Debates of March 28th, 1995

Firearms Act

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill today.

I strongly support the initiative to split the bill. Splitting the bill would allow us to deal separately with the proposed changes to the Criminal Code and the proposed changes to firearms restrictions such as registration.

The issue of gun control stirs great emotion in the hearts of so many of us. This demonstrates to me a pressing need for Parliament to allow free votes on this matter. I am sure there are more than a few Liberal backbenchers who agree with me on this point.

My constituents, as far as I have ascertained, are struggling with all of the arguments and appear split on the issue. I recognize there are good arguments to be made for both positions. However, today I will address, as we are meant to do at second reading, the intent of the legislation.

Remember, the Liberals consider this bill to be a substantial component of their so-called safe streets package. I am going to address three safe streets issues that this bill, in my view, fails to address: guns in the commission of violence against women; guns used in suicides; and guns used by gangs.

As parliamentarians we face difficult issues. As a member of the Reform caucus I acknowledge that I have the freedom to follow the wishes of my constituents on issues such as these. I believe that for too long now the voices of average Canadians have not been heard. In fact, they have been completely ignored.

I believe it is my job to represent the constituents of Calgary Southeast in this Chamber. I strive in everything I do to bring their views to Ottawa. Members of Parliament have many opportunities to listen to their constituents. Letters, phone calls, faxes, newsletters and Internet are all wonderful vehicles to highlight constituents' concerns. In turn, I have made every effort to bring the issues of the day to the constituents.

On the matter of gun control specifically, I ran a survey in the late summer of 1994 in my householder. Slightly more than 400 people responded to the more than 51,000 mailed. This in my view does not represent any kind of a credible sample. I am therefore undertaking another effort on the same issue using a new voter technology incorporating the convergence of telephone and computer.

I expect a much higher rate of response and my vote will be dependent upon the consensus view as expressed by the constituents of Calgary Southeast. No amount of pressure from lobby groups will interfere with this democratic and populist process. Of the hundreds of letters, faxes and phone calls that I receive, most come from a well orchestrated lobby outside my riding. Rest assured, and I want to be unequivocally clear here, my objective is to achieve consensus with only the residents of Calgary Southeast.

According to the minister, this piece of legislation is meant to make our streets safer for Canadians. Unfortunately, the measures in this bill do not address some relevant concerns. We in the Reform Party will support any initiatives that address the rights of victims and will also address the issue of public safety.

I previously asked a question of the Minister of Justice about this legislation. I am concerned that it does very little to address the root causes of crime, especially those of violence against women.

I remind the House that the Liberals introduced gun controls in 1977. The Tories imposed more controls in 1990. We have had gun registration in Canada since 1934. Despite all of these controls and restrictions accompanied by haphazard enforcement, rates of spousal homicides have remained constant for the last 29 years.

Clearly the problems of domestic violence are not caused by unregistered guns. How can the minister suggest as he has that registering a gun will keep someone from using it to kill their spouse? In fact he has yet to put forward an acceptable and reasoned argument to support that suggestion.

Domestic violence is a serious problem which needs to be remedied, but gun controls will do nothing to address this problem. Less than half of all spousal homicides are committed with guns whether they are registered or not.

The National Crime Prevention Council is studying violence against women and children. The heritage ministry is studying violence in broadcasting. The health ministry is studying violence against women and children. Domestic violence has been studied for over 20 years. It has been studied to death and there has been no action. Why is the Minister of Justice focusing on guns instead of looking at measures to address the root causes of violence in our society?

Violence against women is a sordid reality and not a fantasy confined to the pages of a tabloid newspaper or a pornographic magazine. The history of violence against women is like Pandora's box that opens and reveals the ugliest side of the human condition. We would expect by now that complacency would be

shattered in the details of horror and abuse that so many women have lived to tell, and what of those who have died?

It was inexcusable for the justice minister who professes to champion women to artfully dodge my questions posed in this House. We do not need the minister's platitudes nor his citing of statistics to tell us that we have a problem of domestic violence in this country. What specific plans does this government have to get at the root causes of violence against women?

Until gender roles are eliminated, until the family no longer serves that convenient arena for male violence, until wife beating is no longer a logical extension of male domination, and until our justice system demonstrates its capacity for justice, we do not have a blueprint for change. Intellectual and political anguish have become meaningless. Violence against women exists. We have endured enough. These gun control measures do little or nothing to address it.

The measures in Bill C-68 simply fail to go far enough. What we need are measures which will deal effectively with the criminal use of firearms. Unfortunately, the legislation provides only minimum sentences of four years for the commission of any of 10 specific violent offences with a firearm. The legislation does not require that these sentences be consecutive to other sentences. This leaves open the possibility that such sentences could be concurrent.

The Canadian public is no longer satisfied with the judiciary giving out concurrent sentences, especially for violent crimes committed with a firearm. It is time that individuals who commit crimes and multiple criminal infractions with guns paid for their mistakes to the full extent of the law.

In response to a question on March 23, the Minister of Justice suggested that his gun control bill would address the use of firearms in suicides. These sentiments are carefully crafted and indeed noble, yet there are no provisions within this bill which will reduce the use of firearms in suicides. In fact, short of banning all firearms, I can think of no gun control measures which will curb this phenomenon.

Since the gun controls introduced in 1978, the suicide figures for Canada have remained fairly stable. So too have the number of suicides committed with firearms. Suicide is a tragic consequence of current societal dysfunction and particularly so for our native communities where the problem is proportionately greater. Banning guns is not the solution. Statistically, guns are not often used in a suicide attempt. In 1992 only 1.3 per cent of the suicides were committed with guns.

More important, people who attempt a suicide need help. They need to know there are many in this country who are working to ensure personal autonomy, socially and economically. Greater economic opportunities will encourage this objective. Giving people a new start is all that some will need.

Let us not be foolish in our approach. We will not solve the problem of suicides by banning and restricting guns.

Another issue which this bill fails to address is the growing problem of gang crime. The proposals will do nothing to prevent the commission of crimes by gangs. This is an increasingly frightening problem in our urban centres. We cannot continue to address the problem after the fact. We treat the wounded or bury the dead, sometimes lay charges and even convict. Would it not be more effective to implement those measures which would prevent the commission of these senseless acts of violence?

The Reform Party has consistently argued for more vigorous sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. We have recommended the elimination of firearms charge plea bargaining. If the charges are consistently thrown out, why would criminals worry about using a firearm? We support attacking the healthy gun smuggling trade. We have already discussed substantially increasing the penalties for the use of firearms in crime. We should start an overhaul of our prison system.

Finally, what the bill fails to address and what the government fails to realize is that we need to come to terms with what drives people to violence.

In conclusion, I wish to remind the House that this bill deals with at least two substantively different matters. It deals with registration of firearms as well as their criminal use and distribution.

I would also like to reiterate that I will consult with my constituents and will make every effort to reflect their wishes on this bill in the House.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government's commitment to tougher gun control has been the subject of some controversy. I wish to explain in some detail the position I have taken on this issue after talking with numerous gun owners, attending many meetings with gun enthusiasts, and giving this matter lengthy and serious consideration.

The debate on gun control ranges from those who would ban all guns, with which I disagree, to those who feel they have the right to bear firearms unrestricted and unregulated, anytime and anywhere, with which I also disagree. Gun ownership is a privilege and carries with it certain requirements and responsibilities which can and must be regulated. Most gun owners would acknowledge this. The argument then becomes one of degree.

It is fair to say that gun owners and gun control advocates can agree on some of the desired results: reduced crime, reduced accidental death, and reduced suicide. The passionate disagree-

ment seems to stem from the methods being used to achieve the desired results.

Police across the country have been crying out for tough gun controls to help fight crime and protect the lives of their fellow officers. Victims of crime, health professionals, mayors from across Canada and many other groups have demanded tougher gun controls.

An average of 1,400 Canadians die each year in gun related murders, suicides and accidents. Many others are seriously injured. Of the 732 homicides committed in Canada in 1992, 34 per cent or 246 people were killed in accidents committed with a firearm. Suicides account for 77 per cent of the 1,119 firearms deaths in Canada in 1991. A recent survey showed that guns were used in 40 per cent of murders of women by their spouses. Many deaths are by depressed youth acting impulsively with a weapon easily had and in their home.

How can anyone ignore this situation? How can any government ignore this situation? In many of the cases, impulsiveness was a factor. Ready access to a firearm allowed a dispute to escalate to a murder, or a depression to a suicide. In some of these cases, firearms presented a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Many of these lives would have been saved if the gun had not been readily available.

There are few who disagree with three of the principal aspects of the gun control legislation: criminal sanctions, smuggling or illegal importation, and assault weapons.

The most controversial aspect of this gun control issue is unquestionably a new computerized national registration system for all firearms and firearms owners in Canada. The government asserts that universal registration of firearms is a cornerstone of our strategy to target criminals, tighten border controls and enhance public safety.

Opponents of gun control argue that registration will not reduce crime. I ascribe to the opinion of the president of the Association of Chiefs of Police who states that without information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun control. A cost effective registration system will help control smuggling, gun theft and misuse of firearms in many important ways, some of which are as follows.

The illegal gun trade is a serious problem. Presently, firearms are not registered when they are imported into the country. The type numbers and serial number of each gun are not recorded. A recent newspaper article underlined the fact that guns imported legally can be sold illegally. Unless illegal firearms can be distinguished from legal registered firearms, it is impossible to curb the smuggling problem. Registration will help stem the theft, diversion and smuggling of firearms from legal shipments.

Registration will also help in the enforcement of court ordered firearms prohibition orders. It is estimated that 13,000 prohibition orders are made every year to take away firearms from individuals considered a danger to society. Unless the police know what firearms are registered in the names of those persons, they are limited to searching the premises, or to hoping that all firearms will be surrendered voluntarily. This is not sufficient.

The inquest into the suicide of Jonathon Yeo, who is believed to have murdered Nina de Villiers while out on bail for another violent offence, recommended the registration of firearms.

When the police prepare to intervene in a dispute, a registration system will determine if firearms are present, the type and numbers. Inspector Park whom I may quote from the Niagara Regional Police in my riding of Erie said: "The more information about what you are facing, the better you can deal with it".

While police officers always presume that a suspect is armed, they often discover more than they bargained for. In one example given by police, what looked like a .22 calibre rifle turned out instead to be a more lethal Lee-Enfield. The firearm was loaded with military ammunition that was capable of penetrating the bulletproof vest of a police officer.

Firearms registration will ensure that people are held responsible for their guns. The current firearms acquisition certificate allows individuals to buy as many rifles and shotguns as they wish over a five-year period and these guns cannot be tracked to the original owner. Registration will help ensure that gun owners do not sell their firearms illegally or give them to individuals without proper authorization.

Registration will also encourage the safe storage of guns. Canadians have heard enough accounts involving children and guns to know that some gun owners should take more care in storing their weapons. More than 3,000 firearms are reported stolen every year. They are falling into the hands of criminals.

Studies have shown that many firearms used to commit crimes were originally acquired lawfully, in many cases stolen from their original owners because they were stored improperly. The semi-automatic pistol that was used to kill Constable Todd Bayliss was stolen from a widow who had inherited the second world war relic when her husband died. The gun was left lying on the shelf in her clothes closet as it had for years. The gun was stolen and Constable Bayliss is dead.

Registration will further assist the police in high risk situations. Despite the emphasis on the criminal element, most murders involve people who know each other. Almost 40 per cent of women killed by their husbands are shot mostly with legally owned firearms. Spousal violence generally surfaces

gradually and the police are often aware of the problem before a life is threatened. Gun registration will allow for preventive actions such as temporary removal of the firearm from the premises.

Registration will also help in the enforcement of the law in prosecution of offenders. One can appreciate that it is difficult to prosecute someone for possession of a stolen weapon if the identity of the lawful owner cannot be ascertained.

Gun owners feel that registration of every shotgun and rifle would place a heavy and expensive bureaucratic burden on law-abiding gun owners. In fact the registration system is hardly onerous. The proposed registration system for firearms will replace existing FACs and other permits with new possession certificates and registration cards. It will simplify the system.

The registration system has two components. A possession certificate will begin in 1996 to register the gun owner and to acquire new firearms in the future. The registration card will begin in 1998 to register individual firearms. Possession certificates will be similar to drivers' licences, are valid for five years and can be renewed simply by filling out a form. Registration cards for firearms are a once in a lifetime exercise with no renewal required.

For example, someone already owning long guns will only have to register their firearms once for as long as they own them. The process is expected to have a minimal charge estimated at approximately $10 for up to 10 guns. It will be as simple as licking a stamp and mailing a form. A registration card or possession certificate will enable people to buy ammunition and hunt or target shoot the same way they have been doing for years.

The costs of registration to the gun owner are as comparable or less than that of other registration systems we are involved with such as cars, boats, drivers' licences, et cetera. On balance there are some who will consider registration a hassle, but it is a minor one when set against the benefits referred to earlier.

There are no further restrictions on ammunition save and except that one must be 18 years old to purchase ammunition and it must be stored properly. Restricting ammunition sales to those 18 and over makes sense. Young people under 18 cannot legally buy cigarettes now. Why should bullets be any less restricted? It will ensure that if a youth wants ammunition at least an adult will be in the know and able to ask questions or provide supervision if it is deemed necessary.

Gun owners make a good point that the vast majority of them are responsible law-abiding citizens. This is true. Although the gun laws may make small time criminals think twice, gun registration will not deter professional criminals or drug dealers. This is also true. Unfortunately there cannot be one law for the crooks and another for honest citizens. There must be one law applicable to everyone.

Some opponents to gun control feel it is a threat to democracy, an infringement of their right to bear arms, a right I suggest they never truly had in the sense in which it is uttered. Despite popular belief it is a right American citizens do not have with their constitution granting only the right to bear arms for the purpose of army and militia.

Canadians have a country founded on the principles of peace, order and good government. Gun control fits this expression. There is nothing undemocratic about ensuring that ours is a safe and peaceful country.

Registering guns does not remove the right to exercise one's privilege to own or use them, but it does make it easier to ensure they are owned and used responsibly. It does make it easier to remove the privilege when it is abused.

Opponents often tell me that responsible gun owners are being penalized when criminals are not. All gun owners are responsible until they do something wrong. Marc Lépine had no criminal involvement until he massacred 14 women at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique with his Ruger Mini-14.

Moreover it is difficult to imagine how a responsible gun owner could object to a law designed to ensure that others are also responsible. What do Canadians think of responsible gun owners who are now vowing to ignore the law and refuse to register? Is that responsible? Is that law abiding? Hefty fine for such action is a poor alternative to the small gun registration fee.

Suggestions that gun registration is a prelude to confiscation by a Hitlerain government are unfounded. There is no evidence to support fears that someday somewhere the federal government will seize all firearms.

If the gun lobby would look at the legislation objectively and responsibly it too would support the bill. I encourage it to do so.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the motion of my Reform colleague to split Bill C-68 into two logical and rational bills that separately cover the two different topics included in Bill C-68.

It may well be that tough action on the criminal element will eliminate the extremely costly, not to mention intrusive and unproven registration aspect.

It is obvious to all in the House that the crime control measures included in Bill C-68 are long overdue. Canadians have been calling on the government to get tough on smuggling for a year and a half now. The stiffer sentences prescribed in the bill will act as a deterrent to those who consider smuggling an

occupation, but only if the government actually starts enforcing the law everywhere along our borders.

The mandatory minimum sentencing requirements are also crime control measures that Canadians have been demanding for a long time. They have repeatedly asked the government to crack down on violent offenders. Unfortunately the provision will directly affect only a small portion of weapons related crimes.

According to the Centre for Justice Statistics over 94 per cent of victims killed or injured in a robbery were harmed by weapons other than firearms. The minimum sentencing provision should be extended to the use of any weapon in the commission of an offence.

On the other hand the bill contains measures that will force citizens to register all their firearms. This issue must be considered separately from the crime control measures in Bill C-68. Gun control is not related to crime control and has no place in crime control legislation.

The justice minister may believe that future restrictions on law-abiding gun owners will somehow reduce crime. However he has completely failed to explain to the House what crimes will be reduced and how gun registry will accomplish it. All available research indicates exactly the opposite. Tighter restrictions on law-abiding citizens will only encourage the criminal element. After all, criminals will not register their guns.

The Auditor General pointed out that the current gun registration system has never been properly evaluated. Why would the justice minister forge ahead with his expanded registration system plans when we do not even know what good the current system is?

How many crimes has the current system prevented? What use has the current system been? Until these questions have been responsibly answered there is absolutely no reason we should consider spending more money on gun control. No one would be against additional gun controls if they could be proven cost effective in their ability to save lives and reduce crime.

The minister has made a great many inconsistent statements in the debate over registration, confusing not only the public affected but even members of his own caucus.

We hear the statement that people register their cars so why should they not register their guns. Does this seem like a reasonable comparison? I think not. We do not ask people to prove they need a car to get a licence. We do not introduce policies to grandfather the ownership of automobiles or ban the sale of replica cars. Unlike an applicant for an hour-long driving test, a firearm owner must go through a three-month safety process including an extensive police background check. There is no comparison.

As we know the licensing of cars is mainly a revenue gathering tactic. It does little to prevent 100,000 car thefts annually or over 3,000 traffic deaths. Gun registration will do nothing to prevent theft or death either. It is another bureaucracy creating, tax collecting excuse for the state to intrude further into the lives of private Canadians. If the justice minister thinks otherwise then let us see the evidence he has to back up his claims that registration will save lives.

A second inconsistency is found in the sentencing provisions of the bill. The crime control provisions call for mandatory four-year sentences for certain violent crimes. Reformers support the measure. However the bill will make failure to comply with the registration requirements a criminal offence with sentences of up to 10 years in prison.

Given these facts it is conceivable that a rapist who used a gun could receive a four-year sentence, while on the other hand a farmer who has an old shotgun out in the barn which is used occasionally for pest control may find himself serving ten years for failing to register a little used farm implement. The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I suggest the government has no business in the barnyards of the nation either.

The minister's proposal for registration was followed by many statements about how the rates of suicide and accidental death will fall. The justice minister thinks he knows what is best for us. He even said he was doing this regardless of what others thought because it was right.

It is my duty to point out to the minister that Canadians who fear the dangers of firearms have always had a choice. Each Canadian already has it within his or her own power not to own firearms, not to keep them at home, and never have anything to do with them if he or she so choose. However, for those Canadian homes, about half of them, where citizens feel comfortable with their guns, their kitchen knives, their cleaning solvents and many other dangerous items they may have around, why does the justice minister think he should dictate what Canadians may have or do? It is time for governments to have more faith in the common sense of the common people.

Another key indication that the gun registration section of the bill is a poorly thought out Liberal attempt at problem solving is its obvious intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Here again we find a reason for the bill to be split. The crime control measures are clearly Criminal Code issues that must be dealt with by the federal government. The gun control measures intrude deeply into provincial jurisdiction in the areas of property rights, taxation and education.

It seems as though the Liberals have not learned their lesson yet. It was just last month that they started to cut federal spending for provincial social programs they had no business

being in. Now a whole new social program, gun registration, is being introduced in another area of provincial jurisdiction.

Under our Constitution the provinces are guaranteed the right to deal with property issues. Guns, cars, houses, land and money are all examples of private property. This is one reason the federal government is not in the business of registering automobiles. It has not right to. It should not assume it has any right to register any of the other private properties of Canadians either.

The second area of intrusion is in education. Currently firearms training courses are run by the provinces. The new legislation forces a federally designed course on all provinces. It is yet another example of federal intrusion in an area of provincial constitutional jurisdiction.

Because enforcement of any of the registration provisions will have to be investigated and prosecuted by the provinces, the administrative costs of the legislation will have to be borne by the provinces.

In closing, why not first place the emphasis on the criminal use of firearms? Once the get tough policy on smuggling and the violent use of firearms has been employed, the need to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars and harass law-abiding gun owners may well be eliminated. Why not give it a chance? I would encourage all members to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity to comment on Bill C-68 respecting the Firearms Act on behalf of the constituents of Bruce-Grey.

Bruce-Grey is one of Canada's most blessed ridings with an abundance of clean air, pure water and excellent people. It is located in the beautiful Bruce Peninsula in southwestern Ontario. My riding has one of Canada's first underwater national parks.

The traditions of the people are very strong. I also have two native reserves in my riding, Saugeen and Cape Croker. I am pleased that the minister is going to take into account the traditional way of life of the native community.

Hunting still plays a very important economic role in my region for the service industries, outfitters and guides. Tourism is a major industry in my riding. Almost every farmer and many rural residents own firearms, not only for hunting or sport but also for the protection of their livestock from predators.

I have held several meetings with organizations in my riding such as hunting and shooting clubs and numerous meetings with individuals regarding Bill C-68. The greater majority of my constituents applaud the minister and support the call for stiffer penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of crime and for stiffer penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms, as well as stricter border controls on firearms.

My constituents have two major concerns, the first dealing with the prohibition of the 105 millimetre or 4.14 inch barrel length handgun. I am pleased the minister has requested the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs determine which handguns in the prohibited class can be exempted due to their use in recognized shooting competitions. I feel the standing committee can resolve the issue and make recommendations to accommodate the legitimate user.

The other major concern of my constituents is the universal registration system for legal hunting rifles and shotguns. In all my meetings and discussions this portion of Bill C-68 elicits the most serious concerns and the strongest objection. Many of my constituents believe this system will make criminals out of innocent law-abiding citizens who do not register their legal rifles or shotguns or who are unable to do so.

These citizens are responsible, respectful people who enjoy hunting as a sport. They value their rifles and shotguns and take great care to secure them. As I said earlier, most of the rural residents do have a rifle or a shotgun. It is a necessity and legitimate tool of their everyday working and recreational lives. They are law-abiding citizens.

I do not wish to reiterate everything previous speakers said on this portion of the bill except to say that I feel the bill can be improved by removing from the Criminal Code the penalties under section 91 for non-registration. My constituents prefer that we have no registration of rifles and shotguns. That would be my preference also. However, if the standing committee determines registration is a necessity I hope it recommends the penalty for non-registration be removed from the Criminal Code under section 91.

This simple amendment would take nothing away from the strength of the bill. It would ensure that law-abiding Canadians are not recorded as having a criminal record due to an omission or oversight. This amendment would dispel much of the concern of my constituents.

An umbrella groups representing hunting and shooting clubs has requested an opportunity to appear before the standing committee. It will be bringing forward its positions. It is important that our legislation will achieve the goals for which it is intended, to make our communities and streets safe for our families and for all Canadians. There are many positive sections in Bill C-68 that will accomplish this.

I ask that the standing committee take into account my comments particularly about removing from the Criminal Code penalties in section 91 for non-registration.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are some aspects of Bill C-68 which have some potential for support, although not many.

The main unsupportable area is registration of rifles and shotguns. There are a number of reasons this is absolutely unsupportable. The previous member spoke of the possibility of the standing committee determining the need for this. The citizens of Canada determine these needs.

One of the objections to registration is the cost versus the alleged benefits. The cost is reported by the Minister of Justice as being in the neighbourhood of $85 million. I am polling my constituents on this and in order not to be misleading I am using that figure. That figure is a fabrication by the Minister of Justice and the Justice Department. The reality is it will cost not less-this is done through different methods-than $500 million. The cost could run as high as $1 billion or beyond.

The rationale for this is if we take the current known cost of registering a handgun and apply it to the low number the Minister of Justice estimates for rifles and shotguns, it comes to almost half a million dollars. There are probably far more firearms out there than the minister is letting on.

Another issue raised by many owners of firearms, sports enthusiasts and competitive shooters is future confiscation. The minute this is raised we start getting the minister and many of the members opposite suggesting it is paranoia on the part of firearms owners.

It is not paranoia if there is justification for it based on past practice. There is past practice. Bill C-17 introduced by the previous government took away many firearms that law-abiding citizens purchased legally and essentially said. That government said: "Sorry, we changed our mind. Those are now illegal. Turn them over. No compensation".

This proposed bill also bans certain firearms legally purchased by Canadians and the Liberals are saying: "Sorry, we changed our mind". There is validity in the fears these people have. In the future we could be faced with confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. There are things like the Beretta 12-gauge, very expensive, very popular for skeet and trap shooting. There are semi-automatic hunting rifles. They are very legitimate firearms, functionally identical to many of the firearms banned. Then we could be looking at high calibre rifles as well with the rationale that a 30.06 is good enough, one does not need anything else.

Then we have the security risk aspect. We have already had cases in which criminals have been able to get into RCMP computer files and find out who has weapons and where they keep them. The last thing people who own firearms want to do is provide a more complete list for criminals to access.

Then we have the proposed banning under the current legislation of .25 and .32 calibre firearms and those with barrel lengths under 4.14 inches. At least we have the minister's new version of banning.

This suggests these calibres were innocuous to start with and should never have been banned. First he was going to ban them and grandfather them. One could not use them. One could not sell them or trade them. Then he backed down and said: "These weapons are okay. You can use them. You can sell them to somebody who already has a firearm in that category. You can take them to the range. You can do everything with them you did before". If that is true, why is there the ban in the first place? There is a lot out there to make people suspicious.

What we are doing with this legislation is making criminals of law-abiding citizens. We are bringing out new regulations harder to comply with and then we are saying: "If you break these regulations, you will be a criminal". What about the real criminals?

We should be looking at the areas of the bill that can perhaps be strengthened to really mean something. That is why we are suggesting the splitting of the bill, so we can work with the things that have some potential of doing some good in society.

The registration of rifles and shotguns is not going to prevent one single criminal misuse of a firearm. Crooks do not rob banks with 30.06 hunting rifles. As far as any question of an argument or a fight that breaks out at a party or whatever, the victim will feel very comfortable knowing they were shot with a registered rifle instead of an unregistered one. That argument does not carry.

We need to look at penalties for those who criminally misuse firearms. We are talking about sentencing, the length of the sentence, the concept of plea bargaining and consecutive sentences.

The current legislation proposed does not have any teeth in it because it matters not what kind of sentence comes out if most of those are plea bargained away and also if they are served concurrently with the other main sentence. There is absolutely no teeth to that.

We need lengthy sentences for criminal misuse of firearms, for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. We need to remove the possibility of plea bargaining from sentences and they need to be served consecutively, not concurrently. We also need to deal with smuggling strongly. We need to make strong examples of people who smuggle firearms or people who use firearms for any criminal activity.

The bottom line is this legislation should deal with the criminal misuse of firearms, not the use by legitimate, law-abiding citizens. Let us not make them criminals as well.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to speak on Bill C-68. One of the goals of any civic minded parliamentarian and law maker is to produce laws and regulations which make our country a safer place while respecting the rights and privileges of its citizenship to engage in peaceful, law-abiding activity.

Never would we in this party uphold the right of anyone to engage in activities which would cause harm to innocent civilians. That is why we fully support bills which address criminal behaviour and activity. Bill C-68 deals with part III of the Criminal Code, often referred to as gun control laws.

One can see when looking at this bill that there are two distinct parts to it, one that will almost universally be applauded by people in the House, the other that will be very divisive and by and large by the majority of people in our caucus will be opposed. It will be opposed for very clear thinking, logical and civic minded reasons.

Let us ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Are all guns and their uses criminal? The answer is no. Therefore it is up to us to figure out and deal with what is criminal and what is not.

God bless us in Canada that we do not have the gun culture of the United States. Our culture is personified by tough gun control laws that force people who wish to acquire a firearm to jump through some very complicated and multiple hoops in order to acquire a firearms acquisition certificate. These hoops include waiting periods, personal checks, taking a course and strict storage requirements to which there is absolutely no parallel in the United States. That is just to get a rifle.

If a person wishes to acquire a handgun, the rules are even more stringent. They require a trigger lock for the handgun and they force the person to be a member of a gun club; rules and regulations we heartily support.

It is a delusion that we can acquire a weapon, stick it underneath our pillow and use it whenever we wish. Perhaps that is what occurs south of the border, but thankfully it does not occur here. Our situation bears absolutely no resemblance to that of the United States. The failure to pass half of this bill will never remotely bring us close in any way, shape or form to what occurs south of the border.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no desire whatsoever, especially among legitimate gun owners, to be anything like the United States where guns of all kinds are widely available to anyone who wishes to possess one. This is an environment I abhor as does as any other law-abiding citizen. The responsible environment in Canada is the one that legitimate gun owners happily find themselves in.

Let us look at the criminal use of firearms which should really be the end point of any thoughtful gun control regulations. Between 1961 and 1990, 63 per cent of all homicides were committed by an object other than a firearm. The object of choice was a knife. Illegal handguns, which would not be addressed by the registration aspect of this bill, were responsible for 13 per cent of the homicides. Legally owned handguns were used in less than 1 per cent of the cases. Last year, of the 720-odd homicides in Canada, five were committed with illegally owned handguns.

Criminals using firearms to commit offences are not legal gun owners but rather those who acquire firearms through different measures.

Criminals do not go to the police department and say: "Constable, I have this illegal weapon that I would like to register", or "I would like to acquire a firearms acquisition certificate". These people cannot get an FAC through the current regulations. Rather they get their weapons illegally through smuggling across the border from the United States or from those people who have acquired guns in that manner.

Therefore, the Reform Party supports completely the justice minister's endeavours to increase penalties for smuggling, theft and for using a firearm in committing a criminal offence with a four-year minimum sentence.

As an aside, I would strongly recommend to the Minister of Justice that with this sentence goes certain stipulations. First, that there be no plea bargaining whatsoever. Second, that parole be not applied to this aspect of sentencing and that the sentences run consecutively not concurrently.

If the government does this, it will send a strong message to those individuals who are committing offences with firearms. Currently most weapon offences are plea bargained away in order to get an expeditious conviction on another offence, such as a break and enter, which ensures that there is virtually no penalty whatsoever to the criminal who chooses to maliciously pick up a firearm and commit an offence. He or she knows no effective penalty is going to be applied to them. Thus, we completely support direct measures to address the criminal use of firearms.

We do not support punitive actions taken against legal gun owners. These individuals jump through hoops to get firearms acquisition certificates, take courses, join clubs, et cetera, and have proven not to be the element in our society that commits criminal offences. As I have proven before, these are not the individuals who do this.

Some people have said that having a firearms acquisition certificate, increasing the penalties that we already have and having gun registration in particular, is somehow going to decrease the rate of suicide. The fact of the matter is that between the time that strict gun control measures were brought in to the time before that, the rate of suicide per capita has not changed. Furthermore, the number of individuals who use firearms in committing an offence has not changed at all.

Another aspect that is very fundamental to this case and perhaps one of the most potent reasons why not to vote in favour of gun registration is the cost. People have not given this enough thought. The cost is anywhere between $80 million and $500 million, as has been claimed, and will be passed on to the consumer to some extent. However, not all of it will. That leaves the ultimate payer in all of this, the taxpayer, who is already taxed to death.

This means that money is going to be pulled away from other functional aspects of the justice department. I cannot emphasize this enough. We are going to be taking money away from police officers which should have gone for training and equipment. Police officers are already hamstrung because of lack of finances in part. Think about it. The government is cutting the effective arm of our justice system, the arm that protects us, to do what? To invest in something that has proven not to work.

We are going to see fewer arrests for those committing offences such as rape, murder, attempted murder, assault and break and enter. All of this is going to decrease the power of the police forces to deal with this. Is this an effective use of the taxpayers' money? I think not.

We will not support any measure that has proven not to decrease the rate of crime, as has been proven in Australia. It enacted gun registration and it has proven to be a failure. The police forces there are asking the politicians to revoke it.

Furthermore, contrary to what is being said here by members of the government, these measures are not supported by the rank and file police officers. That is very important to recognize. Of all people, those who are in the field should know best.

In closing, we support the bill. We support that it will be divided into two sections. The part that we support is the effective measures to reduce crime. The part that we do not support is the aspect of gun registration and the punitive actions against law-abiding gun owners.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in debate on a Reform amendment to split Bill C-68 and thus bring the real issue of safety and security of Canadians into focus.

The amendment presents the Minister of Justice with a real opportunity to protect Canadians and prosecute and punish those who break the law.

As the bill is currently structured, the legitimate issues concerning firearms control are clouded and confused. This obfuscation was no doubt conceived, cultivated and foisted on the minister by select individuals of the Coalition for Gun Control and some stealthy, arrogant, policy counsels within justice. Like a rock these beacons of virtue and public service are telling Canadians what is good for them. If these same people are so concerned for the welfare and safety of Canadians and fairness in laws, then any rational thinking bureaucrat would have seen this major deficiency in handiwork.

Anyone can see that splitting the bill will focus the wrath where it should be, at those individuals who use firearms in the commission of crimes and who continue to make our streets unsafe for law-abiding citizens.

As Bill C-68 is currently constituted we are being asked to deal with two separate issues. Let us try to remove some of the emotion from the debate. Let us deal with the issues in chewable chunks. If the minister believes so firmly in firearms registration, then let him stand up and debate his notion of fairness. If he is so concerned with criminal justice let him stand up and debate his notion of fairness. Let the issues stand on their own merits and not on stealth.

Recently the Minister of Justice during a speech in Montreal was quoted as saying: "More than anything else Bill C-68 is about the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of society we want as Canadians". He went on: "We are willing to have it out right now. Let's decide who is running this country. There's no room for an American style gun lobby in this country".

I want to tell the justice minister that Canadians run the country and there is room in this nation for all kinds of people representing many points of view. Comments about gun control like the ones he made in Montreal are intolerant. Debate is dissent according to the minister. What is he afraid of? If he really wants, as he said, to have it out, then level the playing field. If he feels he has such support, deal with the legislation in Bill C-68 upfront, each issue at a time without the rhetoric.

Let us take a look at some of the statistics and at the real issue. Last year roughly 3,800 firearms were either lost or stolen by those who lawfully own them in Canada. Some of these would have been from police and from the military. During that same period 375,000 firearms were smuggled into Canada. That is one hundred times as many.

The onus and emphasis of the minister's legislation is registration which impacts on lawful citizens. Why does he not beef up security at our borders and crack down on the gun smugglers and runners?

The minister says he wants to take this issue on. He thinks establishing a national registry at likely cost estimates upwards of $500 million to implement is taking the issue on. Tying up police resources in software programs and registration verification is really getting tough on crime. The criminals are shaking in their boots. One does not have to go two miles from Parliament Hill as recently as last Thursday when three parolees shot it out with police, wounding two officers because of better fire power. I am sure those three, who will be out on release shortly because of our revolving door justice system, will be the first to run out and register their illegal guns. If anyone is playing politics with emotions, it is not the Reform Party on this issue.

The minister conveniently uses the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs to make and carry his message on gun control. This is the same organization that receives federal funding and which has never done any polling of its members. How weak.

I can make a case for the other side based on my conversations with real police officers who are fighting crime. It is backed up by letters and calls. I even received one petition from Sault Ste. Marie with 5,000 signatures, demanding that their point of view be heard. These are responsible, law-abiding citizens who may not meet the minister's social standards and are thus dismissed as not worthy of a point of view.

The whole issue of registration is a red herring in my books. New Zealand has had universal registration and is abandoning it with the blessing of the police because it is time consuming, expensive and is not accomplishing anything.

Australia is considering abandoning its universal registration with the blessing of police. Police in Australia estimate that only one firearm in four is registered due to non-compliance. Criminals for sure do not register their firearms. For heaven's sake, they do not even register their cars.

The shootout in west end Ottawa last Thursday night involved a stolen getaway vehicle. The answer to all this is Bill C-68, an issue the minister says he wants to take on.

A national firearms registry does not meet the views of the majority of Canadians who are seeking less government, less intrusion into their lives, and reducing the cost of government.

The legislation and the minister's bill will impose a 10-year jail term for failure to register firearms and includes the right to search and seize without a warrant. This is the minister's view of how Canadian should be governed, by a police state. After everything is said and done, the criminals will be running the justice system.

Bill C-68 is a complicated, convoluted attempt to shift the focus of the real debate. If it is left in its current form we will fail to tackle the real issue, which of course is crime control. This is bad law. The justice department argues that registration will make gun owners more accountable.

As a firearms owner, I already store my firearms according to the rules, as do the majority of gun owners. I can tell the minister that no registration system will force gun smugglers, gun runners and criminals to be more accountable. It is misguided and focused on the wrong premise.

This is the easy thing to do and the way one would expect a bureaucrat to deal with an issue. In their perfect, self-contained world, any gun owner is a criminal. We are all lumped in the same category. It is convenient, easy but dead wrong. This is bad law.

I therefore support the motion to split Bill C-68 and get down to the business of solving crime.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague for Yorkton-Melville for introducing this amendment.

The universal registration of firearms is one of the most controversial and ineffective sections of Bill C-68. The amendment separates gun control from crime control. It allows the crime control portions of the bill to be dealt with separately and expeditiously.

For the last year members of the Reform Party have been telling the government that Canada has a crime problem, not a gun problem. It is a difference it has so far refused to recognize. The government persevered and introduced Bill C-68 which is seriously flawed.

The minister claims his intention is to crack down on the criminal use of firearms. Certainly that is an area I would support him in. In fact, all he has done so far is to take aim at the easiest available target: the legitimate owners of guns. He really means that gun control lies at the heart of the Liberal Party's effort to derail the nationwide surge in interest in tougher and more effective criminal justice.

Public safety must be the overriding goal of any government. Punishment of crime should come before all other objectives. The Reform Party believes the target should be the criminal use of firearms, not the law-abiding gun owners.

Passage of this amendment would allow Parliament to get on with dealing with the crime problem. There is no connection between the legitimate gun owner who owns a firearm for hunting, target shooting, or for the protection of his family or his animals from preying wildlife and the criminal who obtains a firearm illegally for the purpose of committing a crime. There is no correlation between the two at all.

As my friend pointed out, last Thursday in Ottawa a few miles west of this Chamber there was an armed robbery. Not only were two of the participants in this botched hold-up on parole, but they also had a history of armed robbery convictions. That is what they had been jailed for on their last convictions. One of them was even prohibited from owning a firearm for life.

How would gun registration have made any difference whatsoever in this case? Would it have saved the two Ottawa police officers from the gunshot wounds they suffered? Not likely. Let us face facts here. No amount of gun control regulation would have stopped this trio from obtaining the guns they needed to carry out their robbery or any other robbery they might plan.

The real problem here is the criminal misuse of firearms. Those convicted must be severely punished. The separation of this bill into two parts would accomplish that goal.

More crimes are committed in this country with knives than guns, but no one is suggesting we register our kitchen knives, at least not yet. This government is more interested in proceeding with the mandatory registration of firearms than it is with solving our crime problem. Mandatory gun registration is not just a tax on law-abiding gun owners, but one that will cost all Canadians millions of dollars to implement.

The minister's supporters, the anti-gun lobbyists, claim that firearms registration is justified because we register our cars and our dogs. The truth is that these registrations exist primarily as a form of taxation.

The Minister of Justice estimates universal registration will cost $85 million. If you will pardon the expression, I think that is a rather conservative estimate. Experts at Simon Fraser University put the cost somewhere between $400 million and $500 million.

Here we have a Liberal government using parliamentary time to debate gun control when we will be paying some $50 billion in interest this year. This government has its priorities completely mixed up. So much for an assault on the deficit. This is merely another assault on the wallets of Canadian taxpayers.

In addition, mandatory registration will turn police officers into bureaucrats. The Minister of Finance announced in the February budget that thousands of public service jobs will be eliminated and he is going to shrink the bureaucracy. Someone should tell the Minister of Finance that his colleague, the Minister of Justice, is creating a whole new bureaucracy. Once the minister turns police officers into bureaucrats, they will be so bogged down with paperwork and chasing otherwise legitimate gun owners that they will not have time for regular law enforcement duties.

We have asked the minister repeatedly for evidence proving that a national gun registry will save lives. So far he has been unable to give us that information and has been successfully ducking the issue. We know the reason he cannot give those. He simply cannot. He does not have a shred of evidence to provide to us.

The Minister of Justice has taken on gun control purely as a personal crusade. Somehow he has managed to confuse crime control with gun control. Now legitimate gun owners are afraid that this minister is so blinded by his personal agenda that he will stop at nothing until he reaches his ultimate goal: the complete confiscation of all firearms in Canada, maybe with the exception of law authorities and military. We have heard this minister and other members of the government state that they would like to see a society in which only police officers and the military have weapons. The only way that can come about is through confiscation.

The minister hopes that by making firearms ownership so complicated and expensive that Canadians will give them up. More than likely, it will put more guns into the underground market, not less and ultimately, more guns into the hands of criminals.

The Minister of Justice hopes that all this attention on gun control will divert attention away from the roots of our crime problem. After all, the Liberal Party policy on crime is that it somehow is society's fault. He often drags out polls to support his stand.

If he is really interested in the polls and what people think, he should look at the Simon Fraser University opinion survey. It showed that Canadians knew little about gun control laws and that their support for firearms registration weakened as they became more knowledgeable about this issue.

The reason people voice support for gun control when questioned by pollsters is that they think or hope that registration of firearms will somehow improve public safety and reduce violence. Most Canadians do not know that handgun registration has been in effect in Canada since 1934, 61 years. There is no record to show that a single crime has been prevented as a result of this registration.

Most Canadians do not know that experiments in firearms registration were expensive failures in Australia and New Zealand. As my friend has pointed out, they are now being given up in those countries.

Most Canadians do not know that in 1993 the auditor general reported to Parliament that the previous government had no statistical basis for implementing the last round of gun control regulations.

Most Canadians are unaware of the findings of project gun runner which was undertaken by the Ontario government. Project gun runner found that 86 per cent of all handguns used in the commission of crimes were smuggled into Canada. Does the minister really believe that the new owners of these smuggled

weapons will register them? Surely, he is not that naive. I do not believe he is.

Reformers are not opposed to the government's plan to crack down on smuggling. That is why we believe the only solution is to split this bill so that crime control and gun control can be dealt with separately.

It is too bad the Minister of Justice cannot see that his determined efforts to reduce crime are so far off base. He started down this road and he is too proud to admit he is lost. He is afraid that if he turns back he will be seen as abandoning his principles.

The minister should thank his colleague from Yorkton-Melville for bringing forth this amendment. The member has done him a big favour. He has given the minister an avenue to save face. If he takes it, he can preserve his standing in the next leadership race.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in opposition to the amendment which has been tabled by the member for Yorkton-Melville and to speak strongly in support of the principle of Bill C-68.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House. In saying so, I want to take this opportunity to make very clear that this legislation is the product of the dedication, the commitment, the integrity and the energy of many men and women across this country.

I am proud of the history of my own party in speaking out for strong and effective gun control. One of my former colleagues in the House, Stuart Leggatt, the former member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby, was one of those who originally participated in the debate on gun control legislation in 1976 and 1977. He spoke very eloquently about the importance of effective gun control.

I took the opportunity to review those debates and to look at some of the newspaper coverage of the debates at the time. It was eerily familiar. One headline was: "West up in arms over government's gun control proposals". In 1976, a group calling itself the Firearms and Responsible Ownership coalition distributed a commentary suggesting that the purpose of the government's bill was to ultimately stop any and all legitimate use of firearms in Canada. It went on to suggest that gun control legislation was a threat to sportsmen. That was in 1976 and we are hearing the same kind of unfounded allegations today.

It was my colleagues, Ian Waddell, the member of Parliament for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and Dawn Black, the member for New Westminister-Burnaby, who in the last Parliament spoke out very strongly for tough and effective gun control legislation. They called for a stronger Bill C-17, a strengthening of the bill that was brought in by Kim Campbell.

Our platform in the last federal election was unequivocal. It stated: "New Democrats have consistently argued for more effective gun control. We support the most recent legislation and have fought hard against efforts in the House of Commons to weaken it. We continue to promote an even stronger, more effective law. In particular, we want a national firearms registry system which would provide law enforcement agencies with a list of each firearm in circulation and its serial number. This would facilitate the tracking of all weapons stolen or used in crimes". I am pleased and honoured to stand in my place in the House of Commons today to reiterate that commitment to strong and effective gun control legislation.

I would also like to pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun Control. It has done such an outstanding job in helping to make Canadians aware of these issues. I particularly pay tribute to Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen, the executive director.

Heidi Rathjen had the good fortunate to survive the massacre that left 14 dead at l'École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. I would also like to pay tribute to Mrs. Suzanne Edward, whose daughter was among the victims of the December 6, 1989, massacre.

Finally, I would like to pay a special word of tribute to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who has so tirelessly advocated strong and effective gun control legislation over the years. I have seconded a number of private members' bills that he has tabled and he has seconded a number of mine.

It is not often that I take the opportunity to commend a minister of this government. I see the Minister of Justice in the House today and I know he has made a genuine effort to respond to the concerns of Canadians. He has travelled extensively across the country and has listened to hunters, gun collectors and others in all provinces and territories, including my own province of British Columbia. I want to take this opportunity to commend the minister for his efforts to genuinely understand, listen to and respond to legitimate concerns of those in the field of gun control and for the leadership he is demonstrating in moving forward on this very important legislation.

I listened with interest to the previous speaker from the Reform Party who asked the question: Where is the evidence to back up the call for registration? I have a very interesting quote from the first Reform Party member of Parliament to sit in the House of Commons. The member for Beaver River spoke in this House on November 6, 1991. What she said on the question of firearm registration was very interesting.

"I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that over 90 per cent of all respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered". The Reform Party member for Beaver River went on to say: "I agree with that and I think every Canadian would agree with that as well". Let me just say that I agree with the member for Beaver River when she spoke in November 1991. I can only ask why it is that her colleagues have not listened to the very thoughtful analysis of the member for Beaver River as well.

The previous speaker for the Reform Party asked where the evidence is. I will cite a statistic to the Reform Party member who asked the question and left the House. In Britain in 1993-94 there were a total of 55 firearms deaths. That is in a country with a population of 60 million. In Canada there were over 1,400 deaths caused by legally owned firearms.

What more do those who ask for evidence need? We will save lives. We will reduce the level of crime. That alone is grounds for rejecting this amendment and moving ahead on this very important legislation.

Recently the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very comprehensive memorandum on the issue of registration because that is the issue. No one is questioning the importance of getting tougher on smuggling. No one is questioning the importance of tougher criminal sanctions. That is clear.

Some concerns have been raised about the potential impact of lengthy mandatory minimum sentences on prison populations and I share some of those concerns. The real issue and the purpose of the amendment is registration.

What do the chiefs of police have to say about registration? They say without information about who owns guns there is no effective gun control. Tracking guns that are imported into Canada and then sold is critical to controlling abuse. They point out registration will help promote safe storage which will reduce gun theft as well as suicides and accidents.

I have seen this in my own constituency. There was the case of a young man 18 years old who was at a party with a group of friends. He took out his father's gun and tragically was involved in a fatal shooting. A police officer from the Burnaby RCMP said it is a typical case of firearms not being secured the way they should and firearms not being handled the way they should, a life gone for nothing. How many other lives will we lose before we recognize this madness must come to an end?

I am proud that we do not have the American psychology of the right to bear arms. We do not have the pressures of the National Rifle Association intimidating elected representatives. We have seen powerful attempts to lobby.

One of the factors I am proud of that distinguishes Canada from the United States is we are prepared to say we do not believe in that culture of unrestricted gun ownership. This bill will help to preserve and to strengthen that commitment.

We will save lives with this bill. There is no doubt about that. Police, women's groups and others have made it very clear they want to see strong and effective registration. They want us to remove firearms from volatile situations. Those situations include circumstances in which there may be a suicide, in which there may be a homicide.

We want to make sure there are not undue costs of registration, that the system is not unduly burdensome. We want to put more resources into dealing with violence against women. The leader of my party has spoken out very eloquently on the importance of that.

We want to see more resources for enforcement at the border. The government is cutting back on public service. I am concerned that we not cut back on resources that will help us to fight smuggling. We want to do more in terms of prevention. I am deeply troubled by the cuts in the budget in social programs.

I am proud to stand in the House to oppose the amendment, to support the principle of this legislation. I believe in doing so that I am maintaining a long and honourable tradition of New Democrats who have spoken out for strong and effective gun control, for safer communities and for saving lives. I am very proud to continue in that tradition.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for North Island-Powell River-Indian affairs.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion proposed by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville. The intent and the effect of this motion are very clear, to split the bill into two parts. One part would contain the Criminal Code amendments dealing with the criminal use of firearms while the second would contain all the regulations governing the ownership of a firearm, including such things as storage, transportation requirements, training courses, minor permits, et cetera.

The bill as it stands addresses two facets of firearm possession. One facet is directed toward those who possess firearms legally and the other is directed toward those who possess firearms illegally.

The Minister of Justice through the bill is requiring all persons who legally possess a firearm to register their firearm and that this will reduce the number of persons who possess a firearm illegally. The first response to this is how will this approach achieve that?

Before pursuing that, let us look at the approach to solving the problem. The problem we have is the illegal possession of firearms and the misuse of these firearms. The approach of the bill is to impede or to put up barriers to the legal possession of firearms, which will supposedly reduce illegal possession of firearms; in other words, punish the law-abiding citizens to get at the law breakers.

Gun control measures aimed at reducing crime and the registration of firearms are two separate issues. If the purpose of Bill C-68 is to reduce crime, why does it include the registration of all firearms? Should it not be plainly demonstrated beforehand how registration prevents and reduces crime?

This is what Reform members have been asking the Minister of Justice and so far they have failed to get a clear, concise, satisfactory answer. Establishing how these two components are linked has not been forthcoming.

On February 16 the Minister of Justice opened the debate on Bill C-68 and spent much of his speech dealing with registration. One of the minister's arguments was to reduce the number of firearms smuggled into Canada. The minister stated we should reduce the number of firearms smuggled into the country. It is a laudable goal and one which the Reform Party supports. Then the minister went on to state this would be achieved through registration. He said the registration of all firearms will enable us to do a better job at the borders.

The minister added on February 16:

We will never stop the smuggling of firearms entirely. There are 130 million border crossings a year. We cannot stop every vehicle and check every trunk and glove compartment. But we can do a better job than we have done in the past and registration will enable us to do it.

How does registering a gun allow them to work better at the border? If cars are not stopped in the first place, how will they know if the gun is there?

Perhaps members opposite will grasp why Reform members are so frustrated with the bill and the minister's rationale. We can divide the minister's arguments with regard to smuggling into three statements: one, the registration of firearms will enable us to do a better job at the borders; two, it is hard to stop the smuggling of firearms entirely because of the volume at border crossings; three, we can do a better job and registration will help us. It sounds like a circle to me.

That seems to be the argument on how registration will reduce smuggling. That argument utterly fails to answer the question of how the registration of firearms in Canada will reduce smuggling. I can see how more border inspections and more border guards will reduce smuggling, but I fail to see how registration will work in this regard. It is incumbent upon the minister and the government to provide clear answers to these genuine questions.

One reason firearm owners oppose registration is they see it as a step toward confiscation. While the Minister of Justice has tried to allay that concern, prominent colleagues in his own party seem to favour that view. In the debate on March 13 the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women said the following:

In 1987 the English writer Martin Amis wrote: "Bullets cannot be recalled. They cannot be uninvented. But they can be taken out of the gun".

The speaker went on to say: "I would add that the safest way is to take away the guns". This certainly sounds like confiscation to me.

I would like to comment on the politics of this issue and this bill. They have become very interesting because of the reaction of the Liberal and NDP caucuses. Members of the government who support the bill like portraying this as a right-left ideological debate or a debate between the people of Canada and the gun lobby.

The justice minister on February 16 said:

We have an opportunity for Parliament to make a statement about the kind of Canada that we want for ourselves and for our children, about the efforts we are prepared to make to ensure the peaceful and civilized nation that we have and enjoy and to demonstrate just who is in control of firearms in Canada. Is it the gun lobby or is it the people of the country?

This type of talk is simply presumptuous.

At a town hall meeting I held in Surrey in March most people wanted to talk about the government's proposed gun legislation. They were overwhelmingly in favour of tougher criminal penalties for criminal misuse of firearms but they were opposed to the registration of their firearms, seeing it as expensive, intrusive and impractical. These people were not members of gun lobbies. They were individual citizens who are hunters, collectors or target shooters.

One person I remember quite well was a Delta police officer who talked at some length about how the proposed registration would be totally ineffective at reducing crime. Citizens such as these are the ones opposing the registration aspects of Bill C-68. The sooner this is realized by the government the better.

If opposition to the bill is just the gun lobby, why are members of the minister's own caucus having trouble with the legislation? Why are eight of the nine members of the New Democratic Party supposedly opposed to the legislation? To think that all of these members of the NDP and Liberal caucuses have been coerced by gun lobbyists is phenomenal.

The motion the member for Yorkton-Melville has introduced reads as follows:

That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefore:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.

I would like to finish with the following quote that expresses my sentiments also:

My constituents have been asking all along that the bill be divided into two parts: legislation that directly affects law-abiding gun owners and legislation that affects the criminal use of firearms.

That was a quote from the March 13 Hansard . The person who said those words was not another Reform member, nor was it some member of the nefarious gun lobby, but the Liberal member for Cochrane-Superior.

I read the motion that has been put forward. To that member and to other reasonable Liberals, the member for Yorkton-Melville has provided members with the opportunity-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-68 and also to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

I am pleased to join my Reform colleagues in calling for Bill C-68 to be split into two bills, one dealing with crime and the other with gun control. These two issues are both important but are not connected.

Crime control deals with the issue of public safety while gun control deals with the issues of red tape, bureaucratic burden, additional taxation and, from some extremists, Liberal social engineering.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest criminal activity and legal gun ownership are connected. Many studies have been done that clearly demonstrate that no such link exists.

No doubt there is a real crime problem in Canada. The politicians know it. Canadian citizens know it. Everyone knows it. Naturally the government wants to be seen as doing something about it. We on the Reform benches would rather the government take real steps to deter crime than opt for the quick fix, look good attack on legal gun owners. It may create a lot of activity that gives the impression of real action, but it will have no real impact on the rates of crime and violent crime in Canada.

One study on the relationship between guns and crime was recently done by Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University. Professor Mauser's report entitled "Gun Control is not Crime Control" has been published by the Fraser Institute and contains some very interesting facts.

Professor Mauser looked at homicide rates in countries around the world and compared them with gun control laws to see if there was a correlation between the two. There was none. The professor pointed out that no government anywhere in the world could claim to have reduced crime through gun control. Firearms have been banned altogether in Jamaica, Hong Kong, New York City and Washington D.C. without leading to a decrease in homicide rates. Those places have some of the highest crime rates in the world.

To highlight some of his findings I think all members would be interested to know some of the comparisons found in the study. As Canada is a wealthy industrialized democracy, I will limit my comparison to other nations that fit roughly into the same category, namely the United States, France, Switzerland and Japan.

Both France and the U.S.A. have higher homicide rates than Canada. In the United States gun control is more relaxed than here, but in France it is somewhat more controlled. Switzerland has very liberal gun laws. Private gun ownership is encouraged. Not only is the homicide rate in Switzerland lower than in Canada, but it is also lower than in Japan where gun ownership is prohibited entirely. The murder rate is higher in a country that prohibits guns than in one that promotes their responsible use.

An even more telling comparison is the case in Great Britain. Faced with a growing crime rate in the 1980s the British government introduced extremely restrictive gun controls in 1988. In the five years that followed, the crime rate in Britain rose at precisely the same rate as before gun control laws were imposed.

There is a very important message for the government. I hope it is listening. Gun control will have no effect on the crime rate. According to Professor Mauser:

The federal government's current proposals for stricter gun controls would, if introduced, not only fail to reduce crime but would vastly increase the size of the federal bureaucracy.

He went on to say that while legitimate gun owners pose no threat to society, "the violent offender poses a significant threat to public safety and greater efforts must be focused here. It is a truism that laws only apply to the law abiding".

How true it is that more gun control laws will only punish those responsible Canadians who are already following the current laws. The tragedy is that an otherwise good crime bill is being ruined by the inclusion of gun control measures that will not reduce violent crime, suicides or firearm accidents. If they did I would be the first to support them. All these measures will do is punish responsible gun owners and have a serious impact on the industry they support.

I want to talk about the economic impact of Bill C-68. The economic value of all hunting, target shooting and gun collecting in Canada is estimated to be $1.2 billion per year and growing. In my province of Saskatchewan the provincial government is currently engaged in a study of how much economic activity will disappear from the province if the legislation goes through without amendment. The province raises over $8 million annually from the sale of hunting and fishing licences. Some of the revenue will be lost or at least greatly reduced if owning and operating a firearm becomes too expensive or too bureaucratic to be worth it.

American hunting groups are already saying that many hunters will not come to Canada if the gun control is in place. The loss of tourism dollars will be devastating to many parts of Saskatchewan including the area of Kindersley in my constituency.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands does not particularly care about the economy of Saskatchewan but I am very concerned because it is the economy in my province that puts bread on the table, provides a future for young people and gives them some reason for optimism. I am really disappointed the government is trying to impose legislation on my province that will harm the economy.

The number of businesses attached to the hunting and tourism industry is tremendous. Has the government considered how many hunting lodges and outfitters will be forced to close? What about all the stores that sell hunting clothing and equipment and the sale of offload vehicles and RVs? We are talking big business. It is not a trivial matter.

Members across the way seem to think it is a trivial matter. They mock the legal business practices of the people of Saskatchewan who are benefiting from the tourism and hunting industry as it now exists. They do not seem to care that it will be squelched with the introduction and passage of Bill C-68.

It is not only the small business men and women who will suffer from the collapse of the hunting and fishing industry. Many local charities run food concessions at gun shows. It is not uncommon for a church group to raise $3,000 or $4,000 for charitable works from a single weekend show.

When farmers retire and auction off their equipment many put a rifle or two in the auction because it brings more people out to the sale. Many in my constituency have expressed the concern that losing this activity will drive down the money they raise for their retirement.

Many outfitters to whom I have spoken from all across Saskatchewan say that business in their stores and at gun shows has dropped by 40 per cent in anticipation of the bill passing. There is a 40 per cent loss in business because they understand the government is fixated with passing Bill C-68. They are expecting it to get much worse once the full impact of the bill is felt.

The Government of Saskatchewan estimates that for each white tail deer licence it issues to non-Canadian residents, $3,000 in related spending is added to the provincial economy. In 1993-94, 2,850 deer licences were issued to non-Canadians. If the American hunters boycott Canada, $8.5 million in direct spending alone will be lost from our economy.

As long as the herd is properly managed, this is a renewable resource that could continue to provide enjoyment for Canadians and our guests as well as contribute to our economy. White tail deer hunting is very important in my riding at the moment as the new world record buck was recently shot by a constituent of mine from Biggar.

Myles Hanson broke an 80-year old record previously held by an American from Nebraska. Because of this new world record, potential for increased tourism revenue exists for the local hunting industry, potential that is put in risk by this type of legislation.

It is unfortunate that we cannot have more time to debate the bill. I will close by saying that Bill C-68 should be split into two bills, one dealing with the crime control that all Canadians want and the other dealing with the gun control wanted by the Liberals and other elites.

It has been demonstrated time and time again that gun control and crime control are separate issues. We should treat them separately in the House. The economic impact of the bill will devastate the tourism industry in Saskatchewan. I call on all members, particularly those from Saskatchewan, to support splitting the bill. It would be a shame to lose a good crime bill because of some ill thought gun control idea.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

I have heard a lot of debate on the issue. I have heard a lot of statistics. We sometimes wonder what is being done with all the information. In Manitoba we register cars. There is insurance on them. If I am not a responsible driver pretty soon it costs me a lot more to drive the vehicle.

I heard that gun owners were very irresponsible, that there were many accidents in the home, that guns had to be locked up, and that something had to be done to prevent these things. I thought: Why not go to insurance companies to find out how they look at the issue? I want to read some statistics from Ontario and Manitoba. Maybe hon. members can put the figures together and match them against what has been said.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters offers a public liability to its members included in the membership fee. They get the umbrella coverage through Royal Insurance. The insurance premium is extremely cheap. It works out to about $3 or $4 per member per year. It provides $2 million for public liability. That is pretty cheap public liability insurance. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not offer life insurance as part of its membership.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation includes a $5,000 insurance on death or dismemberment at no extra cost. That is very cheap insurance for a very dangerous occupation, I would say. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not offer it because it is no more difficult to get a personal life insurance package if one is a hunter than if one is not. Apparently a life insurance company will ask questions to determine if one is involved in high risk activity. It will ask if one sky dives or scuba dives but will not ask if one is a hunter.

Insurance people work on a profit margin. If terrible accidents were costing a lot in compensation or insurance, they would have increased premiums. In Ontario in the late 1950s there were about 40 to 50 hunting accidents per year. Now there are less than five per year because of the extra emphasis on hunter safety training courses provided by gun clubs and by hunting organizations. It a pretty efficient education.

According to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters there is no question regarding gun ownership on home insurance policies. The Manitoba Wildlife Federation reports basically the same. It provides a $2 million third party supplementary liability policy with membership. It is meant to be supplementary and the homeowners policy would kick in first. The wildlife federation policy would cover the next $2 million. If there were no homeowners policy the wildlife federation policy would become the primary policy.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation gets its insurance through Bolls and McMartin Insurance in Winnipeg. My assistant spoke with Bolls and McMartin Insurance this morning. There are no extra premiums for firearm owners on its homeowners policy. It is not a question they ask potential customers. Whether or not the person wanting insurance owns a firearm is not an issue. The number of firearm related accidents is so small that it is not of concern to the insurance companies. Why is it such a concern to Liberals?

Its homeowners policy is quite comprehensive and provides public liability for hunting accidents in the same way that it would provide for a chimney crumbling and damaging a neighbour's house or for a shingle blowing off the roof and hitting the postman. That about says how dangerous it is when it comes to gun ownership.

Prudential Insurance Company in Ottawa offers a home insurance policy that provides a $1 million liability. It covers a wide range of circumstances: accidents with a gun in the home or during hunting, someone slipping on a step or someone being hit by a brick falling off a chimney. They are all under one category. It does not ask specific questions regarding firearm ownership. It asks for the total value of goods in the home and guns are usually under the category of sporting goods.

When a home is broken into and the thieves want guns, they will also steal the guns that are stored and locked up. It is a matter of the criminal looking for whatever he needs. It is not the guns that are causing all the problems.

I would like to inform the House that there have been hunters in my family for five or six generations. My grandfather, whom I knew well, was an avid hunter, my father, myself and my youngest son. We have never had a hunting accident or a gun related accident. I have had the experience of my youngest son almost being killed by an attacker in a parking lot in the city. In one generation I have had that experience where five generations of hunting have never given me that experience.

Have these criminals been apprehended? No. It is impossible to catch them. Why? I would like to read a story and perhaps hon. members across the way will find out what our problem is. This is a Canadian Press story from Winnipeg of January 23:

The bodies of Rhonda, 22, and Roy Lavoie, 30, were found Friday in a van parked in a farmer's garage north of Gimli, Man. Police said they died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Roy Lavoie had been charged on at least two separate occasions and released on bail both times.

"I don't know why Roy got out the second time," (a friend said) as a police chaplain helped family members break the news of the murder-suicide to the couple's sons, age 2, 3 and 6.

He was allowed to go free on bail after being charged with assaulting and abducting his wife in November.

(On testimony given in Queen's Court on January 11 this lady) described how her husband had driven her to a cabin against her will, tied her up inside the car and threatened to kill her with exhaust fumes from the vehicle.

She had to promise she would not release this to anyone.

There are laws to protect us from criminals but they are not being enforced. Until such time as we as members of Parliament make the police enforce these laws any gun registering will do nothing to deter crime.

It is evident to anyone who has ever had anything to do with criminal activity that it is not the gun or the club or the stone or whatever it is that he is using, it is the man using the weapon.

If we want to do something, let us go after the criminal. Let us divide the bill. We support the section dealing with the sentencing of criminals. I fully support the amendment of my colleague to divide the bill and I hope the rest of the House will too.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the amendment introduced by my hon. colleague, the member for Yorkton-Melville.

The amendment is to divide Bill C-68 into two parts: the first part dealing with the criminal use of firearms and stricter penalties to punish crime; and the second part to force law-abiding citizens to go through a very complicated, a very structured and a very costly procedure to register all their firearms. This is in addition to handguns, which are already registered and have had to be registered for over 60 years.

We support the division of the bill. Most Canadians want the criminal use of firearms to be dealt with swiftly and energetically. We need to make the criminal use of firearms, the violation of the safety and the rights of law-abiding citizens, a high risk activity. Criminals should think long and hard and should pay a very high price for violating the rights of citizens, for harming them and for interfering with their safety. We all agree on that. We wish the government would get on with it.

What we do not agree with is this time-honoured, political ploy of marrying a very important and very desirable public policy objective with a very problematic, very unpopular and very indefensible objective. That is so often the case in legislation where two different matters are put together in a bill. Legislators are forced to swallow some unpalatable parts of the legislation in order to get the desirable ones.

My colleague has given the House the opportunity to get what we need, which is better law enforcement and better punishment of criminal activity. It would deal in a more rational and sensible way with some of these proposals to get tough with law-abiding citizens and to interfere with their freedoms and their right to live their lives in a peaceful and uninterrupted manner.

The justice minister made some rather interesting claims about the gun control portion of the legislation. I would like to examine those claims. I hope that members opposite will be quiet long enough to listen to what I have to say.

First, the justice minister said that registration will improve safety for police by letting them know who owns firearms. The fact is that fully 96 per cent of guns involved in criminal activity are illegally obtained. Police do not know who owns these firearms because criminals do not register their guns. They are criminals. They are not operating within the law and they are not going to do it just because the justice minister thinks it would be nice if they did.

Second, the justice minister claims that registration will combat smuggling by monitoring the types and quantities of firearms coming into Canada. Perhaps the justice minister, being a very educated man, could look at the dictionary. The dictionary defines smuggling as "unmonitored and secret activity". I fail to see why smugglers will register firearms. Will they say: "We are smuggling these in and we will send you a list of what we are smuggling?" That is a little ridiculous. I am sure that even members across the way can see the logic in that.

Third, the justice minister claims that registration will improve public safety and only penalize criminals and those who fail to accept responsibility for gun ownership. The justice minister has been repeatedly asked but has never produced information to support his claims that registration of firearms will increase public safety and decrease the criminal use of firearms.

If we could be safer with registration, every one of us would wholeheartedly enter into this activity. We have asked for this kind of evidence and we have asked for documentation to support this unfounded allegation made by the justice minister. If he has a shred of evidence, why does he not bring it forward? All he does is say that the association of police chiefs wants this. The association of police chiefs wants capital punishment to be reinstated. Is the justice minister going to accede to that request as well?

This is an important issue and the justice minister should be putting forward the facts on which he is basing these allegations.

The justice minister claims that registration will help police to enforce prohibition orders against individuals prohibited from owning a firearm. My colleagues have cited case after case where crimes have been perpetrated by people who have already been prohibited from owning firearms but are still using them. In fact, in Ottawa a few days ago that very situation took place.

Plain, real life experience shows that the claims of the justice minister simply do not hold up. It is very important that we examine this in a common sense and rational manner. If we are going to make these kinds of claims and promises, they should stand up to real life scrutiny and they do not.

The justice minister also claims that registration will ensure that owners of firearms store them safely and securely beyond the reach of thieves. Any responsible firearms owner has already been doing this for decades.

Registration simply puts unwarranted restrictions and red tape on responsible, law-abiding, freedom loving citizens as a substitute for getting tough with criminals. This is simply unacceptable in our society.

We have literally millions of firearms in our country. Every one of them under this scheme will have to be examined and registered. This will entail an enormous amount of paperwork and administrative time for our already overworked law enforcement agencies.

We want these people out on the street. We want them responding to our calls for help. We want them to be there when we need them, not shuffling paper to make sure that all the hoops are jumped through, all the p s and q s are minded by people who have never committed a crime in their entire lives nor are they likely to.

There is a real commitment in our country to democracy, to freedom, to individual rights. This kind of government intrusion, this kind of restriction on freedom, this type of interference in the way we order our lives, we own our property and manage it, is simply not warranted. It is simply not acceptable.

I urge members of the House to put a stop to this nonsense by supporting the amendment, dealing with what should be dealt with and leaving law-abiding citizens alone.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will follow up very quickly on what the hon. member for Calgary North said.

I am very concerned that although we have asked the justice minister on many occasions to give us the evidence that shows that registration of guns will lead to a reduction in crime, each and every time he has used a phoney argument.

He has tried to appeal to the authority of the police chiefs. The police chiefs are just offering their personal opinion as politicians, certainly not as experts in the field. We have given him instance after instance of other jurisdictions where gun control has been attempted, where registration has been attempted, not the least of which is Canada.

I point that out to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We have had the registration of handguns for 60 years and we still have an increase in the criminal misuse of handguns. That is a very powerful argument against the further registration of long guns.

Also, we have pointed out what has happened in other jurisdictions around the world, such as Australia, where they have had to repeal the idea of the registration of guns because the system did not work. Let us not engage in emotional arguments about guns. Let us look at some of the evidence out there.

The fact is that in other jurisdictions and in this jurisdiction gun registration has not been effective in controlling crime. If it had been, this party would be at the lead in promoting it but it has not. For that reason, we cannot support it.

I also want to touch for a moment on the whole idea of personal responsibility. There is a concept that many people believe in very strongly, which is that if one is responsible for something then that person should personally pay the consequences. In this legislation the government has stood that concept on its head. It said that if the bad guys do something bad then everybody should pay for it. That is what the legislation promotes.

I urge Canadians around the country to write to the government and tell it that this is wrong-headed legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Your time has not expired. When debate resumes you will have seven minutes left.

The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the third time and passed.

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to order made Friday, March 24, 1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1995.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent that the House deal with the report stage motions and the concurrence motion with regard to Bill C-69 before Bill C-73 and do Bill C-73 immediately afterward.

[The Speaker]

Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[The Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. This is in the first group.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 4.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)