Mr. Speaker, I will begin by touching on the inconsistencies that I see and the reasoning behind this bill.
Inconsistencies always bother me because fact should support fact and truth should support truth. An inconsistency indicates that fact is not supporting fact. I am concerned about that.
The two inconsistencies are these. If the justice minister and the government truly believe that the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms and save lives, why are we waiting until the year 2003 to make it mandatory? Why are we waiting that long to begin to save lives and create a safer society?
The other inconsistency is that 58 per cent of the handguns that have been legally acquired and legally held are to be banned. Why? Because they pose a danger to society. Yet those handguns are not to be taken from society, they are to left in society. They are to be grandfathered.
Why would the government, if it honestly believes that 58 per cent of handguns held today in society are a danger to society, then why would it allow them to remain in society?
I will have more to say at third reading about the bill. I will begin my address to Bill C-68 at report stage by taking cognizance of those two very glaring inconsistencies behind the rationale of the bill as presented by the government.
I am opposed to a system of registration of rifles and shotguns as outlined in Bill C-68. I am also opposed to the draconian inspection powers and the absurd penalties provided for anyone who fails to register a rifle or a shotgun.
Canada has some of the most stringent gun regulations in the world now. Some 60 pages in the Criminal Code deal with the acquisition, ownership and use of firearms, and we want to add a whole bundle more.
We do not need further controls on law-abiding gun owners. We need the enforcement of the present laws and to get tough with the criminal use of firearms. Canadians have been demanding changes to the justice system in this country for years. All they have received are weak-kneed, bleeding heart policies that further erode the objective of justice, which is to reduce crime.
The present and past governments have used gun control to make Canadians believe they are doing something about crime in Canada when they are not.
Bill C-68 is not a gun control bill. It is not going to control guns; it is going to register them. There is a huge difference between the two.
Bill C-68 is nothing more than a pretence that the government is making our homes and streets safer and getting tough on criminals.
I recall Lynda Haverstock, the leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, when she appeared before the standing committee stated in effect that the federal government was spreading misinformation by claiming Bill C-68 would reduce suicide and domestic violence that involved firearms. I agree with this observation.
The bill creates false hopes in the minds of Canadians about what it will do in terms of making our homes and streets safer, hope that will never be realized through this bill because it does not address the cause of suicide or the cause of domestic violence.
As the auditor general concluded in his 1993 report: "Our review of the new regulations indicated that important data needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness of the regulations were not available at the time the regulations were drafted. The government proceeded with new regulations for reasons of public policy".
The government is doing exactly the same thing. There is not a statistical justification for bringing in a universal registration system, and yet we see that as the central pillar in Bill C-68.
The voters have awakened. They cannot be placated by pretentious pieces of legislation. Canadians want concrete measures effectively aimed at reducing crime. The Ontario and Manitoba elections demonstrate quite clearly that the citizens of these provinces reject the Liberal form of justice. They reject the Liberal tendencies to make offenders' rights supersede the rights of victims.
Canadians must be able to see that the measures introduced by the government will meet the objective of reducing crime before legislation is passed, not after. Through common sense appraisal of the law they must be able to see that it will be of benefit to them, their families and their communities.
The justice minister has not provided any statistical information to justify the implementation of these draconian measures in this bill, although he has repeatedly been asked to do so. He has not effectively demonstrated the link between registering firearms and a reduction in crime. That is what the attorneys general from the three western prairie provinces addressed when they appeared before the standing committee. There was no linkage they could see between the registration of rifles and shotguns and the reduction in the criminal use of these firearms.
Not one witness who appeared before the standing committee could provide any substantive evidence that registration would reduce the criminal use of these firearms. No one could demonstrate how registration, the banning of .25 and .32 calibre handguns, the new licensing regime or the intrusive inspection powers will diminish the number of firearm crimes in this country.
What they did inadvertently illustrate was an unrealistic fear of firearms and an idealistic notion that by restricting ownership of firearms, criminals, those people who thrive on obtaining a valuable object to sell on the black market, would somehow be thwarted by such regulatory acts aimed at honest citizens, people who have owned and used firearms for years in a safe and legal manner.
To date it seems the only impetus for Bill C-68 is to fulfil the justice minister's original and unrealistic thought to have only the police and military possess firearms in this country.
Time today does not permit me to address and debate each of the Reform's amendments. The time allocation imposed by the Liberal government with the co-operation of the separatist Bloc party for both the report stage and the third reading of this bill denies me and my colleagues the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate our amendments or to represent the concerns of our constituents.
I object to the shameful and undemocratic methods employed by the government to ram this bill through Parliament. It is no secret that the government is having trouble keeping its caucus together on this issue. The threat of being kicked off a committee is hanging over every Liberal's head if they dare to represent their constituents by voting against the government and in accordance with the will of the majority of the people they represent.
I think the government is terrified to allow its MPs the opportunity to go home for the summer to consult constituents on Bill C-68, Bill C-41, or the government's pension bill. It knows that the more Canadians learn about Bill C-68, as was the case for the Charlottetown accord, the stronger the opposition will grow.
So much for the competence of the government. So much for the rhetoric that it has the support of Canadians. If it had the majority of Canadians on its side it would not be moving so quickly to have this bill passed, especially given the fact it will not be implemented until the year 2003.
Reform is opposed to Bill C-68 in many of its forms. Therefore, we will be voting against the vast majority of this bill at third reading. Our amendments tabled before the House are an attempt to make this draconian legislation more palatable for those firearm owners who will be burdened by red tape, costly controls of privately owned property, and intrusion into their lives.
Reforms' amendments in no way concede to the principle of more gun regulations in this country. We still maintain and are adamant that there is no need for the registration of rifles and shotguns.
I will have more time at third reading to address the concerns of our party with regard to this bill, which are reflected by the people all across the country.
I was in Stratford this weekend, and last weekend I was in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. I have spoken to approximately 35,000 to 38,000 Canadians across the country who have all expressed the very same views and concerns. They are prepared to do whatever is reasonable and underlaid with common sense to bring about a safer use of firearms. However, they do not believe this bill will do that. They believe that it will do quite the opposite and simply encumber law-abiding citizens when it ought to be directing its efforts at those who would use firearms in a criminal manner.
