Lynn Myers

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

It is very difficult to put a price tag on safety and security for the country. I know Canadians want us to proceed in a manner that is most efficient and appropriate to ensure a safe and secure country for all of us.

I know there will be a price to pay for that but it is an important underpinning of the very values and institutions that define us as Canadians and in my view unite us as a nation.

We are unlike opponents who would have us revert to some sort of American style in terms of shooting it out at high noon and all kinds of other outrageous and outlandish things, especially the Reform Party which should know better than to cosy up to those National Rifle Association types and others. Those members above all should know better but they do not.

The point is we on the government side know we must proceed in a manner that is in keeping with our historic and political culture and our historic and political values. I am proud that we are able as a government to do precisely that.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. In making the statements he did, I think the member really showed the true colours of the Reform Party which is that it panders the special interests and for crass political reasons. It is trying to do something here which is the opposite of what Canadians want. I believe that came through loud and clear.

However, we on this side of the House are doing it in the best interests of all Canadians. We are doing it for safety and security reasons for a society, a political culture that is distinct from the Americans and distinct from the kind of thing that the Reform Party would want to see in place. We are doing the right thing for the benefits not only of this great country of ours but for each and every Canadian who lives in it.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today contains a type of misleading information that we have come to expect from the opponents of this legislation.

Before I proceed I want to emphasize that Canadians understand that the Firearms Act and the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada in Bill C-68 are an investment in crime prevention which will preserve the culture of safety in Canada. I can tell all members that as former chairman of the Waterloo regional police I know this is correct and is very important.

It is not a surprise that 82% of all Canadians support the registration of all guns. Seventy-two percent of rural Canadians approve of registration. Seventy-eight percent of respondents say they approve of the act and almost half the gun owners approve of the Firearms Act as well. There is massive support for this legislation.

Our opponents who are clearly driving the resolution before this House today are a small minority of special interests out of touch with the main street Canada on this issue. It is most unfortunate but typical.

The resolution suggests that the government should be condemned for its refusal to replace Bill C-68. Let us review for a moment the background of how this legislation came to be. It was introduced in the House of Commons on February 14, 1995. Through successive debates including an extensive list of amendments brought to the bill in committee and in debate on third reading the bill was finally approved in December 1995.

The Firearms Act contains unprecedented provisions in section 118 which require that all regulations under the Firearms Act be tabled before both houses of parliament on the same day and that each of these regulations shall be referred by the Chamber to an appropriate committee which may conduct public hearings in respect to the regulations.

Two major sets of regulations were processed in this manner with the first set being tabled in November 1996, the second in October 1997. The standing committee reviewing the first set of regulations made 39 recommendations, 38 of which were accepted in whole or in part. In respect to the second set of regulations the standing committee again made 39 recommendations, 35 of which were accepted in whole or in part.

My point in this brief review is to ask the opposition why in view of the extensive parliamentary involvement in both the legalization and the regulations and in view of the number of changes and accommodations which were made as the legislation passed through the House would we even consider replacing Bill C-68. Why would we want to do that? Let us remember that this is legislation that enjoys the support of 82% of Canadians.

Those who support this motion would have us believe that this legislation does nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms. Opposition members may wish to consult the Criminal Code in this respect. A significant number of offences in the code were modified to carry a minimum punishment of imprisonment for four years. These Criminal Code offences were found under the headings of causing death by criminal negligence, manslaughter, attempt to commit murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Other offences are found for a variety of criminal offences including activities such as weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, automatic firearms importing and exporting, knowing it is unauthorized, and tampering with the serial number of a firearm.

We were very attentive to criminal activities in formulating the offence provisions of Bill C-68.

Members of the opposition, if they really took the time to study the issue, would also find that there have been a number of appeals of the four year minimum sentences that have taken place over the past two years. All of them have been upheld on appeal as appropriate sentencing, expressing the will of parliament. They also express the will of the Canadian people, 82% of whom support this legislation.

The opposition in its resolution suggests the government should abandon the policy of firearms registration. There are a number of excellent reasons why the registration of firearms is a good idea. Let me address a few of these at this time.

Every year an estimated 70,000 firearms are sold privately in Canada. At the same time a large number are stolen, lost or otherwise unaccounted for, for firearms circulate within Canada. The registration of all guns, rifles and shotguns as well as handguns will contribute to a reduction in the grey and the black market sales of guns and provide protection for both sellers and purchasers.

The licensing of firearms users is one of the central features of this legislation. Only people who are responsible and have not been within the past five years convicted of Criminal Code offences will be eligible to use firearms. If they have been convicted of an offence involving violence against a person, an offence involving criminal activity, the contravention of the Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act or if they have been treated for a mental illness that involves violence or other behaviour involving violence, then they will be caught by the licensing system.

People who sell guns should know to whom they are selling. If the person buying the gun has a licence there is some reasonable assurance that the person is a law abiding, responsible person.

Further, persons with licences will have completed and passed the Canadian firearm safety course and should have at least the basics in respect of the safe handling and use of firearms.

In summary, registration contributes to public safety by keeping guns away from people who should not have them. Many of the lost, stolen or missing firearms eventually come to the attention of the police. A system of registration can assist the police in returning these firearms to the rightful owners. Registration can assist in the private property return to legitimate owners who have been the victims of crime. Since licensed users will have shown not to have been involved in criminal activity and to be otherwise responsible, and since guns will be registered the police will have an invaluable tool to assist them in their fight against crime.

Opponents of the legislation contend that criminals will not register guns. We agree with that. The legislation through the licensing and registration provisions, however, will assist the police by providing them with additional tools to charge criminals and to address organized crime issues.

The registration system will provide police with an invaluable tool to trace firearms among former owners. The tracing of these firearms is an invaluable tool for the investigation of crime. It helps to identify traffickers in illegal firearms. It helps to identify illegitimate businesses and it provides through ballistic evidence a means to identify guns involved in previously unsolved crimes.

Registration increases the likelihood that criminal offenders will be charged and convicted for their crime. What parliamentarian would disagree with that?

Many guns come to Canada from the United States. The attitude in the United States with respect to guns is significantly different from that of Canada. It will come as no surprise that the illegal movement of firearms into Canada is a problem of considerable magnitude. The registration system will register guns coming into and leaving Canada and the movement of those guns within the country. Illegal shipments will be easier to stop. Customs officers will be able to identify shipments against the registration database. Any firearm imported into Canada for sale will be traceable through its history in Canada.

The reduction of firearms smuggling is an important way in which the Firearms Act and registration system can contribute to the reduction of crime.

The Firearms Act is all about the regulation of potentially lethal commodities while at the same time permitting legitimate use by responsible owners. The registration system created by the Firearms Act is an important part of Canada's effort to establish that our way of life and our values are the values of a peaceful and safe nation.

The opposition contends that the Firearms Act confiscates private property. We have said time and time again this legislation is about regulation, not confiscation.

This issue was referred by the province of Alberta, we know that. In particular, Alberta has asked its court of appeal if the licensing and registration provisions of the Firearms Act could be ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The outcome of this case will simply determine whether the constitutional powers of the Canadian government have been properly exercised in respect to this act. We will argue, as a matter of law, that it is in the order of peace, order and good government which are clear areas of federal jurisdiction. We hope that is the case and it most likely will be.

The residents of Waterloo—Wellington overwhelmingly support the government in this matter, as do most Canadians. The net result of the government's proactive approach in this matter is that Canada will have a far more safe and secure country.

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this Private Members' Bill. The purpose of this enactment is to amend the Criminal Code to permit legitimate research into a jury's deliberative process with a view to improving the administration of justice.

This bill is being introduced as a result of the Guy Paul Morin inquiry and the recommendations coming out of that inquiry made by Judge Kaufman pertaining to jury deliberations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, an act to amend the Criminal Code (public disclosure of the names of persons who have served a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of a sexual nature).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the bill this morning. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide a mechanism for public disclosure of the names of certain criminals when they have served their sentence of imprisonment.

Under this enactment a person who believes on reasonable grounds that another person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence of a sexual nature will commit the same offence or another offence of a sexual nature may, before the date fixed for the expiration of that person's sentence with the consent of the attorney general, lay an information before a provincial court judge.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion because I believe that any time spent by this House addressing the important work done by the Canadian forces is well spent.

In 1996 a similar motion was debated and at that time we did not support the suggestion that a vote be required before a deployment of Canadian forces abroad. This remains the view of the government.

Additional steps in the deployment process risk delaying our ability to respond. This must be avoided.

In the 1996 debate government emphasized its desire to engage parliament on troop deployments whenever possible. The government remains committed to this principle. A full discussion of any major deployment of Canadian forces is an important and valuable activity and we have engaged parliament on these matters.

In February of this year parliament debated the possible participation of Canadian forces in military action in the gulf against Iraq. The majority of this House supported a Canadian role if all diplomatic efforts were exhausted.

In April of this year the House debated the renewal of Canadian participation in NATO led stabilization forces in Bosnia. After thorough debate all parties agreed that Canadian troops should remain and continue the valuable work they are doing in that troubled country.

Also in April a special joint meeting of the committees on foreign affairs and defence was held discuss possible Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force in the central African republic. This option was chosen because of the need to make a decision and deploy troops as rapidly as humanly possible. Both ministers attended the special meeting and a unanimous resolution in favour of Canadian assistance was adopted.

This government has engaged parliament because that is what Canadians want. Canadians are proud of the role Canadian forces are playing abroad. They believe the world is a better place because of Canada's willingness to participate internationally.

Canadians also understand these missions can be very dangerous. As a result they expect their elected representatives to be engaged when a potential mission is being considered or an ongoing one renewed. We must take care, however, to ensure that Canada can react rapidly and effectively to international events. Why is this the case? It is because Canadians also demand that we have a defence policy that meets the challenges of the post-cold war era. This government has risen to that demand and our defence policy recognizes the new security conditions that shape the world of the 1990s.

It is worth noting that a special joint committee of this House and the Senate made an enormous contribution to developing this policy. The government rightly believed that the members of this House would play a valuable role in helping define how Canada should act in the new international security environment.

Canadian action in the new security environment includes continuing our great tradition as the world's pre-eminent peacekeepers. The peacekeeping contribution of Canadian forces is second to none and Canada's commitment to peacekeeping has never diminished.

By the end of the cold war 80,000 Canadian military personnel had served and it is hard to devise a list of peacekeeping missions, UN or otherwise, which does not include prominent Canadian participation.

Many have suggested that Canada wrote the book on peacekeeping. This expertise is still required in the post-cold war era. It is true that this new security environment has much to commend it. The end of the bipolar struggle between east and west was a very welcome development. The threat of global war has diminished and in this sense the world is a safer place.

However, in other senses safety is hard to find. Regional security issues remain and in some instances are more threatening than ever. Recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan are a good case in point. As well, we have seen the collapse of states into anarchy, and the cost in human terms has been staggering.

Conflicts fueled by ethnic nationalism have become a depressingly constant story in the daily news. These problems are demanding the attention of the international community. They are too horrifying simply to ignore.

By way of conclusion let me then say in most circumstances where a mission is about to be launched or where the government is considering renewal of an existing commitment, there will be time to engage parliament either through debate in the House or through the appearances of ministers and officials before standing committees.

The government will continue to take advantage of the views of the House. It is vitally important that the government retain the ability to act quickly and decisively where needed and when needed.

The now well established practice of consulting parliament in this regard has served us well. We do not support the motion because it risks delaying our ability to respond. I ask all members to take note of that accordingly.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

I reject outright the premise that the registration system will not work. It will work. It will be a very effective one which will be for the benefit of all Canadians.

Perhaps the hon. member was not listening when I said this in direct answer to his question. We are not about to penalize legitimate people in terms of gun ownership, farmers, hunters and others.

For example, I live on the family farm. We have those kind of things that are required from time to time. We are not after those kinds of people. They will be licensed and we will keep track of what they have. That is a reasonable thing to do. From an overall macro point of view what we are doing as a government is ensuring that the streets will be safer and police will have the capability to do their work. Ultimately, we as a caring community and by extension a caring society will have a far, far better place and a far, far better Canada.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Anything we as a society, anything we as a government, anything we as a country can do to ensure there are not firearms on the streets in whatever form will make our society a safer place. I and most Canadians do not want to go down the path of the Americans in this regard. We do not want the kind of crime that exists in the United States. Our values and system of norms and what we hold dear as a society are very strong.

As a society we need to ensure we take weapons out of the hands of people who commit crime. In doing that we have put in place the kind of laws which enable us to do that. They ensure Canada remains distinct in this area, rightfully so, and in the process allows police to do the kind of work they are best charged to do, to get back on the streets and make sure our communities are safe and sound for everyone. Canadians deserve that and we owe that to our young people.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

I understand only too well the issue with respect to firearms and the Firearms Act. I sat for 10 years as a member of the Waterloo regional police commission. As chairman of the Waterloo regional police we were very much in favour of having this type of legislation in place which would prevent and assist in terms of prevention of crime throughout not only our community with approximately 500,000 people but across Ontario and across Canada.

What amazed me was that the member's party during the last election would try to out reform the Reform Party on this very contentious issue. Instead it should have been leading with us in the vanguard to ensure that the streets were safe, criminals were put away and firearms were protected in a manner consistent with the values and norms of society.

The Canadian people do not like that, do not want that and do not respect that. What the Canadian people would rather see is our society as a safe and caring one with caring communities in a manner consistent with what we as Canadians value.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a success story when it comes to the economy and how we as a government handle the finances of the nation. This success is not only recognized as such within Canada but is certainly recognized in international circles as well.

To achieve this there had to be and has to be balance between federal services, deficit control, debt management, economic growth and other factors. I was quite amazed to note the motion of the opposition member to reduce justice estimates.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough proposes to vote down the operating expenditures of the Department of Justice. If the House approves that motion it would prevent the Department of Justice from conducting its statutory responsibilities.

The $193.8 million in operating expenditures required in 1998-99 will allow the department to carry out its responsibility for the legal affairs of the government as a whole and to provide legal services to individual departments and agencies. More specifically these funds will enable the department to continue to meet its responsibilities under three lines. The first is the provision of services to the government. The second is the policy development and administration of the law and the third is administration.

There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has lead responsibility. They are criminal justice policy, family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce, and human rights policy. The department also has a lead role in constitutional law, administrative law, aboriginal justice, access to information and privacy law, official languages law and the government's mandate for courts and judges.

The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for more than 40 statutes, many of them with major policy ramifications. The department must anticipate future legal and societal trends in order to provide timely strategic and effective responses, to provide leadership both to the government and the public in understanding the changing legal world, and to provide guidance in achieving governmental objectives in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness, equality, accessibility, and effective and efficient legal policy.

The justice department provides a range of services relating to the planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and implementation of justice related policies. The justice department is moving forward with a balanced and focused policy agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have identified as being important to them.

Some of the areas the department is working on includes the crime prevention strategy, youth justice, victims and the rights of victims, conditional sentencing, firearms control and many others. I will elaborate on firearms control. I want to point out that effective implementation of the firearms control program is among the Department of Justice's highest priorities. The regulations required to implement the system have been made following scrutiny of both houses of parliament and the system will be functional by October 1, 1998.

Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of the Firearms Act is aimed at facilitating the continued enjoyment of sport by responsible owners using safe practices. This will decrease the risk of gratuitous violence and will promote a culture which recognizes safety and responsibility.

The new firearms legislation is a positive and effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by the government to further a safe and secure society. The gun control legislation has the support of a large majority of Canadians as we all know and is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

The Firearms Act is legislation which its opponents seem determined to distort and misrepresent in addition to denying its many benefits. Certainly that is most unfortunate. The law imposes tough criminal penalties on those who choose to use firearms in the commission of crimes. Even the opponents of the legislation endorse its strong crime prevention aspects. The minimum penalties, four years in most cases, inserted into the Criminal Code for offences committed with firearms send a strong deterrent message, a message which has been upheld at every state to date by the courts.

This statute is all about regulating lethal instruments, articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is not about confiscation. It recognizes that the vast majority of firearms owners and users are responsible and prudent people. The practices embodied in the statute reflect the prudent practices of those responsible people.

The statute strives to encourage a culture of safety in Canada, a culture which is well ingrained in the activities and responsibilities of firearm owners.

The legitimate practices of those responsible owners can all be continued under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt, target shooters can continue to shoot targets, buyers and sellers can continue their activities, collectors and museums can continue to function and thrive, and responsible owners who carry out their activities safely have certainly nothing to fear in the new gun control legislation.

Many of our opponents advocate a situation representing and respecting firearms such as that which exists in the United States. It is worthy to note there are 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada. A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involves firearms. On average 65% of homicides in the United States involve firearms as opposed to 33% in Canada.

Firearm homicide rates per capita in the United States are 7.6 times higher than in Canada. This is unacceptable. The United States environment respecting guns does not correspond to the vision of Canadians.

The Firearms Act addresses another crucial social situation, domestic violence. The Firearms Act requires licensing and screening of gun owners and will result in specific checking of probation orders and prohibition orders before licences are granted.

When fully implemented, all firearms owners will be licensed. They will have taken a course emphasizing the safety and safe handling aspects of their sport. The guns they use will be registered and this will assist the police in enforcement functions and in tracing the illegal movement or transfer of firearms. It will encourage owners to store their guns carefully and it will assist in the recovery of lost and stolen firearms.

The new system will reduce by half the paper work and administrative tasks which are today performed by police, and this will put police back on the streets where they belong.

The Firearms Act embraces all these things and is a positive and effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by our government to further a safe and secure society. The Firearms Act has the support of a large majority of Canadians and is reflective of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

By way of conclusion, I believe the department is managing its resources responsibly and the department's policy will have an impact on Canadians' confidence in their justice system.

In addition, the role of the Department of Justice in advising the government on legal issues and in conducting litigation on behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole.

The department therefore should be given the means to conduct its responsibilities and I urge all members of the House to vote accordingly on this measure.