Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the government's gun control legislation, in particular to support the Reform amendment that the bill be split into two parts, each to be voted on separately.
In doing so I wish to vehemently protest the restrictions the government has placed on this debate in order to rush the bill through Parliament. It strikes me as supremely ironic that a government that seems incapable of imposing any kind of discipline on the criminal elements in society has no hesitancy about imposing a strict discipline on its own caucus and on the debates of this House.
For more than five years Reformers have been criss-crossing this country asking the question, what do Canadians want and, in particular, what kind of country do Canadians want for themselves and for their children as we approach the 21st century. One of the most frequent answers we get to that question is that Canadians want safe streets, safe homes and safe communities.
This was expressed to me very eloquently several years ago at a meeting in Toronto when in response to my questions, what do Canadians want, a man in the audience got up and said the following. He said: "Do you know what I want? I want my wife to be able to leave this hotel at 10 p.m. and go to our car in the parkade a block away without running the risk of being mugged, robbed or assaulted. I want the state to discharge the most elemental of its responsibilities, namely, its responsibility to protect the life and property of its citizens. I want to live in a country where the rights and security of law-abiding citizens and innocent victims of crime take precedence in criminal law and the Constitution over the rights and security of criminals."
There are not many MPs in this House who would disagree that increasing public safety must be a priority of this Parliament. The disagreements among us arise over what is the best way to achieve that result.
With respect to Bill C-68 and the motion to split it, the key question is this. What role does gun control have to play in making Canada a safer place? Two different answers to this question are being given in the 35th Parliament: the Reform position and the Liberal position. Canadians must decide which position maximizes public safety.
The Reform position, which has been stated eloquently by my colleagues, is that gun control will only contribute to public safety if its primary focus is on the criminal use of firearms. The diversion of police attention and financial resources into excessive regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms will not enhance public safety. Canadian voters are telling Reformers and pollsters that their number one priority for justice is strong action directed toward persons who commit violent criminal acts. Based on this position, Reform MPs have taken the lead in proposing measures to tighten up the regulation of the criminal use of firearms.
These measures include the following: implement a zero tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms; ensure that charges are laid in all firearms crimes and that plea bargains are not permitted; impose mandatory one-year minimum jail sentences for using any weapon in the commission of a violent crime; provide for progressively more severe penalties for repeat violent and firearms offenders; ensure that all sentences for violent crime and firearms convictions are served consecutively; provide for lifetime prohibitions from ownership of firearms for all persons convicted of violent crimes; impose the same penalty for the use of a replica firearm as for using a real gun in a violent offence; create a new offence of theft of a firearm sentence three to fourteen years; impose sentences of three to fourteen years for unlawful importation or illegal sale of a firearm for a criminal use; deem the seller of a firearm to a criminal as having aided in any future crime committed; and transfer young offenders to adult court for using firearms in the commission of an offence.
In short, the Reform Party is opposed to gun controls that are not cost effective in reducing violent crime, improving public safety and saving lives, and would repeal any gun control provisions that are not cost effective in reducing violent crime, improving public safety and saving lives.
The position that the Liberal government has taken on gun control is utterly predictable and typical of Liberals. If one comes to a hard choice between two options, in this case focusing scarce resources on regulating the criminal or non--
criminal use of firearms, the Liberals invariably say: "Do both, even if doing one hurts the other". They are following the advice of that great American philosopher Yogi Berra, who said: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it".
So the justice minister has brought forward this Bill C-68- C stands for compromise-20 per cent of it, under pressure from Reformers, contains partial measures for tightening up the criminal use of firearms, but 80 per cent of it focuses on increased regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms for hunting, recreational and collection purposes, including the establishment of a universal, national firearms registry reputed to cost anywhere from $85 million to $500 million. One reason for this wild variance in the cost estimates is because the Liberal government underestimates the number of firearms in Canada.
In 1976 a Department of Justice document estimated the number of firearms in Canada at 10 million, with about a quarter of a million guns being added to the stock each year. Using this estimate there should now be over 15 million firearms in Canada, but the justice minister says there are now only 6 million or 7 million guns in Canada.
Bill C-68 cannot be effectively evaluated or costed out unless and until the justice minister can explain where the other 8 million or 9 million guns went.
Reformers oppose the major portion of this bill for three reasons. First, the registry will not be universal. The criminals in whose hands firearms are a huge threat to public safety will unfortunately decline to register. The minister cannot understand why not. He will send polite letters to the Mafia and ads will be placed in the smuggler and gun runners digests, saying "Please, fill out these forms in triplicate in either official language and take them to the police". In the end the registry will omit the one group in whose hands firearms are most dangerous.
Second, the cost of implementing this bill will be far greater than what the minister says. Liberal cabinet ministers are notoriously inept at estimating cost. That is why the federal debt is almost $550 billion and the government will spend $35 billion more this year than it takes in.
The Reform caucus has developed a table of multipliers to help determine the real cost of any new proposal put forward by a Liberal cabinet minister. The more soft-headed the minister, the higher the multiplier.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, for example, is a 10. If he says something might cost $100 million, we multiply it by 10 because the real cost will be closer to $1 billion. The justice minister is not far behind. He is a 7. When he says his registry will cost $85 million, we multiply it by 7 and the true cost will be over $500 million, which is $500 million that we do not have.
The third and most important reason for opposing Bill C-68 as it is now is that the proposed national registry of firearms for hunting, recreational and collection purposes will not improve public safety. The present handgun registry, which has been in place for 60 years, has not improved public safety. The Washington, D.C. handgun ban and registry has not prevented murder and rape in that city from going out of sight. The police in both New Zealand and Australia have recommended abandoning their costly and ineffective gun registries for precisely this reason.
Despite repeated invitations to do so, the minister has put forward no evidence that his proposed registry will improve public safety, nor has he even proposed public safety measuring sticks against which the performance of the registry can be measured.
In conclusion, if what Canadians want are safer streets, safer homes and safer communities, if public safety is really our aim, then Bill C-68 should be split, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has proposed. The ineffective national registration part should be defeated. The sections tightening up the criminal use of firearms should be strengthened and passed forthwith. This is the course of action that will truly make Canada a safer place to live.
