House of Commons Hansard #216 of the 35th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was page.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
The hon. member says "soon again" and that is absolutely true.
Whether I will have the answer before the six hours of debate on third reading ends tomorrow I will have to wait until tomorrow to see. I hope so but I am not optimistic. Normally movement of the document around the various places it has to go to be corrected takes more than 24 hours. However I assure the hon. member I am doing my utmost to ensure he is provided with full and accurate answers to his questions.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 4, 6, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 154, 170, 207, 215, 216, 218, 224 and 225.
Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments.
As I was saying before question period, one of the concerns that has been brought forward to many members in the House has been the issue of the legitimate use of firearms. There is a concern that some of the provisions contained in Bill C-68 could be used to curtail what in essence is legitimate activity by legitimate firearms owners.
There are a number of activities undertaken that are historical in nature, that actually represent a way of life and a lifestyle we have come to know and enjoy in rural Canada, in my case in rural Ontario.
Hunting for sustenance has a long history. Hunting for sport has been done in my riding for generations and generations. It is important to the psyche where one generation passes its firearms and the whole tradition of hunting to the next generation.
Hunting is important in terms of economics as I mentioned when I spoke earlier. A large number of individuals travel to my riding and make use of the great facilities we have there. Of course trapping is important as an economic generator. Other recreational activities like target shooting are also important and for many people the collecting of firearms.
It is important we ensure the provisions contained in Bill C-68 do not curtail such activities. For the most part they are designed to do what I fully support and what I know other government members support: control violence in Canadian society. That is the legitimate objective of the legislation, one that I support.
If regulations are put forward that achieve public safety in their implementation and that help to reduce violence in society, most Canadians and legal firearm owners would be quite willing to support that. For the most part many of the regulations in this legislation do that. However some legitimate concerns have been expressed that need to be addressed and of which we need to be cognizant.
There is the issue of cost. Many people who participate in hunting are not wealthy individuals. They either hunt for sustenance or they hunt for sport. We have to be very careful not to create a regulatory regime or a costing structure that will some day make it impossible for these individuals to pursue hunting.
Although the government has done a good job in setting out a fee schedule that is modest, I have concerns that it stay that way and that firearm owners are not going to be faced with high costs down the road.
I have a concern which I know is shared by many of my rural colleagues and by many legal owners of firearms: that provisions in this legislation could be used at some point in the future. The government has stated unequivocally that it is not its intention to do that but there is concern that people can use the provisions in the legislation to at some time prohibit firearms that are normally used for recreational purposes.
This is a genuine concern. It is something that has been expressed by a lot of people. We need to put something in the legislation that makes it absolutely crystal clear that it is not the intent of Bill C-68 to restrict the legitimate use of firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting, target shooting and collecting. It is absolutely essential that we make sure that it is not done.
Although most individuals will accept the regulations contained in the bill that are designed to increase public safety, although most individuals will accept those provisions that will ensure they attempt to curtail violence, it is important that we place within the body of the bill a safeguard, a provision that explicitly states that nothing in the legislation is intended to curtail the legitimate use of firearms.
I will read the amendment:
That nothing in this act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this act, from
(a) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting, trapping or other lawful activity, or
(b) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.
It is absolutely essential that we make it clear that nothing in Bill C-68 is to be used to curtail the legitimate use of firearms. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Russell MacLellan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the motions that I am presenting and speaking to on behalf of the government are:
Motion No. 23 which is a correction of the French text.
Motion No. 54 would amend the conditions which attach to lending a firearm to better reflect the actual practice. If a firearm's owner lends a gun to someone he or she knows very
well, it may not be necessary for that owner to verify the borrower's licence each time. If someone is lending a firearm to a brother, his wife, or a wife to her husband, that firearm owner has every reason to believe that the person has a licence.
Consequently this motion would change one of the lending conditions in the bill at the present time. What the government would require with the amendment now is: "having reasonable grounds to believe that the borrower holds a licence".
This depends on the actual circumstances and may require a lender to request proof of the borrower's licence. For instance, if it is a stranger, someone the lender has never met before, then the lender would not have reasonable grounds to believe that the borrower holds a licence whereas if it was a member of a family, the borrower would.
Therefore it is a significant change which will make the actual practice of using a borrowed firearm much more in line with reality.
Motion No. 72 would clarify that a non-Canadian business wishing to ship firearms in transit through Canada must obtain an authorization to export, but need not have a business licence in Canada.
As has been said before, even if the firearms are in transit through Canada, the firearms must be registered. There cannot be a shipment in transit, or otherwise, of firearms in Canada if those firearms are prohibited weapons.
A motion was adopted at committee stage which provided that in an application to the registrar for an authorization to export, the registrar could only request from the applicant such other information as is reasonably required. For consistency sake, Motion No. 78 would also add the word "reasonably" to authorization to import. Therefore, the word "reasonably" would be required not only for export but for import as well. We have to look to the business practices of manufacturers. There is no reason that they should be giving any information requested of them, particularly if it does not have any relation to what is required and gives confidential competitive data that would only serve to hurt their competitive position.
As I mentioned, a very similar motion was introduced and adopted at committee stage. However, customs in particular is asking for a slight modification in the wording referring to the in transit shipments to avoid any future confusion.
Motion No. 109 relates to changes introduced at committee allowing an appeal of the minister's decision in respect of shooting club approval. In it we referred to provincial ministers. This change is to make a reference to federal ministers as well as provincial ministers. The federal and provincial ministers will be able to give approval to shooting clubs.
Motion No. 111 is essentially the same as 109. It relates to changes introduced in committee allowing the appeal of a minister's decision in respect of shooting club approval. The minister may be provincial or federal. As I have said, this motion is intended to clarify the appropriate minister in the appropriate circumstances.
Essentially, most of the amendments in group three relate to the registry system. A number of motions delete the role of and references to the registry right through to the registrar and is related to the Reform Party's proposal to eliminate the registry.
The second largest area where motions are put forward refer to the rationale for a registration system and whether they should apply to long guns. The concern is that the registry system is put into effect for various reasons for long guns as well as for handguns. The idea is so that we will have a record of all firearms in Canada. If a firearm is stolen, we want to know where that firearm is. We want to have, if not the serial number, then certainly pertinent data that would allow us to track that firearm.
We also want to be able to register firearms immediately on their entering the country. We found that when certain firearms are brought into Canada initially and not registered, as was practice in the past, between customs and the wholesaler-distributor, some of those firearms disappear.
As I mentioned earlier, we also want to register firearms even when they are in transit through the country. If that is to be an inconvenience then so be it, but frankly we do not really want to encourage the in transit shipment of firearms through Canada.
We also want to be able to impress on people that firearms are important and that the owner's care is very important as well.
We feel the registration system will be of benefit and will reduce death through firearms. We feel there will be a greater appreciation of firearms. The minister has stated time and again that the costs are going to be minimal for the registration of a firearm beginning in January 1, 1998. It may not be anything but very shortly it will go to $10 for up to 10 firearms and maybe up to $18 for 10 firearms before the end of the five year period.
The minister has been very frank on that. He has stated there will not be any cost initially for getting a possession licence but for the renewal of an FAC or eventual renewal of a possession licence it will be $60 for a five year period. Once a firearm has been registered there will not be any need to register it again. With respect to the possession licence there does not have to be
any course taken if the possession licence is for firearms presently possessed and not for the purchase of new firearms.
The registration system has been put into effect with the lawful gun owner in mind. Supposedly there will be the inconvenience of having to register long guns. That is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people who have long guns do not mind registering them. It is not, as some people have stated, an idea of keeping track of all the long guns with the eventual intention of confiscation. That is not the intent at all. If that were the case, we would not be spending up to $85 million on the registration system.
The member for Yorkton-Melville has requested costing. The minister provided the costing in committee when he initially appeared. He stated why in his and the government's opinion it would be $85 million.
The idea is to put the possession licence in effect on January 1, 1996 and the registration certificates for firearms beginning in January 1, 1998 to give the system a chance to work gradually. Also it is hoped that Canadians will see that the registration of firearms and the possession licences are not an attempt to act against the lawful gun owner.
To know what firearms are illegal first we must know which firearms are legal. That makes sense. We cannot just say that a particular firearm is illegal unless we have a common denominator to say which ones are legal. That is a basic axiom and we want to create that basic axiom in the registration of firearms.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, my amendments deal with the registration system.
During the appearance of witnesses before the standing committee, I recall asking a criminologist how the registration of rifles and shotguns would reduce the criminal use of those firearms. I was surprised at his answer. He said that we would probably see no effect in this area for 15 years. That was the closest we could get to seeing any impact on the whole area of deaths by gunshot wounds during the four weeks of testimony before the committee.
When we look at the registration of firearms, before the system can register one single firearm we have to licence all the owners under the provisions of clause 5 of the bill. Clause 5 requires the chief firearms officer to take cognizance of the criminal record of the individual, the mental health record of the individual and a neighbourhood check as to the record of the individual to determine whether there is any violence in that individual's history. Before getting to the registering of firearms the owner of the firearm must first satisfy the chief firearms officer that he or she is eligible to own a firearm in accordance with the criteria set out.
When we look at the cost of this it is not unlike the procedure followed to obtain an FAC today. If we look again at the cost of the FAC the Toronto metro police board did an analysis of the cost for an FAC during 1994 and it came to $185. If that is the cost to register or license an individual and it is going to have to go through a similar process and cost a similar amount, then we are looking at three million gun owners multiplied by $185 which comes to $550 million before a single firearm is registered. The cost of this whole thing will be far greater than the $85 million suggested by the justice department.
Then we have to look at the possibility that a gun owner may not meet the criteria. If the gun owner does not meet the criteria what happens to his firearms? It means he cannot get a licence to own them, therefore he cannot own them. What happens to those firearms? We never got a clear response, at least I did not, from the witnesses including justice officials on that question. Some said they might be allowed to sell them or export them.
If a person is not eligible to hold a licence to own a firearm it means it would be dangerous to allow them to continue to own a firearm. It seems very clear to me that it would be the responsibility and duty of the police to remove those firearms from the possession of that individual if that individual does not meet the criteria to hold a licence. That issue has not been clarified well enough.
There is the issue of cost before a single firearm is registered. If the individual does meet the criteria and receives a licence then there is the added cost of registering the firearm. To suggest it is going to cost $10 to register a firearm is utter nonsense. What can we register for $10 today?
Although it may only cost the firearms owner $10 it is going to cost the taxpayer a lot more for the police or whoever is transferring the information and identifying features from the firearm into the system itself and then issuing a registration certificate. No one has assured the committee or assured me that it is going to cost less than $10. I will have more to say on this during the final debate at third reading.
We must seriously look at the whole registration system. No evidence, not even a smidgen has been produced that we could consider from a common sense point of view that the registration of a rifle or a shotgun is going to reduce the criminal use of that firearm. If all of the firearms in the country were registered now, what would stop the suicides? As our hon. colleague from Kamloops indicated, what would stop those individuals who lose their sense of responsibility through drug abuse, alcohol abuse or simple anger and despair? What would cause them to be less likely to use a firearm simply because it is registered? It does not make sense.
I ask all hon. members to consider these amendments that deal with that aspect of Bill C-68. We say it is not going to work so why go forward with it?
We asked the government to bring forward those portions of the bill that get tougher on the criminal use of firearms. There is not anyone in this House or anyone in Canada who would not immediately support that aspect of the bill. The government has failed to do so. That saddens me and many of my colleagues on this side of the House.
Firearms ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
We have recognized and heard from each of the movers of the motions in Group No. 3. Now we will open debate to the remainder of the House.
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
My comments will be on Motion No. 54, the lending provisions.
I would like to thank Atima Hadlari for lending me his shotgun yesterday to go out hunting in Cambridge Bay for geese and ducks. He was very nice about it. I know him very well. He offered me the use of his .12 gauge shotgun and I obliged.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who appeared before the justice committee expressed concerns about the lending provisions of Bill C-68. They talked about the impracticality of lending a registration certificate along with a firearm when someone is out on the land hunting for food, which we were doing just a little over 24 hours ago in Cambridge Bay.
This is an issue of concern in my riding of Nunatsiaq. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec, the Council for Yukon Indians and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories all expressed similar concerns. Again, the minister and the government have responded to the concern. I express my thanks to the minister for listening.
Motion No. 54 is a practical one. It would remove the requirement to transfer the registration certificate along with the firearm when the firearm is being loaned to someone who will be hunting for sustenance purposes.
All of the Inuit in my riding hunt for food. They may supplement it with food from the Bay, the co-op and other stores. We do not have grocery stores as such; we have department stores. They may supplement the food they get from hunting with food from the stores, but they all hunt.
I was in my hometown of Repulse Bay two weeks ago. I went caribou hunting and got a caribou. I was in Baker Lake a week after that. People there depend on caribou. Everyone depends on the caribou they hunt. As I said, a little over 24 hours ago I was in Cambridge Bay. There because they hunt for food, they are always concerned about their neighbours, their friends or whoever else may lack hunting equipment, whether it is a snowmobile, a rifle, or gas. They lend hunting equipment to their neighbours, their relatives, their sons, their daughters or whomever. Lending firearms is a common occurrence. In the north it is as common as lending a lawnmower or a cup of sugar to a next door neighbour.
In doing this the government is acknowledging that we have a way of life which includes lending whatever we have to our neighbours, sons, daughters or whomever; our firearms in this case.
It is with deep appreciation to the minister that I support Motion No. 54, knowing that he has listened to my ongoing concern about that portion of the bill and knowing that he has understood that it is a special case.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you. The hon. member is speaking to us in a language that I neither recognize nor understand. I would like to know if we must continue to listen. As far as I know, the hon. member is not using one of the official languages.
Firearms ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
In response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, there is nothing in the standing orders that would allow the Chair to force a member from either side of the House to speak in one language or another.
Allow me to raise a personal point. In these circumstances, I still appreciate the hon. member for Nunatsiaq's using his mother tongue and, I take it, translating his words into English from time to time. Resuming debate.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of Ukrainian or German descent-our members come from all kinds of backgrounds-can now make their speeches in their mother tongues?
Firearms ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I can only answer the hon. member's question pursuant to the standing orders of the House of Commons, which hon. members must comply with. At this time, there is nothing in the standing orders preventing anyone from using, as you say, a language that is not one of Canada's two official languages. In the present circumstances, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq may speak in his mother tongue.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
It is an insult to the people of Canada that some people would not agree with our speaking our own language when the Inuktitut language in Canada is 4,000 years old and the English and French languages are mere hundreds of years old.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
A lot of my constituents are out camping now because school is over for the summer. They will not wait around for someone to come along and say: "Here is my registration certificate. There is a polar bear coming so you better come and get your rifle or lend me your rifle". There has to be an understanding on the issue of lending. This applies to all sustenance hunters whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
The motion will benefit all hunters and trappers because it recognizes that there is a different way of doing things in the rural areas. I strongly support the motion and urge the House to support it.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, after this morning I was a little confused about when I was supposed to speak and on what, but I think I have it all straightened out now. However I am sure you will straighten me out if I do not.
I will be speaking to clause 110 and would like to respond to the motion made with regard to it. I agree with the member across the way who moved the amendment that something needs to be done about the clause. I personally believe it needs to be totally scrapped.
I disagree with the parliamentary secretary who feels there is no concern about prohibiting certain firearms, confiscation, et cetera, because of the powers in the clause.
I have given out several hundred copies of the bill even though it cost quite a bit from my budget. I have had responses back from a number of people, including legal minds and people who support the idea, who say it is a terrible piece of legislation, that it is just plain bad and written very poorly. Many of these people came to Canada from places like Czechoslovakia and Hungary and lived in the days when those kinds of thing happened. They know what they are talking about.
We all know how much the Liberal government desires power. Bill C-68 is a further example of how power hungry the Liberal government can be. clause 110 of Bill C-68 gives absolute power through order in council to dictate every condition chosen to end firearm ownership for reasonable law-abiding people.
No matter how many times the minister and the power hungry members of his government state that their intention is not to remove ownership of firearms from Canadians, the wording and the language in the bill read otherwise.
We on this side know why the minister and his government are invoking closure on the bill. It is just another example of their thirst for abusive power. Their attempt at ramming the legislation through before the House closes for the summer is their own means of protecting their backbench members.
As the Ontario election has shown, the people of Canada are tired of top heavy government that passes legislation to look good rather than to do what the people want. The clock is ticking on Liberal style government. As each second passes more and more people have read Bill C-68 and discovered that it is a bad bill and it is not about public safety.
The people of Canada have discovered that Bill C-68 is all about giving absolute power in clause 110 to a chosen few social engineers and ivory tower intellectuals who believe they know what is best for Canada. As the Ontario election proves, the people of Canada are tired of dictatorial government of any stripe and want a government that mirrors the will of the people, not the mandate of closet dreamers.
The clock is ticking and each tick places more and more pressure on the minister to push Bill C-68 through the House. Each tick of the clock gives more and more Canadians time to understand the powers given in clause 110 to the governor in council and to make absolute demands upon the people of Canada. Each tick of the clock is making the Liberal government and the minister weaker among the citizens of Canada. That is why they are in such a hurry to get this dictatorial mandate through the House.
The Liberal government finally understands that the people have had enough of false prophesies from a government opposed to the wishes of Canadians. Canadians did not agree to firearm controls to hamper and incriminate law-abiding friends and neighbours who own and use properly stored firearms. Canadians want the government to use legislation to deter and punish those who believe a firearm can be a useful tool in robbery, assault and murder.
Canadians want their government to get tough with criminals, to make criminals understand that using a firearm will result in swift, sure justice with dire consequences for unlawful behaviour.
As more and more Canadians read and understand Bill C-68 they find that the legislation does not protect them from criminals and law breakers who improperly use illegally smuggled firearms. They have found legislation that criminalizes their
friends and neighbours at each and every whim of a select few and orders in council.
Canadians did not elect members to the House so that a chosen few among them could dictate their favoured beliefs. Canadians elected members to the House because they believed members when elected would stand up for constituent wishes over the elite who want control over every aspect of Canadian life.
During the last election each party promised Canadians that they would vote according to constituent wishes, that if elected constituents would come first over party politics and the whim of a few chosen to rule.
The order in council in Bill C-68 shows Canadians that the Liberals have broken the most sacred of their promises and that the government is without integrity and cannot be trusted to maintain its promises beyond the ink drying in the red book.
There is no representation by constituents in the bill. Constituents asked for input in their governments. The bill removes all authority from people and gives total control of the people to the chosen few.
The clock is ticking and the Liberal government knows it. At each tick the government knows its old style government of distortion and outright misrepresentation is doomed to failure, but the government has cashed too many cheques from its special interests and vested groups to back down.
As the heritage minister holds special meetings where contributions can buy political favours, the justice minister has special meetings where utopian idealists convince the government they know what is best: "Give yourself absolute power. Use that power to make firearm owning Canadians semi-criminals at the least and outright criminals at the most. Threaten Canadians with absolute punishment for daring to own politically incorrect private property, legally owned firearms, and then Canadians will be safe".
Canadians have read Bill C-68 and know that it has little to do with public safety. It has little to do with making career criminals and first time criminals fearful of our courts. Canadians have read Bill C-68 and discovered the government wants dictatorial powers. That is why more and more Canadians are pushing their Liberal backbench members to vote against the bill. The government knows when its backbenchers return to its constituencies there will be questions asked. The government knows constituents will ask how ill advised spending of tax dollars for registering lawful private property will increase public safety when study after study states registration will not reduce use of firearms by criminals.
The government knows constituents will ask their Liberal members why they supported a bill the constituents did not want, but most of all the government knows constituents will ask why backbench members agreed to give the chosen few absolute power to dictate to Canadians.
The clock is ticking. As Ontario voters proved, the Liberal ideal of government by the elite chosen few is over. Canadians have chosen to take back their right to govern and the government knows it. As I said, too much political capital has been granted by the minister and his government to abandon this ill advised bill. While the clock is ticking on their style of dictatorial government through order in council they are stuck with it and they shall be stuck with it during the next federal election. They will have to explain to constituents why they did not do as promised, why individual MPs in the Liberal Party were not listened to, why there were few free votes and why the government chose the old style Liberal way of government by the few which it stated it would not do.
The clock is ticking not only in Ontario but in British Columbia and all across Canada where Canadians believe government is elected to follow the wishes of the people, not to follow the wishes of a selected few chosen to mandate by order in council.
Bill C-68 is a documented futile attempt at social engineering, not criminal justice. This bill affects law-abiding citizens more than criminals, demands more from citizens than criminals and wastes tax dollars on a non-existent claim of public safety.
Canadians know this and that is why more and more Canadians understand what Bill C-68 means to the democratic principles they thought they voted for. More and more Canadians will abandon the Liberal government. As the clock ticks the Liberal government loses credibility on each count. The government that promised integrity but gave Canadians the old style of patronage will find its bases thinning.
The bill will not reduce the flow of illegal firearms or reduce the use of illegal firearms. It is estimated the bill will increase the flow and value of illegal firearms while it punishes law-abiding citizens.
A vote for this bill is a vote against democratic principles. It is a vote for absolute power and the worst part of it is those who vote for the bill are supporting a minor defeat for democracy in this land.
Bill C-68 is not about public safety or good governance, it is about the manner in which Canadians will be governed. I support government by and for the people, not dictatorial misadventure, and I believe that most Canadians agree with me.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to address these motions. At report stage there are some 267 motions to amend the legislation.
I will address the time element because as members begin to talk we lose sight of the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion about Bill C-68. It has been happening now for well over a year. Members have had discussion papers and briefing documents. It has taken a great deal of time and now is the time to move forward.
If the House had to debate each amendment with the appropriate time allocation we would be here until next Christmas. The government has to move forward. We have had a great deal of time to discuss this. The allegation of some members that somehow this is ramming something through is quite to the contrary.
The hon. member for Wild Rose said the government's position on Bill C-68 is simply the whim of a few. Yet, as we well know, more than two-thirds of Canadians actively support this piece of legislation.
I want to address the issue of registration. That is certainly one of the areas where members have brought forward their concerns. In my riding people have asked questions concerning registration. I think it is fair to ask the question and to explain how registration and crime reduction go hand in hand and cannot be split, as hon. members might suggest.
Many members have asked why we are going after law-abiding citizens and not criminals. Law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens until they are convicted. There are no shades of grey in between.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently came out with a report. I thought it was very useful. Today the law requires all handguns to be registered, and law-abiding citizens have them registered.
One of the interesting facts was that 40 per cent of the crimes committed with these guns were registered. That is very significant. Members in the Reform Party continue to say law-abiding citizens, those who register their firearms, do not commit crime. Yet 40 per cent of the crimes committed with handguns presently required to be registered were committed by registered firearms.
This legislation will ask that all firearms now be registered including long arms, shotguns and rifles. I found out another interesting statistic from this report, that 47 per cent of all firearms crimes committed in Canada involved long arms. That is the reason long arms should also be registered.
I do not think Canadians have to look too far for the facts that encourage them to tell their members of Parliament that we do value safety. Canadians hear statistics all the time about the realities of gun crime; 200 children are shot by guns every year. This is appalling to Canadians. There is a problem to be dealt with.
There a were some 1,400 firearms deaths last year, some 77 per cent of which were suicides. Only 3 per cent of those firearms deaths had anything to do with self-defence. These are facts which indicate clearly there are problems we can address to ensure our communities remain safe.
Unlike the platitudes and rhetoric I have been hearing from the Reform I will give more facts. The Prime Minister was recently in the United States. He was asked why people in the UN thought Canada was the best country in the world. He said the global economy is making us more and more alike. He said there were two things that really made Canada distinctive. The first is our medicare system. I do not have to explain to hon. members how important that is to Canadians. The second is that we can walk in our parks safely, unlike in the United States.
In the United States there are more gun shops than there are gas stations. There are private security officers in the United States than there are real police. For every one crime with a firearm in Canada there are 100 in the United States. When we take into account the 10 to 1 population differential that means the situation is 10 times worse in the United States than in Canada.
With such a vast majority of our population being so close to the U.S. border why has the gun problem not moved more fully into Canada? There are a couple of reasons. One has to do with the American constitution which has effectively the right to bear arms, whereas in Canada we do not have that right enshrined in our constitution. Ownership of a gun in Canada is a privilege subject to certain rules. Those are some of the reasons we have such a low relative crime rate with guns.
The real question has to do with crime. The members repeat the question about what the bill will do about crime. It is an excellent question. The importance of the question is how we approach it. Do we wait until after we have a problem and then start to deal with it or do we do things in advance anticipating forces in our society which may result in a greater level of crime?
We spend 75 per cent of what we do on remedial health care and only 25 per cent on prevention. To make sure our health care remains affordable and accessible, we have to deal more on the preventative side. This bill has an awful lot to do with preventing crime. It is not reducing crime; it is preventing crime and it results in the same effect.
Since the mid-seventies about 64,000 firearms were reported lost, missing or stolen in Canada. We wonder how many guns were actually lost, missing or stolen but not reported. This fact alone indicates that members who would suggest criminals get their firearms only through smuggling really failed to understand the facts. So-called law-abiding gun owners are major suppliers of firearms to the criminal element. Some 1,400 firearms last year were reported lost, missing or stolen.
The cost issue has come up in my riding and in the House. The parliamentary secretary has done an excellent job to make sure Canadians know despite the rhetoric we have heard from others that cost is not a major item here. Registration will begin on January 1, 1998 and does not have to be fully implemented until the year 2003. In the initial phases it will cost something like $10 for up to 10 guns for a five year period. Clearly in the first period as we go through this process of transitioning to registration of our firearms cost should not be a major problem for Canadians.
With regard to the issue of what gun control will do about crime, the most important element is public education. Now that we have discussed the issue of crime and firearms for well over a year now, more and more Canadians know what a serious responsibility it is to own a firearm. They know now they have to have a licence, that they have to register, that there are restrictions on storage and mandatory criteria for ammunition, transportation, et cetera. It is a very serious responsibility.
One of the things I am finding from talking to a number of serious gun owners and club shooters is they are finding there are an awful lot of guns now for sale to collectors and to clubs and other owners. A large number of people in Canada who have acquired firearms either through an inheritance or on a whim really are not very serious. Recent statistics show 60 per cent of firearms owners have not shot their guns in the last year and some 40 per cent have not shot their guns in the last five years.
A lot of people with firearms in their homes probably were not totally familiar with the rules and regulations. Now through this education process, now that more and more Canadians understand the important responsibility of owning a firearm, they are getting rid of those guns. That is good in terms of reducing the probability of firearms being dumped into the criminal markets.
The Minister of Justice has listened to Canadians. The amendments are constructive and address the concerns of many Canadians.
Firearms ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Pursuant to the agreement made this morning the divisions on the motions are deemed deferred.
We will now proceed to group No. 4.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended a ) by replacing line 24, on page 4, with the following:
"under subsection 101.1(1) of this Act or subsection 92(1), 93(1) or:"; and b ) by replacing lines 31 and 32, on page 4, with the following
"constitute an offence under subsection 101.1(2) of this Act or subsection 92(2) or 93(1) of the Criminal".
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 4, with the following:
"under section 106 of this Act and subsection 95(1) of the Criminal Code,".
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33, on page 4, with the following:
"constitute an offence under section 106.1;".
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38, on page 5, with the following:
"offence under section 106.2 or 106.3 of this Act or subsection 99(1) or 100(1) of the Criminal Code; and".
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 18, on page 5, with the following:
"wise constitute an offence under section 106.4 or 106.5 of this Act or subsection 103(1) of the Criminal Code."
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-68, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6, on page 16, with the following:
"sal in accordance with this Act,".
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
moved:
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 41, on page 50, the following new Clauses:
"101.1 (1) Subject to subsection (4) and section 98 of the Criminal Code, every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, unless the person is the holder of a ) a licence under which the person may possess the firearm; and b ) a registration certificate for the firearm.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) and section 98 of the Criminal Code, every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless the person is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable a ) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars and to a minimum fine of five hundred dollars; b ) for a second offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and to a minimum fine of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; and c ) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a ) a person who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition while the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who may lawfully possess it, for the purpose of using it in a manner in which the supervising person may lawfully use it; or b ) a person who comes into possession of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition by the operation of law and who, within a reasonable period after acquiring possession of it,
(i) lawfully disposes of it, or
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a firearm, a registration certificate for the firearms
101.11 (1) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person is in possession of a firearm in respect of which the person does not hold a registration certificate, the peace officer shall seize the firearm and may, for this purpose, search the person or a vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning search and seizure.
(2) Any thing seized pursuant to subsection (1) shall be dealt with in accordance with sections 490 and 491 of the Criminal Code, subject to subsection (4).
(3) A peace officer who seizes a firearm in accordance with subsection (1) shall give to the person who had possession of the firearm a notice in writing that the person shall obtain a registration certificate for the firearm within seven days of receiving the notice.
(4) The firearm that was seized shall be returned to the person who is lawfully entitled to its possession where the person obtains a registration certificate for the firearm within the period of time set out in subsection (3).
101.2 (1) A person who has been convicted of an offence under paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ) is deemed not to have been convicted of a criminal offence.
(2) An offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ) does not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.
(3) For greater certainty, notwithstanding subsection (1), the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to an offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ).
(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this section prevents the punishment to which a person might otherwise be lawfully sentenced on a conviction for an offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ).
(5) Subject to subsection (6), every person is guilty of an offence who discloses to any person any record of a conviction for an offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ) or the existence of such a record or the fact of the conviction.
(6) No person commits an offence under subsection (5) where that person discloses anything referred to in that subsection to a prescribed person for the purposes of allowing the prescribed person to determine whether a person found guilty of an offence under subsection 101.1(3) has been previously convicted of an offence under that subsection.
(7) Every one is guilty of an offence who uses or authorizes the use of an application form for or relating to any of the following matters that contains a question that by its terms requires the applicant to disclose a conviction for an offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)( a ) or ( b ): a ) employment in any department, as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act; b ) employment by any Crown corporation, as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act; c ) enrolment in the Canadian Forces; or d ) employment on or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament.''
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
moved:
Motion No. 134
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 17, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"102.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who knowingly makes, before a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer, a false report or statement concerning the loss, theft or destruction of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition, an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) In this section, "report" or "statement" means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not."
Motion No. 136
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 28, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"104.1 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless a ) in the case of a firearm,
(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, transport the prohibited firearm or restricted firearm,
(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of an authorization or a licence under which that other occupant may possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, transport the prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and
(iii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; and b ) in the case of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition,
(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person or other occupant may transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, or
(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was a ) the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the other occupant may transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, or b ) a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle who, on becoming aware of the presence of the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition in the motor vehicle, attempted to leave the motor vehicle, to the extent that it was feasible to do so, or actually left the motor vehicle.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle where the occupant or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is a person who came into possession of the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition by the operation of law."
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-68, in Clause 106, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 44, on page 51, with the following:
"106. (1) Every person commits an offence who a ) possesses a firearm, unless the person is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess the firearm and, where the firearm is a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, unless the person holds a registration certificate for that firearm; or b ) contravenes, in respect of a firearm, a condition of a licence, registration certificate or authorization held by the person.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) in the case of a first offence, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; b ) in the case of a subsequent offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.''
Motion No. 138
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition and a ) does not hold a licence under which the person may possess it; or b ) contravenes a condition of a licence or authorization held by the person.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 139
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.2 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, transfers a firearm or ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 140
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.3 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, transfers a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 141
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.4 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, imports or exports a firearm or ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.5 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, imports or exports a ) a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or b ) a component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into automatic firearms.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.6 Any proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection 106.4(1) or 106.5(1) of this Act may be commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that government."
Motion No. 144
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following new Clause:
"106.7 Subsections 106(1) and 106.1(1) do not apply to a ) a person who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition while the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who may lawfully possess it, for the purpose of using it in a manner in which the supervising person may lawfully use it; or b ) a person who comes into possession of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition by the operation of law and who, within a reasonable period after acquiring possession of it,
(i) lawfully disposes of it, or
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a firearm, a registration certificate for the firearm."
Motion No. 146
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 10, on page 53, the following new Clause:
108.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who a ) having lost a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition, an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, or having had it stolen from the person's possession, does not with reasonable despatch report the loss to a peace officer, to a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer; or b ) on finding a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person has reasonable grounds to believe has been lost or abandoned, does not with reasonable despatch deliver it to a peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or report the finding to a peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 147
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 10, on page 53, the following new Clause:
"108.2 (1) Every person commits an offence who a ) after destroying any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, or b ) on becoming aware of the destruction of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that was in the person's possession before its destruction, does not with reasonable despatch report the destruction to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) a ) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following new Clauses:
"129.1 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 106, 106.1. 106.2, 106.3, 106.4. 106.5 and 108.1, any question arises as to whether a person is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, licence or registration certificate."
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following new Clause:
"129.2 (1) In any proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, a document purporting to be an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate is evidence of the statements contained therein.
(2) In any proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, a copy of any authorization, licence or registration certificate is, if certified as a true copy by the Registrar or a chief firearms officer, admissible in evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has the same probative force as the authorization, licence or registration certificate would have had if it had been proved in the ordinary way."
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following new Clause:
"129.3 (1) A certificate purporting to be signed by an analyst stating that the analyst has analysed any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or any part or component of such a thing, and stating the results of the analysis is evidence in any proceedings in relation to any of those things under this Act or under section 19 of the Export and Import Permits Act in relation to subsection 15(2) of that Act without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate.
(2) The party against whom a certificate of an analyst is produced may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of the analyst for the purposes of cross-examination.
(3) No certificate of an analyst may be admitted in evidence unless the party intending to produce it has, before the trial, given to the party against whom it is intended to be produced reasonable notice of that intention together with a copy of the certificate.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, service of a certificate of an analyst may be proved by oral evidence given under oath by, or by the affidavit or solemn declaration of, the person claiming to have served it.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), the court may require the person who appears to have signed an affidavit or solemn declaration referred to in that subsection to appear before it for examination or cross-examination in respect of the issue of proof of service."
Motion No. 166
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following new Clause:
"129.4 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, declare for any purpose referred to in subsection (2) any period as an amnesty period with respect to any weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition, explosive substance or component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) may declare an amnesty period for the purpose of a ) permitting any person in possession of any thing to which the order relates to do anything provided in the order, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, delivering the thing to a peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer, registering it, destroying it or otherwise disposing of it; or b ) permitting alterations to be made to any prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition to which the order relates so that it no longer qualifies as a prohibited firearm, a prohibited weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be.
(3) No person who, during an amnesty period declared by an order made under subsection (1) and for a purpose described in the order, does anything provided for in the order, is, by reason only of the fact that the person did that thing, guilty of an offence under this Part.
(4) Any proceedings taken under this Part against any person for anything done by the person in reliance of this section are a nullity."
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
moved:
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 8, on page 72, with the following:
"(3) For the purposes of sections 92 to 95, 99".
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
moved:
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9, on page 72, with the following:
"(3) For the purposes of sections 95, 99, 100, 103 and 117.03 of this Act and".
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 73, with the following: b ) a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if''.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
moved:
Motion No. 176
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended a ) by replacing line 13, on page 73, with the following:
"who uses a firearm or an imitation firearm"; and b ) by replacing line 29, on page 73, with the following:
"using the firearm or imitation firearm."
Motion No. 177
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 73, with the following:
"tent A firearm), 272.1 (sexual assault with a weapon), 273 (aggravated sexual assault),"
Motion No. 178
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended a ) by deleting lines 30 to 39, on page 73; b ) by replacing line 2, on page 74, with the following:
"under subsection (1) is guilty of an"; c ) by replacing line 26, on page 74, with the following:
"offence under subsection (1) shall be"; and d ) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 73, with the following:
"the person for an offence under subsection (1)."
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
moved:
Motion No. 179
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 47, on page 74 and lines 1 to 11, on page 75.