Jack Ramsay

[Gun Control, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister.

The provincial justice minister states that Alberta is not prepared to pay the estimated half million dollar cost of establishing a registry in the province and therefore Ottawa would have to foot the bill.

What is the overall estimated cost for the national registration of rifles and shotguns? Who is going to pay for a registration system that will not reduce the criminal use of these weapons?

[Gun Control, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Consideration by the Alberta government to use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to refute the impending new federal gun control legislation underscores the absence of any real consultation between the federal justice minister and provincial officials, in spite of assurances to the contrary by the minister.

As the opposition to his proposals begins to mount, will the Minister of Justice reveal which provincial attorneys general he consulted with and had the support of prior to November 30?

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is important. When we deal with penalties for offences committed, I think that if the state wishes to stiffen penalties we can do that, but we all ought to stand equal before the law. The courts and judges ought to be left with the discretion based upon the circumstances to decide whether a more severe penalty should be imposed upon the culprit who through motivation of hatred or bias commits an offence against another.

I enforced the law for 14 years and I never saw an assault upon another person motivated by anything but anger, hatred or bias. I have never seen an assault conducted by a positive emotion of love or compassion. I have never experienced that. I have never taken anyone into court on that basis, and I have taken hundreds of people into courts for other types of offences during my service.

When I consider the hon. member's question and I look at Bill C-41, I ask myself why is it that we cannot leave this matter to the courts. Yes, enhance the penalties, make them stiffer. Surely when the court feels that mitigating circumstances indicate a more serious penalty ought to be levied, the court should have the discretion to do so.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as I enter the discussion regarding violence against members of society, particularly women, I begin by pointing out how human life seems to have been devalued in our society. When I look at the changes of attitude that have occurred in this regard, I look at such things as abortion, euthanasia and mercy killings. I see a greater and greater acceptance of these measures which suggests an insensitivity toward human life that has led to a devaluation of human life.

Today marks an anniversary I am sure most Canadians wish did not exist. However, not to remember invalidates the lives that were lost as a result of a violent and vicious attack perpetrated because one male took out his fear, hate and frustration on a group of innocent young defenceless women.

The cause of this crime is at the heart of the debate on violence against women and other members of our society. Why are men attacking women? Why are husbands beating wives? Why is violence against women occurring at such a high rate, certainly a higher rate than before.

These are the questions we must attempt to answer if we are ever to eradicate or at least reduce violence.

Until we can answer these questions and until we can determine the causes of violence, we will continue to have a problem in this country which defies logic and a problem which threatens to destroy the strongest foundation we have, the family.

From 1981 to 1990 almost one half, or 48 per cent, of the women killed were killed by spouses or ex-spouses. A further 27 per cent were killed by acquaintances. Over the past 10 years 67 per cent of the homicides involving women occurred in the victims' homes. Spousal homicides amount to one out of every six solved homicides. According to statistics, over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger. The rates of spousal homicide have remained fairly constant over a 19-year period.

These statistics reveal a shocking situation. Repeatedly governments in this country have neglected to address the issue which is the cause of crime. They have failed to determine, understand and do something about the causes of domestic violence. Harsher penalties, stricter gun controls and statistics gathering have done nothing to eliminate the rate of spousal homicide in this country, nothing to decrease the growing violence on Canadian streets and nothing to eradicate violence against women.

Fifty-two per cent of the spousal homicides in 1991-92 were attributed by the police to an argument or quarrel and a further 24 per cent to jealousy. What the statistics and police failed to reveal is what the argument or quarrel was about, why it occurred in the first place. I believe that finances and financial stress are at the heart of most domestic difficulties and arguments. Canadian families are under tremendous stress these days, stresses that are directly imposed on them by the economic state of this country and indirectly imposed on them by the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of this and previous governments.

With an unemployment rate of 10.8 per cent, which I understand has dropped recently to below 10 per cent, many Canadians are without a job and for those who do have a job, the volatility and uncertainty of the current job market means that no one has job security.

Years ago men and women could count on their job always being there. Job security is a thing of the past. We have not helped Canadians adapt to that situation. We have not helped Canadians adapt to many of the economic and social situations that have been rapidly destroying their way of life.

While banks reveal record profits, many Canadians are declaring personal and business bankruptcy because their debt load has become unmanageable given the relatively high interest and tax rates in this country.

We witness every day the impact financial stress is having on Canadian families. In 1991-92 statistics show that alcohol was involved in 37 per cent of slain wives and 82 per cent of slain husbands. Among perpetrators, 55 per cent of men and 79 per cent of women were noted to have consumed alcohol and 18 per cent of men and 13 per cent of women had used drugs.

I pause here to emphasize that we do not address the cause of the problems. So often we are told not only in ads in newspapers but on television to ensure that when you are drinking that you have a designated driver so that you can get plastered if you want. The only concern those ad makers and those who are paying for them have is simply to ensure that a person is not impaired as he drives home. No care or concern is given to the family situation when that drunk is dropped off at his home where he may go in and abuse his wife or his children. There is no indication that there is any interest in reducing the consumption of alcohol in this country which police and statistics indicate clearly is a direct contributing factor to crime and violence in this country.

According to statistics, alcohol was consumed by both parties in 41 per cent of wife victim cases and in 78 per cent of husband victim cases.

Alcohol abuse is induced by stress. We do nothing to help the alcoholic or solve his problem if we do not determine the cause of that stress.

Why are Canadians assaulting and killing one another? That is the question which must be answered if we ever hope to reduce violence in our society. This is true whether we are dealing with young offenders, wife beaters, child molesters or murderers.

Governments in co-operation with community and service organizations, churches, schools and Canadian families must find the answer to these questions. It is a monumental task but it is a task we must undertake because our traditional response to the problem of violence is not working.

In response to public appeals for preventive action the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General unanimously agreed on May 6, 1992, exactly five months after the Tories' gun legislation, Bill C-17, received royal assent, to commence a national study of crime prevention. The committee concluded:

Traditional criminal justice responses while necessary are insufficient deterrents to acts that threaten public safety and security and the conventional crime control model fails to address the underlying factors associated with crime and criminality.

In other words the committee found that the gun control legislation, sentencing, additional police officers and law enforcement agencies, more prisons and an increasingly negative bureaucratic answer do not and will not solve the growing problem of crime within this country.

Presented to the committee were studies conducted in England, Canada and the United States. In relation to young offenders, these studies revealed that a minority of male offenders are responsible for the majority of all crimes committed.

The president of the Quebec Association of Police and the director of the Hull police force described to the committee research findings showing that 80 per cent of crimes are committed by approximately 20 per cent of the offenders.

Self reports and arrest records of offenders who have long criminal histories revealed to the committee that offending began when they were very young, that their offending became progressively more violent and that a significant proportion of persistent young offenders become the adult offenders of the future.

A criminology professor with the University of Ottawa told the committee that about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of incarcerated adults were persistent offenders in their youth. The committee heard that the level of crime in a society cannot be separated from the social, economic and political milieu in which it occurs. Social science research has identified many interrelated factors in the social environment of persistent offenders that contribute to crime.

Although the committee made a number of recommendations regarding crime prevention to the previous government based on its findings, the previous government did not introduce or even propose measures that demonstrated it was taking a leadership role in crime prevention.

We have a new government but the same approach to crime. We seem to be satisfied to deal with the symptoms of crime rather than to get at the cause of crime. Until the government of the day can identify the cause of crime, until it can identify the reasons for domestic violence and violence against women, we will continue to have this problem.

[Gun Control, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his proposals yesterday the minister failed to provide the statistical information to justify the registration of rifles and shotguns and to ban other firearms.

The Auditor General found the same lack of substantiating evidence for Bill C-17, which led him to conclude that C-17 was initiated for reasons of public policy.

I ask the minister, when will he provide statistical justification for introducing these measures, or is this being done for reasons of public policy as well?

[Gun Control, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the justice minister's press conference when asked whether the registration of rifles and shotguns would reduce the criminal use of these firearms, the minister could not say that it would.

Given that the objective of firearms control is to reduce the accidental, intentional and criminal use of firearms, can the minister today state that the registration of shotguns and rifles will meet these objectives and reduce the criminal use of these weapons in society?

[Gun Control, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of gun control legislation in a democracy places an obligation upon the government to balance the right of the individual to own property, in this case firearms, with the responsibility of the state to protect members of society from the dangerous or illegal use of firearms.

Like many Canadians, Reform members support gun control legislation based on common sense. In fact we fully support any and all gun regulations that will enhance public safety by reducing the criminal use of firearms. However, the onus is on the Minister of Justice to prove to us and to Canadians that current regulations have reduced the criminal use of firearms and that his proposed restrictions will be successful in this regard before we support the final product.

In his 1993 report the Auditor General of Canada expressed some concern about the effectiveness of Bill C-17. He questioned the motivating factor behind it, concluding that Kim Campbell proceeded for reasons of public policy and without a statistical base.

The Auditor General stated: "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. Because of this, we believe it is important that the measures chosen by the government be evaluated at the earliest opportunity".

Although we had asked the minister whether he had taken the advice of the Auditor General we never were quite sure of the answer until today. Given the proposals the Minister of Justice has introduced, I suspect he may have ignored the recommendations of the Auditor General and proceeded to implement his own agenda for gun control.

In November of last year the minister stated that only police officers and the military should have guns. In respect to the minister he has clarified that remark to me since. Nevertheless, I see this sentiment still reflected in some of the proposals presented today.

The minister has proposed the banning of certain handguns from society without statistical justification for doing so. He is saying to law-abiding Canadians that if you do not use your handgun the government will take it away from you. I think this is wrong and we will stand opposed to this if it appears in the final legislation.

The minister has introduced mandatory minimum sentences of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition against the possession of a restricted weapon when committing any of the ten specific violent offences with a firearm. He has introduced a new mandatory minimum jail sentence for possession of a stolen firearm and possession of a loaded restricted weapon without a permit. The use of imitation or replica firearms in the commission of an offence will draw a minimum mandatory sentence of one year in jail under section 85 of the Criminal Code.

It is good to see that the efforts of the Reform members have not gone unnoticed by the justice minister. It is indeed encouraging to see the Minister of Justice following our lead.

On June 15 private member's Bill C-260 of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley was read for the first time in the House. That bill expands the present offence of using a firearm in the commission of an offence by including replica firearms. It also increases the penalty for a first offence from one to fourteen years to five to fourteen years and for a second offence from three to fourteen years to ten years to life.

That same bill establishes the theft of a firearm as a new offence with a penalty of three to fourteen years. It also creates a new offence for the unlawful importation of a firearm for the purpose of selling it or using it in the commission of an offence. This offence would carry a penalty of three to fourteen years.

Finally, a person who sells a firearm other than by the process proscribed by law would be deemed to have aided in an offence later committed by the purchaser of the weapon.

Reform's position on justice has been very clear and consistent from the start. We firmly believe that the justice system should provide for harsh punishment as a deterrent for committing crimes and for just punishments once a crime has been committed.

The minister's position with regard to deterrence is however questionable. In debates on the Young Offenders Act, the minister has stated that he does not believe harsher penalties to be a deterrent to preventing youth crime. It seemed he had to be pushed to raise the maximum penalty for murder from five to ten years. This was the only area under the Young Offenders Act where the penalties were increased to any substantial degree.

Therefore, I place this on the record. The justice minister has been inconsistent in his support of a deterrent principle in criminal justice.

As well as supporting the criminal sanctions created by this proposed legislation, we also support the efforts of the government in regard to smuggling and the stiffer penalties created for illegally importing and trafficking firearms. However, we will remain sceptical about whether or not the government will be successful in catching gun smugglers.

To date, the government has not been successful in catching drug and alcohol smugglers. In fact there has been an increase in smuggling activity in this country which I have reason to believe in some cases is a result of the prohibitively high taxes and prices found in Canada.

The only way the government was able to stop the proliferation of tobacco smuggling into this country was to reduce the taxes, thereby making it an inexpensive item that was not as lucrative on the black market. In other words, it was not able to deal with the criminals who were involved in that illegal trade. It simply reduced the taxes on cigarettes and was able to reduce the smuggling by using that means.

We also have some concerns regarding whether the border controls will be effective, given that Bill C-34 has granted the Yukon Nation self-government. From statements the Minister of Justice made on October 4 while in Yukon, we have reason to believe that special legislation may be granted to reserves.

Since a number of reserves are on the Canada-U.S. border and the minister of revenue has stated that the U.S. is awash with weapons, how does the minister propose to deal with smuggling and black market activities that is already so prevalent on reserves adjacent to the international boundary? In this regard the proposals of the Minister of Justice do not go far enough and we have some concerns in this area. What use are the penalties on border controls if there are other areas that may be left wide open?

Reform does not believe in tinkering and amending only parts of the system. We believe in full reforms which are aimed at the total picture, not just one small aspect of the problem. This is true with our policies on immigration, deficit cutting, social policy reform, and other matters.

I now turn to the area which poses the greatest concern to me, my colleagues and constituents and that is the registration of shotguns and rifles.

A confidential report commissioned by the research section of the Department of Justice clearly points out the defects in the current handgun registration system. In fact it identifies approximately 30 problems with the registration system. The system has been in place for 60 years and it has failed to work. I cannot see how the minister can justify extending this failed system. How can he honestly tell Canadians it will reduce the criminal use of firearms when the criminal use of handguns has been on the increase?

The statistical justification for the registration of rifles and shotguns has not been made available to us in these proposals. How can we and how can Canadians in the absence of such information be confident that universal registration will in fact reduce the criminal use of firearms and thereby make society safer? We cannot.

We cannot afford ineffective legislation, particularly in the area of criminal justice. We must have sound and proven controls in place that ensure public safety.

On the banning of handguns, where is the information and where are the statistics that the Minister of Justice used to justify such a draconian measure?

It has been proven by various sources that gun controls do not prevent criminals from getting firearms on the black market. They do however make it more profitable for individuals to deal in the black market of these items. Repeatedly governments in this country have learned that prohibitive or restrictive measures lead to an underground market where people thrive on the challenge of obtaining something illegal and where ruthless entrepreneurs profit tremendously.

We witnessed this years ago with the prohibition of liquor and we have seen it for years with the trafficking of cocaine, speed, marijuana and other narcotics into our country. Guns are not immune from the underground economy. In fact trade in that market has not been diminished but rather enhanced by government action.

I observe the minister has outlawed hand-held crossbows and the registration of other crossbows has been put into place through these proposals. What is the justification for this? Does this not indicate an unrealistic degree of fear or apprehension underlying this legislation? I think it does. More murders are committed with knives than with handguns. Are we to see the justice minister move to the registration of these weapons?

We look forward in the coming months to the minister tabling the legislation. We assure him and the people of Canada that we will support legislation that is aimed at the criminal activity involving firearms. The case for such action has been evident far too long in this country. However, we will be closely scrutinizing that legislation which is a further encroachment upon the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

In closing I would like to quote from a letter written to me by a loyal and dedicated Canadian. He stated: "The people of Canada will not accept the suppression of our rights and freedoms by criminals and they will not accept the suppression of those same rights and freedoms by our government".

[Gun Control, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, right now there are firearm interest groups locked up pending the announcement of the Minister of Justice regarding gun control later today.

The minister has expounded upon his virtuous cross-country consultation process this summer. While in consultation with these various groups did the minister inform them of the findings contained within the Terence Wade report, or was the report concealed from them as well?

[Gun Control, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Terence Wade report commissioned by the Department of Justice reveals that the handgun registration system is replete with confusion, inconsistencies, non-compliance and mismanagement. Most important, the report reveals how completely useless the handgun registration system has been as an aid to law enforcement agencies and in reducing the criminal use of handguns.

I ask the Minister of Justice why this report, which was available in July, was not tabled with the standing committee on justice, why it was not tabled in the House, and why I was denied access to the report by his officials when I requested it three weeks ago.

[Gun Control, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not tabled the Terence Wade report with the Standing Committee on Justice. He has not made it available to the public and his departmental officials have refused to release the report to members of Parliament.

Is the reason the report is being concealed the fact that it contains a devastating condemnation of the current handgun registration system, reveals its failure to reduce the criminal use of handguns and also exposes the uselessness of the minister's plan to expand this failed registration system to rifles and shotguns?