Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate this motion today. I want to thank my hon. friend, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for bringing forward the motion.
I would respectfully argue that the motion brought forward for debate today is actually the reverse of what it should read. The current motion brought forward by the member states that we should eliminate the amnesty period and maintain the long gun registry. I would respectfully argue it should be reversed. We should maintain the amnesty and eliminate the long gun registry.
My hon. colleague from Oxford went over a number of points on the intent of the amnesty. Not to reiterate everything my hon. colleague said just a few moments previously, I will make a couple of quick points.
The purpose of the amnesty is quite clear. It is to try and get those firearm owners currently in non-compliance with the law back into compliance. In other words, all we are trying to do by having an amnesty for a year is to indicate to those firearm owners who are currently in non-compliance, those who have not licensed their firearms, that they would not be prosecuted if they renewed their licence. We are trying to encourage more people to become compliant with the law. That is the purpose of the amnesty.
The larger question, I would argue, is the long gun registry itself and why it is totally ineffective, and even more so, the abhorrent costs upon the taxpayers of this country.
I would also point out, just for the sake of putting things into context and perspective, that back in 1995 when Bill C-68, the original gun registry bill, was first introduced, members of the Bloc Québécois debated that very bill in this place. I would point out for the record that 18 members of the Bloc Québécois voted against Bill C-68. They knew even then that the registry would be ineffective because we have always had a licensing system in this country.