Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his amendment to this bill. It is too bad the other members of the House are not knowledgeable enough about what we are talking about to address the splitting of this bill. I have not heard anything in that direction since it was announced over an hour ago that this is what we were supposed to be speaking about.
There comes a time during every government when those creating the legislation must face up to the reality of an issue and not the politics of an issue. This is one of those times.
The justice minister has tabled what he terms a firearm control measure, Bill C-68. Unfortunately this bill goes far beyond control and borders on the unreal. Realism in any bill means that the goals and the attentions of the proposed legislation are within guidelines established by and for the people governed by democratic values.
This bill allows neither governing by nor for the people. It certainly is not democratic in values or purpose. This bill seeks to be all things desired by a select group of individuals and special interests and removes democratic choice and ultimately democracy from law-abiding citizens who choose to hold private property deemed by the few and select to be tainted goods.
Instead of attacking the problems of criminal intent, this bill attacks the rights of peace loving and law-abiding citizens who safely use and own property without concern for due process and democratic values.
That is why this bill must be split. There are two paths in this bill. One addresses the need for safety and security of the person. It binds the law-abiding people of this land together, a path that mandates the state to protect its citizens from the
ravages of those who believe power is purchased with violent, threatening and immoral means. No Canadian will have a problem travelling this roadway.
However, this bill also has another path, one of control demanded by the anointed few who have hoodwinked this government. They have blinded it with dreams of power by demanding it place them above the freedom of Canadians to choose.
This second path gives the power of right and wrong, good and evil to the few who believe those not accepting their mandate or their way are the criminals. To the select few, those who are law-abiding, hard working, family oriented, loving and caring but who choose to purchase and own a rifle or shotgun cannot be trusted, say the few, and will turn into immoral and radical outlaws.
This bill offers strict, swift and sure punishment for those who break our laws or who threaten to intimidate our citizens. This bill also offers dictatorial powers to the few individuals who believe theirs is the only understanding and the only truth.
This bill must be split along those thoughts so that Canadians can decide whether criminals must pay for their crimes and whether Canadians will allow the decree of the few to dictate to the many.
This can be easily done. All that is required is for this government to stand up for the principles of democracy cherished by the citizens of this land and make the decision to put the wishes of the many ahead of the demands of the few elites and special interests.
Perhaps this decision may not be as easy as stated, for all Canadians know this government only listens to the chosen social engineers and elites who continually confirm they know best.
Perhaps this government was controlled and dominated for so long by the politically correct who live and breathe and function in their ivory towers and have no inkling what really exists below their utopian vision of never-never land that it cannot choose of its own free will to place the people of Canada ahead of its favourite few chosen friends.
In either case, whether the government has the political will to really consult Canadians or not, Canadians will know of the lack of vision and understanding the government possesses. The justice minister saw nothing wrong with the extraordinary order in council powers this bill would give his cronies.
The members of this party are so blinded by false polls and false idols of power promised by special interests that they are overlooking the clauses and language in this bill that create an all powerful super structure of select dictatorship within their own government.
The members of this government who publicly state they support this bill are telling their constituents in private they will not vote for this bill. That is another reason why this bill must be split.
This bill is causing constituents to lose faith in politicians. Canadians want accountability from their members and this bill will only weaken further the faith of constituents. Constituents have had enough the two tailed explanations offered by Liberal members.
Splitting this bill will allow those deserving the wrath of taxpaying Canadians-criminals who believe power does come from the barrel of a gun-to be quickly shown that power comes from the will of the people.
At the same time it will give those members opposite the opportunity to fully explain the other portions of this bill which the members opposite have no doubt been instructed not to mention to voters.
Why is it every time we on this side of the House mention rifles and shotguns those on that side of the House speak of handguns? My guess is that many voters do not know that Canada currently has the toughest regulations regarding registration, ownership and purchase of handguns of any country.
The government knows many Canadians accept the ponderings that handguns are on the same scale as rifles and shotguns from their members when those same Liberals know that current regulations concerning handguns require police investigation, mental fitness exams and questioning associates in the community to determine whether an applicant deserves handgun ownership.
These same members opposite do not state the current requirements in this House for fear Canadians will fully understand that handgun ownership is already extremely difficult. Instead they say handgun ownership in the same breath with rifles and shotguns to further dilute the truth.
Splitting this bill will allow law enforcement agencies to immediately demonstrate to violent criminals that society will not and cannot tolerate crime. Splitting this bill will allow immediate passage of the crime control clauses.
Splitting this bill will allow the removal of those sections that declare law-abiding, chosen private property owning Canadians villains. It will allow Canadians to no longer fear being classified as criminals because social engineering elites have decided that law-abiding Canadians cannot choose what is right and decent and honourable for them.
We will no doubt continue to hear words such as murder, abuse and mayhem from the members opposite in the same breath as crime control. That is acceptable as long as those words are aimed at the proper target, those who truly are
criminals, those who believe that power and control from the barrel of an illegally obtained handgun is the end all and be all to their existence.
Members opposite will try to convince Canadians that family oriented, loving and caring Canadians who choose target shooting, hunting or competitive shooting as a sport are the same as hardened criminals who place Canadians in grave or mortal danger.
We all know those words are further attempts at giving the elite the means to control our society through the portions of Bill C-68 never mentioned by members of this government
We all know those members opposite are being extorted to hide the true facts about the order in council clauses of this bill. They give absolute authority to the few elite and the few among the Liberals who still believe that total control from the top is the end all and be all of their mandate and that true democracy by way of frank and open debate with those who have opposing views is and must be opposed at all costs. That might convince Canadians they have a choice, intelligence and an opinion.
In conclusion, there has been a wake-up call to politicians from all Canadians indicating to each and every one of us that they will have a voice from this day forward in what comes out of the House, and so they should. I encourage them to continue to be involved in this very contentious issue.