Jim Pankiw

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that question can be asked of almost anything this Liberal government does. Why has this government increased taxes 37 times in the last four years? Why does it impoverish middle income Canadians with their excessive tax burdens?

Those questions are harder to answer than the one regarding why it is pursing a firearms registration opposed by so many Canadians and which will clearly achieve no benefit to Canadians in that regard.

The answer to that question is because it views it as a tool, a first step in eliminating the legal ownership of firearms in Canada. In the Liberals' minds if they can have everyone register their firearms then they will know where those firearms are, what they are and they can systematically by order in council declare them prohibited and then confiscate them.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech, what we see from the criminal misuse of handguns is that first of all, criminals do not register their handguns. Second, the registration of a handgun does not prevent its theft by a criminal or subsequent use in a crime by that criminal.

I think by logical extension we can assume that the registration of hunting rifles will serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The costs that we will have to bear as a result of this registration system will be enormous.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in every jurisdiction in the world where a gun registration exists, not one case of a crime solved or prevented can be demonstrated.

I would also like to correct myself earlier. I believe the leader of official opposition will be resuming debate at the end of this question and answer session.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move the motion before us and to speak in favour of it.

It has been said that bad laws are the worst form of tyranny. What we have in Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, is legislation that violates the property rights of Canadians and is a colossal waste of our money.

The intended purpose of Bill C-68, quite frankly, is an insult to the three million firearms owners in Canada. The reason for what I have just said will become evident as we listen to the course of debate throughout the day.

Allow me to begin by explaining the motives of the Liberal government in pursuing a firearms registry.

It was the current health minister and former justice minister responsible for this legislation who said that it is his firm belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms.

Let us analyse that statement. What we have is a Toronto lawyer with no concept of what life is like in rural Canada. The minister is trying to lead Canadians to believe that criminalizing the legal ownership of firearms will somehow reduce crime.

Let us be clear. We are talking about hunting rifles and shotguns, not handguns. We have had a handgun registry since 1934 and we all know the extent to which crime has been reduced by that measure, do we not?

I would like the minister to explain what intellectually stunted logic he is using by making a farmer in Saskatchewan register his .22 rifle. Will that somehow help him to sleep better at night? Will it somehow reduce crime? How will that affect the criminal misuse of firearms?

The minister may not be aware of this fact but criminals do not register their guns nor do they break into people's homes and decide not to steal a gun because it is registered. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the criminal who does steal a firearm is not going to decide whether or not to use it in the commission of an offence based on whether it is or is not registered.

Not only does the former justice minister believe that Canadians should not be entitled to own firearms but Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs said that registration of hunting rifles is an important first step in socially re-engineering Canadians. The absurdity of that statement is self-evident. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from. They do not understand that to a farmer in Saskatchewan a .22 rifle is a tool. Toronto lawyers do not usually face rabid skunks walking on to their property. Then again many farmers in Saskatchewan would argue that a Toronto lawyer is a rabid skunk. In any event, the usefulness of a rifle as a tool to rural Canadians is very important. However, that fact may not be readily apparent to those who are trying to socially re-engineer Canadians.

What do they mean when they say that registration is a first step? Under Bill C-68 the justice minister can by order in council, in other words without coming before parliament, declare any firearm prohibited. What we have is a slippery slope. The minister can declare 10 gauge shotguns prohibited and they can be confiscated without compensation to the owners. Then it could be 12 gauge shotguns, 16 gauge, 20 gauge and eventually the elimination of all legal firearm ownership in Canada.

The motion we have put forward today covers an extensive list of deficiencies in this bill. I will speak to one aspect of the motion, Treasury Board cost benefit guidelines. According to Treasury Board policy when the government is preparing to establish new regulations it must provide a cost benefit analysis of those regulations. The policy states specifically: “When regulating, regulatory authorities must ensure that benefits outweigh the costs to Canadians, their governments and businesses, and the limited resources available to government are used where they will do the most good”.

The new gun registration system established under Bill C-68 has failed the Treasury Board test. In particular, the government has left a number of important questions unanswered. For instance, what is the approximate number of individuals to be licensed? The government does not know. What is the approximate number of firearms to be registered? That is undetermined. What will the impact on businesses and the economy be? It is Yet to be seen. How many jobs will be lost? How many business closures will there be? Again we do not know. Will these regulations improve public safety? Clearly the evidence before us which we will see today is very strongly in the negative.

With these questions unanswered it is impossible to determine the cost effectiveness of registration. Despite this, the government is pushing ahead with its registration plan. The reason is that it is the government's first step in eliminating legal firearm ownership in Canada.

Registration was supposed to begin October 1 but that date has been pushed back to December 1. The registration system was originally projected to cost $85 million. Cost projections are now well over $120 million. Some are estimating the system will actually cost over $500 million. Considering these huge sums of money I think we could agree this money could be better spent on areas such as health care, education and tax cuts to lower and middle income Canadians who are burdened excessively by the high spending ways of this Liberal government. The government did not do a cost benefit analysis of this legislation because it did not want to impede its efforts to eliminate legal firearm ownership in Canada.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has seconded my motion. I urge all members of this House to listen very carefully not only to what I have said and not only to the analysis of the legislation that we are about to hear from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville but to all hon. members who speak in support of this motion today.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

moved:

That this House condemns the governement for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearm registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a) confiscates private property; (b) contains unreasonable search and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury Board cost/benefit guidelines; (d) represents a waste of taxpayers dollars; (e) is an affront to law-abiding firearms owners; and (f) will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in firearms.

[Request For Emergency Debate, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to raise was in anticipation of what you said about the timing not being right. I believe that the timing is crucial because if the Alberta Court of Appeal brings its ruling down—

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks today by commending the hon. member for Kelowna for the job he did as the chief industry critic in our last session. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona who took over where the hon. member left off as the chief industry critic. I am sure he will do just as good a job. I look forward to working with him over the course of the next year.

In keeping with the request of the hon. member for Markham, I will restrict my comments to the group 1 amendments. All I really have to say is that I oppose the amendments.

This bill will maintain the criminal prosecution of deceptive marketing practices, but in less serious cases, for example where an individual or a corporation is unaware of the law, there will be an opportunity to deal with those cases through fines, through cease and desist orders or by means of information notices. That is preferable because it just provides much more flexibility in dealing with those types of cases.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, Question No. 78 was placed on the Order Paper and on March 5, Question No. 79 was placed on the Order Paper. This is my second point of order on these questions.

I waited seven months on a production of papers motion and I have never received the information. I wonder if I am going to be stonewalled on these questions as I was on the previous motion.

The outgoing information commissioner, John Grace, said today that the Liberal culture of secrecy is worse than in the Mulroney government. Seven months for the production of papers is unacceptable. I want these questions answered. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me when I will receive a response to these questions.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously the House was really enjoying the question and answer session with the hon. member for Mississauga West, so I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue the question and answer session with the hon. member for five or 10 minutes, whatever the Chair sees fit.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been illustrating the reason we are going to be here until four in the morning. We are actually going to be here until four in the morning because of a Liberal motion.