Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 1994, I questioned the Minister of Justice on four orders in council concerning prohibited weapons. January 1, 1995 was the infamous date that those orders were to become effective, much to the dismay of many honest gun owners in Canada.
It is common knowledge that many Canadians are upset with the minister's gun control package. The minister is feeling the heat from his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus who are against the intrusive gun control that he promised in his announcement.
In my question I referred to two court decisions, Repa and the Queen, 1982, and Theodore Pierce Simmermon and the Queen, 1993. In both cases the presiding judge made a ruling that the weapons order was invalid because it was not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with section 116(2) of the Criminal Code:
The Minister of Justice shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, at least thirty sitting days before its effective date, every regulation that is proposed to be made under subsection (1); and every appropriate committee as determined by the rules of each House of Parliament may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the appropriate House.
Recently a third case has been heard in the courts, this time in British Columbia, Regina v. Martinoff. Vancouver provincial court judge H.J. McGivern followed the decision of the Alberta case.
In December I clearly asked the minister to explain to this House why he had not complied with this section of the code. Instead of answering my question, the minister went on to tell me that the orders in council were made under section 84 of the Criminal Code which does not require the sort of procedure outlined in section 116(2).
I understand the Criminal Code very well and I know that under section 84 the minister can initiate orders in council without the inclusion of a reference to Parliament as is set out in section 116(2).
However, I do not understand how the minister can cast a blind eye to three court cases in Canada that have overruled orders in council under section 84. What is the minister scared of by bringing such orders before the House and before an appropriate committee?
The minister stated in his response to me with respect to the case in Alberta that judgment was wrong in that respect and that he will succeed in the appeal. Clearly the minister should not be making a public evaluation on a specific case if the case is in the appellate division of the court. Rather, it should be the duty of the minister to look at the various courts and make decisions and comments based on the momentum of rulings.
The Liberal government prides itself on consultation processes and discussion papers. It has produced so many of them it is running out of colours to name these papers.
The Reform Party has always promoted consultation but only if there is a conclusion to the discussion. Why is it that a government supposed to be keen on openness did not discuss the topic of prohibited weapons?
Before the parliamentary secretary scribbles down an answer to tell me that there was an emergency for the overall safety of Canada, I want to fill him in on a few of the statistics taken from a survey of causes of death in Canada.
Statistics Canada in 1992, and it is about the same now, said that 155,746 people died of diseases, 90 per cent of all deaths in Canada. For example 3,437 died in car accidents, 2 per cent of all deaths. Thirteen hundred and fifty-eight died of AIDS, .7 per cent of all deaths. Two hundred and forty-seven died of homicides caused by firearms, that is, .14 per cent of all deaths. Sixty-three died of gun accidents, .03 of all deaths.
In addition, let me point out that based on these statistics it is 336 per cent more likely that a male will die as result of a gun than will a female.
The minister needs to put his priorities in the right place. He needs to let Parliament and therefore the people who elected us as members of Parliament to evaluate if certain firearms should be banned or prohibited.
I do not have a great amount of time but I want to ask the minister several specific questions and would greatly appreciate clear and precise answers. With three court cases before him, will the minister acknowledge that these are not isolated cases but rather cases of significance and bearing and that his decision to proceed with orders under section 84 was wrong and ill fated?
When a clear procedure is outlined, why would the minister make every effort to avoid it, thus causing further complications in the courts? Why would he not even live up to the spirit and the intent of Parliament? Given that in the end broad public support and co-operation is required for gun regulations to work, why would the minister risk his whole package in the public spirit of co-operation just to prove an obscure procedural point?
Will the minister call back the orders in council and resubmit them under section 116(2) enabling wider consultation and an honest democratic process?