Andy Mitchell

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like it to be recorded as voting against Motion No. 227.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to record that I will be voting in favour of that amendment.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear as well that I am voting in favour of Motion No. 10.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would be helpful when the government whip rose if he stated which motion number it was applying to.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments.

As I was saying before question period, one of the concerns that has been brought forward to many members in the House has been the issue of the legitimate use of firearms. There is a concern that some of the provisions contained in Bill C-68 could be used to curtail what in essence is legitimate activity by legitimate firearms owners.

There are a number of activities undertaken that are historical in nature, that actually represent a way of life and a lifestyle we have come to know and enjoy in rural Canada, in my case in rural Ontario.

Hunting for sustenance has a long history. Hunting for sport has been done in my riding for generations and generations. It is important to the psyche where one generation passes its firearms and the whole tradition of hunting to the next generation.

Hunting is important in terms of economics as I mentioned when I spoke earlier. A large number of individuals travel to my riding and make use of the great facilities we have there. Of course trapping is important as an economic generator. Other recreational activities like target shooting are also important and for many people the collecting of firearms.

It is important we ensure the provisions contained in Bill C-68 do not curtail such activities. For the most part they are designed to do what I fully support and what I know other government members support: control violence in Canadian society. That is the legitimate objective of the legislation, one that I support.

If regulations are put forward that achieve public safety in their implementation and that help to reduce violence in society, most Canadians and legal firearm owners would be quite willing to support that. For the most part many of the regulations in this legislation do that. However some legitimate concerns have been expressed that need to be addressed and of which we need to be cognizant.

There is the issue of cost. Many people who participate in hunting are not wealthy individuals. They either hunt for sustenance or they hunt for sport. We have to be very careful not to create a regulatory regime or a costing structure that will some day make it impossible for these individuals to pursue hunting.

Although the government has done a good job in setting out a fee schedule that is modest, I have concerns that it stay that way and that firearm owners are not going to be faced with high costs down the road.

I have a concern which I know is shared by many of my rural colleagues and by many legal owners of firearms: that provisions in this legislation could be used at some point in the future. The government has stated unequivocally that it is not its intention to do that but there is concern that people can use the provisions in the legislation to at some time prohibit firearms that are normally used for recreational purposes.

This is a genuine concern. It is something that has been expressed by a lot of people. We need to put something in the legislation that makes it absolutely crystal clear that it is not the intent of Bill C-68 to restrict the legitimate use of firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting, target shooting and collecting. It is absolutely essential that we make sure that it is not done.

Although most individuals will accept the regulations contained in the bill that are designed to increase public safety, although most individuals will accept those provisions that will ensure they attempt to curtail violence, it is important that we place within the body of the bill a safeguard, a provision that explicitly states that nothing in the legislation is intended to curtail the legitimate use of firearms.

I will read the amendment:

That nothing in this act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this act, from

(a) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting, trapping or other lawful activity, or

(b) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.

It is absolutely essential that we make it clear that nothing in Bill C-68 is to be used to curtail the legitimate use of firearms. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am cognizant this will be a two part process.

The amendments in this third group deal with what I believe to be one of the most significant concerns which was expressed by my constituents and was expressed generally in much of the testimony given in front of the justice committee. They reflect to a great extent much of the correspondence most of us in this House have received from the Canadian public. Quite frankly, they mention the concern that the legislation is not necessarily going to do what it is intended to do which is to control violence in Canadian society, or it will achieve that to some extent but in doing so will affect legitimate firearms owners.

There are many activities that firearms owners undertake in Canada which are legitimate, longstanding and traditional. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka hunting has been an important sport for many years. It is an important economic generator. It brings large numbers of people to our area every year.

I can see that we are approaching the time for question period. I will finish later.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended a ) by replacing line 17, on page 4, with the following:

"4(1) The purpose of this Act is"; and b ) by adding after line 18, on page 5, the following:

"(2) Nothing is this Act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this Act, from a ) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting, trapping or other lawful activity, or b ) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.''

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk at debate on Bill C-68 on my amendment which, like a couple of the others presented, calls for a review of this legislation. I have suggested a period of five years.

The purpose of the legislation, the intent of the minister and of the government to attempt to curb violence in Canadian society is a worthwhile objective and the legislation in many respects addresses that.

There are items in the legislation that have beyond a shadow of a doubt proven to have an opportunity to do that; increasing the penalties for the commission of certain violent acts with a firearm, increased penalties for possession of stolen firearms, increased penalties for smuggling, all of which most of us accept. The idea of more policing of the borders is a proven thing which most people would support.

On the other hand there is the question of universal registration of all firearms, going beyond what we have now which is for handguns only. There is an open question whether that provision will achieve the purpose of the bill which is to reduce violence in Canadian society.

I and many Canadians believe that with any piece of legislation there has to be a balance. There has to be a relationship between what is being done, the cost and what the result will be. There are four areas we should take a look at and which I intend to address briefly in this speech. We must look at what registration is likely to do and what is not likely to do, what it will cost and what it may do. There is a difference between what it will do and what it may do.

What is registration attempting to do? It is trying address what we know, that a firearm normally begins its life as a legal firearm and through its lifetime it goes through a process and becomes illegal. Registration is an attempt to arrest that process. It is not an attempt once a firearm becomes illegal to stop somebody from using it in a certain way. That will not happen. It is an attempt to stop the process of going from legal to illegal. It does that a number of ways.

A large number of thefts occur from bulk shipments. Registration will record those items as they reach the border and then can be tracked to their point of destination and hopefully stop theft from those shipments.

It will give police an opportunity better enforce prohibition orders issued by judges. Under this legislation and previous legislation a judge can put a prohibition order on individuals to stop them owning firearms based on their past behaviour, for instance being convicted of a serious criminal offence. Registration will make it easier for a police officer to know exactly what firearms they want to collect and execute the prohibition order.

On safe storage, if somebody has a firearm stolen from his or her dwelling and it is used in a criminal offence there will be the possibility to trace it back exactly from where it came. That might encourage certain people to practise better safe storage.

The licensing part of the registration system will give authorities the opportunity to examine somebody's past behaviour and to determine whether it should preclude them from owning a firearm. Those are some of the things registration is likely to do.

There are some things it will not do and people should be clear on this as well. Once a criminal has a firearm in their possession, whether it is registered is very unlikely to stop them from committing a criminal act. That is not what registration will do. Anybody with that in their mind is probably mistaken.

If somebody is intent on doing harm to themselves and is in possession of a firearm, that the firearm is or is not registered will probably not have a lot to do with the actions of that person. The registration part is to stop the process from becoming illegal. Once the firearm is illegal the legislation will not have a lot of impact.

There are some concerns about what it may do. I am concerned it will increase the cost of hunting. A lot of individuals in my riding hunt. It will preclude them from participating in that sport. On a more broad basis, hunting is an important economic activity in my riding which is pursued by a lot of people. A lot of individuals come into the area and spend their money on lodging

et cetera. The concern is whether it will decrease the number of people who will participate in that.

The fear of many legitimate firearm owners is whether this system of registration in the hands of a future government may be used to prohibit firearms normally used in recreational activities. It is a concern they genuinely hold and one we need to address and take into account when looking at this legislation.

We must look at cost. The cost individually to begin with will not be that high, $10 for up to 10 firearms plus acquiring an FPC. There is the concern that if that is the opening cost what will the cost be in five years, ten years, fifteen years. It is a legitimate concern not just with firearms but with anything that has a fee attached to it.

There is also a concern about the global cost for it. It is set at $85 million to implement and then there will be a cost to keep it in place. That has to be a concern in a day and age when we have fiscal challenges facing us as a government.

There are a number of considerations we have to take into account. We have to take into account what registration will do. We have to understand what it will not do. We have to understand what it may do or at least have an appreciation of what it may do. We also have to understand what it may cost. We need to evaluate considering all of those components.

Will it stop violence? Will it be reasonable? Will it hurt legitimate firearms owners? Those are the things we need to know. Those are things being debated in the House, things quite frankly that have been debated for the last year. I do not think it will possible at this point to get any clear consensus on that or a clear understanding.

In that respect I have proposed an amendment which will mandate a review after five years so we will have an opportunity as Parliament to understand whether the legislation is achieving its objective to curb violence in society and understand whether we need to modify or change it to make it more effective in order to have an understanding as to whether some of those negative consequences or concerns put forward will take place.

Therefore I urge my colleagues in the House today to help and assist me by voting for this amendment requiring a review of the legislation.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-68, be amended by adding after line 28, on page 134, the following new Clause:

"185.1 No later than January 1, 2001, the federal Minister shall prepare a report on the effectiveness of this Act in reducing the incidence of indictable offenses involving the use of a firearm and lay the report before the House of Commons."

[Safe Boating Week, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark safe boating week in Canada, which runs June 4 to 10.

The week marks the kick off to a summer long public awareness campaign designed to encourage responsible boating. Boating safety is an issue of particular concern to the constituents of my riding, especially now with the summer tourist season upon us. There have been far too many boating accidents and fatalities in our waterways in the past. These tragedies affect us all and we must do all we can to prevent them.

Last year the Minister of Justice assured my constituents that boating regulations would be enforced on our waterways this summer. Last week in the House the minister re-emphasized his commitment to the implementation of a system to improve the safety of boaters on our waters in Ontario.

I urge Canadians everywhere to enjoy their time on the lakes this summer and to make safe boating practices standard with their families.