one. The government has no right to make me buckle up, people said. I am a responsible driver and never had an accident. Does that sound familiar?

However, according to the statistics, seat belts have saved lives. Especially since a car is not supposed to kill but to carry passengers. I could apply the same analogy to making helmets mandatory for motorcyclists.

All these measures were adopted by governments for the well-being of the community, to protect public safety. I agree some measures restrict our individual freedoms, but it is a small price to pay for the benefits down the line. So much for analogies.

Now back to the motions concerning safe storage. The motions I proposed would make it mandatory for the manufacturer, importer and exporter of a firearm to install a secure locking device on the firearm. A secure locking device means a device that cannot be opened or unlocked except with an electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or an alphanumeric combination lock. Once installed, the locking device must prevent the firearm from shooting.

The amendment I proposed, which will probably be discussed later on, is entirely appropriate in a bill on public security. Access to unlocked firearms is far too easy. Guns without a trigger lock and ammunition that is not securely stored are immediately available to the individual who gives in to suicidal or violent impulses. When guns and ammunition are not immediately available, the individual has time to think and calm down.

The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are horrifying. In 1991, suicides represented 77 per cent of 1,445 deaths caused by firearms. Out of 732 homicides recorded in Canada in 1992, 246 were committed with a firearm. Most homicides during the past ten years were committed with shotguns or hunting rifles. In three cases out of four, women killed by their spouses were shot with a shotgun or hunting rifle.

The statistics are there. A trigger lock could have helped reduce the number of suicides and homicides committed with a gun. Just like making the wearing of seat belts mandatory, this measure would help us save lives.

An amendment like the one we proposed would impose few restrictions, considering the benefits that would ensue. Equipping all firearms in circulation, including shoulder arms, with a trigger lock is an indication that firearms are dangerous, that they can kill and that owners should use them responsibly.

Firearms involve too much risk to be ignored. The mere presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk of suicide five times and the risk of homicide three times. The risk of accident is greater in a home where firearms are kept than in a home where there are none.

The improper use of firearms must be reduced by showing that guns mean danger and that firearms must always be used carefully and in accordance with the law and the requirements of safety.

The mandatory trigger lock would permit this. A way must be found to inform users who do not even know there are gun storage regulations. Those primarily concerned, that is the owners, are not even aware that gun storage regulations exist. A survey by Léger & Léger confirms this disturbing discovery. It was done between September 1 and 13, 1994 and involved 515 gun owners living in Quebec. In response to a question on knowledge of the existence of the regulations, only 53 per cent believed there was legislation on storage; 31.8 per cent said the opposite; and 15.1 per cent were undecided-they did not know there were any regulations on the safe storage of firearms.

At the very least, a trigger lock and targeted advertising are required and just as essential as a national registration system.

Bill C-68 is not intended to stigmatize firearms owners, but, rather, to promote a form of social accountability. This is why we must oblige manufacturers, importers and exporters to equip firearms with a secure locking device.

These are my comments on the amendments before us at the moment, since, unfortunately, I believe some members will try to use the time and prevent us from discussing other motions. This is why I chose to discuss mine now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Further to the comments by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, it is not up to me to plan strategy for anyone in this House. So long as no one questions the relevance-we know how complex it can be to resolve-we will continue the debate.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for many people in the rural areas of the country.

I have considered this question over the last several years. In my previous life as an opposition member we had a debate on this issue. In fact we have debated the matter a number of times. I was here when Bill C-17 was debated, which was brought in by the former Conservative government.

That bill was supported by the hon. member for Kamloops who stood in the House today to say that he was upset with the fact that time allocation had been imposed. During the previous debate that member was the House leader of the New Democratic Party and he supported the government, in fact all the parties, in limiting debate and supported not having a vote at second reading. I find it somewhat surprising today that the hon. member for Kamloops would stand in his place and criticize the government for imposing time allocation.

We have debated this bill for the last year. I am sure all hon. members in the House have had or should have had the opportunity to express the views of their constituents, not only on the floor of the House but across the country. Certainly in the last year there have been opportunities for constituents to express their views of the issue. I have travelled across my riding. I have been to gun rallies. I have met with different groups.

This past weekend as I debated how I will vote on the issue I had the opportunity to speak with many of my constituents, especially a number of the mayors and regional councillors. In my constituency a number of motions were put forward by regional councils and a number of municipalities outlining their concerns with the legislation. I have also had an opportunity to speak to a lot of my gun guys. I call them the gun guys because they are the ones who have formed different shooting clubs.

They are members of anglers and hunters groups and they have come together to fight the bill. I say gun guys because the membership is made up of guys. I have been out west and I have discussed this issue with people in various ridings.

I took issue with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville when he talked about the view of Ontarians on the issue. He seemed to suggest that somehow the Mike Harris sweep meant that people were against gun control in Ontario. That is simply not true. Take the example of northern Ontario for instance where there is the strongest disagreement with this bill. It went Liberal and NDP. In two of the three ridings of the members of this party that voted against the government on second reading, those ridings went Liberal.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the Reform Party, as it does in my riding, tries to take credit somehow for the Mike Harris victory in this past election. As members know, that is simply not true.

I have had difficulties on this issue in my own riding simply because I have had the opportunity of getting around and talking to a number of people. If one talks to people generally on the street, what they will say is that a lot of people are against this legislation.

The Reform Party in my riding likes to build this up. The Reform Party comes forward. Its past candidate writes letters to an editor at a newspaper saying they will use this and fight the member on it.

Most people in my riding know my views on this issue. They know that I fought hard to make changes. What they do not know is how the Reform Party says it is speaking out on behalf of its constituents but when you look at the numbers and the polls, it shows that many of these members are being two faced about the issue. They are claiming to represent their constituents and they are not.

There are only a few brave members of the Reform Party who are standing up for what their constituents want. I find that to be in contrast with what the Reform Party promised in the last election. I have always in the House taken very strongly the views of my constituents and tried to put them forward.

What the Reform Party never tells you when its members talk about free votes-we have not seen very many free votes from these people-is what you do in the House when-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I remind members on both sides that all interventions must be made through the Chair, and not directly to one other. In that way we might continue to have a very parliamentary debate on a very serious matter before the House.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the Reform Party never tells its constituents when it talks about free votes is what to do in a situation where your views on an issue are different from your constituents.

If one looks at the polling across the country, one poll may be different, two polls may, but when all polls across the country show support for this legislation it is difficult.

A poll taken in my own riding by the Simcoe Reformer asked a number of questions. It said: "Are you strongly in favour, somewhat in favour, or opposed to the registration of all guns?" Those who strongly support were 33 per cent. Those who strongly opposed were 23 per cent. For somewhat support, there were 26 per cent and somewhat opposed, 19 per cent.

The question I have to look at is: "How do you think your member of Parliament should vote on this issue: For or against the proposal on gun control legislation?"

Of those who had an opinion, 60 per cent said that their member of Parliament should vote for the legislation and 40 per cent said that he should vote against the legislation. That poll was taken in my riding.

It has been difficult to get a good grasp on what the majority of constituents think on this issue. What I did was call around. In fact, I talked to some of the gun control opponents in my riding. They said that they had been taking polls too. It showed 70:30. The numbers were not only true but they were stronger.

It makes it difficult for all hon. members. I know tonight as we vote on this Reform Party members will too be looking at how their constituents think about this issue. On this issue we are talking about a five-year review, which I totally support and which I have put forward. The minister is here today and he has indicated in the past that this might be a proper thing to do, to review the legislation to make sure it is working.

The Toronto Globe and Mail had an editorial which essentially said the same thing. Let us see whether or not the registration of guns will do what the government says it will do. That is why I support the motions. I would put the year for review at 2008 as the hon. parliament secretary has done. That would be a good way to do it.

Since the parliamentary secretary said he supported the idea and the minister is here and since the Reform Party agrees with this, I wonder if we could get unanimous consent to put forward a motion that would use the year 2008, five years after the implementation. If there is unanimous consent, the motion would say:

That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 134 the following:

That no later than January 1, 2008, that the federal minister shall prepare a report on the effectiveness of this act in reducing the incidents of indictable offences involving the use of a firearm, and lay the report before the House of Commons.

I wonder if we could get unanimous consent of the House for this motion?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the unanimous consent for the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by touching on the inconsistencies that I see and the reasoning behind this bill.

Inconsistencies always bother me because fact should support fact and truth should support truth. An inconsistency indicates that fact is not supporting fact. I am concerned about that.

The two inconsistencies are these. If the justice minister and the government truly believe that the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms and save lives, why are we waiting until the year 2003 to make it mandatory? Why are we waiting that long to begin to save lives and create a safer society?

The other inconsistency is that 58 per cent of the handguns that have been legally acquired and legally held are to be banned. Why? Because they pose a danger to society. Yet those handguns are not to be taken from society, they are to left in society. They are to be grandfathered.

Why would the government, if it honestly believes that 58 per cent of handguns held today in society are a danger to society, then why would it allow them to remain in society?

I will have more to say at third reading about the bill. I will begin my address to Bill C-68 at report stage by taking cognizance of those two very glaring inconsistencies behind the rationale of the bill as presented by the government.

I am opposed to a system of registration of rifles and shotguns as outlined in Bill C-68. I am also opposed to the draconian inspection powers and the absurd penalties provided for anyone who fails to register a rifle or a shotgun.

Canada has some of the most stringent gun regulations in the world now. Some 60 pages in the Criminal Code deal with the acquisition, ownership and use of firearms, and we want to add a whole bundle more.

We do not need further controls on law-abiding gun owners. We need the enforcement of the present laws and to get tough with the criminal use of firearms. Canadians have been demanding changes to the justice system in this country for years. All they have received are weak-kneed, bleeding heart policies that further erode the objective of justice, which is to reduce crime.

The present and past governments have used gun control to make Canadians believe they are doing something about crime in Canada when they are not.

Bill C-68 is not a gun control bill. It is not going to control guns; it is going to register them. There is a huge difference between the two.

Bill C-68 is nothing more than a pretence that the government is making our homes and streets safer and getting tough on criminals.

I recall Lynda Haverstock, the leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, when she appeared before the standing committee stated in effect that the federal government was spreading misinformation by claiming Bill C-68 would reduce suicide and domestic violence that involved firearms. I agree with this observation.

The bill creates false hopes in the minds of Canadians about what it will do in terms of making our homes and streets safer, hope that will never be realized through this bill because it does not address the cause of suicide or the cause of domestic violence.

As the auditor general concluded in his 1993 report: "Our review of the new regulations indicated that important data needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness of the regulations were not available at the time the regulations were drafted. The government proceeded with new regulations for reasons of public policy".

The government is doing exactly the same thing. There is not a statistical justification for bringing in a universal registration system, and yet we see that as the central pillar in Bill C-68.

The voters have awakened. They cannot be placated by pretentious pieces of legislation. Canadians want concrete measures effectively aimed at reducing crime. The Ontario and Manitoba elections demonstrate quite clearly that the citizens of these provinces reject the Liberal form of justice. They reject the Liberal tendencies to make offenders' rights supersede the rights of victims.

Canadians must be able to see that the measures introduced by the government will meet the objective of reducing crime before legislation is passed, not after. Through common sense appraisal of the law they must be able to see that it will be of benefit to them, their families and their communities.

The justice minister has not provided any statistical information to justify the implementation of these draconian measures in this bill, although he has repeatedly been asked to do so. He has not effectively demonstrated the link between registering firearms and a reduction in crime. That is what the attorneys general from the three western prairie provinces addressed when they appeared before the standing committee. There was no linkage they could see between the registration of rifles and shotguns and the reduction in the criminal use of these firearms.

Not one witness who appeared before the standing committee could provide any substantive evidence that registration would reduce the criminal use of these firearms. No one could demonstrate how registration, the banning of .25 and .32 calibre handguns, the new licensing regime or the intrusive inspection powers will diminish the number of firearm crimes in this country.

What they did inadvertently illustrate was an unrealistic fear of firearms and an idealistic notion that by restricting ownership of firearms, criminals, those people who thrive on obtaining a valuable object to sell on the black market, would somehow be thwarted by such regulatory acts aimed at honest citizens, people who have owned and used firearms for years in a safe and legal manner.

To date it seems the only impetus for Bill C-68 is to fulfil the justice minister's original and unrealistic thought to have only the police and military possess firearms in this country.

Time today does not permit me to address and debate each of the Reform's amendments. The time allocation imposed by the Liberal government with the co-operation of the separatist Bloc party for both the report stage and the third reading of this bill denies me and my colleagues the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate our amendments or to represent the concerns of our constituents.

I object to the shameful and undemocratic methods employed by the government to ram this bill through Parliament. It is no secret that the government is having trouble keeping its caucus together on this issue. The threat of being kicked off a committee is hanging over every Liberal's head if they dare to represent their constituents by voting against the government and in accordance with the will of the majority of the people they represent.

I think the government is terrified to allow its MPs the opportunity to go home for the summer to consult constituents on Bill C-68, Bill C-41, or the government's pension bill. It knows that the more Canadians learn about Bill C-68, as was the case for the Charlottetown accord, the stronger the opposition will grow.

So much for the competence of the government. So much for the rhetoric that it has the support of Canadians. If it had the majority of Canadians on its side it would not be moving so quickly to have this bill passed, especially given the fact it will not be implemented until the year 2003.

Reform is opposed to Bill C-68 in many of its forms. Therefore, we will be voting against the vast majority of this bill at third reading. Our amendments tabled before the House are an attempt to make this draconian legislation more palatable for those firearm owners who will be burdened by red tape, costly controls of privately owned property, and intrusion into their lives.

Reforms' amendments in no way concede to the principle of more gun regulations in this country. We still maintain and are adamant that there is no need for the registration of rifles and shotguns.

I will have more time at third reading to address the concerns of our party with regard to this bill, which are reflected by the people all across the country.

I was in Stratford this weekend, and last weekend I was in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. I have spoken to approximately 35,000 to 38,000 Canadians across the country who have all expressed the very same views and concerns. They are prepared to do whatever is reasonable and underlaid with common sense to bring about a safer use of firearms. However, they do not believe this bill will do that. They believe that it will do quite the opposite and simply encumber law-abiding citizens when it ought to be directing its efforts at those who would use firearms in a criminal manner.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill and particularly to the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. But first I must say that I am somewhat surprised by the debate surrounding this bill, which, at first sight, should bring us together in support of the goal that was set.

Without accusing anyone-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have a little bit of a problem. I simply want to clarify something with the hon. member and all my colleagues. We are currently debating the first group of motions on Bill C-68. Otherwise, if we broaden the debate-if I can use that expression-, if this is what the

House wants, the Chair will certainly acquiesce to its request. However, at this time, I am seeking some guidance from my colleagues.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tell me if I am mistaken, but I understood that, given the limited time available to discuss each group of motions and the number of members scheduled to address the first group-as you can see, there is no Bloc amendment in this group-, we would be allowed, while speaking to the first group, to argue on any amendment moved by any other member. I am one of the movers of an amendment that will come up only in the fourth group and, if I am not mistaken, I think that this group will not pass.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker. It is up to you, but I understood the House agreed to broaden-as you say-the debate on this group of motions. It is up to you, of course.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

As you know, the Chair is not involved in those discussions.

If there has been some agreement reached by the parties as to how this debate might proceed, you would be in full knowledge that the Chair is not a participant in those deliberations and is consequently unaware of any such agreement, which is not to say there is not one.

All I am attempting to do is facilitate the debate in the traditional fashion for colleagues on both sides of the House. I seek your guidance. If there is something the Chair is not aware of, please make us aware.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on the content or to change the format.

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert talked generally about trigger locks and things that were not related to group one. The hon. member for Crowfoot did likewise. I can understand why they would do it, because we do not know how far we will get in this debate.

However, with both parties having had an opportunity to put points of view on the record, I would hope that not all members are going to talk generally. I would like to adhere to the groupings so we will be able to discuss the merits of the amendments. I am not saying we have to adhere completely to that, without deviation, because we do have a time limit and all members have a right to be heard on the subject matter at report stage. I hope we adhere to the groupings as best we can so we give an airing to the motions that have been put forward. If not, then why have these motions at all?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I appreciate the intervention from the hon. parliamentary secretary. Certainly we are all cognizant that a great deal of work goes into formulating these groupings to facilitate the debate and to bring a certain focus to amendments within a certain grouping.

I will join the parliamentary secretary and everyone else in the House in appealing to everyone to keep their remarks and participation as much as possible within the context of the groupings. Otherwise, I will react to whatever the mood of the House is at any time during this debate.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, I will simply pass my turn and wait for my amendment to come up before taking the floor. I will also wait for third reading to denounce the government.

In that sense, I think that, given all the amendments and the time limit on debate, the government could have shown good faith and allowed the opposition to present arguments, as was done before I rose. I was not the first member to speak to this bill in a general way. I will give up my turn, given the government's way of proceeding.