Peter Milliken

[Government Response To Petitions, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 44 petitions.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

January.

The hon. member has had ample opportunity to discuss this matter. They have had opposition days when they could raise this issue if they wanted to; yet we have not seen it then.

We have offered to sit at night. The hon. member does not want to do that either. Why? Because he wants to have days and days of filibuster and hold this bill up until next year or the year after.

The government is decisive. The government made promises in the red book. The government made promises to the people of Canada when it introduced this bill. The government knows how to govern. It will show leadership to Canadians and it will proceed with this bill. It will do a great job in enacting legislation that will help reduce crime in Canada and help to solve the problems confronting this country in a way that is meaningful and sensible, instead of the ranting, pillaging and raving the Reform Party is engaging in.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

We have been here for well over a year. The hon. member for Calgary West is saying it has only been a few months. He knows perfectly well that is not true.

We have been sitting here since February 1994. That is well over a year. That is a good long time.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

There will be ample opportunity there. There will be another debate in this House on third reading.

Of course, now we have the NDP getting into the act. This is the party that for decades has supported gun control and now all their members but one have shifted gears and gone backwards. They have all decided that this bill is not really what they wanted, even though it was in their party platform. They used to say they were bound by party conventions. Now they say they are not bound by party conventions; they are not bound by the obligations laid down at party conventions that have been set on their caucus.

Only the member for Beaver River will remember this. We used to listen in this House to the pontificating from the NDP about how they were so democratic; they did everything their party dictated. Now, today, we see them abandoning party principles; they have gone out the window. I do not think the NDP knows what a party principle is any more.

It is a most shameful abnegation of its responsibility to its members, because the members of the NDP in my constituency are strongly supporting the Minister of Justice in this gun control bill. They think their members of Parliament have gone wingy. I think they may be right. Things have really gone wrong over there. Only the member for Burnaby-Kingsway seems to have kept his head straight on his shoulders.

The hon. members of the Reform Party, who are supposed to represent their constituents, should be with the NDP on this one. It is unbelievable. I cannot understand how it is that two supposedly responsible political parties in this country could take such an irresponsible attitude in respect of such a significant matter of public debate.

We have had ample opportunity for debate on this subject for the last year. It has been debated in Parliament longer than any other bill in this Parliament already. The time for decision-

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

The hon. member says he is not listening. He is not listening to them, that is for sure, because they do not represent anybody. They represent a small minority of people.

The vast majority of people support what the minister is doing. If the members of the Reform Party would look at the polls that their own member conducted and look at the national polls that have been conducted on this scheme, they would agree with everything I am saying, because they know I am right.

As I said, the Minister of Justice has indicated his willingness to make changes in this legislation. He has indicated that in committee he will listen to reasoned arguments. The committee is set up and ready to deal with this matter. It is prepared to hear a large number of witnesses. Indeed, the budget for the committee for the hearing of a substantial number of witnesses has already gone forward and is being considered by the budget subcommittee of the liaison committee.

I think this bill will be dealt with fairly. The owners of guns who have not yet had an opportunity to make their views known to the minister and to the Canadian public will have that opportunity before the committee.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

The hon. member says that shows how much interest there is in it. It shows that a filibuster has been mounted by the Reform Party.

If we look at the number of speakers, 35 Liberals, 12 Bloc members, 34 Reformers, two New Democrats and one Progressive Conservative have participated in the debate so far. In other words, the Reformers have had almost every member speak, while on the Liberal side, despite the significant differences of view on this side, only 35 have managed to participate in the debate. This is nothing but a filibuster. The Reform Party is engaging in filibuster tactics and the government is taking a very sensible approach in bringing the debate to an end. The government is putting the Reform Party out of its misery.

So much for the argument about unfairness. The Reform Party has been offered an extra opportunity to debate this bill and it has consistently turned it down. The reason is that it wants the government to use closure. The Reform Party wants the government to bring an end to the debate so that it can get off the hook with respect to its rather ridiculous opposition to the bill.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat and dozens of other members from that party in particular have gone after the bill saying that there is no evidence that the proposals which the government has put forward will do anything to stop crime. I have some evidence and I would like to quote the evidence for hon. members, particularly those in the Reform Party and some doubting Thomases elsewhere in the House.

The proposal that the Minister of Justice has so courageously put forward, in spite of consistent and persistent opposition from Reformers and other people in the country, is based in part on our promise in the red book. It is supported very amply by the Canadian Police Association, whose members, after all, are experts in law enforcement. These are the people who enforce the Criminal Code across our country, yet members of the Reform Party trumpet themselves as experts on law enforcement. Most of them do not know a fig about law enforcement. They do not know anything about the subject, yet they rant and rave in the House all day that they want evidence.

I invite them to listen to the evidence of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This gentleman, Mr. Vincent MacDonald, made certain statements after his association at its annual conference last August called for the following: stiffer penalties for firearms misuse; a ban on military assault rifles and replica firearms; registration of all firearms; controls on the sale of ammunition; and full cost recovery. Those were the five items called for by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its convention in August 1994. These are the principal frontline law enforcers in Canada and that is what they called for.

The hon. members in the Reform Party ignore these suggestions and all of them are found in the bill of the Minister of Justice which is before the House today. If they supported law enforcement in Canada, they would be supporting this bill. They are frauds in that connection.

The president of the association said: "We must emphasize that while it is, perhaps, controversial, we view registration of all firearms as pivotal to the entire package, critical to controlling the illegal gun trade, to supporting preventative action and to enforcing the law". There is evidence that this will work.

On February 24, 1995 Chief MacDonald said: "Registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse of legal firearms in a number of important ways". This is from an expert in the law enforcement field. Surely, members of the Reform Party would bow to the ability and competence of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the collective wisdom of that body all of whom support this bill and believe that this bill is the right way to go.

I want to quote another statement from Chief MacDonald. He said: "As the U.S. example has shown all too well, arming for self-protection does not work but in fact escalates violence. For this reason, we believe Canada has a historic opportunity to chart a course that is different from the U.S. This legislation not only goes a long way to address current problems, but is an investment in our future". That is what the chief said; I submit that he was right.

If that is not enough to convince members of this House that this is the right way to go, one has only to look at the polls that have been conducted on this subject. I turn to the Environics poll of October 1994. Ninety per cent of Canadians supported a law requiring all firearms to be registered. In Quebec the figure was 95 per cent; Ontario, 92 per cent; British Columbia, 88 per cent; Alberta, 83 per cent.

Members of the Reform Party are forever boasting that they represent the wishes of their constituents. That is a false assertion. These members have no more interest in the wishes of their constituents than the man in the moon has.

The Reform member for Edmonton stood in this House and admitted that his own constituents in his own poll were 69 per cent in favour of the government bill. Yet he said: "I do not care what they say, I could not care less what they say. I am voting against it because, by George, I know better". Every member of the Reform Party is spouting the same stuff and nonsense. They may not use the same words. They cloak themselves in righteousness and say: "Oh, no. We are opposing this for good reason". But they know that their constituents support this bill. They know they would support it in overwhelming numbers.

If Reform members were doing what they say they always do, supporting and representing their constituents' interests, they would stand up and vote for this bill in droves. They would all show up. They would not pull that six and seven out of a total of 50 in the House which they pulled a weekend ago. They would all be here voting for this bill. Instead, all we hear is their ranting and raving and complaining about this government action on the bill and the very sensible proposals the Minister of Justice has put forward in this case.

I recognize there are deeply held views on this bill which represent significant differences of opinion on this subject. I can only say that the government has acted in the very best interests of Canadians in bringing this bill forward. It has brought forward a bill that is supported by the vast majority of the population in every region of the country. It has brought forward a bill that has been called for by the law enforcement experts, who more than any other in Canada know what is required to

deal with smuggling and illegal arms dealings and all manner of problems with guns.

This is a sensible bill. I realize there are going to be some changes made in committee. The minister has already acknowledged that he is willing to agree to certain changes to the bill in committee which will improve the bill.

The hon. member yaks about confiscation. He knows that when talking about confiscation he is only trying to stir up support for his party. He knows that at gun rallies he has been out selling Reform memberships in an effort to boost the sagging fortunes of the Reform Party. It is a shocking way to carry on.

The hon. member for Beaver River has missed some of the antics which have taken place in this House. I am sorry she did. She would have been ashamed of the conduct of most of her colleagues had she been here to watch the debate. I am glad she is back and I hope she will talk some sense to her colleagues because honestly, they need a good deal of it.

The fact is this is a good bill. It has garnered widespread support in the country. The Minister of Justice has proven time and again that he is willing to talk and be reasonable and flexible in respect of this bill. No minister has spent more time travelling the country seeking the views of Canadians than has the Minister of Justice. He has brought forward a bill-

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support this bill today.

This bill represents the culmination of one of the points in the red book. I want to quote from the red book in this connection: "In order to combat crime, a Liberal government will work in a broad range of areas. To strengthen gun control, a Liberal government will, among other measures, counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted firearms into Canada and prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable drug related offence, stalking offence or any violent crime from owning or possessing a gun". That promise was included in the red book. That promise is being kept by this legislation today.

It is that legislation the Reform Party is trying to destroy with this phoney amendment which it put before the House today. Reform members have run across the country misleading Canadians, telling Canadians that the amendment splits the bill. That assertion is totally and completely false.

The hon. member for Beaver River has been away. However, she will have heard these false statements which are being made by her colleagues as to the effect of this amendment across the country. I know if she gets to speak later this afternoon, she will want to dissociate herself from those comments.

With respect to the bill, first I would like to deal with the allegations made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat about the use of time allocation in the debate this afternoon.

We have asked repeatedly for assistance in dealing with the bill. We have offered to sit late in the evenings in order to accommodate members who wish to participate in the debate. Those offers were declined, politely but emphatically, by the members of the Reform Party. So we need not concern ourselves about their genuine desire to debate the bill.

They are shedding crocodile tears this afternoon, alleging that they are having their debate cut off, but let me review the record. The bill was debated in the House on February 16 and February 27, March 13, March 27 and March 28 for a total debating time according to the official record of 17 hours and 46 minutes. Eighty-four persons participated in the debate before today. I am number 85.

[Motions For Papers, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to assist the hon. member in carrying out her duties.

The minister, as I indicated, has been working diligently on this question. I understand that the answer is being sent to the office that reports to the House through me this afternoon. I hope to be in a position to provide the hon. member with an answer tomorrow.

If not, obviously it will be after the break. I hope it is tomorrow. I am doing my very best to see that is what happens.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.