Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1998

Supply

[An hon. member]

Read the legislation.

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

The legislation says that there will be a registration of all guns. This information could fall into the hands of the wrong people who would say “There is a good house to hit. They have three long guns in that house”. They cannot prove what they are saying and they know it.

Yesterday afternoon in question period the former parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of the wheat board asked a ridiculous question about North Dakota farmers wanting to sell wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. American farmers said on television last night, that they were getting $2.75 U.S. but if they sold it in Canada they would only get $1.40 U.S. That shows how ridiculous the question was. They make fun of people in different areas and they delight in doing so.

The bill is not one law for all people. It is not a universal bill. The minister has declared that the bill will be flexible in its application. That in itself is a very dangerous statement.

What do they mean that it will be flexible in its application? We know what it means. The people in western Canada know what it means, but the rest of Canada does not seem to know what it means. It means that some people will be required to register their long guns and some people will not. Yet the government supports the bill and says it will be flexible in its application.

I have take the time to talk to the police in my constituency who have basically said no way. They want no part of it whatsoever. They have made it abundantly clear that they want nothing to do with it because they know certain people within their district will be exempt from registering their guns. It is not a national registration.

Shame on the government. It deliberately harasses honest law-abiding citizens to register their guns but at its discretion it leaves whole blocks of people who do not have to register their guns.

The legislation says that it is enabling legislation. That means the government, not the legislature, not this body, not elected officials, will have the right to change the bill at any time.

The government is asking us to support the bill. The Minister of Justice says that it is a done deal, that the legislation will go forward, that it will be law for all but will be flexible. In other words it is not law for all and it can be changed at any time. All it has to do is sit before the committee.

How can any person elected to the House who is totally in favour of the gun bill be in favour of making it selective legislation where only certain people will be required to register? How will that prevent crime? It just does not add up. The people in western Canada and the people in my constituency know this.

I asked in the justice committee if they could guarantee that every owner of every long gun would have to register their guns? Do members know what the response was?

[An hon. member]

No answer.

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

There was no answer. How could the government in committee change legislation that we have been discussing without it even coming to the House? It is called enabling legislation.

In closing I want to make clear that they can talk all they like about figures, fancy surveys and so on, but there is more opposition from every corner of Canada to Bill C-68 than there has ever been. Opposition from people who are aware of the bill is growing, even from those who do not own guns.

They do not have the courage to make it universal. They do not have the courage to bring it back if they want to change the legislation. Having said that, they should not have had the courage to bring the bill before the House.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, never in my entire life have I heard so much nonsense coming from the opposition party. It is incredible.

When the legislation was introduced by the House that party indicated it opposed the bill but did not put anything on the table to say how to improve it or the things they would like to see in the bill. The bill has gone through all stages. That party had all the time—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I think the Chair is hearing words that should not be uttered in the Chamber. I know hon. members would want to refrain from any unparliamentary language in the course of the debate even if it is from their seats. I hope I did not hear what I thought I heard.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you heard what you heard. Frankly it is unbecoming of the official opposition but it is an indication of the fact that it is bankrupt when it comes to ideas and innovations.

It is shameful for them to be so opportunistic as to exploit public sentiment and to time, even though the bill has passed the House, their motion to coincide with a special interest group yapping outside on Parliament Hill without the true understanding of what the government is trying to do when it comes to public safety. They should listen to their own constituents who have told them over and over again that they support the bill the government has proposed, Bill C-68, because it controls crime in society. This is community safety legislation which is well thought out and well planned.

The government has spent a lot of time and energy travelling around the country from coast to coast consulting the people, including special interest groups, the Reform Party, and every individual organization that had an opinion to express to the government. The government has given them that opportunity.

This legislation balances the interests of everyone. It is balanced legislation and, by the way, it is not before the House. It has been passed.

I wish colleagues in the Reform Party would wake up, smell the coffee and come up with something that is relevant to the people of Canada, such as how the government has dealt with the economic situation, community safety, health care and educational issues. The government is handling these issues extremely well, so the Reform Party is trying to dig up issues that were before the House months ago and are not before the House now. The only reason for this is that some special interest groups are out there.

The Reform Party is trying to exploit the sentiments of Canadians without having any consideration for the victims and their families who wanted to see that party stand and be counted rather than continue to hear this and that without really focusing on the overall interest of Canadians who have told us over and over again that they support what the government has put before them when it comes to the crime control bill. Let the member stand to endorse what the government has done on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, how dare the hon. member refer to the rural people of Souris—Moose Mountain as a special interest group. Shame on him. How dare he refer to the police associations out there in protest as special interest groups. How dare he refer to the Reform Party applying accountability for the position it holds by taking the bill back to the people and getting their opinion on it. How dare he make mockery of democracy.

I guess my speech has intrinsically raised some guilt in the hon. person. My people are not special interest people. They are real people. They are not ignorant people. They are very clever people. The group out there has every right to protest. He would like to say that they are a special interest group, without intelligence, and they have no right. Shame on him.

How could the member say that Reform sat idly by and did nothing when it brought in not a 150 amendments but 200 amendments to the bill. Shame on you for making that statement. You certainly are totally out—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain intended to address his remarks through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are speaking, there are some 20,000 protesters in front of Parliament, including about 1,000 Quebeckers.

These people are opposed to the registration of hunting weapons but, more importantly, they are opposed to searches without warrant and to the confiscation of private property without compensation. These people are farmers, lumberjacks, trappers, and so on. They are people who live in the country, people whom the hon. member does not like.

But not all of them are from the north. There are also urban dwellers who realize that Bill C-68 is a threat to everyone. These people believe in democracy and in civil rights. They fully understand the risk involved in giving the government the power to send police officers to our homes for the most trivial reasons, and they are getting worried.

Unfortunately, these people are not represented by any Quebec member. For example, three years ago, a coalition of seven Quebec groups representing several hundreds of thousands of people opposed to Bill C-68 sought the support of Liberal, Conservative and Bloc members, but was turned down. In the end, it was a Reform member who became the spokesperson for these Quebeckers before the Standing Committee on Justice, in Ottawa.

Bill C-68 is based on unfounded biases, on the fallacious arguments of some bureaucrats, and on mass hysteria. This is a pretty weak basis for an act.

It is a sad fact that only a small minority of Canadians have an inkling of what Bill C-68 contains. This is not surprising when one considers its length of 137 pages and its complexity.

The government's reluctance to release copies for public distribution is also a factor. I have had to have my own copies printed for interested constituents. The justice department's reluctance to let the public see this awful document is supposed to be an economy measure but there is no lack of funding for distribution of departmental propaganda or puff pieces for the Canadian firearms centre. My constituency office is full of that stuff.

The provisions for arbitrary infringements or abrogations of civil rights and liberties which date back to 1689 have nothing to do with crime control and everything to do with the regulation of property which is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Four provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and two territories have tested the legitimacy of Bill C-68 in court and are still waiting after a whole year for a decision.

Oddly enough, Quebec, the champion of provincial rights, remains on the sideline. The PQ government refuses to defend Quebec's right to conduct its own business. This is strange. Perhaps the members sitting to my left could explain this situation.

In case anyone here has forgotten what the House passed in June 1995 and for the benefit of new Liberal backbenchers who probably have not read the bill, I wish to draw attention to some of the most noxious bits. I hope that new members will note the section numbers so that they can look it up themselves in case they do not believe me.

Section 102. Police will be able to search premises without warrants on the flimsiest pretext. They will be empowered to open any container, require any person to produce records, enter any computer system and confiscate firearms or any other thing. These things can be done without any evidence that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. Oh Canada.

Section 103. A custodian of premises being searched must co-operate with the inspectors or risk being charged under section 111 with an indictable offence carrying a penalty of up to two years in prison. In other words self-incrimination is now a requirement under Canadian law.

Section 104. A warrant may be obtained to search a private home if an inspector believes on reasonable grounds, whatever that means, that the home contains a prohibited firearm or more than 10 other firearms and that entry is necessary for the enforcement of the act or the regulations and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused. Catch 22.

Section 117 provides the Minister of Justice with almost unlimited power to regulate firearms by order in council. Under section 108 those orders in council will become law within 30 days of being laid before parliament regardless of whether or not they are approved by parliament or even debated. Under section 119 even that slight bow to parliamentary democracy may be avoided if in the opinion of the minister these are immaterial, insubstantial or urgent.

A few years ago the former justice minister described his dream of a Canada where only police and the military would possess arms. During debates in the House he altered his position perhaps because it dawned on him that he had succinctly described a police state.

Now, thanks to events at last year's APEC summit in Vancouver, we know that the government has extended those police and military privileges to armed foreign thugs on Canadian soil. Was this indicative of philosophical kinship, a shared contempt for those damn peasants who do not know their place, who are not capable of making decisions and who do not share the prime ministerial vision of Canada?

I have several times quoted James Madison in the House with regard to the loss of freedom. I shall close by doing it one more time. “There are more instances of the abridgements of freedom of people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Words to live by.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should start by congratulating the gentleman across. I am quite surprised to hear that he is the self-appointed voice of Quebec now. That was quite amusing. I have a couple of questions for the hon. member.

First of all, for my interest, I am wondering if he might clarify what he considers a special interest group. I have heard some of the hon. members say you cannot classify this as a special interest group, people in my riding. I am curious if he brought the entire population of his riding or a group of citizens within his riding that are interested in one specific topic, gun registration. I would ask what his definition of special interest group is because he certainly seems to be catering to them in this House.

My second question is one on domestic violence and the fact of gun registration and is it appropriate. Domestic violence knows no borders. It happens in rural Canada. It happens in rural Alberta. It happens in rural Simcoe—Grey. And it certainly takes place in many urban communities throughout this country.

Does the hon. member not think that the police have a right to know when they are going to that most unpleasant of calls where there is nothing but emotion in play, whether or not there are firearms in the residence? Do they have that right to know? If there is a situation that is taking place where a woman is being abused and assaulted and there is a potential that there are weapons, long rifles upstairs, downstairs, somewhere in that house, should the police not have the right to know before they walk in that door? Of course, they govern themselves accordingly, but they still should have the right and it could save lives.

Does the hon. member believe that the police should have the right to know whether or not there are weapons in the house? If there are weapons that can kill people, should the police have a right to know they are in there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start at the top. The hon. member asked so many questions that I have already forgotten the first couple.

This question of knowing whether or not there are firearms in the house is ridiculous. I have discussed this with a lot of frontline police officers. I dare say the hon. member has not.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Once again speaking on my behalf.

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

You bet.

The object of this supposedly is to make it safe for police. Any police officer who is not demented is going to approach a house with domestic violence in progress as though there were arms in that house. If he does not, he will probably end up dead at some point. They do not need and they will not rely upon a computer record to tell them they should be careful, that there are arms there.

The police officers treat every domestic incident as a potentially violent situation. So this is just nonsense that is being discussed here.

With respect to special interest groups, there is a very clear definition of special interest groups. Special interest groups are these bloodsucking institutions that get federal funding. I have not heard of those people out front, those ordinary real Canadians whose freedoms are being endangered by these cryptofascists, who are being abused, who are being threatened, tell me that they are getting federal funding. If they are getting federal funding, I would like to see the cancelled cheques.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, a colleague of mine in the Reform Party, if he sees any parallels between this depriving of civil liberties and freedom of speech in this obnoxious gun control bill and the APEC summit and some of the depriving of rights that took place there on that occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a very definite parallel. I think there is also a parallel between this and the snipers I see standing on the roof of the Langevin building today to defend themselves against a bunch of Canadian farmers. If the member does not think they are there, he should go out and take a look.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I must, by the way, congratulate him for speaking in French. I think it shows much progress and I congratulate him.

It was interesting, because he spoke at length about Quebec. I represent a riding in that province. I have lived there for many years and should therefore know what is going on.

According to an Angus Reid poll done in May 1995, 79% of Quebeckers supported Bill C-68. Quebec's own Minister of Justice at the time, Paul Bégin, officially backed the bill. A few months earlier, in November 1994, a Gallup poll had revealed that nine out of ten Quebeckers, or 90% of Quebec's population, were in favour of registering all firearms.

This has been a fact of life in Quebec since 1972, because provincial legislation requires that all firearms be registered anyway.

Bill C-68 is a bill of which we on the government side are very proud. It represents the view of the vast majority of Canadians. It is a bill that was democratically and legitimately passed in this Parliament by a government majority. Today, the bill is law in Canada. To reopen this debate, as the Reform Party wants to do today, in league with the National Firearms Association, brings to mind what is going on in the United States.

The right wing and the extreme right wing have been sleeping with the National Rifle Association for ever and a day. No matter what the congress of the United States wants to do to express the desire of what has been seen in poll after poll, the majority view of the great number of Americans that want some control over firearms, the right wing has managed in the United States to defeat it because of the tremendous lobbying power of the National Rifle Association.

Thank the Lord here we will not be cowed if it is 2,000, 5,000 or 20,000. They do not represent 30 million Canadians. We do and we feel we do it well. We have been elected by a majority of Canadians to express their views. Their views on gun control legislation have been extremely clear. In fact the police chiefs across the land have pointed out as shown in a study published by the Ottawa

Citizen

on August 28, 1997 that 52% of guns found at crime scenes in Canada are shotguns or rifles.

I know registration is not very pleasant. We have to register our boats. I register my boat every year. It is something I would like to avoid if I could but I do it. If they made a law tomorrow to make licensing of people handling motorboats compulsory, I would be for it. It would be an inconvenience but if it can save people from getting hurt or from being killed then it is certainly a step forward despite the inconvenience. I register my car every year and it is not pleasant. I have to send a cheque to get the sticker. We all do. The difference between cars, boats and guns is that guns maim and kill. The experience in Canada is that guns kill a lot of people, as they do everywhere in the world.

If registration can save 100 lives, only 100 lives, if it can save 20 lives, if it can save just one life, then it is justified.

I cannot believe what I hear. It is always the cost. How much it will cost the government and the taxpayer to register a gun. But it is never the cost of a life lost. How much is the price of a life lost? If registration was just to avoid the killing of one life, then registration would be worth it. We should not be quarrelling about the price, whether it is $50 million, $60 million or $100 million.

I sincerely thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who focussed on the broad issue of registering firearms, looking at all the ridiculous arguments that have been raised by opponents of Bill C-68. They said it will cost a fortune, and so forth, when registration will, in fact, be a one-time event, costing only a few dollars annually, just like a driving licence, just like licensing our car or boat costs a few dollars.

What harm is there in that, if registering firearms makes it possible for police forces to identify them more accurately and if it discourages us from using them?

The Reform Party speaks as if we live in a cocoon. I heard them talking about the west against the rest of Canada. Yet there was a poll taken in the riding of the member for Edmonton North which said that 55% favoured registration and 28% were against.

They seem to imply that we are alone in the world. I would like to mention a few figures to them. Licensing is required in Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Japan, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the hon. member's comments he is referring to poll numbers. In order that we might be better informed, could he perhaps tell us clearly what the poll question was?

[The Deputy Speaker]

With respect, I think the hon. member is asking a question and not raising a point of order. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the usual delaying tactics of the Reform Party. It is silly nonsense. It is typical of them.

The registration of firearms is required in five of eight states of Australia, in Belgium, Finland, France—except for selected sporting rifles—in Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland.

Of course all these people do not know any better, but they do ask for registration of firearms. They care for their sporting guns. They care for shooting. They care for hunting, but they do not mind registering their guns. They do not mind being licensed for holding guns because they believe it is better for the common safety of their population.

Compare this to the United States where a free-for-all has existed for years. Shooting and crime are rampant, no matter how many jails they build. They have more jails and more people to execute, but there is still more crime. They will not register their guns because of the force of the NRA and the right wing.

We do not want to be the same here. We do not want to fall into the same trap, to be on the side of the Reform Party and the National Firearms Association. Let them bring thousands here. We will not change our minds. We believe that the licensing and registration of firearms will serve the best interests for the safety of Canadians. It will also save human lives, which have no price.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so we can bring some truth and honesty to this debate, the question that was asked on the Liberal poll was: “Would you support gun control considering it would cut crime and save lives?” What Canadian would not vote yes for a question like that?

As this members knows, because he was here in the last parliament when the former minister of justice brought in the bill, day after day after the bill was introduced Reform Party members asked the minister and his cohorts to give us one historical piece of evidence, one substantive fact or one honest description of how Bill C-68 would cut crime in this country and we would vote for it. All through that debate the minister could not comply with that request. His parliamentary secretary could not comply with that request. Not one Liberal on that side could tell us how Bill C-68 would cut crime and save lives in this country.

Have things changed? Has the former minister of justice changed his mind about it? We cannot see any evidence and we are still asking that of the Liberal government.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is so simplistic it is sad. I did not decide for myself how it was going to save lives. I am not smart enough to know that. It is not my field. I am relying on the police chiefs in my riding who I have spoken to. I am relying on the people in my riding who control justice: the judges, the magistrates, the people who are involved with crime. These people are overwhelmingly in favour of gun control legislation.

I am also relying on the example of other countries. I have cited a list of countries as long as my arm that insist on registration.

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

Just answer the question.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

This is typical of what is going on today: big loudmouths who scream, shout and put out simplistic notions but ignore what is going on around them the world. They ignore what the police chiefs, the magistrates, the judges and the great majority of Canadians are saying poll after poll after poll.

Regardless of the polls, about 75% of Canadians do not want any of the Reform Party's notion that freedom means carrying guns that are not registered and not licensed. Canadians at large are saying loud and clear that they want guns to be registered and gun owners to be licensed. That is what we have expressed here as the representatives of the majority of Canadians who elected us.

This is a democratic law, passed by a democratic government. If the Reform Party does not want to abide by it, too bad. Canadians will judge them accordingly.