Edited Hansard • Number 186
Thursday, May 9, 2002
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Public
Safety Act, 2002
The House resumed from May 3
consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of
Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and
referred to a committee, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the
amendment.
Mr.
Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am addressing Bill
C-55 which is before the House at present. The point I want to make right off
the top is that there is nothing in the bill that would have prevented the
terrible events of September 11 last year, in fact it could have the opposite
effect.
If
the bill goes through unamended it could actually do the exact opposite to the
government's stated objective. I
will elaborate. The federal government is using the September 11 terrorist
attack as an excuse to continue its anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-farmer,
anti-sport shooter, anti-firearms collector, anti-historical re-enactor,
anti-licensed firearm and ammunition dealer, anti-guide, anti-outfitters and
anti-aboriginal hunting rights agenda. Those
are the honest, law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians the Liberals have targeted with
these 10 pages of proposed explosive act amendments in the bill.
The
amendments were so urgent that the Liberals have waited four and a half years to
bring them before parliament. After all, it was on November 14, 1997, that
former the deputy prime minister, Herb Gray, signed the Organization of American
States inter-American convention against the illicit manufacturing and
trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials in
Washington, D.C.
Those
wanting proof of the government's anti-gun agenda, here is what the former
deputy prime minister, Herb Gray, said when he signed the OAS convention in
Washington, in 1997: This could
be the start of a global movement that would spur the development of an
instrument to ban firearms worldwide that would be similar to our land-mines
initiative. That source was
from the Montreal Gazette of November 15, 1997, “Canada signs deal to curb
illegal sales of guns”.
If
we need more proof, I will make the point that these proposed amendments are
more about inexplosives than explosives. The term inexplosive ammunition
component appears 26 times in these 10 pages of amendments.
The
government already has total control over the explosive part of bullets and
shells, namely gun powder. What possible public safety, anti-terrorism objective
can be achieved by controlling parts of ammunition that cannot go anywhere
without the gun powder?
The
proposed amendments to control inexplosive ammunition components are plain and
simple government harassment of tens of thousands of responsible firearms owners
who happen to load their own bullets and shells for their own legal recreation
and sport.
Terrorists
and their deadly operations will remain unaffected and undeterred by these
amendments. Explosives are easily obtained by terrorists by criminal means and
just as easily manufactured with everyday materials that are available in most
food and hardware stores.
The
only part of the bill that is any good at all is the increased penalties for the
criminal use of explosives. The trouble with these sections is that they will
most likely hit the wrong target by potentially criminalizing tens of thousands
of law-abiding citizens who load their own ammunition for their legal pastimes
and sports.
Instead
of writing the law the way the government intended, the government assures all
concerned: The people responsible for applying the amended act do not think
that the proposed measures will interfere with supplies for hunters and people
who manufacture their own agenda. If
that is what the government means then why does the government not say who the
laws are intended for and exempt everyone else?
The
danger with these amendments was pointed out in a Library of Parliament research
paper prepared on January 18. The lawyers reported: Those who presently make
their own ammunition are already regulated under the Explosives Act since an
explosive (gun powder) is a regulated product. Thus, licences are currently
required, for example, to import explosives. Clause 36 would replace section 9
of the current Explosives Act by requiring a permit to import, to export and to
transport in transit through Canada not only for explosives but also for
inexplosive ammunition components.
Consequently,
law-abiding citizens who manufacture their own ammunition would end up being
charged with the new offences proposed in these amendments, offences that call
for fines up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to five years in jail.
Offences
that are targeting law-abiding Canadians in this act include: acquiring,
possessing, selling, offering for sale, transporting or delivering any illicit
inexplosive ammunition component and making or manufacturing any explosive from
an illicitly trafficked inexplosive ammunition component. The government has not
told us how it thinks anyone can make an explosive from an inexplosive
ammunition component. The definition in the act states “inexplosive ammunition
component” means any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used
in a firearm as defined in section 2 of the criminal code.
Even
the government's own definition clearly demonstrates that no one could possibly
make an explosive out of inexplosive ammunition components. I would like to
propose at the appropriate time that an amendment be made to remove all
references to inexplosive ammunition components from the proposed amendments to
the explosives act.
I
also would also like to bring the attention of the House to another matter that
concerns me and my constituents greatly. Farmers and dealers are examining this
bill right now. A spokesman with
the explosive regulatory division, minerals and metals sector of Natural
Resources Canada indicated that at this point it had only one component in mind.
The component to be restricted by this act is ammonium nitrate, one of the
substances used in the Oklahoma City bombing a few years also. Presently a
person can buy this product without having to show any link to the agricultural
industry. The goal is that the regulations will impose tighter control on the
retail sale of this product. The actual controls would be set out in proposed
regulations and would need to go through the regulatory consultation process. It
is clear that in the future other components may be added to the restricted list
as needed.
This
proposed legislation enables the government to go well beyond the parts of this
bill and that causes us concern. This is enabling legislation. We do not know
what regulations in future the government will bring in. These could be very
harmful to farmers and dealers who deal with this particular type of fertilizer.
I
would like to conclude by restating what I said at the beginning. There is
nothing in the bill as it now stands that will affect the events of September 11
of last year, yet it is being used as an excuse to respond to that. I believe
there is something else here that the government has not come clean on. That is
why I would like to propose the amendment that I did.
(1020)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/186_2002-05-09/HAN186-E.htm#OOB-233166