House of Commons Hansard #219 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was preclearance.
Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.
Preclearance ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
moved that Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, once again I must deplore the fact that all private members' bills selected in the draw are not declared votable items in the House. This is a real lack of democracy and it allows the government to sweep issues under the rug that it does not want to address.
I have been working on this bill, the firearms law sunset act, since 1994. I first introduced the sunset clause as an amendment to Bill C-68 during the debate in the spring of 1995. This bill was first introduced in the House as Bill C-351 on September 28, 1995 and then again as Bill C-357 on December 2, 1996.
It is most disappointing to put so much effort into a piece of legislation and to have it die after one hour of debate in the House. This is a situation that must be rectified if we are ever to have any chance of our constituents' legislative initiatives being given their rightful consideration in the House.
In light of the rash of recent shootings, both here and in the United States, more and more people are clamouring for tougher gun control laws. What we need, and what the people really want, is effective gun control laws. As we have seen with Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, tougher does not equal effective.
Bill C-278 would rectify the government oversight by implementing a process that would ensure that only gun law provisions that were proven to be effective by the auditor general would remain the law of the land.
Frankly, I do not know how any member of the House could logically argue that they support ineffective gun laws. While there may be arguments opposing the legislative process and the wording of this bill, I would be absolutely amazed if anyone in the House will be brave enough to argue against this principle.
People arguing against this bill will have to argue that they support gun control laws even if they do not work, no matter how much they cost and even if another measure might work better. I am not arguing that gun control laws are unnecessary, only that police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for our bucks. That is exactly what Bill C-278 is designed to do.
At this point, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my bill on November 7, 1997 when I reintroduced this firearms law sunset act in this session. That day the House leader and the chief justice critic for the Conservatives said:
Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party lines. These (Firearms Act) regulations are not about public safety—it is just another tax.
It is just another tax. We want effective measures and that is what this bill is all about.
This bill is a sunset law. I want to point out to the members exactly what that means. Robert D. Behn wrote this explanation:
The idea of the sunset law is that every government program should periodically terminate, and continue only after an evaluation and a legislative vote to reestablish it. The objective is to replace the assumption that every program automatically continues unless there is a vote to terminate it, with the assumption that every program automatically terminates, unless there is a vote to continue it. Consequently, sunset laws are designed to ensure meaningful program evaluation, to introduce the possibility of termination, to merge duplicative programs and rationalize program structure, and to eliminate conflicts and competition between programs.
By shifting the burden of proof from those who would terminate a program to those who would renew it, the advocates of sunset laws hope to create an incentive for individual agencies, and the government as a whole to improve.
That quotation says it better than I could. I think we have to very carefully listen to what was said. That is what I hoped to achieve in drafting the firearms law sunset act.
The bill would provide a five year sunset provision on all gun control measures which means that the measure would be automatically repealed unless the auditor general has reported that it has been a successful and cost effective measure to increase public safety and reduce violent crime involving the use of firearms. That is, in essence, what the bill does.
The auditor general's report has to be considered by a committee representing broad interest in the firearms community and the committee report must be presented to and concurred in by the House or the sunset provision will take effect automatically at the end of the five years. That is what the bill provides for.
The bill also provides safeguards to allow parliament the time necessary to make amendments to allow ineffective gun control measures to expire without affecting the parts of the legislation that are effective at fighting firearms crime.
We want to make our society safer. We want to pass laws in parliament that are effective. We need sunset provisions so we can focus on what works.
This bill is the total opposite of the ill-conceived Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, that was passed into law on December 5, 1995 and prematurely brought into force on December 1, 1998. Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun control laws are costly and ineffective. Whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun control law has to be both successful and cost effective in saving lives and reduce the criminal use of firearms.
If members of Parliament want gun control measures that reduce violent crime they will support this bill. If members of the House want gun control measures that improve public safety and save lives they will support the bill. Finally, if MPs want gun control measures that not only reduce violent crime involving firearms, but also want the most successful and most cost effective methods for achieving these goals, they will support the bill. If the MPs have an open mind and look at the bill, I cannot see how they could not support it. Hopefully, they will have an open mind.
Every year the government passes hundreds of new laws but seldom repeals any. Should every bill passed by parliament not come with a built in sunset clause which would automatically repeal any measure that is not working or is not cost effectively achieving its stated objective? How much could we save the taxpayers of the country if we had that clause built into every bill? That is our job as parliamentarians. It is fundamental that we make sure that the laws of the land work. If they do not, we should get rid of them. They cost the taxpayers a lot of money because there is bureaucracy that is put in place to track these measures.
Bureaucrats who depend on costly, ineffective government programs for their jobs will hate the bill. Ministers who are more intent on building empires and retaining their status at the cabinet table will hate the bill. Conversely, taxpayers who are footing the bill and the general public who have to pay even higher taxes for this bureaucratic bungling and inefficiency will love the firearms law sunset act.
If members argue against this bill, they have to argue that we should have laws whether they work effectively or not. I rest my case. I think I have clearly explained the importance of the bill.
The bill needs more time to be fully debated and explained. It should be debated by all members in the House. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to make Bill C-278, the firearms law sunset act, a votable item. In support of that, I hope the attitude I detect on the other side by the laughter will disappear. The need to have this item votable should be uppermost. I would like to seek unanimous consent to make this a votable item.
Firearms Law Sunset ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to have this bill made votable?
Paddy Torsney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the bill after hearing the rhetoric and simplistic interpretation of the member opposite. I think his true goal was to do what he could not do when he tried to develop support against gun control legislation in the country. The member knows that more than 80% of Canadians support gun control. This is a very silly piece of legislation.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the parliamentary secretary imputing motive?
Firearms Law Sunset ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
I think the parliamentary secretary is perhaps suggesting reasons why the hon. member made the speech he did. It seems to me it is a point of debate.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly opposed to Bill C-278 for a number of reasons. The bill proposes that we repeal the new firearms legislation without giving it any reasonable time to work. The Reform Party would propose sunsetting an act 11 months after it becomes fully effective.
The Department of Justice already has in place a carefully considered plan for evaluating the new law's success and achieving its objectives.
Bill C-278 ignores the accomplishments made in the first few months of the new Firearms Act. Canadians can already see the positive impact of Bill C-68. Canadians continue to strongly support the government's position.
I would like to talk about what the Firearms Act has already done. Members will see that it has already been effective. The government is confident that within a reasonable time after the new firearms law has been fully implemented its effectiveness will be even more demonstrable.
For the first time ever, the new law requires instant background checks before any gun sale can proceed. As of the end of February of this year, more than 4,700 checks have been conducted as part of gun sales or transfers. Of these checks, almost 7% were flagged for investigation. In other words, more than 325 potentially dangerous gun sales were referred for further scrutiny. Examples of these cases include people with past or recent histories of violence, break and enters, theft or drug involvement, or people who were trying to acquire guns that they were not licensed to purchase.
One of the cases caught by the new system was that of an individual from Nelson, British Columbia who tried to purchase several firearms over a two week period. The individual had a firearms licence but the background check showed numerous prior convictions and several recent incidents involving spousal abuse, uttering threats and drug activity. The individual's firearms licence was suspended pending further investigation and the sales were refused. On two subsequent occasions, the individual tried again to purchase firearms. This time his licence was revoked altogether.
This is the kind of situation the new system was designed to control. Everybody in the House should share the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. In this early case the system demonstrated its effectiveness every time the individual tried to buy a gun.
More than 85 license applications have been refused for public safety concerns. It is through results like this that the Canadian public knows the new gun control program introduced in Bill C-68 will make the homes in their communities and their communities as a whole much safer.
The choices laid out today are clear. If Bill C-278 were to become law and all Canadian gun laws were sunsetted, Canada would be left with no licensing, no registration, nothing. Why would the Reform Party risk this? Is it because its hidden agenda is to let everyone own powerful guns?
Let us look around at the rest of the world and see that the control of firearms is something the entire world is seeking.
The government, unlike members opposite, is committed to promoting public safety. It is clear that the Firearms Act already has had an impact. The government is confident all assessments will demonstrate that the system enhances public safety once full implementation is completed.
Does the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville really want to allow anyone unrestricted ownership of fully automatic guns? We know that the Reform Party continues to fight firearms control. The National Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association must be proud.
Let us talk about specific parts of the bill. The member opposite would have the auditor general and his office evaluate a major public safety program in just a few months after it came into force. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is unrealistic. There is no way that the auditor general and his staff could complete a thorough study in the time set out. It is simply unacceptable.
I do not minimize the need to evaluate laws. We heard months and months of testimony on Bill C-68. We listened to what Canadians told us about gun control. We made sure that the law would be effective. We built in an assessment program. We will make sure that any glitches are ironed out, that any opportunity to make the law even better is exercised.
The fact remains that when any new law comes into force we need to allow a certain amount of time before we can assess its impact and its effectiveness. Individuals need to adjust to new requirements. Law enforcement agencies need to adjust to new responsibilities. The judiciary needs time to consider the law's meaning and intent as cases are presented. It takes time.
The Firearms Act is no different. To assess its effects on public safety, on the incidence of violent crime and on cost effectiveness, we have to allow time for the act to be fully enforced.
The hon. member should be pleased that a full evaluation process with an appropriate timetable is consistent with Treasury Board guidelines and is already in place.
When the former minister of justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during those months and months of testimony, he spoke about the evaluation process. He stated that the Department of Justice would be monitoring experience with registration and licensing to determine what improvements could be made and to make that information available to parliament and to the public.
The evaluation plan calls for assessments of the extent to which the operational elements of the Firearms Act, part 3 of the Criminal Code and their associate programs have been implemented and whether their objectives are being achieved. It also calls for an implementation evaluation. This should begin one year after the program launch and its findings will be submitted one year later. This exercise will be carried out by key federal partners and the results are to be consolidated with overall evaluation of the Canadian firearms program.
Bill C-278 is a simplistic, unrealistic piece of legislation, but I would be remiss if I did not point out one thing. In the member's bill he supports the sentencing guidelines that the government introduced in Bill C-68, so he has found something good to say about our law.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to support the bill introduced by the Reform Party, first of all because we see it somewhat as a head on attack on the philosophy and the purpose of Bill C-68.
I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who successfully sponsored this bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I also want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the philosophy of this bill, although we did have some concerns about the legislation. We were concerned about some administrative details and wanted to make it easier for hunters, especially in terms of the issuing of permits.
With the help of my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who is well known for his exactness, especially by members of his own caucus, we brought forward some 15 amendments to improve on the bill, four of which were approved by the government.
I want to make myself very clearly understood. We do not believe that increased gun registration and control under this bill, to show where these guns are to be found throughout our society, will help to fight crime.
On the other hand, however, we believe these are significant steps that, coupled with other legislation, can make access to firearms more difficult.
I do not want to sensationalize or make facile connections, but I think the time is right for us, as parliamentarians, to debate these issues. Unfortunately, we have all seen and been affected, beyond partisanship, by what happened in Colorado and more recently in Alberta.
I believe this should reinforce our conviction that, as parliamentarians, we must take action to make it more difficult to have access to firearms. Let us not forget that one of the objectives of Bill C-68 was and still is to deal with the whole issue of safe storage.
I have trouble figuring out how asking people to take certain measures for the safer storage of their rifles, shotguns and handguns could be a violation of their fundamental freedoms.
The Reform Party is making connections and saying things with respect to an issue like firearms that do not have a great impact on people. Canadians do not expect us to ban hunting or to prohibit gun collectors from having access to their collections. That is not what it is about. It is about taking measures to ensure that guns are handled and stored safely.
More importantly, we need a national firearm registry so that when police officers are called somewhere in the community, to someone's home, they know ahead of time whether or not there might be firearms on the premises.
I sincerely believe there is nothing outlandish in this legislation. But we are not fooled. We know full well that what the Reform Party wants is, for all intents and purposes, that Bill C-68 be withdrawn.
As early as 1995, they started plotting against the bill. We cannot agree to this, no more than we could agree to the creation of more red tape that would have made life complicated for hunters in certain communities. This is why the member for Berthier—Montcalm introduced a number of amendments making the bill more practical than it was before.
To make it very clear, I want to stress how moderate, how reasonable the four main provisions of the bill seems to us. Mr. Speaker, you are our focus on Fridays. I am sure our fellow citizens who are watching want to know what Bill C-68 is about.
I will quickly highlight the four main thrusts of Bill C-68. It amends the Criminal Code to provide for stiffer sentences—this is called sentencing—for certain serious offences involving the use of a firearm, such as murder or kidnapping.
I believe lawmakers must deter criminals from using a firearm while committing an offence. In legal terms, this is called aggravating circumstances. The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this provision in Bill C-68.
Second, there is the Firearms Act, the purpose of which is to separate from the Criminal Code the administrative and regulatory aspects relating to permits and registration. This was done because we believe it is important for police forces to know when someone has firearms. The reason for this is the extremely high risk of violence that exists when a person owns a firearm, one that is not present with the possession of any other type of item.
Third, there is a new licensing system. The permit authorizes acquisition of a firearm and the purchase of ammunition.
Finally, no doubt the most controversial aspect, and the one the Reform Party was opposed to, while we were in agreement with it, is of course the mandatory registration of firearms of all kinds, including shotguns and hunting rifles.
So, there is the structure. But, here again, I repeat, I do not think this is a bill that threatens basic freedoms. This leads me to talk about organized crime.
As a political party, we believe that organized crime is a huge organization and that there is no one way of getting rid of it. Naturally, we know that there are different levels of organized crime and that certain conditions foster the proliferation of organized crime.
There are, generally, three. First, there must be some wealth in the society. It is clear that Canada and Quebec meet this criterion. Organized crime also needs a society that has communication networks, airports, railways, highways, etc. In other words, it must be possible to connect quickly with another continent because, as we know, organized crime is a global reality. It is a fact of globalization, as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean would put it.
Organized crime also proliferates in a society with bureaucracies, charters and legal guarantees that often result in delaying tactics being used in relation to court proceedings.
Organized crime is a very present reality in the Canadian society. It is estimated that the underground economy is an industry that generates close to $20 billion.
There is a connection to be made between registering firearms and our desire, as parliamentarians, to fight against organized crime.
Since my time is up, I reaffirm the Bloc Quebecois' support for Bill C-68's underlying philosophy. We believe that gun control is desirable. We are not prepared to support the Reform Party bill before us today.
Gilles Bernier Progressive Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-278.
The events that took place in Taber, Alberta, have shocked Canadians with the realization that brutal violence and killing is not limited to the United States. Even more shocking is the fact that the corrupting effects of an increasingly violent society have now forever altered our schools, once safe places of learning.
In the wake of this tragedy we must attempt to maintain reason. Horrific events such as the shooting in Taber often provoke the knee-jerk reaction of demanding stricter gun control laws. As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party I can state that we support gun control. However, tragedies such as the shooting in Taber provoke the government to act on emotion, not on logic. Emotional responses to tragic situations lead us to ineffective, irresponsible legislation like Bill C-68.
Bill C-68 was drafted in response to society's demand for a tougher stand on crime. Instead of dealing with the issue of crime in a meaningful way, the government took the easy way out in touting Bill C-68 as the answer to its concerns. Bill C-68 has done nothing to prevent crime and has only led to discriminatory practices toward law-abiding gun owners by the federal government.
The government should have committed to sensible gun control legislation that did not discriminate against long gun owners by forcing them into expensive, time consuming and fundamentally flawed gun registration. By doing this the government would not have need for an escape clause bill that would allow it to correct bad legislation every five years.
The PC Party supports Bill C-278 as we feel it provides for the expiry of Bill C-68 after five years. Yet it will be five years during which law-abiding responsible gun owners will suffer due to Bill C-68. Since the cause of gun owners is not a popular one among Liberals, it is easy for the government to ignore their concerns and produce regionally popular although universally ineffective gun control legislation like Bill C-68. This has been especially true since the crisis in Ottawa on April 6.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 they have tried to paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control legislation through basic simplistic terms which play on the fears of a public fearful for its own safety. For example, the Liberals will promote their anti-gun legislation by stating “guns kill people”, “guns make people fear for their safety”, and “if we get rid of guns our problem will be solved”.
The government seems to conveniently ignore the fact that guns do not kill people. Enraged individuals in need of counselling kill people. The government does not want people to know that handguns, not long guns, are the weapons of choice for most criminals. It has neglected to remember that the majority of long gun owners are responsible gun owners and law-abiding citizens. Thus upon looking at these Liberal champions of justice, it is abundantly clear that Liberal gun legislation does little to stop the real criminals and infringes upon the individual rights of responsible Canadians to own long guns.
The Liberals are already trying to amend the ineffective Bill C-68. Whether it is Bill C-278 or the old Bill C-68, the fact remains that the Liberal government's position on gun control is in constant flux. The most recent Liberal gun control legislation provides a great opportunity for Canadians to tell their elected representatives to get rid of Bill C-68 before the five year period has passed. Although Bill C-278 is a good idea, Canadians should not have to wait five years to get rid of ineffective legislation that does not take into account the opinions of constituents across the country.
The Liberal government seems only to be concerned with the opinions of its supporters who live primarily in urban Ontario. This only reaffirms the Progressive Conservative Party's consistent position concerning gun control. Whether it be the position taken by our former leader, the Hon. Jean Charest in the last parliament or during the last election; the position of our party throughout the debate on the old Bill C-68; or our position under our new leader, Mr. Clark, the unwavering opposition to any ill-conceived long gun registration is clear. The focus here should not waver.
The gun control debate is about long guns. It is about shotguns and rifles. It is against hunters and sportsmen. The Liberal government has continually failed to make legislative provisions for long gun owners. Thus I argue that Bill C-278 should be passed to allow for the removal of Bill C-68 in five year's time.
We would rather see the removal of Bill C-68 immediately. Yet, as they say, good things come to those who wait and thus we will be patient and place the PC Party's support behind Bill C-278.
One of the key commitments of the justice critic to the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—and it was mine as well—was to continue to oppose repressive Liberal gun control legislation. Such legislation is ineffective and an unproven mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates on and targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be using firearms. Bill C-68 does not affect the root causes of crime. Thus it is hoped that Bill C-278 will eventually correct this problem.
Bill C-278 is very timely. We heard the cries of thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners that assembled on the Hill before Christmas. There appears to be some opposition to what the government is attempting with its repressive gun control legislation. Our justice critic had the opportunity to personally meet with a number of representatives from organizations in his province of Nova Scotia and in my province of New Brunswick, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation, to review the negative impact which has already resulted from ineffective gun control legislation.
Businesses in the province of New Brunswick and like businesses in other provinces will be extremely and negatively affected by the implementation of continuing gun control legislation because, as we know, it will force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that will not impact on the criminal use of firearms.
We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. The Liberals have tried to further that by adding burdensome registration fees which amount to nothing more than a tax. I might add that the Liberal government and its well intentioned allies have attempted to sell their issues on gun control as a question of crime.
The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white: proponents of bills such as a Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of such bills oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us make that perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in the House, anyone in the opposition who opposes gun control per se. Gun registration is about ineffective Liberal legislation and its effect on law-abiding citizens.
Firearm owners and I meet on a regular basis. They are some of the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible and supportive of effective measures when it comes to the handling of firearms. If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use guns for criminal purposes, let us toughen up the code sections. Let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.
It came to light last spring that the statistics used by the government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were seriously flawed, according to the commissioner of the RCMP. Words like exaggeration and misuse of statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice that it was simply a difference of methodologies. This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like to hear.
Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent years. In fact the government played a part in implementing some of those pieces of legislation.
Under the previous gun law applicants were required to obtain firearms application certificates which are called FAC licences. They were required to take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits.
Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and sport club members who were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of most military assault weapons were banned or restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearm handling safety courses. The previous laws also included stringent storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these regulations.
In conclusion, let us not continue to target law-abiding citizens with ineffective and indecisive legislation. Let us in fact target criminals. It will be a long and roundabout manner of doing so, but I suggest that by supporting Bill C-278 we can continue to point out the problems with Bill C-68. This continued debate will hopefully lead to the removal of Bill C-68 in the next five years.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is rather sad that we are still debating horrible legislation which was passed in 1995. It is a debate that never ends.
Even though we are in grave economic difficulties and the country is fighting an undeclared war, whenever I go back to my constituency and visit the coffee shop or walk down the street people still ask what we will do about the idiotic registration law. It never dies.
I diverge a little from my colleague who has proposed the bill, although I support it. The time the studies should have been made was before the bill was passed, not after the fact. We had a bill that was based on prejudice, public hysteria and deliberately falsified data. It was all brought together under a closure motion. That was one of the blackest days in the House. It is something for which democracy is paying dearly.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said that he did not see anything in the bill that would affect the civil rights of Canadians. I wonder if the right to entry and search without a warrant and the right to seize lawfully owned private property without compensation constitute no threat to the general public.
I said some studies should have been done before the legislation was passed. I took the initiative to do something in this regard. I did a very detailed study of the crime statistics over a 20 year period for the northern tier states of the northwestern U.S. as opposed to the Canadian prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I thought, as a resident of southern Saskatchewan, I would find that the rates of homicide in those two rather different jurisdictions would be more or less equal. I discovered to my surprise that the homicide rates in those northern tier states were actually lower than in our three western Canadian provinces where we have had gun control of a sort since 1976.
In those northern tier states they call it gun control because they have a law on the books in Montana that says you cannot take your machine gun away from your own property. It is wide open and yet their homicide rate is lower than ours and has been for the last 20 years, if one takes the average of those northern states and of our western provinces.
Interestingly, when I was doing this study, I discovered that North Dakota has historically had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people. Maine, another state adjacent to Canada but not included in my study, also has that 1.2 per 100,000. That is roughly the same order of magnitude as the homicide rates in Japan where private ownership of firearms is virtually banned. One can make what one wants of that. It is a fact.
On the other hand, in that great land to the south the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia has what is probably the toughest regulations governing firearms of any jurisdiction in the western world, far tougher than we have in Bill C-68, and yet its homicide rate is astronomical. It is 80 per 100,000 per annum. That is like a war zone and yet they have these extremely rigorous control of firearms.
New York City is another example. Both state and city laws control firearms. Yet the homicide rate there is more than 10 times what it is in the wide open states of North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
That is the type of study that should have been performed relative to the Canadian experience before we got involved in this hysterical pursuit of a magic fix to do away with crime in this country, but it was not done.
In recent years there have been several academic studies made of this particular question, most notably by Dr. Manzer at Simon Fraser University, Dr. Lott at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Kleck from the school of criminology at Florida State University. These academics have all agreed and determined that the existence of a law requiring the registration of firearms has no particular effect, either detrimental or beneficial, to the prevalence of murder in any society. These are eminent academics.
If the government does not want to consult academics, it would have been worthwhile had the government listened to rank and file police officers rather than to the national association of police chiefs when it went for police input. Some very good polling has been done by the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers of its members. It was discovered that lo and behold 75% of them are opposed to the legislation in Bill C-68. Ninety-one per cent of serving RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are opposed to the legislation. These are the people who are out there on the front lines every day. These are not the political policemen.
I had a phone call not too long ago from an RCMP sergeant whom I know fairly well. He said, “There is a whole bunch of people milling around my office today. I have this big lineup at my door”. I asked what the problem was, what was going on. He said, “All the Hell's Angels in town have come around and they are trying to get their possession and acquisition certificates and they all want to get them on the same day”. Perhaps there was a little hyperbole in the man's statement, but I certainly got his message.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment quoted what she referred to as the positive impacts of this legislation. She should go back and take a look at this legislation and all previously existing legislation because background checks have been a fact of life in Canada for many years. It is not something that was brought in with Bill C-68 and she should know that. To say that there has been a positive effect from this new legislation is not true.
At the same time she set up quite a number of straw men. She said something about the people who are supporting this bill wanted to decontrol the private ownership of automatic weapons. I reread the bill immediately after she said that to see if I could find some reference of that nature and I am sorry, but it is not there.
All the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is asking is that after five years from January 1 this legislation be revisited, that some proper studies be made of its effectiveness or lack thereof, and that the government then act upon those studies to determine whether or not the $50 million a year that this is going to cost us is a sensibly directed expenditure, if it is going to do any good.
The previous studies I have mentioned certainly suggest that it does no good at all.
I would like to read a brief comment from Professor Kleck who incidentally until 1976, according to his biography, was very skeptical to say the least about the right to gun ownership. He is a criminologist. He said that it was a sort of visceral reaction on his part to think that if there were fewer guns, there would be less crime. However, when he did his academic research, and he has been doing research like this for 20 years, here is what he said—
Firearms Law Sunset ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time. I know that there are other members who wish to speak in the debate. I am afraid I am going to have to terminate his speech at this time.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be making only a brief couple of comments. My colleague from the Reform Party has permitted me to split some time here, so I am grateful for that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment did point out one valid issue which is that it takes a little while for legislation, whatever the topic is, to actually have any kind of effect. I would argue that the government never let Bill C-17 make a positive effect in that regard.
Bill C-68 is a bad news bill because it makes no sense to register the long guns of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. The law enforcement officers in society today would rather have the $300 million plus that is going to be spent for better law enforcement initiatives than the arbitrary registration program in Bill C-68, which the Progressive Conservative Party and this hon. member definitely oppose.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, my comments will also to be very short.
We need to focus on what this bill actually says instead of much of the talk that has been going on here on the issue of gun control itself.
This private member's bill is a very important one. It says in the desire of Canadians to prevent the deaths and accidental deaths that come from improper use of firearms and also the criminal use of firearms, that Canadians, especially this week, demand and deserve that their money be spent where it is going to be effective.
My colleague's private member's bill focuses on it very well. It says that this bill should automatically expire after five years unless it is proven effective in doing the job. In other words, this is an issue which is certainly part of being a good steward of the taxpayers' money, but it goes much beyond that. It says that where we spend that money we want the job to be done right.
There should not be a Liberal in the House who would hesitate to vote for this bill. Surely they too would want to cause the fast expiry of any bill or any procedure which is proven ineffective. That is what this bill says about gun control, or whatever it is called. It is not really gun control. Right now it is a gun registration system. The control element is essentially non-evident in what the Liberal government is doing. The bill before us today is simply calling for that to be evaluated.
I will tell the House this. If there is empirical evidence of the effectiveness of what the Liberals are doing, I will vote for it. But if there is empirical evidence that it is ineffective, as we on this side suspect it will be based on scientific and statistical evidence, then I want to see that bill gone. I want the taxpayers' money to be spent and I want the government to be doing that which is truly effective in stopping the criminal misuse of firearms.
I cannot state this strongly enough. We were all shocked and horrified this week, as people in Ottawa were several weeks ago, by the blatant gunning down of innocent people by another person with a gun. Of course we want to stop that. How we wish those people had not had a gun. But is the result of that that we are simply going to confiscate all the firearms? I really have a problem with that.
We need to make sure that we are enacting effective legislation. I would urge all members to vote in favour of this.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the government has misrepresented what this bill does in the comments made that this bill will only give a few months for us to scrutinize firearms regulations. It clearly says in the bill that there are five years for the auditor general to assess the legislation. Then the government went on to defend Bill C-68 that it passed almost four years ago claiming it was effective.
The arguments made by the Liberals, if in fact they are true and we listened to them, should be open to the examination of the auditor general, an impartial party. The argument made by the government was that it was keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. If that is true, why not let the auditor general examine these laws and determine if it is true? That is only common sense.
The NDP did not participate in the discussion.
The Bloc Quebecois went on and spent much time arguing against my bill describing the problem of organized crime. My question for the Bloc Quebecois is what is there in Bill C-68 that will affect organized crime in any way, except perhaps to encourage gun use by criminals, smuggling and the black market?
In fact, Bill C-68 puts Canadians more at risk because it ties up scarce law enforcement resources rather than allowing them to be used most effectively such as in fighting organized crime. The Bloc should support my bill because it ensures our laws will become more effective.
In these last few minutes I would like to explain some of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of the government's current legislation.
The registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934 but neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP is able to produce any evidence to prove that this firearms registry has helped solve or prevent even one crime. In fact, the RCMP does not even collect statistics on whether a firearm used in a crime is registered. It is not a factor. It is almost as if the government did not want to know it was a failure.
Statistics Canada reports that 75% of all firearms crimes are committed with handguns and less than 7% with rifles and shotguns. Is it not time for the auditor general to look at why the registration of handguns has never worked as intended?
Over the years tens of thousands of guns have been restricted, registered, then prohibited by the government even though there has been no evidence to show that these firearms were involved in criminal incidents or were a threat to public safety. Many prohibited firearms have been confiscated from their rightful owners without compensation, breaking if we had them, property rights laws.
It is time to have the auditor general determine if this prohibition strategy is actually reducing crime, improving public safety or saving lives.
The firearms acquisition certificates have been mandatory since 1979 but this has not prevented criminals or madmen from getting firearms. Has it kept firearms out of the hands Marc Lépine or Valery Fabrikant or Denis Lortie or Mark Chahal or Pierre Lebrun and so on? Is it not time for the auditor general to examine the effectiveness of the government's licensing program?
If my bill or any version of it became law, it would force a constant improvement in this country's gun control laws. Gun control laws that do not work would be repealed. Gun control laws that are working would be retained and improved. There would be a dynamic process of change and improvement. We should not just have it here, we should have it in all legislation.
Most important, my bill would take the politics and the emotion out of the process of making gun control laws. Laws would be based on reason and logic and solid research. The public trusts the auditor general far more than it trusts politicians. I am willing to put our gun laws to the public safety test. Is the government ready to do the same?
I would like to thank everybody who participated today. Someone drew to my attention a comment made by somebody who thought that we needed more gun control laws. He did a thorough study. Gary Kleck said: “The research has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is, and must always be, indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary” and so on. We need to see if this is true.
Before this bill dies today, after all the arguments have now been heard, I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further review and examination. Let us send it to committee.
Firearms Law Sunset ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to refer the bill as requested?
Firearms Law Sunset ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.15 p.m.)