Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1998

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member from the Liberal Party did not answer the question so I seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow her time to answer the question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, gun control legislation, it will be recalled, is legislation that we supported.

The primary goal of this legislation—and this is something I remember, having been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice at the time—was to reduce the number of incidents in which people going through a psychologically difficult period in their life come across a gun and turn it on themselves, with fatal or very serious results, having first in some cases fatally wounded members of their own family, their wife or children, or strangers.

This extremely tragic kind of behaviour, attributable to temporary psychological distress, would not have taken place if a gun had not been available at that particular point in time.

This is not the case with hunters or employees whose activities give them legitimate access to firearms. Statistics show that this kind of accident occurs when guns are stored, sometimes for many years, with ammunition nearby. The gun has not been used in ages. The original owner no longer uses it. In short, there was no need for the weapon to be available to anyone. Unfortunately, it was available at a particular and tragic point in time and was used to kill one or more people.

Faced with legislation that could reduce this risk, that could save human lives, one could hardly do other than support the underlying principles.

The then Minister of Justice introduced a bill in the House the very purpose of which was to reduce these risks, to save lives. Faced with these objectives and principles, the Bloc Quebecois could only agree with a bill that preserved human life, a very precious commodity.

At the time, however, the Bloc Quebecois asked the Minister of Justice to make a number of amendments. An initial group of amendments was intended to ensure that hunters and members of shooting clubs were not unduly hindered by the legislation in the exercise of their sport. The Bloc Quebecois introduced a number of amendments.

Some of them were accepted. The Bloc Quebecois' proposal, for example, that the costs of registration be low, was well received by the government, and the costs are very reasonable indeed. However, in the case of the Bloc's proposal that a hunter's failure to register be decriminalized, the government's response was less positive.

The Bloc sought to have gun handling courses taken in the past recognized, and the bill permits this.

In the end, the bill as amended got the support of the Bloc, first and foremost because of the principle of the value of human life and then because a number of amendments had smoothed the rough edges. Today, however, we are well past that situation. Regulations have been submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and discussed. These regulations were introduced and tabled here in the House and are now part of the package permitting the legislation to be applied.

In this regard, I would like to quote to you two paragraphs of the Bloc's dissenting opinion in the justice committee report on the proposed regulations introduced by the minister in connection with the Firearms Act, and I quote:

Representatives of industry, hunters and gun clubs all complained that they had not really been given the time to prepare properly. Moreover, even though some witnesses had devoted hours to putting together briefs as best they might, in many cases as volunteers, and had submitted them to the Committee Clerk, the briefs were never distributed to the Committee members because there was no time to have them translated into both official languages. It is attitudes like this on the part of the federal government that undermine the credibility of elected representatives and institutions in the eyes of the people.

I will finish the quote:

While the Bloc Québécois supports the concept of gun control and endorses the Committee's recommendations, it strongly deplores the fact that the disgraceful haste insisted on by the government and the Committee's Liberal majority has cast doubt on the quality of these regulations and put at risk the support of all Canadians and Quebeckers, which will be indispensable in the near future for the implementation of such an important piece of legislation.

We have indeed got to that point. The problem is not the principle of the law; it is not that the law wants to save human lives. The problem is the way it is being applied at the present time.

We are faced with cost overruns, unmet timetables, things that had been anticipated and with which the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree.

But, as I read the motion put to us by the Reform Party, I see that it swings the pendulum totally in the other direction. We are in favour of the principle of the legislation. The Reform Party has never been in favour of the principle of the legislation, and that is where our paths diverge.

Consequently, we cannot be in agreement with the Reform Party motion, although we continue to strongly disagree with the way the Minister of Justice is currently proceeding with implementation of this legislation.

I offer one example: believe it or not, they are calling for volunteer auditors. I have here a letter dated July 8 and signed by Mr. Buisson, the superintendent of the national firearms registry. He says:

The business auditors designated by the director are volunteers who will be responsible for checking business inventories and all transfers to and from those inventories.

This creates a situation in which reliance is being placed on people's good will to ensure application of the very mechanics of the legislation, of the regulations, and is just one more example of how this legislation is not being properly implemented.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois maintains that, for the sake of human lives, the legislation implemented must deliver the services we expect from it. The value of human lives, however, is such that implementation of this legislation must be done in such a way as to respect all those involved, and this is not the case.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to add my voice of concern to the direction in which this government is leading this country.

I am going to ask a question at the beginning of this debate. Why are we debating this issue today when there should be other issues that are much more important in this country? The reason we are debating this today is because this issue strikes right to the heart of what is wrong with this government. This issue strikes right to the heart of the problems we are trying to solve in this parliament.

We have had politics enter the area of justice and because of that the government is putting the whole country at risk.

Why do I say that this is politics?

Since the passage of Bill C-68 and all the debate that took place in 1994 and 1995, I have been asked many times “Why is the government forcing this upon us when it flies in the face of common sense? Why is the government pushing forth with this bill?” People are asking me “What will it accomplish?”

I have to be honest with them. I cannot read the mind of the government, but I observe, as we look at this legislation, that this government is trying to create the impression that it is doing something wonderful for society by introducing a gun registration scheme. The government is equating this gun registration scheme with reducing crime in society.

When we scratch the surface, when we look underneath, we realize that there is nothing there. Then people say “How does laying a piece of paper beside your gun reduce crime?” I say that it cannot. It does not. And nowhere is there any documented evidence in the world to support this. Countries have tried this around the world.

The government has not even answered the question that I have asked many times. We have had the registration of handguns since 1934. Give us some evidence of how this has saved lives; of how this has reduced crime. The government cannot do it. It flies right at the very heart of democracy and debate. This government has hidden information from the Canadian people. They have not been able to properly judge this legislation and other legislation that comes before the House. This is a very good example of what is wrong with this country.

The demonstration that is going to take place this afternoon demonstrates, just like it did in Vancouver, that we can demonstrate all we want but our government does not listen. It ploughs ahead in the face of contradictory facts with legislation that will not work.

Many Canadians have been deceived. That is my theme. I want to emphasize it. They have been deceived by their own government into believing that gun control is crime control and that it will somehow make our lives safer.

There are several myths that have been spread about by the Liberals. Once people find out the truth about them, the support for the registration drops dramatically.

The hon. parliamentary secretary quoted the statistic that 82% of Canadians support this. She did not finish the story. When the polling company asks them whether they would support it if the costs are $200 million, as they now are, rather than $85 million, or when they rise to $1 billion whether they would still support it, the support goes way down. It becomes a minority of people. That is hidden.

The government always creates the impression that this is supported by the public, but it is not. Once the public finds out the true facts it drops dramatically.

Why are these myths being spread about by the Liberals? There are at least 10 of them. Unfortunately, in a 10 minute speech I do not have time to touch on all of them. One of the myths that is spread is that it is going to be cost effective. It is not.

Originally we were told that this was going to cost $85 million. That number disappeared a long time ago. In fact the budget for this year is over $133 million and that is just for the upfront costs. That is not for the hidden costs of all the other departments, what the provinces have to spend and the cost that is probably well and beyond that. Also, the year previous it was $67 million. That is $200 million in just the last couple of years.

Then the government goes on to tell us that it is going to take $50 million or $60 million per year to maintain the system. By the government's own numbers that is $1 billion by the year 2015.

If we ask people whether they would prefer to have that $50 million or $60 million per year spent fighting organized crime rather than a registration scheme, guess what they say? “Let's fight organized crime. We don't need a bureaucratic boondoggle, such as the registration system, in this country. It will do very little. It is not cost effective. We would rather have $50 million or $60 million to fight organized crime, which is a big problem. Target the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen”.

If we ask them whether they would rather have $50 million or $60 million to set up a DNA data bank, guess what they say? “We would rather register criminals than law-abiding citizens. We would rather have that facility available to us”.

If we ask them whether they would rather have $50 million or $60 million spent compensating victims of crime, or victims of the HIV blood scandal that we had in this country and is still being debated, there is no doubt as to where they would spend that $50 million or $60 million.

That needs to be debated in this House. We are in charge of the public purse. We have to decide as parliamentarians by looking at the big picture what is happening in the country and how we are going to spend taxpayer money.

When people find out about this registration scheme they would rather have the money spent elsewhere. If they were asked whether they would rather have $50 million or $60 million spent fighting child pornography or child prostitution, guess what they would say.

The government claims it does not have money for many of these very important things and yet it spends it on a registration scheme that is soon going to cost us $1 billion.

When members of the public are asked whether they would rather have $50 million or $60 million spent on crime prevention or a gun registration scheme, they always choose the crime prevention, or $50 million or $60 million to combat family violence. Guess what they say. They would rather have the money spent combating family violence. When asked if they would rather $50 million or $60 million be put into police resources so that they can investigate all the unsolved murders and sex offences, guess what the public says.

Today in British Columbia they are short $15 million which translates into 300 policemen on the street. They are short that much in order to provide the proper law enforcement resources in that province alone, and this exists across the country. Instead we put money into a bureaucratic scheme so that every gun owner can put a piece of paper beside his or her gun.

This defies common sense. This is ridiculous and the public is fed up with it. There are so many myths associated with this that need to be dispelled. One is the cost and the other is the that the public supports this.

Not only does Bill C-68 not accomplish anything, it does the exact opposite of what is intended. It takes resources and money from areas where it could be much better spent as I have just explained and puts it into forming more big government. It also takes police off the street. It takes away police resources and puts it into an area where it is much more needed.

We do not need this. We need to have our police on the street and a registration scheme ties up the police behind their desks, not out on the street where they would do a lot more good. When the public realizes that it would do the opposite of what is intended, of what the government has said, the support for this drops dramatically.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to my friend from Yorkton—Melville, the first chance I have had an opportunity to do that in this parliament.

I suggest this is a kind of issue where there should be a free vote in the House of Commons, where we could have the reflection of the great diversity of this country.

I think we need in general parliamentary reform, electoral reform to make this a more democratic institution that represents the general will of the Canadian people. After all, that is what parliament is supposed to be for.

The Reform Party has talked for a long time about more free votes in the House of Commons, reflecting the diversity of its constituents. Can he assure us at this time that there will be a free vote on this issue in the Reform Party so that we can see that reflection and diversity in the Reform caucus? It has talked about that for years. It was a promise in 1993. It was a promise in 1997. I remember those promises very well. I have not seen that promise reflected in the House of Commons since its members were elected to this place. I wonder whether on this issue, which is not really an ideological issue per se, this might be an example of a free vote in the Reform Party of Canada.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I point out to the member that we had a free vote on Bill C-68 in this House and we were roundly criticized by the NDP which did not have a free vote on this. We did. We had a free vote and our members are free to express that. They can represent their constituents. In fact, we go beyond that. We would like to see a lot more democracy in this country.

I remind the member that he has been going around the country saying we should get rid of the Senate and he has joined together with a Liberal member of parliament from Ontario to do that. Unfortunately that would not improve the democracy in this country. We need to have a Senate that has some free votes and some accountability and is not appointed by the prime minister.

We go well beyond what this member is saying and we truly want to democratize this institution. Those demonstrators who are out there today show very clearly one of the problems we have with this country and that is that when people express themselves they are not being listened to by this government. I think it should be of major concern to this member here that the people of Canada cannot express themselves and let their will be known.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 1 the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville told Alberta radio listeners that Canada should look to the United States for leadership on guns. He was asked a specific question about the American practice of allowing people to carry concealed weapons. He told the host and listeners: “I think we should take a look at their experience there. I think they are ahead of us on that”.

I come from Windsor, right across the river from Detroit, Michigan, which used to be the murder capital of the United States. Every day children are shot there in schools and on the street. They talk about it on their newscasts like it is a car accident. I cannot believe the Reform Party would hold up the American gun culture as an example for Canada to emulate. Every day Canadians watch in horror as American television beams yet another firearm tragedy into our homes.

How many children have to die before the Reform Party realizes that the United States is not the example Canadians want us to follow? How long will it take for him to realize and how long will it take for his colleagues to realize that these are not Canadian values?

The other question I want to ask is how can grown men, and they seem to be mostly men, get so upset about our wanting to regulate a lethal commodity in our society?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting how members opposite cleverly manipulate the discussion in the House to try to show that what they are doing is so wonderful for society. It becomes quite clear that they are trying to re-engineer society to get people to think that they are thinking in some way of what they are doing here.

The focus of the discussion today is a registration scheme.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should wait for a moment for them to be quiet so they can listen to the answer.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member would not want to wait too long, his time is about to expire.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the member in answer to her question that we need to do research around the world on what is happening and the experience. That is the point I made that she was quoting, that we have to look at what is happening around the world and the experience that people have had with registration around the world. We find out that it has not worked anywhere, so why should we try to spend hundreds of millions of dollars here when it has not worked anywhere?

The Americans have had some very interesting experiences and we ought to look at what they have done in the city of Miami and how they have been able to reduce crime there in a very effective way. Sexual assaults went down 86% when they did a certain experiment.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I start off by explaining that I am an active firearms owner and user. I am a trap and skeet shooter. I am not particularly good at it but I enjoy doing it.

I am also a competitive pistol shooter. I am much better at that. Having said that, I say to the Liberals across the way and to everyone else that I support gun control. Gun control is good. We should have it in Canada. There is no question about that.

Gun control is ensuring that international arms dealers do not operate out of our country. Gun control is about ensuring that criminals do not smuggle Uzis and AK-47s into this country. Gun control is about ensuring that terrorists cannot easily arm themselves with illegal weapons. Gun control is about getting firearms out of the hands of criminals. Gun control is desirable for the average Canadian, and I agree with it. But Bill C-68 is not about gun control.

I have had a lot of people write to me. An overwhelming majority were opposed to this bill. Some were in favour. I spent as much time looking at their letters as I do with the others, perhaps even more. I know what a lot of the people opposed to it are going to say but I want to see what the people who are in favour in this bill have to say about it. One women said if it saves only one life is it not worth it. I am not going to brush that off. I am going to have a very serious look at that. If it saves even one life is it worth it? The figure that was going around at the time was $89 million. Later it went to $118.9 million. That figure is now quite low but that is the figure I worked with and looked at.

In 1993, 1,354 lives were lost in some manner related to a firearm, suicide, homicide, accident, legal intervention, every means we can connect to a firearm. The same year I looked at those figures I found out from talking to a doctor in charge of the breast cancer detection program in British Columbia that 17,000 women would be diagnosed that year alone with breast cancer. Of those 5,400 would be terminal. I asked if I provided him with $118.9 million what would he do with it and what results would we get. He talked to some of his colleagues. They did some math. He came back and said that if I gave them that much money they could double the early detection screening in the high risk category. I asked what results would that give. He said that statistically they could save 1,710 lives. That is 1,710 real lives saved, victims in this country, or some unknown percentage in some unknown way of 1,354 that has never been explained to us by the past justice minister or the present one. If this bill is about saving lives there are a lot better ways to spend the money.

We have another consideration. There are going to be a lot of things talked about today. I want to hit on a couple of very specific points. There is a challenge by the province of Alberta that has gone to court and is complete. We are waiting for the decision of that court challenge. The government is spending a lot of money on that court challenge. I might add that the province of Alberta is supported by the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the territories.

When they say there is a lot of support out there, yes there is. I think it is because of misinformation. But that aside, there is a lot of support out there. There is also a lot of resentment to this bill from individuals Canadians, from groups of Canadians and from entire provincial governments. There is a lot of opposition to this as well. That should be a clue to the government that even if it wants to keep this bill it should perhaps at a very minimum look at it and see if there is some alternative to some of the aspects of it. Even without the most objectionable parts of it there is some alternative to what it is proposing to do.

Under the Alberta court challenge it is anticipated, and this is from fairly high up and not our opinion, that the federal government is going to lose that challenge. The decision will likely read that the federal government does not have the right to regulate private property. If that happens what it will do is not only strike down the registration provisions of Bill C-68, it will strike down the registration of handguns as well.

If there is support for Bill C-68 from people who want to see sporting rifles and shotguns registered, can we imagine the outcry from these people if the actions of the government, albeit intending to support the desires of those people, inadvertently causes the loss of the registration of handguns? I think the government would end up losing ground rather than gaining. In light of that it might want to reconsider.

The government, by claiming that the bill would reduce crime, has played a very cruel hoax on Canadians by providing them with a false sense of security and possibly reducing vigilance against criminal attack. The government claims that Bill C-68 will make our homes and streets safer but the legislation does absolutely nothing whatsoever to justify that claim.

The money the government is wasting on Bill C-68 could be spent far more effectively on disease prevention, detection and cures; on policing costs; on establishing DNA databanks to aid the police in apprehending and convicting violent criminals; on post-secondary education for young people who are inheriting a debt of two decades of wasteful program spending, which I might add can be compared very closely with this bill and the amount of money it will cost.

Bill C-68 is not gun control. It is a phenomenal waste of money. It provides a false sense of security to Canadians. It does absolutely nothing to hamper the criminal misuse of firearms. If anything, it actually helps criminals by diverting police activities from their apprehension.

The Canadian Police Association, the frontline police officers, not the politically appointed chiefs of police, who deal directly with criminals and criminal situations are totally opposed to the bill.

If the government's intentions were good, now is the time to correct the outcome. What the government intended may not be the way it will come out. I call on the government to rescind Bill C-68 and replace it with legislation that cracks down on the criminal misuse of firearms. If the intention is good that is great.

In the first speech I ever made in the House of Commons I said, and sincerely meant it, that I was not here to oppose the government for opposition sake. If the government does something right I will be the first to congratulate it. If the government comes out with a bill that I do not happen to agree with, I will speak out on it and try to suggest alternatives to make it a better bill.

I have done that in committee. I have worked with government officials not to try to expose what they are doing and say they are a bunch of whatever but rather to say what I believe the problems are and to give a justifiable and valid alternative.

There are alternatives. The government should not blindside itself by saying that everything it does it automatically right. It would be far better to say that everything it does it means to be right but sometimes it will have to make some changes along the way.

I believe this is one of those times. I hope enlightened members will look at it and see that it is not a weakness to suggest that the intentions were good but perhaps some changes are needed. This bill is one of those occasions.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled. I do not understand the contradiction in Reform Party policy when it comes to community safety. I do not understand why it would oppose crime control Bill C-68. Why does it want to oppose crime control legislation that will guarantee the safety of our communities?

The bill takes into consideration the interests of law-abiding citizens who own guns and the community at large. It strikes a balance between those who have and those who want to be protected.

I do not understand how the member could stand in the House to oppose gun control legislation and crime prevention Bill C-68.

Victims groups in his constituency, the majority of people in his community and across the country, chief of police organizations, police associations and health organizations were involved in the development of the registry part of Bill C-68.

On a number of occasions his own party has indicated the need to control the use of firearms. Back in 1994 it passed a motion that if elected a Reform government would introduce legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms would be severely punished.

What happened between 1994 and 1998? Why is the Reform Party now falling into the trap of special interest groups and lobby organizations? Why is it not defending the interests of its own constituencies and those of victims? Why are Reformers not standing up for the rights of those who wanted them to stand up for their rights, for those who have written to them over and over again to tell them to support Bill C-68? Why are they going with special interest groups and against the will and interests of the community at large?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting little spiel from the hon. member. I am sure he has been taking lessons from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said that the bill was about crime control. That is a myth that I cannot believe they believe. It has nothing to do with crime control.

Law-abiding citizens are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. By definition criminals break the law. Why does the government think a registration program law-abiding citizens have to comply with will solve crimes?

Can we imagine the bank robber on his way to the bank saying “Gee, we had better not rob the bank today because I haven't registered this rifle?” When was the last time somebody robbed a bank with a rifle?

Crime control, give me a break. If the member wants to talk about what we are doing today then at least he should make some sensible remarks.

The hon. member said that the chiefs of police were against us. I acknowledge that. Politically appointed chiefs of police are onside with the government that appoints people. What a surprise. I do not know if it was intentional or not, but he was wrong when he said that police associations were in favour of it. They are not. The Regina police refused to support the RCMP in a request to register firearms. The Canadian Police Association that covers police from one end of the country to the other, frontline police who do the work, is opposed to the legislation.

He talked about my constituents. I surveyed my constituents with a question that firearms owners challenged me on. They asked why I was being so neutral, why I was not being stronger and more supportive in the way I asked questions. I told them it had to be an absolutely neutral, fair question which we had designed for us. I got the biggest response on that survey of any householder survey I have ever sent out.

[An hon. member]

Table it.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

I will table it. I would love to. I will give the member the figures on that. Ninety per cent of respondents opposed the bill after being asked a totally neutral question. I am representing my constituents. I would suggest to the hon. member that he has a lot of backbenchers over there who are not representing their constituents.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to inform the House that the time for questions and comments has expired.

The Chair is in a bit of difficulty. I would appreciate the assistance of hon. members. Prior to the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, on the special agreed order in respect of rotation it was the turn of the New Democratic Party to offer a speech followed by the Conservative Party. That unfortunately did not happen.

Is there consent to revert to those two speeches so we may clear this up today and then allow government members to follow since the official opposition has had its first two speakers? Would the House agree to revert to allow these two 10 minute speeches to follow in the usual case?

In effect we started a new session yesterday and members may not be accustomed to the usual practices. I hope there would be agreement to do this. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I start by thanking the House for its indulgence on this matter. I appreciate the effort of my colleagues. It is perhaps a good juncture to see the House agree to allowing me and the Conservative Party to speak to this issue.

We have had probably an hour and a half of very partisan and very heated debated on the opposition motion. I would like to talk a bit about gun control and the gun control registry, the history of it in the country and what it has meant to all Canadians. Let us not forget that we are here to represent Canadians in rural parts of the country, aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in urban centres, many of whom have different positions on the legislation because of their own different experiences and the different places in which they find themselves today.

Of course the history of gun control and registration is not new. Since 1877 Canada has restricted the use of some firearms to protect public policy. Since 1968 Canada has classified weapons as prohibited, restricted and non-restricted. In 1977—and this has been referred to by members in the debate—an act was introduced which created the firearms acquisition certificate. For a long time there has been debate in the House—this is not a new issue—about how firearms are to be controlled and whether or not we need gun registration.

Many Canadians have opposed the bill. When it was introduced in the House last year there was tremendous debate. Today we revisited much of that debate. We have to be clear that although the motion speaks to registration there is a rally opposed to Bill C-68 on Parliament Hill today. Much of the debate is focusing in reality on that bill.

This piece of legislation has concerned many Canadians on both sides of the issue. I have listened to many convincing arguments by Canadians and by their representatives in the House who oppose Bill C-68 and who oppose registration.

In my caucus the member for Churchill has been eloquent in presenting to me as the justice critic the interests and concerns of her constituents about the legislation. The member for Yukon in the caucus has told eloquent stories about aboriginal women in her community who use firearms as part of their daily lives and see in many cases Bill C-68 and the registration of firearms as an imposition on them and their historic way of life.

On the other hand—and this reflects the diversity in the country—I have heard from the member for Burnaby—Douglas about the concerns of his constituents in a very urban riding who say that gun control is necessary for them to feel safe in their homes and in their streets.

I have heard from my seatmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, eloquent stories about constituents who have come to him and said “We are afraid to sleep at night. We cannot sleep at night in this city in this country in this year because of the sound of gunfire”. We are not talking about Sarajevo. We are talking about Canada.

These constituents are Canadians. All these Canadians look at the legislation from their perspective and from where they live. If there is one thing Canadians expect from the House, it is that we take this most serious issue and do not play politics with it, that we take this most serious issue and reflect the concerns of Canadians on both sides.

The whole issue of gun control came from well-intentioned people. Its opposition is from well-intentioned members. When the Minister of Justice introduced the legislation I do not think he was trying to anger or that he did not take into account the concerns of rural Canadians and aboriginal Canadians. I do not think members of the opposition party when they were first elected and opposed this bill did so simply to play politics.

I think it reflects the real divisions in this country. We have always suggested that the legislation needed to be reviewed. We needed to take into account the aboriginal community, the rural and urban Canadians and find a way in this great country in our history of consensus building to meet the needs of all these individuals.

At the beginning of this debate the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the Reform Party came here in part to make parliament more democratic. He called for more free votes. He called for better ways for us to discuss the issues of Canadians and Canadians' concerns. No party in this legislature has a monopoly on democratic reform.

We in the NDP have for a long time argued that there has to be a different way to deal with very contentious issues. We have called for the abolition of the Senate but that is not the purpose of this debate today so I will not go into it. We have called for proportional representation. And today on this issue we call for a free vote. Today on this issue we will demonstrate the commitment of our party to the reformation of this institution and ask for a free vote. We will vote that way in this party reflecting the diversity of Canadians on this contentious issue, reflecting the wishes of our constituents and reflecting our history on this issue.

Let us not forget that when this law was introduced there were nine members of the New Democratic Party in this House. Since then more than half of this caucus is newly elected. We spoke to our constituents about their concerns. I have given some examples of what those concerns have been. We will be voting freely on this motion before the House.

I do wish that the opposition motion called for a review of the firearms legislation. I do wish that the implementation by the government had proceeded in a better way. I do wish that we played less politics with this particular issue and listened more to Canadians. At the end of the day in this party that is what we will do. At the end of the day when the vote is called, we will vote according to that.

That being said, there are different merits on different parts of the legislation. As I have indicated I would be happier had both the government and the opposition attempted to find a way to change the legislation to make it accommodate all of the interests in the country. I believe that we can truly reflect the interests of Canadians in that way. I call upon the members of this House to do so.

Questions were put to the Reform Party whether there would be a free vote on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition questioned the government, will there be a free vote on this issue? Well, there will be for some of us. I throw that out as an answer.

I suggest again that the people who live in parts of this country that have genuine concerns about firearms ought to be respected, but so too and not at the expense of other Canadians.

We in this country have always found a way to compromise on the most difficult and contentious issues. We look to our parliamentarians and we look to our leaders for that compromise. We have proposed for a long time a review of the legislation, that we travel the country and hear the concerns of Canadians which I think is the Canadian way.

I thank the House again for its indulgence in allowing me my turn to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address the hon. member with a bit of historical information about the debates on this bill back in 1994-95. There were in fact great efforts made to make the bill better, make it acceptable to all concerned. There were some 200 amendments proposed both by opposition members and by members on the government side. The government stonewalled almost all of them. There was no consideration given to them. There was no compromise, a sort of take no prisoners attitude.

I would ask the member if he feels that the total rejection of more than 200 amendments really represents an effort to govern or if it is merely an effort to steamroll.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. They are enlightening to me as a member who has been in this House for a year.

One of the things I am going to reflect on and honestly one of the things I have learned here is that sometimes amendments are put forward in good spirit and sometimes they are put forward for purely political purposes to filibuster. I am learning that. It is one of the things that I am learning about perhaps the darker side of the rules in parliament.

When the member asks me whether that was stonewalling or whether it was a poor attempt to govern, I do not know what those amendments were in fairness. I do not know what they reflected. More than 200 certainly means that they were doing their job I suppose. They were reviewed by the justice committee. My experience on that committee to date has been that oftentimes parties seize on a particular issue and will sometimes play politics with it. Sadly, I was not here but I thank the hon. member for his history lesson. I unfortunately cannot determine whether or not those amendments were in good faith or not.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice speak earlier. She indicated that during that debate all kinds of amendments were accepted. I do not know how many must have been put forward to the government. Some were accepted. Obviously 200 were rejected. It does not sound to me like the best way to do business though.