Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motions under group No. 4, since this series of amendments basically deals with the decriminalization of the whole registration system for certain categories. In any case, the Bloc, under Motion No. 133, for instance, proposes to decriminalize failure to register shoulder arms. Let me explain that shoulder arms means shotguns and rifles. Contrary to certain comments by the government or even by the third party, we do not want to decriminalize all guns but only shotguns and rifles, referred to as shoulder arms.
Throughout this debate, I was surprised to see that although both the gun lobby and the anti-gun coalition raised some arguments that were very emotionally charged, there was no discussion, although there should have been, about what society wants out of this bill.
I think society wants better gun control. I think it makes sense, in a society like ours, that people who own guns should register them. But do we really want to make criminals of people who, either out of stubbornness or sheer ignorance-although all citizens are supposed to know the law, there are a number who do not- because they do not know all the details of the legislation, will not register their shoulder arms?
Does the minister want to make criminals of these people? I hardly think so.
I was on the committee when the minister came to testify and seemed to be willing to open the door to decriminalizing failure to register a firearm. I felt the minister was listening very carefully. I felt he wanted to make the legislation more flexible in this respect, but I also felt that there was a huge lobby out there asking the minister not to give in, because the public ought to feel the government is very serious about this legislation.
With the amendment proposed under Motion No. 133, the government could have sent a message showing it was serious just the same, since I do not think that giving someone who fails to register a criminal record proves anything about the government's intentions. Sure, it shows it is being serious, but at what price? Some people will be prosecuted for failing to register the old twelve-gauge in the closet-this is one of my favourite examples-will they have a criminal record, with everything that entails? For instance, someone with a criminal record may have trouble finding a job or obtaining a passport. Is that what the Minister of Justice really wants? I do not think so. So why not make this clear in the bill?
With this amendment, we could also have sent a very clear message to the public that it is a serious matter to fail to register, by imposing substantial fines. For the first violation, a fine of between $500 and $2,500, which is quite a substantial sentence. We could also send a clear message by saying that unregistered guns will be seized and the owner will have seven days to register, upon receipt of a notice to that effect. The objective is to register these guns so that the objective will be met without criminalizing a group of people for no good reason.
I think we could have achieved the purpose of this bill. But no, as I said earlier, there is this debate between two groups at the opposite ends of the spectrum, about the same bill. The first group says: Listen, the legislation goes too far, it is too totalitarian and will cost too much money. What this group really wants is no legislation at all.
On the other hand, the coalition and every other group in favour of firearms registration would like the legislation to go
further. The penalties are never severe enough; they are asking for pretty outrageous sentences. Basically, what would make them happy is for no one to be allowed to own weapons.
I think that the Bloc's proposal regarding decriminalization makes for a balanced amendment. I think that this kind of amendment favours neither the gun lobby nor the coalition. The ultimate objective could be served by such an amendment.
This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. There is obviously a need for the government to legislate in this area. This bill meets a need. I think that the statistics showing a large majority of voters in Canada and Quebec in favour of increased gun control are right.
I spoke to my constituents, not only hunters or representatives of one group or another, and they have told me that they want increased control. But they do not necessarily agree with certain specifics, such as criminalization. I think that a considerable education effort is still required if we want to know what the people really want us to do in this regard.
Yes, the people want firearms legislation, but I think this is not the kind of legislation they want. In light of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois in committee, the government has relaxed a number of clauses in its bill along the lines of what the Bloc had suggested. Much to its credit it paid attention, in certain respects, to the amendments and suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-68.
If what the government is looking for is a bill that meets a consensus, a bill that will gain the widest support possible, the bill before us contains a stumbling block called decriminalization and, on this subject, the government should consider the proposed amendment carefully.
Ten minutes is a very short time to debate these amendments, but since I can speak only once and this bill is being debated globally, let me say that we cannot address decriminalization without addressing something else at the same time. As regards the issue of decriminalization, I feel that the minimum sentence of four years is unconscionable. To provide a minimum sentence of four years for certain offences committed with a firearm is to yield to the gun lobby.
Why remove the courts' discretionary power? Why remove the discretion which judges can use, given the evidence before them? The government argues that, on average, the courts currently impose a four year sentence for such offences. But why force them to automatically impose that sentence? Why not let them weigh the evidence? Why not trust the courts and the appointed judges, who are supposed to represent the public?
Why not let them weigh all the evidence and then impose the sentence which they feel, is the most appropriate, given the evidence before them? This is an aspect which the Minister of Justice should look at very carefully, to comply with the existing legislation and to promote Canada's objectives in that respect.
There is also the issue of universal appliction of the act in Canada. The Minister of Justice repeatedly said that the act would apply everywhere in Canada. I hope it does, including on Indian reserves. If this act is going to be implemented everywhere, why does clause 110, among others, provide that the government can exclude a person?
Since the past is indicative of the future, we are well aware that some people, particularly aboriginals, will be excluded because hunting is an important activity for their survival.
Why not pass legislation which will not only apply everywhere, but also to everyone? In conclusion, if the government is prepared to listen to Canadians, including Quebecers, it will accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois regarding decriminalization. This would ensure that people are really treated fairly, and it would also ensure that the legislation targets those who should be targeted, which is not the case right now.