Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the throne speech was silent on two particularly important issues. But, before addressing these issues, I would like to thank my constituents for their majority support of the sovereignty option in Quebec.
Saint-Hubert voters have unequivocally sanctioned my decision to join the Bloc Quebecois on August 12, 1991. My decision was endorsed by 56,6 percent of the electorate, or 15,000 more votes than my Liberal opponent.
The riding of Saint-Hubert is a high-tech aeronautical engineering and airport centre. Located on Montreal's south shore with an 84 per cent francophone majority, it includes the cities of Saint-Hubert and Lemoyne and part of Longueuil, as well as the city of Greenfield Park with its large and dynamic anglophone population.
I want to speak for every one of my constituents in my response to the throne speech. This speech is a universal disappointment because the economic solutions it proposes are unsatisfactory and because it lacks a clear message for the unemployed and for low-income Canadians.
In his speech, the Opposition leader denounced the lack of vision of this government, which is unable to give Canadians hope for a real economic recovery.
Others before me have already listed the wide gaps left in the throne speech with regard to taxation, public finances and the economy.
I want to deal with two questions raised by the national conscience, on which this government does not seem to have a position. Although we are concerned about the economy, social issues are equally pressing.
While Canadians and Quebecers are impatiently calling for vigorous state intervention on crime, the throne speech bitterly disappoints us by not addressing the urgent need to control firearms. Existing legislation, even laws that were recently improved, must be amended in order to meet objectives.
The throne speech was full of good intentions. However, where are the promised positive, concrete measures aimed at increasing public safety and crime prevention, as mentioned in the throne speech? Why have they not been identified?
The number of family incidents involving shotguns, pistols and revolvers is increasing. Women continue to be the most common victims of deadly assaults with prohibited or restricted weapons. Handguns are still the preferred weapon for committing suicide. There is a general consensus that the amendments brought about by Bill C-17 on gun control were a step in the right direction, but Canadians and Quebecers are telling us that we have not gone far enough.
Despite the new regulations calling for improved screening with respect to firearms acquisition, it is disturbing that civilians are still allowed to own semi-automatic weapons. Most of the firearms in circulation are not registered and all a person needs to acquire a pistol or a revolver is a certificate which can be obtained free of charge.
An Angus Reid poll conducted on September 15 and 16, 1993, revealed broad public support for the registration of all firearms. Such a move is supported by 86 per cent of all Canadians, including 91 per cent of all Quebecers, while 70 per cent of Canadians, and 79 per cent of Quebecers want an outright ban on assault weapons and handguns.
Where in the throne speech can we find any indication of a willingness on the part of the government to address these urgent expectations and to ease the concerns of citizens across the country? As we all know, the legislative priorities of this House are economic in nature given the serious hardships experienced by Canadians and Quebecers. However, fighting crime should top the list of the government's major concerns, particularly because of the social tensions and personal dramas stemming from the state of the economy.
Even with the recent amendments to the Criminal Code, it is still a simple matter to acquire a firearm and the cost involved is merely symbolic. This House should take courageous steps, setting aside partisanship, and give Canadians the protection they want. It is estimated that more than six million handguns are currently in circulation in Canada. This is indeed a frightening statistic.
What we need is a universal registration system for all types of firearms. The sale, trade and resale of weapons needs to be regulated. A genuine policy should be formulated for training dealers, who should be required to pay licensing fees to finance control programs. Restrictions should be placed on the acquisition of restricted weapons and users of these types of weapons should be required to obtain an annual permit.
A permit should also be required to purchase ammunition. All citizens should have the opportunity to oppose all applications for permits to acquire or carry weapons. A notice of application should be published in advance in the newspapers, as happens in the case of several kinds of licenses, including liquor licenses.
All automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Strict minimum sentences should be imposed on persons convicted of possession of illegal weapons. Local registrars should be given mandatory investigative powers. Finally, and most importantly, the cost of permits should be increased to give the provinces more money with which to enforce these controls, because without them, even the best of laws will remain nothing more than wishful thinking.
Had all of these measures been in place, I am confident that the Auditor General would not have made the comments he did in his report about weapons smuggling.
Our American neighbours are now realizing with dismay that the law of the Old West has produced an armed, defensive and criminalized society instead of protecting honest citizens.
It can never be said often enough: in two years, firearms have killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam war.
In the U.S., the dramatic figure of 24,000 murders committed with handguns every year has impelled the Clinton administration to pass new regulations to control the sale of weapons. In Canada, murders and deaths due to firearms have not reached the magnitude of the American slaughter, but every year 1,400 Canadians are shot dead.
Even with its flagrant flaws, our firearm control system, as opposed to the free movement of weapons American-style, makes all the difference when we measure the quality of life in Canadian cities and helps more than other factors to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life. And even if a single life is spared because an irresponsible or desperate violent individual was unable to acquire a firearm, we will have achieved our goal. As additional evidence, a July 1992 report by the Research and Statistics Directorate of the Department of Justice establishes a close correlation between the number of firearms in circulation and the suicide rate per 100,000 Canadians.
According to the authors of the report, since the adoption, in 1977, of legislative and regulatory measures to control firearms, the suicide rate has dropped substantially. We have here numerous briefs and reports establishing a direct link between owning a firearm and using it for illegal purposes resulting in loss of life. The Department of Justice has all these reports.
We must now go beyond these reports unanimously repeating the need for tighter controls. We must legislate to protect democracy. We must protect our democracy, which is not based on the force of arms but on the people's will allowing us to assemble in this House to express our differences in a civilized fashion.
The report published, a few days after the election, by the Baird Royal Commission unexpectedly set up by the previous government raised another social issue that is less current but equally relevant. How can this government totally ignore the widespread public criticism levelled at the Baird Report tabled by the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies?
We have all seen that this Commission's mandate only led to a report that was outdated the day it came out and whose conclusions were widely criticized. We would have liked the government to tell us whether budget restrictions are still at the top of its priorities, to give us a policy statement on the futility of allocating public funds to such royal commissions.
The throne speech announces prenatal nutrition programs for low-income pregnant women. But did we hear any reference to a global policy on fertility that could be based on or move away from the report's conclusions?
On the positive side, this Commission, which tabled its report two years late, drew our attention to recent developments and warned us against abuse by big business and dangerous practices calling for immediate action. Its report also proposes measures encroaching on provincial jurisdiction in the health-care sector. The establishment of a federal agency to deal with the whole issue of regulating reproductive technologies would be akin to the proverbial fly in the constitutional ointment.
We think that this flawed report, produced at a prohibitive cost of $28 million in these tough economic times, is already outdated by new scientific facts.
This government has not yet denounced the Baird Report. There is every reason to believe that it will act like previous governments, preferring to leave it to a royal commission to deal with urgent questions raised by new social situations.
Infertility is a big issue for many women and the couples it affects. It is lived differently from one province to another and from one social milieu to another. It is a current issue which the industry and its powerful lobbies are trying to use for purposes completely unrelated to people's legitimate aspiration to reproduce in dignity and with respect for the person.
We believe that the government must act quickly to avoid legislating later when faced with a fait accompli . On these issues and all other social, economic and political concerns of Canadians, we were waiting for signs, messages and evidence of a real intention to act from the government. But with all due respect for all members of this Parliament, I would ask you to note my deep dissatisfaction with the governing party's abdication of its social responsibilities, its premature fatigue when faced with the government financial crisis and its obvious lack of perspective on all the expectations of Canadians and the regions.