Debates of April 5th, 1995

Firearms Act

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We have been here for well over a year. The hon. member for Calgary West is saying it has only been a few months. He knows perfectly well that is not true.

We have been sitting here since February 1994. That is well over a year. That is a good long time.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

When did you table the bill?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

January.

The hon. member has had ample opportunity to discuss this matter. They have had opposition days when they could raise this issue if they wanted to; yet we have not seen it then.

We have offered to sit at night. The hon. member does not want to do that either. Why? Because he wants to have days and days of filibuster and hold this bill up until next year or the year after.

The government is decisive. The government made promises in the red book. The government made promises to the people of Canada when it introduced this bill. The government knows how to govern. It will show leadership to Canadians and it will proceed with this bill. It will do a great job in enacting legislation that will help reduce crime in Canada and help to solve the problems confronting this country in a way that is meaningful and sensible, instead of the ranting, pillaging and raving the Reform Party is engaging in.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the government's gun control legislation, in particular to support the Reform amendment that the bill be split into two parts, each to be voted on separately.

In doing so I wish to vehemently protest the restrictions the government has placed on this debate in order to rush the bill through Parliament. It strikes me as supremely ironic that a government that seems incapable of imposing any kind of discipline on the criminal elements in society has no hesitancy about imposing a strict discipline on its own caucus and on the debates of this House.

For more than five years Reformers have been criss-crossing this country asking the question, what do Canadians want and, in particular, what kind of country do Canadians want for themselves and for their children as we approach the 21st century. One of the most frequent answers we get to that question is that Canadians want safe streets, safe homes and safe communities.

This was expressed to me very eloquently several years ago at a meeting in Toronto when in response to my questions, what do Canadians want, a man in the audience got up and said the following. He said: "Do you know what I want? I want my wife to be able to leave this hotel at 10 p.m. and go to our car in the parkade a block away without running the risk of being mugged, robbed or assaulted. I want the state to discharge the most elemental of its responsibilities, namely, its responsibility to protect the life and property of its citizens. I want to live in a country where the rights and security of law-abiding citizens and innocent victims of crime take precedence in criminal law and the Constitution over the rights and security of criminals."

There are not many MPs in this House who would disagree that increasing public safety must be a priority of this Parliament. The disagreements among us arise over what is the best way to achieve that result.

With respect to Bill C-68 and the motion to split it, the key question is this. What role does gun control have to play in making Canada a safer place? Two different answers to this question are being given in the 35th Parliament: the Reform position and the Liberal position. Canadians must decide which position maximizes public safety.

The Reform position, which has been stated eloquently by my colleagues, is that gun control will only contribute to public safety if its primary focus is on the criminal use of firearms. The diversion of police attention and financial resources into excessive regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms will not enhance public safety. Canadian voters are telling Reformers and pollsters that their number one priority for justice is strong action directed toward persons who commit violent criminal acts. Based on this position, Reform MPs have taken the lead in proposing measures to tighten up the regulation of the criminal use of firearms.

These measures include the following: implement a zero tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms; ensure that charges are laid in all firearms crimes and that plea bargains are not permitted; impose mandatory one-year minimum jail sentences for using any weapon in the commission of a violent crime; provide for progressively more severe penalties for repeat violent and firearms offenders; ensure that all sentences for violent crime and firearms convictions are served consecutively; provide for lifetime prohibitions from ownership of firearms for all persons convicted of violent crimes; impose the same penalty for the use of a replica firearm as for using a real gun in a violent offence; create a new offence of theft of a firearm sentence three to fourteen years; impose sentences of three to fourteen years for unlawful importation or illegal sale of a firearm for a criminal use; deem the seller of a firearm to a criminal as having aided in any future crime committed; and transfer young offenders to adult court for using firearms in the commission of an offence.

In short, the Reform Party is opposed to gun controls that are not cost effective in reducing violent crime, improving public safety and saving lives, and would repeal any gun control provisions that are not cost effective in reducing violent crime, improving public safety and saving lives.

The position that the Liberal government has taken on gun control is utterly predictable and typical of Liberals. If one comes to a hard choice between two options, in this case focusing scarce resources on regulating the criminal or non--

criminal use of firearms, the Liberals invariably say: "Do both, even if doing one hurts the other". They are following the advice of that great American philosopher Yogi Berra, who said: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it".

So the justice minister has brought forward this Bill C-68- C stands for compromise-20 per cent of it, under pressure from Reformers, contains partial measures for tightening up the criminal use of firearms, but 80 per cent of it focuses on increased regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms for hunting, recreational and collection purposes, including the establishment of a universal, national firearms registry reputed to cost anywhere from $85 million to $500 million. One reason for this wild variance in the cost estimates is because the Liberal government underestimates the number of firearms in Canada.

In 1976 a Department of Justice document estimated the number of firearms in Canada at 10 million, with about a quarter of a million guns being added to the stock each year. Using this estimate there should now be over 15 million firearms in Canada, but the justice minister says there are now only 6 million or 7 million guns in Canada.

Bill C-68 cannot be effectively evaluated or costed out unless and until the justice minister can explain where the other 8 million or 9 million guns went.

Reformers oppose the major portion of this bill for three reasons. First, the registry will not be universal. The criminals in whose hands firearms are a huge threat to public safety will unfortunately decline to register. The minister cannot understand why not. He will send polite letters to the Mafia and ads will be placed in the smuggler and gun runners digests, saying "Please, fill out these forms in triplicate in either official language and take them to the police". In the end the registry will omit the one group in whose hands firearms are most dangerous.

Second, the cost of implementing this bill will be far greater than what the minister says. Liberal cabinet ministers are notoriously inept at estimating cost. That is why the federal debt is almost $550 billion and the government will spend $35 billion more this year than it takes in.

The Reform caucus has developed a table of multipliers to help determine the real cost of any new proposal put forward by a Liberal cabinet minister. The more soft-headed the minister, the higher the multiplier.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, for example, is a 10. If he says something might cost $100 million, we multiply it by 10 because the real cost will be closer to $1 billion. The justice minister is not far behind. He is a 7. When he says his registry will cost $85 million, we multiply it by 7 and the true cost will be over $500 million, which is $500 million that we do not have.

The third and most important reason for opposing Bill C-68 as it is now is that the proposed national registry of firearms for hunting, recreational and collection purposes will not improve public safety. The present handgun registry, which has been in place for 60 years, has not improved public safety. The Washington, D.C. handgun ban and registry has not prevented murder and rape in that city from going out of sight. The police in both New Zealand and Australia have recommended abandoning their costly and ineffective gun registries for precisely this reason.

Despite repeated invitations to do so, the minister has put forward no evidence that his proposed registry will improve public safety, nor has he even proposed public safety measuring sticks against which the performance of the registry can be measured.

In conclusion, if what Canadians want are safer streets, safer homes and safer communities, if public safety is really our aim, then Bill C-68 should be split, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has proposed. The ineffective national registration part should be defeated. The sections tightening up the criminal use of firearms should be strengthened and passed forthwith. This is the course of action that will truly make Canada a safer place to live.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. In particular, I welcome the opportunity to speak to some of the points raised a moment ago by the leader of the third party. I will come to that in a moment.

This is an extremely important discussion, and strong feelings are being expressed by all sides in the House and by many Canadians.

Approval of second reading will in fact send this bill to committee for discussion and amendment, and then the bill will come back to the House for a final decision and we will all know what the facts are surrounding the bill.

What happens at committee will be extremely important in relation to concerns that Canadians are raising and the concerns that I have expressed with regard to this bill.

Constituents have raised their concerns with me with respect to their views on Bill C-68 and I have expressed them to members of my party. They also point out that they support certain measures in the bill to control crime, promote public health and safety and to impose stiff mandatory minimum jail sentences for a range of gun offences. There is strong support for that among my constituents.

My constituents also agree that the government should enact measures to strengthen border controls and amend the Criminal Code to address the problems of smuggling and the illegal

importation of firearms. Let me relate two of the four principles of the Firearms Act they strongly support.

I will come to splitting the bill in a moment. The splitting of the bill that the Reform Party talks about is nothing but misleading the public on the real intent of their amendment. The leader of the Reform Party stood up a moment ago and talked about moving toward safety measures. He had some good suggestions, I will admit, but the real intent of the amendment put forward by the Reform Party is not to split the bill but to destroy it. The good suggestions that the Reform Party leader talked about will not be put in the bill because the bill would be gone if we went ahead with the amendment.

Let me come back for a moment to the principles that have strong support in this bill. The criminal misuse of firearms will be dealt with through amendments to offence and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, including mandatory four-year minimum sentences for 10 specific violent offences committed while in the possession of a firearm. That is a good point.

The 10 offences are attempted murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, extortion and the discharging of a firearm with intent to cause harm. Upon conviction, the offender will receive a lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted or a prohibited firearm.

The second major important principle that there is strong agreement on is smuggling and illegal importation. Smuggling and illegal importations will be dealt with through legislative amendments and the development of programs for controlling the import-export and domestic transit of firearms, including border registration and new Criminal Code offences for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms. Those are good principles and I and many others in the House support them.

I will admit other aspects of the bill are much more controversial. They relate to the impact on legitimate gun owners, hunters, collectors and sports people using firearms. I have previously presented a petition on behalf of my constituents opposing the bill as currently drafted.

Let me go back to the points I raised then. The petition called on Parliament to "desist from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons".

My constituents feel very strongly that the bill would not accomplish what the minister intended as currently drafted. They are concerned that law-abiding Canadians are already overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun legislation. They believe that the new proposals as currently drafted with the introduction of mandatory gun registration would punish the wrong people. Many of my constituents and other Islanders have concerns with this legislation.

I tabled that position and raised those concerns. Now I want to see that my constituents have the opportunity to go before a committee in the proper forum to express those concerns themselves or through their national organizations. I do not want it to be the same as what we have been seeing in the past where the Reform Party is using misleading amendments and holding meetings across the country for political reasons.

The party talks about crime. Every day its members stand in the House and say they are concerned about crime. The effect of their amendment would, in fact, destroy the opportunity of the bill going to committee and seeing that crime is controlled, including the misuse of firearms.

This is how misunderstood the Reform Party amendment is. Some of my constituents have suggested to me that I should support splitting the bill, believing that the Reform Party amendment will do that. It will not.

I listened closely to the leader of the third party. In his speech he went through a litany of suggestions to improve public safety. The amendment destroys that opportunity. I would suggest that the leader of the Reform Party re-read the amendment. Allow me to take a moment to emphasize to the leader of the third party what the amendment states: "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68". That would have the effect of destroying the bill. They know it. They are misleading the Canadian public. For the party that talks about crime control, it would have the opposite effect.

In conclusion, I want to see changes to the bill. Those changes can be made in committee. I suggest that the process is not all that it could have been; however, we have a bill before us that must be improved.

In discussions I have had with fellow MPs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I feel I have been given assurance that the bill will be decriminalized with respect to legitimate gun owners, collectors, sports people and hunters, at least on their first offence. With that assurance, I am willing to support the bill going to committee to be improved so that it meets the needs of all Canadians.

I am really disgusted that the Reform Party has tried to turn this, by its amendment, into a political game. However I guess that is life in the world of politics. Reformers are misleading Canadians as to where they really want to go.

By this bill going to committee it will give Canadians the chance to voice their concerns in a public forum, before a legitimate committee, so that the bill can be improved to meet the needs of all Canadians.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be recognized but not very happy to be speaking at second reading stage of Bill C-68, the federal government's ill-conceived firearms control legislation.

I am especially not happy to be here speaking today now that the government has invoked closure on the bill. It has cut off debate in the House so the parliamentarians who have been talking to their constituents about the bill will not now have a chance to share all they have heard in their constituencies with other members of Parliament and, more important, with the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. Shutting off debate on the bill at this point is quite a shameful act. First, the government restricted access to the bill and now it is restricting debate.

I have listened carefully to much of the debate since the legislation was introduced. As emotional as it has been at times, there has been much said that is worthy of note. I hope the minister has been listening with a mind which will accept change. Unfortunately I find that the minister, like many Canadians, simply accepts the idea of firearms control as an end in itself.

The legislation addresses firearms control. Therefore the minister seems to be saying, for that reason alone it is worthy of support. It does not matter if this is a good bill, a bad bill or an inadequate bill. It should be worthy of support simply because it deals with gun control. We are all supposed to stand up and support it because of the premise. Whether it addresses all the problems facing Canadians and their personal insecurities does not seem to be relevant in the debate.

I believe these matters are relevant and I want to look at some of them today. I have heard many stories told in this Chamber over the past weeks, personal stories and quoted newspaper accounts of stories affecting people in various communities throughout North America. Each of these stories is told to gain support for the legislation. The stories are about individual tragedies of friends, relatives or people whose names appear in the paper because of some firearms accident or wilful event.

If one listens closely and reads between the lines, these stories are telling us that if we want to prevent the personal tragedies outlined, we must get rid of firearms and not register them.

The people who raised those stories in Parliament and the minister know that getting rid of firearms is not an option in the legislation before us today. For all intents and purposes the illustrative stories that have been brought to the debate, as important as they are to the individuals affected, are diverting attention from the real debate in front of us. The tragedies that they represent-and tragedies they are-can occur just as easily with a registered firearm as an unregistered one.

There is not enough time for me today, in 10 minutes, to outline everything that the legislation does. I will support the amendment before us which splits the bill into two parts because a good argument can be made for debating the two issues separately. My complaint with the legislation is the registration and the way in which it is being presented to the Canadian public by the government.

The universal registration of firearms is being presented for something that it is not. Persons with legitimate and legal uses for their firearms are being asked to pay for this misadvertised purpose.

The government is telling Canadians that if all firearms are registered they can feel safer and have more security in their homes. They can feel safer and more secure on the streets. This is simply not true. Peddling false hope while doing absolutely nothing else to alleviate the fears of the Canadian public or to attack the root causes of crime and violence in our society is practically dishonest.

As members know, I believe in gun safety. Just because I do not support the legislation of the Minister of Justice, I have been criticized for not supporting firearm safety. Members will remember that this was one of the reasons why I supported the previous government's legislation on firearms. I supported that legislation against the wishes of many of my vocal constituents because it dealt with firearm safety. Today many of those who criticized me in the past have agreed that the safety course being offered is a good one, that the safe storage, handling and transportation regulations contained in that legislation were reasonable.

Bill C-68, the registration provisions in the legislation in front of us today do nothing to enhance or improve on the existing safety provisions already in place. The new legislation should not be promoted as if it does. Also, we must reduce the amount of violent death and injury. We as a nation must confront this issue from all sides, including its social and economic roots.

Bill C-68 and its registration provisions by themselves will do nothing to reduce violent injury, death or suicide for that matter. If as a nation we are serious about suicide, spousal violence or criminal street violence we have to do much more than talk about creating a registry.

We have to do all that we can to reduce suicides and homicides but as everyone in this Chamber knows, these suicides and homicides will occur with registered legal firearms as well unless other social and economic issues are dealt with.

Members of the Chamber will recall, because it was released a few weeks ago, that the royal commission on aboriginal peoples released a report on suicide among aboriginal people, particu-

larly among aboriginal youth. To date the federal government has done virtually nothing to respond to the recommendations in this important and crucial report. The report indicated this issue has been before the government for more than 10 years.

If the federal government were truly interested in dealing with the issue of youth suicide it would respond in the affirmative to the recommendation of the royal commission report immediately.

It is a bit surprising the government says firearms registration is critical to the reduction of suicide and violence and yet at the same time is proposing a delay in the full registration process until the year 2003. Surely if the government were serious about this false contention and about the issue, if registration were actually important to the reduction of suicide and violence, would it not make compulsory registration immediate?

Why wait eight years if this is so important? The answer is simple. There is no evidence to support the government's claims. Registration is not important to the reduction of suicide and violence, and the government knows it.

I also support the police dealing with real criminals in our society. I have no trouble accepting the argument that those who commit crimes against the rest of society must be sought out, convicted and punished. However, I must remind the House and the minister that every police officer from northwest Saskatchewan I have spoken to and all the police officers I deal with on a regular basis in my own constituency tell me registration is not the answer for them.

When they are called to a domestic dispute or a location where they are uncertain what they might find when they arrive, they already assume every home they visit has a firearm. They already take no chances when they visit a scene. The bill gives them no additional security in this regard.

The police tell me that anyone who will shoot them is as likely to use an illegal weapon as a registered firearm. The police in northwest Saskatchewan tell me they need more time in the field, better support services and more sustained opportunity to work on preventative community strategies. There is a need to work on programs that will help them prevent violence rather than programs that respond only once violence has been committed. The bill and government comments to that effect offer no hope that this is being contemplated by the government.

If I had more time today I would happily put more concerns on the record. Fortunately a few members in the House have already begun to do so. Rather, I stress I remain critical of this legislation. I am critical because the Liberals have set out an agenda that they say will deal with safety and security and they are asking the residents of my constituency who happen to own legal and useful firearms to pay for them through the registration system.

The government is doing this without offering any evidence that any part of its plan will work any better than existing rules which have not yet been fully evaluated. I find this wrong and to a certain extent shameful politics.

I have already demonstrated that I do support firearms control measures that have a real and meaningful impact on our nation and its citizens. As I said earlier, while there is a role for legitimate critique of Bill C-68 and the critique of the false hope the Liberals are setting up with its passage, I trust the nation, the House and especially the minister will not only allow room for that critique to be articulated but also will take it to heart.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today. It is very significant that we are in the House talking about this subject at a time which I see as one of the last few periods when we can make this kind of significant change to our gun control laws.

We are looking at the type of society in which we want to live.

The Minister of Justice has brought forward legislation on young offenders and sentencing. He has made a commitment to make changes to the dangerous offender laws and we have before us today the bill on gun control.

I do not want to criticize because I am a very big supporter and fan of our neighbours to the south. However, we have seen a situation there in which citizens who want to change the law cannot. We have seen a situation in which the number of deaths by firearms has escalated to totally catastrophic levels.

In 1992 in the United States, 35,000 people died as a result of firearms; 150,000 people wounded by firearms in the same year. That is alarming. Those who were wounded might have been killed at that time if infrared spotting devices were available. They are now available in the United States, giving greater accuracy in dark areas, at night and to those who really do not have proficiency in the use of firearms to have good aim.

We have been told the United States is different. We have been told this because of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We have been told there is a constitutional right to bear arms in the United States. That is not correct in the sense the National Rifle Association in the United States would have us believe.

The right to bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States applies to the militias and the constabularies of the states to be able to arm themselves to defend against a national army. That is the basis as interpreted by the Supreme

Court of the United States of the right to bear arms. It is not for citizens of the United States to have unlimited permission and lawfully be able to have arms.

I want to give one example of how that applies with the case of one small community in Illinois, Morton Grove, in the early 1980s, I think in 1982. It decided it wanted to do something about the proliferation of firearms. It decided to ban firearms. There was a municipal bylaw which banned firearms in that community.

The National Rifle Association became very alarmed at this and a great deal of lobbying ensued. As a result, the state of Illinois passed a law that stated municipal laws could not be more prohibitive with respect to firearms than state laws. That destroyed any opportunity for any further municipality in the state of Illinois to do what Morton Grove did.

There are other states with the same law. It was never challenged. The right of the community of Morton Grove to do that was not challenged on the basis of the second amendment. It was the lobbying by the National Rifle Association to make sure state governments moved in to prohibit that sort of thing happening anywhere else in that state and to its determination, any other state in the union.

The National Rifle Association is quite a prominent lobbying group in Washington. It employs approximately 50 people, has an annual budget of approximately $100 million and in the Congressional elections in 1992 spent $1.7 million on candidates favourable to its position.

There is no way the Americans will be able to strengthen their gun control laws significantly in light of that kind of lobbying and force opposed to them.

We just have to look at the Brady bill. Mr. Brady was shot at the same time as President Reagan, a very valued and admired public servant in the United States on the staff of the President of the United States. He was impaired for life. He and his wife worked tirelessly to bring forward a bill for stronger gun control. The bill he wanted was one stronger than the one eventually passed, but it was only through the force of personality and the type of people Brady and his wife were that they were able to get that bill at all.

Congress in the United States now wants to roll back some of the advantages and some of the things obtained in the Brady bill. I credit President Clinton when he says that under no circumstances would he allow that to happen and he would veto any such measures. That is not democracy. That is not allowing the people of the United States to choose.

We in Canada do not have that kind of force opposed to the free will and to the ability of Canadians to make their decision. It is getting more difficult. The structured opposition is becoming stronger. If Canadians want stronger gun control it has to be now.

We want Canadians to decide. We want to have the bill go to committee. We want to have an intense study of the bill in committee. We are prepared to listen to witnesses, to members of Parliament and to make some changes to the bill.

The Minister of Justice said he wants to have the areas of black powder shooting, certified competitions and antiques looked at and perhaps defined a little more clearly; perhaps changes made in these areas. He has also given an assurance to the Canadian Police Association with respect to penalties and the criminalization of non-registration. He wants that looked at. Those are very significant directions. I presume he will be giving further instructions to the committee when he appears.

He has also stated that when he appears before the committee he will give the breakdown and the background information on why he has stated the registration system will cost approximately $85 million. For those who are saying it will be $500 million, I am sure they will want to hear the minister's information. That is fair.

The previous speaker from the New Democratic Party said it has not worked before so why are we trying again. We are trying again because it has not worked before. We are trying to put in a registration system that can work. It is not because it is a registration system. The registration system will work because of advances in technology, a registration that will be-

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

The criminals can break in.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

No, they cannot break in. That is nonsense. That is pure fabrication, absolute rubbish.

The possession licences and the firearms registration certificates will be cards similar to credit cards with magnetic tape which will have the information and when it is run through a machine similar to a machine that checks a Visa card, the firearm will automatically be registered. It could be registered in a place of purchase similar to Canadian Tire. It will feed into the main computer system at which there will be fire doors to prohibit the information coming back out.

It will be a safe system. That is one of the reasons we want to wait until January 1998 to start registration. We want to have the people of Canada realize this is a safe system, a beneficial system and it will not cost what they have been told it will cost them.

[An hon. member]

Will it fight crime?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

It is going to fight crime too.

Unfortunately, I only have ten minutes. If the hon. member comes to the committee and listens, he will hear that, if he has

not understood it already. This is going to be a cost factor where those who register, starting in January of 1996, will not pay anything for their possession certificate initially and the cost will increase in a moderate fashion throughout the five-year period. When the five-year renewal period comes around, there will be a cost of approximately $60 per person for the renewal.

The registration cost will not be $100 per firearm, as has been stated by many members in the House. It will be $10 per firearm, and for that $10 the person will be able to register 10 firearms. That is a significant difference from what we have been told by members opposite.

I also want to say that this bill will fight crime. If members opposite do not know that now, they should make a point of looking at the statistics to realize that.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can just imagine all the criminals in Canada waiting to run down to the nearest registration office to say, "I own this gun. Put my name on that list, by golly, because I want to get on that computer." They just cannot wait for that.

Unfortunately, this is a tragic thought, but I can also imagine how much better future victims of firearms crimes are going to feel when an offence is committed against them with a registered firearm. I say that facetiously, but still very seriously.

The motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton-Melville will split Bill C-68 into two portions. I believe it is imperative to be able to discuss separately, in a substantial fashion, the so-called merits of universal registration, as the Liberals would like to have Canadians believe that there actually is some merit to it, and also to discuss the improvements to the Criminal Code that would deal with people who commit firearms offences. It is important that this bill be split. Canadian people must have a chance to have input on both sides of the bill. To create a bill that deals with these two issues in one simply leaves the Canadian people and this House with no opportunity to stop the bad side of the bill and, at the same time, vote for some of the good points.

I believe there are members in the Liberal Party who would, if given the opportunity, instantly vote against universal registration and at the same time instantly support stricter penalties and tougher laws for people who commit firearms offences. We enthusiastically implore the Liberal Party to support the splitting of Bill C-68.

I believe members should be concerned when changes to the Criminal Code are tied to other measures that seek to impose on the right of law-abiding Canadians to own and enjoy property. This imposition is exactly what Bill C-68, when taken in its entirety, seeks to accomplish: to impose red tape, more regulation and more penalties on law-abiding firearms owners in this country. At the same time, the bill does little to impose stricter penalties, harsher penalties, rightful penalties on the people who commit firearms offences. We should be looking at deterring firearms crime while not imposing on the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

The motion of the member for Yorkton-Melville to split the bill is in accordance with a policy that the Canadian people want. If this bill was split, this party can support enthusiastically the part that deals with imposing stricter penalties on firearms offences, while at the same time enthusiastically opposing it, along with a lot of Liberal backbenchers who would love to do it. Unfortunately, because of party discipline in the Liberal party, they are not going to be able to oppose the registration.

The Minister of Justice, the Liberal members, with all their rhetoric and all their talk about this new bill, Bill C-68, have offered not one shred of substantive proof that universal registration will prevent firearms crime in Canada. Not one single shred have any of these Liberal members offered of proof that firearms registration is going to cut crime in this country.

The onus is on the Minister of Justice and this government to demonstrate clearly to law-abiding citizens affected by these new registration laws that they will indeed produce a desirable effect. That is what good legislation should be all about. This bill cannot demonstrate that in any way; therefore, it cannot be considered good legislation.

The onus was placed on the Minister of Justice to clearly demonstrate how registration is going to cut crime. He has not done it. The minister continues to state that registration will improve public safety. Again, he has not presented one single shred of evidence that it is going to do exactly that.

He says the association of police chiefs support him. I may get a few of these chiefs mad at me, but I would like to remind this House that the association of police chiefs has received about $150,000 in grants for their organization from this government. One can conjure up all sorts of thoughts of why there is this great support for Bill C-68 and the Minister of Justice.

However, the facts simply do not support his claim. In New Zealand the practice of registration was discontinued. They tried it. In 1983 their police force discovered-I have to assume that the New Zealand police are a fairly intelligent lot-that a gun registry did nothing to combat crime. In Canada police officers in Saskatchewan-I have to believe that police officers in Saskatchewan are as intelligent as police officers in any other part of Canada-

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Maybe more so.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Maybe more so, yes.

The police officers in Saskatchewan have demonstrated that they have absolutely no faith in Bill C-68 and its ability to affect crime rates.

As time goes on we will see the police forces in some of the other provinces come forward with the same conclusion.

We have had a handgun registry in this country for about 60 years. It was revamped in 1977 by Bill C-51, which was introduced again by a Liberal government to, as they say-and this is wonderful-enhance public safety. This sort of sounds familiar. We have heard this same phrase from this government and the Minister of Justice himself over the last several weeks. It is to "enhance public safety". Since 1977, studies by Sproule and Kennett, Robert Mundt, and Mauser and Holmes all showed that the changes enacted in 1977 had no effect on firearms homicide rates in Canada.

That is what we call substantive evidence, not the rhetoric and the words that the Liberals use with nothing to back them up-statistics.

It is very clear that while Bill C-68 does contain some measures to deal more harshly with criminals and people who commit firearms offences, which we can support, we would have liked to have seen the government and the minister introduce a whole lot stiffer penalties than what they have done. While it contains some legislation that is good and that we can support, I challenge the part that deals with firearms registration.

I have been on talk show after talk show with anti-gun advocates. When I gave them the specific opportunity to bring forward substantive evidence that gun registration would cut crime, not one single time were they able to give a substantive piece of evidence. The most common answer was: "Well, we register cars; what is wrong with registering guns?" That is the standard answer from these people and this government here.

Let us go with that. Mr. Speaker, you tell me and any member over here whether the registration of automobiles cuts down on stolen cars, on traffic accidents or on the carnage that is on our highway. How does car registration cut down on people who steal cars and commit crimes with cars? Not one single bit.

I ask this government and any member over there to show me clearly, please, how they substantiate their claim that universal registration is going to in fact cut crime. I give that challenge to them and so do millions of firearms owners in this country who can see no justification for universal firearms registration.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brant-justice; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-the environment.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-68 today.

I have a distinct advantage over many of the members of this House because I am a member of the justice committee. As a member of the justice committee, when this bill is referred to the justice committee I will have many days and hours, many opportunities, to ask witnesses very pointed questions. I will have an opportunity not only to examine witnesses but to cross-examine witnesses and inquire about certain facts that my friends in the Reform Party, for example, have suggested are not facts and to ask certain questions that they want to ask.

My intervention today will not be to answer or attempt to answer the questions that my friends in the Reform Party have brought up, generally speaking. My purpose in standing today and speaking is to examine and to try to help Canadians understand precisely what it is that is going to happen today. What I object to, quite frankly, is the misinformation that my friends in the Reform Party are attempting to spread across Canada with respect to what would happen if we were to support their motion today.

What I want to talk about is the actual legalities of what would occur if one were to support the Reform Party motion, and then let us let Canadians decide what the Reform Party has been saying and let us let them decide whether it is in fact what would occur.

We are being asked to consider the government's motion. It is a very simple motion. We may not agree with the bill or the principles, but the motion is very simple. It states "that the bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs". The government is simply saying, all right, let us refer this to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that they can hear witnesses and hear all of these people who wish to either support or object to the bill.

My friends in the Reform Party have put forward a very specific amendment. They are trying to tell people that their amendment splits the bill. That is not the case. The motion is very specific. All words after the word "that" are to be removed. Remember that the original motion says that the bill be read a second time and referred to committee. Reform members want that passage to be removed. What do they want to substitute it with? Do they want to substitute a motion that says that the bill be split into two separate sections? No. This is what they want to do:

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

Maybe they should be addressed separately, but if this motion were passed it would not allow the House to address those two questions separately. If we passed this motion, we would not be dealing with Bill C-68, period. The House would not read Bill C-68 a second time. The House would not refer Bill C-68 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Consequently, there would be no Bill C-68 and therefore, there would be nothing to split and nothing to discuss.

In my respectful view, it is improper for members of the Reform Party to suggest that their motion would split this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their motion would have the effect of killing this bill, not splitting it. So let us talk facts.

Members of the Reform Party have made a point of saying that they are talking straight to the people. Then be straight with the people. If they are going to bring a motion that says to kill Bill C-68, then tell people that is the kind of motion they are bringing forward, not that it is a motion to split the bill. That is utter parliamentary nonsense.

Anyone who votes in favour of the amendment thinking that the bill will be split is sadly misinformed. The actual effect of voting for the amendment will be to kill Bill C-68.

If we were to kill Bill C-68 the justice committee would have absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to consider the merits of the bill. It would have no opportunity whatsoever to consider any amendments that could be put forward. It would have no opportunity whatsoever to try to excise some portions of the bill.

Let us be honest with Canadians. If members do not like the bill, then say so. If you do not like the bill, tell Canadians that the amendment would throw the bill out. Do not tell Canadians the bill would be split because that is not the fact.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Is that the end?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

No, that is not the end.

Let us talk about what will happen if common sense prevails and we send this bill to committee. The bill is not perfect. Nothing that is written in this House is perfect. There are problems with the bill. The Minister of Justice acknowledged in a press release that he would like the committee to consider at least three amendments.

One deals with relics and whether they can be passed on from generation to generation. The second one is how we deal with prohibited classes of weapons that are used for competition. That is a legitimate thing. We can deal with prohibited weapons that might be used for competition. We can put an amendment to the bill that would permit such a use. There is nothing wrong or impossible about that. The minister has also asked us to look at black powder historical re-enactments.

There are a couple of problems I would like to look at before I have an opportunity to put forward my amendments. I acknowledge that I have an opportunity which is not available to most members. I am a member of the justice committee and I can put forward all kinds of amendments at committee. Then I can put forward more amendments in the House at report stage. I really have two cracks at it, unlike most members, and I acknowledge that.

One problem I have with the bill as it currently stands is the possibility of confiscation without compensation. This is anathema, unliberal. We have to deal with it. We have to look at what the bill actually says and make some hard decisions. In my view, there should be compensation for property that is legally acquired and is subsequently confiscated for the greater public good, if that is what this House decides. We do it with real estate. There is no reason that we cannot do it in this situation.

I would like to hear some evidence on that. I would like to hear the pros and cons. I would like to hear all those people who wish to come to the justice committee to tell us what is wrong or right with it.

I have some problem with the mandatory sentencing. Let us pick a section arbitrarily. Let us pick proposed section 244, which is found in clause 138 of the bill which reads in part:

1. Every person who, with intent

(a) to wound, maim or disfigure any person,

(b) to endanger the life of any person, or

(c) to prevent the arrest or detention of any person,

discharges a firearm at any person-is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

What does that mean from a legal point of view? Does that mean if they wound somebody, they will get a sentence for the wounding, then an additional four year consecutive sentence? Or does it mean that if they wound someone and they are found to have wounded someone under that section they will get a sentence of a minimum of four years? There is a huge difference. We have to hear from the justice department officials and other people in the legal field as to exactly what that means.

The perception may be among some in the community that a mandatory four year sentence means four years on top of any sentence for the crime. Others might think it is four years in total. That is called the totality principle. These are legitimate concerns and questions.

There is another legitimate concern. That is the one expressed by members of the Reform Party as to the actual purposes registration would serve. Would registration serve the purpose

of reducing firearm related crimes? How can we know unless we hear from the experts?

We can sit in committee and listen to people on both sides, the Ontario Handgun Association, the National Rifle Association or the firearms people. We can listen to the Canadian chiefs of police. Our friends from the Reform Party can ask them about the grants that have been going on for one or two decades. Never mind their innuendoes about the chiefs of police. They are not appointed by the federal government but by their own municipalities. These innuendoes are insulting to the chiefs of police.

In any event, these questions can be put directly. We can ask if there is any correlation between registration and the curtailment of handgun or firearm related crimes. If not, then it may be necessary to consider other reasons that we might want the registration circumstances.

It is inconceivable to me that a reasonable person would not want this matter studied in depth at the justice committee. All groups and people across Canada who want to provide input on this legislation would have the opportunity to do so. For the Reform Party to say anything but the fact that its motion would kill this bill is utter nonsense.

In conclusion, I want to say something to the people of my own riding of Scarborough West. I have discussed this issue with them on numerous occasions. I have put out a householder which contains a survey. It will be in their mailboxes within two weeks. I ask for their direct input and answers to the questions I have asked on gun control.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate as well. I am glad to be back in the House. I am particularly pleased to be able to address a subject I have heard about only in the last 24 hours. This is pretty handy.

It has to do with a debate that went on years ago. It seems like 40 years, but it was really only four, in 1991. My colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway had said something about the member for Beaver River supporting universal firearm registration. I thought: "This certainly is news to me. I have never spoken in favour of that. Boy, I had better check this out".

I had to chuckle when I saw it in a copy of Hansard , November 6, 1991. My friend from Kingston and the Islands brought it to my attention this afternoon-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary would refrain from heckling while the member is giving her remarks.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that from the Speaker and from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It said that I was in favour of gun registration. Let me get one thing straight. I would like to quote from Hansard , November 6, 1991, page 4687. I had already given my entire speech and was on questions and comments. Remember that I was sitting way back there all by myself and put up with any amount of heckling from members.

The parliamentary secretary, a dino-Tory, said to me, could I please make some comments on this, that and the next thing. I said to him at page 4687:

I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that "over 90 per cent of our respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered".

The Canadian Police Association said that 90 per cent of its respondents believed that all guns should be registered. I then said right after that that I agreed with that and I think every Canadian would agree with that. If those are its numbers, that is the survey it did among its members, how can I disagree with that? I am not going to dispute those numbers. If I were in favour of universal gun registration, and here comes the English teacher, I would have said I agree with them. I would agree with them if I were in favour of gun registration. It makes sense.

Looking at this yesterday I thought that if this was such a loud situation that I was in favour of gun registration, why in heaven's name did I not hear about it on November 7, 1991 from such groups in my constituency as the wonderful people who belong to Lac La Biche Shooting Association, responsible firearms owners, and Grand Centre's Cold Lake District Sportsman Fish and Game Association? Do you think that if I had supported gun registration these people would have even let me off the aeroplane to come back home? This is bunk.

If the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is so concerned about the fact that I support universal gun registration, he should have found it in my speech and in my thesis. He did not find it there; he did not find it now. He is in big trouble with his own small, minute caucus here.

If we are going to talk about flip-flops, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about when you and I listened in the last Parliament to Ian Waddell, Margaret Mitchell, and I could list all 43 of them. I am sure I can remember who they were. Audrey as well. They were going on and on talking about how terrible this was. All of a sudden in 1995 it is just amazing how things change. The NDP caucus is not going to be supporting this legislation. I have to admire them for that. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway is not going to be able to. If he can justify that back home that is fine. Things were different in 1991 of course. I did not agree with universal gun registration then, nor do I now.

Let us look at the Canadian Police Association's latest viewpoint on gun registration: "The Canadian Police Association recognizes the clear value of information availability to police officers, which registration of all firearms provides, and supports a full firearms registration system, but cannot support the registration system articulated in Bill C-68 unless there is a guarantee from the federal government that any implementation or administration costs for such a system will not come from existing operational police budgets". I agree with that too.

I do not agree with gun registration, but I have to agree with what the Canadian Police Association says. Whether the police will be able to enforce it on the frontlines or whether that money will actually have to come from some of the operating budgets, if there are fewer policemen in our cities, in our small towns and on our country highways when people are hauling around firearms committing crimes with them, that is where the money should go.

The proposed national firearms registration system will contain data for six million to 20 million guns, which is a lot of guns, and three million to seven million gun owners. We just heard our friend from the maritimes, the parliamentary secretary for justice, saying that we are going to get something like a Visa card and we will just run it through the magnetic strip.

Has anyone here ever had their Visa card stolen? Is it going to be guaranteed that that is safe, that they are not going to be able to break on to the Internet and have absolute access and a shop at home catalogue? Can we have any guarantee that someone is not going to be able to get into the Internet? He promised us it would be safer than safe.

When we talk safe, I want to talk about the fact that someone who is a victim of a crime with a firearm does not give two hoots about whether that gun was registered or not and whether somebody in a criminal gang in downtown cities anywhere across this country is going to be able to break into that system. We hear about it all the time. Why should the gun registration be any safer than anything else?

It is frightening to me that they would be able to know who has guns, where they are, how many they have and have absolute access to them. Those people are not going to register their firearms. We have to be absolutely dreaming if we think such a thing is going to happen.

Do you think that someone coming across the border is going to give up a gun? Who is going to seize these guns?

[An hon. member]

The police.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

The police are going to seize the guns. This thing is going full circle because the Canadian Police Association just said in its most recent document: "Who is going to do the seizing? Who is going to do the policing?" How much time are the police going to have for that? How much time does any policeman in any constituency have for more bookwork and paperwork? They should be out in their cruisers stopping crime.

A universal registration system will be a very large undertaking with huge costs. People joked earlier when my leader was speaking about us not having any idea of what the costs are. We would like to know,or at least have an idea of what the costs are. The Minister of Justice may talk about costs but we have absolutely no proof of that.

The finance minister in his budget, somewhat recently, gave us an idea of what to expect for deficits. We are going to be spending $9 billion on interest payments for every dollar that is cut. It goes on and on. One hundred billion dollars will be added to the deficit. Give us an idea of the costs, it is a lot of money.

Canadian taxpayers are going to be paying for this. We hear the government saying that it will be user pay, not just taxpayers' money. What is user pay? It is nothing more than me taking $10 out of my pocket to pay for registering my .22. It is nothing more than giving my money to the government or to someone to register my gun. It is user pay. Is it still costing me money? Yes, of course it is. I would sooner pay that $10 to a health care system that is going to be more efficient than knowing that someone is just paying to have his gun registered.

The recreational firearms communities of two provincial governments have huge doubts about the legislation and the minister knows it. I participated in the rally in September and I was proud of all the responsible firearms owners. Nobody acted crazy or irresponsible that day.

I must say I admire the minister for going out and facing them. The people in my constituency said they thought that was pretty brave. There was no one to be ashamed of there. It is not the responsible firearms owners who we should be attacking in this legislation. It is the criminal misuse of firearms and a registration system will do nothing to eliminate or even alleviate crime.

This new scheme will represent a massive attack by the state and its police on property rights and the privacy of millions of law-abiding citizens. I frankly do not think I need to say anything more about this. I never did support universal gun registration regardless of what my friend from Burnaby says. I do not agree with the police association's estimate. I agree with the fact that they say those are their numbers, but I do not agree with them. There would not be people in my constituency, and many policemen as well, who could support that.

Crime is what we should be attacking here, not registration. Registration is not the answer. Therefore, let us split this bill in two and make sure that we deal with crime. As the bill is now responsible firearms owners are going to be labelled and become criminals.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion. I have been spending the last few days listening to the debate on it.

I must say that some good ideas came from across the floor. Some good ideas also came from this side of the House of changes we could make to really reflect the concerns of some of my constituents.

Over the past few months I have been talking to a number of my constituents who have been hearing a lot of misinformation concerning this bill. It has been very difficult to really debate the bill in an open and meaningful way. I end up spending half of my time trying to explain to constituents parts of the bill that they believe are there but actually are not. I find that a very difficult way to deal with the legislation.

I have a number of concerns with the legislation but before I get into that I want to talk about those areas which I think everyone in the House supports. When Bill C-17 came into the House under the former Conservative government I could not support and voted against the sections on the increased criminal sanctions for the illegal use of firearms. One of the reasons I voted against the bill was that I did not believe it dealt with the criminal use of guns. My constituents did not feel these issues were properly dealt with.

I brought those points forward and I want to thank the minister for at least listening to Canadians who felt there was not enough being done to sanction people who use guns in the commission of crimes. I appreciate that he and the Prime Minister are taking our ideas and moving forward with them.

As members know, the average sanction across the board is about 16 months. The minister has increased it to four years. I would rather have seen it go higher but I see that as a positive step and a good way forward.

I also agree with what the minister is doing with the whole question of smuggling. I have talked with the Minister of National Revenue and he has indicated to me that he, along with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, have a task force together. They are going to focus on smuggling.

This will not work unless smugglers are stopped at the border. There is one major place at the border where the majority of these guns are coming across. I call on the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to deal with that situation and to get the guns off the street. I also agree with the seizure of the assets of those people who smuggle. If assets are seized and smuggling is stopped it will go a long way in dealing with some of the problems.

I have not heard anybody on the other side thank the minister for dealing with the whole situation of young offenders with regard to handguns. I see that as a positive step forward and something we could support.

I want to get into those areas that I feel are not very well represented. Specifically, there is the whole area of registration. It is probably the area that concerns most of my constituents. When I was putting forward proposals on that, I always said that registration would have to be proven to me to be effective, efficient and affordable. When I look at some of the proposals put forward by the minister, I am concerned whether they actually meet that criteria.

I hope the members of the committee on justice will tear the bill apart, get the minister before them and get the proof whether these sorts of criteria are met. I see that as an important role of the committee and I hope it will take that challenge on.

I also wanted to split the bill. A lot of members wanted to split the bill but I have to say to my colleagues across the way that their motion does not split the bill.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Make a motion.