Debates of March 27th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of Mr. Langlois. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members. And the division bells having rung :

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Tuesday, March 28 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 March 13 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; and of the amendment.

Firearms Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the bill was last before the House, the member for Souris-Moose Mountain had four minutes remaining in his time.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-68 and the proposed amendment.

An item of the bill that I really feel needs to be addressed is the issue of non-compliance. Many citizens of Canada would be put in a position of being criminals if they did not register their

guns. I hope as we review the bill that we will not allow this to fall into the Criminal Code with regard to registration.

I have some very serious reservations about the search and seizure provision. It needs to be looked at thoroughly. Can it be put in another framework in the bill? If the police want to enter on to one's property, then a search warrant should be obtained. That document would identify the reasons why a search is deemed necessary.

I have some concerns about heirlooms, those items that may be passed on from generation to generation. We have to make sure that we clear up in the minds of the people writing the bill what constitutes an heirloom. Do citizens have a right to pass them down through the family from generation to generation?

I really feel very strongly about collectors and museum pieces. If expensive museum pieces have been collected and retained in families, and they are going to be removed through confiscation, then fair compensation should be paid.

I have a tremendous problem with the five year and $60 fee licensing provision. I would rather see a licensing provision of $5 a year and $25 for five years. That way we can at least indicate to the public that it is not a tax grab.

As I have said before and I reiterate, I am prepared to register my firearms. I believe many people are. However, I would much prefer to see voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in period. At the end of the first year of the registration period we should evaluate whether it is doing what we wish it to do, that it is efficient, affordable and enforceable for everyone involved.

I have some difficulty with the taxpayers of Canada paying approximately $85 million, as suggested, to go through the business of registering firearms. I am not so sure that at the end of the day we will be able to show that the criteria are met.

The committee was completely unified in its position that it would go with voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in period. I would like to think we could go back and look at that one again.

Everyone in the House supports the minister wholeheartedly in those aspects of the bill that deal with the criminal element. We support wholeheartedly the four-year mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would rather see a two-year mandatory sentence for the use of a fake firearm in the commission of a crime. I could support that.

With regard to the bill overall, I feel this is the place to voice my concerns. I say today and I will continue to say that as the present bill is put forward, I am not prepared to support it.

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

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.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement.

Approximately one week ago 82-year old Oscar Noll was working in his jewellery store. Oscar Noll is five feet tall and weighs about 100 pounds. He goes to work at three o'clock in the morning to work on watches. He heard a crash from the window and two thugs came into his store. Remember, he is 82 years old, weighs about 100 pounds and is very frail. He reached under the counter, removed a revolver, fired some shots and scared away the perpetrators. Does the hon. member believe that the individual has the right to protect his life and his property in that manner?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion Canadians do have a right to protect themselves and their families and to use a firearm to help them in protecting themselves. That is not the view shared by hon. members across the floor. A large percentage of them are opposed to that. However, I firmly believe that Canadian citizens do have that right.

I have spoken about this before. The police, no matter how well intentioned, if we look at the statistics, simply cannot respond quickly enough, even in cities, to intervene when the crime is being committed. Canadians have to take responsibility for protecting themselves. Unfortunately the police cannot. Usually when the police respond it is after the crime has been committed and their job is to apprehend the criminal and bring him or her to justice, not to protect the citizens of this country.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you would think this bill was about guns. To me it is not. It is about matters of life and death. It is about what kind of society we want to live in and it is about what kind of society we want to leave our children. It is about progress as a civilized nation. That is what it is about.

I have seen in the campaign against this legislation the kind of lobbying I usually associate with the United States, the kind of lobbying done by the National Rifle Association, based on misinformation, half truths and out and out lies.

I keep hearing about law-abiding gun owners and yet I keep hearing about law-abiding gun owners who intend to defy the law. There is something contradictory in that. I keep asking gun owners who come to see me to talk about this legislation what will diminish their pleasure in partridge shooting because their gun is registered. I have not heard a good answer to that. I do not think there is one.

Reform members keep telling us they want to support grassroots democracy, that they want people to have more say about how their elected representatives vote in the House.

They know perfectly well that 90 per cent of their constituents support this legislation and support the very aspect of it they make the most noise against, the registration of guns.

The NDP has sat in the House for the time I have been here, since 1988. It has had a party policy in support of stronger gun control. I sat in the House, as did the member for Halifax and numerous members who are here, listening to the NDP, including its leader who now intends to vote against gun control legislation. We listened to those members accuse the previous government of legislation that was not tough enough, not strong enough. Now they have tougher and stronger legislation and they intend to vote against it.

I have to talk about the kind of feedback I have had from meetings of those who are against this legislation and against gun control. I have heard out and out misrepresentation of this legislation. I have heard over and over again: "This legislation means a police officer can come into my house at any time without a warrant, inspect my home and seize my guns". No it does not. Let us get the facts out if we are going to debate a bill. The bill gives the police no right to come into anybody's home and take anything without a warrant unless they believe there is an illegal gun in there.

Let me talk about the contradictory messages I am getting. The Ontario Association of Anglers and Hunters is opposed to registration. Its members wrote a very impassioned plea to our

local newspaper asking for the support of another organization in their campaign for the universal registration of hunting dogs for the protection of the dogs. Is that not a contradictory message?

Let me remind people out there why we are doing this, why guns make our society violent, less compassionate, less safe. The vast majority of gun related deaths and injuries are not the result of shootings at the corner store, the drug deal gone bad, or the bar. The vast majority of deaths and injuries by guns are in the home. It is a greater problem than the criminal misuse of guns in the streets.

The largest proportion of homicides occurs in the home. Of the 1,400 deaths per year caused by guns, fully 1,100 are suicides; over 200 are homicides and the remainder are accidents. The greatest threat of homicide is not at the hands of strangers on the street, in the corner store or even in the break-in at home. The majority of gun homicides-86 per cent-is caused by family members, friends or acquaintances.

Guns are a particularly serious threat to women. If I take this bill seriously there is very good reason. Some members have already said that a woman is killed every six days. She is killed in her home 67 per cent of the time. From 1981 to 1990 almost one-half of women killed were killed by spouses or ex-spouses. A further 27 per cent were killed by acquaintances. Almost one-half of women killed by their partners are shot with a gun. Yet the members from the Reform Party can sit there when we talk about a serious issue like the deaths of well over 1,000 people a year and say: "Pow, pow" as if it is a little game.

Seventy-eight per cent of the guns used in these killings of women are legally owned. Police are likely to have intervened in domestic violence before it comes to the point of homicide. However, right now without a registration system they have no way of knowing before they go into a violent situation in the home whether there is a gun there. That is one reason police associations and the Association of Chiefs of Police support this legislation.

Domestic and other intimate assaults are 12 times more likely to result in death if a gun is used. Yet members on the opposite side of the House think this is not a serious problem for our country.

We also know that young people contemplating suicide sometimes act impulsively. If firearms are not readily available, lives can be saved.

I want to talk about a 15-year old teenager who attended a meeting with the justice minister. He said that he had gone home from school one Friday afternoon determined to kill himself. Not too long after a friend of his who was worried about him decided to check on him. By doing this, his friend prevented him from killing himself.

The young man told the justice minister and other members at the meeting that if there had been a gun in the house, he would have been dead before his friend had arrived. As it is, he is a 15-year old who is still in high school, doing well and has a great future ahead of him.

This legislation, if it prevents one death like that of this 15-year old boy, will be worth it. We cannot forget our children. Since 1970, 470 children have died in accidents with firearms in their own homes. These are largely guns owned by their own families.

I am also particularly supportive of the measure to include handguns in the prohibited weapons category. Let me give a ridiculous example.

Recently, the city of Chicago banned the sale of spray paint because the cost of cleaning the graffiti on buildings is exorbitant. For us as a society, the cost of death by firearms is exorbitant. A similar ban on handguns will help prevent some of those deaths.

This bill is about what kind of a society we want. Frankly, I want to move forward into a future where violence, power and physical control are not the things that determine how we govern ourselves and how we live. This bill is a progressive step forward to that better future.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if ever evidence was needed that this debate is very highly polarized and charged probably with misinformation on all sides, it is in this debate today.

When I became embroiled in the whole gun control issue it was evident to me that the position a person would take on the debate depended at which end of the barrel that person was going to find themselves. We can see this in the House today not just on this side but on the government side and perhaps on the Bloc side, if they would speak on this.

Very clearly this is a debate on the bill which is charged emotionally and divides the country, as if we needed one more reason to be divided. This divides us on rural-urban issues rather than language issues, cultural issues or some other issue. Anyone who would suggest this is not a rural-urban issue has not been following it because very clearly it is.

Our country, as everyone knows, is thousands of miles across. All areas of the country are different. One rule of law on guns may not make sense in downtown Toronto but perhaps it makes sense somewhere else, either the maritimes or the prairies.

There is wisdom in splitting this bill and I urge the Minister of Justice to carefully consider this. It would be an opportunity for people from both sides of the House and from all over the country to come together on that part of the bill about which everyone agrees, namely those issues aimed directly at crime control, such as mandatory sentencing.

There are other aspects of this bill which concern most Canadians from that part of the country which is less enamoured with the whole notion of gun control. For example, there is the registration of handguns, which is already a fait accompli. We are supposed to be registering them now.

If anyone were to purchase a rifle or a shotgun today, it would be registered. There is nothing wrong with the notion of centralizing the registry of these weapons. Your name and address would be taken. There is no problem with that. It is the notion of a universal registration.

Before I get into the heart of what I want to talk about, I want to say that I am going to be voting against this bill despite the results of a survey I commissioned and which I believe to be accurate. Residents in my constituency, a majority of 69 per cent, would prefer to see universal registration. However, I am prepared to go against that in the full knowledge that this is causing me some grief.

Before I get into that, I would like to spend a couple of minutes to pay a particular vote of respect to two people for whom members may not expect to hear many kind words from this side of the House. They are Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen from the Coalition for Gun Control.

When Heidi's friends and associates she went to school with were killed at the École polytechnique in Montreal, it caused her to do something. She wanted to rid our country of the kinds of weapons that caused that outrage and terrible massacre. We do not need automatic weapons in our country; we just do not need them. Many years ago she set upon this long journey to rid our country of these weapons. She enlisted the aid of Wendy Cukier and between them they formed the Coalition for Gun Control.

I would bet that they did not think they would ever have the sun, the moon and the stars all line up to find themselves with the Liberals in government wanting to address the issues of the people in the vote rich areas of downtown Toronto or Montreal. This decision was made in order to get elected. In my opinion it was not based on what was right for the country. It was a decision on what they could do to get elected. They appealed to people who, for good reason, were afraid of guns. The idea then became a red book commitment.

In some way that is unfair to the intent of Wendy and Heidi. They wanted to rid our country of the dangers posed by weapons and from the crimes involving the use of weapons. They wanted to focus attention on this. I do not think in their wildest dreams they ever expected everyone, no matter where they lived in the country, was going to be forced to register shotguns and rifles. In any event, this is the point we are at now.

By justice department estimates, it is going to cost $85 million to set up the national registry over a five-year period, plus a further $60 million if you accept the fact that there are six million long guns presently in the country. If that is the case, over five years it is going to cost $145 million to register guns. That is a modest estimate. Others say it will cost upward of $500 million or even more, but let us go with the low end at $145 million.

Our country is going into the hole at the rate of $110 million a day. We would be using money to register all of these weapons for which there is not one iota of evidence it will prevent one single, solitary illegal use or crime committed with a gun. The last time I checked, criminals do not get a permit nor do they register their guns. We will be spending $145 million so that some people, particularly those who wrote the Liberal red book can feel warm and fuzzy when they go to bed at night. That is not an honest or prudent way to run the country.

If there were a shred of evidence to prove that registering long guns would in any way prevent crime, then I would be most happy to support this bill. However there is no such evidence. We will then go to the money markets of the world and our children and grandchildren will be borrowing money and paying interest on that money and they will have a standard of living depreciated by the fact that we will be raising this money to spend on registering long guns. Imagine if we used that same money, the same $140 million over five years, for breast cancer research. Would that be a more efficient use of the $145 million?

It is not easy to stand here because I am not a hunter. I do not have a gun. I have not had a gun for years. I originally commissioned a poll in my constituency to buttress my argument within our own caucus. In so far as this is not a moral or ethical issue I am not bound by the poll. It was for guidance. I wanted it to buttress my argument. I wanted to have that argument buttressed within my own caucus so that when I voted against our caucus position I could say clearly this is why, I am representing my constituents.

In evaluating what I was doing here in Parliament over the last year and a half I came very clearly during the Christmas break to understand that I was here for three specific reasons: to restore fiscal responsibility to our nation; to put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals; to restore the bonds of trust between the elected and the electors.

I cannot in conscience spend $140 million to accomplish something clearly not accomplishable through the expenditure of this money, and on one hand spend the money and on the other hand try to save it.

My constituents have very clearly sent me here to bring fiscal sanity to the spending affairs of our country. That is why I will regrettably vote against Bill C-68.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, almost everything has been said about this very troublesome piece of legislation.

I listened with concern and share the concerns of the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain. I listened to the concerns and share the concerns of the hon. deputy whip. I listened to the statistical projections of the hon. member from the Reform Party. I do not know whether there are many more details to add to the debate. I will add a few and then make a few points.

I do not know that every concern regarding registry has been addressed. There is still the concern about weapons that have no serial number, weapons that are home-made. There are still some people whose hobby it is to manufacture firearms and ammunition. I have not seen anything in the bill which covers that.

It was pointed out to me the other day by one of my constituents that serial numbers can overlap, that there can be the same serial number on more than one weapon if there are two licensed manufacturers of the same model of firearm. I put those forward as a concern.

Other concerns about the issue of confiscation and so on, about the provision for firearms that have special significance for families to be preserved, will be addressed in the justice committee. Handguns in prohibited classes will be addressed in the justice committee. Firearms used in re-enactments and heritage events will be definitely addressed in the heritage committee.

I have asked for time to address that committee in order to highlight some of those concerns.

I also realize that registry is an issue that is larger than individual weapons, unless I misread the bill. The registry goes beyond individual ownership and gives the government the right to have other weapons in transition registered so that the law enforcement people will be able to calculate the shrink that comes from a shipment of weapons into the country.

I will restate what many other members have pointed out. The bill has three legs. One leg has to do with the smuggling of guns and the attack on smugglers. I think everyone agrees with that. Regardless of whether we are Reform members, rural members or urban members we all very much agree. We all appreciate some of the stepped up activity of the police, especially around the area where I live. Recently they have been able to seize large quantities of weapons.

The second leg is the question of sentencing, the imposition of a four-year mandatory sentence. With the imposition and with the moves the Minister of Justice will make on the issue, I sincerely hope the offence will not be plea bargained away in the future as has been done in the past. I find the plea bargain aspect offensive in itself.

The third leg concerns registry and the other aspects of firearms ownership. I have concerns. It has been painful to go through the exercise, but I point out to those who are opposed to registry that every law made in the country is in one way or another an infringement of rights.

Laws are not made for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens but are made for the few. There is no dichotomy here with the laws regarding guns. These laws are brought into being for the few who have no regard for human life, who lose regard for human life, or who want to use a firearm to commit a crime and have no conscience about doing so.

I plead with those who are opposed to consider that laws concerning robbery, laws concerning theft and laws concerning speeding are not made for the many. They are written to protect the many from the few. I must go on record as saying that there is no right to bear arms in Canada. Ownership of firearms in the country is a privilege and not a right. We should always remember that.

With the struggle I have personally had as a member with the bill and my struggle with the conviction that a registry will be effective, I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I want to see the legislation go to committee to be amended without affecting the principle of the bill necessarily but injecting some common sense and projections into the bill so that legitimate firearms owners will feel comfortable and that the sacrifices they are making will be made in the spirit of protection of the many.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this has certainly become a very partisan and polarized debate on gun control.

I hope the Minister of Justice will listen to the argument being put forth by the Reform Party in favour of splitting the bill into two parts. Presumably the focus is on the reduction of crime and the enhancement of the safety of Canadians.

With the way the Minister of Justice is proposing the bill we would think every gun owner in the country is a criminal. That is far from the truth and an insult to Canadians who own guns.

There are approximately 2.7 million Criminal Code infractions in the country per annum. The number of gun related incidents under the Criminal Code would be about one-half of one per cent or even less. Yet the Minister of Justice proposes to spend a couple of hundred million dollars or more to try to reduce the one-half of one per cent.

This will not be money spent finding criminals. This will not be money spent prosecuting criminals. This will not be money spent keeping criminals in prison. It is a couple of hundred million dollars to address the fact that one-half of one per cent of crime is committed with firearms.

The minister quoted statistics. He said that the majority of Canadians were in favour of gun control. Let us remember that a large segment of Canadians do not own guns. I happen to be one.

When we ask Canadians if they are in favour of registration and they do not own guns, chances are good that they would say it does not bother them a bit so why would they be opposed?

Last fall the Minister of Finance held his prebudget hearings across the country and listened to Canadians talk about the budget. They all said the deficit had to be addressed. They said: "We have to increase taxes but don't increase mine". Or, they said: "We have to cut expenditures but don't cut me". It is the same rationale when we ask people if they are in favour of gun control. If they do not own a gun they will be in favour of gun control because it means absolutely nothing to them.

Section 85, as it currently exists, is one of the few sections of the Criminal Code that calls for a mandatory sentence. Quite often it has been plea bargained away. We in the Reform Party have always said that if the present law is not working perhaps we could change it. They should demonstrate to us that the minister's proposals will be an improvement.

Last fall I wrote to the Minister of Justice and I asked him how often section 85 was plea bargained away. Section 85 calls for a minimum mandatory jail sentence, no fines, for using a firearm in the commission of an offence. How often do we plea bargain that away? The minister said that he did not know. He said that he did not have the statistics to know how often we plea bargained it away.

Therefore we do not know if what is on the books today would work if used properly. The Minister of Justice admitted that he did not know. Why is he putting forth gun registration and why does he think it would work?

We also asked the Minister of Justice: "Since you tell us that this will reduce crime, by what measurement would we know that your proposals are a success?" He could not answer. He did not have any measurement by which he could tell us how many lives would be saved or how many crimes would not be committed because of registration. The minister has no facts to back up his arguments.

Four points should be looked at when one proposes legislation. Is it relevant? Is it effective? Is it an efficient way of addressing the situation? Is there a better way? Let us take a look at them.

Is it relevant? Yes, we have crime in the country. Every country has crime. Yes, we should be tough on crime.

The Minister of Justice is proposing that we be tough on people who destroy their guns and do not send in a piece of paper to the authorities. They will get five years in jail for not sending in a piece of paper.

What about somebody who does not have a proper licence? They will get 10 years in jail. That is what the minister is proposing. Yet Denis Lortie walked out as a free man after 10 years in jail. He murdered three people in the Quebec legislature and injured thirteen more. After 10 years he was a free man, and for not having a piece of paper the Minister of Justice is proposing the same punishment.

Is it relevant? Laws that will stop criminals from committing acts and punishing them severely for their wrongdoings will be supported by the Reform Party. That is relevant. Does the minister feel that registering all guns at a cost of $200 million or more will reduce crime? I am quite sure he know it will not. Therefore it is not relevant and the section he is proposing to force upon thousands of Canadians is totally absurd.

Will the bill be effective in meeting its objectives? There is no evidence whatsoever the universal registration the minister is proposing will reduce crime. He even said so himself. He could not answer the question when we asked it. Since then he has not put forward anything to suggest he has any concrete measures by which it would be a success.

The minister should look at the Reform proposal to split the bill into its two segments. We find registration irrelevant. However addressing the criminal use of guns and firearms is relevant and we would support it.

I have already talked about the crime of failing to produce a certificate, five years in prison and so on. Let us compare using a gun to a drunk person driving a car. The minister of justice spoke eloquently about drunkenness today in the bill he introduced in that regard. More people are killed on the road by drunk drivers committing illegal acts than by Canadians using firearms illegally. We do not have anything nearly as draconian as he is proposing.

If a person fails to renew a car registration form I understand in the province of Ontario the fine is $5.50 a month. If a person, however, fails to register a gun it is 10 years in jail. That seems a rather strange dichotomy: 10 years in jail for not registering a gun and $5 a month for not registering a car. Under illegal circumstances they are both every bit as lethal. That is the point.

What about people who drive without a licence? In the province of Ontario the fine is $265 and in the case of a gun it is 10 years in jail.

Will the legislation be efficient in addressing the problem? We have said as Reformers that if it is split into the criminal aspect it will be efficient. If it is split into the other segment, registration for all Canadians is totally and absolutely inefficient. My colleague from Edmonton Southwest said: "My goodness, we have to borrow $200 million more and pass the bill on to our grandchildren, just so the Liberals can say they are trying to do something about crime when in fact they are doing nothing".

In closing, we are saying to the Minister of Justice that 99 per cent of gun owners handle their firearms safely. They store them securely. They use them responsibly. Therefore they should be left alone. The other 1 per cent who are criminals and commit criminal acts are the ones he should be focusing on. That is what Canadians want and deserve. They do not want a Minister of Justice simply playing politics and not doing his homework to produce the statistics to support his argument.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Dartmouth last September NAFO established a total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes of turbot for 1995. In announcing the NAFO agreement, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assured Parliament that "Canada will have for the first time the right to board and inspect the vessels catching turbot and to ensure that the proper rules are being followed to conserve this important stock," something he has failed to do.

On February 1 NAFO met to allocate the 27,000 tonne catch. The practice for such decisions is to seek consensus because members have the right to object to decisions and withdraw. Against the advice of members who would later support Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans forced a vote on a Canadian proposal for quota allocation. The resulting agreement gave Canada 60 per cent of the catch, up from about 10 per cent. The European Union got 12.5 per cent, down from about 75 per cent of the catch for the previous three years.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made every effort to make his dispute over the allocation with the EU into an exercise in eco-aggression. As the Financial Times of London noted:

The fact that Canada had tried to garner such a large proportion of the quota-some 70 per cent against 12 per cent for the Europeans-somewhat tarnishes the country's claim that it had to intervene to save the fish from impending extinction.

Tony Pitcher, director of the Fisheries Centre at UBC said: "Canada's newly acquired 60 per cent share of turbot was a radical shift in allocation that came too quickly for some fishing nations to accept willingly".

In our desperate need to find a hero out of all this bumbling and blustering, we ignored the fact that the Estai had been boarded for inspection by Canadians 11 times since January 1994. On each of those occasions Canadian officials could have and should have inspected the holds and found evidence of baby fish being caught. They could have and should have waited until the net was hauled in and discovered the liner.

The only advantage to the bumbling and bluster has gone to the Spanish who can now fish without fear of inspection. With the arrest of the Estai , the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans lost the ability to board and inspect foreign trawlers fishing in the NAFO regulatory area beyond our 200-mile limit.

The size of the fish on the Estai should not have been a surprise. They were consistent with the catch reported by Spanish and Portuguese trawlers in 1993 and reported in NAFO scientific papers in 1994. Those papers report a shockingly steady decline in biomass from about 225,000 tons in 1984 to 37,000 tons in 1992 and that few fish larger than 46 centimetres were sampled in the 1993 catches. Considering that sexually mature turbot will be at least 60 centimetres long, it is questionable whether we should have agreed to fish turbot at all this year, let alone try to out-manoeuvre the EU for a larger allocation.

On the Flemish Cap we now have the worst of both worlds, neither NAFO inspection by Canada nor enforcement of the new regulations. On March 3, 1995 when the regulations were enacted we were told they were essential to deter overfishing by Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels on both the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

The 1994 NAFO Scientific Council report cautioned that since the turbot is a single stock, it is necessary to regulate both the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap. To fail to do so, in the words of the report, could lead to the collapse of the fishery.

The March 3 regulation prohibited Spanish fishing on both the nose and tail and on the Flemish Cap. Since the regulation became law, the government has backed off, leaving the Flemish Cap exposed to unregulated fishing.

The test of the government's action is whether it advances the protection of turbot stocks in the NAFO regulatory area on both the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. The question is, why did Canadian officials fail to carry out adequate inspections of the Estai and other Spanish fishing vessels?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Delta for his question.

The member opposite has raised two related issues, namely undertaking more inspections as well as the results of an inspection by Canadian fisheries officers of the Spanish vessel, Estai in January. Let me deal with each in turn.

First, the question of conducting more inspections. As the minister told the House last Friday, given the increasing tension between Canadian fisheries officers and the Spanish fleet, unarmed fisheries officers would not be asked to conduct any activities which would pose a threat to their safety. I believe that the member would endorse the minister's position.

Let me also provide some background on the NAFO inspection system. As the member should know, NAFO provides inspectors from contracting parties with the authority to board and inspect vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. However DFO inspections take place in less than ideal conditions. NAFO procedures require that the inspections be conducted in a manner that prevents interference and inconvenience to the vessel's operation.

In the limited time provided for inspections, it is neither practical nor feasible to search for duplicate logs at sea. Searches of the hold are restricted by time, the volume of fish product in the hold and the inability to move product, given the vessel is in motion and the restricted space available in the freezers. It is only too easy to hide illegal catch in areas which would be accessible only after a comprehensive search, accompanied by removal of the product from the hold.

In addition, fishing vessels know that the patrol vessels are operating in the area and can avoid the use of illegal gear during times when inspection may be likely. For example, liners in the nets may be removed during the day when weather permits boarding. Inspectors cannot verify vessel logs against the contents of the hold given the volume of product on board. While inspectors may suspect misreporting, they are often unable to find the proof required to issue a citation.

Despite these limitations Canadians carried out NAFO inspections and issued 52 citations in 1994, 44 of them to European-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary only gets two minutes under our rules at this moment.

Pursuant to our standing orders, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)