Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1998

Supply

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member which I would like to preface.

I would like to ask the member whether he really believes that this piece legislation, formerly known as Bill C-68, is more about taxation than gun control. I would ask the member to share his thoughts with respect to whether he thinks that registering the long rifles of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers will have any effect on deterring the criminal use of firearms. I think ultimately it will not and the excessive registration costs which are rumoured to be in the area of $300 million to as high as $1 billion are far too excessive for our law-abiding citizens.

If we really want to deter the criminal use of firearms in this country, I would ask the hon. member to answer the question of whether this $60 million to be utilized on an annual basis would be better used to put more police on the street, to actually seriously fight crime in a real way.

I also have a more specific question for the NDP in general. In 1993 the NDP called for a national gun registry, yet during the last parliament the majority of the NDP caucus opposed Bill C-68.

In 1997 in the riding of Kings—Hants the candidate actually painted himself as being anti Bill C-68 while the member for Halifax and the NDP leader painted themselves as pro Bill C-68. Where is the position of the NDP with respect to Bill C-68?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there were many questions but I will answer the first question first and then in the order in which they came.

The question was, do I think the $60 million might be put to better use. I suppose it depends on one's perspective. In the last session of this House before I was a member of parliament there was a great deal of talk and discussion in Cape Breton, where we have a staggering rate of unemployment, that the gun control registration centre would be placed in my riding creating upwards of 100 jobs. That was a pretty enticing argument.

I suppose from the perspective of a member of parliament who might possibly have some of his constituents put to work in a gun registration centre in an area of high unemployment it is not too much money. On the other hand if it is going to stay here in Ottawa, maybe that changes my perspective a little bit and I do not think it is going to be located in Cape Breton.

Could the money be put to better use? There is no shortage of money in this country—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time has expired.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. It is always an honour to follow my colleague from the New Democratic Party, a learned counsel, justice critic and fellow Nova Scotian. He has given a view from his perspective on this particular debate and I hope to add my humble remarks.

With respect to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am pleased to pledge our party's support for this particular motion before the House. It reaffirms the position taken by the hon. Jean Charest in the last parliament, in the last election and the position of our party throughout this debate, the unwavering opposition to this ill conceived long gun registration.

The focus here should not waver. It is about long guns. It is about shotguns and rifles. The emphasis here is on long guns.

One of the key commitments I made to the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was that I would continue to oppose this piece of legislation. It is ineffective and unproven mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates and targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be using firearms.

Bill C-68 clearly does not approach and does not affect the root causes of crime. One of the first motions I tabled in this House last September was to achieve the very goal which this particular motion sets out to achieve.

This motion is very timely. Obviously when we hear the cries of thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have assembled here on the hill today, there appears to be some opposition to what the government is going to do with this piece of legislation.

Others have already detailed the specific problems with this particular act. Those problems were highlighted at the justice committee with the numerous amendments that were struck down by the government. I would suggest they were useful, non-partisan amendments that were aimed at improving the act. If we cannot kill it, the very least we can do is try to improve it.

In the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to personally meet a number of representatives from organizations in my home province of Nova Scotia, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation to review the negative impact that has already resulted from this act.

Businesses in the province of Nova Scotia and like businesses in other provinces are going to be extremely negatively affected by the implementation of this legislation because, as we know, it is going to force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that is not going to impact on the criminal use of firearms.

We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. We are now furthering that by adding burdensome registration fees which amount to nothing more than a tax, which was alluded to by the member for Fundy—Royal.

The Liberal government and its well intentioned allies I might add have attempted to sell this issue of firearms registration as a question of crime control and safety. It could not be any further from the truth.

The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white: proponents of Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of Bill C-68 oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us make this perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in this House, anyone in the opposition, who has any opposition to gun control per se. This is about long gun registration.

Firearms owners I know and meet on a regular basis are some of the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible and supportive of effective safety measures when it comes to the handling of firearms.

If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use guns for a criminal purpose, let us toughen up the code sections, let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.

It came to light last spring that statistics used by the government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were seriously flawed. This came specifically from the commissioner of the RCMP himself, words like exaggeration and misuse of these statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice that these were simply a difference in methodologies.

This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like to hear. Is it any wonder that the provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and two territories have embarked on a challenge in the Supreme Court of Alberta to strike down Bill C-68.

Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through this parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent years. In fact this government played a part in implementing some of those pieces of legislation.

Under this previous gun law, applicants were required to obtain firearms application certificates, FACs, which required them to take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits. Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and sports club members who were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of most military assault weapons was banned or restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearms handling safety courses.

The previous law also included stringent storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these regulations.

With all of these tough restrictions in place, what did the Liberal government then do upon assuming power? Did the Liberals evaluate the effectiveness of the law? No. They embarked on a new form of intrusive and restrictive gun registration which, I submit humbly, was a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction to tragic circumstances that occurred in this country.

The Liberals have cited national opinion polls reporting overwhelming support from Canadians for this legislation. I wonder how many Canadians, particularly urban Canadians, really understand what the impact of this legislation will be. Would they be so supportive if the legislation was prefaced with the fact that Canadians already possess some of the most stringent gun control and registration laws?

Perhaps these public opinion polls are of concern to some in the House, but the practicality here is that this legislation is not going to impact on the criminal use of firearms.

The former minister of justice also promised that it was only going to cost $85 million, despite evidence from witnesses at the original justice committee hearing that put the price tag as high as $500 million.

We have heard from all sorts of groups throughout this country, including aboriginal Canadians, predominately Canadians from the rural centres, who participate in perfectly legitimate legal activities involving the use of firearms such as hunting and target shooting. These people have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to this act.

Since the former minister's promises, we are now coming to the conclusion that the Canadian firearms centre and its administration charges are going to exceed $133.9 million to this point in time and we have not yet seen a single gun registered.

The justice department will not deny the reports that are appearing in the media that this is going to escalate to the point where it may exceed $500 million. For this reason I wrote to the auditor general last week to urge his office to conduct a money for value audit on the Canadian firearms centre and the divisions of the Department of Justice responsible for the implementation of this act. Canadians need to know why this money is being spent in this fashion.

I question the government's priorities. This amount of money could easily be spent on front line policing, as was suggested earlier. It could be spent on homes for battered women. It could be spent on all sorts of justice initiatives, including the minister's much awaited and much ballyhooed young offender changes that we are anxiously anticipating.

I would also suggest that outside the area of justice, the money could be spent in the area of compensating hepatitis C victims and compensating public service employees who have been long awaiting compensation.

Without any doubt, the priorities of this government have to be questioned. Why not focus on the root causes of violence? Why not use these resources in more effective ways?

Time and time again we have seen this government switch its priorities at the last minute. In recent days we have seen its decision to delay this further. Why not take a hard look at what is taking place in this country with respect to this piece of legislation?

Before I conclude I want to commend the NDP for its decision to have a free vote. I can assure this House that there has been much debate amongst our party. We are going to be voting as a unified front on this, which comes about because of much consultation with our constituents.

I make this plea to all members of the House. Let us not target law-abiding citizens, let us target criminals. Let us support this motion and replace Bill C-68 with anti-crime legislation, not anti-gun owner legislation.

I would like to amend the motion by adding the following words to the main motion:

; and that this House also urges the government to conduct a public, independent evaluation of the 1991 firearms legislation with respect to reducing firearm-related crime before it proceeds with any new firearms legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

May I ask the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who the seconder of the motion is?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

It is seconded by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This amendment would be acceptable, and it is certainly a good point as far as the official opposition is concerned. We are waiting to hear your decision as to whether or not this is acceptable within the parameters of the original motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have any submissions to make on that point?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

We are waiting for you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have considered the amendment and it is safe to say that the Chair has some concerns concerning the amendment, in that it appears to enlarge the scope of the original motion as moved.

However, in the circumstances, the issue raised by the amendment is relevant to the main motion. It is an opposition day. It appears to be something that could be considered under the rubric of the main motion and, accordingly, the Chair is of the view that the amendment is in order and will allow the amendment.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member of the Conservative Party. I certainly intend to wholeheartedly support the amendment and the motion.

I speak on behalf of my constituents, who are quite comfortable in this area, recognizing the diversity within Canada and also recognizing that as a rural northern area we probably fall into an area that has related incidents or deaths. But we also recognize that the problem is not the gun, but rather the situation that precipitates what happens with the gun. That has long been recognized in a number of our communities.

We are not willing to sacrifice the dollar usage for gun registration, which we in our constituency believe is faulty. We do not intend to imply that law-abiding citizens should be affected by this legislation.

If I believed one iota that gun registration would lessen deaths I would be there a hundredfold.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that legally acquired weapons are used. That is the issue. There has never been enough enforcement in this area. There has never been enforcement of storage or follow through with FACs, who had acquired them and whether they had committed a crime after the fact. That is where the fault lies with gun registration and gun control.

There needs to be greater gun control, not gun registration. There needs to be greater enforcement. The dollars should be utilized to ensure that there are better programs within communities and better support systems.

I want to commend the hon. member for his amendment.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond very briefly.

I thank the hon. member for her remarks. She knows of what she speaks. It is clearly a fact that it is not guns that kill people, it is the person pulling the trigger.

Her question allows me to make another point, which is that this registration system is aimed at helping police officers to identify which homes are going to house these firearms. It is aimed at putting a serial number on a gun, on an inanimate object. That is not going to prevent the object from killing or maiming a person if it falls into the wrong hands.

The point to be made is this. That information is not going to be accurate. Canadians, by their very nature, are transitory. Knowing where those weapons are, who houses them, who is in possession of them is going to be an absolute impossibility.

As has been stated many times before, criminals are not going to participate in this registration system. The information is going to be inaccurate. Police officers are not going to be able to rely on the information with any degree of confidence. I suggest that this will create a false sense of security amongst the policing community and amongst Canadians generally.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in his original speech went to great lengths to try to illustrate that Bill C-68 has nothing to do with crime control. Everybody, certainly every member of the opposition, is in support of gun control. But gun control is about safe usage, storage and handling, and targeting the criminal misuse of firearms. It is not about the legal use, legal possession and ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

The justice minister in a few moments is going to be on a tirade with a bunch of statistics. In anticipation of that and in anticipation of studies which quote that 82% of Canadians favour gun control, I want the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to illustrate for the House how that is very misleading. It is not about gun registration, it is about the safe usage, storage and handling of firearms that Canadians are in favour.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a rare opportunity to respond to a question in the presence of the Minister of Justice, in anticipation of what she is going to say.

I am sure we are going to hear a great deal about the methodological approach of the government and the statistics that it has been using to justify this particular bill.

However, the point is well made. The emphasis should be on the criminal use of weapons, not targeting those who are using guns for a legitimate purpose, recreational or otherwise. It should put the emphasis on what criminals are doing with their guns. This legislation does not do that.

As the member of the NDP suggested, why not put those statistics into front line policing and into areas where the police will be able to enforce the current laws, rather than create a new cumbersome process that simply will not work?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I spoke at a press conference and thanked Canadians for their ongoing support of our government's firearms control program.

I specifically thanked CAVEAT, Victims of Violence International, La Fondation des victimes du 6 décembre, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and the family members of victims who are here to ask the government to hold firm and implement its plan.

I also took the opportunity to thank the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, municipalities, educators, child support agencies and the almost 700 member agencies of the coalition for gun control which have been tireless supporters of this program. These are the people who have learned through painful experience the terrible tragedies that can occur when firearms are not safely stored, when firearms fall into the hands of children, when police are asked to deal with a domestic violence call and have no knowledge of whether firearms are at play or when an illegal firearms industry develops with inadequate controls in place.

Today opponents of gun control are demonstrating on Parliament Hill. Some will make wild and outlandish claims. Let me make one thing clear. We will not be deterred by inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric.

The vast majority of Canadians support gun control. Support for gun control today, including support for registration, is at its highest level ever, at 80% in some polls. Today a majority of gun owners support gun control. Canadians have debated the merits of gun control for several years. Canadians have decided they believe in gun control. The debate is settled. The debate is over. Gun control will be implemented on December 1.

Canadians are law abiding citizens. I understand that when angry, people can make outlandish and even irresponsible statements but I know the vast majority of gun owners respect and obey the law. So I say once again to those who demonstrate today that they have nothing to fear from me or from this government. My commitment is to ensure that gun control is implemented in the fairest and most efficient way possible.

The Firearms Act is about building a culture of safety around the use of firearms. Through it we hope to achieve many things. Firearms registration and licensing of all gun owners will help keep firearms away from people who should not have them. It will encourage awareness on the part of gun owners of the essential responsibility they have for their firearms, including their safe use and the importance of safe storage and transportation.

A central processing site is already in service in Miramichi, New Brunswick. All applications will go through there. Owners will be able to get a form through a toll free line, at a post office or a gun shop. They can fill it in at home and send it in. Visits to the police will no longer be required. This will allow our police to spend their time and resources on police work and not on preliminary paperwork. Starting December 1 for a one time cost of $10 firearms owners will be able to register all their firearms. They will register on forms made simple after consultations with the firearms community.

We have taken every step we can to ensure the registration and licensing of firearms in Canada is hassle free and easily affordable. I have every confidence that firearms owners, once they participate in the program, will discover that their concerns were groundless.

Hunting is an activity that has been enjoyed by many Canadians for generations. To farmers firearms are needed to protect crops. Target shooting is a sport at which Canada excels internationally. Firearms for some are needed for sustenance and are part of a way of life. All these activities are legitimate and will not be hampered in any way by gun control.

Let me make it perfectly clear, the Government of Canada unequivocally respects the legitimate rights of gun owners. Our new Firearms Act is not about confiscation. Such fears were raised when gun control was first introduced in Canada in the 1970s. They are being raised again today but they are as groundless as they were then.

Today's debate is essentially about values. Canadians have told us that they want effective gun control. Polling shows that a majority of Canadians in every province support the universal registration of firearms.

Our government and our Prime Minister will stand with the Canadian police, victims of firearms crime and accidents, law abiding gun owners and all Canadians who care about safer communities.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the minister's heart is pure. I feel better already.

She has gone to great lengths to tell us that there is nothing to fear in the legislation. I believe that she believes that. However, if she would look around the country she would find that even under existing legislation let alone the draconian stuff that is being proposed here, ordinary citizens are being harassed and guns are being confiscated without compensation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary thinks this is a joke. I wonder if Darrell McKnight, head of the computer department at the University of New Brunswick, would think it was a joke. His home was invaded by not one but three police officers searching for a firearm which he had duly registered and had bought in good faith. It was a legally owned weapon. By order in council the previous justice minister had declared this was no longer a legal weapon. The police came when he was not at home. They terrorized his teenage daughter, telling her she could go out and stand in the snow bank while they took the house apart. This is in Canada. So please spare me this stuff about it is not a danger to us. It is. It always has been and it always will be.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member actually asked me a question but let me say to the individual in question that I have no knowledge of the situation involving the person named. If he has a concern in terms of the way the police discharged their duties, if he has a concern with the way the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick conducted himself, or if he has a concern with the way I as Attorney General of Canada conducted myself in relation to the specifics of that situation I would appreciate that individual getting in touch with me. I would be very happy to sit down with him and talk to him about his experience.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I myself am a firearm owner as well as a big-game hunter. I mention this because, unfortunately, there are still a few men who wonder what my involvement is in the debate on this issue, and I have been involved for a number of years. When I sat on the special committee on firearms in 1990, I was the only committee member with a FAC, or firearm acquisition certificate.

My first question to the minister is this: Why does the government let those opposed to gun control spread all sorts of falsehoods?

Yesterday, for instance, I tuned in to an open-line program on an English-language station. The caller was saying “This means I will have to pay $10 per firearm every year; it is going to cost me $60 a year for a permit.” As you and I know, this is absolutely false. Once the firearms are registered, that is for life. As for the permit, it is good for five years. Why are all these falsehoods still being spread?

My second question to the minister concerns the $350 million tab we are hearing about. I would like to know, first of all, if we will indeed have to pay such a tab and, second, how it got to be so high. If this is not true, I think that a public denial is in order.

I would like the minister to clarify this for us today.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point and that is those who choose for whatever reason to propagate misinformation and misrepresentations surrounding the new federal gun licensing and registration program.

I can assure the hon. member that wherever possible I take the opportunity to rectify those errors. But I think all of us in this House who are people of good faith who are either legitimate gun owners such as the hon. member or those of us who are not gun owners support the right of legitimate gun owners to possess their weapons.

It is our obligation to engage those who would lie and misrepresent the truth. We must engage them. We must destroy the propaganda. We must work with all Canadians together to ensure we have a degree of public safety and security that all Canadians have told us over and over again they want and they deserve.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today contains a type of misleading information that we have come to expect from the opponents of this legislation.

Before I proceed I want to emphasize that Canadians understand that the Firearms Act and the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada in Bill C-68 are an investment in crime prevention which will preserve the culture of safety in Canada. I can tell all members that as former chairman of the Waterloo regional police I know this is correct and is very important.

It is not a surprise that 82% of all Canadians support the registration of all guns. Seventy-two percent of rural Canadians approve of registration. Seventy-eight percent of respondents say they approve of the act and almost half the gun owners approve of the Firearms Act as well. There is massive support for this legislation.

Our opponents who are clearly driving the resolution before this House today are a small minority of special interests out of touch with the main street Canada on this issue. It is most unfortunate but typical.

The resolution suggests that the government should be condemned for its refusal to replace Bill C-68. Let us review for a moment the background of how this legislation came to be. It was introduced in the House of Commons on February 14, 1995. Through successive debates including an extensive list of amendments brought to the bill in committee and in debate on third reading the bill was finally approved in December 1995.

The Firearms Act contains unprecedented provisions in section 118 which require that all regulations under the Firearms Act be tabled before both houses of parliament on the same day and that each of these regulations shall be referred by the Chamber to an appropriate committee which may conduct public hearings in respect to the regulations.

Two major sets of regulations were processed in this manner with the first set being tabled in November 1996, the second in October 1997. The standing committee reviewing the first set of regulations made 39 recommendations, 38 of which were accepted in whole or in part. In respect to the second set of regulations the standing committee again made 39 recommendations, 35 of which were accepted in whole or in part.

My point in this brief review is to ask the opposition why in view of the extensive parliamentary involvement in both the legalization and the regulations and in view of the number of changes and accommodations which were made as the legislation passed through the House would we even consider replacing Bill C-68. Why would we want to do that? Let us remember that this is legislation that enjoys the support of 82% of Canadians.

Those who support this motion would have us believe that this legislation does nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms. Opposition members may wish to consult the Criminal Code in this respect. A significant number of offences in the code were modified to carry a minimum punishment of imprisonment for four years. These Criminal Code offences were found under the headings of causing death by criminal negligence, manslaughter, attempt to commit murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Other offences are found for a variety of criminal offences including activities such as weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, automatic firearms importing and exporting, knowing it is unauthorized, and tampering with the serial number of a firearm.

We were very attentive to criminal activities in formulating the offence provisions of Bill C-68.

Members of the opposition, if they really took the time to study the issue, would also find that there have been a number of appeals of the four year minimum sentences that have taken place over the past two years. All of them have been upheld on appeal as appropriate sentencing, expressing the will of parliament. They also express the will of the Canadian people, 82% of whom support this legislation.

The opposition in its resolution suggests the government should abandon the policy of firearms registration. There are a number of excellent reasons why the registration of firearms is a good idea. Let me address a few of these at this time.

Every year an estimated 70,000 firearms are sold privately in Canada. At the same time a large number are stolen, lost or otherwise unaccounted for, for firearms circulate within Canada. The registration of all guns, rifles and shotguns as well as handguns will contribute to a reduction in the grey and the black market sales of guns and provide protection for both sellers and purchasers.

The licensing of firearms users is one of the central features of this legislation. Only people who are responsible and have not been within the past five years convicted of Criminal Code offences will be eligible to use firearms. If they have been convicted of an offence involving violence against a person, an offence involving criminal activity, the contravention of the Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act or if they have been treated for a mental illness that involves violence or other behaviour involving violence, then they will be caught by the licensing system.

People who sell guns should know to whom they are selling. If the person buying the gun has a licence there is some reasonable assurance that the person is a law abiding, responsible person.

Further, persons with licences will have completed and passed the Canadian firearm safety course and should have at least the basics in respect of the safe handling and use of firearms.

In summary, registration contributes to public safety by keeping guns away from people who should not have them. Many of the lost, stolen or missing firearms eventually come to the attention of the police. A system of registration can assist the police in returning these firearms to the rightful owners. Registration can assist in the private property return to legitimate owners who have been the victims of crime. Since licensed users will have shown not to have been involved in criminal activity and to be otherwise responsible, and since guns will be registered the police will have an invaluable tool to assist them in their fight against crime.

Opponents of the legislation contend that criminals will not register guns. We agree with that. The legislation through the licensing and registration provisions, however, will assist the police by providing them with additional tools to charge criminals and to address organized crime issues.

The registration system will provide police with an invaluable tool to trace firearms among former owners. The tracing of these firearms is an invaluable tool for the investigation of crime. It helps to identify traffickers in illegal firearms. It helps to identify illegitimate businesses and it provides through ballistic evidence a means to identify guns involved in previously unsolved crimes.

Registration increases the likelihood that criminal offenders will be charged and convicted for their crime. What parliamentarian would disagree with that?

Many guns come to Canada from the United States. The attitude in the United States with respect to guns is significantly different from that of Canada. It will come as no surprise that the illegal movement of firearms into Canada is a problem of considerable magnitude. The registration system will register guns coming into and leaving Canada and the movement of those guns within the country. Illegal shipments will be easier to stop. Customs officers will be able to identify shipments against the registration database. Any firearm imported into Canada for sale will be traceable through its history in Canada.

The reduction of firearms smuggling is an important way in which the Firearms Act and registration system can contribute to the reduction of crime.

The Firearms Act is all about the regulation of potentially lethal commodities while at the same time permitting legitimate use by responsible owners. The registration system created by the Firearms Act is an important part of Canada's effort to establish that our way of life and our values are the values of a peaceful and safe nation.

The opposition contends that the Firearms Act confiscates private property. We have said time and time again this legislation is about regulation, not confiscation.

This issue was referred by the province of Alberta, we know that. In particular, Alberta has asked its court of appeal if the licensing and registration provisions of the Firearms Act could be ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The outcome of this case will simply determine whether the constitutional powers of the Canadian government have been properly exercised in respect to this act. We will argue, as a matter of law, that it is in the order of peace, order and good government which are clear areas of federal jurisdiction. We hope that is the case and it most likely will be.

The residents of Waterloo—Wellington overwhelmingly support the government in this matter, as do most Canadians. The net result of the government's proactive approach in this matter is that Canada will have a far more safe and secure country.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that she had every confidence that firearms owners will participate in the program.

I spent a lot of time in my riding during the month of August. I held seven town hall and coffee shop meetings. From everybody I talked to I heard overwhelmingly that they are not going to participate in the program.

The legal requirement to register one's firearms extends until 2003. The fact is there will be a federal election in the interim and the Reform Party, on forming the government in the next election, will repeal Bill C-68 immediately. It is important for all Canadians to know and understand that so they can exercise their decision on voting day in the next election with wisdom.

The other thing I would like to point out is the rhetoric we hear from the Liberals on the other side of the House. It is all couched in these little fancy terms they have. They all talked about gun control and crime control. However, what this bill will really do is nothing when it comes to addressing these things.

The Liberals' motive behind this legislation is their desire to see the elimination of all legal firearms ownership in Canada realized. That is something which is very important for all Canadians to know.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. In making the statements he did, I think the member really showed the true colours of the Reform Party which is that it panders the special interests and for crass political reasons. It is trying to do something here which is the opposite of what Canadians want. I believe that came through loud and clear.

However, we on this side of the House are doing it in the best interests of all Canadians. We are doing it for safety and security reasons for a society, a political culture that is distinct from the Americans and distinct from the kind of thing that the Reform Party would want to see in place. We are doing the right thing for the benefits not only of this great country of ours but for each and every Canadian who lives in it.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not answer my second question, I would like to put the same question to the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington and ask him what this $350 million tab he referred to is all about, as this seems to be how much it would cost to implement this firearm registration system. Is that right? I would really like to get an answer on this today. If this amount is accurate, then the public must be made aware of the costs involved. And how did they get to be so high?

I would also like to know whether this high tab would eventually make the system impossible to implement and result in Quebeckers being told “Sorry, but unfortunately the system was too expensive to be implemented.” Is this a roundabout way to avoid enforcing the legislation?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

It is very difficult to put a price tag on safety and security for the country. I know Canadians want us to proceed in a manner that is most efficient and appropriate to ensure a safe and secure country for all of us.

I know there will be a price to pay for that but it is an important underpinning of the very values and institutions that define us as Canadians and in my view unite us as a nation.

We are unlike opponents who would have us revert to some sort of American style in terms of shooting it out at high noon and all kinds of other outrageous and outlandish things, especially the Reform Party which should know better than to cosy up to those National Rifle Association types and others. Those members above all should know better but they do not.

The point is we on the government side know we must proceed in a manner that is in keeping with our historic and political culture and our historic and political values. I am proud that we are able as a government to do precisely that.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain, very similar to those of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, would find it almost sinful if their member did not speak on this issue.

I want to inform the members opposite that I have yet to receive one letter or phone call in the last 16 months in favour of Bill C-68, not one. But I have received hundreds of letters and hundreds of petitions in opposition.

I resent very much government members, including the Minister of Justice, speaking on this bill and referring to those who oppose this bill as somewhat misaligned in thought. There are thousands of people outside who have come from across Canada, some here from Yukon, who have paid out of their own pockets to protest and they are not weak in the head. They know exactly why they are here.

I wish hon. members opposite would quit using statistics like 82% of this or 80% of that. How come this terrible misinformation wrongly or rightly got into the justice committee which completely distorted the number of guns involved? There is no remorse at all, none whatsoever from the government.

There was a Liberal by the name of Mr. Trudeau who took a political gamble that he would institute a national energy policy. Note the word national. But the word national would only affect western Canada. So they weighed it up and introduced the national energy policy and to this day western Canada has never forgiven the party for doing just that.

Let me give the history behind Bill C-68. Let us get the true history behind Bill C-68. The former Conservative government had everything in place with the previous bill but crime was on the rage in Montreal and Toronto and so the government said once again it will do like the Liberals in the past, it will take a chance and bring in a national bill even though it knew it would isolate western Canada and certain parts. It did just that and it certainly paid off politically.

One of the reasons why this government lost most of its western support was its complete disdain for western Canada. There is no remorse yet with the Liberals for the national energy policy and there is still no remorse for what they are doing to the law abiding people in western Canada with this bill. Where do they get the idea that the registration of guns will protect me?