Debates of Feb. 27th, 1995

Young Offenders Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from February 16 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

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-68. If only the people in the west could understand a little more French, they would hear the words of a Bloc member on a subject of considerable concern to them: the registration of firearms and other measures. This bill is extremely complex and has a lot of parts to it.

My first reaction, in examining the bill, was to say that I never want Quebec to become a Florida or a Texas. I am not talking about the weather, but rather the matter of carrying arms. I do not want us to do what they do in Florida or Texas, where people head out on a Saturday evening with a gun in their pocket and often end up having the misfortune of settling accounts with a gun or some other firearm.

This situation promotes violence. There is a good reason why statistics indicate a much higher rate of homicides and violent crime in the States than in Canada, even with the difference in population size. This, I feel, is one cultural difference that should be promoted in Quebec, perhaps in Canada as well. In my ideal society, with a sovereign Quebec, there will be fewer reasons for and causes of violence. I dream of a tolerant country, one that respects human values. I dream of a country where people can talk freely and democratically and where they will not need to use firearms to settle accounts.

For me, the point of supporting a sovereign Quebec, is to keep the difference, for various reasons. This is just one of many reasons, because there is a very big difference between the position taken by most Canadians and that taken by most Americans when it comes to firearms. But a similarity now seems to be arising between the two countries when we listen to the Reform Party. In their push for no restrictions on the right to

carry firearms, they have advanced certain American arguments, such as the one whereby mandatory registration of firearms or limited access to them would be an attack on personal freedom. This is utter nonsense.

It is not at all difficult to understand the Americans' point of view. The right to carry firearms is part of their culture, as it were. The West was won with guns. Far more Americans carry guns than do Canadians and, if I am not mistaken, the use of firearms is a right in the States. In fact, I wonder if it is not enshrined in the American Constitution and if Americans will therefore be obliged to live with much wider access to firearms than is permitted here in Canada.

When the statistics on homicides and violence are compared for Canada and the United States, they are, not surprisingly, much higher for the United States.

In 1991, there were 753 homicides in Canada, compared with 24,000 in the United States. These statistics are mind-boggling. They moved the judicial committee of the American Senate to declare that the United States was the most violent and self-destructive nation in the world.

Being a reasonable person, I cannot rule out the fact that the very large number of firearms in the United States contributes, in some degree, to this difference, to this very high level of violence and murders in that country. When we see, for example, in Florida or elsewhere, people using rifles to shoot at drivers on the freeway, I would rather do everything in my power to build a country where people do not have to experience such extreme, absurd violence. I would rather encourage the development of a country where violence is being reduced. I know that it is no easy task. The bottom line is that we must create an environment where people feel safe and comfortable.

People who support the free movement of or access to weapons argue that pistols or rifles provide better protection against violence. This is a frequently used argument in the U.S., where the murder rate is extremely high. There are proportionally three times as many murders in the U.S. as in Canada. Again, I do not think that getting a weapon is a good way to protect oneself. On the contrary, I think that arming oneself is an incitement to violence. All human wisdom since the beginning of western civilization demonstrates that violence begets violence. All the evidence shows that those who arm themselves are getting ready for violence.

To reduce violence in society, it would be quite reasonable to try to restrict access to firearms. After all, what are firearms for, if not for killing? Firearms are designed to shoot and kill. Firearms are extremely dangerous weapons and their access should be restricted. It is normal and reasonable for a self-respecting country to want to reduce violence in society.

Of course, sportsmen who use weapons for hunting, farmers who use them to put down sick animals or for other reasons, all those with specific reasons to use firearms should have access to them. I am not arguing with that. But, in general, firearms should be abolished or access to them should be restricted at least. Handguns have no place in the cities. No one should have access to firearms without sound reasons.

The problem is that Bill C-68 does very little in that regard. It may be a step in the right direction, but it does not do what the public wanted it to do.

Surveys have been conducted on the registration and possession of firearms. They show clearly that more than 80 per cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Quebecers wish that access to firearms were made more difficult, that it not be so easy to acquire firearms. They also wish that military assault weapons and handguns be banned and that stricter controls be imposed on the sale of firearms. That is what one public opinion poll after another has shown.

The vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers are against unrestricted access to firearms in Canada. Apparently, the government failed to represent this view in Bill C-68. We know that many interests are involved.

Besides the public at large, there are manufacturers, associations promoting the use of firearms, a number of individuals who are particularly fond of firearms, which they think are symbols of strength and power. These people seem to have a rather major influence on the government. While being in the minority, they have pressured the government into making this bill not as stringent as it could have been.

If the intent had been to come up with a serious, progressive, forward-looking bill aimed at looking after the interests of the majority, the bill would have had more teeth. I should add that Bill C-68 is not a bad piece of legislation. It contains some good provisions, while others are definitely bad.

However, it is an improvement over the current act. The intent of the bill is good. If it is felt that registering firearms will limit access to such weapons, assuming that is the underlying principle of the legislation, then it is a good thing. However, it remains to be seen whether this will indeed be the case.

This is an improvement over the old system which was absurd. In the past, anyone could buy a firearm. The buyer had to register the firearm, along with his name and address, in an inventory which was checked by the Quebec and Ontario provincial police, or by the RCMP elsewhere in the country. That was a summary verification to see if the names, addresses and serial

numbers were properly indicated. However, if the register got lost or was destroyed by fire, that was it. No trace of its contents was left.

That registration process was really a joke. It was a mere formality which had little impact and which was useless in terms of monitoring who had access to firearms.

I should point out that, along with this very limited control over the sales of firearms, the current legislation also provides for the delivery of permits to carry and store guns. However, the existing law is essentially inadequate.

Bill C-68 contains some good and some not so good provisions. If I have time to do so, I would like to make a few suggestions to improve its content.

First of all, Bill C-68 proposes to establish a licensing system for persons wishing to possess firearms. In other words, it establishes a system for the registration of all firearms. Controls in this bill include a check to confirm the absence of public safety concerns before the transfer, transport, import or export of a firearm. It imposes restrictions on other dangerous articles such as cross-bows, certain knives and silencers. It revises the Criminal Code to impose stricter sentencing, and it includes a scheme for prohibiting, as a result of criminal conduct, a person from future possession of firearms.

I think we can say that this last restriction, which would prohibit access to firearms by criminals, is entirely acceptable and desirable.

I think that any legislation that prohibits a criminal from having access to a firearm is a boon to the general public.

As far as stricter sentencing is concerned, there might be a little more to say. There are certainly some positive aspects. I will not have enough time to discuss the firearms registration mechanism as such. I would have quite a few questions about the system for the registration and storage of information and whether the proposed system is better than what we have now. There would be a lot to say about this, but unfortunately my time is limited.

There are some very good points, and I am thinking, for instance, of the obligation to register all firearms. At least the police would have a way to enforce a court order prohibiting an aggressor from possessing firearms. In addition to criminals, this would also apply to the guy who beats his wife every Saturday night. He may not have a criminal record as a bank robber or murderer, but it seems to me he should not have a weapon, at least not a firearm, in his home. He should seek treatment if he beats his wife, of course, and at least, he should not have access to a firearm. So this bill would allow the police to prohibit certain people from possessing firearms-

Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time is almost up. I thought I had twenty minutes. Are you sure I have only one minute left? I thought I had five or ten minutes left.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I may be of assistance, the hon. member started his speech at 12.55 p.m., almost twenty minutes ago.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Thank you for that information, Mr. Speaker. I shall therefore conclude very quickly by saying that this bill contains both good and bad. In my opinion, this system will be expensive. Once again, registering weapons is not a bad thing, but in looking at this bill the following questions come to mind. Will it prevent someone from registering his weapon? Will it prevent someone from killing his neighbour if he so wishes? Will it prevent a young person from committing suicide with a gun? Will registration be truly beneficial for society in the long term? Will it reduce crime rates? I rather have my doubts, Mr. Speaker.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech and I have heard remarks like violence begets violence, firearms are meant to kill, and access should be limited.

I do not know how much of the hon. member's speech related to the issue we are wrestling with in Bill C-68, that is bringing forward a bill that enhances the safety of our communities, homes and society.

If the member honestly believes the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of these firearms, would he tell the House how that will do it?

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

How will registering arms reduce the level of criminality? I do not believe it will necessarily. Bill C-68 has a great number of flaws. I really do not believe it will necessarily reduce criminality.

On the other hand registration is not such a bad thing. We register practically everything. Our cars are registered. We are registered when we are born. We are registered when we get married. Every important element and tool of one's life is registered. It is a normal fact of life. The problem is that not registering arms is abnormal. There is a certain abnormality in not registering arms particularly because arms are very dangerous tools. They are weapons.

Normally they are used to harm or kill people. I am not talking about sportsmen who hunt or farmers who use arms to protect themselves from predators. Those are very special cases. How-

ever there are other uses. I am talking about the Saturday night special, the AK-47 and other arms that are ascribed within the atmosphere of violence, protection, rights, liberty and so on. They should certainly be limited.

If registering arms could help reduce the number of arms circulating in Canada, that would be a positive step. I do not think it is harmful to anyone, even collectors who have arms or who love arms, to suggest that their arms should be registered.

As I say there are a lot of flaws in the bill, but there are positive points in the sense that the government is trying to go in the right direction.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member commented that he was not sure whether or not registration would reduce crime in Canada. I would like to pose a proposition to him and possibly he might consider whether or not crime would be affected.

Statistics have shown that since 1974 some 16,000 firearms have been reported lost, missing or stolen. We can imagine how many guns are lost, missing or stolen that have not been reported. These guns are out of the control of the legal owner. They are now out there most probably in the hands of the criminal element in society.

Certainly we can imagine that the registration of firearms brings to bear a greater responsibility on the careful gun owner and should do something to ensure that gun owners take a greater level of care.

The member may also wish to know gun clubs are now reporting that many gun owners are getting rid of their guns. Many of them report that something like 60 per cent of gun owners have not fired a gun in the last year and some 40 per cent have not fired their firearms in the last five years.

In that regard, because fewer guns would be available to the criminal element, would the member not agree that registration of firearms would reduce crime in Canada?

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legitimate use of firearms for those people who have good reason such as sportsmen and farmers, to use two examples. However I have questions about whether registration would do anything to help reduce criminality.

I have a hypothetical example. If the system worked perfectly, in other words there was a control system somewhere in Ottawa where all firearms would be listed in a little computer and we would have a complete list of all firearms everywhere in the country, does the member think those people who have illegal projects in mind might be able to get their hands on that list and determine that Joe Schmoe living on such and such a street has an awful good collection of firearms? It would incite a certain number of people to go to Joe Schmoe's house and steal all his firearms. It is a way of possibly encouraging the illegal use of firearms. Registering the firearms does not necessarily have an effect on criminality.

There is another flaw in this law. If we register firearms it will not prevent Joe Schmoe from shooting his neighbour on a Saturday night. It is not because his firearm is registered that he will not kill his neighbour. It being a registered firearm will not prevent his son or daughter from killing himself or herself. It does not prevent anything at all.

However, if the minister had been conscientious and had gone the limit, he would have demanded from the moment a firearm was sold in Canada that it had a control mechanism, in other words one needed a key to be able to use it. It can be done. Technically we can control the use of firearms in the sense that a key would be needed to open it and use it. As long as it is locked, whether it is sitting on the back seat of the car or in the living room, it could not be used as readily. One would need the key to use the firearm. At least that measure would limit the misuse of firearms.

Many other suggestions could be made, but I do not believe registering firearms would necessarily have an effect on the reduction of criminality in Canada in spite of the fact that I think this measure is a step in the right direction. Despite the fact that the Bloc will suggest improvements for the proposed law we will probably support it.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to debate Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. The debate before us is a complicated and highly emotional one for all those involved and implicated in the bill.

Aboriginal people, for instance, are worried about the potential infringement on their treaty rights. Shooters are concerned with the restrictions placed on their sport and outfitters are worried about the impact the legislation will have on their business. These are all serious concerns which if not addressed could pose some serious hardships in the north and of course in other parts of Canada.

The potential infringement the legislation could have on treaty rights and its impact on traditional aboriginal way of life are threats that aboriginal people have sought to prevent since the signing of their treaties. Treaties were signed to ensure the protection of aboriginal rights that were then entrenched in the Constitution under section 35 of the charter.

As treaty rights go or as rights go in aboriginal country, rights are considered and treated as absolute but in the reality of the political world and in the name of concessions, compromise and goodwill we are looking at some half-measures.

According to the Sparrow decision of 1990 hunting and fishing rights have been recognized by the Canadian government. It would appear to be damaging to the fragile relationship being forged between the aboriginal people and the Government of Canada if the bill infringed on these rights.

This is the concern being expressed. However I have assurances that the legislation will not infringe on these rights. Special considerations have been given to sustenance hunters and in particular aboriginal hunters who make up a large portion of all sustenance hunters.

Let me, for instance, express the concern brought forward by Mr. Sam Gargan, member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northwest Territories for Deh Cho, who said:

I have an uncle who cannot read or write. He cannot tell you what muzzle velocity means. He cannot tell you how calibres are determined. He can however tell you that you need a .303 to shoot a moose, that it is best to use a shotgun to shoot ducks, that a .22 is the best for rabbits and upland birds. He can tell you not to carry a loaded gun with a live round in the chamber. He can tell you how to safely transport a gun in a truck or a boat.

The same would apply to a skidoo. He continued:

Gun ownership is not rocket science. It is a matter of common sense. In the NWT the vast majority of gun owners have been taught gun safety at a very young age and I sincerely believe that any program on gun safety to be offered in the NWT has to be changed to fit the realities of the situation both fiscally and morally.

Mr. Gargan went on to say:

I also believe that the legislation, as it now stands, violates treaty rights as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and may well be in contradiction of the Sparrow decision-To this end I can virtually assure you that should this legislation proceed as written, there would be a court challenge from Canada's aboriginal community.

These are the words of a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the majority of whose constituents are aboriginal.

In the north the aboriginal people hunt to eat, not to harm other people. Many northern people living in isolated or remote communities cannot afford the inflated northern prices of meat. We cannot just go out and order half a side of beef at southern prices. The cost of living is 40 per cent higher.

Today in southern stores such as Loeb a kilogram of ground beef costs $3.95.

The same kilogram of beef in Deline in a community is $6.80. This makes hunting and owning a rifle not only a right but an economic reality. Hunting in an aboriginal community is also a community event. Food that is caught or that is hunted is shared with everyone. Hunters donate food to those who are unable to hunt for themselves such as elders and widowers and people who are disabled. Without firearms many in the north could not afford to eat.

My experience with firearms has been since I was a child, since as long as I can remember. In my family we learned gun safety. It was absolutely paramount. The camp where my parents go on an annual basis is in grizzly bear country. In grizzly bear country you do not just have a .22 rifle. You must have a high powered rifle. I must say if you are going to have a key mechanism to use, please do not do it when you are in grizzly bear country if you want to live to see another day.

The realities are very different around this country and I understand the intent of this bill. I understand the complexity. I understand the difficulty the minister has had to deal with this bill across the country.

I cannot imagine having the fortitude to go out there to meet the masses on such a complicated and emotional bill. I would like to say that I admire this man for having done that. However, the debate rolls on and the bill has gone to committee. The bill is being debated today. There are a number of special things that will happen.

My hon. colleague across the way from the Bloc Quebecois indicated that most times the use of firearms is intended to hurt or kill another person. That has not been my experience. It has allowed us to live. It has allowed us to overcome difficulties.

During the war, during the depression and during recessions in Canada our people were able to survive because we have instruments that allow us to exercise the right to be able to fend for and feed our people. Those instruments in most cases in modern terms are not bow and arrows. They are firearms. That is one of the instruments we use to exercise that right.

The Minister of Justice in his commitment not to impact treaty rights has struck a team of officials who will travel and meet with aboriginal groups across Canada to discuss how this bill can be implemented without negatively impacting treaty rights and the traditional way of life.

These consultations have been directly mandated in this legislation. Section 110 allows for the governor in council to make regulations on aboriginal people and to adapt the regulations for the purposes of that application.

Michell Adkins, a Haida lawyer, was recently hired by the Department of Justice to consult with aboriginal people. Along with other departmental officials, she will be travelling to communities to explain the legislation, to listen to their concerns and make recommendations to the minister on how to amend this legislation with respect to treaties and traditional life.

There are many issues that need to be addressed in the consultations. The Minister of Justice has suggested the necessity of finding a better definition of sustenance hunter to reflect the aboriginal way of life.

He is also committed from what I am being informed by departmental officials to decentralize the role of the firearms officer and provide community control of the implementation of this new firearm strategy, ensuring aboriginal participation.

I would like to encourage all of the First Nations, Metis and Inuit people to take full advantage of these consultations to ensure that the registration of firearms can be done in full consideration of their treaty rights, especially with respect to Sparrow and section 35 of the charter.

Some of the issues which have already been brought to the minister's attention will be addressed and among the consultations is the cost of registration. Currently under Bill C-68 there will not be a charge for sustenance hunters to obtain a firearms licence. However, there are no clear guidelines on how fees will be applied in registering firearms and the transferring of ownership of guns.

Through consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit, it is my hope that an amendment can be made to eliminate the cost of transferring and registration of firearms by sustenance hunters, as these costs would be an economic hardship on people who cannot afford to buy their food and use their firearms as a tool to feed themselves and their communities.

It is felt that it would be an additional economic hardship in a community that already has quite a large group of unemployed people who rely on other sources to continue living and surviving.

Borrowing and lending firearms is another very important issue for the northern and aboriginal communities across this country. Under Bill C-68 there is the provision for lending a firearm as long as the person involved lends the borrower the registration certificate for the firearm. Through consultations it is hoped that alternatives to this option can be sought. In many communities firearms are seen as a collective instrument for hunting passed on to those who need them.

Hunting rifles are commonly loaned to relatives and friends in aboriginal communities on a regular basis. Through consultation I hope that the registration program will be flexible enough to allow this practice to continue without undue and unnecessary hardship.

We understand that in the context of harvesting and hunting it is very difficult in isolated and remote communities to acquire registration and firearms acquisition certificates. When you are in a boat and you see a caribou it is very difficult to resist the opportunity to get the kill for the community or for the family, relatives or the elders. There is a general lending of firearms. It is a very big issue in the communities in terms of their traditional harvesting and hunting rights.

The transfer of ownership is another area which is of much concern. The gift of a firearm is very common in the north. Under Bill C-68 a gift of firearms can only be given once all the necessary papers are filled out and both the recipient and the donor have licences and neither one is a safety risk. Again, through detailed consultations provisions should be made to reflect the culture of First Nations, Metis and Inuit where the gift of a firearm is considered a great honour, especially when given to a youth for his or her first hunt. It is an honour and it is something that is protected, keeping in mind all the issues about safety that go along with the responsibility of owning that gun. It also entails using it safely and bearing in mind the safety of others.

On penal sanctions for people who accidentally find themselves on the other side of the law, through consultation I hope that alternatives can also be found to some of the penal sanctions for offenders who have committed an offence out of ignorance. Summary convictions are available in Bill C-68 to first time offenders which would not require that a person develop a criminal record on a first time offence.

I am also encouraged by the partial prohibition provision in this legislation. A sustenance hunter who has been charged with an offence involving a firearm may apply to a competent authority to allow for the hunter to use his or her firearms for sustenance as long as the hunter returned it to the authority, which could be the chief on returning from hunting. A great deal of trust and a great deal of respect would have to be in place and a great sense of responsibility under those conditions.

Another aspect is the purchase of ammunition. I am amazed that I have not run out of time yet because this a very emotional, very complicated and a very important matter. I do not think I can undersell the importance of this legislation to people across this country, not just in my own riding but in other parts of the provinces and territories.

In many communities those who cannot hunt will provide ammunition to hunters as a gift in hope of meat and other kinds of game when the hunters return. That is a common occurrence. I hope through consultation with aboriginal groups an amendment can be entertained allowing aboriginal people to purchase ammunition when they do not have a licence to give as a gift.

It is not uncommon for a senior citizen on pension who cannot go hunting, who does not have a skidoo, who does not have the physical stamina to go on the hunt anymore, to give to a younger person the gift of ammunition for the sake of a hunt. It is very reasonable and it is good economics for the people in the community.

These are only some of the concerns about how Bill C-68 would impact the aboriginal way of life. I am encouraged by the

minister that these and other concerns will be dealt with through consultations with aboriginal people.

Northerners have also brought several questions to my attention which have either been addressed in Bill C-68 or the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has been mandated to review. I would also like to outline their concerns here.

First of all, there is always the question about why the government is attacking law-abiding gun owners. Many legal owners feel that the government is attacking law-abiding gun owners with this new legislation. However, Bill C-68 creates a new act for firearms. This new statute, the Firearms Act, removes legal gun owners from the Criminal Code. This consideration to gun owners demonstrates the government's intention not to treat legal gun owners as criminals. This new act will create a licensing system for the ownership and use of firearms and a national registration system for all firearms. As I mentioned before, special provisions have been made for first time offenders who have not used a non-registered firearm in a criminal offence.

The next concern is equipment outlawed from the Canadian Olympic shooting team. Others have asked why equipment used by the Canadian Olympic shooting team has been prohibited. The minister has acknowledged that amendments or exceptions should be made for certain handguns in the prohibited class which are used and recognized in target shooting competitions. The minister has specifically requested that the standing committee on justice deliberate on possible solutions to this current problem.

Restriction to non-residents is another major one. There are many hunting, outfitting and tourist businesses in the north and other parts of Canada that depend on hunters from other countries for their business. They have voiced several concerns that Bill C-68 will impose further restrictions on the entry of those foreign hunters and are concerned that they will choose to go to another country to hunt where the laws are not so restricting.

I have reviewed the requirements of the entry of any foreign hunter into Canada and I do not see a problem as such. A person coming from another country must declare their firearm at customs. They will be required to complete a temporary firearms licence and a registration certificate to bring the firearm into Canada.

A customs firearm declaration will act as a 60-day licence and certificate and will be validated at the border. The Minister of Justice and his departmental officials assure me that these forms will be as simple as possible. These declarations will be readily available to visitors through Canadian tourism offices abroad, outfitters, shooting clubs and hunting organizations. There will be opportunities for non-residents to apply in advance to speed up the process at the border.

In the case of sporting clubs, as has always been the case the requirements can be met before crossing the border through Canadian clubs and associations. An authorization to transport will be issued at the same time. Should a hunter lose his ammunition he will be able to present his customs firearms declaration which will act as a temporary license, enabling the hunter to purchase ammunition.

I suppose I could go on but I must be close to being out of time. Within two minutes I will attempt to deal with this really important issue.

I am going to deal with people's concern about prohibited antique gun collection. A common question is how to pass on or sell an antique gun collection. Individuals who now have a grandfathered firearm which falls into a specific prohibited category will be able to buy from and sell to individuals with firearms in the same category.

Also, the minister has asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to deliberate on the special significance possession of firearms as relics or heirlooms may have on a family and what opportunities there will be for owners to leave such firearms to their children as part of their estate.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the numerous members of shooting clubs, such as Barry Taylor from my riding, who have devoted thousands of hours to teaching firearms safety. Their work in the north ensures the safe handling of many guns.

I would also like to thank all of those people who have brought their concerns on gun control to my attention. We have the minister's assurance that there will be special efforts to look at these concerns. I encourage all aboriginal people and northern people to participate in the consultations to ensure the protection of their rights. It is my hope that through these consultations a mutual respect and understanding can be forged between the consultation team and aboriginal people.

I also encourage all northerners to participate in the deliberation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to write to the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, or myself with their opinions on how to improve the current piece of legislation.

I would like to thank the House and you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak to the very special, emotional and complicated matter of Bill C-68.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech on Bill C-68. I share some of her concerns about northerners, how they will react to increased regulation, universal registration,

and in particular her comments on how aboriginal hunters will view the added regulations and restrictions being placed upon them.

My question for the hon. member deals with Bill C-34, the Yukon self-government bill, which was passed in this House last June. It was my understanding that Bill C-34 gave control and prohibition over firearms and explosive devices to the new levels of native governments in the Yukon.

Has the hon. member researched that at all? If so, does it mean they are in effect exempt from the new regulations in Bill C-68 once it is passed? If they are exempt because of the clauses in Bill C-34 which give control over firearms to the native governments, does she feel it right that some Canadian citizens should be exempt from Canada's laws based strictly on race?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the unique legal and constitutional rights of aboriginal people have nothing to do with race. They have to do with a legally and constitutionally binding arrangement between the Government of Canada and those said peoples.

As for the Yukon legislation, I am not a lawyer nor am I a self-government specialist. I have raised a number of issues today regarding rights and I do not think they have anything to do with any kind of racial overtones. They have to do very specifically with the traditional way of life which has been exercised and practised for hundreds of years. Perhaps the instruments to exercise those rights have changed. In contemporary terms we are talking about firearms.

I resent what the hon. member across the way is alleging. He is insinuating that aboriginal people have something which is exempt, unique and special and which nobody else can have. That is not the case. It is unique to aboriginal populations.

I am aware of the position the Council of Yukon Indians has taken and it can speak best for itself. I cannot speak for the aboriginal people of the Yukon, except that I know they have a grave concern. They will have the opportunity to speak to Michell Adkins and also present their concerns to the standing committee. They can adequately speak to that. I would probably under-represent their views.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many of the concerns expressed by the hon. member apply not only to aboriginal people but to rural people in general.

For example, she spoke of that first rifle. One of the proudest days of my life was my 11th birthday when I received my first firearm. Like the hon. member I was a sustenance hunter for a period of time. We were hard up. We ate the meat we killed.

These laws that are going to come in will be just as restrictive, just as oppressive on non-native rural people as they will be on the people who live for example in the Northwest Territories. I would hope that rather than taking up the cudgels against the rest of us who oppose this bill that she would join with us on behalf of the people of the north, on behalf of aboriginal people and realize that we are all in this together. We are all facing unreasonable restrictions in legislation here. It is not just the natives.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the same offer to the members of the Reform Party. Instead of just beating their breasts about their own rights and how hard done by they are, perhaps they would take up the issue of aboriginal rights and for a change support aboriginal people on the question of their rights which they know are legitimate and legally and constitutionally binding.

I make this offer because since I have been in this House I have never on any occasion, not on land claims, on services for aboriginal people, on programs for aboriginal people and never on self-government have I heard an expression of support for aboriginal people by that group. I am making them the offer to come and support the aboriginal people as well.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. secretary of state on her eloquent representation of her people. I have two native reserves in my riding of Bruce-Grey, the Saugeen and Cape Croker. The member quite eloquently represented the position they find themselves in.

As a rural member I must also speak on behalf of the hunters, trappers, farmers and other rural people whose lives are different from most people. They have needs. In this case they are a minority. If we took a poll perhaps the majority of people would be against guns, but rural people have a different orientation, a different history, a real need. This bill in its current state could constitute some hardships for them.

I must compliment the minister on the smuggling penalties and the penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. I hope that somehow the concerns of rural people can be accommodated in this bill.

Does the hon. member not feel that rural people do have similar needs to aboriginal people, particularly in ridings such as Bruce-Grey?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I never disallowed the fact that members opposite or my hon. colleague here have legitimate concerns on behalf of their rural constituents or those people who hunt for sustenance and are non-aboriginal. I never disallowed that fact.

When I speak, the perspective I am speaking from is one I am very familiar and intimate with. It is one that I know inside out. I know the living situation, the personal experiences and human struggles of these people. I want to speak from that experience. I cannot speak as well for other groups. I can go out there to represent them if they ask me.

These are very specific issues, specific to a number of northern constituents. It could be northern provinces. It could be aboriginal people across the country. I can speak most expertly about what I know. That is the perspective I am speaking from, not to the prejudice of other groups.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite eloquently about hope for change in this legislation. I too hope for change in this legislation, but I listened to the justice minister make a very specific comment when he presented this legislation. That comment was that the consultation was literally over.

Does the member know something that I do not about the consultation process? Is it wide open? Are we in fact subject to significant change in this legislation? I would be very interested in knowing that.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would not be so suspicious and so cynical. It does not help the whole issue of national unity or anything else for that matter.

The hon. member knows, as all members know, that there is a standing committee. The chairman is sitting in this House today as he well can see. Also, Michell Adkins and a group of officials are travelling across the country. Perhaps the members of the Reform Party will take it upon themselves to ensure that the groups in their ridings have access to both the standing committee as well as to the special group of officials travelling across the country.