Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and all the responsible firearms owners who have written me over the last year and a half, it is an honour and a privilege to be one of the few members of Parliament who will have an opportunity to speak during the six hours of limited debate granted to us by the arrogant and dictatorial Liberal government.
While I have the privilege of representing my constituents in the debate against Bill C-68, literally dozens of members of Parliament will be denied that right because of the six-hour time allocation imposed by the tyranny of the Liberal majority.
Voters send their MP to Ottawa to be their voice in Parliament, and what do the Liberals do but take the voters' right to be represented away from them by using anti-democratic measures like time allocation and closure and by making MPs vote according to the wishes of the Prime Minister, not the people of their riding. It makes me sad and it should make every Liberal member who did not oppose this abuse of power sad too.
The Liberals abuse their majority to do anything they want because they know there is nothing voters can do to stop them until the next election. I know there are about seven million gun owners who are just waiting for the next election. Considering what happened to the Liberal Party in Ontario last week, I think there are some Liberal backbenchers who are pretty worried about the direction in which their party is taking them.
Last Thursday the Liberals abused their power by limiting the time for debate on three bills, Bills C-68, C-41, and C-85. In doing so the Liberal government limited debate on three of the most controversial issues ever to be debated in the House, gun control, sexual orientation and MP pensions. By forcing time allocation the Liberals have declared their highest priorities to be gun control, MP pensions, and including sexual orientation in the sentencing legislation.
Personally, I do not believe these controversial issues are priorities for the people of Canada. I am sure that if the people knew how democracy was getting a kick in the teeth here in Ottawa there would be a lot more concern expressed. I wonder if the Liberals are hoping voters will forget this by the time the next election is announced.
Today I am introducing two amendments to Bill C-68 that would automatically repeal any and all gun control measures in five years unless the provisions have proven to be cost effective by the auditor general in improving public safety and reducing violent crime committed with firearms. If any gun control measure is not cost effective in improving public safety and in saving lives, it should be discontinued in favour of more cost effective measures. Is that not common sense?
It will be difficult for the Liberals to argue against my sunset clause amendment because they will have to argue that they support gun control measures even though the auditor general cannot find any evidence to show the measures to be cost effective at reducing violent crime involving firearms. If the Liberals oppose this amendment it will be clear to everyone in Canada that public safety is not their primary purpose in bringing forward this gun control bill.
Will the Liberals really stand up and say they support gun control measures that do not work? Will the Liberals tell Canadians they do not care whether gun control measures are cost effective or not? Will the liberals tell Canadians they cannot afford to implement new criminal justice measures that would save more lives because they are wasting money on ineffective gun controls?
There should be a sunset clause in all legislation. We have too many laws. If they are not cost effective, they should be tossed out. We are creating a huge bureaucracy and we need to spend money in this place more carefully. We are the stewards of the public purse, and all legislation should be examined to see if it is cost effective, not just the gun control measures.
The reason we need a sunset clause in this legislation is because gun control in general and most of the measures proposed in Bill C-68 defy all logic. First of all, gun control will not improve public safety. It will do the exact opposite. Gun control and registration of all firearms will mean more crime, more injuries, more expense, more deaths and more victims. I wish I had time to prove each of these, but the debate is very limited.
The justice minister says he has no intention of confiscating guns and then he proceeds to ban over 550,000 handguns and 19,000 rifles. What are the people to believe, the minister's assurances or his actions? The justice minister says he no longer believes that only the police and military should have firearms, and then he proceeds to give himself the power to prohibit all firearms in Canada without bringing any of the prohibition orders before Parliament. The people do not believe the minister's slick lawyer talk because his actions speak louder than his words.
Bill C-68 will give drug dealers more rights than law-abiding responsible firearm owners. This bill will run roughshod over every Canadian's fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to own, use, and enjoy private property; their right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure; their right to remain silent; their right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty; their right to legal counsel; their right to freedom of association; their right to be represented in Parliament; their right to be treated equally before the law; and their right to privacy. All of those rights will be run roughshod over by this bill. Bill C-68 will not withstand a charter challenge on many of these points.
Bill C-68 also intrudes into areas that are the sole constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, namely administration of justice, regulation of private property, issuing of licences, assessing of licensing fees and user fees, education, and contributing to increases in provincial income taxes and municipal property taxes. Bill C-68 will not withstand a constitutional challenge by the provinces.
The final piece of illogical behaviour is the government's claim that they have broad public support for the measures proposed in Bill C-68. If this is true, then why is the government ramming this through Parliament? If the support is so broad then why not let democracy run its course? If there is broad public support then why not allow free votes? If there is such broad public support, why discipline liberal backbench MPs who are voting their constituents' wishes? If the public support is so great, why impose time allocation during second reading debate and leave at least 30 MPs waiting to speak?
If the public supports this bill, why did the standing committee on justice limit the amount of time for public hearings and deny to hundreds of people who wanted to be heard the opportunity to be heard? If support is so great, why did the standing committee refuse to hear expert testimony from individual independent experts in various areas? For example, we have been in contact with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada and have learned that insurance companies do not ask their applicants if they own a gun because they are not an identifiable risk group. There are so many people who wanted to come before this committee and were denied the opportunity. We have a problem.
This proves the justice minister and his supporters are wrong when they say gun owners are a risk to themselves or others. If gun ownership represented any risk or liability, insurance companies would charge gun owners a higher premium for life, health, and property insurance. They do not. This is just one of the many areas that have not been fully explored by the justice committee.
If the minister is so convinced that the public supports his proposals, then why is he not prepared to do the rigorous evaluation recommended by the auditor general before implementing further gun controls? Let us see if the measures implemented in Bill C-17 are working before spending even more money on measures that are not cost effective in achieving the stated objective of improving public safety. If there is broad public support, why invoke time allocation at report stage?
I am introducing this amendment so that we will always evaluate this gun legislation to see if it is working, if it is effective. Those parts that are not working or not effective
should be repealed. Everything the government does defies common sense.
This sunset clause should be supported by all members of the House. I cannot think of any reason they would oppose it. I hope we will have some common sense when we examine it.
