Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing some impatience with respect to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. In condemning the government's legislation in Bill C-68 in the same breath he condemned parliament and the procedures by which the House operates.
I am very tired of this. The Leader of the Opposition fails to realize we are one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world. We operate under the British parliamentary tradition, not the American system. To put the matter very delicately and to use an expression that is very common in the countryside where I live, even swine don't defecate in their own corner. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would direct his remarks as they should be directed against the government but not against parliament.
Second, the Leader of the Opposition also cited the charter of rights and complained in his remarks that the charter of rights contains no provisions for property rights. That indicates how the Leader of the Opposition equates human rights and human values with property. It is true that in the United States deadly force can be used to protect property. However, we in Canada honour human rights above property rights. That is one of the things that makes us Canadian. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition fails to realize that.
I reserve my main remarks for something the member for Kootenay—Columbia said. He stood in the House and said from his heart that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of what he believed people wanted him to say with respect to criticism of gun registration.
Criticism of gun registration is legitimate, but I remind members what the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt said in reply to a question very early in the debate from one of his colleagues. He was asked what the government's agenda was in introducing gun registration. The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt replied that they wanted to register all the guns and disarm everybody. That is what he said. Members can check
Hansard
and find that. I want the Reform Party to hold that thought in mind.
I have always had a great interest in special interest groups. Just a few days ago the Reform Party introduced a bill that reflected my studies of special interest groups. One of the special interest groups that I tried to probe during the debate on Bill C-68 was the National Firearms Association of Edmonton that turned out to be very prominent in the lobby against Bill C-68. I found out that the leader of the National Firearms Association in Edmonton was also the riding association president of the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. I believe he still is.
That is all the information I could find out. There was this lobby group behind the Reform Party and I could find no other data. However a computer search I did turned up another association with exactly the same name: the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas. Thanks to the Internal Revenue Services I was able to get its basic financial data. I was also able to get a constitutional document. It is a flyer it puts out which explains what the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas, is all about.
Apart from saying that an attack on one gun owner group is an attack on all and no compromise ever, and so on and so forth on gun control, this is the key phrase:
Only through concerted action will we emerge victorious against those who would seek to disarm the people of the United States.
Where in the debate did we hear that? We heard it from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and we have heard it frequently from members of the Reform Party.
There is nothing wrong in my mind with coming up here and attacking the government because perhaps gun registration is working out to be more expensive than it should be, but I caution members opposite when they speak to make sure that they are genuinely speaking for Canadians. I will show them the dangers that might be inherent in speaking for the National Firearms Association, which we suppose may have something to do with the one in Alberta.
I have another statement from the document of the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas, which reads:
Our right to keep and bear arms is an absolute inalienable God given right just like our right to live and breathe.
That is the kind of talk we get from the National Firearms Association in the United States. Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. That is the kind of rhetoric we have here.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against the tyranny of government”. That is where it is coming from. In the United States is a movement that wants to arm itself against the government and is not too far removed from the citizens militia that caused a terrible tragedy in the United States not long ago.
This document talks about the militia. It says “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American”.
The document goes on and talks about a new world order. What the National Firearms Association in the United States is all about is that it is afraid there will be a new world order set up in Europe that will persuade the president of the United States to disarm all Americans and that they will lose their guns and live under tyranny.
One of the final messages in this document is that they urge all members to remember that it is not just a crisis in the United States but a crisis in the entire world and that they should be going out fighting for freedom, for guns in every other country in the world including Canada.
When members opposite talk about problems with any kind of legislation, they should remember that it is government legislation. They should not condemn parliament because this is where we have very good debates but should remember when they speak to speak for Canadians.
