Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amendment to split Bill C-68.
By creating an omnibus bill with two distinct and opposing objectives, the Minister of Justice has made it almost impossible for many members of Parliament to represent the views of their constituents.
In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, the people have made it very clear that they support stronger crime control measures directed at law breakers. At the same time they are opposed to increased sanctions against law-abiding citizens. They view gun registration as an ineffective exercise which will not increase public safety but will waste valuable police time, scarce tax dollars and impose unnecessary and costly restrictions on the people who are already obeying the law.
Because this is such an important issue in my riding I have sought the views of the constituents through a number of means, including small group discussions, local meetings. I have also requested input regarding anticipated gun legislation in two householders.
Last May while the justice minister was still making comments such as banning all handguns in the hands of private citizens, and suggesting all firearms within city limits should be stored at a central armoury, I asked constituents whether they felt gun control legislation was sufficient before the amendments in Bill C-17 came into effect.
I do not know if many people from my riding ever get called when the justice department does its gun control surveys but only 21 per cent thought we need more gun control.
In November I sent another householder to the homes in my riding and asked if there should be a universal registration system for all guns, including shotguns and hunting rifles. Over 80 per cent of the 1,000 respondents answered no. I have already tabled petitions with over 2,500 signatures which do not support the proposed gun legislation. I am assured by people in the riding there are many more petitions to come.
I have also received hundreds of letters from my riding in opposition to gun registration and I might add thousands of similar letters from other parts of Canada. The focus of 99 per cent of these is crime control, not gun control.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities endorsed the following petition put forward by my home town, the city of Fort St. John. It requested that the federal government ensure that legislation with regard to firearms be geared toward the criminal element and not the law-abiding, responsible gun owner. The elected
representatives from our town councils would not have passed these resolutions without the knowledge that the majority of their constituents supported them.
I would like to read a letter from the most popular radio talk show in the B.C. Peace. The host, Grant Mitton says: "I conducted a poll on `Contact' this morning and asked the callers two questions: one, are you in favour or opposed to the gun control regulations introduced by justice minister Allan Rock; two, will you comply with registration requirements for your firearms when they come into effect? The answer as anticipated to both questions was a resounding no".
"During our 40 minutes on air, 65 people said they were opposed to the new measures and 51 said they would not comply with the registration requirements. One caller said he was in favour of the regulations".
"These people are not wild-eyed radicals. They are for the most part normal Canadians interested only in pursuing their lives in peace and enjoying the use of their firearms as they have in the past. Many of those who responded wondered how these new regulations will have any effect on the criminal element and suggested the focus should be on enforcing a mandatory prison sentence on anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a felony".
"The really disturbing part of the survey is the large number of respondents that say they will defy the law. Surely Mr. Rock must see that his proposals will be very difficult to enforce if possible at all".
The people of Prince George-Peace River do not support the bill in its current form and therefore it must be divided. Aside from the widespread resistance to gun registration, the Minister of Justice knows there are a number of other serious flaws in the firearms act. He is trying to slip them by the Canadian population under the pretext of greater law and order. The bill represents a significant attack on the rights enjoyed by the Canadian people.
We believe we live in a free and democratic society. Yet this bill erodes some of those fundamental rights. I am referring for example to sections 99 through 101 which provide police and other designated officers with the right to inspect any place where they have a reason to believe there are firearms, ammunition, a switch blade or even just records pertaining to them.
The police can take samples of anything they find whether or not it is related to a firearm. If the occupant does not fully co-operate with the investigating officers, under section 107 they are subject to up to two years imprisonment.
The minister and other gun control proponents are quick to point out that a warrant is needed to search a dwelling house but that is not what the legislation says. It says either consent of the occupant or a warrant.
When confronted with police at their kitchen door, how many Canadians know they have the right to refuse entry to the officers? Does a teenager home early from school constitute an occupant? Even if the occupant refuses the police entry, officers just have to demonstrate to a justice that they have a reason to believe firearms related records may be present and a warrant is issued.
These powers of inspection are granted to authorities where no crime is suspected. The fact that someone has a registered gun can be used as a pretext to inspect a premises and take samples of anything found. This bill gives them the power to go on fishing expeditions.
Under section 117 of part III of the Criminal Code even more extensive search and seizure powers are granted to police if they suspect a firearms offence such as a non-registration of a gun might be committed.
The police I know will not be going into homes unless they have reason to believe there is a serious offence being committed. If they are not going to use them, why are they giving the police such extensive powers of inspection and search and seizure?
If police suspect a crime they should go through the process of obtaining a proper search warrant. Despite government claims, I am not trying to increase paranoia or inflame anti-police sentiment. It is very important that Canadians fully understand all the possible ramifications of the various clauses of the bill.
Passage of this bill will mean that at least seven million gun owners in Canada will have fewer rights under the charter of rights and freedoms than other Canadians.
Canadians have entrusted the government with the job to protect the rights and freedoms that make us the envy of so many other people in the world. This bill seriously erodes our democratic rights in another area. It represents a growing trend to pass meaningless bills through Parliament, giving all the power of implementing regulations to cabinet.
Under section 110 it takes more than four full pages just to describe all the areas in which the governor in council will have the authority to create regulations. These range from licensing requirements and the establishment and operations of shooting clubs to circumstances such as whether an individual needs a gun to protect their family-clause 110(c).
In section 110(t) the governor in council can make regulations respecting the manner in which any provision of this act or regulation applies to any of the aboriginal peoples in Canada and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.
When will the government realize that all Canadians should be treated equally and we should not be entrenching mechanisms and laws for creating different Criminal Code penalties or rights based on race?
Most of section 112 lets the minister bypass the House entirely without laying certain regulations before the House for review if in his opinion the changes are so immaterial or insubstantial or the need is so urgent that section 111 should not be applicable.
Section 112(6) reads: "For greater certainty a regulation may be made under part III of the Criminal Code without being laid before either House of Parliament". This means that through order in council a cabinet can make regulations that put Canadian citizens behind bars-no accountability, no review, no appeal.
Is this how a democratic society functions? How can the justice minister justify this extreme abuse of democratic authority? Do not deny Canadians the right to have their voices heard when it comes to laws that affect them.
This bill is fundamentally flawed and the principles of justice and democracy on which our nation is founded are under attack. I can support many of the changes to part III of the Criminal Code with some amendments but I cannot support the erosion of our democratic rights under the guise of a harmless gun registration bill.
I urge all members to support the amendment to split Bill C-68 into its two very distinct components.