Pierrette Venne

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of Ukrainian or German descent-our members come from all kinds of backgrounds-can now make their speeches in their mother tongues?

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you. The hon. member is speaking to us in a language that I neither recognize nor understand. I would like to know if we must continue to listen. As far as I know, the hon. member is not using one of the official languages.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 is about public safety. To ensure the safety of the public we need certain measures that will not necessarily please everyone.

When restrictions are set on our freedom of choice or freedom of action, most of us start asking questions and there is bound to be some protest against new measures. Only time will tell whether these measures are effective.

Firearms registration is one such measure that has raised a lot of controversy. Apparently harmless, this measure has caused one of the most emotional debates I have ever seen and in which I have taken part. At the time, even Bill C-17 did not seem to raise arguments that were so emotionally charged.

One that recurs ad nauseam is that the measures adopted in 1991 were entirely adequate and that it is unnecessary to change anything at all in the existing legislation. However, during the debate on C-17, the pro-gun lobby argued that the proposed measures were redundant and would put an additional burden on honest gun owners.

Apparently, the pro-gun lobby has managed to live with the provisions on storage, display and transportation of firearms. If they are satisfied with the existing provisions, it is because they are effective, and only time will tell whether a legislative provision produces the expected results.

Perhaps I may draw another analogy. I well remember the controversy that it raised in Quebec when the government wanted to make wearing seat belts mandatory. A whole range of arguments was raised against this decision. It was an attack on individual freedom, was one argument we often heard. First prove it will save lives, was another one. The government has no right to make me buckle up, people said. I am a responsible driver and never had an accident. Does that sound familiar?

However, according to the statistics, seat belts have saved lives. Especially since a car is not supposed to kill but to carry passengers. I could apply the same analogy to making helmets mandatory for motorcyclists.

All these measures were adopted by governments for the well-being of the community, to protect public safety. I agree some measures restrict our individual freedoms, but it is a small price to pay for the benefits down the line. So much for analogies.

Now back to the motions concerning safe storage. The motions I proposed would make it mandatory for the manufacturer, importer and exporter of a firearm to install a secure locking device on the firearm. A secure locking device means a device that cannot be opened or unlocked except with an electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or an alphanumeric combination lock. Once installed, the locking device must prevent the firearm from shooting.

The amendment I proposed, which will probably be discussed later on, is entirely appropriate in a bill on public security. Access to unlocked firearms is far too easy. Guns without a trigger lock and ammunition that is not securely stored are immediately available to the individual who gives in to suicidal or violent impulses. When guns and ammunition are not immediately available, the individual has time to think and calm down.

The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are horrifying. In 1991, suicides represented 77 per cent of 1,445 deaths caused by firearms. Out of 732 homicides recorded in Canada in 1992, 246 were committed with a firearm. Most homicides during the past ten years were committed with shotguns or hunting rifles. In three cases out of four, women killed by their spouses were shot with a shotgun or hunting rifle.

The statistics are there. A trigger lock could have helped reduce the number of suicides and homicides committed with a gun. Just like making the wearing of seat belts mandatory, this measure would help us save lives.

An amendment like the one we proposed would impose few restrictions, considering the benefits that would ensue. Equipping all firearms in circulation, including shoulder arms, with a trigger lock is an indication that firearms are dangerous, that they can kill and that owners should use them responsibly.

Firearms involve too much risk to be ignored. The mere presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk of suicide five times and the risk of homicide three times. The risk of accident is greater in a home where firearms are kept than in a home where there are none.

The improper use of firearms must be reduced by showing that guns mean danger and that firearms must always be used carefully and in accordance with the law and the requirements of safety.

The mandatory trigger lock would permit this. A way must be found to inform users who do not even know there are gun storage regulations. Those primarily concerned, that is the owners, are not even aware that gun storage regulations exist. A survey by Léger & Léger confirms this disturbing discovery. It was done between September 1 and 13, 1994 and involved 515 gun owners living in Quebec. In response to a question on knowledge of the existence of the regulations, only 53 per cent believed there was legislation on storage; 31.8 per cent said the opposite; and 15.1 per cent were undecided-they did not know there were any regulations on the safe storage of firearms.

At the very least, a trigger lock and targeted advertising are required and just as essential as a national registration system.

Bill C-68 is not intended to stigmatize firearms owners, but, rather, to promote a form of social accountability. This is why we must oblige manufacturers, importers and exporters to equip firearms with a secure locking device.

These are my comments on the amendments before us at the moment, since, unfortunately, I believe some members will try to use the time and prevent us from discussing other motions. This is why I chose to discuss mine now.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are back in the jurassic era. The Reform Party, particularly the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, has outdone itself. Did his riding's proximity to California have such a major impact on the hon. member? Bill C-301 is nothing but a substitute for California's "three strikes and you are out" law.

I understand that the professional baseball strike lasted a long time and that fans missed the action. But to introduce professional sports rules into criminal law is something else. This is the figment of a wild, even dangerous imagination.

I asked myself what could possibly have inspired the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Certainly not inmate rehabilitation, crime prevention or community integration programs. What then? The answer is simple. There was no need for me to rack my brains. It is repression. One of the inquisition party's favourite phrases is, "Let us lock up criminals and throw away the key".

If they are to be believed, we have been in a full-blown crisis for a long time. The true crisis is the disinformation crisis which has been in effect since the Reform Party was elected. Its members make questionable comments on crime in this country, manipulate statistics, and engage in scaremongering. Their

anecdotes are isolated cases that do not reflect the reality around us. They try to make cheap political capital out of tragic situations.

I remember that, just recently, the hon. member for Crowfoot exploited the tragedy that took place here in Ottawa, in which two young children were shot and killed by their father, who used a hunting rifle, as their seven-year old brother looked on helplessly. Imagine that, while talking about gun control, the hon. member from the Reform Party had the gall to say that gun registration could not have prevented that tragedy.

It could certainly be said that the Reform member is a whiz at recycling news, but has no regard for the pain and suffering of survivors. This is how the Reform Party deals with the events affecting us.

The same analogy can be applied to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca's explanations regarding Bill C-301. The recipe is simple. Take some nice fat jailbirds. Add some spicy tabloid news and a few drops of exaggeration. Brush with empty rhetoric, taking care of never letting any rehabilitation into the mixture. Mix all ingredients together, hoping that your audience is so confused that it might agree with you.

If I am being cynical on such a serious subject, it is because I want to show how distorted the examples used by Reform members are. According to the inquisition member, parole standards should be abolished, and we should treat offenders like cattle by cramming them into correctional institutions that are already overcrowded.

Let us now look at the Reform member's source of inspiration. California's "three strikes" law went into effect last year. This law provides for very harsh sentences against any repeat offender already convicted twice of relatively serious offences.

Like Bill C-301, California law requires the judge who convicts a person for the third time to sentence this person to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Think for a moment how outrageous such a legislation would be. The judges will no longer have any latitude, since the act is taking away any discretion they used to have. Sooner or later, this is bound to lead to absurd decisions.

Let me illustrate this with an example. In March, a 27-year old man was prosecuted for stealing a slice of pizza from a group of teenagers and sentenced to life imprisonment. The facts are quite simple: he stole a slice of pizza from a group of young people between the ages of 4 and 14 in a restaurant in Redondo Beach, California.

Because he had a record and was therefore a repeat offender, the offender came under the three strikes act and the judge had no other choice but to sentence him to life imprisonment without any chance of parole for 25 years.

That is the logic behind the proposal made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Repression and punishment are the only two ways the Reform Party has found to control crime. With legislation like the bill introduced by my Reform colleague, what happened at Redondo Beach could well happen here; the situation may not be as absurd, but it could be just as dangerous. It is more than likely that a 19-year old offender would be sentenced to life for robbing a convenience store. In fact, robbery is included in the list of offences mentioned in the schedule proposed in Bill C-301.

Let us look at the type of offences for which three convictions would buy a one-way ticket to the pen for a very long time. There is piracy, hijacking, endangering safety of aircraft in flight, using explosives. Whatever my hon. colleague's views on the matter, these offences are already liable to life imprisonment.

I find it hard to imagine that someone would be able to commit this type of offence three times in his or her miserable life, as he or she could have been sentenced to life twice already before committing a third offence.

I have nothing to say about the other offences listed, except maybe to mention that they are generally considered disgusting and reprehensible. I cannot overlook however the case of robbery. This offence is on the fateful schedule. Its inclusion will cause such prison overcrowding that it is hard to predict the implications. Again, this is an offence already liable to life imprisonment. But very few individuals serve full sentences because, objectively, the seriousness of such an offence does not justify life imprisonment.

If the circumstances surrounding the offence did warrant such severe punishment, Bill C-301 would indeed be superfluous, since the offender would already have been sentenced for life. How many life sentences can one serve consecutively? As far as I know, unlike cats, we only have one life.

The schedule of offences provided for under this bill lists 15 or so major offenses. Naturally, I would have no sympathy for any individual sentenced three times for any of them. Quite the contrary, I am of the opinion that repeat offenders do not deserve preferential treatment, but it is a different matter altogether to put them away in penitentiaries under the pretext that this makes our streets safer. Society will always be better served in the end through rehabilitation programs suited to the various offenses. Close supervision is the key.

Too many offenders were paroled before they were ready to reintegrate society and went on to commit a subsequent offence.

Increasing the prison population will necessarily increase the related costs. Will the hon. member have the honesty to tell taxpayers how much his bill will cost us? We know that the average cost of keeping an inmate in a maximum security institution in 1992-1993 was as much as $56,000.

It is my opinion that the three strikes, you are out rule should apply to hon. members in the House: after tabling three bills like the one before us today, an hon. member should automatically be sent home for life.

[Business Of The House, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what is on the legislative agenda for the next few days?

[Copyright, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated that he had provided the Minister of Justice with instructions for the drafting of a copyright bill. However, the federal government still has no copyright protection policy.

Since the heritage minister is now waiting for his colleague from justice, could the Minister of Justice tell us if he plans to introduce this bill for consideration by this House before the summer recess?

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, by delaying such an amendment to the Criminal Code until the fall, most likely, he will enable people accused of violent crimes to go free for lack of evidence? What is the minister waiting for in order to act quickly?

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 1995]

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

There is a serious flaw in the Criminal Code. A justice may order a suspect or an accused person to undergo a DNA test. However, once the test is completed, the results are inadmissible in the trial, even in matters of sexual assault or murder.

In the light of the murder of Tara Manning, would the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to act diligently and quickly introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in order to fill the legal void concerning the admissibility of the results of DNA tests as evidence?

[Department Of Justice, April 25th, 1995]

We are.

[Firearms, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice recognize that, by exempting certain firearm owners from paying the owner's permit, he creates two categories of citizens and totally contradicts his statement to the effect that the law must be the same for everyone and must be implemented everywhere?