Debates of March 28th, 1995

Firearms Act

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68 which proposes to make changes to Canada's gun control system.

I support the efforts of the government in Bill C-68 to impose stricter border controls on smuggling, stiffer penalties for illegal importation and trafficking of firearms and tougher measures on criminals who use guns. I support raising of the age to buy ammunition. I fear, however, that the government is targeting law-abiding gun owners while trying to get at the criminal use of guns. That is why its approach is misguided and will not work.

Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. It has barely begun to take effect and the government is imposing another layer of controls that will do absolutely nothing to cut down on crime or improve public safety. Under the existing gun law, applicants must obtain a firearms acquisition certificate, often referred to as an FAC for which they must take a gun course, undergo a police check and wait 28 days.

All handguns are considered restricted weapons. Owners must have an ownership permit and register them. Most handgun permits are issued to certified gun collectors, sports club members or those taking part in shooting competitions.

The private ownership of most military assault weapons is already banned or restricted.

If you want to hunt you must take a mandatory hunting course, which also covers firearm handling and safety. The current law also includes stringent storage and transportation regulations. It is an offence to breach the regulations.

This law, although it passed on December 5, 1991, came into force in stages. This means that some very major measures did not come into effect until very recently. One of those measures was the firearms safety education training course needed for an FAC.

Because many measures in Bill C-17 took effect just recently, it is too early to tell what impact they will have. Therefore, it follows that it is too early to add other controls such as a registration and licensing system which will demand even more resources and time to implement.

I fear that the government is moving too quickly and in the wrong direction with a national registration system. As a result, it is law-abiding Canadians who will end up paying from their pocketbooks and in their freedoms.

Criminals do not register guns. If you intend to commit a crime, you are not going to take your gun in and register it the day before you shoot someone. We cannot emphasize this point enough. They use stolen weapons or firearms which have not been properly registered. To assume that registration will somehow prevent or even reduce most forms of violent crimes is flawed. Creating a registration regime for firearms which are rarely used in crimes seems like a plan designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats.

The onus is on the Minister of Justice to prove that a national registration system will be cost effective and increase public safety. He has not done that.

There is a disagreement at this time about the number of unregistered firearms in Canada as well as the ultimate cost of universal registration. Our understanding is that registration could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Neither law-abiding firearm owners nor other taxpayers deserve to be burdened with an expensive system the minister cannot prove will cut down on crime or improve public safety.

Taxpayers could be paying for this boondoggle for decades to come. If there was any real prospect that the additional registration procedure would make a significant impact on violent crime, there would be reason to support such a plan. However, there is no convincing proof of that.

At a time when other levels of government are looking for ways to cut costs, it is absurd that the federal government is setting up a whole new bureaucracy on an expensive project whose value is highly questionable.

The government should not be punishing law-abiding gun owners when criminals with illegal guns are the real problem. I know about law-abiding gun owners because I have brothers who are hunters. My father was a hunter and I always wanted to be one, but they would not trust me with a gun so I could not go with them.

It is for these reasons that I back the notion that universal registration and licensing be considered separately from criminal sanctions and border control. I also believe the government should spend more of its energy educating Canadians about current gun laws instead of trying to impose more controls on law-abiding citizens.

There is evidence that despite some very good material on current gun laws most Canadians lack a basic understanding of the measures already in place. Before adding to the law it is essential to find out if education programs are working. If they are not, let us fix them. Because many people are not aware of the control and limits on private firearm ownership, many do not distinguish between the legal firearm owner and user and the criminal who uses guns.

It has been argued that the lack of public awareness about the existing law extends to gun owners and law enforcement officials. This prevents the law from being applied properly. It also may prevent those directly involved in or aware of dangerous situations from informing the police and preventing tragedies.

The federal and provincial governments need to sponsor an effective public education program to inform Canadians of all aspects of current gun control laws. They should at least wait to see if current laws are working before imposing what may be unnecessary limits on Canadians. Public safety balanced with the rights of legitimate law-abiding gun owners should be the guiding principle for any changes.

The minister should also remember that for many Canadians, especially aboriginal peoples and those living in the north, firearm use is a part of their tradition and culture and may be necessary for survival. For others such as farmers, hunters and sportsmen, firearm expertise is a part of the job or a legitimate hobby.

The new bill also prohibits gun collectors from leaving their guns to members of their families after death. A number of gun collectors have come to me very concerned about this. I cannot believe the minister understands any of this when he called-as he did at the Canadian Club-lawful, responsible gun owners who disagree with parts of his bill an American style gun lobby. Comments like this show he is not recognizing, let alone understanding, the reality of many Canadians.

I believe in public safety. I believe in the kind of public safety brought about by effective laws that protect the victims and punish the criminals. I am not convinced the measures in this bill will do that.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about Bill C-68, the firearms legislation.

As a representative from rural Ontario I have some concerns about the legislation which I intend to address in a minute. I want to express both my support and the support of my constituents for the minister's objective to curb violence in our society. That is the intent of the legislation and I fully share that. My constituents share that. It is a worthwhile objective. The debate on Bill C-68 is about the best method to curb violence in our society.

I support a number of the things the minister has proposed. I support increased criminal sanctions for the illegal use of a firearm. On average right now it is about 16 months for committing those 10 designated offences. Under this legislation it would be four years, an increase of 300 per cent in the sentence.

I agree with the sanctions individuals will have to absorb if they are caught smuggling firearms. I agree with his direction to provincial attorneys if they have evidence not to bargain away a firearms offence, go to court and find the individual guilty.

I agree with an enterprise crime for the smuggling of firearms. If someone is caught doing it, the assets they have gained can be seized by the crown and used for further criminal control. I agree with increased border controls, recognizing that we will not be able to stop every vehicle that crosses the border. If we are able to reduce it by 20 per cent or 30 per cent, it is better than not doing anything. I agree with his interdiction activities.

I was very pleased to hear that the minister agreed there are legitimate uses of firearms. He agreed that hunting is a valid pastime. He agreed that target shooting is a valid sport. He agreed that collectors have a right to collect.

He talked about the needs for pest control and the needs of trappers. I agree with that. I agree with his statement of the economic impact hunting has on areas like mine. Every fall thousands of people travel to Parry Sound-Muskoka to participate in hunting. They have a significant economic impact on my area.

I hope the committee studying the bill looks at ways of having that support better enshrined in the legislation because it is an important concept which should be in the legislation.

I do not agree with the comments by some of my colleagues opposite regarding self-defence. I agree fully with the minister that police officers and military officers should carry firearms for self-defence. I do not agree with arming civilians for the sole purpose of self-defence against criminals. We are not the United States. We do not settle our arguments at the end of a gun barrel. That does mean there are not legitimate uses like hunting, target shooting and gun collecting. We have to make the distinction between the two.

I have some concerns regarding some of the proposals, particularly related to registration. The minister has suggested we are going to spend $85 million to register firearms. I want to be clear that is the best way to control violence.

The minister said registration will not stop a criminal from using an illegal weapon. He indicated it will not stop somebody

intent on killing himself. It probably will not stop somebody intent on committing violence against somebody else.

I need the committee to demonstrate in its hearings exactly what the link is between universal registration and curbing violence. I want the committee to look at models from other countries to see how it has worked. I want it to come forward with statistical data showing that direct link between registration and the curbing of violence.

I want the committee to listen closely to witnesses, both pro and con, so we can understand how this works, registration and controlled violence. I want the committee to talk to the people who will have to enforce this legislation, the police officers on the street who will actually have to enforce this, handgun clubs which will be a big part of the enforcement, legal firearms owners about how this will work.

The committee has to compare the $85 million expenditure with some other options. Would $85 million spent on more policing be a better way of curbing violence? Would $85 million spent on breaking the cycle of poverty in our inner cities be a better way of curbing violence? Would $85 million spent on education for spousal abuse and protection of battered individuals be a better way?

In its report I want to hear that any system it eventually suggests will be effective. It must demonstrate that directly. It has to be efficient, not creating a large bureaucracy and not setting up ongoing and escalating costs. It has to be a secure system. I want it to tell me it will not be costly to individual firearms owners. Most important, I want it to demonstrate it is not the first step along the road toward prohibiting all firearms.

I support the minister in his objective of controlling violence. I support his sanctions against criminals. I support trying to stop smuggling. I want to see the benefits of registration clearly demonstrated by the committee.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-68, the gun control bill introduced by the Minister of Justice. The purpose of the bill is to tighten controls on firearms, which may be seen as a response to the unfortunate incident that took place at the Polytechnique more than five years ago. According to the polls, a majority of the public is in favour of tighter gun controls.

In fact, for many years nearly 80 per cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Quebecers have been asking the government to take action in this respect. The public wants access to, and acquisition of, firearms to be made more difficult. It wants assault weapons to be strictly for military use, it wants handguns to be prohibited and it wants stricter controls on the sale of firearms.

The bill is a partial response to these concerns, and the minister will establish a national firearms registration system. According to the information we received from the minister, the new system is supposed to be the foundation of the gun control program. It will be administered by the RCMP, in co-operation with the provinces and territories. The system will be used to fight the criminal use of firearms by issuing prohibition orders, taking action against smuggling, monitoring compliance with safety regulations and helping the police to trace stolen weapons.

The minister tells us the system should pay for itself. It will cost an estimated $85 million to implement this measure. In December, the minister said that the cost would be amortized over five years. In February, he said seven, and that the system would generate revenue. I am sorry, but I doubt the system will pay for itself. We do not know how much it will cost the provinces to co-operate with the federal government, and what will be the cost to the general public, both nationally and provincially, of sharing the responsibility with the federal government, and how much taxpayers will have to contribute to make this system an effective one.

The minister also said that holders of firearms acquisition certificates will not have to spend a single penny to get their new licence to own a firearm, and I suppose they do not mind. Current firearms owners only have to pay a renewal fee of $60 five years from now. In some cases, I heard at my office that this might be a problem for people who practise target shooting. This area is not quite clear to me. Meanwhile, in accordance with the new federal creed, the provinces are being asked to help implement a system without knowing what the cost will be.

A memo from the office of the Minister of Justice, dated January 19, said that the government hoped, but could not confirm, that current owners of firearms would not be charged a fee for a licence to own a firearm. So it is not quite clear whether firearms owners who have already paid will have to pay again.

The same memo goes on to say that once again, the fee schedule will be progressive, in that fees will increase over time to encourage the public to register their firearms as soon as possible. This is all very praiseworthy, but when we see how taxes are going up, the public probably has every right to say: "First we will be able to register free of charge but pretty soon we will be paying enormous amounts to be able to own a firearm".

"Once again, we hope the cost will not be too high during the first year", said the minister. In short, the method for financing the system is somewhat obscure, there is some question as to the final outcome.

Another point to be made is that certain weapons will remain in circulation. Despite the bill, 13,000 military type automatic weapons, including over 4,000 AK-47s will remain in circulation due to the system of vested interests. I might be tempted to indulge in a little black humour here and say that it is really too bad that the unemployed do not own such weapons, then they could keep at least one vested interest.

Coroner Anne-Marie David held hearings in Montreal in November and made certain recommendations. She called for simpler and more consistent storage regulations, easier to understand.

She also wanted the regulations amended to force those selling weapons to keep them locked or inoperative. She called for a specific regulation governing shipments of weapons stored and transported by an importer. She asked that weapons be confiscated in the case of a second unsafe storage, display or transportation offence. She called for a vast information campaign to increase public awareness, a request echoed by a number of associations of firearms users.

None of these measures is contained in the current bill. Representatives of the Quebec police force and the Association of Police Chiefs told Dr. David that the existing regulations are so complex they require police experts to interpret them. How are ordinary citizens going to figure them out?

Between 1926 and 1992, 64 per cent of the homicides in Canada were committed with weapons other than firearms. Between 1988 and 1991, 95 per cent of violent crimes did not involve the use of firearms, but, rather, kitchen knives, force or dangerous instruments. In 1991, 0.3 per cent of violent crimes or murders were committed with firearms. For 1991, statistics indicate that 67 per cent of violent crimes were repeat offences.

Two rights oppose each other in this bill: the right to the enjoyment of safety in life and the right to privacy and to own a firearm.

Like many hon. members, I have received a lot of information. This information has come from the person responsible for this issue, but also from people keenly interested in the matter in my riding. From this information, I would like to share two interesting points with the hon. members, if I may.

The first is that criminal acts and domestic accidents do not involve weapons that are legally purchased and registered, but invariably weapons obtained illegally on the black market, no matter the calibre and barrel length. I note that the present bill contains no provision in this regard.

The second is that the minister would be well advised to prohibit certain weapons and accessories: certain pistols, for example, are no longer made of tempered steel but of a composite material combining plastic and carbon, and can pass almost undetected through metal detectors. Airports are beginning to give this serious thought. There are also laser sights and infrared telescopic sights of use only to hired killers. My information indicates further that these items are not used for legitimate target practice and are more dangerous than the old .25 and .32 calibre handguns and guns with a barrel length of less than 105 millimetres.

I therefore believe it is important to proceed with this bill. People want firearms controlled. But they have to be controlled in a way that users living peacefully in the country, for example, who want to take a walk on their property, regardless of the time of day, and perhaps take a shot at a partridge, are not harassed by a system that tries to control things but that fails to get to the heart of the problem.

I therefore invite everyone, whether they agree or disagree, to express their viewpoint to the committee to further enlighten those who will have to decide on this bill.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to make a few remarks about Bill C-68. First I must comment on the fact that the whole debate has been derailed. Its basic values have been destroyed by much of the rhetoric that has been going on around it.

Across the province of Ontario there have been major gun rallies sponsored by the Reform Party of Canada. In some cases it has been more interested in selling memberships in that party than in improving constructively the laws of the nation. That is a fact of life.

Dr. Sobrian from the Omemee area near Peterborough visited my constituency a short time ago. It was at exactly the same time as we were having a church service and the laying of the colours for the airborne regiment. He appeared before a gun rally at a high school in Pembroke and was using my name all over the place.

I do not consider myself to be part of a gun lobby. I consider myself to be a parliamentarian who is trying to put something constructive into the legislation. Dr. Sobrian would be well advised by his cohorts to stay home in Omemee. He does more harm when he leaves Omemee and goes into the countryside than he would if he stayed at home. I have no hesitation in saying that to him because I do not get scared off by such people. We have to keep our feet on the ground around here.

My decision will be based on my own judgment, not on a lot of hype and cursing and swearing by people who would appear to be leaders when in fact they are feeding their egos and spreading misinformation with their rhetoric.

The impact of the legislation on the average Canadian has to be considered. One has to ask whether making some people pay for the justice system for all is fair and just. There are people paying for the education system who do not use it. They are paying for it the same as everyone else. Why should not Canadian people as a whole pay, if it is to serve the justice of the country and their safety? Instead we are targeting many people who are innocent and law-abiding Canadians. If the system is to benefit all, why should not all of us contribute? I have no problem in that regard, and I do not own a gun.

Training program costs have been mentioned as a great inhibitor. The costs for training courses are considerable. People are complaining to me about the red tape they have to go through. Many police officers whom I have been talking with have not taken the training, yet they will be faced with it. There are major problems in administration out there.

They talk about a coalition of forces. That is not the point. The point is providing good legislation with common sense logic, fairness and justice built into the system. Decisions based on emotions will not stand up over time, but decisions based on justice, fairness and common sense will stand the test of time.

A lot of the problems, the real hype and the gearing up of emotions started with incidents such as the murder at the Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto. In Montreal and in the Quebec legislature such incidents were quickly linked to all guns in general. That was wrong. It should be targeted to certain weapons and not to people who are capable of handling weapons safely.

It is unfair to attribute the problem we are facing today in part to everyday honest people. The ferociousness of the debate does not make for constructive solutions. I have heard some very outlandish speeches in the House and more outside it.

Guns increase violence is the saying, but what about countries where there are guns in nearly every home and there is no violence?

I quote from a very good speech delivered by the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior two weeks ago yesterday:

A number of inquiries conducted in various countries have shown there is no connection between the percentage of crimes involving firearms and the degree of regulation of firearms in that country. In countries with a very low rate of violent crimes or homicide like Japan or Switzerland, the presence or absence of firearms is irrelevant. However making young people socially responsible, giving them a good education and warning them against criminal behaviour, is a major factor in producing low crime rates.

If we look at Switzerland, by its nature over many years it has been a fully armed nation as far as its citizenry is concerned yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

It is a culture. It is the enforcement of law. It is the values we put into society. It is the way we train people generation after generation. That will improve the legal system and the courts by taking away plea bargaining in such cases.

The justice minister has made a good start in the legislation. Let us make the justice system work and not have people on the streets who should not be there, not have innocent people become victims of law and become criminals by virtue of it. Because of lack of information or indeed a lack of memory, if someone forgets to do something, according the act as it is written now he would be charged under the Criminal Code.

Nobody would argue about the need for anti-smuggling legislation. It is motherhood. It is necessity. Everyone in Canada, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, would support restrictions against smuggling. On the possession of stolen weapons outdoor sportsmen's clubs would support restrictions on that. They enforce laws within their own clubs, their own bylaws or their own regulations. They have very severe rules in that regard.

Export-import laws are great. They prevent the inflow or outflow of illegal arms. We have a 4,000-mile boundary to handle and it is very difficult to control border problems. With a 4,000-mile border we will have a challenge on our hands with the export-import laws. However it must be done and I give the minister credit for bringing forward that part.

No one should be in illegal possession of a firearm. There is a charge in that regard. We should get rid of plea bargaining and the minister has done part of it.

There is absolutely no sympathy out there for illegal trafficking of firearms, not by sportsmen or anyone else. They know if people with firearms get into trouble it will impact on them. The message is immediately spread on radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It is very easy to start the hype that everything is wrong in society when certain things should be corrected.

The minimum sentence of four years for a list of 10 crimes is a good start. The court system, plea bargaining and the justice system must generally be upgraded and enforced. It is supported by the general public. There will be no pity on anyone who allows the system to deteriorate in any way. Canadians want the sentence to fit the crime.

This is my fourth time around on gun legislation. None of them has been easy. None of them has been very productive in the sense of the rhetoric used. We keep coming forward with legislation. As time goes on we must pass legislation to deal with the times. We are going through difficult times but let us

remember that the good things in this bill can be supported by almost every Canadian. However, there are matters in it that affect the average Canadian. These must be corrected. There are things in this bill that affect estates. I want to see some of those corrected in committee.

I have voted over 2,000 times in the House of Commons and on only one occasion have I voted against the government. If further changes are not made to this legislation, I am afraid I am going to have to see the second time that I will vote against my own government. That does not sit well with me personally because I am a loyalist and a constructive worker trying to get things done. I do not want to vote against this bill, but if I must, I will. My constituents are not part of the problem with their hunting and their sports clubs that operate throughout the area.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the comments of the preceding speaker. I suggest to him that he seriously consider what we are debating today, which is an amendment by the Reform Party to split the bill into the parts that he and I agree are workable and necessary.

I also refer to the comments of my Reform colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. He spoke about the amendment to split the bill as being a practical solution.

For the benefit of the justice minister and his staff, I would like to set my speech around some things that have been in the public domain that his staff should have brought to his attention. However, I assume they have not, otherwise he too would be inclined to split the bill.

I would like to identify the real problem. Referring to documents that are in the public domain, I would like to read briefly from one. It is an article referring to Project Gun Runner in the Kingston Whig-Standard Companion of April 9, 1994 and I read in part:

A total of 86 charges were laid during Gun Runner, which ended last April. Of the 17 guns the team bought on the black market, one came from a break-in. The rest were smuggled into Canada.

That is one out of 17. It goes on:

Of the 243 other firearms that participating police forces seized during the operation, the vast majority came into the country illegally from the United States.

"The project certainly opened our eyes to the fact that stolen guns from B&Es aren't the problem. Smuggled guns are the area of concern," says Detective Sergeant Wayne Moore of the Hamilton-Wentworth police criminal intelligence unit.

Gun Runner helped open a lot of people's eyes.

It is unfortunate that many of the eyes belonging to the backbenchers and the Liberals were not opened by this information. Perhaps they should review it.

Metro Toronto firearms expert, Detective Paul Mullin says:

It's a lucrative business-On the streets of Hamilton and Toronto a handgun is going to sell for $300 to $500.

And when it comes to smuggling, handguns are an easily concealed commodity.

Let's face it, 10 handguns don't add up to a carton of cigarettes in size. And at $500 apiece, that is $5,000 to be made.

Further on in the same article it describes how they are getting into the country. You name it: trains, planes, boats, trucks and cars. Last year Canada Customs seized 1,681 guns at border crossings with the U.S., an increase of 124 over the previous year. But 98 per cent of those firearms were seized from American tourists who were simply not aware of Canadian gun laws.

There are a lot of areas and ways and means of getting into Canada without coming through customs. "There are lakes and backroads and rivers and unmanned locations," says a director of intelligence services with Revenue Canada and Customs.

And when a smuggler comes across he is usually carrying more than one or two guns.

He's going to be come back with a quantity-10, 15, 20 guns. He's going to make the run worth his while because he's going to get into as much trouble for one gun as he is for 20.

A Davis .380-calibre sold to a licensee for $70 may be sold to a first-level street dealer for $90. The dealer then sells it to a Canadian importer for maybe $120 and then the importer or his mule will drive it across the border and sell it for $500.

This article clearly delineates the fantastic profits that can be made.

Again, for the benefit of the justice minister and his researchers, they might want to take a look at a January 7 article in the Montreal Gazette , headlined ``Illegal guns pour in from U.S.'', detailing a number of illegal importations. I will cite two here:

Toronto, September 13, 1993. Three Armenian jewel thieves enter a downtown jewellery wholesaler, pistol-whip the owner with a 9-mm Sigarms and escape with $90,000 in merchandise. Where did the gun come from? From Vermonter Wayne D. Reed.

Vancouver, October 15, 1993. Five men, three of whom are jailbreakers, steal $500,000 worth of jewellery from a Birks store. They are armed with a 9-mm Cobray Mach II with the serial numbers drilled out, a .25-calibre Sundance and a 9-mm Glock pistol. Where did the guns come from?-Wayne D. Reed.

Wayne D. Reed, 49, lives with his wife and four children in a lower-middle-class housing development in north Burlington.

The article continues:

From this modest home Reed has fed since 1991 an ever-expanding hunger for guns in Canada's criminal underworld. According to his own estimates given to The Gazette , he has sold about 900 firearms, mostly high-powered pistols, to Mohawk Indians who smuggled them over the border into Quebec and resold them to criminals across Canada.

The same routes developed for cigarette and booze smuggling-river crossings at Akwesasne on the St. Lawrence River, and Walpole Island on the St. Claire River north of Detroit-are now being used for the more lethal commodity, firearms.

Further on in the article it states:

With a U.S. federal dealer's licence, Reed can legally buy and sell any firearm except machine guns. He waits for the orders to pile up so he can get a cut rate from the wholesaler by buying in quantity.

Criminals place their orders through various Mohawk gun dealers who in turn place the orders with Reed or dealers like him. The Mohawks fill out U.S. federal firearms transaction forms (referred to as "yellow sheets") with false names taken from the Vermont phone books.

We have seen from Project Gun Runner and other documentation that the problem is one of illegal importation or smuggling. The fundamental problem here, although it does occasionally relate to guns that are stolen from private owners, is illegal guns.

What is the response? As the revenue critic I was very interested to read the fact sheet put out by Revenue Canada on the government's firearms control initiative. It reads in part:

New firearms control measures. November 30, 1994. An expanded commercial permit system. All commercial import, export and in-transit shipments of firearms will require a permit in advance issued by the Solicitor General, with the approval of Foreign Affairs;

I think that Mr. Reed will shake in his boots.

Revenue Canada will verify that every firearms shipment, import and export, is accompanied by an approval permit.

I am sure that the criminals that are bringing them in illegally will be concerned about this.

A National Firearms Registration System. Under this system, which will be implemented by January 1, 1998:

all firearms entering, leaving and moving through Canada will have to be registered in the National Firearms Registry;

Again, I am sure that Mr. Reed will be complying with that, along with the rest of the people who are smuggling guns into Canada.

Firearms Control Enhancements: Summer, 1994

Enhanced verification of the accuracy and integrity of documentation accompanying shipment of firearms;

Implementation of a more rigorous inspection program at all land border crossings-100 per cent of firearms shipments are now examined;

That certainly gives me a lot of confidence that all of Mr. Reed's firearms are now going to be examined. Perhaps he might not care. What does this have to do with the problem? Absolutely nothing.

The enforcement activities contained in the bill are bogus in light of the fact that the government is bringing down penalties in Bill C-68 while at the same time it is loosening restrictions in a bill that was just passed through the House, Bill C-42.

These restrictions are supposed to help when there is domestic violence and in the illegal use of weapons. I have in my hand a document from the provincial court judiciary, provincial court of British Columbia where it explains that the act that was just passed will be changing assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm from an indictable offence to one that could be treated in a summary fashion in court.

How serious is the government about gaining control? We know that the Saskatoon police officers are not in favour of this. We know that there is presently a meeting of the Canadian Police Association and its members may or may not be in favour of this. We know that Saskatchewan will not be enforcing this.

I conclude by drawing to the attention of the House something I raised with the justice minister last Tuesday with a question.

The environmental extremist, Paul Watson, who allegedly was attacked by concerned residents in the Magdalen Islands was widely reported as saying that he held off his alleged assailants by using a stun gun and his fists.

I asked the justice minister this. Stun guns are prohibited weapons under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Watson admits to having this prohibited weapon in his possession. Would the minister confirm if the gun was confiscated, if Mr. Watson was charged for having an illegal weapon in his possession. If he was not charged, why not?

In part, the justice minister answered: "I commend the member on his knowledge of the Criminal Code but I also remind him that enforcement of such provisions is entirely a matter for the provincial authorities to which I invite his attention".

I asked, if that is the case, are we going to have two sets of laws, one for people outside of Saskatchewan and one in or is this whole thing bogus?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The issue of gun control has generated a tremendous amount of controversy over the last year. I have heard from many of my constituents expressing concerns on both sides of the debate. I would like to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing a bill that took into consideration the concerns of gun owners while at the same time acting to improve public safety.

I believe there is broad public support for the bill. I know it has responded to the concerns of my constituents by delivering stiffer penalties for the criminal use and smuggling of firearms.

At the same time, the bill provides a context in which legal gun owners can pursue their interest in a manner that is consistent with public safety. The creation of a national registration system is an essential part of the legislation. Registration of all firearms will improve public safety and help police fight the criminal misuse of firearms.

I understand that the registration of firearms is one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.

Opponents of the bill have charged registration will cost the government in excess of $1 billion. This is not true. To set up this system will cost $85 million spread over seven years. This will be recovered over time from the fees charged to gun owners.

Opponents of the bill have charged registration will not reduce the criminal use of firearms because criminals do not register their guns. They charge registration will not improve public safety. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agrees with the Minister of Justice that the registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse of legal firearms.

Registration will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire illegal firearms by helping police trace and eliminate sources of firearms entering the underground market. Registration will help ensure legal gun owners are held accountable for their firearms and do not sell them illegally or give them to individuals without appropriate authorization.

Registration will promote safe storage which will reduce gun theft as well as reducing suicides and accidents. Police and women's groups both support the bill because registration will assist the police in removing guns from volatile domestic situations. The bill will help the police in enforcing the estimated 13,000 prohibition orders issued every year, to remove guns from volatile domestic situations and from individuals considered to be a risk to society.

I will vote in favour of the bill because the registration of firearms will save lives. It is critical to controlling the illegal gun trade, to prosecuting offenders, to promoting safe storage and to removing guns from the hands of dangerous individuals.

Many opponents of the bill have told the government to deal with crime control, not gun control. The bill deals harshly with the criminal misuse of firearms. I am pleased to see the bill includes minimum sentences for violent offences using firearms, a lifetime ban on owning handguns and stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking firearms.

I have listened to the concerns of legal gun owners in my riding. I am pleased to see the bill has also taken their concerns into consideration. To avoid undue financial hardship on the owners whose guns will be prohibited, the new legislation allows them to buy and sell to individuals owning firearms in the same category. This measure addresses one of the very legitimate concerns of gun owners.

Our government is working on many fronts to reduce crime and improve public safety. Strengthening gun control is only one part of the government's strategy on crime prevention. We must also address the social roots of crime including poverty, illiteracy and family violence.

Gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. It is subject to regulation by government because firearms can be dangerous. It is in the best interest of society to have some degree of regulation.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me at this time. The firearms bill introduced by the Minister of Justice is motivated by the best of intentions. I am sure.

Who in this House is for violence? Who does not want control to be exercised over violence? I do not think anyone in this place or in the general public does. Polls show that 100 per cent of the population is against violence, and already 73 per cent of the population says it wants stricter firearms control.

In this regard, the views of my party are no different from those expressed by the public at large. It is just that, sometimes, debates such as this one lend themselves to extremes that need to be moderated. When I hear certain members opposite tell us that 73 per cent of the population is for the proposed firearms control measures, I cannot help but wonder if all these people who are for the control measures are aware of what implementing such a system entails and how much it will cost.

A study conducted by a British Columbia university professor indicates that there are between three and seven million firearms in circulation and, if all of these weapons now had to be registered, it would cost the Canadians taxpayers, the public purse, or the hunters at the very least $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.

Of course, these figures are just thrown at us. Can they be checked? It would be rather difficult. On the other hand, if we look up in the auditor general's 1993 report how much the present registration system or firearms acquisition certificate system has cost to operate-these figures are now available- we can see that an inefficient and counterproductive system costs at the very least $50 million.

I did not pressure in any way the Auditor General of Canada to say that the current system fell short of our requirements. There is therefore reason to believe that the proposed system may well

have a starting cost of $500 million. In the current economic context, I wonder if clear information regarding the costs involved would have made a difference in how the public answered the poll.

Needless to say, this kind of bill leaves the door wide open to sheer demagogy. It has been said that even if this bill saved only one life in Canada, it would deserve our support. I say this with all due respect for the opinion of my colleagues across the way who made that claim, including the hon. member for Ottawa West, who spoke to this bill yesterday, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis and the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Of course, I would try to contribute to the $500 million needed to save a life. However, if we invested this amount in public awareness, in the fight against spousal abuse-if that is really the purpose of this bill-, I would not think it is too much. I am convinced that investing $500 in one of these areas could certainly save more than one life, at least two, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker. This bill would then be 100 per cent cost-effective in relation to the position of my friends across the way.

There is another aspect to this bill. In this regard, I tend to side with my friends here who say that this bill should be split in two. First of all, by giving the federal government the opportunity to create new crimes as it sees fit, this bill will-in Quebec and, I assume, in all Canadian provinces-encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction, namely civil rights and freedoms as well as the sport of hunting.

In this regard, I am very reluctant to give my support, unless it is conclusively demonstrated that the bill cannot fail to achieve the goals established. As you know, hunting generates regional revenues of $300 million a year in Quebec at a specific time of year.

This is a windfall for most Quebec regions: the Eastern Townships, the Upper Laurentians, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue area, the Lac Saint-Jean region, the North Shore, the Gaspé Peninsula, you name it. In these regions, some small communities live off sport and recreational activities such as hunting in the fall and fishing in the spring and summer. They could lose all of that. I am not saying that I oppose this bill, but I wonder about its consequences, which may not be obvious at this stage.

However, I do think this is a prime example of federal interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec environment minister also had reservations about this legislation. Sure, the initial intent is laudable and everyone supports such a measure, the Bloc perhaps more than any other party. However, given the current economic context, we have to be careful before adding an extra $500 million to the deficit. Let us not forget that our deficit is the sum total of 20 years of good intentions in Quebec. It is thanks to all those who meant well and tabled various pieces of legislation if we are now struggling with this uncontrolled and uncontrollable deficit.

As regards this aspect, I hope that those who support this legislation, as well as those who oppose it, will come to present their respective views to a parliamentary committee. There is another aspect of this bill which concerns me. I said earlier that we should make sure that the goals sought are indeed reached. In addition to being able to afford all this, we should have some assurances that these objectives are reasonably attainable. When we consider the opportunities for smuggling, in his study Professor Mauser said he is not at all sure that smuggling will be stopped.

In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed some reservations in this respect. The Reform Party's brilliant representative said earlier that a single shipment of guns can generate incredible profits, as much as 400 or 500 per cent. That is quite a lot. We had a terrible time trying to stop cigarette smuggling last year. We never succeeded, so that the federal government finally abdicated its responsibility and reduced taxes, although it needed these to pay for its current operations. It is no secret that the government raises revenue through taxes. Since the government realized it could not stop cigarette smuggling otherwise, it preferred to forgo revenues that were legally acceptable and warranted.

So will it be the same in the case of firearms? Will the government abdicate its responsibility, will they still shoot at government helicopters about to land on a reserve straddling the border between Canada and the United States, the message being: "Get out of here, this is our business". At least, that is what happened with cigarettes. I would appreciate some certainty in this respect, some assurances that smuggling is a thing of the past.

You know, we have another problem with imports not necessarily connected with smuggling. Recently, I was working on the Customs Act and the notorious procedure I mentioned here in the House during Question Period, the so-called low value shipment, a term used in the customs sector. For instance, a truck comes in from the United States, a bonded carrier with a shipment of merchandise, and they do spot checks. They look at the manifest, they look at the list and they say: Okay, Mickey Mouse watches, straw hats, whatever. They do a spot check. They take items at random from the truck and check whether these items correspond with what is on the manifest.

Customs officers told me that in nine cases out of ten, if not ten out of ten, they might be carrying a handgun or a firearm that is not only restricted but prohibited in Canada. In nine cases out of ten this would go unnoticed.

So that is why I have a number of questions about this bill. I am not saying I am against the bill but I am not saying I support it either. I think we should all discuss this. That is why we are debating the bill here in the House, so that in the end, we can make an informed decision.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. I particularly wanted to speak on this legislation because of the great deal of concern it has caused both myself and my constituents.

This legislation is an important part of the Liberal government's broad strategy on crime prevention. It should work in concert with previously introduced pieces of legislation relating to sentencing reform, corrections and parole reform, the Young Offenders Act and the consultation document on the National Crime Prevention Council.

I agree with the overall intent of this legislation as well as the three principles that motivated this government to introduce Bill C-68. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon all members of this House to recognize that there are two sides which must be heard. We must recognize the sincerity with which both sides bring their views to the table.

I have constituents in my South Shore riding who are in favour of the government measures and I certainly have constituents who are opposed. For this reason, I have formed a riding committee which will meet with me on a regular basis to review the legislation in detail. This committee will be reporting to the Minister of Justice and to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on areas of concern with a view to offering suggestions for improvements.

I expect that people on both sides of this issue would agree with the three principles as previously outlined by the Minister of Justice in this House. In essence these principles are: one, that Canadians do not want to live in a country where people feel they want or need to possess a firearm for their protection; two, that if we are to retain our safe and peaceful character as a country, those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime will be severely punished; and three, as a government and as a country, we must acknowledge and respect the legitimate use of firearms by law-abiding Canadian citizens.

The Minister of Justice and this government have acknowledged throughout this debate their respect and consideration for the traditions of hunting, both for sustenance and for sport, as well as the use of firearms for farming, ranching and other legitimate activities. It is not the intention of this government with this legislation to interfere with these rights. As well, we wish to go on record as acknowledging that these rights will continue to exist into the future.

I would like at this time to comment on the various components on the firearms control package as outlined in the legislation.

I believe that increased penalties will act as a deterrent to the criminal use of firearms. A mandatory four-year jail term for the use of a firearm in the commission of a serious crime, in addition to charges for the offence in which the gun was used, is deemed by those concerned with law and order to be much more acceptable than the status quo.

The present law is often criticized as being inadequately enforced with charges too often dropped as part of a plea bargain or otherwise not pursued. This problem is addressed by this legislation.

In relation to the aforementioned, I fully support any change that will see young offenders who commit firearms offences being treated in the same manner as adults. The criminal penalties as outlined in the legislation will also limit access to firearms for felons, including young offenders.

Prohibition orders on the possession of restricted and non-restricted firearms for those convicted of serious violent crimes will range from 10 years to life. People convicted of stalking or drug related charges will be subject to prohibition orders.

Not only does this make good common sense, but it is a crime prevention measure that will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in the justice system. It is clear that the intention of this legislation is to offer more protection to the law-abiding citizen.

Bill C-68 includes border control measures which are directed at curtailing smuggling activities and tightening up importation regulations. In addition, the bill adds a number of new offences arising from the trade in illegal firearms or other weapons. The overall penalty provisions will put these offences among the most serious class of crimes in the Criminal Code.

The most contentious part of this legislation is the registration provision which will apply to all guns, regular, restricted, and prohibited. Many of my constituents have raised concerns or worries about the registration requirement. They are concerned about the cost, both to themselves as individuals and to the country at large. They have concerns that the system will be cumbersome. They have concerns that registration will lead to the eventual confiscation of their firearms. They are concerned that the registration system will not be secure and that others, including criminals, could gain access to the information.

They have asked me how registration will address the issue of crime in our communities. They have asked if the $85 million or more would not be better spent on social programs, thereby attacking the causes of crime.

They are concerned that they will become criminals by not registering their guns. They are also concerned about and wish to have addressed further the question of compensation to the owners of handguns that are being banned.

These are legitimate concerns. We owe it to Canadians to address these concerns item by item. I do not believe we have really done this, but I hope in the weeks and months ahead we are able to ensure that our communities are better informed on these issues. I know I will be reviewing all of them with the committee in my riding and bringing them forward for consideration.

I would like to take a minute now to explain my understanding of some of these issues.

The first issue is on the matter of cost. The Minister of Justice has been quite clear and emphatic that the cost to gun owners in the first year is expected to be zero, or at the very most, a nominal amount in the range of $10. For this fee the gun owner can register up to 10 guns with no further registration being required during his lifetime. I am convinced that the government has no hidden agenda to eventually confiscate guns.

It is also important to explain that when formulating this legislation the government listened to the law enforcement community. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has long requested and encouraged the adoption of universal registration. The chiefs of police cited a number of reasons for this and explained how it would help them in the fight against crime. The following are the reasons stated by the police association:

Tracking guns that are imported to Canada and then sold is critical to controlling abuse. It will be easier to prosecute individuals for possession of illegal and stolen weapons because the police will be able to distinguish between legal gun owners and illegal gun owners.

The police say that registration will assist in high risk situations. The police say that registration will assist in taking preventative action against domestic violence by allowing them to remove firearms from a volatile situation. They say registration is essential for the enforcement of the estimated 13,000 prohibition orders issued each year.

Members of the strategic weapons and tactical units of many forces feel that more information about the presence of firearms is critical. In most cases, guns which are stolen were improperly stored. The police say registration will promote safe storage which will in turn reduce gun theft as well as reduce suicides and accidents.

These reasons need to be explored in more detail.

One facet of this legislation I am particularly opposed to is the use of orders in council to add weapons to the existing prohibited weapons list. I support banning weapons that have no legitimate purpose. I see no reason for people to own assault weapons, handguns with no legitimate purpose, compact or single-hand crossbows, but I object to the process whereby this has been accomplished.

I was particularly pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has asked the standing committee to consider a number of issues that have been raised since the firearms control action plan was first introduced.

My office has received a number of representations from persons concerned with being able to leave their relics and heirlooms as part of their estate. I should also make it clear that there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent an individual from passing on their long arms upon death. I have also received a number of letters from constituents who feel their weapons have been wrongly prohibited. These concerns are ones the minister is going to have addressed by the standing committee and I appreciate that.

Upon reviewing the legislation, I am of the belief that its intent is to control crime and promote public safety while respecting the needs of legitimate gun owners. This legislation acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons for people to own firearms and that firearms are essential tools for many Canadians. This legislation does not set out to inconvenience these individuals.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Minister of Justice has stated that Canadians will have their opportunity to make their views known when the legislation is reviewed by the standing committee. I trust that the concerns of my constituents will be addressed and that answers to their legitimate concerns will be provided.

I also wish to state that I support the objective of the legislation. Its objective is to reduce violent crime in our country, an objective which I think all of my constituents would support.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the Reform Party's motion to split Bill C-68 into two bills.

The Minister of Justice said this bill is about the kind of Canada we want. I and the Reform Party can certainly agree with that statement. He also said that the overwhelming majority of Canadians support his position. I take exception with this statement.

Certainly if the question was asked whether they were in favour of gun control, any reasonable, fair-minded, clear thinking Canadian would say yes. The fraud being perpetrated on Canadians is that pollsters have been paid to ask the wrong question, and ask they have over and over again. The minister must not get away with this misconception, pushing his agenda and serving the interests of the minority and the elitists.

Though the answer from the majority regarding firearms control is yes, it is not yes to more firearms control, but rather a firearms control that respects without question the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens. I must repeat that statement: a firearms control that respects the right of life, liberty and security of person and that respects the inherent right of every citizen to own and enjoy property and that respects the rule of common law.

Canada's required firearms law must be in a form that is simple, economically attainable, and derived from common sense. Canada's required laws dealing with criminals must also be simple, economically attainable and derived from common sense. I mention both firearms laws and laws dealing with criminals separately, because that is exactly what they should be, separate.

An owner of any object, be it a knife, a rock, a club, a gun or even a pillow is not a criminal until he or she violates the rights and freedoms of another person with that object. The object now becomes a weapon which then is bound to the criminal act and dealt with by criminal law.

Now that we have separated firearms and criminals, it would be easy to ask Canadians a fair question. They would undoubtedly say no to more firearms control and yes to more criminal control.

As we can see, the single politically correct question that should be asked of all Canadians regarding the Criminal Code is if citizens had a choice in methods used to curtail crime, which would they favour: control of law-abiding citizens or control of the criminal? I am sure that 100 per cent of the citizens would vote for the second choice.

A democratic government would act upon the will of the people unless, of course, that government lacked the will or the ability to deal effectively with criminals and crime and tried to create a false impression of dealing with the problem by further regulating law-abiding citizens. That is exactly the fraud which is being perpetrated on Canadians by the Minister of Justice.

The minister says this bill is about the type of society that Liberals want in our country. He says that Liberals believe only police officers and armed forces should have the right to possess arms. He apparently means but does not include criminals in the category of those allowed to possess firearms or this government would be taking some very specific action, which I will come back to later on.

If this bill is leading us to the kind of society the minister wants, that society must be one in which governments fear law-abiding citizens. It is one where governments seize privately owned property without compensation. It is a country where instead of dealing swiftly and decisively with criminal activity, the government and law enforcement authorities turn their heads and pretend they do not know what is going on.

I fully agree that a kinder, gentler society is a highly desirable goal. However, I see no evidence of success on the part of those promoting that concept. Instead, I see a constantly rising confrontational crime rate, the result of a criminal justice system repeatedly basing action on theories that turn out to be wrong. As the risk factor rises, the public is moving toward self-protection, whether it is legal or not.

Prohibition is not a method of control; it is a method of losing any control over the situation. It is a lawyer's theory that just does not work. Most lawyers regard it as an axiom that reducing the number of weapons in society will reduce weapons crime. In all of our research we have found nothing whatsoever to support that idea. The evidence strongly indicates that the successful disarming of the community simply turns control of the neighbourhood over to the biggest, meanest thugs in the neighbourhood.

I will leave members with the conclusion of Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary in Britain, a country long known for strict gun control. He has done a comprehensive study on firearms control methods and their actual as opposed to theoretical effects in many countries. I quote his findings:

At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory control on private ownership of firearms is irrelevant to the problem of armed crime; yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a type of weapon.

The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is small, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduce crime.

He was right. The latest British Home Office statistics for England and Wales show violent crime has doubled every 10 years since 1946. Britain's recreational firearms industry has been destroyed.

Many honest shooters now keep their firearms in Belgium to avoid the next wave of confiscation. Has gun control worked? No, it has not worked. British firearm crime rates are at an all time high and continue to rise. What else could one expect?

Firearms are easy to smuggle, police are easy to avoid while committing a violent crime and their government guarantees that the victim will have no effective way to protect himself or his family. Any criminal who has a firearm can totally dominate any victim situation.

Our Minister of Justice said on several occasions that no Canadian has any need of firearms for self-protection. If that is so, why does he and the Prime Minister regularly dip into the public purse to cover the expense of armed bodyguards to protect their own sacred skins? Are their skins any more sacred than those of other Canadians?

I must expose one other area of fraudulent injustice arising from this legislation, the whole matter of how this legislation will apply to Canada's aboriginal peoples.

When I raised this question in a departmental briefing I was chastized for suggesting there was perhaps racial inequity in the application of the legislation. My constituency has a large aboriginal population and both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people have a right to know how this law will be applied.

The minister stated in the House this law must apply to all Canadians but will be enforced with cultural sensitivity on Indian lands. Indian chiefs and even aboriginal MLAs tell me this law will not apply to the Indian people and would be a violation of treaty rights or that it would not apply because Canadian law does not apply on sovereign Indian lands.

I hope this is not the view of the Minister of Justice because every Canadian must be equal under the law. To do otherwise would promote racism and non-compliance with the law.

The minister under section 110 of the Firearms Act has the authority to decide which persons do or do not need firearms. I am told the minister agreed under section 112(1) to exempt aboriginal people by order in council and that the issue need never come before Parliament.

I hope this is incorrect because it would be a recipe for disaster. If this is not true, when will the government do something about the illegally stored arms on the reserves along the U.S. border and do something to stop the illegal smuggling that everyone knows exists?

How will the minister apply the law in the self-governing Indian lands in Yukon where legislation passed in the House recently removes jurisdiction for firearms from the federal government?

There is no reasonable justification for treating aboriginal people any different under this legislation than anyone else. Firearms are no more a part of aboriginal culture than non-aboriginal culture. Firearms, after all, arrived in this country with the Europeans.

If this law is bad for aboriginal people, this law is bad for all people. We are convinced the major predictable effect of enacting this legislation, so poorly researched, so badly designed, so basically silly, is an increase in the number of Canadian voters killed, injured and robbed in the years to come. We reject this legislation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am the only veteran of Gettysburg to speak to this bill today in the House or at any time.

I fought on the fields of Gettysburg a few years ago. It was the 125th anniversary of that civil war battle. I am a civil war re-enactor, a black powder enthusiast. I go to these events dressed up. Members should see me in my butternut tunic with my haversack, my canteen and my 1863 Enfield musket as I march and counter march.

I was in a Hollywood movie, "Gettysburg". Members will notice that in Pickett's charge there are 6,000 Confederate soldiers coming toward the camera. If members examine these soldiers very carefully they will see in the first wave on the left flank, eight over from the standard bearer, they will recognize me.

I support the bill very much. Although my only association with firearms is a hobby that does not involve bullets, I do very strongly feel the legislation is warranted, not for many of the reasons that have been presented in the House, but primarily because it addresses the fundamental issue of keeping Canada the way it is and avoiding the type of gun related violence that exists in the United States.

I refer to the restrictions this law will put on the possession of handguns for personal protection. Current law provides that a Canadian is to have a handgun only for the purposes of collecting, sport or as a result of their employment. We in Canada have no provision for having handguns for personal protection. However, statistics have shown that a larger number of handguns have been acquired apparently to be kept at home in bureau drawers on the offhand chance of a break and enter when the person might be able to use this handgun.

This is what is wrong in the United States. It is because handguns are in many private homes that when criminals enter to commit what are essentially petty crimes they fear for their lives and consequently go in armed. This legislation will do a lot to get the guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners.

I can speak for many gun owners in my riding, legitimate sportsmen, collectors and hunters. These people are the first to say guns should not be kept with the idea of defending one's television set by shooting some kid entering a home.

All other things aside, the bill will not stop criminals from using firearms but it will get firearms out of circulation when they are acquired for purposes that are not considered responsible and legitimate.

It really is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have listened very carefully to the members of the opposition and also to members of my own party who have felt very passionately that there are inadequacies in the legislation, that it penalizes responsible gun owners. There have been six or eight months of debate in the House, in caucus and out in the communities. I applaud the Minister of Justice, for he has consistently gone around the country and listened.

I invite my opposition colleagues to take satisfaction in knowing there have been improvements in the legislation since it came in the form of proposals. The bill now before us represents an enormous step in dialogue between a government initiating bills and individuals in the community through their MPs trying to make legislation that meets its target of restricting the spread of guns for illegitimate purposes and at the same time does not penalize those who wish to have firearms for legitimate reasons.

I thank the Minister of Justice because he has set an example. He has shown Parliament works. Legitimate gun owners who had genuine concerns, a lot of them based on misrepresentation, have been heard. The bill before us is not perfect. We have to polish it and perfect it. It is a product of genuine debate. We should all be proud of that.

I do not want to go over all the aspects of the bill already covered. I would like to react to three points that I am interested in specifically. Quite a few people on both sides of the House, my own colleagues included, have spoken against registration of long guns.

The Minister of Justice had consultation with the experts, the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. If they advised the minister that registration is worthwhile in order to control the illegitimate circulation of guns and the theft of guns, I have to accept the word of these experts.

Most Canadians would agree that we have the best police forces. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the best national police forces anywhere. If the Minister of Justice chooses to listen to those experts and chooses to spend the $80 million or so on registration, I have to accept that he is going on the best advice.

It is not a debate about registration, although I appreciate the passion with which it is debated in the House. I do not have the expertise to challenge the recommendation of the RCMP or the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

There is another aspect of the bill that I am worried about. My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn raised the issue that the bill seems to give police rather sweeping powers of searching private premises, getting a warrant to search private premises for compliance or non-compliance with respect to the bill.

Any legislation before the House that would interfere with fundamental liberties I would oppose. I know the Minister of Justice is aware of this. It will be carefully examined. When the legislation goes to the parliamentary committee it will be determined whether this is a danger. I am sure that if this clause in the bill is a genuine problem it will be altered accordingly.

I would like to see something else changed in the bill. It would silence a lot of the legitimate concern among gun owners I have talked to. Many gun collectors are afraid the provisions for describing restricted handguns are too sweeping and might capture weapons that are genuinely antique.

One amendment in committee that would help the bill enormously is if we put a simple date and say for example that pre-1913 firearms can be considered antique. Then we allow certain guns to be regarded as intrinsically valuable and exempt as well so that we would not unnecessarily penalize those who have genuinely valuable collections and would like to pass them on to their heirs.

With a few relatively easy adjustments after the parliamentary committee the legislation can come back to the House and be a law capable of satisfying 95 per cent of Canadians, gun owners or not.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to the justice minister's gun registry bill.

I cannot call the bill firearms control legislation because the crime control aspects of the bill are hidden behind legislative measures which the Liberal government promised to anti-gun groups in its pre-election platform. This is unfortunate.

Notwithstanding the political shenanigans the justice minister and his party have chosen to pin on the bill, I think all Canadians including everyone on this side of the House and anti-gun groups would like to have the opportunity to discuss real crime control measures. As a result of the Reform motion to split the bill we may have the opportunity.

I make no mistake in describing the Liberal government's firearms legislation as simply amounting to a gun registry. I reinforce the term gun registry. The crime control aspects of the bill are hidden behind the gun registry being created by the minister.

Canadians including anti-gun groups, Liberal party supporters and others will be sorrily disappointed if the minister's legislative proposals are enacted. My constituents have not been fooled for one minute with respect to the matter. It is obvious to everyone that some special interest groups are emotionally out of control with regard to the issue of gun control. Because of that

an all-out debate on the subject of crime control in the House is being prevented by the government.

The bill is solely aimed at punishing law-abiding legitimate owners of firearms in Canada. These law-abiding citizens are more concerned than anyone with the safe usage and storage of firearms. Of all people they should not be the target of the legislation.

All Canadians want crime to be reduced on the streets, in our cities and in our towns. Canadians want to be able to feel that the authorities are able to control crime.

The Minister of Justice stated in the House that it was estimated some 375,000 guns were smuggled into the country and about 3,800 weapons were lost or stolen within our borders. The justice minister introduced legislation which concentrated on the 3,800 weapons loose in society.

What about the 375,000 smuggled weapons? As far as I can see the minister's actions are twofold. First, his actions are directed at punishing legitimate owners of firearms, appeasing a special interest group. Second, as some kind of afterthought his actions may do something about the real problem, the 375,000 weapons smuggled into the country. This is preposterous. Anti-gun groups are not amused. Neither are sporting groups, hunting clubs, target shooters or Olympic sports spectators. The grassroots of Canada is not amused.

There is no reason the government cannot attempt to control smuggled weapons without slapping the faces of law-abiding citizens. My constituents therefore stand in favour of splitting the bill.

Recently I conducted a household survey in my riding and 78 per cent of my constituents said that they did not want all guns including shotguns and rifles registered. Seventy-eight per cent of my constituents said that they did not want short barrelled pistols banned. Most important, 92 per cent of my constituents want tougher mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns.

To date I have presented 43 petitions in the House containing over 3,000 signatures of constituents who oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession. They call on Parliament to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or the possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

People do not have to look far for an example. They can turn to their local newspapers for examples of how the criminal justice system is letting the public down. For instance, I turn to the Penticton Herald that had an article entitled "Slap on the wrists no deterrent".

The article was about a man convicted of a weapons offence involving a restricted weapon. He was convicted, given a slap on the wrist, a $440 fine and a year's probation. Canadians must be asking themselves, if the courts do not do their part in placing a deterrent on this kind of offence, what good is it to demand that hunters and sportsmen register their shotguns and long arms.

As members of the House we ought to be doing all we can to protect our borders from those who seek to bring crime to our otherwise free and peaceful nation. We ought to make it very clear to the international criminal community, as well as our own criminal community, that Canada will put behind bars anyone who attempts to bring weapons into the country. We must ensure that is well known beyond our borders and that the maximum punishment for those bringing weapons into the country will be applied.

Not only anti-gun groups but all Canadians want smuggling stopped. I might add that all Canadians want the full force of our laws and maximum punishment delivered to persons using firearms in the commission of an offence.

While the citizens of the nation have the privilege of owning firearms, we must make it perfectly clear that we do not and will not tolerate abuse of the privilege. We must adopt a zero tolerance policy on criminals in the country.

Society has been living with handgun registration for over 60 years. Because of the difficulty our citizens face in terms of obtaining an FAC, we do not take lightly abuse of firearms laws. Virtually every constituent, firearm owner or member of an anti-gun group that contacted me during the debate of this issue has left me with one thought above all: punish the criminals who use firearms. Firearm owners, law-abiding citizens and anti-gun groups are sick and tired of legislators going after the wrong guy when dealing with the problems associated with firearms in society.

Together all groups and all Canadians ask the minister not to follow the precedent set by former ministers of justice. He should do us all a favour and split the bill. Let us do some work in the House on crime control. Canadians will continue to read in the newspaper and see on television the mayhem, the bloodshed, the heartache and the horrors lethal weapons in the hands of criminals are causing on our streets. We will continue to see and hear of such criminals walking away from their deeds in that our courts refuse to deal out maximum penalties for crimes committed with a firearm because of plea bargaining and other reasons.

In other words, by splitting the bill in half we would be allowed to deal with the two issues: first, crime control and, second, a gun registry. All sides of the House would be able to work on crime control first and most importantly. Surely the Minister of Justice would have us believe that he is so well

intended he can accommodate the desire of this side of the House and Canadians who recognize that crime control is the most important issue.

Any right thinking Canadian knows that with some 375,000 weapons being smuggled into the nation, the criminal use of firearms will continue. The criminal use of firearms does not exist because of hunters, sportsmen, gun collectors and law-abiding citizens. The criminal use is by criminals.

In closing, the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt would support the bill being split in two. By doing so we could deal with crime control and then the gun registry. We could salvage some good sections in terms of protecting our borders from international criminals. We could try to protect law-abiding Canadians at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us start by calling what we have before us today what it really is. We have before us a motion. It is not to split the bill. That is utter and sheer nonsense. The motion asks that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68.

The effect of adopting such a motion is not to split the bill, no matter what words are in the motion. Any member who says that the effect of adopting such a motion is to split the bill either does not know the rules of the House at all or knows better and refuses to say so, not to put it too unkindly.

Citation 559 of Beauchesne, just in case the member across does not know how it works, is entitled: "Types of Motions". It refers to different types of motions. The motion introduced by the member is known as a dilatory motion. In that motion is a reasoned amendment. We decline to give second reading to a bill. Perhaps the reason he wants to decline giving second reading is that he would prefer to have the bill split two ways, three ways or ten ways. It does not matter, because any member voting in favour of the motion would be voting to kill the bill.

The hon. member and other hon. members have sent letters to my constituents and other constituents across Canada asking them to tell us to support the motion, the effect of which would be to split the bill. Let me say kindly that it is not true. There is no such effect. It would kill the bill.

I am a rural Canadian. I live in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I was born on a farm. Yes, guns were around my home. That does not mean, as some members are trying to portray, that rural Canadians want to have guns that are not registered and that they have a right to do so, or that urban Canadians want rural Canadians to be deprived of all firearms. Both concepts are wrong.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Should your father have registered his gun?

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

My father died when I was four years old, in answer to the question being asked about my father.

Perhaps I could get back to the topic at hand; it would be more appropriate. There were guns in my home. Guns were not registered 40 years ago. Motorcycle drivers did not wear helmets 40 years ago. Cars did not have seatbelts and there was no such thing as a freeway in Ottawa. The concept that may escape some members across the way is that we have evolved. Things have changed. Hopefully we are here to make life better for all our constituents. That is what the Minister of Justice is trying to do.

Perhaps not all initiatives proposed by everyone with regard to gun control have been perfect. Perfection is not here, but we have a good bill before us that will go to committee. It will be a better bill when it comes out of committee because there are members of the House who will do a job for Canadians by trying to make the bill better.

And what do we want? First, we want legislation that provides stricter punitive measures for those who use weapons illegally. Second, we want to put a stop to arms smuggling or limit it as much as possible.

Third, and there are perhaps other elements I could enumerate, we also want to register firearms so we know who has them and how many they have. Is this such a strange concept in civilized society? After all, I register my car.

I do not have a dog now but when I did I had to register it. Some people are telling me if we register our firearms that automatically means it is the first step toward confiscation. No one ever attempted to confiscate my dog. It was registered. To pretend, as some hon. members have, that this is the first step toward confiscation is not right.

Some of those people saying that will someday have to justify what they are doing before their constituents. An hon. member sent me what he called his test as to whether we should support gun control. In the hon. member's test was a questionnaire. In the questionnaire of the member from the Reform Party it said: "Do you think members should vote according to the majority of their constituents?"

If that were the only test applied to the bill-not that it should always be the strict and only test any member should be governed by-to the hon. members across, this debate would have been long over. That is not the only test. The members across should not pretend it is either, because they are wrong.

A few days ago, there was an attempt at a sort of ambush in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

A group calling itself-I use the term loosely-the responsible firearms owners of Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry sent a poster inviting people to a meeting. Do you know what the poster said, Mr. Speaker? I think you do for obvious reasons. The poster said: "Attention all firearms owners. This is the last chance to save your firearm", in reference to a meeting at which they asked me to be present along with an hon. member from the Reform Party.

They sent that kind of information out trying to excite people to make them as angry as possible so they would show up with anger in mind, not justice. People would go to that meeting thinking it was the last chance to save their firearms. Then they organized this debate with a neutral chairman who just happened to own the local gun shop. When I discovered the local gun shop owner was the chairman of the meeting I objected. I said it was wrong. They said they would change the chairman for a better one.

They changed the chairman for a local optometrist. When the name became familiar, my staff discovered in our file that he had sent me one of those little cards in which he bragged he owned 20 guns and if I or my party dared to propose any stricter gun control he would work to defeat me, work to defeat my party and that those who supported further gun control would never remember and that he would never forget. That was the neutral chairman they had appointed for the meeting. He was the second neutral chairman because the first was not neutral enough.

Having done that they decided on the format of the debate in which they had an educational presentation by the gun group which lasted 20 minutes. It was followed by a presentation by the provincial member for the riding who said he did not like the bill. That was followed by a member of the Reform Party who spoke 15 minutes against the bill. To even it up, on the other side they had me speaking for the bill for 15 minutes. That was a fair debate? It was an ambush. Mr. Speaker, you know what I am talking about.

Then they tried to get coverage for this event and those people would claim they represented the majority of my constituents.

No, Mr. Speaker. And I am ready to debate with anyone in my riding, with equal time for both sides. I am ready to do so. I am ready to prove that the hon. Minister of Justice has put a good bill before us, and that this bill will be improved by a parliamentary committee made up of members from both sides of the House, people who know what they are doing.

Whether they come from the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or even from here in the minister's party, people will work and will work well on this committee, and we will have a better bill as the result. But we are not going to make any progress so long as people continue to try to dupe others in the way I have described. There is nothing to be gained by listening to those who claim that voting for the motion tabled in the House today by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville means voting to split the bill into two distinct parts.

Nothing is further from the truth. A vote for the motion today is not a vote to split the bill. It is a vote to decline second reading to the bill. It is a vote to kill the bill. I will not vote to kill the bill. It is a good bill. I will work to improve it. We have a good piece of legislation and we will make better laws for the citizens of Canada.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems they are starting to feel a little heat on the other side from some of their constituents.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus we are hearing from this side of the House. The Reform Party is opposed to Bill C-68 because it makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who are responsible gun owners. We would like to separate the criminal use of firearms from the ownership, transportation and storage of firearms in the bill.

We heard the chief government whip give us all of the legal procedural reasons why this cannot be done. People in Canada are sick and tired of the Toronto big city lawyers trying to define what can be done. The minister knows we can separate the bill if he has the will to do it. He is not willing to do it. He is trying to give us an omnibus bill incorporating two things, the protection of Canadian citizens and registration. They are not linked.

We say strengthen and enforce the law dealing with criminals who use guns to commit crimes. That is a reasonable alternative, but leave responsible gun owners alone.

This bill will place unnecessary restrictions on us. It will limit our freedom. It will waste our time and it will put a dent in our pocket books. I do not care what the minister says. It will be significantly higher than what he estimates.

In my riding of Peace River the lawyers who write the laws concerning firearms are known as those out of touch eggheads from Toronto. I live in a northern riding. These are fancy lawmakers who have no idea what it is like to live and work in the north. These are lawyers who have never had to worry about bears or wolves killing their livestock. Come up north with me

and maybe I can paint a picture of what it is like. I encourage the minister to do that.

Several years ago a rancher in my riding saw a black bear approaching his young child playing outside. Being a crack shot, he grabbed his rifle and pumped two shells into the animal. He assumed the bear was not coming over to make a polite introduction. Had this incident occurred today the child probably would be dead.

Talk about saving one life, is it worth it?

With the law as written today the rancher first would have to go from one room to get the gun and into another room to get the ammunition. He would not have had time to get that bear before it got his child.

Many people in my riding voted against the Conservatives because they hated Kim Campbell's Bill C-17. Now they are finding out this government is even worse. Maybe there is a lesson there to be learned.

How will one store ammunition in another room if one lives in a one room cabin? Who lives in a one room cabin? Trappers and outfitters do. They have lots of them on their trap lines. That is what Kim Campbell's law demanded. Hunters and trapping guides who depend on their guns for a living do not have fancy multiroom houses. They have one room cabins. They would have to store their ammunition in one room and their guns in a separate one. They would have to build a separate cabin to store their ammunition. How ludicrous this gets.

If a person is moving around their property to fix fences, as ranchers do in some parts of northern and western Canada, does it make any sense to unload the firearm, put the ammunition under the seat and get back into the truck? It does not. Bear stories are not as frequent as they used to be but there are still parts of the country where bears are a menace to livestock. We still have the occasional tragic incident. I encourage the minister to listen.

Six years ago two tree planters were replanting some cut blocks in a reforestation project in my riding. They were unarmed and they were charged by a large black bear. One managed to climb a tree high enough to get out of trouble. The other tree planter was not as lucky. He was killed. Five years ago an unarmed timber cruiser had the misfortune of running into a grizzly. He did not live to tell his story. If we talk about one life being saved, those are a couple of examples.

Let us talk about a different kind of hardship, money. In most rural areas people cannot afford to register their firearms even if it did make any sense. When we start telling a young couple with little children struggling to make ends meet who have already lost a cow to a wolf or a bear and some calves to other misfortunes that they must shell out $300 to $400 to register their firearms, we have to wonder from where that money is going to come. It will come straight from the mouths of their children.

Please do not tell me that it is only going to cost $10 or so to register a firearm. To properly register anything we need an inspection. I believe the minister knows this. When we are talking about inspecting distinguishing features such as serial numbers and calibre we are going to run into costs.

The minister knows that up to 20 per cent of long guns do not have proper identification at the moment. Is the government planning to run a deficit in this area as well? The cost of registering handguns is approximately $75. It is difficult to understand how the registration of rifles and shotguns is going to be any cheaper. The government estimates the total cost of registration at around $85 million. It will probably be a lot closer to $500 million, almost six times as much; seven million long guns multiplied by $75. Members can work out the math.

We have had a handgun registry for some 60 years. Has it reduced the incidence of store robbery or domestic violence? No, it has not. It has probably increased. How will long gun registration improve that balance? If there were any solid proof that domestic violence would be reduced as a result of more gun control, in rural areas this law would be easier to swallow. There is no such proof.

The real red herring here, the one I resent the most, is when the minister talks about how it will reduce suicides. This is the worst case scenario I have ever heard of. My nephew committed suicide. It was the most tragic thing that ever happened in our family. Did he use a gun to do it? No, he did not. When people are in that state of mind they will use whatever they find necessary to get the job done. Whether a gun was there, whatever was there to get the job done, that is what he used. That is the worst possible case the minister put forward.

In situations of domestic violence it is much the same. A distressed person will use whatever is handy. They will use their fists, they will use knives, they will use egg beaters or any item they happen to find. Suggesting these items should be registered is as ludicrous as registering rifles and shotguns.

If there were any solid proof that murders would be reduced by requiring registration, tougher gun laws would be more palatable. Again, there is no such proof. A retired RCMP sergeant wrote recently that in his 27 years with the RCMP he was directly involved in investigating 14 murders and attempted murders. In only three of those were firearms used. The murders involved fire, axes, fists, two-by-fours, strangulation and kitchen knives. Registering the few firearms used would not have prevented most of those crimes from occurring.

Our fancy lawmakers say that cars are registered, so why not rifles and shotguns. Has car registration reduced the carnage on

our highways, prevented cars from being stolen or used in the commission of crimes? Obviously not.

Most of the people in my riding use their guns only occasionally. This is very important. These guns have been handed down from grandfather to father to son. Most people, including myself, use their guns very infrequently. It really bothers people that they will have to go through this whole process when it is not going to be effective.

Mark my words, it is not going to be effective in reducing crime. There will be a big cost involved and it will be a big inconvenience. These are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who do not like to have their freedom limited without a good reason. If it could be demonstrated that there is going to be a reduction in the criminal use of firearms, that would be a different matter.

Many have guns which are heirlooms having been passed from father to son and so on. Putting all the rules and regulations in place to limit the use of these through registration does not make any sense. The government will be forcing people to break the law in many cases. Many people in my riding have said they are not going to register their guns.

I urge the government to reconsider this ill-conceived bill. Punish the criminal use of guns and do not make criminals out of peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the justice minister's bill on gun control.

I speak as a member who was in the last Parliament which on two occasions dealt with firearms legislation. At that time there was a large body of support for the initiative in principle. The process of finally adopting it did bring about some minor modifications which most people in Parliament believed improved the bill.

In any event, I want to be clearly on record as supporting the justice minister's initiative in principle. I am committed to working with other colleagues in the House to improve the bill where possible and to reframe it so that at the end of the day we have the best possible mix of statute, regulation and administration for the benefit of the public as a whole and gun owners as a group.

Before I go further into my remarks, I want to make two quick points.

The government and I hope, the House have reached a point where we are prepared to say that in relation to firearms, everything is in. We are not going to have a statute that covers just some firearms and not others. Everything is going to be recognized as being part of the system or however we choose to deal with this. All firearms are seen to be part of the system.

Some members opposite and I believe some members on the government benches are very sensitive to the issue of this statute criminalizing individuals who but for this statute would not be criminals. In saying that, we are referring to people who own firearms now who might fail, either advertently or inadvertently, to fulfil a provision in the new act and thereby would be subject to criminal sanction.

At first blush, I am sympathetic to that position. Thousands of Canadians do not spend very much time worrying about criminal law because they are law-abiding citizens. By passing this statute we will impose upon them a standard where for a certain period of time they are going to have to think about it. They are going to have to do something or not do something, comply or not comply. It is going to bring them belly up to provisions in this statute which create criminal sanction.

I am sensitive to that but I want to point out there are already provisions in the Criminal Code where otherwise law-abiding citizens who own firearms are subject to criminal sanction. In existing law, if an otherwise legal owner of a firearm breaks a provision of the code dealing with regulation of restricted or prohibited firearms, or improper use of other non-prohibited, non-restricted firearms, they are subject to criminal sanction.

I make those two points. Everything is in. I am sensitive to the issue of criminalization, but I am not so sure there is not a way to do it which is rational, fair, just, and in compliance with the charter and common sense.

With those two things out of the way I want to address three or four segments of the bill.

First and perhaps most important is the issue of registration. This bill would impose on Canadians an obligation to register every firearm. There may be the odd exception here or there, but generally everything is in. Every firearm is going to be registered. If it does not have a serial number, it will have to have some markings or characteristics by which it can be identified.

The concept of registration has been thought out rationally. I do not think it was a political initiative. No one is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. Rational individuals, including the justice minister, have decided that registration will produce certain benefits for Canadians. It will not get rid of disease and it will not balance the budget. There are many things it will not do. However, registration will have a positive effect in the enforcement of prohibition orders.

Most rational people will understand that, if they are cognizant of what happens when the police are asked to deal with the allegation of an illegal firearm at a residence. It is all too easy for those who occupy the residence to say: "That is not my firearm; it is her firearm," or "it is my kid's; it belongs to my 19-year old".

If there is a functioning registration system, ultimately the owner of that firearm will be registered. There will not be much doubt about who the owner is. Maybe it is the kid; maybe it is the spouse. In any event the uncertainty will not be there and enforcement will be enhanced.

Second, those who deal with the trafficking of firearms believe, although I do not have any statistical evidence, that it will assist in combating smuggling. The fact that domestically owned firearms are registered and in the system allows for the ability to then identify firearms which are not in the system. The good guns are separated from the illegal guns. That will help authorities in dealing with smuggling. Otherwise they often do not know whether it is a smuggled gun. They just do not know the derivation of the firearm.

Third, the obligation to register will increase the propensity of the gun owner to comply with the existing legislation. He or she will see themselves as part of the registered gun owning public with a commensurate obligation to take care of their firearm properly.

At the moment a lot of orphaned firearms are sitting in basements and attics. All of us know where they are. They are in a little box up in the rafters, or on top of the furnace. In so many houses across this country that is where these little orphaned guns are.

Registration is required so that the people who know the guns are there will pull them out. They will get rid of them. They will give them away or turn them in. They will disable them, or whatever they are going to do. At the end of the day, the guns will be registered. They will know they have an obligation to make sure the firearm is safely stored and that it is not an orphan.

I think the same thing happens with motor vehicles, aircraft, and other things that we register. In any event, I do not know if that is going to happen for sure. In a rational way I can see the linkage. I am prepared to take the risk of imposing obligations on the gun owning public.

Last but not least, it is obvious that a firearm with a serial number and a registered owner is much easier to trace than a firearm with a serial number and no registered owner. That is simple logic.

I accept that registration is going to have some positive benefits and to be sure, there are costs. As colleagues have pointed out, there could be huge costs. As I read them, the costs will be more than manageable. The costs are bearable by the gun owning public. We can find an efficient and effective way to use new technology to do it.

I accept that there is a grandfather clause which will be to the benefit of many gun owning Canadians. I note that the House of Commons steering committee of the justice committee was meeting this morning to make plans to deal with the initiatives of the public in dealing with this. Many MPs will take part in that process to try to make the bill better.

I believe that my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River has Canada's only handgun manufacturer. That manufacturer does about $25 million worth of business a year. Ninety-nine per cent of the product is exported into markets all over the world.

The firearm has been purchased by the Federal Bureau of Investigation hostage release team. It is a quality firearm. We have quality firearms here in this country. We make them here. I am going to do everything in my power to make sure that this bill and the regulations do not impair the ability of my constituent business to continue to do $25 million worth of business in Toronto and Montreal which is a significant export.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Reform's amendment to Bill C-68 put forward by my colleague, the member for Yorkton-Melville.

This amendment proposes to split Bill C-68 into two separate bills, one dealing with the criminal aspects of the bill and the other dealing with firearms regulations. These are two entirely separate and unrelated items. It makes sense that these two issues be separated and dealt with as two separate bills for expediency, simplicity and fairness.

Canadians want the opportunity to examine and debate the firearms sections of this bill openly and thoroughly. Canadians also want to see the crime control sections implemented as soon as possible.

Most Canadians will agree with increased crime control provisions but have difficulty with proposals to increase restrictions and control over firearms ownership. There has been a great deal of public discontent over proposed firearms restrictions which means that this bill is going to be subject to intense public scrutiny.

Our proposed amendment to split the bill allows the crime control provisions to go ahead without delay while the debate on gun control regulation continues. I strongly support this motion because it is practical. It allows government to push forward crime control provisions. At the same time it allows reasonable debate and consideration of the controversial proposals regarding gun registration and confiscation.

Although Canadians would prefer to see more crime control than is contained in this bill, the provisions included are clearly required and should go forward without delay to be reviewed in committee. For example, sections of this bill that I agree with call for stiffer sentences and these items should be imposed as soon as possible. Canadians have been waiting too long for mandatory sentencing of criminals who commit crimes using a firearm. This bill proposes mandatory sentencing with terms

ranging from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 14 years to be served consecutively with other sentences.

This bill also contains initiatives to toughen gun smuggling penalties and mandatory jail sentences of at least four years for the criminal misuse of firearms. I wholeheartedly agree with these proposals. However, we must not forget that sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms have been on the books for years, yet remain largely unused. Reformers have been pushing for enforcement of these laws and I am pleased to see some of our efforts realized in the bill. However, the bill still falls short of expectation, as mandatory sentences for criminal neglect causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, kidnapping and other violent crimes still need to be addressed.

Despite sections in the bill that strengthen the punishment of criminals, there are still many concerns with gun registration proposals which must be dealt with separately. An independent examination of gun proposals should not hold back efforts to address and strengthen criminal sentencing. That is one of the fundamental reasons we proposed splitting the bill.

Canadians are concerned that gun registration will be cumbersome, expensive and, most important, will have absolutely no impact on crime prevention. The justice minister proposes to squeeze taxpayers out of more than $500 million but cannot provide a shred of evidence that this expenditure will help control crime.

Gun owners are simply not comfortable with proposals to sentence law-abiding citizens that fail to register their firearms to prison terms of up to 10 years. These proposals are overly severe and when compared with other laws are inconsistent and do not fit the principle that punishment should fit the crime. There appears to be a complete lack of logic and an absence of justice when the bill proposes to make prison sentences for non-violent gun owners as severe as those for convicted murderers. It is nonsense.

I support the increase in penalties for violent offenders. However, I cannot support such a ludicrous and unjust sentence as contained in section 92 of the bill. How can the minister justify sentences of up to 10 years for failing to register a gun when there is no evidence that registering guns will reduce crime?

The bill would have much more support if the government could provide Canadians with some evidence showing results. However, all evidence from New Zealand and Australia shows that registration will not have the desired effect of reducing crime. Both countries tried gun registration but have since abandoned the idea because it was expensive and did nothing to prevent or reduce crime.

Not only are these proposed laws flawed, they are ill-conceived because they cannot be enforced. Police are already overworked and understaffed. Our prisons are full and are operating at 115 per cent of capacity. It costs over $47,000 a year to house a prisoner. Why is the justice minister on a crusade to put law-abiding gun owners behind bars? Talk about a misguided sense of justice.

Government simply cannot enforce these laws without spending millions of dollars on more police, parole officers and prisons, and the cost of enforcement will be of no benefit to Canadians.

Current storage and transportation regulations should not be punishable under provisions of the Criminal Code. It is nuts. The logic and rationale of this section clearly have to be reworked. The minister has openly stated that he believes the only citizens who should be able to carry guns are those in the army and the police. This bill aims to fulfil that goal by penalizing legal gun owners with registration and confiscation.

Bill C-68 clearly confuses two principles: crime control and gun control. These two issues must be separated in order that they can be dealt with clearly and logically. Gun registration affects law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. Criminals, on the other hand, must understand that severe penalties are or will be in place should they decide to defy Canadian law. The focus of the bill should be on the criminal element, not on punishing legitimate gun owners.

In good conscience, I cannot support ineffective legislation which has as its only measurable function a drain on the public purse. Bill C-68 places members in the unenviable position of having to choose between voting against ridiculous and wasteful proposals such as gun registration or voting for proposals to strengthen laws against criminals. As members of Parliament we must ensure that the laws we pass are fair and just and that they punish the criminal use of firearms, not legitimate gun owners.

Canadians are demanding to live in a safe and just environment, one that protects the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens and punishes criminals. This is the vision of Canada that I will support in legislation. The bill as a whole does not support that vision. I will support a bill dealing with Criminal Code amendments but not one that includes such expensive and redundant measures as those contained in the gun registration proposals.

I would like to have an opportunity to vote for the Criminal Code amendments but I simply cannot support the wasteful expenditures contained in the registration proposals. These measures are not a cost effective way of improving public safety. I will vote against the bill if gun registration is included.

Few bills are perfect. Clearly it is difficult to draft a bill that will meet the needs and concerns of all Canadians. Let's get real. As the bill now stands, as one comprehensive, all-encompassing bill, members of Parliament will be forced to vote against the entire bill because they disagree with the expensive and unworkable gun registration section.

The division of intent in Bill C-68 is obvious. The proposed amendment put forward by my colleague to cut the bill into two sections, one dealing with Criminal Code amendments and another dealing with gun registration, makes good sense. Crime control provisions need to be pushed forward right away. However gun control proposals require serious and careful examination.

Considerations of both cost effectiveness and crime control effectiveness need to be primary considerations. These must be clearly established with solid evidence to back up proposals.

In conclusion, if the government is seriously committed to meeting the needs of Canadians, then it will support the amendment. If on the other hand it is determined to ram the bill through as presently drafted against the will of many Canadians, then it will simply pay the price for not listening, the same price the Conservatives paid after the last election. Only time will tell if the Liberals are listening to Canadians.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few brief remarks regarding the government's proposals on gun control. I would like to separate my remarks. I have substantive concerns about the legislation and I would like to indicate why it is worthwhile to support the amendment to split the bill into two. Also I have some concerns from the public at large.

I would like to congratulate those legitimate gun owners across the country who have been seriously concerned with these proposals and for the way that they presented cogent arguments. There has been very little hysteria or exhibitions of frustration on their part, although they would have been more than justified in doing so.

What we are talking about is a respect for different points of view. People have different ways of life. They do different things for their livelihood, recreation and hobbies. Gun owners deserve to have the tolerance of those who do not share their views and their activities. This unfortunately is not the case with regard to the government's proposals.

I would like to mention some concerns about public attitudes. In spite of indications that there is overwhelming support for more gun control proposals, the only poll that really has asked Canadians whether or not they think the bill will make any difference took place in Saskatchewan.

Of the people canvassed in Saskatchewan, 50 per cent were women and 50 per cent were men. Fifty per cent owned guns and 50 per cent did not. Eighty-six per cent indicated that expanding the registration of firearms will not decrease crime.

Of those who supported registration, almost 50 per cent thought it would not reduce crime. Seventy-five per cent of those polled thought there should be an evaluation of the current gun control laws before further changes are made. Surely this is a perfectly legitimate and justifiable concern.

Canadians were asked at the turn of the year whether they thought their perceptions about the increase in violent crime was caused by the absence of stronger gun control laws. Only 5 per cent thought increases in violent crimes were caused by insufficient gun control regulations. When that was broken down by region, 10 per cent of Quebecers thought it was a result of inadequate gun control legislation, in the west only 1 per cent thought it was as a result of inadequate gun control legislation.

Canadians have recognized that these proposals will not work, they will not reduce crime and they will not reduce violence in the home, but will just constitute a tax on legitimate gun owners.

It is often said that the police are in favour of these gun control proposals. Again I have some numbers from Saskatchewan. Of the Saskatoon police force, 98.5 per cent is opposed to these recommendations, 94.5 per cent of the Prince Albert police force and 100 per cent of some of the smaller cities in Saskatchewan are opposed. Therefore, there is no support either among rank and file police officers, those who actually have to deal with the question of guns in people's homes and who have to risk their lives every day.

The last point I would like to make is that aboriginal peoples have clearly indicated that these proposals are an infringement on their treaty rights to hunt. It is unfair and inappropriate to attack aboriginal peoples and their way of life as the government is doing.

I have some substantive points. For years Canadians have been asking for more crime control but the minister is not responding to the demand. He has missed the boat on that issue and instead is hitting responsible, law-abiding gun owners with yet another round of tighter and tougher gun control restrictions.

Those parts of the bill that are tough on the criminal use of firearms are supportable. We need to be tough on the smuggling of illegal weapons and the use of guns in serious offences. We

can all support those recommendations. However, concerning registration and the way in which Bill C-17 works, we still do not yet have a full analysis of the effectiveness of the last gun control regulations. I am sure we should have that before we move on.

Even the Auditor General has called for a thorough evaluation of existing gun control programs before any additional changes are made. He says that Canada's gun control program is controversial and complex. An evaluation of the program is essential to give the Canadian public and members of Parliament the assurance that its objectives are being met.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will have the floor immediately after question period when we resume debate.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) we will now proceed to statements by members.

The Environment

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 27 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities announced the establishment of a 20 per cent club of Canadian municipalities taking action on climate change. The announcement took place in Berlin just prior to the conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change.

Canadian cities have emerged as leaders in responding to the challenge of climate change. As founding members of the 20 per cent club, they have all committed to significantly reducing emissions of the gases that cause climate change by amounts in the order of 20 per cent.

In Berlin they will challenge other municipalities around the world to follow the Canadian example and join them in efforts to combat climate change.

In addition to the global benefits that can result from municipal actions, each member of the 20 per cent club is realizing significant economic benefit from increased energy efficiency and improved health for its citizens through reductions in local air pollution.

In joining together, members agree to share information, monitor progress and celebrate results on actions which they are taking.

Founding members of the 20 per cent club include the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Regina-

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last budget showed the true colours of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: No more talk about readiness to accept immigrants. Instead, we impose on them a new tax to reduce the federal deficit even though they have yet to step foot in the country. Worse yet, we are asking refugees who arrived less than a year ago, or who are still outside the country, to absorb Canada's debt.

How can we believe that the minister is acting in good faith when even the United States and Australia impose no settlement fees on refugees?

How can we exact settlement fees from refugees when they were forced to leave their countries and when Canada has recognized their right to settle here? The minister's attitude is incomprehensible, unjust and discriminatory.

Rail Strike

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this 35th Parliament has an enormous responsibility to get Canada's economic, democratic, constitutional and criminal justice policies in order. The clock is ticking on all fronts.

This is why many Canadians were upset with the recent political manoeuvring by which the House was delayed in passing back to work legislation on the rail strike.

Farmers lost sales, mines laid off workers, manufacturing plants shut down and our export customers were again forced to look to other countries for supplies.

Labour management disputes must be settled through an improved collective bargaining process. Canadians were disappointed that the Liberal government defeated Reform's final offer selection private members' bill and yet the very next day ran into the political squalls of the Bloc and the NDP.

Let us learn our lessons and make the system work better in the future.

Biodiesel Fuel

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

Mr. Speaker, in the red book the Liberal government made a commitment to reducing carbon dioxide levels in Canada by 20 per cent by the year 2005. In December of last year the government took a big step toward meeting this target by introducing the national biomass ethanol program which has encouraged large scale production of ethanol.

The ethanol task force was encouraged by this commitment and is now focusing its efforts on promoting new renewable

fuels such as diesel fuel made from vegetable oil. Biodiesel has already established a large market in Germany and France. The Canadian mining industry has shown interest in using the fuel underground due to a lack of harmful emissions.

Biodiesel also holds the advantage of being 100 per cent biodegradable. If it spills, costly environmental cleanups are unnecessary.

I hope the government will respond to renewable diesel fuel with the same enthusiasm it did with ethanol.

Flor Contemplacion

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the world's silence was deafening when the Government of Singapore ten days ago hanged for murder Flor Contemplacion, a Filipino nanny, rejecting a plea from Amnesty International and others for a judicial review.

Why was the international community not outraged? Where was the United Nations, which just last year discussed the plight of immigrant workers?

Had this nanny been a woman of power and wealth, would she have met her tragic fate? Wrongful convictions are known to have happened. Canada had Donald Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy-Paul Morin in recent times. Time gave these victims of injustice a chance to prove their innocence, a chance denied to Ms. Contemplacion.

Why did the world turn a deaf ear and blind eye to her tragic plight? Injustice wherever it incurs inflicts injuries not only to individuals and families, not only to a nation, but to all humankind.

The Green Lane

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the environment has announced the Ontario region's contribution to the green lane on the information super highway.

The green lane provides a user friendly way to access environmental information, products and services. Therefore, Canadians as well as other computer users around the world can access information from national and regional levels of Environment Canada.

The green lane represents the government's commitment to efficient, environmentally friendly information systems outlined in the blueprint on renewing government using information technology.

This initiative provides information to help people make environmentally responsible decisions. It serves as an electronic forum for environmental education.

I look forward to the day when all regions of this great country will be up and travelling on Canada's green lane.