Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice deceived us, fooled us, took us for a ride with the help of the Prime Minister himself. He had been promising a new gun control act for months, instead we get lip service from the minister.
In September, the minister said that he would table a bill in November and today he has the nerve to tell this House that it will be delayed until February. And we are supposed to trust him!
We will not, Mr. Speaker. We took his word for it, but we will not be caught a second time. We no longer believe the justice minister's promises.
There is nothing before us today, but good intentions. A ministerial statement does not commit the government to anything in particular. The justice minister may very well change his mind again tomorrow morning, and we will not be any further ahead, we will be at a standstill. Since the past is an indication of the future, the minister will probably change his mind and postpone the tabling of his bill till kingdom comes.
I find it very suspicious to see the minister wriggle out of it. Obviously, even if he takes the trouble to deny it, he yielded to the gun lobby to which several of his cabinet colleagues belong. A vocal minority easily won him over in spite of his supposedly strongly held beliefs.
On September 22, the minister stated in the House that the Liberal government was "going to deal with illegal firearms in this country, toughen the criminal law in its response to those who use firearms in the commission of offences, and deal with the regulation of firearms in the hand of lawful owners in a
manner consistent with safety in our society". When, Mr. Speaker, when?
The same day, the justice minister stated that he had spent the summer consulting with Canadians. In response to one of my questions, he said, and I quote: "I spent most of the summer consulting Canadians throughout the country and I listened to what they had to say". Either he is hard-of-hearing or he listened only to what the pro-gun lobby has to say. Apparently, nothing positive has transpired from these consultations. We are still dealing with good intentions.
Today, the minister tell us that now is the time to act. What is stopping him? It seems that action does not mean the same thing across the way as it does on our side of the House. On this side, when we say the time has come to act, it means that appropriate action is being taken and, in the present case, it should have taken the form of a gun control bill. But for the Minister of Justice, now means three months down the road, maybe.
The minister quoted disturbing statistics: "on average, one woman every six days is shot to death in this country". How many more will have died three months from now?
Does the minister need a better reason to act? He should realize that the longer he waits, the worse it is. With its action plan, the government is sitting on the fence.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if can you hear, as I do, the noise coming from the back, but I must admit it interferes with my concentration.