House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registration.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in every jurisdiction in the world where a gun registration exists, not one case of a crime solved or prevented can be demonstrated.
I would also like to correct myself earlier. I believe the leader of official opposition will be resuming debate at the end of this question and answer session.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the Liberals passing this legislation in my riding five people were blown away one night with a gun. I do not think we found the registration certificates of those who did it in the area. They did not leave anything behind.
I guess it brings to mind the question about really how much gun control legislation will prevent crime. I would like the hon. member to address that situation specifically. How much in Canada are we preventing crime, the criminal use of firearms, by this legislation?
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech, what we see from the criminal misuse of handguns is that first of all, criminals do not register their handguns. Second, the registration of a handgun does not prevent its theft by a criminal or subsequent use in a crime by that criminal.
I think by logical extension we can assume that the registration of hunting rifles will serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The costs that we will have to bear as a result of this registration system will be enormous.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just want members to know that in replying, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt did not reply to the question that was asked of him.
He was asked to supply details, some facts, some statistics, not some speculation.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, this issue reminds me very much of one that occurred last year during the election campaign when millions of Canadians were very upset with the government for proposed regulations for natural health products. They were millions of signatures on petitions and this sort of thing.
We have the same kind of situation again where there are millions of people who are very much against the gun registration law proposed by this government in Bill C-68.
I am wondering if my colleague could perhaps enlighten us all on the reasons why this government continues to press on with, this flying in the face of the wishes of millions of people across this country.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, that question can be asked of almost anything this Liberal government does. Why has this government increased taxes 37 times in the last four years? Why does it impoverish middle income Canadians with their excessive tax burdens?
Those questions are harder to answer than the one regarding why it is pursing a firearms registration opposed by so many Canadians and which will clearly achieve no benefit to Canadians in that regard.
The answer to that question is because it views it as a tool, a first step in eliminating the legal ownership of firearms in Canada. In the Liberals' minds if they can have everyone register their firearms then they will know where those firearms are, what they are and they can systematically by order in council declare them prohibited and then confiscate them.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on today's supply day motion for two reasons, first because it does articulate a longstanding Reform policy that Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, should be repealed for obvious reasons that are stated in the motion.
My second reason for participating is today a large group of Canadians are assembling on Parliament Hill for what they had styled as a fed up rally in which they will be exercising their democratic rights to protest a government policy to which they object.
I want to address my remarks both to the House and to this broader audience of Canadians who are here today mainly because I think a democratic protest, the right to democratic protest and the necessity of this House to recognize democratic process need some beefing up and some reassurance at this time.
The members on this side of the House have observed since we came here in 1993 that the present Liberal government is weak on democracy. The Liberals permit no free votes in this House on government bills. They continue to permit 25% of the members of this parliament, I refer to our unelected, unaccountable senators, to be appointed by one man, the Prime Minister, rather than to be elected by the people.
Last year the Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister told the RCMP that the rights of an Asian dictator to freedom from embarrassment were more important than the rights of Canadians to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
The government is weak on democracy, even hostile to the exercise of democratic freedoms. So the presence of this group of Canadians here in Ottawa today in particular to express their democratic objections to Bill C-68 needs some bolstering, some amplification and some recognition in this Chamber, and that is my second reason for participating in this debate.
With respect to Bill C-68, the government's ill conceived gun control legislation, I was the last speaker on that bill when it went through the House in June 1995. Some members will remember that was the conclusion of a long debate in which members such as the member for Crowfoot, the member for Yorkton—Melville, the member for Wild Rose and others put forward a host of amendments concerning the defects of the bill. Many of those defects have now come home to roost. At that time they were academic, sort of projections of what might happen. Now they are self-evident to many Canadians.
Members, not just on this side of the House but on other sides of the House, put forward more than 200 amendments to try to correct the defects of that bill. It was typical of the government that it disregarded every argument made about the defects of the bill and ignored and rejected every amendment, including amendments put forward by its own members.
The official opposition's position on Bill C-68 has not changed from 1995. We maintain, first of all, that it is constitutionally defective. It infringes on individual property rights. As members of this House know, the one area where our bill of rights is defective, mainly because of the prejudices of the Liberals who put it together, is in the area of economic rights. It contains no affirmation of economic rights and therefore it is easier for legislation to infringe on things like property rights.
However this bill is also constitutionally defective in that it infringes on provincial jurisdiction. Again we have a case of provinces challenging the jurisdiction of the federal government in this area.
Personally I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of confrontations between this government and the provinces. It has infringed on rights of the provinces in the area of health care. It has slashed transfer payments to provinces in that area.
The Prime Minister has a row going with the premiers on the proper distribution of rights and finances with respect to health care. There is a row with the provinces over the administration of gun control. The list of confrontations between a government that professes to be committed to positive federal provincial relations is getting longer and longer and therefore we cannot ignore the confrontation developing over Bill C-68.
We also maintain that the legislation is administratively unworkable and will lead to a wasteful expenditure of public funds which will in no way enhance public safety. No one in this House, certainly no one on this side of the House, believes the estimates of cost that are presented by ministers when they bring forward bills like Bill C-68.
You will note that already, Mr. Speaker, the projected costs of administering the gun registration are three to four to five times higher than the figures that were quoted here by the minister when he introduced the legislation.
The cost figures brought in with government proposals are utterly meaningless. We have to develop a multiplier, look at which minister it is, depending on how soft headed they are, and multiply by five, ten or fifteen to get the real cost implications of what they are doing.
We therefore maintain that this legislation should be repealed and replaced with tough Criminal Code amendments targeted at the criminal misuse of firearms. That has been our position since 1995; it is our position at this time.
I want to conclude by saying that this is our position. I do not think anyone doubts our commitment to it but more needs to be done. I address myself more to the people who are assembling in Ottawa today to protest this legislation. More needs to be done to translate opposition to this legislation into political action that will repeal it and replace it.
If the House actually practised freedom of voting, it would be possible to amend this type of legislation and even replace it without defeating or replacing the government. Unfortunately because of the rigidities of the government, the intransigence of the Prime Minister on getting into the 20th century before it is over and permitting a more democratic exercise of freedom in voting in the House, the only way to repeal a government's position in the House is to get a bigger majority and actually replace the government.
Bill C-68 will not be repealed and other Liberal policies will not be repealed or replaced until there are 150-plus members in the House who are committed to doing so. It cannot be done by 50 or 60 members no matter how sincere we are or how hard we work. To win votes, not just arguments in the House of Commons, we need a majority of 150-plus members.
I therefore appeal to the people who are assembling in Ottawa today. I commend their efforts, those who are organizing this fed up rally, as one of the items on their posters says, to organize those who oppose Liberal policies into a politically powerful alternative voting block.
As Leader of the Official Opposition I have a constitutional duty not just to hold the government accountable for its mistakes but to help create a viable alternative to the government, a united alternative to the Liberals for the 21st century.
This is what my colleagues and I will be devoting much of our attention to over the next year. We welcome the advice, encouragement and support of the people meeting in Ottawa today.
In the meantime we therefore welcome the opportunity to make clear our position on this issue and urge support of the motion:
That this House condemns the government for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearms registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a) confiscates private property; (b) contains unreasonable search and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury Board cost
benefit quidelines; (d) represents a waste of taxpayers dollars; (e) is an affront to law-abiding firearms owners; and (f) will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in firearms.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in the House to attack a bill that deals specifically with the safety of our communities from coast to coast. I am surprised because I thought the Leader of the Opposition would stand to say that he was sorry his party voted against Bill C-68. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would stand to talk about all the benefits that exist in Bill C-68.
I represent an urban riding. In my constituency—and I would say this is probably the case across the nation from coast to coast—there is overwhelming support for Bill C-68. There is overwhelming support for banning firearms. There is overwhelming support for the government's initiative when it comes to community safety across the country.
I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition stand in the House to attack Bill C-68 and cater to the fundamentalists of firearms, those who have not taken the time and energy to read the bill to see what is in it. I have not seen one of those people come forward with a logical approach or logical reason for being opposed to it.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to tell all victims of stolen firearms specifically what is in Bill C-68 that he does not like.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First let me remind him that I also represent an urban riding, so I am not unfamiliar with the concerns of urban voters.
Second, let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. member—perhaps the fact that we have said this a thousand times still has not permeated his mind—that we are primarily concerned about public safety but do not believe this approach to gun control enhances public safety one iota.
The member mentioned what his constituents are concerned about, people who stole firearms and used them against other citizens. Note the word stole. This is criminal use of firearms which is precisely our position: target gun control legislation at criminals. That is not what the bill does and that is what we propose.
Last, with respect to the matter of so-called public support for the bill, I suggest it is exactly in the same category as the Charlottetown accord. The government comes out with a proposal accompanied by all the PR it can muster, all the spin-doctoring and so on.
When that happens the general level of support for that type of thing within the first few months is 60% to 65%. We have seen this time and time again, not just at the federal level but at the provincial level. However, as the public starts to learn what it is about, as the provinces and the municipal officials that have to administer it start to talk about the difficulties, as the costs start to pile up, and as they find out that the public has been misled as to the cost, where does that support go? It goes exactly in the same direction as it did on the Charlottetown accord. It goes down.
At the end of the day there will be more support for the position on gun control that is being put forward by the official opposition than there will be for the bill that was put forward by the government.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Generally speaking we in the Conservative Party embrace many of those comments. We are united in that approach, but I would quickly add that we are not united in anything else with the Reform Party.
My question for the Leader of the Opposition is with respect to costs. I know this is a broad, sweeping piece of legislation which touches on civil rights and other property related issues like the ones before the court in Alberta.
This debates today comes on the heels of the debate yesterday concerning Bill C-68. In terms of priority and the spiralling costs, would not the money be better spent on a registry that registers criminals and not guns?
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comment that we are united in this approach. We are hopeful that we may be even more united in some other approaches, but that is a subject for further discussion.
I agree with the suggestion implicit in the member's question. The dollars that are being invested in the registration of firearms, particularly when the people we are trying to get at, the people who will use firearms in a criminal manner, are the last people to participate in the registry. The justice minister can put an add in the Mafia magazine saying please register your firearms, but it is entirely unlikely that he will get a response that will justify that expense.
I concur with the suggestion of the hon. member that if one is to register it might be better to register the people who are inclined to use firearms in a criminal way rather than to focus on the weapons.
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in the House to participate in yet another debate on gun control initiated by the official opposition that just does not get it. Also I want to speak to Canadians.
We have given ample opportunity in the House and across Canada to everyone concerned to speak to this issue, but Her Majesty's Official Opposition continues to misinform the public and to openly support the highly visible and vocal gun lobby.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about democratic freedoms. That is why we have people outside the House today demonstrating their opinion. In some other countries in the world, to get on the Hill as in this case they would have to get past walls that are six feet high and three feet thick. If there are countries in the world where there is freedom of speech it certainly is this country. We should applaud that, not condemn it as the opposition leader says. The minister is currently at a press conference and will be speaking later in the House.
Let us talk about some of the statistics because there is a lot of support in the country for the legislation. In a recent Angus Reid poll 82% of Canadians approved the universal registration of rifles and shotguns; 72% in rural communities. The opposition is completely out of touch with Canadians.
In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver handguns are seized as often as rifles and shotguns: 70% of firearms that are seized are legally owned and for handguns it is less than 10%. Approximately 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot. It appears all these statistics have no bearing on the opposition's memory. Some 78% of legally owned guns—
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
Yes, it is women after all. Some 1,400 lives are lost each year at a cost—and we talked about the medical cost—of $70 million. That is a burden on our health care system.
When one hears certain members of the opposition, not to mention the loud protesters, one might think the government had not done anything in recent years to address the concerns of the gun lobby. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The legislation passed by this House includes, in section 18, an unprecedented obligation on the part of the government to table draft regulations before each House of Parliament and to ensure that such regulations are reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee.
We tabled regulations in this House on two occasions, first in November 1996 and then at the end of October 1997.
In respect of the first set of regulations, the standing committee made a total of 39 recommendations. We were able to accept in whole or in part 38 of these 39 recommendations and to make amendments to the regulations to reflect those recommendations. For the second set tabled at the end of October of last year, the committee again made 39 recommendations of which we were able to accept in whole or in part 35 of them and to make consequent amendments.
When the statute was passing through the House, concerns were expressed about whether the statute provided appropriate opportunity to protect the constitutional and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Amendments were made to the statute to permit development of regulations respecting the matter in which any provision of the statute or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and to adapt any such provision for the purpose of its application to aboriginal peoples.
We developed a full set of regulations called the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptation Regulations. Both the development and implementation of these regulations have involved consultations and communication with a wide variety of native communities across the country.
My former colleague, Mr. Anawak from the Northwest Territories, stated that it does not prevent our native people from putting food on the table, nor does it take away their guns; it simply means that they must register them. They still can keep their guns.
More recently we have made more adjustments and accommodations. There was concern about our forms. We engaged focus groups and held consultations with interest groups. We revised the forms extensively and in a way that improves their acceptability to all concerned.
There has been concern raised again from the same circles about certain categories of individuals who were the victims of unintended consequences of the legislation, particularly in respect of some categories of restricted firearms. The minister has indicated that an amnesty will be available to provide additional time for those persons to bring themselves into compliance with the statute.
Yesterday the minister postponed the implementation of this program for 60 days to address the suggestion from law enforcement organizations that more time would ensure more complete data input and thus enhance public security.
This whole legislation has to do with public security. We want to make sure that firearm users have the required permits and that, before they obtain such permits, they can demonstrate that they are responsible, law-abiding citizens, that they were never involved in criminal activities, and that they have received at least some basic training in the safe handling of firearms.
Moreover, in order to better control the illegal movement of firearms and to provide better tools to police officers when they conduct criminal investigations or try to settle family disputes, all firearms will be registered by the year 2003.
These are major public initiatives that relate to public security and that are applied in a customized and responsible manner to all Canadians. As my colleague, Mr. Rock, indicated, Bill C-68 has to do with the kind of country in which we want to live. It has to do with the kind of society we want for ourselves and for our families. Passing that legislation means our lifestyle and values will be determined by all Canadians, and not by the gun lobby.
Firearms cause more than three deaths daily in Canada. The rate of mortality from gunshot wounds varies among provinces and territories, ranging from 5.7 to 21.2 per 100,000 people. Most deaths from gunshot wounds occur in the home, with more occurring in rural areas than in cities, and are inflicted with legally acquired hunting guns. The cost of the consequences for the improper use of firearms in Canada has been estimated at $6.6 billion per year.
The official opposition leader spoke a lot about making changes to the Criminal Code. The Firearms Act is part of an overall strategy of this government for safer communities. It is one piece of the puzzle. This includes changes to the youth justice system, to crime prevention, to victims assistance and the setting up of a DNA data bank. We believe that all those together will lead to safer homes and safer cities.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the myths, the misleading of the public continues even in that speech, a couple of years after the bill was passed.
For example, one of the things the minister trotted out is that large numbers of people out there support Bill C-68. She quoted a poll from Angus Reid in which 82% of the people contacted support gun control. What she neglected to say, and this is a key point, is that when people find out what the gun control measures that this government has put in place are, the support drops to less than 45%.
The government has given the impression, which I am sure is just pure politics, that it is doing something wonderful for society by bringing in a gun registration scheme that is already costing $200 million, two and a half times the original projected cost, and will probably by the government's own figures cost $1 billion by the year 2015.
When the public finds out what the registration scheme is all about, support drops to less than 45%. In fact it is in the neighbourhood of 43%. She neglects to mention that when she quotes these polls that have been taken.
Another thing that she trotted out is that there are over 1,000 lives lost in regard to this but she neglects to mention that there is no connection between this registration scheme and any way that the number would be reduced. The Liberals always trot out these figures in some attempt to convince the public that what they are doing is going to reduce that number.
She then goes into a description of the form, a form that has been described by their own members as being no more complex than the Income Tax Act. She describes this piece of paper. What she does not tell us is how laying this piece of paper beside one's gun is going to reduce crime. Nowhere in the entire world is there documented evidence that this reduces crime. She neglects to say that when she describes this.
My question for her comes from her very own user group that has said there is going to be a 50% error rate in regard to this registration scheme. The police are asking for this. If there is going to be an error rate, at what level will the error rate be acceptable?
The reason this system has been delayed for the fourth time is because the government cannot make it work and it will never work. My question for her is at what level does the error rate have to be reduced so that this will be some kind of a system that might have a chance of doing anything? At what level would she accept this error rate that she described to be?
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to quote from the hon. member himself about how he thinks that the American system is the best system in the world and how proud he is that we should have the same type of system in this country. Thank God we do not have the same system in this country.
As far as the error rate, one of the reasons we are delaying the implementation of this is to make sure that there will be no errors in the system.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to the American system. I presume she does not realize that there is no monolithic, all-encompassing legal system in the United States governing firearms.
The District of Columbia for example has the most stringent firearms regulations in all of the western world, much more stringent than anything she and her government are proposing in this bill. It also has the highest rate of firearms homicides in the western world. It is 80 per 100,000 if anyone can believe it. This is in a strictly regulated environment.
In the wide open state of North Dakota where anyone over the age of 14 can possess and use unsupervised almost any type of firearm, the homicide rate per 100,000 is roughly equal to that of Japan, 1.5.
I wonder if she is even aware of these circumstances. Has she done any sort of study of gun control legislation as it pertains to the United States and around the world? I wonder how she would explain these anomalies which seem to indicate there are factors more important than mere possession of firearms or registration of firearms in firearms homicides.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, speaking of statistics, the murder rate with guns in the United States is 10 times higher than it is in this country. Let us get the statistics right. Gun death and injury rates are higher in western Canada and rural areas because of the use of firearms. There is also a direct link—
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
You are not listening. You don't want to hear the answer.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order please. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the answer in light of the noise in the chamber. Perhaps members might restrain themselves so all hon. members can hear the answer of the parliamentary secretary which I know will be very brief.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there no requirement whatsoever in this House for a member opposite to answer the questions directly?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member is an experienced member. He knows that when members are asked questions they can answer them in the way they see fit. I am sure hon. members will want to be able to hear whatever answer is given. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you. I suppose they are listening.
There is a direct link between access to firearms and firearms death and injury. This comes from statistics collected all over the world. If they are interested in having statistics, they are there, but the members of the official opposition are not interested in the statistics nor in the truth. They are interested in supporting a gun lobby that is using its power to come to the House and to tell us to support the official opposition in misinforming the Canadian public.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is such a large number of government members who wish to participate in this debate that I want to inform you and the entire House that we will be splitting our time in subsequent rounds.