BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS DISSENTING OPINION ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE FIREARMS ACT

Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was given Royal Assent two years ago now, on December 5, 1995. By the end of 1996, the government had already submitted its first batch of proposed regulations under the new Act to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. The Committee in turn tabled its recommendations to the House in early February 1997. The recommendations were favourably received.

At the end of this past October, the government put before the Committee another batch of regulations. A tight deadline was imposed, and the various witnesses who were invited to appear had to prepare on the fly. Fifty-seven witnesses, representing 32 organizations, were heard by the Committee between November 19 and November 27, 1997 - a mere eight days.

In the Bloc Québécois' view, there was absolutely no need for such urgency: the Act does not even come into force until October 1, 1998. The government forced the Committee to rush through its hearings.

Given the complexity and scope of the proposed regulations under consideration, the groups called to testify were hardly given enough time. Representatives of industry, hunters and gun clubs all complained that they had not really been given the time to prepare properly.

Moreover, even though some witnesses had devoted hours to putting together briefs as best they might, in many cases as volunteers, and had submitted them to the Committee Clerk, the briefs were never distributed to the Committee members because there was no time to have them translated into both official languages. It is attitudes like this on the part of the federal government that undermine the credibility of elected representatives and institutions in the eyes of the people.

The Bloc Québécois censures this flouting of the parliamentary process, by which the citizenry expects to be able to make their voices heard by the Committee. There are serious consequences.

First, it is certain that not all the shortcomings in the proposed regulations, including provisions that may have quite different effects from what is intended, could be identified and made the subject of a recommendation in the time provided. This means that honest citizens and legitimate enterprises will find themselves paying the price for hasty, slipshod work.

But worse still is the fact that some groups with an interest in the proposed regulations might believe that they were manipulated and never given a real chance to put their arguments forward. As a result, they might be disinclined to cooperate with measures to implement the Act. That would be very regrettable.

In conclusion, while the Bloc Québécois supports the concept of gun control and endorses the Committee's recommendations, it strongly deplores the fact that the disgraceful haste insisted on by the government and the Committee's Liberal majority has cast doubt on the quality of these regulations and put at risk the support of all Canadians and Quebeckers, which will be indispensable in the near future for the implementation of such an important piece of legislation. In a democracy, this method of proceeding is not acceptable from a government that calls itself responsible. That is why the Bloc Québécois is voicing its dissent.