Jay Hill

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member's discourse. When hundreds of thousands of Canadians are voicing their opinion that the Young Offenders Act needs serious reform or serious overhaul I find it absolutely astounding a member would claim as he just did that "the Young Offenders Act is working very well".

The hon. member derided the use of statistics, yet he himself went on to use statistics throughout his presentation over and over again to try to prove his own personal bias that the Young Offenders Act is working very well.

I would like to ask the member, in as few words as possible, if he feels therefore that young offenders who reoffend over and over again should be held accountable? He said that somehow it was their background, that they came from dysfunctional families. They have all sorts of societal reasons why they commit crimes and why they break the law and have no respect for it. If it is always someone else's fault how do we hold these people accountable?

[Gun Control, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this minister has had 16 months to deal with gun smuggling. He has done nothing but table a plan to register the guns of law-abiding Canadians. Registration has not proven effective for crime deterrence in any other democracy in the world.

Why does the minister not take the $85 million he has committed to gun registration and instead target it toward directly defending our borders against gun smuggling?

[Gun Control, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his questions and answers booklet on the Canadian firearms registration system, the Minister of Justice tells Canadians that his new registration system will help eliminate smuggling and stolen firearms as sources of supply.

Just last Thursday the minister stated publicly that the new gun control legislation will do little to prevent smuggling. Could the minister please explain which statement is true?

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions.

As I indicated in my speech, it is simply not possible for our police to get there on time. If we talk to the policemen one on one they readily admit this.

Statistics clearly indicate, unfortunately, that the vast majority of times when police are responding to a crime, by the time they get there the crime has already taken place. Their job is to try to investigate and hopefully apprehend the criminal. That is the job and the duty of the police in most cases. On rare occasions they can intervene in time to save someone from assault, rape or murder, but it does not happen very often.

In my case, because I live outside of town, I suggest it would probably take in the neighbourhood of half an hour for the police to get there if someone was breaking into my home. We see increasing evidence across the country that citizens are concerned. There is increasing evidence of home invasions, where young hoodlums break into homes, often targeting the elderly. They break into these homes for no apparent reason. Many times the people are at home and they have no means to defend themselves.

I guess the answer to my hon. friend's question is that it would probably take about half an hour before the police could respond to a break-in in my home.

As to how much effort I have made to try to get statistics from the government, I referred in my speech to the fact that last June I asked a question during question period of the minister requesting the statistical evidence to prove how even the existing gun controls under Bill C-17, without registration, were working to prevent crime, to bring down the levels of violent crime and the criminal misuse of firearms. Nothing was forthcoming.

On October 28, 1994 I placed a question on the Order Paper. I could read it but it is quite lengthy. It consists of seven specific questions that ask the government to provide proof to us, and to the Canadian people, how legal firearms pertain to crime in the country.

I will refer to one of the questions, which is part (c) of Question No. 96. In that question I was referring to section 85 of the Criminal Code, which is already in force. The question is as follows: "How many of those charged with this offence were the legally registered owner of the firearm used in the commission or attempted commission of the crime?" It is a very simple, straightforward question asking for statistical evidence.

What was provided after three months, not 45 days, was the following answer:

The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey-

which comes from StatsCan:

-does not collect information which can distinguish the number of criminal offences which have been committed with the use of legal firearms. Prior to 1992 the Homicide Survey collected data on registered and non-registered firearms, but because this information was grossly under-reported (90 per cent unknown) the data are no longer collected.

That is the best the government could provide to me in the way of statistics to show that legally owned firearms have anything to do with curbing crime.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are able to excite the opposition across the way.

What I was referring to-and I stand by my earlier statements-is that there are two classes of people when it comes to registering firearms. There are those who will be covered by section 91 who will for some reason not hear about it. I cannot imagine who they will be because everyone, before we get done, is going to know about this. I do not think the government can keep it a secret much longer. The word is getting out.

For those who inadvertently do not register their firearms, the hon. member is quite correct, under section 91 they will either be facing a jail term of up to five years or an offence punishable by summary conviction which could be as little as a fine.

However, section 92 pertains to people who willingly disobey and do not register their firearms. For this crime, the government has decided that 10 years imprisonment is a justifiable sentence. I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of gun owners throughout my riding.

In January I took a tour throughout my riding which covers the whole northeastern corner of British Columbia. I tried to talk to as many people as possible. We held meetings on this. As one of my hon. colleagues said, I did not try to drum up the anti-gun control sentiment. I merely went to these meetings and asked the individuals how they felt about it. I did not have to ask very loudly because they were very forthcoming with their sentiments about more gun control and certainly about registration, not only on restricted firearms but on long guns as well.

I asked them in confidence, without revealing names, how many of them were going to be registering their firearms. I did not find one individual in my travels who said he or she would willingly and voluntarily register his or her firearms.

Under section 92 those individuals, if they have willingly not registered their firearms, will be subject to 10 years of imprisonment. That is how I read this, but I admit that I am not a lawyer, and thank goodness I am not a lawyer.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand today to say it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-68 but I am afraid I cannot. I had hoped that the hon. minister would have listened to the concerns of literally hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians across the country who have deep concerns about gun registration. Obviously he has not and has chosen to forge ahead.

I personally have received thousands of letters from people who are concerned that the Minister of Justice has confused gun control with crime control. I am sure that every other member of Parliament in the House has as well.

There is a growing perception that our justice system is not working. The justice minister and the anti-gun lobby are trying to convince everyone that if we just make it tougher to own and use a gun legally, somehow it will be harder for criminals to use them illegally. Somehow I have my doubts about that.

Our justice system was built on the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. We must work hard to maintain the integrity of that system to ensure that innocent people are not deprived of their rights for the wrong reasons.

When any program is put into place, it should be clear what the objectives are. There should be a means of evaluating its effectiveness. In this case, I feel the government has clearly failed.

What does imposing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens have to do with crime control? To use the minister's own words, how does registration make Canada a safer, more civilized place to live? In 1993 the Auditor General said that we do not have statistics indicating whether previous gun control legislation has had any effect on the misuse of firearms.

The results of just one short term evaluation done in 1983 were used as a basis for the even stricter gun control legislation introduced by Kim Campbell, Bill C-17 in 1991. When Bill C-17 was passed, there was no real proof that the new laws or regulations would meet the government's crime control objectives.

This justice minister has introduced legislation with some very clear crime control measures, such as stiffer penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime or for weapons trafficking. However, in the same bill he has included restrictions on honest citizens who he cannot demonstrate have anything to do with the problem.

I object to the minister lumping measures against criminals in with measures against law-abiding citizens. I object to the implication that responsible gun owners are somehow guilty of a moral deficiency or harbouring criminal intentions simply because they own a gun. I am referring to such measures as mandatory registration and powers of search and seizure without a warrant.

In parts of my riding, every household has at least one gun. The police have been handed the power to search businesses and premises other than dwellings, without a warrant. The minister has created a new category of criminals in this country.

Where I grew up in northern B.C., someone is a criminal if they do something illegal, if they actively go out and break the law. This bill makes honest Canadian citizens criminals subject to a 10 year prison term if they do not do something. If they fail to register their .22 they can be thrown in prison for up to 10 years.

Ten years was the penalty Denis Lortie got for murdering three people and wounding 13 others in the Quebec National Assembly. Ten years is the maximum penalty this minister is seeking for a young offender who commits premeditated first degree murder. Is this minister saying that because someone fails to register their gun they must be going to commit murder or rob a bank?

This legislation is a slap in the face to every law-abiding gun owner in Canada. This government tells us that we need tougher gun laws against legal gun owners because stolen guns are used by criminals. Where is the proof that registration will prevent even one death? The government does not have any.

If crime prevention is not the objective of registration, then what is? Murder rates in Canada have remained relatively stable over the last 15 years. Yet in April, the justice minister reacted to two high profile murders in Ottawa and Toronto by floating a proposal for a total ban on guns within city limits. Who did he think would be affected by such a ban, the criminals?

Tougher gun control legislation in many states has had no discernible impact on gun violence. In the United States 93 per cent of the guns used in homicides were apparently acquired illegally. New Zealand and Australia found registration did not help the police. It did not seem to have any tangible aim and did not help at the scene of a crime when the offender stole, borrowed or found a firearm.

What about in Canada? Here the government does not keep statistics on the use of illegally versus legally owned guns in the commission of crimes. Why not? Would they not support the government's position?

Last June I asked the Minister of Justice to prove to law-abiding gun owners that they are part of the crime problem before he enacts even tougher laws. We want proof that tighter restrictions for people who respect the law will prevent the criminals who do not respect the law from getting their hands on guns. Eight months later we are still waiting for an answer.

Restricted and prohibited firearms are already registered. What has their registration done to prevent crime? In most cases where restricted and presumably registered guns are used in crimes the government does not even know if the criminal bought the firearm legally. It does not keep records. There are already 1.2 million registered firearms in the country and this government does not have a clue how many of them were used in crimes because it does not ask. It knows guns used in crime were smuggled into the country and I fully support tougher measures against gun smuggling.

Why is the minister taking rights away from people who are not criminals? The hypocrisy of selling universal registration as crime control is readily apparent to everyone.

We know that thousands of guns are smuggled into the country all the time. What is the point of borders and laws if we cannot or will not enforce them? If we cannot close our borders to cigarette smuggling how much more difficult is it going to be when the government finally gets serious about gun smuggling? When will the government take a stand and give the police or the army the mandate to stop international trade in arms?

I visited with police in the Cornwall area. The minister and other members opposite like to talk about how they have the support of the police forces. Everyone knows gun smuggling is going on down there but they have not been able to stop it. When I questioned the police as to why they have not been able to stop the smuggling they said to me: "Why should we risk ourselves with a small revolver against automatic weapons? When we

apprehend these people, we make an arrest, we get them into court and they get off with a slap on the wrist".

Their message to me was to get tough with the people who are misusing and abusing firearms rather than legislate a useless registration system.

I hope this government's anti-smuggling legislation works better than its anti-cigarette campaign. I understand cigarette use has increased dramatically since this government lowered the taxes a year ago. I hope the plan is not to lower the taxes on guns to combat smuggling.

Bill C-68 has some tough laws on trafficking. Under sections 99 and 100 of part III of the Criminal Code a weapons trafficker will get up to 10 years. I also notice that tucked away in section 110(v) of the Firearms Act the governor in council can pass regulations "respecting the manner in which any provision of this act or the regulation applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application".

The question has been asked and will repeatedly be asked whether this legislation will apply equally to all Canadians. The minister's reply throws more confusion when he says yes, but with flexibility toward the aboriginal people. What does this mean? Canadians need to know.

The justice minister maintains that the government is not effectively destroying the value of the prohibited handguns because Bill C-68 creates a class of gun owners they can trade with. This class is defined as any current gun owner who legally owned one of the newly prohibited guns on or before Tuesday, February 14. Considering that date I wonder if Bill C-68 is not just a Valentine's present by the minister to Wendy Cukler of the Coalition for Gun Control.

Does that really protect their investment in these guns? Over time the class of owners will dwindle through attrition. Fewer and fewer people will be allowed to buy these guns and eventually there would be only one avid collector in possession of half a million guns. When he or she dies all those guns will be confiscated by the crown. Will they get fair compensation for those firearms if he or she tries to sell them before they die? There will only be a few collectors allowed to buy them. Do not tell me that fair compensation will be offered. Do not tell me or the country that their market will be stable.

Last year a young Edmonton mother, Barb Danelesko, was savagely murdered in a home invasion. Do you think she could have convinced a firearms officer that she needed to protect herself or her children? Recently one young offender found guilty for that crime was handed a three-year sentence.

Under Bill C-68, if Mrs. Danelesko had had an unregistered firearm at her disposal for her defence and had survived, she would have had to face up to 10 years for non-compliance. Where is the balance? Where is the justice?

Proven criminals receive fewer years than this minister wants to give responsible hunters who have done nothing wrong but failed to register their shotgun.

Many people, especially those living in cities, do not believe the ability to protect your home and family is a legitimate reason to own a gun. The justice minister certainly does not believe it.

Less than a year ago he said he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers. This is a sobering thought for millions of responsible gun owners in Canada. With the introduction of Bill C-68 he is one step closer to fulfilling his goal.

He also said he did not want Canadians to think they needed to protect themselves. I have news for him. With our over burdened police forces and court system, most Canadians already know they need to protect themselves.

Guns are a necessary part of life for many people in northern B.C. Farmers need them for predator control. Trappers and guides use them every day in their work. Hunters use them to help stock their freezers. Many of us also believe that we should be able to use guns for personal protection, to defend our homes, our families and our property.

The criminals laugh while the rest of us become their victims and have our civil liberties taken away. This is how the Liberal government deals with gun related violence. People need to be able to defend themselves in situations in which the police, as much as they would like to, cannot.

In Edmonton a man shot at intruders in his yard and he is the one facing charges. The papers called the thwarted robber the victim. If we are to have true justice the rights of the innocent defending their homes must supersede the rights of the guilty who are trying to rob them.

Today the criminals are called the victims and society apologizes for their behaviour. Meanwhile responsible citizens have more of their rights infringed upon because the police and the courts cannot keep up.

This government is trying to convince Canadians that gun control is the same thing as crime control. Maybe it is easier to go after law-abiding gun owners than after hardened criminals. I do not believe it is going to solve the crime problem and I do not think most Canadians do either.

I do recognize, however, that there are positive aspects to this legislation. If the hon. members opposite would listen, I will list the positive aspects.

For example, I applaud the changes to section 85 for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. It has been beefed up to include imitation firearms and use during flight or the attempted commission of a crime. Although the first offence only gets 1 to 14 years, subsequent offences will net a criminal 3 to 14 to be served consecutively to any other sentence related to the same event.

However, these changes are meaningless if the charge is plea bargained away in our overcrowded courts. On the first offence a criminal would also be prohibited from owning a gun for 10 years. If he or she violates this prohibition order, they are subject to a maximum 10-year sentence. It does not say if it is consecutive.

I have some questions about whether the 10-year maximum for violation of the prohibition could ever get tacked on to a maximum 14-year sentence for using a gun in another crime. I think a potential 24-year sentence for using a firearm again would certainly make some criminals think twice before acquiring yet another gun for illegal purposes.

Making sentences tougher on the books will not mean anything to criminals if our judges will not impose sentences consistently or if gun charges are plea bargained away. Imposing a mandatory minimum sentence for armed crimes has no deterrent effect if criminals do not get a consistent message.

The minister has given law enforcement officers greater powers under this bill for search and seizure. The police need to be able to go into a domestic violence situation with the ability to remove firearms while the situation is still out of control.

However, this minister has given police far greater powers. Under section 117.02 police officers can enter any premises, except dwellings, without a warrant if they suspect someone has not registered their shotgun. Why does this justice minister believe people sign away their rights to privacy simply because they choose to own a gun?

I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 112 which says many regulations made by the governor in council do not have to be laid before the House. I find it very disturbing that further regulations can be made with respect to the Firearms Act or part III of the Criminal Code without coming before Parliament.

A small handful of people can make regulations affecting millions of gun owners and there is no public accountability or scrutiny before going into effect. I do not believe it is right that a handful of bureaucrats should be able to make regulations that can land Canadian citizens in prison.

The Minister of Justice believes Canadians widely support all of his gun control initiatives as we have heard countless times in the past and again today. Why does he not have the courage to place all orders in council related to his Firearms Act before the House? Why does Bill C-68 make it so explicit that regulations can be passed without parliamentary approval?

More important, why does he not separate his new Firearms Act pertaining to legal gun owners from his amendments to part III of the Criminal Code dealing with criminals? He has said in the House today that the reason he has drafted the Firearms Act is to address the concerns expressed by legitimate firearms owners, that they feel certain violations pertaining to them should not fall under the Criminal Code.

If he is convinced this has widespread support, he should have the courage to separate these two issues and defend each on its own merits.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the rhetoric flow, having it interfaced with an appeal to common sense. That is what we ask for, to see some common sense in the gun legislation in this country. The hon. member mentioned there are estimates which range from five million to as high as 12 million firearms and long guns unregistered in the country.

The registration of handguns has been in effect since 1934. We have had 60 years of registration and it has done nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring and using handguns for criminal purposes.

I ask the hon. member for a succinct answer, if possible, because I know his time is up. How will registration of long guns be more successful than the registration of handguns has been?

He also mentioned experts who say that registration will work and that "it will save countless numbers of lives" I believe was the term. Name the experts. We would love to know who the experts are who claim that registration will save lives.

[Gun Control, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the justice minister's plan is fundamentally flawed. Under his plan these individuals will only be allowed to transfer their guns to the crown, to the police or to a few authorized businesses that are licensed to acquire prohibited firearms.

Could the justice minister tell the thousands of responsible gun owners who now own these guns if they are going to get a fair price, considering he has drastically reduced the market?

[Gun Control, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, under the justice minister's gun control legislation tabled earlier today hundreds of thousands of firearms legally acquired by law-abiding citizens will now be effectively confiscated.

How does the minister justify his government's confiscation of private property?

[Petitions, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting petitions signed by 1,563 of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River.

The petitioners feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from acquiring guns for illegal means. Therefore they ask Parliament to support laws that punish criminals using firearms, support, recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and abolish any existing gun control laws that have proven ineffective.

I concur and fully endorse these petitions.