Debates of April 5th, 1995

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Firearms Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, not more than one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the allotted day of the second reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

[The Speaker]

When Bill C-68 was last before the House, the hon. member for Medicine Hat had seven minutes remaining for debate.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I cannot give the speech I wanted to give today because the government has just invoked a form of closure, something that its members spoke out against very strongly in the last Parliament. I am going to speak out against that very thing right now.

Canadians feel very strongly about the whole issue of gun control. In particular, many people across the country are opposed to the whole idea of registration.

In my judgment, this is an extremely cynical and political move. Just before a break when MPs are going back to their ridings to consult with their constituents, the government invokes a form of closure. This prevents Canadians from having the full input and type of discussion they should have on an issue which is so important to them. The government is playing politics with this issue and I want to speak about that in a larger context right now.

As I mentioned, people feel very strongly about this issue. The country in many respects is split along rural and urban lines. I can see this whole issue being extremely divisive down the road if it is not handled properly.

That is why Reform has offered a very good reasoned amendment to split the bill in two. It would give people a chance to vote on the proposals that would bring in tougher sentences for crimes committed with the illegal use of firearms. That is something many Canadians agree with.

Where people differ from the government is on the whole idea of registration. If the government was going to be absolutely fair about this, it would recognize that there are two separate issues here and Canadians should have a right to vote on them separately.

I want to talk for a moment about the whole process leading up to where we are today. As a starting point, before the govern-

ment brings forward a piece of legislation which is so controversial and about which people care very deeply, I believe it is reasonable that the onus be put on the government to explain where the evidence is that points to registration being an effective way to curb crime.

We have asked many questions in this House on that issue. We have asked the justice minister on several occasions for the evidence. All he could do, as people would say when talking in a logic class, was make an appeal to authority, a false argument, that the police chiefs say it is a good thing to do, but there is no evidence. We have made that point over and over again. That is a very cynical move.

It is also very cynical how the whole consultation process was carried out. The minister did have some meetings with some groups over the course of the summer, which is great. However, when these meetings occur certainly there has to be some room for compromise. We cannot go in there with the attitude that we are not going to bend at all.

It got worse than that. After a while the meetings were by invitation. That is very cynical. People wanted to have a say but the minister said: "No, some people cannot come into these meetings because we want to make sure that things go our way". After that there is this omnibus legislation where the government tries to sell the good with the bad. Again, that is very cynical and very political and we absolutely disagree with that.

The final straw is time allocation right before a break. In this place, of all places, we should be talking about very important issues and MPs should be free to go back and talk about these things before they are set in stone. Unfortunately, members have been denied that opportunity because the government has invoked a form of closure.

We have spoken out time and time again on this issue. We have asked the government to produce the evidence that this will have an effect on crime. We have said that if it could produce the evidence it would have our support. However, the government cannot so we will not support it. That concludes my remarks.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support this bill today.

This bill represents the culmination of one of the points in the red book. I want to quote from the red book in this connection: "In order to combat crime, a Liberal government will work in a broad range of areas. To strengthen gun control, a Liberal government will, among other measures, counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted firearms into Canada and prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable drug related offence, stalking offence or any violent crime from owning or possessing a gun". That promise was included in the red book. That promise is being kept by this legislation today.

It is that legislation the Reform Party is trying to destroy with this phoney amendment which it put before the House today. Reform members have run across the country misleading Canadians, telling Canadians that the amendment splits the bill. That assertion is totally and completely false.

The hon. member for Beaver River has been away. However, she will have heard these false statements which are being made by her colleagues as to the effect of this amendment across the country. I know if she gets to speak later this afternoon, she will want to dissociate herself from those comments.

With respect to the bill, first I would like to deal with the allegations made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat about the use of time allocation in the debate this afternoon.

We have asked repeatedly for assistance in dealing with the bill. We have offered to sit late in the evenings in order to accommodate members who wish to participate in the debate. Those offers were declined, politely but emphatically, by the members of the Reform Party. So we need not concern ourselves about their genuine desire to debate the bill.

They are shedding crocodile tears this afternoon, alleging that they are having their debate cut off, but let me review the record. The bill was debated in the House on February 16 and February 27, March 13, March 27 and March 28 for a total debating time according to the official record of 17 hours and 46 minutes. Eighty-four persons participated in the debate before today. I am number 85.

[An hon. member]

That shows how much interest there is in it.

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

The hon. member says that shows how much interest there is in it. It shows that a filibuster has been mounted by the Reform Party.

If we look at the number of speakers, 35 Liberals, 12 Bloc members, 34 Reformers, two New Democrats and one Progressive Conservative have participated in the debate so far. In other words, the Reformers have had almost every member speak, while on the Liberal side, despite the significant differences of view on this side, only 35 have managed to participate in the debate. This is nothing but a filibuster. The Reform Party is engaging in filibuster tactics and the government is taking a very sensible approach in bringing the debate to an end. The government is putting the Reform Party out of its misery.

So much for the argument about unfairness. The Reform Party has been offered an extra opportunity to debate this bill and it has consistently turned it down. The reason is that it wants the government to use closure. The Reform Party wants the government to bring an end to the debate so that it can get off the hook with respect to its rather ridiculous opposition to the bill.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat and dozens of other members from that party in particular have gone after the bill saying that there is no evidence that the proposals which the government has put forward will do anything to stop crime. I have some evidence and I would like to quote the evidence for hon. members, particularly those in the Reform Party and some doubting Thomases elsewhere in the House.

The proposal that the Minister of Justice has so courageously put forward, in spite of consistent and persistent opposition from Reformers and other people in the country, is based in part on our promise in the red book. It is supported very amply by the Canadian Police Association, whose members, after all, are experts in law enforcement. These are the people who enforce the Criminal Code across our country, yet members of the Reform Party trumpet themselves as experts on law enforcement. Most of them do not know a fig about law enforcement. They do not know anything about the subject, yet they rant and rave in the House all day that they want evidence.

I invite them to listen to the evidence of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This gentleman, Mr. Vincent MacDonald, made certain statements after his association at its annual conference last August called for the following: stiffer penalties for firearms misuse; a ban on military assault rifles and replica firearms; registration of all firearms; controls on the sale of ammunition; and full cost recovery. Those were the five items called for by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its convention in August 1994. These are the principal frontline law enforcers in Canada and that is what they called for.

The hon. members in the Reform Party ignore these suggestions and all of them are found in the bill of the Minister of Justice which is before the House today. If they supported law enforcement in Canada, they would be supporting this bill. They are frauds in that connection.

The president of the association said: "We must emphasize that while it is, perhaps, controversial, we view registration of all firearms as pivotal to the entire package, critical to controlling the illegal gun trade, to supporting preventative action and to enforcing the law". There is evidence that this will work.

On February 24, 1995 Chief MacDonald said: "Registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse of legal firearms in a number of important ways". This is from an expert in the law enforcement field. Surely, members of the Reform Party would bow to the ability and competence of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the collective wisdom of that body all of whom support this bill and believe that this bill is the right way to go.

I want to quote another statement from Chief MacDonald. He said: "As the U.S. example has shown all too well, arming for self-protection does not work but in fact escalates violence. For this reason, we believe Canada has a historic opportunity to chart a course that is different from the U.S. This legislation not only goes a long way to address current problems, but is an investment in our future". That is what the chief said; I submit that he was right.

If that is not enough to convince members of this House that this is the right way to go, one has only to look at the polls that have been conducted on this subject. I turn to the Environics poll of October 1994. Ninety per cent of Canadians supported a law requiring all firearms to be registered. In Quebec the figure was 95 per cent; Ontario, 92 per cent; British Columbia, 88 per cent; Alberta, 83 per cent.

Members of the Reform Party are forever boasting that they represent the wishes of their constituents. That is a false assertion. These members have no more interest in the wishes of their constituents than the man in the moon has.

The Reform member for Edmonton stood in this House and admitted that his own constituents in his own poll were 69 per cent in favour of the government bill. Yet he said: "I do not care what they say, I could not care less what they say. I am voting against it because, by George, I know better". Every member of the Reform Party is spouting the same stuff and nonsense. They may not use the same words. They cloak themselves in righteousness and say: "Oh, no. We are opposing this for good reason". But they know that their constituents support this bill. They know they would support it in overwhelming numbers.

If Reform members were doing what they say they always do, supporting and representing their constituents' interests, they would stand up and vote for this bill in droves. They would all show up. They would not pull that six and seven out of a total of 50 in the House which they pulled a weekend ago. They would all be here voting for this bill. Instead, all we hear is their ranting and raving and complaining about this government action on the bill and the very sensible proposals the Minister of Justice has put forward in this case.

I recognize there are deeply held views on this bill which represent significant differences of opinion on this subject. I can only say that the government has acted in the very best interests of Canadians in bringing this bill forward. It has brought forward a bill that is supported by the vast majority of the population in every region of the country. It has brought forward a bill that has been called for by the law enforcement experts, who more than any other in Canada know what is required to

deal with smuggling and illegal arms dealings and all manner of problems with guns.

This is a sensible bill. I realize there are going to be some changes made in committee. The minister has already acknowledged that he is willing to agree to certain changes to the bill in committee which will improve the bill.

The hon. member yaks about confiscation. He knows that when talking about confiscation he is only trying to stir up support for his party. He knows that at gun rallies he has been out selling Reform memberships in an effort to boost the sagging fortunes of the Reform Party. It is a shocking way to carry on.

The hon. member for Beaver River has missed some of the antics which have taken place in this House. I am sorry she did. She would have been ashamed of the conduct of most of her colleagues had she been here to watch the debate. I am glad she is back and I hope she will talk some sense to her colleagues because honestly, they need a good deal of it.

The fact is this is a good bill. It has garnered widespread support in the country. The Minister of Justice has proven time and again that he is willing to talk and be reasonable and flexible in respect of this bill. No minister has spent more time travelling the country seeking the views of Canadians than has the Minister of Justice. He has brought forward a bill-

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

He is not listening.

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

The hon. member says he is not listening. He is not listening to them, that is for sure, because they do not represent anybody. They represent a small minority of people.

The vast majority of people support what the minister is doing. If the members of the Reform Party would look at the polls that their own member conducted and look at the national polls that have been conducted on this scheme, they would agree with everything I am saying, because they know I am right.

As I said, the Minister of Justice has indicated his willingness to make changes in this legislation. He has indicated that in committee he will listen to reasoned arguments. The committee is set up and ready to deal with this matter. It is prepared to hear a large number of witnesses. Indeed, the budget for the committee for the hearing of a substantial number of witnesses has already gone forward and is being considered by the budget subcommittee of the liaison committee.

I think this bill will be dealt with fairly. The owners of guns who have not yet had an opportunity to make their views known to the minister and to the Canadian public will have that opportunity before the committee.

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

Every one of them?

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

There will be ample opportunity there. There will be another debate in this House on third reading.

Of course, now we have the NDP getting into the act. This is the party that for decades has supported gun control and now all their members but one have shifted gears and gone backwards. They have all decided that this bill is not really what they wanted, even though it was in their party platform. They used to say they were bound by party conventions. Now they say they are not bound by party conventions; they are not bound by the obligations laid down at party conventions that have been set on their caucus.

Only the member for Beaver River will remember this. We used to listen in this House to the pontificating from the NDP about how they were so democratic; they did everything their party dictated. Now, today, we see them abandoning party principles; they have gone out the window. I do not think the NDP knows what a party principle is any more.

It is a most shameful abnegation of its responsibility to its members, because the members of the NDP in my constituency are strongly supporting the Minister of Justice in this gun control bill. They think their members of Parliament have gone wingy. I think they may be right. Things have really gone wrong over there. Only the member for Burnaby-Kingsway seems to have kept his head straight on his shoulders.

The hon. members of the Reform Party, who are supposed to represent their constituents, should be with the NDP on this one. It is unbelievable. I cannot understand how it is that two supposedly responsible political parties in this country could take such an irresponsible attitude in respect of such a significant matter of public debate.

We have had ample opportunity for debate on this subject for the last year. It has been debated in Parliament longer than any other bill in this Parliament already. The time for decision-

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

It has only been here for two months.