Rose-Marie Ur

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it recorded that I was present during the vote but abstained.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners request that the Criminal Code of Canada and other relevant acts be amended so that extreme drunkenness as a defence in any criminal case could not be used.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas that have been duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

In the first one the petitioners call upon Parliament not to impose any amendments to the Canadian human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms that provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Unemployment Insurance, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order to the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur on his private member's bill which will allow UI claimants to serve on jury duty without losing their benefits.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development assure us that there will be no delay in implementing the measures and that individuals receiving UI will be immediately entitled to their benefits while serving on a jury?

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Canada has had a long history in the monitoring and controlling of firearms. Canada has had laws restricting the possession and the use of firearms since 1877. These were a nationwide permit system for the carrying of small arms in effect in 1892. All handguns have had to be registered since 1934. In 1951 a centralized registry for restricted firearms was established under the control of the commissioner of the RCMP.

The classification system of prohibitive weapons and restricted weapons including all handguns and non-restricted long guns was introduced in 1968. This scheme was significantly enhanced by a number of amendments in 1977. The major addition was the creation of the firearms acquisition certificate, FAC, a screening system for those wishing to acquire any firearm including non-restricted hunting rifles and shotguns.

A new administrative regime involving local firearms officers and chief provincial firearms officers appointed by the provinces was also established. Currently the provinces administer the FAC system and most overall gun control. This regime was relatively untouched for over 11 years until the passage of Bill C-17 which received royal assent on December 5, 1991.

To my knowledge the last set of regulations pertaining to Bill C-17 came into force on January 1, 1994 and prescribed the criteria for competence in the safe handling and use of firearms. Barely a year after the implementation of Bill C-17's last set of regulations members are being asked to consider yet another firearms bill.

I propose to offer my comments on what I consider the positive aspects of Bill C-68. I will also offer my opinions on the parts of this bill which require more consideration by the justice committee and I will give my reasons as to why certain sections of this bill should be deleted in their entirety.

The most positive feature of this bill is its no nonsense approach to the criminal use of firearms. To that extent I applaud the proposals to create new offences for the criminal use of firearms, including the minimum four-year sentence for using a firearm in the commission of violent offences and the minimum mandatory sentence of one year for the use of a replica firearm, mandatory jail sentences for the possession of stolen firearms and stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms.

For years Canadians from all walks of life have been demanding stiffer mandatory sentencing provisions for the use of a firearm in the commission of violent offences. Bill C-68 addresses this concern. Mandatory sentencing provisions for the use of a firearm while committing one of the 10 key violent offences of attempted murder, manslaughter, negligence causing death, robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, extortion and discharging a firearm within intent to cause harm will be increased from one to four years. Offenders convicted of these offences will also be prohibited from possessing a restricted weapon for life.

I am concerned that section 85 charges might continue to be plea bargained away notwithstanding an increase in minimum sentencing provisions. The justice department's own research shows that two-thirds of section 85 charges laid are either dismissed, stayed or withdrawn because of problems of evidence or plea bargaining.

Bill C-68 also creates a new prohibitive category consisting of certain calibre handguns with a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less. In effect this will result in the prohibition of 58 per cent of the handguns currently in existence in Canada. Like all other owners of prohibited firearms, individuals who possessed these handguns on or before February 14, 1995 will be able to buy and sell only among themselves. Owners of these handguns will be able to use the handguns for the purpose for which they were originally obtained, whether target shooting or collecting. They will be required to demonstrate every five years that their handguns continue to be so used.

These measures are a definite improvement over the action plan of November 30, 1994 which had contemplated a complete prohibition against any use or trade in these prohibited firearms. To his credit, the Minister of Justice has announced his willingness to have the justice committee consider whether handguns in the prohibited class that are used in recognized target shooting competitions should be exempted from the ban.

I am also grateful that the minister has asked the committee to examine the whole question of whether there might be a separate exemption provision for firearms that may have special significance to families as relics or heirlooms.

The minister has also suggested that the committee study the issue of whether technical amendments are necessary for historical re-enactments or heritage events using black powder reproduction firearms.

In each of these cases the Minister of Justice is to be commended for his flexibility. I am deeply disappointed, however, that the minister has remained steadfast in his insistence upon the establishment of a national registration system for all firearms, including non-restricted hunting rifles and shotguns.

Bill C-68 includes provisions for the initiation of universal firearms owner registration where the current FAC will be replaced with a graduated firearms possession certificate, FPC, starting in 1996. Although initially voluntary, by the year 2001 possession of any firearm without an FPC will result in a Criminal Code offence that would carry a sentence of up to five years, one year in excess of the mandatory term proposed for the offence of using a firearm while attempting to murder.

As the second half of the proposed universal registration system, the bill would require every Canadian to register his or her firearm individually. Each firearm is to be identified by make, model, manufacturer's serial number and other identifiers, and a special firearms registration card, FRC, is to be issued for each firearm registered.

We should not be surprised that law-abiding firearms owners are deeply resentful over this registration proposal, which can only be described as intrusive and cumbersome. As more and more makes and models of various types of firearms are either reclassified for regulation or banned outright, we cannot blame some firearms owners for suspecting that the real reason behind registration is a gradual confiscation of most firearms in Canada. Over half of the current legally owned handguns in Canada will be banned as a result of Bill C-68.

It should be obvious by now that criminals do not register their firearms. A universal firearms registry, even if it were fully subscribed to by all legal firearms owners, will not reduce criminal activity involving firearms, nor will it improve public safety. Neither law-abiding firearms owners nor other taxpayers deserve to be burdened with any expense or inconvenience that has no demonstrable effect on reducing crime or improving community safety.

Canadians want tougher measures to be taken to reduce crime. This bill addresses that through mandatory sentencing for the use of firearms in the commission of violent crime.

During the third week of November 1994, when Decima Research asked on behalf of Maclean's and CTV what the main reason for the increase in violent crimes is, the greatest number of responses, 40 per cent, said the justice system is too lenient. Only 5 per cent of the over 1,600 respondents said that a lack of tough gun controls was the cause.

Non-firearm owning Canadians are beginning to understand that additional gun controls will only serve to penalize responsible firearms owners unnecessarily and will not reduce crime. The minister insists that a new registration system is the support structure for the government's firearms control package.

I quote from a February 14 news release from the Department of Justice: "A universal registration system will help combat smuggling by monitoring the types and quantities of firearms coming into Canada". How can that be so when by definition smuggling involves evading the very authorities that would be doing the monitoring at Canadian borders?

If we are prepared to spend more money on gun control, let us spend it wisely. It has been suggested by the solicitor general of Ontario that a national task force on firearms smuggling be set up at key border points. I strongly support this proposal. A well co-ordinated task force involving all levels of police forces, additional customs officers and the support of all three levels of government would yield real results in the reduction of smuggled firearms into this country. That is where the real problem exists. It is not in the continued harassment of law-abiding firearms owners.

I sincerely hope the justice committee will insist upon an objective, dispassionate examination of the utility of a national registration system as set out in the bill. I hope that at the end of its study it would conclude that the current system requiring a firearms acquisition certificate is more than adequate and that if anything has to be done to curb the criminal use of firearms, the work has to be done at Canada's borders and in our court rooms.

[Petitions, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Criminal Code as proposed in Bill C-41, the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality by including the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Vision Awareness Week, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my regards to the Canadian Association of Optometrists on the occasion of Vision Awareness Week, March 5 to 11.

For the second year in a row the CAO is focusing on its theme of vision connection to literacy. Although good vision is an essential building block for acquiring good reading skills, the linkage has not as yet been made prominent. For example, one in six children has a vision problem which makes it difficult to learn and read.

Through the events organized this week through the CAO Canadians will come to see that the attainment of full literacy skills depends not only on proper instruction but on good eyesight as well. A study has shown that 75 per cent of adults with low literacy skills also have vision problems.

On behalf of the residents of Lambton-Middlesex, I wish the Canadian Association of Optometrists every success.

[The Budget, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach budget day I would like to convey the concerns of my constituents of Lambton-Middlesex.

Taxpayers in my riding say they simply cannot absorb any more tax increases. While they can appreciate that this year's budget must be a tough one it should not be at the further expense of middle class Canadians.

On behalf of my constituents I would ask that the Minister of Finance not raise personal income tax rates. He should also note that for millions of Canadians RRSPs will be their main source of retirement income. The minister should focus instead on meaningful spending cuts and more efficient delivery of government programs and services.

The residents of my riding are very aware of the pressing need to reduce and eventually eliminate Canada's deficit, but there has to be fairness in accomplishing this goal. If the sacrifices are spread fairly then I am convinced that all Canadians will support us in our efforts to put this country's financial house in order.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table three petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in

any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination, the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Camp Ipperwash, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Last year this government announced its commitment to return the site of Camp Ipperwash to the Kettle and Stoney Point Band. I understand that DND and the band have had discussions about a joint environmental assessment of the land before it is turned over.

Will the minister please tell me what progress is being made on returning the Camp Ipperwash land to the Kettle and Stoney Point Band?