Debates of Feb. 27th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was so put off by all these points of order that I forgot that I do have a question to answer today. Question No. 115 will be answered today.

Question No. 115-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

With respect to the $4.8 million grant to build a museum of industry in the riding of Saint-Maurice, ( a ) under what program was this grant awarded, ( b ) what guidelines were followed to the awarding of such a grant, ( c ) how many permanent and part time jobs were created and ( d ) how many contracts have been awarded and to what companies and/or individuals?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the department of human Resources and the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, FORD-Q, as follows:

In so far as Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, is concerned:

a) b) and c) The Centre de l'interprétation de l'industrie de Shawinigan Inc., CII, is administered by a council of community workers, comprised of a variety of citizens. The building it is operating in at the moment is owned by Hydro-Quebec. Presently funding for this building is provided by five groups: ALCAN, Stone Console-Division Belgo, pulp and paper mill, Hydro-Quebec, the city of Shawinigan and the city of Shawinigan-South.

In the last four years HRDC has been providing the centre with local employment development projects, indirect funding. The centre acts as the sponsor for these training programs.

To date Human Resources Development Canada has committed a total of $1,212,359 toward the Centre de l'interprétation de l'industrie de Shawinigan Inc.

*The program is just beginning and at this time it is too early to estimate the number of people who will be employed during the next three operating years.

The guidelines followed can be found in the ED component of the employment manual, which inculdes several volumes. However, all Canada employment centres are equipped with these manuals.

In so far as the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, (FORD-Q), is concerned:

a) b) and c) FORD-Q has awarded a contribution of $3.5 million to the Centre de l'interprétation de l'industrie de Shawinigan Inc., CII, under the regional development program, RDP. This CII project is eligible for assistance as a facility that will foster regional economic development and should create 300 jobs during the construction phase.

In addition, the centre will generate 40 direct jobs for its operations and 200 indirect jobs among concession holders, subcontractors and other firms in the region once it is up and running.

In the short term the centre will stimulate a variety of other tourism investments, particularly in the accommodation sector, in addition to helping to consolidate regional economic infrastructure. As well, it will contribute to preserving regional industrial heritage.

d) The responsibility for the different contracts lies with CII.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Firearms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought they were going to continue with questions from before question period. Is that correct?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, I missed the question because I was speaking with the clerk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the procedure in which we were going to complete the questions that occurred before question period, before debate ceased. Are we going to continue with debate?

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is continuing with debate because the secretary of state has not returned to the Chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago the Minister of Justice was quoted in a number of newspapers as saying that he believed that only the police and military should have guns.

We have been through Bill C-68 and it is clear to me and will soon be clear to all Canadians that the minister has taken the first step toward achieving this personal objective.

After reading this legislation it is also clear that the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues have confused gun control with crime control. Anyone who studies this issue for more than a couple of hours will realize that there is no connection between controlling the legal use of guns by law-abiding gun owners and reducing crime.

The Minister of Justice cannot tell us specifically how controlling guns and registering guns will reduce crime, and the Bloc has made that similar observation.

The minister keeps saying that chiefs of police have asked for it. The minister cannot hide behind that answer forever. Sooner or later he has to be responsible for answering his own questions. He has to defend his legislation with reasoned arguments and not expect others outside this House to come to his rescue.

If I start to sound angry during my remarks it is because not only am I expressing my own dissatisfaction, disappointment and disgust with the Liberal government's costly, intrusive, bureaucratic and ineffective legislation, but I am also expressing the outrage I read in the more than 1,000 letters I have received and the outrage that I hear in the hundreds of phone calls we receive, and the outrage I hear when I walk the streets of the communities in my constituency, and the absolute outrage I hear when I attend rally after rally of responsible, law-abiding citizens, whether in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Alberta or Nova Scotia. The outrage that these people express to me wherever I go is something this government must consider.

I support some of the provisions in the government's proposals calling for tougher sanctions for violent criminals and its proposed attempts to control the smuggling of firearms. I support some of these measures because they will really help control crime. Laws do not make people good but they do help to restrain evil.

On the other hand, because there is no evidence or convincing argument to show that public safety will be improved I will oppose ineffective proposals to register rifles and shotguns and the banning of firearms or any measures which would further restrict the ownership of handguns, scary looking guns, semi-automatic rifles, crossbows, and the banning of firearms or any measures which would further restrict the ownership of these, even replica toy guns.

If the Liberal Party can demonstrate how registration of all firearms is the most cost effective way of improving public safety, reducing violent crime and saving the most lives I and most Canadians will support the minister's proposals if he can show that they are the most cost effective method. This he has not done. He fails to answer this challenge and therefore we must oppose this legislation.

I repeat my personal position. I support cost effective gun controls which improve public safety and reduce the criminal use of firearms and if elected I will work to repeal ineffective gun controls which do not meet these objectives.

Another Reform principle from our party constitution says that it is the duty of all members of Parliament to their constituents that should supersede their obligation to their political parties. Reform MPs are duty bound to represent their constituents' wishes on this issue. I only hope that the Liberal government has the courage to let their members of Parliament do the same.

If the Liberal Party would allow a free vote on this bill I think we would really see whether there is broad public support for this. We would see whether that is true, as the minister claims.

I think it would prove that the Liberal Party believes in true democracy between elections as well as during them. I wish it would come clean on this issue and allow that free vote to take place.

Whether a Canadian is a gun owner or not here are some principles on which this legislation should be judged. I encourage every voter to inform themselves, to judge this legislation against their own personal beliefs, not what the government, not what the media, not what the politicians are telling them. This is one nasty piece of legislation. It will affect not only our lives but also the lives of our children and our grandchildren.

The Minister of Justice is right, the legislation is about the kind of country we want to live in. Canadians owe it to themselves and the next generation to get it right. Their safety, the safety of their families, their friends, their homes and their properties is at stake.

If Canadians believe in less government and less bureaucracy then they will not support this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in less government spending then they will not support this bill. If Canadians believe in lower taxes, they will not support this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, then they will not support this gun control legislation. If Canadians believe in every citizen's right to private property, then they will definitely not support this gun control legislation.

If Canadians believe in true equality and that the law should be applied equally regardless of their race or where they live, then they will not like what they read in this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in every citizen's constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person, then they will oppose this gun control bill with every ounce of energy they have.

If Canadians believe in everyone's right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family, their property and their home, as described in the Criminal Code of Canada, then they will not like what they read in this gun control bill. If Canadians believe the federal government should not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, then they will not support this gun control bill.

A recent survey conducted by Simon Fraser University learned that support for the Liberal Party's firearm registration system drops significantly as the respondents' knowledge of existing gun control laws increases and the full cost of the measures is understood.

In his attempts to confuse the issue of gun control with the issue of crime control, the minister has included some things in his legislation which I support. I maintain that if the Minister of Justice is really interested in public safety he will divide this bill into two parts. Part one would be crime control and part two would be gun control. Even though there are some monumental flaws with the crime control provisions of the bill, I think we could fix those and ensure easy passage through the House so that the police could use these tools to put real criminals behind bars where they should be.

Here is a list of measures in the bill which I think could be modified and amended and which I could support because they truly concern crime. I would support the four-year mandatory minimum sentence for the 10 violent offences committed with a firearm as long as the word firearm was replaced with the word weapon. More people are murdered with knives and other weapons than with guns. I think any criminal who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime should be subject to the same mandatory jail term.

I support using section 85 of the Criminal Code effectively, but again this mandatory sentencing provision should be extended to any weapon used in a crime, not just firearms.

I support the lifetime prohibition from possessing a restricted weapon for the conviction of violent crimes. I also support the inclusion of replica or imitation firearms under section 85 of the Criminal Code. I support the new offences for large scale smuggling and trafficking of firearms. I support the new offences for possessing stolen or smuggled firearms of a one-year minimum jail sentence. I support adding firearms trafficking to the list of enterprise crime offences.

I oppose the banning of 553,000 handguns. I oppose the banning of 19,000 restricted firearms. However, I support the proposed firearms possession certificate, in principle anyway. I support the offence for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. I support the 10-year prohibition on possession of firearms to those convicted of serious firearms offences. I support the prohibition on possession of firearms for those convicted of stalking and drug offences. I support the tighter border controls, the inspection procedures by Canada customs. Also, I support the forfeiture of vehicles used in smuggling contraband and the proceeds of smuggling activities. I support the requirement for import-export permits for firearms moving across the border for commercial use.

I also support the requirement to record the entry or exit of firearms to or from Canada by tourists and outfitters. I add that these people bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our country, creating thousands of jobs and tourists should not be needlessly harassed at our borders.

I support the provision of minor's permits for persons between 12 and 18 to acquire firearms. I support the extension of authority to approve firearm safety courses to the provinces.

I also support the creation of a separate safety course for handgun users and I support the use of valuable police time and scarce tax revenues on cost effective crime control.

This is a list of the things I support. Because gun control measures will do next to nothing to deter real criminals from obtaining or using firearms, and because these measures are not a cost effective way of improving public safety, I will vote against the bill unless they are changed.

Here is a list of reasons why I am opposed to the gun control legislation. I oppose the mandatory registration of all rifles and shotguns and the provision that would make failing to register them a criminal offence. This will do nothing but make criminals out of law-abiding people.

Here are a few reasons why I oppose mandatory registration of all rifles and shotguns. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not a cost effective way of improving public safety or saving lives. It will not help police investigate and prosecute violent criminals. It will not alter police procedures for dealing with domestic disputes. It will not reduce the use of firearms in violent crime.

It will keep the police off the street and in the office, not where they should be. It will require more government bureaucracy, not less. It will require an increase in taxes in the form of registration fees. It will also require other members of society to pay those taxes because the initial registration fees will be waived. It will target law-abiding responsible gun owners, not real criminals. It will help trace firearms but tracing will serve no real useful purpose.

Gun smugglers can already be identified without a registration system. Handgun registration has been in effect since 1934 and has not reduced handgun crime. Registration has been tried and failed in Australia and New Zealand. Hundreds of millions could save more lives if spent elsewhere.

It will have a negative effect on a billion dollar economy. It will undermine respect for the law. I cannot emphasize this more. There are jokes going around. There are ads in the newspapers in my province showing people how to hide their guns. They openly advocate that this law will not be complied with.

We have a huge problem when we put in place a law that everyone regards as being useless. It undermines respect for the law, and we must take that into consideration. We need to maintain that respect. People know this will do nothing to make society safer. In fact it will do the exact opposite. I do not have time today to go into them but there are very valid reasons for opposing the legislation because it will actually increase the risk for most people.

I am particularly opposed to the extreme penalties for persons failing to register their rifles and shotguns: a one-year mandatory jail term and up to 10 years in jail if one fails to fill out that little card the minister says is so easy. Denis Lortie killed three people and only spent 10 years in jail. Where is the justice in this legislation? It defies common sense.

I also oppose the added tax burden on law-abiding citizens, the responsible gun owners, through registration fees, permit fees, and renewal fees. Like I said before, I oppose the banning of legally owned handguns, scary looking semi-automatic rifles and so on, and the banning of all replica toy guns. I oppose those kinds of measures.

I oppose the restrictions on crossbows, the banning of one-hand crossbows and the additional restrictions on air guns. I oppose the prohibition and confiscation of guns without fair, just and timely compensation. I oppose the confiscation of thousands of firearms without compensation when the owner dies.

I oppose the use it or lose it provision which requires law-abiding handgun owners to re-establish their reason for owning a handgun every five years. I oppose the proposed controls on the purchase of ammunition and the additional and unnecessary controls on legitimate gun collectors. I oppose the prohibition of entire households from having firearms because of the actions of a single resident.

I oppose the exemption of certain Canadian citizens from firearms prohibition orders. All Canadians should be treated equally under the law and in this case under this law. I oppose the requirement of an import-export permit for bringing a personal use firearm into Canada.

I oppose the expanded use of orders in council to restrict or prohibit firearms. I oppose the different application of the firearms laws for remote and aboriginal communities. Canadians should be treated equally regardless of where they live, regardless of their race, and regardless of their occupation. I oppose the waste of valuable police time and scarce tax revenue on useless, ineffective gun controls.

I have 28 amendments here. At this time I will not read them all out. I have gone through a lot of things already. I think we need to have a debate because there are many things that need to be addressed. I will hold this up at a later date.

In closing, I make five recommendations to the government. I recommend holding separate votes for crime control provisions and gun control provisions. We should separate those.

I recommend early passage of crime control provisions with consideration of Reform amendments to really get tough on violent criminals.

I recommend a free vote on all gun control provisions in the bill, especially the sections relating to implementation of the universal registration system.

I recommend a delay in implementation of universal registration systems to see if increased sanctions and new criminal offences, that is the crime controls proposed by the Liberal government and Reform, are effective in reducing violent crime.

I recommend the inclusion of a sunset clause amendment that would automatically repeal any gun control provision that is not effective in reducing violent crime or approving public safety.

Finally, I have a message for seven million gun owners in Canada. They should not give up. The fight for the kind of Canada we all want to live in has begun in earnest. I encourage them to write letters to both federal and provincial politicians. They should send petitions to their MPs, write letters to the editor, phone in to hotline radio and television shows, get involved in a political party that best represents their views and help to organize and attend rallies. Whatever you do-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The member may have forgotten that all his remarks are supposed to go to whoever is in the Chair. I would invite him to do so for the remainder of his talk.

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

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I get involved and forget.

My advice is not to break the law of the land but to work to change it by all legal means possible. Bad laws can be repealed if a truly democratic party is in power. If we have the support of the majority of Canadians we can do it.

I fear a government that will not listen to the people a lot more than I fear a law-abiding citizen with a gun. In conclusion I would like to move the following motion:

That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.

I submit this motion to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will reserve on the motion while it is being brought forward. We will deal with questions and comments while the motion is being looked at.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

I have a few comments before asking a question of the member opposite who just spoke. He made some reference to aboriginal people being treated exactly the same as the rest of Canadians, with which I agree on certain issues. However the hon. member will understand that the aboriginal people in the country are the only people who hunt as a way of life. They have always hunted.

I would like to quote Voltaire who said: "Prejudice is what fools will choose for reason". That is basically what the hon. member is saying in refusing to recognize the fact that we have always been here, longer than anybody else, and we have always hunted. We still hunt to this day. When people arrived after us we helped them to settle in.

As an aboriginal person I have some very strong feelings about the issue of hunting and about the issue of gun control. I think by and large Canadian people as a whole support some form of gun control. I believe, unlike the hon. member, that the majority of Canadians support the gun control measures being put forward by the Minister of Justice.

As an aboriginal person I view guns and rifles as having one use other than military and law enforcement, that is hunting. I have absolutely no use for handguns. Nobody can convince me that we need handguns. Basically they are used to kill people. Nobody can convince me that there is a useful reason for automatics. We are not going to hunt with automatics. Some semi-automatics may be used for hunting, but by and large most semi-automatics should not be used for hunting. If persons are using semi-automatics for hunting it means they do not have enough confidence in themselves to use a bolt action rifle which shoots one bullet at a time and then they have to reload.

It has been proven through various polls that most Canadians support some form of gun control. I read in the paper some time ago that a member of the Reform Party conducted a poll and found that 67 per cent of his constituents supported the gun control measures being put forward today. However that hon. member would still vote against gun control.

Reform members have been shouting from the rooftops that theirs is a grassroots organization. They find that the grassroots support gun control but they will not listen to the grassroots; they will vote their conscience even against the grassroots people. That seems to be hypocrisy if we are talking about democracy and grassroots. The majority of the grassroots people say they want gun control measures put in place but Reform members do not think that way.

Reform Party members should come clean and decide whether they will vote in favour of what the majority of Canadians want

or vote for their individual interests rather than the collective interests of the people of Canada.

As an aboriginal person I have some concerns. As a member representing per capita probably the largest number of gun owners, I have some concerns. I will convey them to the Minister of Justice to ensure that they are heard.

I think the people in my riding of Nunatsiaq are ready to support the Minister of Justice to ensure that Canada is a safer place to live. Canada can be made a safer place to live.

I suggest that hon. members listen to their constituents. If the majority say to support the gun control measures then they should listen to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the allegations made by the hon. member with regard to prejudice. I would ask that he withdraw them. Because we say all Canadians should be treated equally, I do not think that is prejudice. I would ask him to withdraw that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member is welcome to say that as a response.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member was prejudiced. I said that the attitude put out by some members is prejudicial. When I quoted Voltaire that prejudice is what fools use for reason, an awful lot of things can be hidden under some words. I did not say that the member was prejudiced. If I did not say that the member was prejudiced, then I have no reason to withdraw my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to pursue this any further.

Is the hon. member going to vote for or against this legislation? Has he consulted his constituents as we have? We have done surveys. We found that initially, over 80 per cent of the people surveyed knew virtually nothing about this legislation. As they became more informed, opposition to this bill rose to as high as 90 per cent.

They realized how this was going to put society more at risk. They realized how this was going to give criminals access to firearms that they did not previously have. They realized how this was going to tie up the police in some useless paperwork. They realized how this was going to be a tax imposition upon them, how it would destroy more jobs and would put more young people out on the streets who probably would get into more trouble and put us more at risk.

They began to see that this was a useless bureaucratic political manoeuvre to try to put something across on the Canadian people. It would make them think the government was doing something to make society safer when in fact it is not.

As the member quotes these polls, he had better go back and find out exactly what he is doing. A very narrow view is being expressed here.

The hon. member just said that only some people of certain race subsistence hunt. That is not true. It is absolutely false. Many people in this country appreciate nature. They use handguns in many ways besides killing people. The allegation he made that guns are only for killing people is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know where this member is coming from. There are many other uses for guns. I do not accept that argument.

The member made many other statements that were not true. I ask the Canadian public to really look at this question in depth. Examine what this government has put forward. It is a convoluted complex bill and cannot be supported in its present form.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and answers has expired. The member has not had a ruling on the validity of his motion. It will be provided as quickly as it can. It is being studied very carefully.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, legislation which addresses the fundamental right of all Canadians to a safe, non-violent, non-threatening society. I am speaking in support of legislative reforms carefully crafted and presented by the Minister of Justice involving amendments to the Criminal Code and the creation of a new firearms act.

For many years Canadians have watched in horror the increasing use of handguns, assault weapons and rifles in the commission of crimes. In recent years our North American society has become increasingly immune to daily doses of violence, death and injury. Television newscasts and videos feed Canadian viewers a steady stream of carnage. Some of us are shocked; many have become numb as we grow accustomed to the daily onslaught.

In the United States thousands of people are killed each year by handguns. Hundreds of thousands are injured and many are permanently disabled. Yet Americans strangely cling to the notion of a frontier mentality and the right to settle arguments with a gun. A new handgun is produced every 20 seconds in the United States to feed a voracious demand.

Our society is awash in American imagery and attitudes. The U.S. media has slowly changed our long established tradition of law, order and peaceful tolerance. The locked doors and barred windows of the United States have crept north as has the American fascination with handguns.

Thirty years ago a domestic dispute in the city of Toronto would rarely if ever involve a handgun. Now police approach every situation as potentially lethal. Thirty years ago police officers did not need SWAT teams, bullet-proof vests or increasingly powerful service revolvers against suspects who are routinely better equipped with the latest weaponry. Just this past week metro Toronto police received permission to carry shotguns inside their cruisers instead of in the trunks of their cars.

There is no doubt whatsoever that our society is becoming more violent than Canadians will tolerate. But how are we different from our friends to the south? What makes us want to take charge of this situation and return order to Canadian streets?

Fortunately, the vast majority of Canadians continue to abhor violence in all its forms. We are still shockable. We can still be touched. We are still willing to fight back. We are not ready to install metal detectors in our schools or huddle behind locked gates and barred windows after dark. From across Canada, this government and every member of this House has heard the message: Get the guns off the streets.

Ninety-six per cent of Canadians support increased penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. This bill addresses those Canadians. Ninety per cent favour the registration of all firearms. This bill addresses those Canadians. Fully 70 per cent want tighter gun control laws, restricted access to ammunition and a complete ban on civilian ownership of handguns. This legislation addresses those Canadians.

The issue of violence affects each of us in a profound way. My late father, Ed Janozeski, was a sharpshooter, a gun instructor and a dedicated metro Toronto police officer for 37 years. He watched the use of firearms increase, especially in his last years on the force. He grew increasingly frustrated as legislators seemed unwilling to do anything about it.

Each member of this House knows of an instance where friends, family or acquaintances have been devastated by the misuse of firearms. Every year 1,400 Canadians die as a result of gunshot wounds and another 1,200 are injured. Sadly, the majority are suicides, impulsive acts committed by those who have easy access to guns. Fifty women are killed each year, shot in their own homes by a family member.

Surprisingly, homicide rates from firearms are 50 per cent higher in rural Canada. One hundred persons die accidentally each year while hunting or otherwise handling a firearm. Some of these people are children.

Three million Canadians own seven million firearms, 1.2 million in the restricted category. Vast numbers of illegal, smuggled and unregistered guns add to this arsenal. Between 1974 and 1993, 65,000 firearms were reported missing, lost or stolen and have never been recovered.

Even with all legal weapons registered, criminals will still find handguns. Accidents and suicides will still occur. Are these sensible, rational arguments for doing nothing?

Acceptance of the status quo is acceptance of defeat. The enormity of the task cannot freeze us into inaction. If we start today the net result over time will be significantly fewer handguns in private hands. Those handguns will be in the safer hands of legitimate sport shooters, hunters and collectors.

A highly efficient computerized system will distinguish legal from illegal firearms and will track them. Police officers when approaching a reported domestic dispute will know if there are weapons in the house. Responsible safe storage by registered gun owners will become a necessity.

Will violent crime cease immediately? No one is foolish enough to believe that. Criminals will not register their firearms or produce a licence to purchase ammunition. But the underground market fed to a great extent by smuggled and stolen firearms will begin to dry up. Registration will permit tracking of imported guns and seizure of unregistered ones. Registration will also encourage safe storage and the availability of fewer stolen firearms.

Through a series of new hard hitting penalties this government is also saying loudly and clearly: Use a weapon and you will face the stiffest penalties in the western world, a minimum of four years in jail for the use of a firearm in any of 10 specific offences.

Police will have a law with teeth enabling them to lock up criminals in possession of stolen firearms before a crime occurs. Those attempting to use replicas to intimidate and terrorize will face a minimum one year sentence.

Our border, the longest unprotected border in the world, will no longer be an easy entry for those trafficking in firearms. Now you will face 10 years in jail and forfeit all vehicles used in the commission of this crime.

The new legislation will outlaw 60 per cent of all handguns currently available for purchase in Canada, all assault-type military and paramilitary weapons, many of which are designed for concealment and terrorist activities. They have absolutely no place in Canadian society.

To acquire and keep handguns, owners will have to provide one of only two valid reasons for doing so: to add to a legitimate collection, or to use in sport or target shooting. This would have to be justified every five years. The single most objectionable requirement in the eyes of the gun lobby is simple: all firearms and all owners of firearms will have to be registered. Contrary to popular myth, the registration of weapons is not new to Canada.

The first nationwide permit system was introduced in 1892, the registration of handguns in 1932.

Of 1.2 million handguns registered to 560,000 Canadians, only 10 per cent have applied for a permit which allows for transportation of a handgun to and from a shooting club. Canadians are apparently more interested in owning than in using these firearms.

The registration of 5.8 million firearms will be phased in over seven years. Frankly, the tired old argument that registration failed in New Zealand does not hold. Modern computer technology will make this task efficient, simple and cost effective. We routinely register automobiles, mortgages, driver's licences, building permits and dogs. To argue that a national registration system would be onerous is to ignore the electronic advancement of our generation.

Registration should not pose any threat to legitimate, responsible gun owners. In fact, they should welcome it. Only the most paranoid of individuals have expressed the fear that big brother is watching.

In reality, orderly registration will deter theft and smuggling and will assist police. Ultimately, registration will bring the responsible gun owner into a partnership with the enforcement agencies. It will be a partnership based on trust, competence, access to information and accountability.

I know much has been said of the opposition to this legislation. Change is not always easy to accept. We live in an increasingly hostile and violent society. We cannot abandon it to the spiral of violence that will fundamentally change Canada for generations to come. We must take the strongest and most effective measures possible to respond to those of us who want a peaceful, safe and tolerant society.

My colleague from across the floor, the hon. member for Calgary Centre recently said in the House that if you identify your problem correctly, 60 per cent of your solution is before you. I believe Canadians have identified the problem. This legislation is an effective and necessary beginning, moving us well on the way to a 100 per cent solution.

It is a great honour for me to speak today. I have had a rather motley political career because I have always been labelled an idealist. Sometimes things happen in politics because it is doable rather than because it is right. I am very proud of our minister and to be part of this Liberal government because I believe today we are doing what is right.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some moments ago the House received a motion asking that the bill not be read the second time.

I want to submit very briefly that it is my feeling, and I am sure that of many hon. members, that this motion is out of order because it does not state that it is against the principle of the bill, nor that the principle of the bill is defective. It does not address that issue.

It merely addresses the fact that because the bill deals with two separate issues we should not deal with it at that time. If the bill were dealing with two separate issues, the argument would be that the bill is omnibus or omnibus like, if you will, and that the Chair has consistently dealt with that issue in the past by agreeing that such legislation was in order. In any case, this bill would not be omnibus even if that argument were made.

The argument here has to do with two conflicting principles being in the bill and that being a justification for the substantive motion brought to the attention of the Chair. Those are not, in my submission, grounds that would enable a member to make the kind of motion which was brought to the floor of the House this afternoon.

Therefore I would ask the Chair to rule at the earliest opportunity that this particular motion is out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair would appreciate hearing all representations on the validity of the motion and therefore I would call on the Reform Party to make submissions on the issue.