EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 123
CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 22, 1998
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1005
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1010
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Joyriding
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Children
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1025
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1040
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1055
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1120
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1145
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1150
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1155
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1210
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1225
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1240
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1255
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1310
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1325
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1330
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1335
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1350
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1355
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DAVE NICHOLSON
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1998 ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN REGISTRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SECURITY SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMONWEALTH GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOUTHEAST ASIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITERACY
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1505
1510
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1530
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1545
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1600
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1615
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1630
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1645
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1700
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1705
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1710
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1715
1750
(Division 224)
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1800
(Division 225)
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-20. Report stage
|
1805
(Division 226)
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 227)
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 defeated
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
(Division 228)
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-235. Second reading
|
1810
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1825
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1830
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1855
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1900
1905
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1910
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Disability Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1915
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tobacco
|
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1920
![V](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 123
![](/web/20061116185010im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 22, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to ten petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is signed by grandparents who as a result of death,
separation or divorce of their children are often denied access
to their grandchildren by their guardians.
Legislation in several provincial jurisdictions, including
Quebec and Alberta, contains provisions to ensure the right of
access of the grandparent to their grandchildren.
1005
The petitioners would like parliament to support private
member's Bill C-340 regarding the rights of grandparents to have
access to or custody of the children.
BILL C-68
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today, as thousands of law-abiding, responsible gun
owners are congregating on Parliament Hill, I am pleased to
present 605 pages of petitions with 13,933 signatures of
concerned citizens from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, B.C. and the
Yukon calling on the government to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms
Act.
My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of the
repeal of Bill C-68 petitions. This year I have introduced 744
pages with 17,342 signatures.
These Canadians are very concerned that this billion dollar
licensing and registration scheme will do nothing to curtail the
criminal use of firearms, is not cost effective in addressing the
violent crime problem in Canada, is putting tens of thousands of
jobs in jeopardy and is opposed by the majority of police on the
street and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario and the Yukon.
Therefore, they request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the
Firearms Act, and spend their hard earned tax dollars on more
cost effective, crime fighting measures such as hiring more
police to fight organized crime and more crime prevention
programs.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member who spoke before me, I too have a petition to
submit with respect to Bill C-68, the gun control legislation.
The petition comes from my constituents in Brandon—Souris who
also disagree with the legislation put forward by the current
government and feel that the gun registration will not provide
what this government believes it will provide to the Canadian
public.
I would like to table this petition on behalf of the
constituents of Brandon—Souris.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to
present calling on parliament to impose a moratorium on the
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the treaty
are held across the country so that Canadians have an opportunity
to express their opinions on it.
BILL C-68
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my privilege on this particular day, as we have a large number
of citizens across Canada coming to protest the gun law, to be
able to present on behalf of 100 members of my constituency of
Nanaimo—Cowichan a petition expressing their opposition to Bill
C-68, the gun registration law. They feel that it is nothing
more than an illegitimate tax grab of their money and that it
will do nothing to really curtail crime on the streets.
They indicate that criminals do not register their guns.
[Translation]
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table before the House a petition signed mainly by
citizens of Stornoway, urging the federal government not to
consider average family income in the calculation of seniors
benefits.
I strongly support my fellow citizens of Stornoway.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by many Canadians requesting that the
Divorce Act be amended.
They are concerned about grandparents, who are often cut off
from their grandchildren after a divorce, death or separation.
[English]
BILL C-68
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured today to stand on behalf of my
constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster to present petitions on
their behalf regarding Bill C-68. With the big rally here today
it is very timely.
The constituents are very concerned that their federal
government is going down the wrong road on this issue. They pray
that the government will rescind Bill C-68 and really take a
harder line on criminals.
1010
JOYRIDING
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present four petitions today. The first petition
requests parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to
increase the minimum and maximum penalties for the offence of
joyriding, since joyriding, which is a misnomer, is car theft and
people want it treated as such.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
other petitioners call upon parliament to amend the Criminal Code
to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between young
people and an adult from 14 to 16 years of age.
There are some very sad cases in British Columbia where people
have been wooed into prostitution at a very young age.
CHILDREN
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
other petitioners call upon parliament to amend the criminal code
to increase surveillance and supervision of those convicted of
sex offences against children.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition is a larger petition which calls upon parliament
to significantly amend the Young Offenders Act, including but not
limited to reducing the minimum age governed by the act from 12
to 10 years of age, allowing the publishing of violent offenders'
names, increasing the maximum three year sentence for those
convicted of murder, ensuring parental responsibility and giving
the parents the right to raise their children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 62 and 66.
.[Text]
Question No. 62—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
Can the government provide a detailed outline of the process
used by the Pest Management Review Agency to determine how levels
are set for cost recovery?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Cost recovery is
a federal government policy established for deficit reduction.
For the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the level of cost
recovery was set at $22 million by cabinet when the agency
was created in 1995.
The government process to determine how cost recovery levels are
set is a Treasury Board policy. The Pest Management Regulatory
Agency implemented this Treasury Board policy under the
supervision of Treasury Board officials.
Treasury Board Secretariat analysts provided input to costing of
activities and different options on fee collection protocols
contained in the Discussion Paper: Cost Recovery Analysis that
was released on March 1, 1996. They confirmed that our proposed
fees were based on cost of providing the service.
Representatives from Treasury Board Secretariat, Agriculture
& Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada
participated fully in the various impact assessments. Treasury
Board Secretariat was involved in the planning of the business
impact test conducted on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency
cost recovery proposals. Treasury Board Secretariat and Industry
Canada representatives attended the April 22, 1996 business
impact test meetings with stakeholders. Representatives of the
above departments attended the May 29, 1996 meeting of the
Interim Canadian Pest Management Advisory Council to discuss the
impact assessments. They also attended the September 23, 1996
stakeholder meeting in Toronto where the results of the impact
assessments were presented and participated in the September 30,
1996 consensus-building process to develop a fee structure with
stakeholders.
On September 20, 1996, Treasury Board Secretariat called an
interdepartmental meeting, attended by the Privy Council Office,
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, Natural
Resources Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in
preparation for the September 23 and 30, 1996 meetings with
stakeholders.
Re-engineering processes established by the new Agency provided
savings which reduced the cost recovery portion of the budget to
$15 million. This amount was further reduced by another $3
million for the next six years through grants from Health Canada
and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The total amount to be cost
recovered as delineated in the regulatory Impact Analysis
Statement of April 16, 1997, is $12 million.
Question No. 66—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
Concerning individuals and businesses who have to pay fees
allocated by the Pest Management review Agency, can the
government please provide a list of all user fees these
individuals or businesses have to pay?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): There are two
types of fees:
1. Application fees to be paid for an examination of an
application in respect of a pest control product (PCP). The fee
payable for applications received after April 15, 1997 is
determined on the basis of the data component(s) included in the
application. The fee for the various data components range from
$150.00 to $98,248.00. The fee payable for one application is
equal to the sum of the applicable fees for all the components
included in the application. The fee payable for a new technical
active and an associate end-use product could amount to
$228,832.00. The regulations also provide certain exemptions.
As well reduced applications fees are offered to facilitate
access to the Canadian market for low volume, niche products. To
be eligible for a reduced fee, a registrant's revenue from sales
in Canada of the pest control product(s) during the three years of
the sales verification period must be less than ten times the
applicable application fees.
2. An annual maintenance fee of $2,690.00 is charged per
registered product (per PCP number) for the right to manufacture
or sell a product in Canada. There are reduced fees for products
with sales of less than $89,667.00. The reduced fee is 3% of
sales. However, there is a minimum fee of $75.00.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemns the
governement for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms
Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of firearms
and revoke their firearm registration policy that, in the opinion
of this House: (a) confiscates private property; (b) contains
unreasonable search and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury
Board cost/benefit guidelines; (d) represents a waste of
taxpayers dollars; (e) is an affront to law-abiding firearms
owners; and (f) will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in
firearms.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I
want to let the table and the Speaker know that Reform Party
members will be dividing their time today into 10 minute speeches
each.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to move the motion before us and to
speak in favour of it.
It has been said that bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.
What we have in Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, is legislation that
violates the property rights of Canadians and is a colossal waste
of our money.
The intended purpose of Bill C-68, quite frankly, is an insult
to the three million firearms owners in Canada. The reason for
what I have just said will become evident as we listen to the
course of debate throughout the day.
Allow me to begin by explaining the motives of the Liberal
government in pursuing a firearms registry.
It was the current health minister and former justice minister
responsible for this legislation who said that it is his firm
belief that only the police and military should have access to
firearms.
Let us analyse that statement. What we have is a Toronto lawyer
with no concept of what life is like in rural Canada. The
minister is trying to lead Canadians to believe that
criminalizing the legal ownership of firearms will somehow reduce
crime.
Let us be clear. We are talking about hunting rifles and
shotguns, not handguns. We have had a handgun registry since
1934 and we all know the extent to which crime has been reduced
by that measure, do we not?
I would like the minister to explain what intellectually stunted
logic he is using by making a farmer in Saskatchewan register
his .22 rifle. Will that somehow help him to sleep better at night?
Will it somehow reduce crime? How will that affect the criminal
misuse of firearms?
1015
The minister may not be aware of this fact but criminals do not
register their guns nor do they break into people's homes and
decide not to steal a gun because it is registered. I will go
out on a limb and suggest that the criminal who does steal a
firearm is not going to decide whether or not to use it in the
commission of an offence based on whether it is or is not
registered.
Not only does the former justice minister believe that Canadians
should not be entitled to own firearms but Liberal senator Sharon
Carstairs said that registration of hunting rifles is an
important first step in socially re-engineering Canadians. The
absurdity of that statement is self-evident. It is important
that we understand where these people are coming from. They do
not understand that to a farmer in Saskatchewan a .22 rifle is a
tool. Toronto lawyers do not usually face rabid skunks walking
on to their property. Then again many farmers in Saskatchewan
would argue that a Toronto lawyer is a rabid skunk. In any event,
the usefulness of a rifle as a tool to rural Canadians is very
important. However, that fact may not be readily apparent to
those who are trying to socially re-engineer Canadians.
What do they mean when they say that registration is a first
step? Under Bill C-68 the justice minister can by order in
council, in other words without coming before parliament, declare
any firearm prohibited. What we have is a slippery slope. The
minister can declare 10 gauge shotguns prohibited and they can be
confiscated without compensation to the owners. Then it could be
12 gauge shotguns, 16 gauge, 20 gauge and eventually the
elimination of all legal firearm ownership in Canada.
The motion we have put forward today covers an extensive list of
deficiencies in this bill. I will speak to one aspect of the
motion, Treasury Board cost benefit guidelines. According to
Treasury Board policy when the government is preparing to
establish new regulations it must provide a cost benefit analysis
of those regulations. The policy states specifically: “When
regulating, regulatory authorities must ensure that benefits
outweigh the costs to Canadians, their governments and
businesses, and the limited resources available to government are
used where they will do the most good”.
The new gun registration system established under Bill C-68 has
failed the Treasury Board test. In particular, the government
has left a number of important questions unanswered. For
instance, what is the approximate number of individuals to be
licensed? The government does not know. What is the approximate
number of firearms to be registered? That is undetermined. What
will the impact on businesses and the economy be? It is Yet to
be seen. How many jobs will be lost? How many business closures
will there be? Again we do not know. Will these regulations
improve public safety? Clearly the evidence before us which we
will see today is very strongly in the negative.
With these questions unanswered it is impossible to determine
the cost effectiveness of registration. Despite this, the
government is pushing ahead with its registration plan. The
reason is that it is the government's first step in eliminating
legal firearm ownership in Canada.
Registration was supposed to begin October 1 but that date has
been pushed back to December 1. The registration system was
originally projected to cost $85 million. Cost projections are
now well over $120 million. Some are estimating the system will
actually cost over $500 million. Considering these huge sums of
money I think we could agree this money could be better spent on
areas such as health care, education and tax cuts to lower and
middle income Canadians who are burdened excessively by the high
spending ways of this Liberal government. The government did not
do a cost benefit analysis of this legislation because it did not
want to impede its efforts to eliminate legal firearm ownership
in Canada.
1020
I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has
seconded my motion. I urge all members of this House to listen
very carefully not only to what I have said and not only to the
analysis of the legislation that we are about to hear from the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville but to all hon. members who
speak in support of this motion today.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the presentation by the hon. member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt today on Bill C-68.
The one thing he did not touch on and the way the government is
selling this is on the proof that there will be tremendous
criminal reduction in activity there. There will be fewer
suicides. Domestic violence of course will be toned down and so
on.
Does he have any thoughts in that regard? Does he know other
jurisdictions where this has been tried? What were the results?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in
every jurisdiction in the world where a gun registration exists,
not one case of a crime solved or prevented can be demonstrated.
I would also like to correct myself earlier. I believe the
leader of official opposition will be resuming debate at the end
of this question and answer session.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, subsequent to the Liberals passing this legislation in
my riding five people were blown away one night with a gun. I do
not think we found the registration certificates of those who did
it in the area. They did not leave anything behind.
I guess it brings to mind the question about really how much gun
control legislation will prevent crime. I would like the hon.
member to address that situation specifically. How much in
Canada are we preventing crime, the criminal use of firearms, by
this legislation?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech,
what we see from the criminal misuse of handguns is that first of
all, criminals do not register their handguns. Second, the
registration of a handgun does not prevent its theft by a
criminal or subsequent use in a crime by that criminal.
I think by logical extension we can assume that the registration
of hunting rifles will serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The
costs that we will have to bear as a result of this registration
system will be enormous.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just want members to know that in replying, the member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt did not reply to the question that was
asked of him.
He was asked to supply details, some facts, some statistics, not
some speculation.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this issue reminds me very much of one that occurred last year
during the election campaign when millions of Canadians were very
upset with the government for proposed regulations for natural
health products. They were millions of signatures on petitions
and this sort of thing.
We have the same kind of situation again where there are
millions of people who are very much against the gun registration
law proposed by this government in Bill C-68.
I am wondering if my colleague could perhaps enlighten us all on
the reasons why this government continues to press on with, this
flying in the face of the wishes of millions of people across
this country.
1025
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, that question can be asked
of almost anything this Liberal government does. Why has this
government increased taxes 37 times in the last four years? Why
does it impoverish middle income Canadians with their excessive
tax burdens?
Those questions are harder to answer than the one regarding why
it is pursing a firearms registration opposed by so many
Canadians and which will clearly achieve no benefit to Canadians
in that regard.
The answer to that question is because it views it as a tool, a
first step in eliminating the legal ownership of firearms in
Canada. In the Liberals' minds if they can have everyone
register their firearms then they will know where those firearms
are, what they are and they can systematically by order in
council declare them prohibited and then confiscate them.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak on today's supply day motion for two
reasons, first because it does articulate a longstanding Reform
policy that Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, should be repealed for
obvious reasons that are stated in the motion.
My second reason for participating is today a large group of
Canadians are assembling on Parliament Hill for what they had
styled as a fed up rally in which they will be exercising their
democratic rights to protest a government policy to which they
object.
I want to address my remarks both to the House and to this
broader audience of Canadians who are here today mainly because I
think a democratic protest, the right to democratic protest and
the necessity of this House to recognize democratic process need
some beefing up and some reassurance at this time.
The members on this side of the House have observed since we
came here in 1993 that the present Liberal government is weak on
democracy. The Liberals permit no free votes in this House on
government bills. They continue to permit 25% of the members of
this parliament, I refer to our unelected, unaccountable
senators, to be appointed by one man, the Prime Minister, rather
than to be elected by the people.
Last year the Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister told
the RCMP that the rights of an Asian dictator to freedom from
embarrassment were more important than the rights of Canadians to
freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
The government is weak on democracy, even hostile to the
exercise of democratic freedoms. So the presence of this group
of Canadians here in Ottawa today in particular to express their
democratic objections to Bill C-68 needs some bolstering, some
amplification and some recognition in this Chamber, and that is
my second reason for participating in this debate.
With respect to Bill C-68, the government's ill conceived
gun control legislation, I was the last speaker on that bill when
it went through the House in June 1995. Some members will
remember that was the conclusion of a long debate in which
members such as the member for Crowfoot, the member for
Yorkton—Melville, the member for Wild Rose and others put
forward a host of amendments concerning the defects of the bill.
Many of those defects have now come home to roost. At that time
they were academic, sort of projections of what might happen.
Now they are self-evident to many Canadians.
Members, not just on this side of the House but on other sides
of the House, put forward more than 200 amendments to try to
correct the defects of that bill. It was typical of the
government that it disregarded every argument made about the
defects of the bill and ignored and rejected every amendment,
including amendments put forward by its own members.
The official opposition's position on Bill C-68 has not changed
from 1995. We maintain, first of all, that it is
constitutionally defective. It infringes on individual property
rights. As members of this House know, the one area where our
bill of rights is defective, mainly because of the prejudices of
the Liberals who put it together, is in the area of economic
rights. It contains no affirmation of economic rights and
therefore it is easier for legislation to infringe on things like
property rights.
1030
However this bill is also constitutionally defective in that it
infringes on provincial jurisdiction. Again we have a case of
provinces challenging the jurisdiction of the federal government
in this area.
Personally I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of
confrontations between this government and the provinces. It has
infringed on rights of the provinces in the area of health care.
It has slashed transfer payments to provinces in that area.
The Prime Minister has a row going with the premiers on the
proper distribution of rights and finances with respect to health
care. There is a row with the provinces over the administration
of gun control. The list of confrontations between a government
that professes to be committed to positive federal provincial
relations is getting longer and longer and therefore we cannot
ignore the confrontation developing over Bill C-68.
We also maintain that the legislation is administratively
unworkable and will lead to a wasteful expenditure of public
funds which will in no way enhance public safety. No one in this
House, certainly no one on this side of the House, believes the
estimates of cost that are presented by ministers when they bring
forward bills like Bill C-68.
You will note that already, Mr. Speaker, the projected costs of
administering the gun registration are three to four to five
times higher than the figures that were quoted here by the
minister when he introduced the legislation.
The cost figures brought in with government proposals are
utterly meaningless. We have to develop a multiplier, look at
which minister it is, depending on how soft headed they are, and
multiply by five, ten or fifteen to get the real cost
implications of what they are doing.
We therefore maintain that this legislation should be repealed
and replaced with tough Criminal Code amendments targeted at the
criminal misuse of firearms. That has been our position since
1995; it is our position at this time.
I want to conclude by saying that this is our position. I do
not think anyone doubts our commitment to it but more needs to be
done. I address myself more to the people who are assembling in
Ottawa today to protest this legislation. More needs to be done
to translate opposition to this legislation into political action
that will repeal it and replace it.
If the House actually practised freedom of voting, it would be
possible to amend this type of legislation and even replace it
without defeating or replacing the government. Unfortunately
because of the rigidities of the government, the intransigence of
the Prime Minister on getting into the 20th century before it is
over and permitting a more democratic exercise of freedom in
voting in the House, the only way to repeal a government's
position in the House is to get a bigger majority and actually
replace the government.
Bill C-68 will not be repealed and other Liberal policies will
not be repealed or replaced until there are 150-plus members in
the House who are committed to doing so. It cannot be done by 50
or 60 members no matter how sincere we are or how hard we work.
To win votes, not just arguments in the House of Commons, we need
a majority of 150-plus members.
I therefore appeal to the people who are assembling in Ottawa
today. I commend their efforts, those who are organizing this
fed up rally, as one of the items on their posters says, to
organize those who oppose Liberal policies into a politically
powerful alternative voting block.
As Leader of the Official Opposition I have a constitutional
duty not just to hold the government accountable for its mistakes
but to help create a viable alternative to the government, a
united alternative to the Liberals for the 21st century.
This is what my colleagues and I will be devoting much of our
attention to over the next year. We welcome the advice,
encouragement and support of the people meeting in Ottawa today.
In the meantime we therefore welcome the opportunity to make
clear our position on this issue and urge support of the motion:
That this House condemns the government for its refusal to
replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting
the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearms
registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a)
confiscates private property; (b) contains unreasonable search
and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury Board costbenefit
quidelines; (d) represents a waste of taxpayers dollars; (e) is
an affront to law-abiding firearms owners; and (f) will
exacerbate the illicit trafficking in firearms.
1035
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
amazed that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in the House
to attack a bill that deals specifically with the safety of our
communities from coast to coast. I am surprised because I
thought the Leader of the Opposition would stand to say that he
was sorry his party voted against Bill C-68. I thought the Leader
of the Opposition would stand to talk about all the benefits that
exist in Bill C-68.
I represent an urban riding. In my constituency—and I would
say this is probably the case across the nation from coast to
coast—there is overwhelming support for Bill C-68. There is
overwhelming support for banning firearms. There is overwhelming
support for the government's initiative when it comes to
community safety across the country.
I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition stand in the
House to attack Bill C-68 and cater to the fundamentalists of
firearms, those who have not taken the time and energy to read
the bill to see what is in it. I have not seen one of those
people come forward with a logical approach or logical reason for
being opposed to it.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to tell all victims of stolen
firearms specifically what is in Bill C-68 that he does not like.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. First let me remind him that I also represent
an urban riding, so I am not unfamiliar with the concerns of
urban voters.
Second, let me make it abundantly clear to the hon.
member—perhaps the fact that we have said this a thousand times
still has not permeated his mind—that we are primarily concerned
about public safety but do not believe this approach to gun
control enhances public safety one iota.
The member mentioned what his constituents are concerned about,
people who stole firearms and used them against other citizens.
Note the word stole. This is criminal use of firearms which is
precisely our position: target gun control legislation at
criminals. That is not what the bill does and that is what we
propose.
Last, with respect to the matter of so-called public support for
the bill, I suggest it is exactly in the same category as the
Charlottetown accord. The government comes out with a proposal
accompanied by all the PR it can muster, all the spin-doctoring
and so on.
When that happens the general level of support for that type of
thing within the first few months is 60% to 65%. We have seen
this time and time again, not just at the federal level but at
the provincial level. However, as the public starts to learn
what it is about, as the provinces and the municipal officials
that have to administer it start to talk about the difficulties,
as the costs start to pile up, and as they find out that the
public has been misled as to the cost, where does that support
go? It goes exactly in the same direction as it did on the
Charlottetown accord. It goes down.
At the end of the day there will be more support for the
position on gun control that is being put forward by the official
opposition than there will be for the bill that was put forward
by the government.
1040
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the
Leader of the Opposition. Generally speaking we in the
Conservative Party embrace many of those comments. We are united
in that approach, but I would quickly add that we are not united
in anything else with the Reform Party.
My question for the Leader of the Opposition is with respect to
costs. I know this is a broad, sweeping piece of legislation
which touches on civil rights and other property related issues
like the ones before the court in Alberta.
This debates today comes on the heels of the debate yesterday
concerning Bill C-68. In terms of priority and the spiralling
costs, would not the money be better spent on a registry that
registers criminals and not guns?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's
comment that we are united in this approach. We are hopeful that
we may be even more united in some other approaches, but that is
a subject for further discussion.
I agree with the suggestion implicit in the member's question.
The dollars that are being invested in the registration of
firearms, particularly when the people we are trying to get at,
the people who will use firearms in a criminal manner, are the
last people to participate in the registry. The justice minister
can put an add in the Mafia magazine saying please register your
firearms, but it is entirely unlikely that he will get a response
that will justify that expense.
I concur with the suggestion of the hon. member that if one is
to register it might be better to register the people who are
inclined to use firearms in a criminal way rather than to focus
on the weapons.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I rise in the House to participate in yet another
debate on gun control initiated by the official opposition that
just does not get it. Also I want to speak to Canadians.
We have given ample opportunity in the House and across Canada
to everyone concerned to speak to this issue, but Her Majesty's
Official Opposition continues to misinform the public and to
openly support the highly visible and vocal gun lobby.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about democratic freedoms.
That is why we have people outside the House today demonstrating
their opinion. In some other countries in the world, to get on
the Hill as in this case they would have to get past walls that
are six feet high and three feet thick. If there are countries
in the world where there is freedom of speech it certainly is
this country. We should applaud that, not condemn it as the
opposition leader says. The minister is currently at a press
conference and will be speaking later in the House.
Let us talk about some of the statistics because there is a lot
of support in the country for the legislation. In a recent Angus
Reid poll 82% of Canadians approved the universal registration of
rifles and shotguns; 72% in rural communities. The opposition is
completely out of touch with Canadians.
In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver handguns are seized as often
as rifles and shotguns: 70% of firearms that are seized are
legally owned and for handguns it is less than 10%.
Approximately 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot. It
appears all these statistics have no bearing on the opposition's
memory. Some 78% of legally owned guns—
An hon. member: It is women, after all.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, it is women after all. Some
1,400 lives are lost each year at a cost—and we talked about the
medical cost—of $70 million. That is a burden on our health
care system.
[Translation]
When one hears certain members of the opposition, not to mention
the loud protesters, one might think the government had not done
anything in recent years to address the concerns of the gun
lobby. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The legislation passed by this House includes, in section 18, an
unprecedented obligation on the part of the government to table
draft regulations before each House of Parliament and to ensure
that such regulations are reviewed by an appropriate
parliamentary committee.
1045
We tabled regulations in this House on two occasions, first in
November 1996 and then at the end of October 1997.
[English]
In respect of the first set of regulations, the standing
committee made a total of 39 recommendations. We were able to
accept in whole or in part 38 of these 39 recommendations and to
make amendments to the regulations to reflect those
recommendations. For the second set tabled at the end of October
of last year, the committee again made 39 recommendations of
which we were able to accept in whole or in part 35 of them and
to make consequent amendments.
When the statute was passing through the House, concerns were
expressed about whether the statute provided appropriate
opportunity to protect the constitutional and treaty rights of
Canada's aboriginal peoples. Amendments were made to the statute
to permit development of regulations respecting the matter in
which any provision of the statute or the regulations applies to
any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and to adapt any such
provision for the purpose of its application to aboriginal
peoples.
We developed a full set of regulations called the Aboriginal
Peoples of Canada Adaptation Regulations. Both the development
and implementation of these regulations have involved
consultations and communication with a wide variety of native
communities across the country.
My former colleague, Mr. Anawak from the Northwest Territories,
stated that it does not prevent our native people from putting
food on the table, nor does it take away their guns; it simply
means that they must register them. They still can keep their
guns.
More recently we have made more adjustments and accommodations.
There was concern about our forms. We engaged focus groups and
held consultations with interest groups. We revised the forms
extensively and in a way that improves their acceptability to all
concerned.
There has been concern raised again from the same circles about
certain categories of individuals who were the victims of
unintended consequences of the legislation, particularly in
respect of some categories of restricted firearms. The minister
has indicated that an amnesty will be available to provide
additional time for those persons to bring themselves into
compliance with the statute.
Yesterday the minister postponed the implementation of this
program for 60 days to address the suggestion from law
enforcement organizations that more time would ensure more
complete data input and thus enhance public security.
[Translation]
This whole legislation has to do with public security. We want
to make sure that firearm users have the required permits and
that, before they obtain such permits, they can demonstrate that
they are responsible, law-abiding citizens, that they were never
involved in criminal activities, and that they have received at
least some basic training in the safe handling of firearms.
Moreover, in order to better control the illegal movement of
firearms and to provide better tools to police officers when
they conduct criminal investigations or try to settle family
disputes, all firearms will be registered by the year 2003.
These are major public initiatives that relate to public
security and that are applied in a customized and responsible
manner to all Canadians. As my colleague, Mr. Rock, indicated,
Bill C-68 has to do with the kind of country in which we want to
live. It has to do with the kind of society we want for
ourselves and for our families. Passing that legislation means
our lifestyle and values will be determined by all Canadians,
and not by the gun lobby.
[English]
Firearms cause more than three deaths daily in Canada. The rate
of mortality from gunshot wounds varies among provinces and
territories, ranging from 5.7 to 21.2 per 100,000 people. Most
deaths from gunshot wounds occur in the home, with more occurring
in rural areas than in cities, and are inflicted with legally
acquired hunting guns. The cost of the consequences for the
improper use of firearms in Canada has been estimated at $6.6
billion per year.
The official opposition leader spoke a lot about making changes
to the Criminal Code. The Firearms Act is part of an overall
strategy of this government for safer communities. It is one
piece of the puzzle. This includes changes to the youth justice
system, to crime prevention, to victims assistance and the
setting up of a DNA data bank. We believe that all those
together will lead to safer homes and safer cities.
1050
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the myths, the misleading of the public continues even
in that speech, a couple of years after the bill was passed.
For example, one of the things the minister trotted out is that
large numbers of people out there support Bill C-68. She quoted
a poll from Angus Reid in which 82% of the people contacted
support gun control. What she neglected to say, and this is a key
point, is that when people find out what the gun control measures
that this government has put in place are, the support drops to
less than 45%.
The government has given the impression, which I am sure is just
pure politics, that it is doing something wonderful for society
by bringing in a gun registration scheme that is already costing
$200 million, two and a half times the original projected cost,
and will probably by the government's own figures cost $1 billion
by the year 2015.
When the public finds out what the registration scheme is all
about, support drops to less than 45%. In fact it is in the
neighbourhood of 43%. She neglects to mention that when she
quotes these polls that have been taken.
Another thing that she trotted out is that there are over 1,000
lives lost in regard to this but she neglects to mention that
there is no connection between this registration scheme and any
way that the number would be reduced. The Liberals always trot
out these figures in some attempt to convince the public that
what they are doing is going to reduce that number.
She then goes into a description of the form, a form that has
been described by their own members as being no more complex than
the Income Tax Act. She describes this piece of paper. What she
does not tell us is how laying this piece of paper beside one's
gun is going to reduce crime. Nowhere in the entire world is
there documented evidence that this reduces crime. She neglects
to say that when she describes this.
My question for her comes from her very own user group that has
said there is going to be a 50% error rate in regard to this
registration scheme. The police are asking for this. If there
is going to be an error rate, at what level will the error rate
be acceptable?
The reason this system has been delayed for the fourth time is
because the government cannot make it work and it will never
work. My question for her is at what level does the error rate
have to be reduced so that this will be some kind of a system
that might have a chance of doing anything? At what level would
she accept this error rate that she described to be?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to
quote from the hon. member himself about how he thinks that the
American system is the best system in the world and how proud he
is that we should have the same type of system in this country.
Thank God we do not have the same system in this country.
As far as the error rate, one of the reasons we are delaying the
implementation of this is to make sure that there will be no
errors in the system.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to the
American system. I presume she does not realize that there is no
monolithic, all-encompassing legal system in the United States
governing firearms.
The District of Columbia for example has the most stringent
firearms regulations in all of the western world, much more
stringent than anything she and her government are proposing in
this bill. It also has the highest rate of firearms homicides in
the western world. It is 80 per 100,000 if anyone can believe
it. This is in a strictly regulated environment.
In the wide open state of North Dakota where anyone over the age
of 14 can possess and use unsupervised almost any type of
firearm, the homicide rate per 100,000 is roughly equal to that
of Japan, 1.5.
1055
I wonder if she is even aware of these circumstances. Has she
done any sort of study of gun control legislation as it pertains
to the United States and around the world? I wonder how she
would explain these anomalies which seem to indicate there are
factors more important than mere possession of firearms or
registration of firearms in firearms homicides.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, speaking of statistics,
the murder rate with guns in the United States is 10 times higher
than it is in this country. Let us get the statistics right. Gun
death and injury rates are higher in western Canada and rural
areas because of the use of firearms. There is also a direct
link—
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: You are not listening. You don't
want to hear the answer.
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. It is very difficult
for the Chair to hear the answer in light of the noise in the
chamber. Perhaps members might restrain themselves so all hon.
members can hear the answer of the parliamentary secretary which
I know will be very brief.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Is there no requirement whatsoever
in this House for a member opposite to answer the questions
directly?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is an experienced
member. He knows that when members are asked questions they can
answer them in the way they see fit. I am sure hon. members will
want to be able to hear whatever answer is given. The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I suppose
they are listening.
There is a direct link between access to firearms and firearms
death and injury. This comes from statistics collected all over
the world. If they are interested in having statistics, they are
there, but the members of the official opposition are not
interested in the statistics nor in the truth. They are
interested in supporting a gun lobby that is using its power to
come to the House and to tell us to support the official
opposition in misinforming the Canadian public.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There is such a large number of
government members who wish to participate in this debate that I
want to inform you and the entire House that we will be splitting
our time in subsequent rounds.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. The hon. member from the Liberal
Party did not answer the question so I seek the unanimous consent
of the House to allow her time to answer the question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, gun control
legislation, it will be recalled, is legislation that we
supported.
The primary goal of this legislation—and this is something I
remember, having been a member of the Standing Committee on
Justice at the time—was to reduce the number of incidents in
which people going through a psychologically difficult period in
their life come across a gun and turn it on themselves, with
fatal or very serious results, having first in some cases
fatally wounded members of their own family, their wife or
children, or strangers.
This extremely tragic kind of behaviour, attributable to
temporary psychological distress, would not have taken place if
a gun had not been available at that particular point in time.
1100
This is not the case with hunters or employees whose activities
give them legitimate access to firearms. Statistics show that
this kind of accident occurs when guns are stored, sometimes for
many years, with ammunition nearby. The gun has not been used
in ages. The original owner no longer uses it. In short, there
was no need for the weapon to be available to anyone.
Unfortunately, it was available at a particular and tragic point
in time and was used to kill one or more people.
Faced with legislation that could reduce this risk, that could
save human lives, one could hardly do other than support the
underlying principles.
The then Minister of Justice introduced a bill in the House the
very purpose of which was to reduce these risks, to save lives.
Faced with these objectives and principles, the Bloc Quebecois
could only agree with a bill that preserved human life, a very
precious commodity.
At the time, however, the Bloc Quebecois asked the Minister of
Justice to make a number of amendments. An initial group of
amendments was intended to ensure that hunters and members of
shooting clubs were not unduly hindered by the legislation in
the exercise of their sport. The Bloc Quebecois introduced a
number of amendments.
Some of them were accepted. The Bloc Quebecois' proposal, for
example, that the costs of registration be low, was well
received by the government, and the costs are very reasonable
indeed. However, in the case of the Bloc's proposal that a
hunter's failure to register be decriminalized, the government's
response was less positive.
The Bloc sought to have gun handling courses taken in the past
recognized, and the bill permits this.
In the end, the bill as amended got the support of the Bloc,
first and foremost because of the principle of the value of
human life and then because a number of amendments had smoothed
the rough edges. Today, however, we are well past that
situation. Regulations have been submitted to the Standing
Committee on Justice and discussed.
These regulations were introduced and tabled here in the House
and are now part of the package permitting the legislation to be
applied.
In this regard, I would like to quote to you two paragraphs of
the Bloc's dissenting opinion in the justice committee report on
the proposed regulations introduced by the minister in
connection with the Firearms Act, and I quote:
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.
I will finish the quote:
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.
1105
We have indeed got to that point. The problem is not the
principle of the law; it is not that the law wants to save human
lives. The problem is the way it is being applied at the
present time.
We are faced with cost overruns, unmet timetables, things that
had been anticipated and with which the Bloc Quebecois cannot
agree.
But, as I read the motion put to us by the Reform Party, I see
that it swings the pendulum totally in the other direction. We
are in favour of the principle of the legislation. The Reform
Party has never been in favour of the principle of the
legislation, and that is where our paths diverge.
Consequently, we cannot be in agreement with the Reform Party
motion, although we continue to strongly disagree with the way
the Minister of Justice is currently proceeding with
implementation of this legislation.
I offer one example: believe it or not, they are calling for
volunteer auditors. I have here a letter dated July 8 and
signed by Mr. Buisson, the superintendent of the national
firearms registry. He says:
The business auditors designated by the director are volunteers
who will be responsible for checking business inventories and
all transfers to and from those inventories.
This creates a situation in which reliance is being placed on
people's good will to ensure application of the very mechanics
of the legislation, of the regulations, and is just one more
example of how this legislation is not being properly
implemented.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois maintains that, for the sake
of human lives, the legislation implemented must deliver the
services we expect from it. The value of human lives, however,
is such that implementation of this legislation must be done in
such a way as to respect all those involved, and this is not the
case.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to add my voice of
concern to the direction in which this government is leading this
country.
I am going to ask a question at the beginning of this debate.
Why are we debating this issue today when there should be other
issues that are much more important in this country? The reason
we are debating this today is because this issue strikes right to
the heart of what is wrong with this government. This issue
strikes right to the heart of the problems we are trying to solve
in this parliament.
We have had politics enter the area of justice and because of
that the government is putting the whole country at risk.
Why do I say that this is politics?
Since the passage of Bill C-68 and all the debate that took
place in 1994 and 1995, I have been asked many times “Why is the
government forcing this upon us when it flies in the face of
common sense? Why is the government pushing forth with this
bill?” People are asking me “What will it accomplish?”
I have to be honest with them. I cannot read the mind of the
government, but I observe, as we look at this legislation, that
this government is trying to create the impression that it is
doing something wonderful for society by introducing a gun
registration scheme. The government is equating this gun
registration scheme with reducing crime in society.
1110
When we scratch the surface, when we look underneath, we realize
that there is nothing there. Then people say “How does laying a
piece of paper beside your gun reduce crime?” I say that it
cannot. It does not. And nowhere is there any documented
evidence in the world to support this. Countries have tried this
around the world.
The government has not even answered the question that I have
asked many times. We have had the registration of handguns since
1934. Give us some evidence of how this has saved lives; of how
this has reduced crime. The government cannot do it. It flies
right at the very heart of democracy and debate. This government
has hidden information from the Canadian people. They have not
been able to properly judge this legislation and other
legislation that comes before the House. This is a very good
example of what is wrong with this country.
The demonstration that is going to take place this afternoon
demonstrates, just like it did in Vancouver, that we can
demonstrate all we want but our government does not listen. It
ploughs ahead in the face of contradictory facts with legislation
that will not work.
Many Canadians have been deceived. That is my theme. I want to
emphasize it. They have been deceived by their own government
into believing that gun control is crime control and that it will
somehow make our lives safer.
There are several myths that have been spread about by the
Liberals. Once people find out the truth about them, the support
for the registration drops dramatically.
The hon. parliamentary secretary quoted the statistic that 82%
of Canadians support this. She did not finish the story. When
the polling company asks them whether they would support it if
the costs are $200 million, as they now are, rather than $85
million, or when they rise to $1 billion whether they would still
support it, the support goes way down. It becomes a minority of
people. That is hidden.
The government always creates the impression that this is
supported by the public, but it is not. Once the public finds
out the true facts it drops dramatically.
Why are these myths being spread about by the Liberals? There
are at least 10 of them. Unfortunately, in a 10 minute speech I
do not have time to touch on all of them. One of the myths that
is spread is that it is going to be cost effective. It is not.
Originally we were told that this was going to cost $85 million.
That number disappeared a long time ago. In fact the budget for
this year is over $133 million and that is just for the upfront
costs. That is not for the hidden costs of all the other
departments, what the provinces have to spend and the cost that
is probably well and beyond that. Also, the year previous it was
$67 million. That is $200 million in just the last couple of
years.
Then the government goes on to tell us that it is going to take
$50 million or $60 million per year to maintain the system. By
the government's own numbers that is $1 billion by the year 2015.
If we ask people whether they would prefer to have that $50
million or $60 million per year spent fighting organized crime
rather than a registration scheme, guess what they say? “Let's
fight organized crime. We don't need a bureaucratic boondoggle,
such as the registration system, in this country. It will do
very little. It is not cost effective. We would rather have $50
million or $60 million to fight organized crime, which is a big
problem. Target the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen”.
If we ask them whether they would rather have $50 million or $60
million to set up a DNA data bank, guess what they say? “We
would rather register criminals than law-abiding citizens. We
would rather have that facility available to us”.
If we ask them whether they would rather have $50 million or $60
million spent compensating victims of crime, or victims of the
HIV blood scandal that we had in this country and is still being
debated, there is no doubt as to where they would spend that $50
million or $60 million.
1115
That needs to be debated in this House. We are in charge of the
public purse. We have to decide as parliamentarians by looking
at the big picture what is happening in the country and how we
are going to spend taxpayer money.
When people find out about this registration scheme they
would rather have the money spent elsewhere. If they were asked
whether they would rather have $50 million or $60 million spent
fighting child pornography or child prostitution, guess what
they would say.
The government claims it does not have money for many of these
very important things and yet it spends it on a registration
scheme that is soon going to cost us $1 billion.
When members of the public are asked whether they would rather
have $50 million or $60 million spent on crime prevention or a
gun registration scheme, they always choose the crime prevention,
or $50 million or $60 million to combat family violence. Guess
what they say. They would rather have the money spent combating
family violence. When asked if they would rather $50 million or
$60 million be put into police resources so that they can
investigate all the unsolved murders and sex offences, guess what
the public says.
Today in British Columbia they are short $15 million which
translates into 300 policemen on the street. They are short that
much in order to provide the proper law enforcement resources in
that province alone, and this exists across the country. Instead
we put money into a bureaucratic scheme so that every gun owner
can put a piece of paper beside his or her gun.
This defies common sense. This is ridiculous and the public is
fed up with it. There are so many myths associated with this
that need to be dispelled. One is the cost and the other is the
that the public supports this.
Not only does Bill C-68 not accomplish anything, it does the
exact opposite of what is intended. It takes resources and money
from areas where it could be much better spent as I have just
explained and puts it into forming more big government. It also
takes police off the street. It takes away police resources and
puts it into an area where it is much more needed.
We do not need this. We need to have our police on the street
and a registration scheme ties up the police behind their desks,
not out on the street where they would do a lot more good. When
the public realizes that it would do the opposite of what is
intended, of what the government has said, the support for this
drops dramatically.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to direct a question to my friend from
Yorkton—Melville, the first chance I have had an opportunity to
do that in this parliament.
I suggest this is a kind of issue where there should be a free
vote in the House of Commons, where we could have the reflection
of the great diversity of this country.
I think we need in general parliamentary reform, electoral
reform to make this a more democratic institution that represents
the general will of the Canadian people. After all, that is what
parliament is supposed to be for.
The Reform Party has talked for a long time about more free
votes in the House of Commons, reflecting the diversity of its
constituents. Can he assure us at this time that there will be a
free vote on this issue in the Reform Party so that we can see
that reflection and diversity in the Reform caucus? It has
talked about that for years. It was a promise in 1993. It was a
promise in 1997. I remember those promises very well. I have not
seen that promise reflected in the House of Commons since its
members were elected to this place. I wonder whether on this
issue, which is not really an ideological issue per se, this
might be an example of a free vote in the Reform Party of Canada.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy
that I point out to the member that we had a free vote on Bill
C-68 in this House and we were roundly criticized by the NDP
which did not have a free vote on this. We did.
We had a free vote and our members are free to express that. They
can represent their constituents. In fact, we go beyond that.
We would like to see a lot more democracy in this country.
1120
I remind the member that he has been going around
the country saying we should get rid of the Senate and he has
joined together with a Liberal member of parliament from Ontario
to do that. Unfortunately that would not improve the democracy
in this country. We need to have a Senate that has some free
votes and some accountability and is not appointed by the prime
minister.
We go well beyond what this member is saying and we truly want
to democratize this institution. Those demonstrators who are out
there today show very clearly one of the problems we have with
this country and that is that when people express themselves they
are not being listened to by this government. I think it should
be of major concern to this member here that the people of Canada
cannot express themselves and let their will be known.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 1 the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville
told Alberta radio listeners that Canada should look to the
United States for leadership on guns. He was asked a specific
question about the American practice of allowing people to carry
concealed weapons. He told the host and listeners: “I think we
should take a look at their experience there. I think they are
ahead of us on that”.
I come from Windsor, right across the river from Detroit,
Michigan, which used to be the murder capital of the United
States. Every day children are shot there in schools and on the
street. They talk about it on their newscasts like it is a car
accident. I cannot believe the Reform Party would hold up the
American gun culture as an example for Canada to emulate. Every
day Canadians watch in horror as American television beams yet
another firearm tragedy into our homes.
How many children have to die before the Reform Party realizes
that the United States is not the example Canadians want us to
follow? How long will it take for him to realize and how long
will it take for his colleagues to realize that these are not
Canadian values?
The other question I want to ask is how can grown men, and they
seem to be mostly men, get so upset about our wanting to regulate
a lethal commodity in our society?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting
how members opposite cleverly manipulate the discussion in the
House to try to show that what they are doing is so wonderful for
society. It becomes quite clear that they are trying to
re-engineer society to get people to think that they are thinking
in some way of what they are doing here.
The focus of the discussion today is a registration scheme.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should wait
for a moment for them to be quiet so they can listen to the
answer.
The Deputy Speaker: The member would not want to wait too
long, his time is about to expire.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the
member in answer to her question that we need to do research
around the world on what is happening and the experience. That
is the point I made that she was quoting, that we have to look at
what is happening around the world and the experience that people
have had with registration around the world. We find out that it
has not worked anywhere, so why should we try to spend hundreds
of millions of dollars here when it has not worked anywhere?
The Americans have had some very interesting experiences and we
ought to look at what they have done in the city of Miami and how
they have been able to reduce crime there in a very effective
way. Sexual assaults went down 86% when they did a certain
experiment.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I start off by explaining that I am an active firearms
owner and user. I am a trap and skeet shooter. I am not
particularly good at it but I enjoy doing it.
1125
I am also a competitive pistol shooter. I am much better at
that. Having said that, I say to the Liberals across the way and
to everyone else that I support gun control. Gun control is
good. We should have it in Canada. There is no question about
that.
Gun control is ensuring that international arms dealers do not
operate out of our country. Gun control is about ensuring that
criminals do not smuggle Uzis and AK-47s into this country. Gun
control is about ensuring that terrorists cannot easily arm
themselves with illegal weapons. Gun control is about getting
firearms out of the hands of criminals. Gun control is desirable
for the average Canadian, and I agree with it. But Bill C-68 is
not about gun control.
I have had a lot of people write to me. An overwhelming
majority were opposed to this bill. Some were in favour. I spent
as much time looking at their letters as I do with the others,
perhaps even more. I know what a lot of the people opposed to it
are going to say but I want to see what the people who are in
favour in this bill have to say about it. One women said if it
saves only one life is it not worth it. I am not going to brush
that off. I am going to have a very serious look at that. If it
saves even one life is it worth it? The figure that was going
around at the time was $89 million. Later it went to $118.9
million. That figure is now quite low but that is the figure I
worked with and looked at.
In 1993, 1,354 lives were lost in some manner related to a
firearm, suicide, homicide, accident, legal intervention, every
means we can connect to a firearm. The same year I looked at
those figures I found out from talking to a doctor in charge of
the breast cancer detection program in British Columbia that
17,000 women would be diagnosed that year alone with breast
cancer. Of those 5,400 would be terminal. I asked if I provided
him with $118.9 million what would he do with it and what results
would we get. He talked to some of his colleagues. They did
some math. He came back and said that if I gave them that much
money they could double the early detection screening in the high
risk category. I asked what results would that give. He said
that statistically they could save 1,710 lives. That is 1,710
real lives saved, victims in this country, or some unknown
percentage in some unknown way of 1,354 that has never been
explained to us by the past justice minister or the present one.
If this bill is about saving lives there are a lot better ways to
spend the money.
We have another consideration. There are going to be a lot of
things talked about today. I want to hit on a couple of very
specific points. There is a challenge by the province of Alberta
that has gone to court and is complete. We are waiting for the
decision of that court challenge. The government is spending a
lot of money on that court challenge. I might add that the
province of Alberta is supported by the provinces of
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the territories.
When they say there is a lot of support out there, yes there is.
I think it is because of misinformation. But that aside, there
is a lot of support out there. There is also a lot of resentment
to this bill from individuals Canadians, from groups of Canadians
and from entire provincial governments. There is a lot of
opposition to this as well. That should be a clue to the
government that even if it wants to keep this bill it should
perhaps at a very minimum look at it and see if there is some
alternative to some of the aspects of it. Even without the most
objectionable parts of it there is some alternative to what it is
proposing to do.
Under the Alberta court challenge it is anticipated, and this is
from fairly high up and not our opinion, that the federal
government is going to lose that challenge. The decision will
likely read that the federal government does not have the right
to regulate private property. If that happens what it will do is
not only strike down the registration provisions of Bill C-68, it
will strike down the registration of handguns as well.
1130
If there is support for Bill C-68 from people who want to see
sporting rifles and shotguns registered, can we imagine the
outcry from these people if the actions of the government, albeit
intending to support the desires of those people, inadvertently
causes the loss of the registration of handguns? I think the
government would end up losing ground rather than gaining. In
light of that it might want to reconsider.
The government, by claiming that the bill would reduce crime,
has played a very cruel hoax on Canadians by providing them with
a false sense of security and possibly reducing vigilance against
criminal attack. The government claims that Bill C-68 will make
our homes and streets safer but the legislation does absolutely
nothing whatsoever to justify that claim.
The money the government is wasting on Bill C-68 could be spent
far more effectively on disease prevention, detection and cures;
on policing costs; on establishing DNA databanks to aid the
police in apprehending and convicting violent criminals; on
post-secondary education for young people who are inheriting a
debt of two decades of wasteful program spending, which I might
add can be compared very closely with this bill and the amount of
money it will cost.
Bill C-68 is not gun control. It is a phenomenal waste of
money. It provides a false sense of security to Canadians. It
does absolutely nothing to hamper the criminal misuse of
firearms. If anything, it actually helps criminals by diverting
police activities from their apprehension.
The Canadian Police Association, the frontline police officers,
not the politically appointed chiefs of police, who deal directly
with criminals and criminal situations are totally opposed to the
bill.
If the government's intentions were good, now is the time to
correct the outcome. What the government intended may not be the
way it will come out. I call on the government to rescind Bill
C-68 and replace it with legislation that cracks down on the
criminal misuse of firearms. If the intention is good that is
great.
In the first speech I ever made in the House of Commons I said,
and sincerely meant it, that I was not here to oppose the
government for opposition sake. If the government does something
right I will be the first to congratulate it. If the government
comes out with a bill that I do not happen to agree with, I will
speak out on it and try to suggest alternatives to make it a
better bill.
I have done that in committee. I have worked with government
officials not to try to expose what they are doing and say they
are a bunch of whatever but rather to say what I believe the
problems are and to give a justifiable and valid alternative.
There are alternatives. The government should not blindside
itself by saying that everything it does it automatically right.
It would be far better to say that everything it does it means to
be right but sometimes it will have to make some changes along
the way.
I believe this is one of those times. I hope enlightened
members will look at it and see that it is not a weakness to
suggest that the intentions were good but perhaps some changes
are needed. This bill is one of those occasions.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat puzzled. I do not understand the contradiction in
Reform Party policy when it comes to community safety. I do not
understand why it would oppose crime control Bill C-68. Why does
it want to oppose crime control legislation that will guarantee
the safety of our communities?
The bill takes into consideration the interests of law-abiding
citizens who own guns and the community at large. It strikes a
balance between those who have and those who want to be
protected.
I do not understand how the member could stand in the House to
oppose gun control legislation and crime prevention Bill C-68.
Victims groups in his constituency, the majority of people in
his community and across the country, chief of police
organizations, police associations and health organizations were
involved in the development of the registry part of Bill C-68.
1135
On a number of occasions his own party has indicated the need to
control the use of firearms. Back in 1994 it passed a motion
that if elected a Reform government would introduce legislation
by which the criminal misuse of firearms would be severely
punished.
What happened between 1994 and 1998? Why is the Reform Party
now falling into the trap of special interest groups and lobby
organizations? Why is it not defending the interests of its own
constituencies and those of victims? Why are Reformers not
standing up for the rights of those who wanted them to stand up
for their rights, for those who have written to them over and
over again to tell them to support Bill C-68? Why are they going
with special interest groups and against the will and interests
of the community at large?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting
little spiel from the hon. member. I am sure he has been taking
lessons from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said that the
bill was about crime control. That is a myth that I cannot
believe they believe. It has nothing to do with crime control.
Law-abiding citizens are not the problem. Criminals are the
problem. By definition criminals break the law. Why does the
government think a registration program law-abiding citizens have
to comply with will solve crimes?
Can we imagine the bank robber on his way to the bank saying
“Gee, we had better not rob the bank today because I haven't
registered this rifle?” When was the last time somebody robbed
a bank with a rifle?
Crime control, give me a break. If the member wants to talk
about what we are doing today then at least he should make some
sensible remarks.
The hon. member said that the chiefs of police were against us.
I acknowledge that. Politically appointed chiefs of police are
onside with the government that appoints people. What a
surprise. I do not know if it was intentional or not, but he was
wrong when he said that police associations were in favour of it.
They are not. The Regina police refused to support the RCMP in a
request to register firearms. The Canadian Police Association
that covers police from one end of the country to the other,
frontline police who do the work, is opposed to the legislation.
He talked about my constituents. I surveyed my constituents
with a question that firearms owners challenged me on. They
asked why I was being so neutral, why I was not being stronger
and more supportive in the way I asked questions. I told them it
had to be an absolutely neutral, fair question which we had
designed for us. I got the biggest response on that survey of
any householder survey I have ever sent out.
An hon. member: Table it.
Mr. Jim Gouk: I will table it. I would love to. I will
give the member the figures on that. Ninety per cent of
respondents opposed the bill after being asked a totally neutral
question. I am representing my constituents. I would suggest to
the hon. member that he has a lot of backbenchers over there who
are not representing their constituents.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the House that the
time for questions and comments has expired.
The Chair is in a bit of difficulty. I would appreciate the
assistance of hon. members. Prior to the speech of the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville, on the special agreed order in
respect of rotation it was the turn of the New Democratic Party
to offer a speech followed by the Conservative Party. That
unfortunately did not happen.
Is there consent to revert to those two speeches so we may clear
this up today and then allow government members to follow since
the official opposition has had its first two speakers? Would
the House agree to revert to allow these two 10 minute speeches
to follow in the usual case?
In effect we started a new session yesterday and members may not
be accustomed to the usual practices. I hope there would be
agreement to do this. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1140
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
start by thanking the House for its indulgence on this matter. I
appreciate the effort of my colleagues. It is perhaps a good
juncture to see the House agree to allowing me and the
Conservative Party to speak to this issue.
We have had probably an hour and a half of very partisan and
very heated debated on the opposition motion. I would like to
talk a bit about gun control and the gun control registry, the
history of it in the country and what it has meant to all
Canadians. Let us not forget that we are here to represent
Canadians in rural parts of the country, aboriginal Canadians and
Canadians in urban centres, many of whom have different positions
on the legislation because of their own different experiences and
the different places in which they find themselves today.
Of course the history of gun control and registration is not
new. Since 1877 Canada has restricted the use of some firearms
to protect public policy. Since 1968 Canada has classified
weapons as prohibited, restricted and non-restricted. In
1977—and this has been referred to by members in the debate—an
act was introduced which created the firearms acquisition
certificate. For a long time there has been debate in the
House—this is not a new issue—about how firearms are to be
controlled and whether or not we need gun registration.
Many Canadians have opposed the bill. When it was introduced in
the House last year there was tremendous debate. Today we
revisited much of that debate. We have to be clear that although
the motion speaks to registration there is a rally opposed to
Bill C-68 on Parliament Hill today. Much of the debate is
focusing in reality on that bill.
This piece of legislation has concerned many Canadians on both
sides of the issue. I have listened to many convincing arguments
by Canadians and by their representatives in the House who oppose
Bill C-68 and who oppose registration.
In my caucus the member for Churchill has been eloquent in
presenting to me as the justice critic the interests and concerns
of her constituents about the legislation. The member for Yukon
in the caucus has told eloquent stories about aboriginal women in
her community who use firearms as part of their daily lives and
see in many cases Bill C-68 and the registration of firearms as
an imposition on them and their historic way of life.
On the other hand—and this reflects the diversity in the
country—I have heard from the member for Burnaby—Douglas about
the concerns of his constituents in a very urban riding who say
that gun control is necessary for them to feel safe in their
homes and in their streets.
I have heard from my seatmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre, eloquent stories about constituents who have come to him
and said “We are afraid to sleep at night. We cannot sleep at
night in this city in this country in this year because of the
sound of gunfire”. We are not talking about Sarajevo. We are
talking about Canada.
These constituents are Canadians. All these Canadians look at
the legislation from their perspective and from where they live.
If there is one thing Canadians expect from the House, it is that
we take this most serious issue and do not play politics with it,
that we take this most serious issue and reflect the concerns of
Canadians on both sides.
The whole issue of gun control came from well-intentioned
people. Its opposition is from well-intentioned members. When
the Minister of Justice introduced the legislation I do not think
he was trying to anger or that he did not take into account the
concerns of rural Canadians and aboriginal Canadians. I do not
think members of the opposition party when they were first
elected and opposed this bill did so simply to play politics.
1145
I think it reflects the real divisions in this country. We have
always suggested that the legislation needed to be reviewed. We
needed to take into account the aboriginal community, the rural
and urban Canadians and find a way in this great country in our
history of consensus building to meet the needs of all these
individuals.
At the beginning of this debate the hon. Leader of the
Opposition said that the Reform Party came here in part to make
parliament more democratic. He called for more free votes. He
called for better ways for us to discuss the issues of Canadians
and Canadians' concerns. No party in this legislature has a
monopoly on democratic reform.
We in the NDP have for a long time argued that there has to be a
different way to deal with very contentious issues. We have
called for the abolition of the Senate but that is not the
purpose of this debate today so I will not go into it. We have
called for proportional representation. And today on this issue
we call for a free vote. Today on this issue we will demonstrate
the commitment of our party to the reformation of this
institution and ask for a free vote. We will vote that way in
this party reflecting the diversity of Canadians on this
contentious issue, reflecting the wishes of our constituents and
reflecting our history on this issue.
Let us not forget that when this law was introduced there were
nine members of the New Democratic Party in this House. Since
then more than half of this caucus is newly elected. We spoke to
our constituents about their concerns. I have given some
examples of what those concerns have been. We will be voting
freely on this motion before the House.
I do wish that the opposition motion called for a review of the
firearms legislation. I do wish that the implementation by the
government had proceeded in a better way. I do wish that we
played less politics with this particular issue and listened more
to Canadians. At the end of the day in this party that is what
we will do. At the end of the day when the vote is called, we
will vote according to that.
That being said, there are different merits on different parts
of the legislation. As I have indicated I would be happier had
both the government and the opposition attempted to find a way to
change the legislation to make it accommodate all of the
interests in the country. I believe that we can truly reflect
the interests of Canadians in that way. I call upon the members
of this House to do so.
Questions were put to the Reform Party whether there would be a
free vote on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition questioned
the government, will there be a free vote on this issue? Well,
there will be for some of us. I throw that out as an answer.
I suggest again that the people who live in parts of this
country that have genuine concerns about firearms ought to be
respected, but so too and not at the expense of other Canadians.
We in this country have always found a way to compromise on the
most difficult and contentious issues. We look to our
parliamentarians and we look to our leaders for that compromise.
We have proposed for a long time a review of the legislation,
that we travel the country and hear the concerns of Canadians
which I think is the Canadian way.
I thank the House again for its indulgence in allowing me my
turn to speak.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to address the hon. member with a bit of
historical information about the debates on this bill back in
1994-95. There were in fact great efforts made to make the bill
better, make it acceptable to all concerned. There were some 200
amendments proposed both by opposition members and by members on
the government side. The government stonewalled almost all of
them. There was no consideration given to them. There was no
compromise, a sort of take no prisoners attitude.
1150
I would ask the member if he feels that the total rejection of
more than 200 amendments really represents an effort to govern or
if it is merely an effort to steamroll.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. They are enlightening to me as a member who
has been in this House for a year.
One of the things I am going to reflect on and honestly one of
the things I have learned here is that sometimes amendments are
put forward in good spirit and sometimes they are put forward for
purely political purposes to filibuster. I am learning that. It
is one of the things that I am learning about perhaps the darker
side of the rules in parliament.
When the member asks me whether that was stonewalling or whether
it was a poor attempt to govern, I do not know what those
amendments were in fairness. I do not know what they reflected.
More than 200 certainly means that they were doing their job I
suppose. They were reviewed by the justice committee. My
experience on that committee to date has been that oftentimes
parties seize on a particular issue and will sometimes play
politics with it. Sadly, I was not here but I thank the hon.
member for his history lesson. I unfortunately cannot determine
whether or not those amendments were in good faith or not.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
speak earlier. She indicated that during that debate all kinds
of amendments were accepted. I do not know how many must have
been put forward to the government. Some were accepted.
Obviously 200 were rejected. It does not sound to me like the
best way to do business though.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the hon. member which I would like to preface.
I would like to ask the member whether he really believes that
this piece legislation, formerly known as Bill C-68, is more
about taxation than gun control. I would ask the member to share
his thoughts with respect to whether he thinks that registering
the long rifles of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and
farmers will have any effect on deterring the criminal use of
firearms. I think ultimately it will not and the excessive
registration costs which are rumoured to be in the area of $300
million to as high as $1 billion are far too excessive for our
law-abiding citizens.
If we really want to deter the criminal use of firearms in this
country, I would ask the hon. member to answer the question of
whether this $60 million to be utilized on an annual basis would
be better used to put more police on the street, to actually
seriously fight crime in a real way.
I also have a more specific question for the NDP in general. In
1993 the NDP called for a national gun registry, yet during the
last parliament the majority of the NDP caucus opposed Bill C-68.
In 1997 in the riding of Kings—Hants the candidate actually
painted himself as being anti Bill C-68 while the member for
Halifax and the NDP leader painted themselves as pro Bill C-68.
Where is the position of the NDP with respect to Bill C-68?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, there were many questions
but I will answer the first question first and then in the order
in which they came.
The question was, do I think the $60 million might be put to
better use. I suppose it depends on one's perspective. In the
last session of this House before I was a member of parliament
there was a great deal of talk and discussion in Cape Breton,
where we have a staggering rate of unemployment, that the gun
control registration centre would be placed in my riding creating
upwards of 100 jobs. That was a pretty enticing argument.
I suppose from the perspective of a member of parliament who
might possibly have some of his constituents put to work in a gun
registration centre in an area of high unemployment it is not too
much money. On the other hand if it is going to stay here in
Ottawa, maybe that changes my perspective a little bit and I do
not think it is going to be located in Cape Breton.
Could the money be put to better use? There is no shortage of
money in this country—
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired.
1155
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. It is always
an honour to follow my colleague from the New Democratic Party, a
learned counsel, justice critic and fellow Nova Scotian. He has
given a view from his perspective on this particular debate and I
hope to add my humble remarks.
With respect to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am
pleased to pledge our party's support for this particular motion
before the House. It reaffirms the position taken by the hon.
Jean Charest in the last parliament, in the last election and the
position of our party throughout this debate, the unwavering
opposition to this ill conceived long gun registration.
The focus here should not waver. It is about long guns. It is
about shotguns and rifles. The emphasis here is on long guns.
One of the key commitments I made to the constituents of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was that I would continue to
oppose this piece of legislation. It is ineffective and unproven
mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates and
targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be
using firearms.
Bill C-68 clearly does not approach and does not affect the root
causes of crime. One of the first motions I tabled in this House
last September was to achieve the very goal which this particular
motion sets out to achieve.
This motion is very timely. Obviously when we hear the cries of
thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have
assembled here on the hill today, there appears to be some
opposition to what the government is going to do with this piece
of legislation.
Others have already detailed the specific problems with this
particular act. Those problems were highlighted at the justice
committee with the numerous amendments that were struck down by
the government. I would suggest they were useful, non-partisan
amendments that were aimed at improving the act. If we cannot
kill it, the very least we can do is try to improve it.
In the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to
personally meet a number of representatives from organizations in
my home province of Nova Scotia, individuals such as Tony Rodgers
of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation to review the negative
impact that has already resulted from this act.
Businesses in the province of Nova Scotia and like businesses in
other provinces are going to be extremely negatively affected by
the implementation of this legislation because, as we know, it is
going to force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely
bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that is not going to
impact on the criminal use of firearms.
We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of
the toughest gun control laws in the world. We are now
furthering that by adding burdensome registration fees which
amount to nothing more than a tax, which was alluded to by the
member for Fundy—Royal.
The Liberal government and its well intentioned allies I might
add have attempted to sell this issue of firearms registration as
a question of crime control and safety. It could not be any
further from the truth.
The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white:
proponents of Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of
Bill C-68 oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us
make this perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in
this House, anyone in the opposition, who has any opposition to
gun control per se. This is about long gun registration.
Firearms owners I know and meet on a regular basis are some of
the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible
and supportive of effective safety measures when it comes to the
handling of firearms.
If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use
guns for a criminal purpose, let us toughen up the code sections,
let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use
firearms in a criminal way.
It came to light last spring that statistics used by the
government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were
seriously flawed. This came specifically from the commissioner
of the RCMP himself, words like exaggeration and misuse of these
statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice
that these were simply a difference in methodologies.
This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to
dismiss the facts it does not like to hear. Is it any wonder
that the provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba
and two territories have embarked on a challenge in the Supreme
Court of Alberta to strike down Bill C-68.
1200
Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a
Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control
legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through this
parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent
years. In fact this government played a part in implementing
some of those pieces of legislation.
Under this previous gun law, applicants were required to obtain
firearms application certificates, FACs, which required them to
take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days.
Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were
required to have ownership permits. Handgun permits were only
issued to certified gun collectors and sports club members who
were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of
most military assault weapons was banned or restricted. Those
wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses
or required to take firearms handling safety courses.
The previous law also included stringent storage and
transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these
regulations.
With all of these tough restrictions in place, what did the
Liberal government then do upon assuming power? Did the Liberals
evaluate the effectiveness of the law? No. They embarked on a
new form of intrusive and restrictive gun registration which, I
submit humbly, was a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction to
tragic circumstances that occurred in this country.
The Liberals have cited national opinion polls reporting
overwhelming support from Canadians for this legislation. I
wonder how many Canadians, particularly urban Canadians, really
understand what the impact of this legislation will be. Would
they be so supportive if the legislation was prefaced with the
fact that Canadians already possess some of the most stringent
gun control and registration laws?
Perhaps these public opinion polls are of concern to some in the
House, but the practicality here is that this legislation is not
going to impact on the criminal use of firearms.
The former minister of justice also promised that it was only
going to cost $85 million, despite evidence from witnesses at the
original justice committee hearing that put the price tag as high
as $500 million.
We have heard from all sorts of groups throughout this country,
including aboriginal Canadians, predominately Canadians from the
rural centres, who participate in perfectly legitimate legal
activities involving the use of firearms such as hunting and
target shooting. These people have overwhelmingly voiced their
opposition to this act.
Since the former minister's promises, we are now coming to the
conclusion that the Canadian firearms centre and its
administration charges are going to exceed $133.9 million to this
point in time and we have not yet seen a single gun registered.
The justice department will not deny the reports that are
appearing in the media that this is going to escalate to the
point where it may exceed $500 million. For this reason I wrote
to the auditor general last week to urge his office to conduct a
money for value audit on the Canadian firearms centre and the
divisions of the Department of Justice responsible for the
implementation of this act. Canadians need to know why this
money is being spent in this fashion.
I question the government's priorities. This amount of money
could easily be spent on front line policing, as was suggested
earlier. It could be spent on homes for battered women. It
could be spent on all sorts of justice initiatives, including the
minister's much awaited and much ballyhooed young offender
changes that we are anxiously anticipating.
I would also suggest that outside the area of justice, the money
could be spent in the area of compensating hepatitis C victims
and compensating public service employees who have been long
awaiting compensation.
Without any doubt, the priorities of this government have to be
questioned. Why not focus on the root causes of violence? Why
not use these resources in more effective ways?
Time and time again we have seen this government switch its
priorities at the last minute. In recent days we have seen its
decision to delay this further. Why not take a hard look at what
is taking place in this country with respect to this piece of
legislation?
Before I conclude I want to commend the NDP for its decision to
have a free vote. I can assure this House that there has been
much debate amongst our party. We are going to be voting as a
unified front on this, which comes about because of much
consultation with our constituents.
1205
I make this plea to all members of the House. Let us not target
law-abiding citizens, let us target criminals. Let us support
this motion and replace Bill C-68 with anti-crime legislation,
not anti-gun owner legislation.
I would like to amend the motion by adding the following words
to the main motion:
The Deputy Speaker: May I ask the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who the seconder of the motion
is?
Mr. Peter MacKay: It is seconded by the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. This amendment would be acceptable, and it is
certainly a good point as far as the official opposition is
concerned. We are waiting to hear your decision as to whether or
not this is acceptable within the parameters of the original
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have any
submissions to make on that point?
Mr. Randy White: We are waiting for you, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I have considered the amendment and
it is safe to say that the Chair has some concerns concerning the
amendment, in that it appears to enlarge the scope of the
original motion as moved.
However, in the circumstances, the issue raised by the amendment
is relevant to the main motion. It is an opposition day. It
appears to be something that could be considered under the rubric
of the main motion and, accordingly, the Chair is of the view
that the amendment is in order and will allow the amendment.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member of the Conservative Party. I certainly
intend to wholeheartedly support the amendment and the motion.
I speak on behalf of my constituents, who are quite comfortable
in this area, recognizing the diversity within Canada and also
recognizing that as a rural northern area we probably fall into
an area that has related incidents or deaths. But we also
recognize that the problem is not the gun, but rather the
situation that precipitates what happens with the gun. That has
long been recognized in a number of our communities.
We are not willing to sacrifice the dollar usage for gun
registration, which we in our constituency believe is faulty. We
do not intend to imply that law-abiding citizens should be
affected by this legislation.
1210
If I believed one iota that gun registration would lessen
deaths I would be there a hundredfold.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that legally acquired
weapons are used. That is the issue. There has never been
enough enforcement in this area. There has never been
enforcement of storage or follow through with FACs, who had
acquired them and whether they had committed a crime after the
fact. That is where the fault lies with gun registration and gun
control.
There needs to be greater gun control, not gun registration.
There needs to be greater enforcement. The dollars should be
utilized to ensure that there are better programs within
communities and better support systems.
I want to commend the hon. member for his amendment.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will respond very
briefly.
I thank the hon. member for her remarks. She knows of what she
speaks. It is clearly a fact that it is not guns that kill
people, it is the person pulling the trigger.
Her question allows me to make another point, which is that this
registration system is aimed at helping police officers to
identify which homes are going to house these firearms. It is
aimed at putting a serial number on a gun, on an inanimate
object. That is not going to prevent the object from killing or
maiming a person if it falls into the wrong hands.
The point to be made is this. That information is not going to
be accurate. Canadians, by their very nature, are transitory.
Knowing where those weapons are, who houses them, who is in
possession of them is going to be an absolute impossibility.
As has been stated many times before, criminals are not going to
participate in this registration system. The information is
going to be inaccurate. Police officers are not going to be able
to rely on the information with any degree of confidence. I
suggest that this will create a false sense of security amongst
the policing community and amongst Canadians generally.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in his
original speech went to great lengths to try to illustrate that
Bill C-68 has nothing to do with crime control. Everybody,
certainly every member of the opposition, is in support of gun
control. But gun control is about safe usage, storage and
handling, and targeting the criminal misuse of firearms. It is
not about the legal use, legal possession and ownership of
firearms by law-abiding citizens.
The justice minister in a few moments is going to be on a tirade
with a bunch of statistics. In anticipation of that and in
anticipation of studies which quote that 82% of Canadians favour
gun control, I want the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to illustrate for the House how
that is very misleading. It is not about gun registration, it
is about the safe usage, storage and handling of firearms that
Canadians are in favour.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
It is a rare opportunity to respond to a question in the presence
of the Minister of Justice, in anticipation of what she is going
to say.
I am sure we are going to hear a great deal about the
methodological approach of the government and the statistics that
it has been using to justify this particular bill.
However, the point is well made. The emphasis should be on the
criminal use of weapons, not targeting those who are using guns
for a legitimate purpose, recreational or otherwise. It should
put the emphasis on what criminals are doing with their guns.
This legislation does not do that.
As the member of the NDP suggested, why not put those statistics
into front line policing and into areas where the police will be
able to enforce the current laws, rather than create a new
cumbersome process that simply will not work?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning I spoke at a
press conference and thanked Canadians for their ongoing support
of our government's firearms control program.
I specifically thanked CAVEAT, Victims of Violence
International, La Fondation des victimes du 6 décembre, the
Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and the family
members of victims who are here to ask the government to hold
firm and implement its plan.
1215
I also took the opportunity to thank the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police, municipalities, educators, child support
agencies and the almost 700 member agencies of the coalition for
gun control which have been tireless supporters of this program.
These are the people who have learned through painful experience
the terrible tragedies that can occur when firearms are not
safely stored, when firearms fall into the hands of children,
when police are asked to deal with a domestic violence call and
have no knowledge of whether firearms are at play or when an
illegal firearms industry develops with inadequate controls in
place.
Today opponents of gun control are demonstrating on Parliament
Hill. Some will make wild and outlandish claims. Let me make
one thing clear. We will not be deterred by inflammatory and
irresponsible rhetoric.
The vast majority of Canadians support gun control. Support for
gun control today, including support for registration, is at its
highest level ever, at 80% in some polls. Today a majority of
gun owners support gun control. Canadians have debated the
merits of gun control for several years. Canadians have decided
they believe in gun control. The debate is settled. The debate
is over. Gun control will be implemented on December 1.
Canadians are law abiding citizens. I understand that when
angry, people can make outlandish and even irresponsible
statements but I know the vast majority of gun owners respect and
obey the law. So I say once again to those who demonstrate today
that they have nothing to fear from me or from this government.
My commitment is to ensure that gun control is implemented in the
fairest and most efficient way possible.
The Firearms Act is about building a culture of safety around
the use of firearms. Through it we hope to achieve many things.
Firearms registration and licensing of all gun owners will help
keep firearms away from people who should not have them. It will
encourage awareness on the part of gun owners of the essential
responsibility they have for their firearms, including their safe
use and the importance of safe storage and transportation.
A central processing site is already in service in Miramichi,
New Brunswick. All applications will go through there. Owners
will be able to get a form through a toll free line, at a post
office or a gun shop. They can fill it in at home and send it
in. Visits to the police will no longer be required. This will
allow our police to spend their time and resources on police work
and not on preliminary paperwork. Starting December 1 for a one
time cost of $10 firearms owners will be able to register all
their firearms. They will register on forms made simple after
consultations with the firearms community.
We have taken every step we can to ensure the registration and
licensing of firearms in Canada is hassle free and easily
affordable. I have every confidence that firearms owners, once
they participate in the program, will discover that their
concerns were groundless.
Hunting is an activity that has been enjoyed by many Canadians
for generations. To farmers firearms are needed to protect
crops. Target shooting is a sport at which Canada excels
internationally. Firearms for some are needed for sustenance and
are part of a way of life. All these activities are legitimate
and will not be hampered in any way by gun control.
Let me make it perfectly clear, the Government of Canada
unequivocally respects the legitimate rights of gun owners. Our
new Firearms Act is not about confiscation. Such fears were
raised when gun control was first introduced in Canada in the
1970s. They are being raised again today but they are as
groundless as they were then.
Today's debate is essentially about values.
Canadians have told us that they want effective gun control.
Polling shows that a majority of Canadians in every province
support the universal registration of firearms.
1220
Our government and our Prime Minister will stand with the
Canadian police, victims of firearms crime and accidents, law
abiding gun owners and all Canadians who care about safer
communities.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the minister's heart is
pure. I feel better already.
She has gone to great lengths to tell us that there is nothing
to fear in the legislation. I believe that she believes that.
However, if she would look around the country she would find that
even under existing legislation let alone the draconian stuff
that is being proposed here, ordinary citizens are being harassed
and guns are being confiscated without compensation.
The hon. parliamentary secretary thinks this is a joke. I
wonder if Darrell McKnight, head of the computer department at
the University of New Brunswick, would think it was a joke. His
home was invaded by not one but three police officers searching
for a firearm which he had duly registered and had bought in good
faith. It was a legally owned weapon. By order in council the
previous justice minister had declared this was no longer a legal
weapon. The police came when he was not at home. They
terrorized his teenage daughter, telling her she could go out and
stand in the snow bank while they took the house apart. This is
in Canada. So please spare me this stuff about it is not a
danger to us. It is. It always has been and it always will be.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the
hon. member actually asked me a question but let me say to the
individual in question that I have no knowledge of the situation
involving the person named. If he has a concern in terms of the
way the police discharged their duties, if he has a concern with
the way the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick
conducted himself, or if he has a concern with the way I as
Attorney General of Canada conducted myself in relation to the
specifics of that situation I would appreciate that individual
getting in touch with me. I would be very happy to sit down with
him and talk to him about his experience.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I myself am a firearm owner as well as a big-game hunter. I
mention this because, unfortunately, there are still a few men
who wonder what my involvement is in the debate on this issue,
and I have been involved for a number of years. When I sat on
the special committee on firearms in 1990, I was the only
committee member with a FAC, or firearm acquisition certificate.
My first question to the minister is this: Why does the
government let those opposed to gun control spread all sorts of
falsehoods?
Yesterday, for instance, I tuned in to an open-line program on an
English-language station. The caller was saying “This means I
will have to pay $10 per firearm every year; it is going to cost
me $60 a year for a permit.” As you and I know, this is
absolutely false. Once the firearms are registered, that is for
life. As for the permit, it is good for five years. Why are all
these falsehoods still being spread?
My second question to the minister concerns the $350 million tab
we are hearing about. I would like to know, first of all, if we
will indeed have to pay such a tab and, second, how it got to be
so high. If this is not true, I think that a public denial is in
order.
I would like the minister to clarify this for us today.
1225
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a
very important point and that is those who choose for whatever
reason to propagate misinformation and misrepresentations
surrounding the new federal gun licensing and registration
program.
I can assure the hon. member that wherever possible I take the
opportunity to rectify those errors. But I think all of us in
this House who are people of good faith who are either legitimate
gun owners such as the hon. member or those of us who are not gun
owners support the right of legitimate gun owners to possess
their weapons.
It is our obligation to engage those who would lie and
misrepresent the truth. We must engage them. We must destroy
the propaganda. We must work with all Canadians together to
ensure we have a degree of public safety and security that all
Canadians have told us over and over again they want and they
deserve.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the resolution we are debating today contains a type of
misleading information that we have come to expect from the
opponents of this legislation.
Before I proceed I want to emphasize that Canadians understand
that the Firearms Act and the amendments to the Criminal Code of
Canada in Bill C-68 are an investment in crime prevention which
will preserve the culture of safety in Canada. I can tell all
members that as former chairman of the Waterloo regional police I
know this is correct and is very important.
It is not a surprise that 82% of all Canadians support the
registration of all guns. Seventy-two percent of rural Canadians
approve of registration. Seventy-eight percent of respondents
say they approve of the act and almost half the gun owners
approve of the Firearms Act as well. There is massive support
for this legislation.
Our opponents who are clearly driving the resolution before this
House today are a small minority of special interests out of
touch with the main street Canada on this issue. It is most
unfortunate but typical.
The resolution suggests that the government should be condemned
for its refusal to replace Bill C-68. Let us review for a moment
the background of how this legislation came to be. It was
introduced in the House of Commons on February 14, 1995. Through
successive debates including an extensive list of amendments
brought to the bill in committee and in debate on third reading
the bill was finally approved in December 1995.
The Firearms Act contains unprecedented provisions in section
118 which require that all regulations under the Firearms Act be
tabled before both houses of parliament on the same day and that
each of these regulations shall be referred by the Chamber to an
appropriate committee which may conduct public hearings in
respect to the regulations.
Two major sets of regulations were processed in this manner with
the first set being tabled in November 1996, the second in
October 1997. The standing committee reviewing the first set of
regulations made 39 recommendations, 38 of which were accepted in
whole or in part. In respect to the second set of regulations the
standing committee again made 39 recommendations, 35 of which
were accepted in whole or in part.
My point in this brief review is to ask the opposition why in
view of the extensive parliamentary involvement in both the
legalization and the regulations and in view of the number of
changes and accommodations which were made as the legislation
passed through the House would we even consider replacing Bill
C-68. Why would we want to do that? Let us remember that this is
legislation that enjoys the support of 82% of Canadians.
Those who support this motion would have us believe that this
legislation does nothing to address the criminal misuse of
firearms. Opposition members may wish to consult the Criminal
Code in this respect. A significant number of offences in the
code were modified to carry a minimum punishment of imprisonment
for four years. These Criminal Code offences were found under
the headings of causing death by criminal negligence,
manslaughter, attempt to commit murder, causing bodily harm with
intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault,
kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.
1230
Other offences are found for a variety of criminal offences
including activities such as weapons trafficking, possession for
the purpose of weapons trafficking, automatic firearms importing
and exporting, knowing it is unauthorized, and tampering with the
serial number of a firearm.
We were very attentive to criminal activities in formulating the
offence provisions of Bill C-68.
Members of the opposition, if they really took the time to study
the issue, would also find that there have been a number of
appeals of the four year minimum sentences that have taken place
over the past two years. All of them have been upheld on appeal
as appropriate sentencing, expressing the will of parliament.
They also express the will of the Canadian people, 82% of whom
support this legislation.
The opposition in its resolution suggests the government should
abandon the policy of firearms registration. There are a number
of excellent reasons why the registration of firearms is a good
idea. Let me address a few of these at this time.
Every year an estimated 70,000 firearms are sold privately in
Canada. At the same time a large number are stolen, lost or
otherwise unaccounted for, for firearms circulate within Canada.
The registration of all guns, rifles and shotguns as well as
handguns will contribute to a reduction in the grey and the black
market sales of guns and provide protection for both sellers and
purchasers.
The licensing of firearms users is one of the central features
of this legislation. Only people who are responsible and have
not been within the past five years convicted of Criminal Code
offences will be eligible to use firearms. If they have been
convicted of an offence involving violence against a person, an
offence involving criminal activity, the contravention of the
Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act or if they have
been treated for a mental illness that involves violence or other
behaviour involving violence, then they will be caught by the
licensing system.
People who sell guns should know to whom they are selling. If
the person buying the gun has a licence there is some reasonable
assurance that the person is a law abiding, responsible person.
Further, persons with licences will have completed and passed
the Canadian firearm safety course and should have at least the
basics in respect of the safe handling and use of firearms.
In summary, registration contributes to public safety by keeping
guns away from people who should not have them. Many of the
lost, stolen or missing firearms eventually come to the attention
of the police. A system of registration can assist the police in
returning these firearms to the rightful owners. Registration
can assist in the private property return to legitimate owners
who have been the victims of crime. Since licensed users will
have shown not to have been involved in criminal activity and to
be otherwise responsible, and since guns will be registered the
police will have an invaluable tool to assist them in their fight
against crime.
Opponents of the legislation contend that criminals will not
register guns. We agree with that. The legislation through the
licensing and registration provisions, however, will assist the
police by providing them with additional tools to charge
criminals and to address organized crime issues.
The registration system will provide police with an invaluable
tool to trace firearms among former owners. The tracing of these
firearms is an invaluable tool for the investigation of crime. It
helps to identify traffickers in illegal firearms. It helps to
identify illegitimate businesses and it provides through
ballistic evidence a means to identify guns involved in
previously unsolved crimes.
Registration increases the likelihood that criminal offenders
will be charged and convicted for their crime. What
parliamentarian would disagree with that?
Many guns come to Canada from the United States. The attitude
in the United States with respect to guns is significantly
different from that of Canada. It will come as no surprise that
the illegal movement of firearms into Canada is a problem of
considerable magnitude. The registration system will register
guns coming into and leaving Canada and the movement of those
guns within the country. Illegal shipments will be easier to
stop. Customs officers will be able to identify shipments
against the registration database. Any firearm imported into
Canada for sale will be traceable through its history in Canada.
1235
The reduction of firearms smuggling is an important way in which
the Firearms Act and registration system can contribute to the
reduction of crime.
The Firearms Act is all about the regulation of potentially
lethal commodities while at the same time permitting legitimate
use by responsible owners. The registration system created by
the Firearms Act is an important part of Canada's effort to
establish that our way of life and our values are the values of a
peaceful and safe nation.
The opposition contends that the Firearms Act confiscates
private property. We have said time and time again this
legislation is about regulation, not confiscation.
This issue was referred by the province of Alberta, we know
that. In particular, Alberta has asked its court of appeal if the
licensing and registration provisions of the Firearms Act could
be ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The outcome of this
case will simply determine whether the constitutional powers of
the Canadian government have been properly exercised in respect
to this act. We will argue, as a matter of law, that it is in the
order of peace, order and good government which are clear areas
of federal jurisdiction. We hope that is the case and it most
likely will be.
The residents of Waterloo—Wellington overwhelmingly support the
government in this matter, as do most Canadians. The net result
of the government's proactive approach in this matter is that
Canada will have a far more safe and secure country.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice said that she had every confidence that
firearms owners will participate in the program.
I spent a lot of time in my riding during the month of August. I
held seven town hall and coffee shop meetings. From everybody I
talked to I heard overwhelmingly that they are not going to
participate in the program.
The legal requirement to register one's firearms extends until
2003. The fact is there will be a federal election in the
interim and the Reform Party, on forming the government in the
next election, will repeal Bill C-68 immediately. It is
important for all Canadians to know and understand that so they
can exercise their decision on voting day in the next election
with wisdom.
The other thing I would like to point out is the rhetoric we
hear from the Liberals on the other side of the House. It is all
couched in these little fancy terms they have. They all talked
about gun control and crime control. However, what this bill
will really do is nothing when it comes to addressing these
things.
The Liberals' motive behind this legislation is their desire to
see the elimination of all legal firearms ownership in Canada
realized. That is something which is very important for all
Canadians to know.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his questions. In making the statements he did, I think the
member really showed the true colours of the Reform Party which
is that it panders the special interests and for crass political
reasons. It is trying to do something here which is the opposite
of what Canadians want. I believe that came through loud and
clear.
However, we on this side of the House are doing it in the best
interests of all Canadians. We are doing it for safety and
security reasons for a society, a political culture that is
distinct from the Americans and distinct from the kind of thing
that the Reform Party would want to see in place. We are doing
the right thing for the benefits not only of this great country
of ours but for each and every Canadian who lives in it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the minister did not answer my second question, I would
like to put the same question to the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington and ask him what this $350 million tab he
referred to is all about, as this seems to be how much it would
cost to implement this firearm registration system. Is that
right? I would really like to get an answer on this today. If
this amount is accurate, then the public must be made aware of
the costs involved. And how did they get to be so high?
I would also like to know whether this high tab would eventually
make the system impossible to implement and result in Quebeckers
being told “Sorry, but unfortunately the system was too
expensive to be implemented.” Is this a roundabout way to avoid
enforcing the legislation?
1240
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
It is very difficult to put a price tag on safety and security
for the country. I know Canadians want us to proceed in a manner
that is most efficient and appropriate to ensure a safe and
secure country for all of us.
I know there will be a price to pay for that but it is an
important underpinning of the very values and institutions that
define us as Canadians and in my view unite us as a nation.
We are unlike opponents who would have us revert to some sort of
American style in terms of shooting it out at high noon and all
kinds of other outrageous and outlandish things, especially the
Reform Party which should know better than to cosy up to those
National Rifle Association types and others. Those members above
all should know better but they do not.
The point is we on the government side know we must proceed in a
manner that is in keeping with our historic and political culture
and our historic and political values. I am proud that we are
able as a government to do precisely that.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain, very similar
to those of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, would find it almost
sinful if their member did not speak on this issue.
I want to inform the members opposite that I have yet to receive
one letter or phone call in the last 16 months in favour of Bill
C-68, not one. But I have received hundreds of letters and
hundreds of petitions in opposition.
I resent very much government members, including the Minister of
Justice, speaking on this bill and referring to those who oppose
this bill as somewhat misaligned in thought. There are thousands
of people outside who have come from across Canada, some here
from Yukon, who have paid out of their own pockets to protest and
they are not weak in the head. They know exactly why they are
here.
I wish hon. members opposite would quit using statistics like
82% of this or 80% of that. How come this terrible
misinformation wrongly or rightly got into the justice committee
which completely distorted the number of guns involved? There is
no remorse at all, none whatsoever from the government.
There was a Liberal by the name of Mr. Trudeau who took a
political gamble that he would institute a national energy
policy. Note the word national. But the word national would only
affect western Canada. So they weighed it up and introduced the
national energy policy and to this day western Canada has never
forgiven the party for doing just that.
Let me give the history behind Bill C-68. Let us get the true
history behind Bill C-68. The former Conservative government had
everything in place with the previous bill but crime was on the
rage in Montreal and Toronto and so the government said once
again it will do like the Liberals in the past, it will take a
chance and bring in a national bill even though it knew it would
isolate western Canada and certain parts. It did just that and it
certainly paid off politically.
One of the reasons why this government lost most of its western
support was its complete disdain for western Canada. There is no
remorse yet with the Liberals for the national energy policy and
there is still no remorse for what they are doing to the law
abiding people in western Canada with this bill.
Where do they get the idea that the registration of guns will
protect me?
1245
An hon. member: Read the legislation.
Mr. Roy Bailey: The legislation says that there will be a
registration of all guns. This information could fall into the
hands of the wrong people who would say “There is a good house
to hit. They have three long guns in that house”. They cannot
prove what they are saying and they know it.
Yesterday afternoon in question period the former parliamentary
secretary to the minister in charge of the wheat board asked a
ridiculous question about North Dakota farmers wanting to sell
wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. American farmers said on
television last night, that they were getting $2.75 U.S. but if
they sold it in Canada they would only get $1.40 U.S. That shows
how ridiculous the question was. They make fun of people in
different areas and they delight in doing so.
The bill is not one law for all people. It is not a universal
bill. The minister has declared that the bill will be flexible
in its application. That in itself is a very dangerous
statement.
What do they mean that it will be flexible in its application?
We know what it means. The people in western Canada know what it
means, but the rest of Canada does not seem to know what it
means. It means that some people will be required to register
their long guns and some people will not. Yet the government
supports the bill and says it will be flexible in its
application.
I have take the time to talk to the police in my constituency
who have basically said no way. They want no part of it
whatsoever. They have made it abundantly clear that they want
nothing to do with it because they know certain people within
their district will be exempt from registering their guns. It is
not a national registration.
Shame on the government. It deliberately harasses honest
law-abiding citizens to register their guns but at its discretion
it leaves whole blocks of people who do not have to register
their guns.
The legislation says that it is enabling legislation. That
means the government, not the legislature, not this body, not
elected officials, will have the right to change the bill at any
time.
The government is asking us to support the bill. The Minister
of Justice says that it is a done deal, that the legislation will
go forward, that it will be law for all but will be flexible. In
other words it is not law for all and it can be changed at any
time. All it has to do is sit before the committee.
How can any person elected to the House who is totally in favour
of the gun bill be in favour of making it selective legislation
where only certain people will be required to register? How will
that prevent crime? It just does not add up. The people in
western Canada and the people in my constituency know this.
I asked in the justice committee if they
could guarantee that every owner of every long gun would have
to register their guns?
Do members know what the response was?
1250
An hon. member: No answer.
Mr. Roy Bailey: There was no answer. How could the
government in committee change legislation that we have been
discussing without it even coming to the House? It is called
enabling legislation.
In closing I want to make clear that they can talk all they like
about figures, fancy surveys and so on, but there is more
opposition from every corner of Canada to Bill C-68 than there
has ever been. Opposition from people who are aware of the bill
is growing, even from those who do not own guns.
They do not have the courage to make it universal. They do not have
the courage to bring it back if they want to change the
legislation. Having said that, they should not have had the
courage to bring the bill before the House.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, never
in my entire life have I heard so much nonsense coming from the
opposition party. It is incredible.
When the legislation was introduced by the House that party
indicated it opposed the bill but did not put anything on the
table to say how to improve it or the things they would like to
see in the bill. The bill has gone through all stages. That
party had all the time—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the Chair is
hearing words that should not be uttered in the Chamber. I know
hon. members would want to refrain from any unparliamentary
language in the course of the debate even if it is from their
seats. I hope I did not hear what I thought I heard.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you heard what you
heard. Frankly it is unbecoming of the official opposition but
it is an indication of the fact that it is bankrupt when it comes
to ideas and innovations.
It is shameful for them to be so opportunistic as to exploit
public sentiment and to time, even though the bill has passed the
House, their motion to coincide with a special interest group
yapping outside on Parliament Hill without the true understanding
of what the government is trying to do when it comes to public
safety. They should listen to their own constituents who have
told them over and over again that they support the bill the
government has proposed, Bill C-68, because it controls crime in
society. This is community safety legislation which is well
thought out and well planned.
The government has spent a lot of time and energy travelling
around the country from coast to coast consulting the people,
including special interest groups, the Reform Party, and every
individual organization that had an opinion to express to the
government. The government has given them that opportunity.
This legislation balances the interests of everyone. It is
balanced legislation and, by the way, it is not before the House.
It has been passed.
I wish colleagues in the Reform Party would wake up, smell the
coffee and come up with something that is relevant to the people
of Canada, such as how the government has dealt with the economic
situation, community safety, health care and educational issues.
The government is handling these issues extremely well, so the
Reform Party is trying to dig up issues that were before the
House months ago and are not before the House now. The only
reason for this is that some special interest groups are out
there.
The Reform Party is trying to exploit the sentiments of
Canadians without having any consideration for the victims and
their families who wanted to see that party stand and be counted
rather than continue to hear this and that without really
focusing on the overall interest of Canadians who have told us
over and over again that they support what the government has put
before them when it comes to the crime control bill.
Let the member stand to endorse what the government has done on
this issue.
1255
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, how dare the hon. member
refer to the rural people of Souris—Moose Mountain as a special
interest group. Shame on him. How dare he refer to the police
associations out there in protest as special interest groups. How
dare he refer to the Reform Party applying accountability for the
position it holds by taking the bill back to the people and
getting their opinion on it. How dare he make mockery of
democracy.
I guess my speech has intrinsically raised some guilt in the
hon. person. My people are not special interest people. They
are real people. They are not ignorant people. They are very
clever people. The group out there has every right to protest.
He would like to say that they are a special interest group,
without intelligence, and they have no right. Shame on him.
How could the member say that Reform sat idly by and did nothing
when it brought in not a 150 amendments but 200 amendments to the
bill. Shame on you for making that statement. You certainly are
totally out—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain intended to address his remarks through
the Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as we are speaking, there are some 20,000 protesters in front of
Parliament, including about 1,000 Quebeckers.
These people are opposed to the registration of hunting weapons
but, more importantly, they are opposed to searches without
warrant and to the confiscation of private property without
compensation. These people are farmers, lumberjacks, trappers,
and so on. They are people who live in the country, people whom
the hon. member does not like.
But not all of them are from the north. There are also urban
dwellers who realize that Bill C-68 is a threat to everyone.
These people believe in democracy and in civil rights.
They fully understand the risk involved in giving the government
the power to send police officers to our homes for the most
trivial reasons, and they are getting worried.
Unfortunately, these people are not represented by any Quebec
member. For example, three years ago, a coalition of seven
Quebec groups representing several hundreds of thousands of
people opposed to Bill C-68 sought the support of Liberal,
Conservative and Bloc members, but was turned down. In the end,
it was a Reform member who became the spokesperson for these
Quebeckers before the Standing Committee on Justice, in Ottawa.
Bill C-68 is based on unfounded biases, on the fallacious
arguments of some bureaucrats, and on mass hysteria. This is a
pretty weak basis for an act.
[English]
It is a sad fact that only a small minority of Canadians have an
inkling of what Bill C-68 contains. This is not surprising when
one considers its length of 137 pages and its complexity.
1300
The government's reluctance to release copies for public
distribution is also a factor. I have had to have my own copies
printed for interested constituents. The justice department's
reluctance to let the public see this awful document is supposed
to be an economy measure but there is no lack of funding for
distribution of departmental propaganda or puff pieces for the
Canadian firearms centre. My constituency office is full of that
stuff.
The provisions for arbitrary infringements or abrogations of
civil rights and liberties which date back to 1689 have nothing
to do with crime control and everything to do with the regulation
of property which is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Four
provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and two
territories have tested the legitimacy of Bill C-68 in court and
are still waiting after a whole year for a decision.
[Translation]
Oddly enough, Quebec, the champion of provincial rights, remains
on the sideline. The PQ government refuses to defend Quebec's
right to conduct its own business. This is strange. Perhaps the
members sitting to my left could explain this situation.
[English]
In case anyone here has forgotten what the House passed in June
1995 and for the benefit of new Liberal backbenchers who probably
have not read the bill, I wish to draw attention to some of the
most noxious bits. I hope that new members will note the section
numbers so that they can look it up themselves in case they do
not believe me.
Section 102. Police will be able to search premises without
warrants on the flimsiest pretext. They will be empowered to
open any container, require any person to produce records, enter
any computer system and confiscate firearms or any other thing.
These things can be done without any evidence that a crime has
been, is being, or will be committed. Oh Canada.
Section 103. A custodian of premises being searched must
co-operate with the inspectors or risk being charged under
section 111 with an indictable offence carrying a penalty of up
to two years in prison. In other words self-incrimination is now
a requirement under Canadian law.
Section 104. A warrant may be obtained to search a private home
if an inspector believes on reasonable grounds, whatever that
means, that the home contains a prohibited firearm or more than
10 other firearms and that entry is necessary for the enforcement
of the act or the regulations and that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that entry will be refused. Catch 22.
Section 117 provides the Minister of Justice with almost
unlimited power to regulate firearms by order in council. Under
section 108 those orders in council will become law within 30
days of being laid before parliament regardless of whether or not
they are approved by parliament or even debated. Under section
119 even that slight bow to parliamentary democracy may be
avoided if in the opinion of the minister these are immaterial,
insubstantial or urgent.
A few years ago the former justice minister described his dream
of a Canada where only police and the military would possess
arms. During debates in the House he altered his position
perhaps because it dawned on him that he had succinctly described
a police state.
Now, thanks to events at last year's APEC summit in Vancouver,
we know that the government has extended those police and
military privileges to armed foreign thugs on Canadian soil. Was
this indicative of philosophical kinship, a shared contempt for
those damn peasants who do not know their place, who are not
capable of making decisions and who do not share the prime
ministerial vision of Canada?
I have several times quoted James Madison in the House with
regard to the loss of freedom. I shall close by doing it one
more time. “There are more instances of the abridgements of
freedom of people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in
power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Words to live
by.
1305
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess I should start by congratulating the gentleman across. I
am quite surprised to hear that he is the self-appointed voice of
Quebec now. That was quite amusing. I have a couple of questions
for the hon. member.
First of all, for my interest, I am wondering if he might
clarify what he considers a special interest group. I have heard
some of the hon. members say you cannot classify this as a
special interest group, people in my riding. I am curious if he
brought the entire population of his riding or a group of
citizens within his riding that are interested in one specific
topic, gun registration. I would ask what his definition of
special interest group is because he certainly seems to be
catering to them in this House.
My second question is one on domestic violence and the fact of
gun registration and is it appropriate. Domestic violence knows
no borders. It happens in rural Canada. It happens in rural
Alberta. It happens in rural Simcoe—Grey. And it certainly
takes place in many urban communities throughout this country.
Does the hon. member not think that the police have a right to
know when they are going to that most unpleasant of calls where
there is nothing but emotion in play, whether or not there are
firearms in the residence? Do they have that right to know? If
there is a situation that is taking place where a woman is being
abused and assaulted and there is a potential that there are
weapons, long rifles upstairs, downstairs, somewhere in that
house, should the police not have the right to know before they
walk in that door? Of course, they govern themselves accordingly,
but they still should have the right and it could save lives.
Does the hon. member believe that the police should have the
right to know whether or not there are weapons in the house? If
there are weapons that can kill people, should the police have a
right to know they are in there?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I will start at the top.
The hon. member asked so many questions that I have already
forgotten the first couple.
This question of knowing whether or not there are firearms in
the house is ridiculous. I have discussed this with a lot of
frontline police officers. I dare say the hon. member has not.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Once again speaking on my behalf.
Mr. Lee Morrison: You bet.
The object of this supposedly is to make it safe for police. Any
police officer who is not demented is going to approach a house
with domestic violence in progress as though there were arms in
that house. If he does not, he will probably end up dead at some
point. They do not need and they will not rely upon a computer
record to tell them they should be careful, that there are arms
there.
The police officers treat every domestic incident as a
potentially violent situation. So this is just nonsense that is
being discussed here.
With respect to special interest groups, there is a very clear
definition of special interest groups. Special interest groups
are these bloodsucking institutions that get federal funding. I
have not heard of those people out front, those ordinary real
Canadians whose freedoms are being endangered by these
cryptofascists, who are being abused, who are being threatened,
tell me that they are getting federal funding. If they are
getting federal funding, I would like to see the cancelled
cheques.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member, a colleague of mine in the
Reform Party, if he sees any parallels between this depriving of
civil liberties and freedom of speech in this obnoxious gun
control bill and the APEC summit and some of the depriving of
rights that took place there on that occasion.
1310
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, there is a very definite
parallel. I think there is also a parallel between this and the
snipers I see standing on the roof of the Langevin building today
to defend themselves against a bunch of Canadian farmers. If the
member does not think they are there, he should go out and take a
look.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from
Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I must, by the way, congratulate him
for speaking in French. I think it shows much progress and I
congratulate him.
It was interesting, because he spoke at length about Quebec. I
represent a riding in that province. I have lived there for
many years and should therefore know what is going on.
According to an Angus Reid poll done in May 1995, 79% of
Quebeckers supported Bill C-68. Quebec's own Minister of Justice
at the time, Paul Bégin, officially backed the bill.
A few months earlier, in November 1994, a Gallup poll had
revealed that nine out of ten Quebeckers, or 90% of Quebec's
population, were in favour of registering all firearms.
This has been a fact of life in Quebec since 1972, because
provincial legislation requires that all firearms be registered
anyway.
Bill C-68 is a bill of which we on the government side are very
proud. It represents the view of the vast majority of
Canadians. It is a bill that was democratically and
legitimately passed in this Parliament by a government majority.
Today, the bill is law in Canada. To reopen this debate, as the
Reform Party wants to do today, in league with the National
Firearms Association, brings to mind what is going on in the
United States.
[English]
The right wing and the extreme right wing have been sleeping
with the National Rifle Association for ever and a day. No
matter what the congress of the United States wants to do to
express the desire of what has been seen in poll after poll, the
majority view of the great number of Americans that want some
control over firearms, the right wing has managed in the United
States to defeat it because of the tremendous lobbying power of
the National Rifle Association.
Thank the Lord here we will not be cowed if it is 2,000, 5,000
or 20,000. They do not represent 30 million Canadians. We do
and we feel we do it well. We have been elected by a majority of
Canadians to express their views. Their views on gun control
legislation have been extremely clear. In fact the police chiefs
across the land have pointed out as shown in a study published by
the Ottawa Citizen on August 28, 1997 that 52% of guns
found at crime scenes in Canada are shotguns or rifles.
I know registration is not very pleasant. We have to register
our boats. I register my boat every year. It is something I
would like to avoid if I could but I do it. If they made a law
tomorrow to make licensing of people handling motorboats
compulsory, I would be for it. It would be an inconvenience but
if it can save people from getting hurt or from being killed then
it is certainly a step forward despite the inconvenience. I
register my car every year and it is not pleasant. I have to
send a cheque to get the sticker. We all do. The difference
between cars, boats and guns is that guns maim and kill.
The experience in Canada is that guns kill a lot of people, as
they do everywhere in the world.
1315
If registration can save 100 lives, only 100 lives, if it can
save 20 lives, if it can save just one life, then it is
justified.
I cannot believe what I hear. It is always the cost. How much
it will cost the government and the taxpayer to register a gun.
But it is never the cost of a life lost. How much is the price
of a life lost? If registration was just to avoid the killing of
one life, then registration would be worth it. We should not be
quarrelling about the price, whether it is $50 million, $60
million or $100 million.
[Translation]
I sincerely thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who
focussed on the broad issue of registering firearms, looking at
all the ridiculous arguments that have been raised by opponents
of Bill C-68. They said it will cost a fortune, and so forth,
when registration will, in fact, be a one-time event, costing
only a few dollars annually, just like a driving licence, just
like licensing our car or boat costs a few dollars.
What harm is there in that, if registering firearms makes it
possible for police forces to identify them more accurately and
if it discourages us from using them?
[English]
The Reform Party speaks as if we live in a cocoon. I heard them
talking about the west against the rest of Canada. Yet there was
a poll taken in the riding of the member for Edmonton North which
said that 55% favoured registration and 28% were against.
They seem to imply that we are alone in the world. I
would like to mention a few figures to them. Licensing is
required in Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Great Britain, Japan, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain—
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the hon. member's comments he is referring to poll numbers.
In order that we might be better informed, could he perhaps tell
us clearly what the poll question was?
The Deputy Speaker: With respect, I think the hon. member
is asking a question and not raising a point of order. The hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, it is just the usual
delaying tactics of the Reform Party. It is silly nonsense. It
is typical of them.
The registration of firearms is required in five of eight states
of Australia, in Belgium, Finland, France—except for selected
sporting rifles—in Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland,
Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland.
Of course all these people do not know any better, but they do
ask for registration of firearms. They care for their sporting
guns. They care for shooting. They care for hunting, but they
do not mind registering their guns. They do not mind being
licensed for holding guns because they believe it is better for
the common safety of their population.
Compare this to the United States where a free-for-all has
existed for years. Shooting and crime are rampant, no matter how
many jails they build. They have more jails and more people to
execute, but there is still more crime. They will not register
their guns because of the force of the NRA and the right wing.
We do not want to be the same here. We do not want to fall into
the same trap, to be on the side of the Reform Party and the
National Firearms Association. Let them bring thousands here.
We will not change our minds. We believe that the licensing and
registration of firearms will serve the best interests for the
safety of Canadians. It will also save human lives, which have
no price.
1320
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, just so we can bring some truth and honesty to this
debate, the question that was asked on the Liberal poll was:
“Would you support gun control considering it would cut crime
and save lives?” What Canadian would not vote yes for a
question like that?
As this members knows, because he was here in the last
parliament when the former minister of justice brought in the
bill, day after day after the bill was introduced Reform Party
members asked the minister and his cohorts to give us one
historical piece of evidence, one substantive fact or one honest
description of how Bill C-68 would cut crime in this country and
we would vote for it. All through that debate the minister could
not comply with that request. His parliamentary secretary could
not comply with that request. Not one Liberal on that side could
tell us how Bill C-68 would cut crime and save lives in this
country.
Have things changed? Has the former minister of justice changed
his mind about it? We cannot see any evidence and we are still
asking that of the Liberal government.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, this is so simplistic
it is sad. I did not decide for myself how it was going to save
lives. I am not smart enough to know that. It is not my field.
I am relying on the police chiefs in my riding who I have spoken
to. I am relying on the people in my riding who control justice:
the judges, the magistrates, the people who are involved with
crime. These people are overwhelmingly in favour of gun control
legislation.
I am also relying on the example of other countries. I have
cited a list of countries as long as my arm that insist on
registration.
Mr. Dick Harris: Just answer the question.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: This is typical of what is going on
today: big loudmouths who scream, shout and put out simplistic
notions but ignore what is going on around them the world. They
ignore what the police chiefs, the magistrates, the judges and
the great majority of Canadians are saying poll after poll after
poll.
Regardless of the polls, about 75% of Canadians do not want any
of the Reform Party's notion that freedom means carrying guns
that are not registered and not licensed. Canadians at large are
saying loud and clear that they want guns to be registered and
gun owners to be licensed. That is what we have expressed here
as the representatives of the majority of Canadians who elected
us.
This is a democratic law, passed by a democratic government. If
the Reform Party does not want to abide by it, too bad. Canadians
will judge them accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on his
speech and I would like to ask him, following on the questions
from my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, whether according
to his information, he can confirm the rumours about the costs
of this new firearm registration program, forecast to be in the
order of $80 million, now having risen to $350 million.
First of all, is this rumour correct, and second, if it is, how
can the hon. member, with the information at his disposal,
explain such a cost increase, and what lies behind such an
increase?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision on
costs. All that is still being put into place. All we know is
that costs have been set for permit charges, and for
registration charges. We do not know the exact cost of
processing and of the operation as a whole.
As my Liberal colleague who spoke before me pointed out,
however, the key element in all this is surely the cost of human
life.
1325
That is the key element in all this is. How can we judge the
cost of a human life that has been protected by firearm
registration and licencing? That is where the underlying
principle lies.
As for the overall cost of implementing the system, I cannot
give any exact figures.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing that I have noticed here today is that the
opponents of this legislation seem to distort, misrepresent and
deny the benefits of this legislation.
When I look at and start to think about what this legislation is
going to do for the average Canadian, I think it proposes safe
streets, a confidence that someone can live in a community
without a threat, and many, many things that we should discuss
here today.
I would like to look at the positive aspects of this
legislation. The law imposes tough criminal penalties. They say
“Don't touch the criminal”. That is absolute nonsense.
Even our opponents across the way have to admit that this
legislation does a great deal to impose penalties on people who
misuse guns in this community. The minimum penalty of four
years, in many cases, is a very strong deterrent to those people
who would misuse guns in the commission of a crime.
The courts, by the way, have totally supported this legislation
up to this day. The statute is about lethal instruments,
articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is
not about confiscation. Let us be very clear about that.
It recognizes that the vast majority of firearm owners and users
are responsible, prudent people. The practices which are
embodied in the statutes reflect the prudent practices of
responsible people.
The statute strives to encourage a culture that is safe for
Canadians, a culture that is well trained in activities and
practices for responsible gun owners.
The legitimate practices of those responsible gun owners can
continue under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt.
Target shooters can continue to target shoot. Buyers and sellers
can continue activities that they have done for years. Museums
can continue to display the weapons that are displayed today.
The intent and purpose of some is incompatible though. There
are some uses of guns in this country that are not for sporting,
that are not for the business uses that we have in Canada.
Consequently, several military assault weapons have been banned.
Fully automatic rifles have no legitimate purpose in this
country. Most handguns are treated with particular concern due
to their lethal nature and the fact that they can be concealed.
While we have taken strong measures to deal with such firearms,
the statute is focused on respecting the legitimate interests of
people and good gun owners.
Many of our opponents advocate a situation respecting firearms
such as that which exists in the United States. That is what I
have heard opposite pretty well all day today. It is worth
noting that there are 30 times more firearms in the United States
than there are in Canada.
A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States
involve firearms. On average, 65% of homicides in the United
States involve firearms as opposed to 33% in Canada. Do members
realize that? There are double the number of homicides in the
United States than there are in Canada and those members are
telling us to look at that country. That is nonsense.
A study for the Centre for Disease Control examined the cause of
death among children in 26 developed countries and found that 86%
of firearm related deaths occurred in the United States. In the
United States, 86% of deaths among children involved firearms.
That means there are too many guns for children to access.
That means we have to lock these guns up. That means we cannot
have children exposed to them. Recent news events describing
schoolyard shootings speak for themselves. The United States
environment respecting guns does not give a better vision that
Canadians want to see.
1330
The Firearms Act addresses only crucial social situations that
are created by domestic violence. Required firearms licensing
and screening of gun owners will result in specific checking of
probation orders, prohibition to orders before licences are
granted. Licences will have to be renewed every five years. So
there will be an examination of violence on a regular basis. For
those who wish to acquire new firearms, the applicants must
contact their former spouses or someone involved with them so
that if there is a problem they will be able to bring that
testimony forward.
When fully implemented all firearms owners will be licensed.
They will have taken a course emphasizing safety and safe
handling of guns. The guns will be registered. This will assist
police in their investigations. It will encourage owners of
stores and guns to make sure sales are appropriate. It will
assist the recovery of lost or stolen firearms.
Registration together with licensing and other aspects of
firearms is aimed at facilitating a continued enjoyment of sport
in Canada by responsible safe practices. This will encourage the
continuation of free movement of Canadian citizens within a
culture that recognizes safety and responsibility. The Firearms
Act embraces all these as positive effective contributors to all
aspects of Canadian life. The Firearms Act has the support of a
large majority of Canadians. It is a reflection of a country of
peaceful communities and its fairness will make them much better
places to live.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
listening to the comments of the hon. member opposite is a
revelation of a thought process I do not quite comprehend and do
not pretend to understand. I thought I was a fairly clear,
reasonably thinking person. There are a number of discrepancies
in what the hon. member is saying. I would like to question him
on a couple of them.
I will use an example. This morning on the Internet I found
some information put out by the government. It is propaganda on
Bill C-68. One of the items is 10 reasons for the registration
of all guns. We could go through the argument point by point but
we would be wasting a lot of valuable time although they deserve
to be looked at. One of the last points is less paperwork. I
want to ask the hon. member about that issue. Somehow this is
going to put more policeman in service on the streets because we
will have less paperwork.
These are the application forms for this law that is going to
bring less paperwork, make our streets safer, give us more
policemen actually on the beat in our communities. It starts
with 669 and goes up to 774. These are the forms that are
available for registering guns.
1335
There are applications for a possession only licence under the
Firearms Act for individuals who currently own firearms; for a
possession and acquisition licence under the Firearms Act for
acquiring firearms and/or crossbows, these are for individuals;
for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act; for a firearms
licence for businesses and museums; for a sponsor of a gun show;
for a carrier firearm licence; to register non-registered
firearms, long guns for individuals; to register a newly imported
restricted firearm for individuals; to reregister previously
registered firearms, restricted and prohibited firearms; to
register firearms for businesses and museums; for authorization
to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and prohibited
handguns; for authorization to carry restricted firearms and
prohibited handguns; transfer and to register, and there is
another full page of applications.
I want to know from the member opposite, after he sits there and
gives his head a shake, how we are cutting paper and putting more
people on the street. Come on now. I would like the hon. member
to explain it.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I have to think you would
agree with me how incredible it is that a member can stand for
four minutes and describe all the different forms that we have
after a speech on safety in the communities.
When we start looking at a comparison between the United States
and Canada on safety of our streets and we think about what the
average Canadian wants and needs for safe communities, the only
question he can come to is that we have 100 forms here and we may
have to fill them out.
To me it is incredible that is the mentality driving the debate.
To me the critical issue is safety. It is lives. It is good
community spirit. It is making sure that the use of those
firearms by Canadians is still allowed. I would say that once
all the guns are registered, once all the forms are filled, once
we get that and it is recorded in today's society, we do have the
means by which to reduce paperwork dramatically. Everyone knows
paperwork can be reduced dramatically if it is organized and
presented properly. That is exactly what those forms are doing.
Once it is done, once it is in the registry, once we have all the
paperwork done then the continuation is very reasonable and can
be carried out in a good, appropriate way.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have come here today to discuss and debate is a
matter of utmost importance. That goes without saying. I have
heard comments in here in the last few minutes about whether this
is supported, safety and these various issues that come up.
With regard to support, I would like the members in the House,
if they have not already done so, to take a few minutes and step
outside and look at the Canadians standing out there, average
Canadians. They are not people who are looking to break the law.
These are average Canadians who have come here en masse with one
of the biggest demonstrations certainly that has been seen here
for a long time, if not ever.
For every one of those people out there I can assure members
that there are hundreds and possibly thousands represented by
each one of those. The question of support for this bill, for the
abolition of the Firearms Act, is represented by these people,
and let us just talk about additional support for abolition of
this bill.
I met the other day with the minister of justice in Manitoba,
Mr. Vic Toews. If he does not represent one million Manitobans
on this issue, I will eat my shirt.
The fact is he will not be appointing inspectors under this
legislation. He is saying that this legislation is bad, it is
wrong, he does not support it, the province of Manitoba does not
support it, the premier does not support it nor do the people of
Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the
aboriginal people.
1340
How many more do the Reform Party have to identify as Canadians
who are against the Firearms Act to convince the members opposite
that they are out to lunch on their exaggerated numbers they
claim support this bill? As referenced in the court case which
happened in Edmonton, the justice department, on behalf of the
Liberal government, took the RCMP statistics and built them up to
a point where they were plain untrue. There was a lot of
correction over that. They finally got the RCMP to admit that
the figures had been misinterpreted or something. That is not
true. They were outright changed.
The question of safety is one that has been debated here for
some time. I will go back to my experience in life as a police
officer. The question of safety with firearms was already
addressed fully before the Firearms Act came into place. There
was safe storage. There were firearm training programs. I was
an instructor at one time. There was registration of handguns.
The registration was inaccurate but it was there. I never seized
any registered guns from the criminals I arrested.
With regard to safety in family disputes, you did not know
whether there was going to be a firearm in the house or whether
the fellow or wife was previously known to have firearms. The
computer systems the RCMP and the Ontario provincial police had
already had the capability of entering and tracking these people
as dangerous. There were already provisions for serial numbers
of stolen firearms to be entered. Residents and people who were
known to be active criminals or who were known to be suspects
capable of violence were entered. The computer systems were
there.
The idea that this is going to increase safety it wrong. I
hesitate to use these words, but the hidden agenda of this
government is clearly to make up enough rules that the average
law abiding Canadian is going to break some of those rules either
in transferring a firearm or registering it wrongly. The
government can then take that act and say they have made a
mistake. From then on they will be prohibited from owning a
firearm. The ultimate goal would be to remove as many or all
guns from legitimate law abiding Canadians. That will leave the
criminal with the guns. There is one other group of people who
are going to have guns in this country, the military and the
police. They have them now and it is a good thing they do.
This government is proceeding along the road of arming more of
its departments. The question I ask is will this hidden agenda
ultimately end up with only the government and the criminals
owning guns and the average Canadian having nothing. To back that
statement up, the government is arming Canada Customs. The
conservation officers are being armed. There are all kinds of
these things happening. It all translates into more government
control.
1345
Before this act came into effect the Criminal Code indicated
that a criminal who used a weapon during the commission of a
crime could be sentenced for that offence. The sentence could be
harsher. These things were all in place. It is frustrating to
know that the only impact of the act put in place by the
government will be an increase in costs for average Canadians to
own firearms. People who require firearms like me and the rest
of the farmers and hunters in the country will have increased
costs. It will also cause people to quit a hobby they enjoyed.
I will relate an experience I had the other day. I was
attending a clay shoot which involves aiming at little clay
targets with shotguns. There were about 60 to 70 people there
from my riding. It was a beautiful sunny day. We had a nice
time. I am sure we were not hurting anyone. I did not see any
criminals. There were none. We are talking about support for
this type of legislation. The talk that day was that the
legislation would add costs for firearms and ammunition to a
hobby that already had costs built into it.
As young people no longer join this hobby there will be spin-off
costs. They will not buy ammunition. They will not buy
firearms. They will not spending money on gas. They will not be
spending money which helps the economy. More than that, what is
irking a lot of us is that we have the right to enjoy ourselves.
If we are doing it in a lawful manner, why should the government
put hindrances and expenses on us which are not needed and will
do no good other than for its belief that Canadians should not
own firearms and that only governments and foreign powers that
come to the country with their security guards should be the ones
to have firearms?
I stand by my right as a Canadian to own a firearm without
harassment from my government. I intend to fight for that. I
support the motion entirely and I invite every member,
particularly those on the Liberal side who know what their
constituents want, to vote for the motion.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was quite amazed to listen to the member's comments. I was
wondering if some of the people in the House and some of the
people watching today were actually listened to what he is doing.
The hon. member is fearmongering. He is promoting fear in
Canada. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. He is
suggesting that the Liberal government is trying to create a
police state. Perhaps the hon. member should visit a police
state. He should be absolute ashamed of himself. Enough of the
fearmongering and enough of the false statistics. He should
simply makes some calculated comments without—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member by his comment
has provoked something in the House, but it is very hard for the
Chair to hear and I do need to hear what hon. members on all
sides are saying. I would appreciate some order.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, thank you for quieting
them down. They get to be quite a violent lot some times. My
point was simply to suggest that the Liberal government is trying
to create a police state is absolutely false.
The hon. member mentioned that he was a past police officer and
did not see any benefit in the legislation. Let me give him an
example. What would he think if he were attending a domestic
violence call in a municipality of 15,000 people where he did not
know everybody? I am sure the hon. member accepts the fact that
domestic violence knows no bounds, not just urban but rural. If
he had to attend a domestic violence call and there was no
criminal record of the people living at that address, does he not
think it might be good use of information, that it might assist
him in that call if he knew there were guns there?
Does he not think that maybe that information might be pertinent
as to how the officer is to conduct himself or herself? I ask
that question.
1350
The hon. member should also keep in mind if he walks in and
assumes that there are guns there—I am talking about long
guns—and quells this domestic situation and says: “Turn over
your guns. We are here to take your guns”. Should he take the
person's word that there is only one or two guns, or should he
not have access to knowing? Is it not fair to say that police
officers should have access to knowing there are long arms in
there? Perhaps, if the member would take off his blinders, he
could help officers to eliminate some domestic violence
situations that turn into tragedies.
Would it be useful information to an officer responding to a
call if he were provided in advance with the fact that there were
long arms in there which could potentially be used in a domestic
violence situation?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, no. When officers
attend these domestic disputes or any other allegation of any
kind of criminal activity, they go in there knowing that it is a
volatile situation. The very facts of the situation cannot be
know beforehand either by some computer, if it is accurate, or by
the information they receive. In that area the hon. member is
listening simply to chiefs of police.
He spoke also of fearmongering. Let us talk about
fearmongering. He can take a look at the city police in Winnipeg
and at the courts. In the newspapers the other day there was an
article about a gang rape of a 15 year old girl by four bikers.
This young girl refused to testify in court. She was terrified
of the criminal and refused to testify, and the police could not
protect her.
Fearmongering is on the side of those who promote gun
registration. The moneys being spent on firearm registration
should be spent on working with victims of crimes and fighting
the biker gangs. There is nothing being spent on biker gangs,
and $150 million would help. Fearmongering is on the side of the
Liberal government. It is not on this side.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate with the hon. member
for Wild Rose.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. I know there is a lot
of enthusiasm for the hon. member for Wild Rose, but I also know
that hon. members would want to hear his remarks. I would hope
that there would be some quiet.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Not to worry, Mr.
Speaker, I was a school teacher for 30 years and have put up with
this nonsense for a lot longer than this. The only thing is the
children are a little older now and ought to know better; but
they do not have any brains so it does not make any difference.
Let me make an exception. The gun registration under Bill C-68
is to cost $200 million. Let us say that is the case. We have
not been told once how it will save a life. We asked the
Liberals, lots of times, to please show us how it would save a
life.
Let me make a second exception.
Probably two of the biggest killers we have in the country are
breast cancer and prostate cancer. If we had $200 million and it
had to go to one or the other, how many Liberals would pick gun
registration over cancer research? I will tell the House how
many would pick gun registration: all of them because they
listen to the dictators and they do what they are told to do.
1355
The Liberals billed legislation that has almost a hundred orders
in council, the old thing they used to put into legislation
during wars and real serious activities to protect our land;
throughout the War Measures Act there were orders in council.
This legislation has in it nearly a hundred times where one
person in the House, one individual on that frontline can decide
whether or not a certain firearm should be confiscated.
That is the power that exists under the bill. That is the kind
of power to which any normal Canadian taxpayer objects. That is
the kind of power they have in all these countries that have
failed a hundred times under dictatorial power. When will
members on that side of the House wake up and smell the coffee? I
heard a member over there a while ago saying “smell the
coffee”.
Members on that side of the House are a bunch of sheep. They do
what they are told because they believe strongly in the will of
the party and not the will of the people. That is what they
believe in.
Let me give an example. In a week or two they will be reading
an article in the Western Producer written by Larry Fillo
describing the absurdity of the bill. On July 10, 1998, Lorraine
Dewetter was informed by two police officers of the death of her
husband. Mr. Dewetter apparently died after a heart attack when
his vehicle was stuck in a field. The RCMP, however, did more
than just deliver the unfortunate news of Mr. Dewetter's passing.
While in the Dewetter home informing his wife of his death the
RCMP confiscated a .22 calibre rifle and a 12-guage pump action
shotgun.
In the pickup that was stuck there was a .410 shotgun which a
lot of farmers carry around with them. The RCMP seized a legal
.410 shotgun from the pickup, but when they went to inform his
wife that he had died in the field they confiscated all the guns
in the house.
That is what comes about with this kind of legislation: search
and seizure without any particular reason. It contains
unreasonable search and seizure regulations. It is unreasonable
to do that. It is as simple as that. It confiscates property.
It did in this case. Members can read about it in the Western
Producer in two weeks.
The Speaker: After question period the hon. member for
Wild Rose has the floor. He still has approximately five minutes
left. Right now we are going to Statements by Members and will
begin with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE DAVE NICHOLSON
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Constable Dave Nicholson, a 32 year old member of the Waterloo
Regional Police Service who lived in Heidelberg, Ontario,
recently drowned while trying to retrieve the body of a 12 year
old Cambridge boy, Mark Gage.
Constable Nicholson's funeral was held in Kitchener on August
19, 1998. Thousands of police, peace officers and firefighters
joined family and friends at the solemn occasion.
Constable Dave Nicholson was an outstanding police officer, a
devout family man, a loving father, a wonderful husband and an
exceptional citizen of our great Canada.
He will be sadly missed by all who knew him, who worked with him
and who had contact with him.
1400
The death of Constable Nicholson underscores the courage and
bravery of those whose job it is to protect Canadians wherever
they may be.
I ask the House to join with me in remembering Constable Dave
Nicholson. He was a man of great faith and conviction. He will
be greatly missed. He is now in the hands of God.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that my parliamentary colleague
and my constituency neighbour from Port Moody—Coquitlam was hit
in the head by a golf ball when he shared the links with the
Prime Minister this summer.
For some reason he mistakenly believes that he single-handedly
dealt with the leaky condo disaster in British Columbia. He even
believes that the tragedy was not that big of a deal until he
brought it up in Ottawa.
If he has resolved the buck passing of this government for the
water damage disaster, why are so many constituents protesting
with picket signs when he speaks at local events? These concerned
British Columbians are pleading for relief, the same relief which
I have repeatedly asked of this government through letters,
speeches and Order Paper questions.
It is time for the member to stop golfing in Shawinigan and
start delivering help to constituents back home. He might
remember them desperately waiting for representation, not a yes
man from the golf course.
* * *
1998 ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last month over 2,500 young athletes from across the
province came together in Guelph for the 1998 Ontario Summer
Games. It was a wonderful chance to showcase our community. I
must say that Guelph—Wellington did shine.
The theme for the games was “Reach for your dreams” and
Ontario's best young athletes did just that. With the support of
their fellow competitors, families and hundreds of spectators,
these athletes broke records, set personal bests and created
memories that will last a lifetime.
I would like to congratulate the city of Guelph, the organizers
of the games, general manager Tim Mau, and especially the nearly
1,800 volunteers who came from all over our great community.
This wonderful spirit of volunteerism and community involvement
is part of what makes Guelph—Wellington the best place to live
in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the government
is totally insensitive to the expectations of Canadians who are
demanding fair compensation for all victims of contaminated
blood.
Despite this majority request, the government is setting up a
system of compensation by category. Some victims will receive
financial compensation and specific medical services, others
will receive only medical services.
This is unfair and unacceptable. As one of my constituents,
Jean-Daniel Couture, put it, the government's position in this
matter is absolutely disgusting.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada do not intend
to give in to this irresponsible attitude. We will continue to
fight in the House to ensure that all victims of hepatitis C are
fully and fairly compensated.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Canadian Council for
International Co-operation for undertaking an in common mission
to Indonesia and Thailand with members of parliament, the native
community, the civil society and non-governmental organizations.
As part of the in common campaign for a poverty-free world, the
purpose of the mission was to investigate the roots of the Asian
financial crisis, the effects of the crisis on the poor and its
implications for Canada.
The delegation found that the human and development crises are
immense and require an urgent response from Canada and the
international community.
I call on my colleagues to join the in common campaign and take
action to build greater awareness for the elimination of global
poverty. I applaud the CCIC for bringing this important issue to
the attention of both the Canadian public and government. Keep up
the good work, CCIC.
* * *
GUN REGISTRATION
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I met with a delegation of concerned gun owners who
have travelled from my riding of Prince Albert to take part in
today's Fed Up rally against Bill C-68.
In response to pressure from people like these and with less
than 10 days remaining, the minister finally caved in to common
sense and postponed the implementation date until December 1.
Now if the government, which has had three years to hear
objections to this legislation, remains committed to it, here is
what millions of law-abiding Canadians can expect: criminal
charges for failure to comply; seizure of private property
without compensation; padlocks on the doors of legitimate
businesses.
Clearly this piece of legislation is unworkable.
We call on the minister now to commit to withholding
implementation until the courts can rule on the legality of Bill
C-68.
* * *
1405
BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF CANADA
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the month of September is Big Brothers
and Sisters month. Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada focuses on
mentoring activity by matching a man with the right boy, or a
woman with the right girl.
Research shows that having a big brother or sister makes a
positive difference to many boys and girls. Just think about it.
Young adolescents saying no to drugs and alcohol, improving their
school attendance and getting along better with their families
and peers. All because they had big brothers and big sisters.
This is not a dream. It is a reality. This is good news
particularly at a time when about 23% of all families are led by
a single parent and when many people contend that nothing works
in reaching teenagers.
You can reach Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada at
1-800-263-9133.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on September 1 the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville told Alberta
radio listeners that Canada should look to the U.S. for
leadership on guns.
I cannot believe that the Reform Party would want Canada to
follow the American gun culture. Every day in the U.S. there are
firearm tragedies happening in many homes. How many children
will have to die before the Reform Party realizes that the U.S.
is not an example Canadians want to follow? How long will it
take them to realize that these are not Canadian values?
* * *
SECURITY SYSTEM
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here
are the top ten reasons why the Prime Minister thinks it is a
good idea to spend 80,000 taxpayer dollars on a security system
for his summer cottage.
Number ten, it only represents the total taxes paid by four
Canadian families for an entire year.
Number nine, it is essential since eventually even the Prime
Minister runs out of pepper spray.
Number eight, there are not enough registered Inuit carvings to
protect himself.
Number seven, his homeless friend is okay with it.
Number six, it was already budgeted in the price of the
Shawinigan canoe museum.
Number five, it costs no more than another unelected senator.
Number four, unlike the senator at least it does not go to
Mexico in the wintertime.
Number three, hep C victims will understand his priority
spending.
Number two, it is a national unity thing, everyone in Canada
thinks it is a stupid idea.
The number one reason why the Prime Minister thinks it is a good
idea to spend 80,000 taxpayer dollars on a security system? Heck
a dollar is really only 65 cents so it is not that much. Really.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the gun lobby assembled on Parliament
Hill today will hear from an American, John Lott, who professes
that if more people had guns, there would be less crime.
After the tragic and senseless school shootings in Arkansas,
Lott wrote that fewer people would have been killed or injured if
the teachers had been armed. The same John Lott told an Alberta
radio audience that the homicide rate for white Americans is
comparable to that for white Canadians.
I want John Lott and his American gun lobby friends to know that
dividing people by race is not how we do things here in Canada.
It did not work for the Reform Party during the election and it
will not work for the gun lobby now.
Our government is committed to gun control that protects all
Canadians. That is the Canadian way.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to congratulate
Canada's 275 athletes, and more particularly the 35 athletes
from Quebec, who participated in the 16th Commonwealth Games
held in Kuala Lumpur from September 11 to 21.
Their performances put Canada in third place among the 68
delegations. The team from Quebec included three young people
from Laval, including 13-year-old Alexandre Despatie, who
announced upon arriving in Dorval last night “mission
accomplished”.
He was right. His gold medal in the ten metre diving
competition makes him the youngest Canadian gold medal winner in
the Commonwealth Games, and likely the youngest medal winner in
the history of the games.
Well done, Alexandre, and best of luck on your next mission, the
2000 Olympic Games.
* * *
1410
[English]
SOUTHEAST ASIA
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
recently returned from Indonesia and Thailand on a mission led by
the Canadian Council for International Co-operation to see the
impact of the Asian financial crisis on the people who live
there.
The impact is catastrophic. Families are desperate, reeling from
massive unemployment and skyrocketing food prices. And for many,
the last threads of hope are rapidly unwinding.
Upon our return we called on the government to fundamentally
change its role in global economic management. The World Bank
and IMF's prescription is disastrous. These institutions must be
completely overhauled to ensure that the forces of globalization
create equity and serve the needs of people.
Instead of using pepper spray to stifle students protesting APEC
in Vancouver, instead of ignoring the cries of hunger from
citizens around the world who are paying the consequences of
global capital gone berserk, this government must end its
complicity with the financial power brokers and champion global
reform to alleviate poverty and environmental degradation.
* * *
[Translation]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, opponents of gun control are demonstrating on Parliament
Hill. A number of speakers will be making unfair demands.
I wish to state that, with firearm control legislation, the
government is responding to the call of Canadians, the parents of
child victims of crimes or accidents involving firearms in
particular.
We are going to continue to work along with these Canadians, who
have called for gun control legislation in hopes of reducing the
crime rate in our communities.
The government will not allow itself to be intimidated by
statements from the other side of the floor, or from
demonstrators on the Hill. A large majority of Canadians support
gun control. The debate is closed. The Canadian firearms control
program will come into effect December 1.
* * *
[English]
SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
September 2, 1999 the citizens of Canada will pause and remember
the tragic crash of Swissair flight 111. Many citizens of the
south shore of Nova Scotia are living today with the aftermath of
that disaster. The communities on the Aspotogen Peninsula and
Tancook Island are in the midst of the ongoing cleanup effort
that is literally on their doorsteps.
Fishers from those communities were among the first to respond.
They, like their forebears, are no strangers to disasters at sea.
They left their homes in the dark of night to assist in the
desperate search for survivors. Today there are still hundreds
of men and women involved in the cleanup.
The sincere effort made by all the volunteers and professionals
who have assisted and continue to assist in this tragic accident
is a testimony to the strength of Canadian character and the true
fibre of the men and women of the south shore of Nova Scotia.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the gun lobby gathers on Parliament
Hill, I would like to remind this House that the purpose of our
government's Firearms Act is to help ensure Canadians continue to
live in a safe society. When I look at our neighbours to the
south, I am shocked to see the gun lobby fight simple protective
measures like trigger locks and safe firearms storage.
I am horrified every time I hear about a child taking firearms
to school and using them with deadly consequences on innocent
schoolmates.
The Reform Party and other opponents of Canada's new Firearms
Act would have us believe that firearms regulation is just one
step on a slippery slope. Nothing could be further from the
truth. I want to assure law-abiding gun owners that they have
nothing to fear from the Minister of Justice or this government.
Our commitment is to make sure that gun control is implemented in
the most efficient way possible.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Yesterday, the Prime
Minister described the Mike Harris government as “ultra-right”.
Rather than labelling other people, the Prime Minister should be
looking at his own record.
Over his long career in politics, he was involved in the War
Measures Act. He was the hatchet man in the 1982 constitutional
coup d'état. He was one of the key figures in the destruction of
the Meech Lake Accord.
He was involved in organizing the repression of a peaceful
demonstration by students at Vancouver. He has cut $42 million
from social programs. He has dipped into the employment
insurance fund surplus to the tune of $20 billion, using it
clandestinely to pay back part of the debt.
1415
Worse still, the Prime Minister is the one who rejected
outright the unanimous agreement by the provincial premiers to
put money back into health care.
With a record like this, how can the Prime Minister still claim
to be a Liberal?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is a simple
question that has been asked by many Canadians.
Why will the Prime Minister not simply apologize to the Canadian
students who were wrongfully pepper sprayed at the APEC summit
conference?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry that some people had a problem with the
police there. No one wished for that to happen and that is why
there is an inquiry.
Where there are situations like that, when people feel that they
have not been treated fairly, there is a process to help them.
It allows them to see whether the police acted in an unethical or
illegal fashion. There is an inquiry into this.
At the end we will see who is responsible and who is not. That
is why there is an inquiry. If some people were not well
treated, certainly—
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is playing dumb on this question.
Our complaint is not with the RCMP but with the Prime Minister
who gave them their orders.
Our concerns cannot be resolved by the commission. They can
only be resolved by the Prime Minister himself coming clean on
this issue.
Will the Prime Minister explain to this House and to the
students his role, not the RCMP's role, in this fiasco?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my role was very simple. I was the host of 19 leaders
who came to Canada. The RCMP was responsible for keeping order
so that the leaders visiting Canada could be safe. This is done
for every meeting of this nature.
My role was to be chairman of the APEC meeting on behalf of
Canada at that time. The people of Vancouver received the
leaders very well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is very interesting because that is not what the
RCMP say. They say they were instructed to suppress peaceful
protesters even if they were not a security risk.
RCMP memos say things like “PM's specific wish” or “PM wants
the protesters out”. That PM was not me and it was not the
Minister of Finance. Who was it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know at least one of the two will not become the PM.
I have been in politics for a long time. As a minister, I have
seen many people in departments speaking on behalf of their
ministers or on behalf of the prime minister, not knowing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know we all want to hear the
questions and the answers. The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Prime Minister seems to have his fingerprints all over this.
The “PM” he is talking about is a post-mortem that Canadians
want on this whole issue because they are disgusted.
Why is it that the Prime Minister resorts to blaming a
bureaucrat? Why does he not believe in ministerial
accountability, stand up in his place right now and say “I'm
responsible. I apologize and I will explain what I did in this
affair”?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an inquiry that is being conducted in Vancouver
on this incident, which occurred during the last hours of the
APEC meeting, when the 19 leaders came to Canada and we were the
hosts. The inquiry will look at all the facts.
I said before, and I will repeat, that I hosted the meeting.
Until the end everything went very well. After it was over they
informed me that there was an incident at the last hour of the
meeting.
There is an inquiry into what happened there because—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can understand why the Prime Minister was shocked there was an
incident because he very clearly pointed out that he did not want
to be embarrassed and have other leaders be embarrassed.
This public commission looks into the activities of the RCMP,
not the unethical activities of politicians.
When is the Prime Minister going to stand up in his place and
admit he was wrong, or is he above the law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member tends to exaggerate a bit. Just
a bit. She is very consistent. Today on the Hill she was
applauding a group of people who object to gun control and
yesterday she did not want us to have people with guns registered
in Canada coming from abroad.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
further we delve into “peppergate”, the more we realize that the
real responsibility for suppressing anti-Suharto demonstrators
lies not with the RCMP but with the Canadian government, which
was consumed with reassuring the dictator.
Yesterday, we learned that the RCMP liaison officer was told to
do everything necessary to meet Suharto's demands.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the testimony by officer
Peter Montague confirms that the extreme intervention by the
RCMP in Vancouver is directly related to the directives his
government issued to the RCMP?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said, there is an investigation into this matter. A
commission will conduct an inquiry, giving members of the public
with complaints against the RCMP an opportunity to present their
views, and the RCMP an opportunity to justify its actions. The
commission is to begin its work shortly. Let us leave it to do
its work.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
commission of inquiry will investigate the actions of the RCMP,
as the Prime Minister points out. Our questions are directed
not at the RCMP, but at the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister be so good as to tell us what lesson we
are to learn from seeing a supposed statesman deliberately
crushing the individual rights of his fellow citizens so that he
can stay on good terms with a dictator, because that is the fact
of the matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Such rhetoric,
Mr. Speaker.
I would like to inform the hon. member that, as the Minister of
Foreign Affairs pointed out yesterday, we provided financial
assistance to bring protestors to the parallel summit in
Vancouver. We ourselves provided assistance for protestors to
come from other countries to hold a parallel summit in
Vancouver.
For people who do not want to hear anything about civil
liberties, I think we have gone further than anyone in issuing
an invitation to these people and paying their expenses so that
they could come and protest.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two
days now the Prime Minister has been hiding behind the RCMP
public complaints commission in order to avoid answering
questions on the role he and his office played in repressing
Vancouver students during the visit of dictator Suharto.
How can the Prime Minister hide behind this commission when the
issue is that he and his office dealt with the RCMP as if it
were a political police force?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there will be an inquiry. Inquiry members will question those
who come before them. As everyone knows, two senior officials
from my office have agreed to go and testify.
1425
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we keep
hearing the same tape. The question is very simple: are we to
understand that in future the behaviour of the RCMP at
demonstrations will be determined by foreign visitors, including
dictators?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the rules proposed were for the protection of all leaders of all
the governments present, and they were all given the same
treatment.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Prime Minister.
A federal government lawyer claims that the Prime Minister has
no relevant testimony to give before the Public Complaints
Commission.
Is the Prime Minister pretending that he never discussed the
handling of protesters or the accommodating of Suharto's
sensitivities with any of his officials?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was aware that some of the delegations wanted
reassurance. I did that for many.
For example, the President of China was supposed to go to
Victoria to receive a doctorate. We could not guarantee him that
there would be no demonstrations and he declined to go. We knew
that people could protest. The President of China did not accept
the offer to receive a doctorate from the University of Victoria
because we could not guarantee there would be no protesters.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are not demanding accountability for the Prime
Minister's awareness, they are demanding accountability for the
Prime Minister's actions.
The solicitor general has already said that any witness
requested to appear before the Public Complaints Commission
should do so, including presumably the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the solicitor general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that at this moment there is an inquiry. It
will look at all the facts. Nobody has asked me to appear.
Under the circumstances we looked at the precedence and it is
not usual in Canada for the Prime Minister to appear in front of
a commission. It has never happened before. We will see what
happens, but there is no need now.
I am not preoccupied. I want people to let the inquiry do its
work. The leader of the fourth party is inventing stories. The
facts will be told to the commission in a few weeks.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister, with his answer a few moments ago in the House to the
Reform members, appears to indicate that it is better to have the
armed thugs of a dictator in Canada than to leave lawful and
legitimate long gun owners free from government regulations and
taxation.
The truth is out there somewhere about who ordered the RCMP to
stifle legitimate protesters at the APEC summit. The solicitor
general said yesterday that the Prime Minister cannot avoid a
subpoena to testify about the real story.
Will the Prime Minister simply explain to the House his role in
the pepper spray matter today? No one—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to confess one thing. After it was all over I
was asked a question about the pepper spray. I did not know what
they were talking about.
I asked the journalist what he meant. It is a product that I
have never used. I did not know that it existed. That is why I
made the joke and I probably should not have made it. I did not
know that there was a spray of pepper.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, reality
seems to be imitating fiction when it comes to our American
neighbours. They may already have a case like the movie Sex,
Lies and Videotapes. Soon we may be watching a northern
spinoff, Suharto, pepper spray and cover-up.
Will the Prime Minister tell us why a subpoena may be necessary
before he is accountable to Canadians about the APEC affair?
1430
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is very important to make a distinction
because a couple of questions have actually represented what I
said yesterday incorrectly. The reality is the public complaints
commission can call whomever it wants. That is its prerogative.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
We know from documents on November 14 that the RCMP were unhappy
with the political role they were asked to play in the APEC
affair. Like the Prime Minister, we want the inquiry to work.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee the House and Canadians that
the inquiry will be allowed to investigate the office of the
Prime Minister and not just look into the issue of the RCMP? Can
it guarantee us that it will be able to look into the political
role that was played in the Prime Minister's office?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is the public complaints commission acts on
the complaints of citizens. It has a wide range of opportunities
to investigate and it has a good history for the last 12 years of
doing Canada justice. These people should let that committee do
its work.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let it be very clear that the solicitor general did not answer
the question.
The Prime Minister said the public complaints commission can
look into those who have grievances against the RCMP. The
question posed by my colleague is can it look into the affair
from a political point of view into the Prime Minister's office
and his complicity.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not understand that it is
not for me or the government to direct it as to what to do. It
has a job to do and it will do it.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister responded to our questions concerning social
union in a somewhat cavalier manner, irresponsibly even, going
so far as to describe the government of Ontario as ultra-right.
Really now! For the social union to work, there must be a
minimum of openness and good faith.
Given the importance of the social union, the problems being
experienced across Canada in the health field as a result of the
federal cuts, and the consensus of the premiers, can the Prime
Minister brush off a serious question of such import in such a
cavalier manner?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. The debate on the social union was an initiative
by this Prime Minister, from this side of the House, with the
premiers at the meeting of last December, almost a year ago. We
wanted to consider social union.
I have, however, always said, and say again today, that the five
principles of health insurance, as set out in the law adopted by
the Parliament of Canada with a view to assuring all Canadians
of a program, are not negotiable. The rest, however, is.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what I
understand from the Prime Minister's response is that Lucien
Bouchard could have been blamed if a consensus had not been
reached, which would have suited the Prime Minister, but now
that there is a consensus, he no longer knows what to do. That
is a problem.
How, and on what basis, can the Prime Minister say that the
provincial premiers want to abolish the five principles in the
Canada Health Act? On what authority does he make that
statement? There is nothing to that effect in the agreement.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was asked “Are you going to accept any changes to the five
principles?” and I said no. Look at the transcripts and you
will see this. Instead of talking through your hat, go and read
the question and the answer, to see what they were.
* * *
1435
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of
Health proud of the fact that all hepatitis C victims in Ontario
and Quebec are going to be fairly compensated, while those in
other provinces who contracted the virus before 1986 will
receive nothing? Does that make him proud?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member had at heart the real interests of those who
contracted hepatitis C from the blood system he would support the
proposal we have made. The proposal we have made is to ensure
that persons who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system
at any time will not have to pay out of their own pockets for
medical services and drugs they need. That is what we propose. I
call on the member to support us in that initiative.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
minister supposedly worked all summer on hepatitis C and what did
he come up with? Some catchy new slogan, care instead of cash.
So what is the sick dad supposed to do, take his whole family
into the hospital bed with him? This dad has no future, no car,
no life insurance. What he wants is compassion instead of some
catchy new slogan. When will he get compassion?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party is so profoundly out of touch with Canadian
values that it does not know the way Canadians show their
compassion is by their health care system. The hon. member has
no idea that the way Canadians show their concern about others is
through health care.
It is for that reason that we are now urging the provinces to
join with us to ensure that those who have become sick because of
the blood system, no matter when, have access to drugs and
treatment they need. At the moment they have to pay out of their
pockets in most parts of the country for interferon and important
medical services.
We are saying let us put that behind us and make sure people
have the treatment they need.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Ten premiers agreed unanimously in Saskatoon: first of all, that
health is a provincial responsibility; second, that, if the
federal government intervenes in this sector, the provinces
should be allowed to opt out with compensation; and third, that
the money spent by a province must be consistent with the
federal program.
What does the Prime Minister find unreasonable about this
proposal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the provinces recognize that we can invest money in social
programs, we are in complete agreement. That is why we want to
be sure that we can continue to do so in a co-ordinated manner
with the provinces.
If, however, you are asking me whether we are going to rescind
the Canada Health Act, the answer is no.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nobody is
asking us to rescind the five principles of the Canada Health
Act.
What we want to know is whether, if he decides to intervene in
the health sector, he will allow those provinces that have
programs to opt out with compensation for providing effective,
quality services to the public? That is what people want to
know.
Why is he refusing to agree to the principle of allowing
the provinces to opt out with full compensation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member really wants is for the federal government
to withdraw from the health sector.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: That is indeed what he is saying. He
is saying that the provinces must be compensated instead of
allowing the federal government to play a role in the health
sector.
The Canada Health Act and the five principles it sets out will
remain part of federal legislation and we will make sure that
there is one health system for all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada pension plan's independent watchdog was just
fired. This was mere weeks before he was to have issued his
major five year review of whether enough money will be there to
pay Canadian pensions.
Yesterday the finance minister told us the firing was just an
internal matter. We need to be clear on this issue. Is the
minister telling this House that he had absolutely no idea that
Canada's chief actuary was being dismissed from his post?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, neither the minister nor his office was involved in the
decision. The minister was informed afterwards. This was a
purely internal matter involving the superintendent of financial
institutions and the public service.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is pretty hard to believe that the minister had no
idea that such an important civil servant was being dismissed
just before he was to give a major report on the Canada pension
plan which has already given the government no end of trouble.
Is the minister saying that top officials, people who are
independent and whom Canadians rely on for good independent
advice, can just be thrown out the door and he does not even know
that this happens?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to understand the way the system
works in this country. We have separated politics from the good
administration of the public service. The public service takes
its own decisions. The superintendent, in conjunction with the
public service, had managerial differences with the chief
actuary.
In addition, the hon. member will have plenty of opportunity to
pursue her line of questioning. It is my understanding the House
of Commons finance committee has struck a subcommittee to look
into this matter as soon as the former chief actuary has had full
recourse for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the business
community, the FTQ, the National Bank and all the economic
stakeholders of Montreal are asking the federal government to
help fund the expansion of the Montreal congress centre.
And yet, we learned this morning that the Minister of Industry
has said he does not have one cent to put into this project,
despite the statement made by the secretary of state for
regional development.
How does the minister reconcile his statement that he has no
money for the Montreal congress centre with the remarks made
yesterday by the secretary of state for regional development in
Quebec, who said he was working hard to come up with a solution?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to repeat what I said yesterday, which was absolutely clear, we
do not need anyone to tell us the economic importance of the
congress centre.
I repeat, the unfortunate part is that, as a national and a
responsible government, we put a tool at the disposal of the
provinces called the national infrastructure program and, in the
case of Quebec, it was the Canada-Quebec infrastructure works
program, which was not used for this fundamental and important
purpose, whereas Quebec City used the program for its congress
centre and for another fair centre.
My colleague is saying that there is no fund or program as such,
and he is right. However, we are working hard to come up with an
alternative solution, because this is an important issue.
* * *
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
questions is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
It appears obvious the Reform caucus is prepared to sacrifice
the safety of some women to move forward the agenda of the
National Rifle Association.
I therefore ask the secretary of state to tell the House how the
government's gun control measures have taken us forward in our
goal of ending violence against women.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Simcoe—Grey for an extremely pertinent and important question.
When we speak about safety and security for our citizens, the
government does not see women as special interest groups, as the
opposition party does. We see them as members of the public.
Seventy-eight per cent of spousal homicide is done by guns in
this country. One woman is killed every six days with a gun in
this country. So when we bring out gun control legislation, it
is our first step in creating a safe society for the women of
this country.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can
the Prime Minister tell us exactly what constitutes a clear
majority for a referendum in Quebec? I ask this because the
will of 91% of Albertans for an elected Senate was ignored last
week.
Now that we know what the Prime Minister thinks about a clear
majority in Alberta, how in the world can Quebeckers believe he
is going to respect a clear majority in Quebec?
1445
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the clear majority that would be required to break
apart a country will be the subject of a debate.
We could ask the Reform Party what majority is required to amend
its own constitution. If I am to believe clause 7, it reads as
follows:
[English]
<“That would include a majority vote of the delegates of
two-thirds of the majority of votes cast”.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, section 24 of the Constitution explains how senators may
be appointed. The Constitution does not mention the Prime
Minister. It does not mention golf partners.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know that you like I would very much like
to hear the question.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Section 24 of the Constitution explains
how senators may be appointed. The Constitution does not mention
the Prime Minister at all. It does not mention golf partners. It
does not mention hockey players and it certainly does not rule
out elections. All it states is that the governor general will
call qualified people to the Senate.
I would like to ask the justice minister, the so-called minister
of Alberta, just what part of the Constitution she thinks would
stop the Prime Minister from respecting Alberta's Senate
election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to his question is that it is the prerogative
of the Prime Minister of Canada to name a senator and I named Mr.
Roche with great pride because he will be a great senator. Even
the members of the Reform Party agree with that selection.
Why we have done this and not called elections for senators is
because we want a real reform of the Senate, not just on voting
but on equality. The Reform Party campaigned against this when
we had the Charlottetown accord.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture will know that the blockade of Canadian
trucks carrying grain, livestock and other commodities which
began last week in South Dakota has now shifted and spread to
some other mid-western states thus destroying utterly the
minister's claims that this was electioneering, posturing by one
U.S. governor.
Could the minister advise the House what he is doing to resolve
this dispute and to protect western Canadian farmers, truckers
and their commodities?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member says,
the main issue in this in the United States is politics. It is
not about food safety, health or the quality of the Canadian food
product.
I have had a number of conversations with Secretary Dan
Glickman, my counterpart in the United States. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs will be having discussions this evening with the
secretary of state in the United States. Just about an hour ago
I asked the ambassador in the United States to have a meeting
with Secretary Glickman tomorrow. We are stressing to them that
it is their role to make sure that the people in the United
States, like Canadians, obey international law.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has to date steadfastly refused an invitation to meet
face to face with Mr. Glickman. I appreciate that he has had
some phone conversations.
In his answer to the first question is he now saying that he is
acceding to the invitation and will be meeting with his U.S.
counterpart tomorrow? Is that what he is telling the House
today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member across is aware that I have
had an invitation to meet with Secretary Glickman, it is obvious
that he is intercepting my mail because I have had no such
invitation from Secretary Glickman.
However, I have had three personal phone calls with him and will
continue that dialogue as well as discussions between our
minister of trade, Minister of Foreign Affairs and our ambassador
in the United States. We will continue to pressure and point out
to the Americans that they are breaking international law.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that we have a triple E Prime
Minister: evasive, elusive and erroneous.
The Prime Minister clearly showed his contempt for Parliament
yesterday by hiding behind the solicitor general on APEC.
1450
The solicitor general clearly showed his lack of knowledge in
his own portfolio by confusing an RCMP complaints commission with
a public forum.
I ask the Prime Minister, not his human shield, the solicitor
general, did he or his office give the RCMP instructions to
remove the protesters from the UBC campus and will he give an
accounting in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be an inquiry into it. I saw protesters when
I was there. I did not ask anybody to withdraw them at all.
A place was provided for protesters in Vancouver and on the
campus. That was the plan. There were to be protesters and
there were. The problem that occurred is being analysed by the
commission at this time. It will report and we will act
accordingly.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what part of this is not a criminal
proceeding. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general do not
understand.
This is a question of political interference from the highest
office in the land and the Prime Minister is hiding behind this.
Canadians deserve to know what has happened in this affair. There
should be a detailed explanation, and I ask the Prime Minister
again, or the solicitor general, will they guarantee that they
will broaden the mandate of the public inquiry to allow for the
question of political interference to be examined at that level.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again my critic from the Conservative Party fails
to understand this process, that the public complaints commission
itself will make the decisions as to the nature of this
investigation.
I have every confidence that it will do it in a way that will
satisfy all our interests if we let it do its job.
* * *
LITERACY
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
September 8 was International Literacy Day. Recent data shows
that 22% of Canadians have extremely limited literacy skills and
another 26% lack sufficient skills to do their jobs properly or
participate fully in Canadian society.
What is this government doing to improve the literacy skills of
the 48% of Canadians who need our help?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
literacy skills are crucial in order for anyone to succeed. This
is why our government has increased by 30% funding for literacy
since we took office in 1993.
Our government cannot do things alone. This is a responsibility
for everyone to make people in Canada more aware and more
sensitive to the needs of developing these literacy skills. That
is the reason our government is sponsoring a number of events and
festivals around the country to make people more aware of the
importance of developing those skills.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister and his weak-kneed sister, the
trade minister, have shown that—
The Speaker: I ask the member to be judicious in his
choice of words.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada
will not be judicious in their words when they ask this minister
questions outside the House.
In any event, we have seen for six days now that the South
Dakota government has been rejecting our imports even though they
have been passed at the international border.
When will the minister solve this and what is he doing today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion made. The hon.
member should have listened to the previous answer and he would
not have had to ask it again. However I will repeat.
We are constantly pressuring the United States and the federal
government in the United States, whose job it is to keep the
states in line with the international agreements to which they
are signatories. If they do not do that there are clauses and
actions we can take through NAFTA and WTO, and we will do that.
* * *
[Translation]
SCRAPIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Since January 1997, following the preventive slaughter aimed at
controlling scrapie in sheep, 11,000 sheep have been slaughtered
in Quebec by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
There has been a total lack of information and transparency, and
the producers have lost faith in the agency.
1455
Will the minister agree to look at the situation immediately and
put an end to the slaughter?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to the
unfortunate situation of the plight of the young sheep industry
and the sheep meat industry in the province of Quebec.
Over the last three years, however, the federal government has
given $200 million to the province of Quebec in order to support
its farmers and their income. The province of Quebec chose to
use that as price support and not as income support. I sent a
letter to the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec
a number of months ago asking him to sit down and discuss this
matter with me. He has yet to respond.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has
to do with the shameful capitulation by the government this
summer to the Ethyl Corporation over the suit brought against the
government with respect to the banning of MMT, thus proving that
the government is not able under NAFTA to legislate in the public
interest with respect to environmental matters.
Given the lesson the government has learned about NAFTA, will
the minister now commit to rejecting any multilateral agreement
on investment that includes this kind of investor state dispute
settlement process?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no lesson because the MMT
situation never went to a NAFTA panel.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
ashamed to rise today in this House as Progressive Conservative
foreign affairs critic.
I must say that human rights have been violated, not in
Indonesia or elsewhere, but right here, in Canada, at the APEC
summit in Vancouver.
In the name of freedom of expression for all Canadians, after
the excuses he made today and his statement that members of his
staff will testify, will the Prime Minister confirm to this
House that he and all of his ministers concerned will go and
testify before the commission? Yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only once again repeat that the public complaints
commission is mandated. It is an instrument that was put forward
through parliament by the former government to deal with
complaints against the RCMP. If members opposite will give it a
chance, it will do that in the fine fashion it has done it in for
the last 12 years.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the summer, many questions were asked about the
value of the dollar and the state of our economy. Thanks to the
decisions of this government and despite a difficult
international context, fears have generally settled down.
As an example of these positive economic interventions, I would
like to ask the Secretary of State, Economic Development Agency
of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, to tell us what the federal
government has done to help the Société de développement Angus
in Montreal's east end.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his
excellent question, one which will give me an opportunity to
tell the House about the Canadian government's policy. In
Montreal, a strategy was developed in February 1996 which has
resulted in the creation or preservation of 25,000 jobs.
It was in this context that we stepped in when Ateliers Angus
shut down and helped form the Société de développement Angus.
This summer, and it is to this that the hon. member is
referring, we contributed $3 million towards the creation of
Technopôle environnemental in order to revitalize Montreal's
east end. This vision—
The Speaker: I am sorry but I must give the floor to the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I listen to the agriculture minister's answers it
seems he is taking his direction from the minister of fisheries.
We have been asking him about the talks he is having with his
counterpart in the U.S., Secretary Glickman. It is obvious these
talks are very ineffective because Canadian trucks continue to be
harassed as they cross into the U.S. Why is he not acting?
1500
Why did he not realized that he could not resolve this and call
upon the Prime Minister to intervene, to do something and to take
some action against an American counterpart?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Reform Party has
finally taken an interest in this. Other than a note that was
passed across to me by one of his colleagues to meet me after
question period, this is the first time the Reform Party has
brought this issue forward.
In fact, this issue has gone on for six or seven days. Now that
they have shown some interest, I can assure them that we will
continue to act on behalf of the western Canadian farmers.
The Speaker: Colleagues, that would bring to a close the
question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention
the presence in our gallery of a former colleague to many of us
and now the honourable Minister of Small Business, Tourism and
Culture for the province of British Columbia, the hon. Ian
Waddell.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FIREARMS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wild Rose has about five minutes left in debate.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a
letter of July 1997 the commissioner of the RCMP, Philip Murray,
accused the officials in the Department of Justice of
misrepresenting RCMP firearm stats by overstating the number of
firearms involved in violent crime. Contents of this letter were
uncovered by Reform through access to information. Other letters
revealed that the former minister of justice and his colleagues
used inaccurate firearms data produced by the Department of
Justice to help justify Bill C-68. At the time the RCMP
commissioner requested that these incorrect stats be removed from
circulation.
The bottom line is that the policy and legislating decisions
which resulted from these misleading stats are now interfering
with justice and public safety.
By March 1998, $240 million was wasted on registering guns owned
by more than five million law-abiding Canadians. That is
diverting resources from programs which would do much more to
improve public safety, such as putting more police on the
streets.
If there was ever a case for the auditor general to step in,
this is the one. The government has tried to grossly
underestimate the cost, but it is estimated that by the year 2003
$1.2 billion will have been spent on gun registration.
1505
With four provinces to date opting out of gun registration and
the federal government hiring personnel to administer the system
in these jurisdictions, this comedy of errors has to be brought
to an end. It is becoming a real comedy of errors.
We are talking about $1.2 billion to register firearms. And I
repeat, the registration of shotguns and rifles will not save a
life. It just so happens that criminals do not care if the gun
they use is registered. I have not been able to get that through
the heads of government members.
Let us take the $1.2 billion and let us not say no to hepatitis
C people, but help that gang out. I know some do not want to. I
know that no one on the other side wants to because they all had
to vote no. The magic leader said “You had better or else”, so
the little sheep bleated and they jumped up and did what they
were told once again.
Perhaps $1.2 billion could be put into cancer research. That
would save lives. We know it and members opposite know it. But
the registration of guns will not save lives. I hope someone on
the other side will get up and give me an example of where the
registration of one shotgun or one rifle will save the life of
anyone.
Let me tell members about something that happened in Winnipeg
yesterday. This was in the headlines. A local city teenager
blew his head off with a rifle that he had stolen the previous
day. When the owner of the gun called to report it stolen the
police rushed to his house to arrest him. That is what we all
feared when Bill C-68 came into existence.
I do not know if this has happened elsewhere in the country, but
we know for sure there is a big outrage in Manitoba. This victim
who had his gun stolen is looking at very serious jail time. He
was a victim.
I looked at the Criminal Code for the last four or five years
when I was in the justice area and I never found anything in the
Criminal Code that was bad. I thought it was a good Criminal
Code. It went after the criminals of the land. Why all of a
sudden do we want to invent inclusions to the Criminal Code that
go after law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, such as we see outside
today, in a manner that is totally wasteful and unnecessary?
The member for Ottawa Centre said earlier today “Wake up and
smell the coffee”. That is a brilliant statement. They are
going to spend $1.2 billion, according to the auditor general's
estimates, and it is not going to save a life. It is not going
to make our streets safer. It is a bunch of nonsense.
Members opposite know it. Their constituents know it. Their
leader knows it. But it shall be done because the dictator of
Canada has spoken. The dictator of Canada has said to those
members over there “Vote for this bill”. They will. They will
continue to support the things that cause innocent victims to be
arrested, such as the individual in Winnipeg. That is what is
going to happen, but they cannot see it. I feel sorry for them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, we will proceed first with the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle and then we will hear from the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
Hon. members would make it a lot easier for the Chair if they
indicated that they wanted to ask a question. Just give me the
finger or a nod and if there are a lot of hon. members who would
like to ask a question, then we will keep the questions and
answers short.
1510
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would never give you the finger, I would give you a
thumbs-up for a job well done.
This may surprise you, but I have a great deal of admiration for
the grassroots instinct of my friend from Wild Rose, Alberta.
Because of that I want to ask him this question.
We decided in our party to have a free vote on this issue, which
will reflect the diversity of public opinion. Will the Reform
Party be having a free vote on this issue later on this
afternoon?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I find that to be a
strange question. Since 1993 we have always had free votes and
we will continue to always have free votes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Myron Thompson: With respect to Bill C-68, the hon.
member and my hon. noisy friends across the way will remember
that when we voted there were some Reform members who voted for
Bill C-68. We have free votes.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a more simple question for the hon. member for
Wild Rose.
He spoke at length about the high cost of gun registration. If
gun registration cost only, say, $10 million or even $1 million,
or if indeed gun registration cost nothing at all, would he then
support it?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would support anything
that would be voluntary. In fact, this hon. member can go out
and ask all the criminals of the land if they care to register
their guns and see if they step forward to do it.
The point is that registration will not solve the problem. They
cannot get that through their heads. I would like one member to
stand over there and give me one illustration of where
registering guns will save a life.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just wondered if the hon. member was familiar with the
Alberta president of the National Firearms Association. Just in
case he does not know who he is, his name is Mr. Lickacz, and he
has an interesting statement on the Internet.
He says “Maybe not all Canadians are sheep. I find it
astonishing that given the bitterness that the RFC”, the
recreational firearms community, “has for the federal government
with respect to the firearms situation here that this type of
comment has not been seen before”.
I want to be clear that this is not something I am saying. I am
simply quoting this person.
He says “I have been told by many firearms owners that they
will shoot the first—cop on my doorstep that comes looking for
my firearms”. I deleted an expletive, and a big one.
He says that these people are not the lunatic fringe. His
personal opinion is that his home is his castle and whether the
justice department agrees or not is irrelevant. It is his castle
and he is not going to let anybody in.
He also went on to write a letter to the Minister of Justice,
asking her to allow him and his little friends in Alberta to form
a militia to drill and exercise. What is this? This guy is a
member of the Reform Party, is he not?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure.
He could be a Liberal for all I know. I do not know the man.
There is no way in the world that any of us would support
anybody breaking the law. No way in the world would we support
that.
I hear a “ha” from over there. I would like the hon. member
to stand up and prove me wrong.
I do not support anybody breaking the law. What I support are
good laws. This is a bad law. Please look at it carefully. It
is a bad law. Registration has not worked anywhere effectively.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Oxford.
I heard the member for Wild Rose say, and this is pretty close to
a quote, we will have to get the Hansard to check, that he
would support anything if it was voluntary. I think that is what
I heard him say.
1515
Does that mean then that criminals are going to voluntarily
register? On one hand they are saying that criminals will not
register their guns. Obviously they will not. What the member
said is that he would support the bill if it was voluntary. That
is what I heard.
That is very interesting that we have principles and if you do
not like them, we have other principles. The point is what I
heard is that the general concept is something the member can
agree. He just does not want it to be a forced situation. That
is very interesting.
I wonder where the Reform Party went wrong when it decided not
to support the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of
Police Boards. You would have thought that these gentlemen and
women would be lining up behind everything these
groups had to say. Yet they will say that registering
guns is a horrible violation which will not help the police in
doing their job in fighting crime.
The three bodies I just mentioned would beg to differ. They say
that registration will help police solve crimes where firearms
are recovered. That seems like a reasonable idea. It will help
identify the sources of firearms that are recovered. It will
enable police to trace some of the 3,000 firearms that are lost
or stolen every year back to their rightful owners. It will
enable police to determine whether firearms have been skimmed
from commercial shipments. It will allow information on safe
storage and handling regulations to be directed specifically to
firearm owners. The police are very concerned about that. It
will help the police to determine what types and numbers of
firearms they might encounter when they are responding to an
emergency call.
Just talk to someone in the business of policing. They get a
phone call. Quite often it can be late at night. There is a
report of violence. There is a report of someone in distress and
we are asking them to simply walk into that situation with no
ability to access a database that might allow them to determine
that the place they are going into happens to house a firearm or
a number of firearms. Why would we restrict that information
from the police? Why would the Reform Party restrict it? It is
truly incredible.
I listened to the leader of the Reform Party earlier today
saying that it was his mandate, or words similar to that, that he
would fight against these unjust laws. What he is really saying
is that he is the Leader of the Opposition and therefore he is
going to oppose it, whether it is good legislation or not.
We see all these folks out on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
No one can deny there is a movement against registering firearms.
They ask why would we support this. They call us sheep. They
say we are simply going to do what we are told. Let me tell you
who is telling us what to do. It is the Canadian people, with
78% of all Canadians approving of the legislation; 86% of people
in the province of Ontario approve of the legislation; and 47% of
firearm owners who are registered approve of the legislation. Why
would they not?
1520
What is the problem? It is absolutely mind boggling. We
register our cars. We have to renew the license on a regular
basis. We register things like our home ownership and our
mortgage. We register our dogs, for goodness' sake. We register
most things. We even register our children. Why in the world
would we not want to have some idea? Granted, it will not solve
all the problem. There is no question that criminals are not
going to come forward and say “I am here at 11 division and I
want to register six firearms that I use to rob banks”. We
understand that. Why would we be opposed to registering weapons
that could be dangerous? We need to have some confidence that
they are being treated properly and that people are properly
licensed.
In my view we have a real serious problem in this country. When
I see the province of Ontario deciding that it is going to lower
the age for hunting to 12 I get a little nervous. I understand
about education, training and getting young people into a sport
early to make sure they understand how to use guns properly. But
I get a little nervous about the sense of responsibility, about
the confidence, about the understanding and the calmness. I am
not sure I want to be walking around in the woods this November
in Parry Sound where I have a cottage. I am not sure I want to
go out in the woods knowing there are 12 year olds with rifles.
It is a little nerve racking knowing there are men and women. But
to go down to the age of 12, I do not know where in the world
those people are coming from or what they are thinking.
The thing I find most interesting is the lack of information.
The people out front, and we will hear the speeches, and the
people in the Reform Party fuel myth. I cannot use the word lie,
it is not parliamentary. It is a myth when they say that this act
is just about registration. We know—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, we all
know that we do not bring through the back door that which we
cannot bring in through the front door. Let us not make
connections which we do not even have to stretch.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to
any individual in this place. I am referring to the fact that
there is misinformation. There are myths that are being
propagated by members opposite to crowds which get them all
emotional and excited about issues. If they would deal with the
facts then we could have a calm discussion about the issue of gun
control, registration and the costs involved. There will be
setup costs and startup costs. There will be revenue that will
offset those costs. But we never hear about that.
We hear that it will be expensive, that they are going to jack
the price of registration up. Yet I have never heard anyone from
the opposite side admit that for $10 we could register 10 guns.
A buck a gun. Not a problem. No one is going to come back and
ask us to pay $100 or $1,000. I have never heard anyone mention
that once the gun is registered it is registered for life. Why
would we not want to do that? They want to whip people up.
The one I love is that the police are going to be able to break
down the door and come running in with their dogs and their guns
drawn. It is absolute nonsense. They can investigate if they
know there are weapons in the house. They must either have our
permission or they must have a warrant issued properly in a court
of law, giving them permission to be able to enter and
investigate. They would do that if they thought there was
potential for abuse or potential for crime.
I wish the Reform Party would stop all the misinformation, stop
leading people in the wrong direction and simply understand that
this is good for Canada, good for Canadians and good for the
safety of all our communities.
1525
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the debate today the aspersions that have been thrown in
this direction have been rather interesting.
I was elected fortunately in 1993 with 49% of the plurality. In
1997 I was elected with 62%. The difference of the 13% was the
way the Liberals rammed Bill C-68 down the throats of all
Canadians. I speak for the people of Kootenay—Columbia, and no
member on that side of the House should misunderstand who I am
standing up and speaking for.
This member has obviously not read the bill. He does not
understand the bill. He talks about misinformation. His
summation of the so-called facts of how he understands the facts
clearly demonstrates that he does not understand. He just does
not get it.
The bill is about Liberal social engineering. The bill is about
an understanding that the Liberals have only from their own
specific urban perspective. The bill is not going to make the
streets of Toronto or the streets of Cranbrook any safer. The
bill is doing everything to drive a wedge between honest, decent,
law abiding citizens and the police forces and the government.
Let me ask the member a very simple question. How can we
believe anything that the Liberal pack say when at the outset
they gave us the bogus figure of $85 million or $87 million or
$78 million, whatever that number was—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, we can all flex our
political muscles. In my riding 65% of the people voted Liberal
in the last election. In the province of Ontario I think that
was probably almost an average. The vast majority of the people
in the province of Ontario, some 86%, support this.
The member does not understand that this is not a debate about
the bill, this is a debate about the implementation and the
regulations. We are not here debating whether there shall be a
gun control law. That is a done deal. What we are talking about
is how it is going to be implemented and how it is going to be
set up. It is going to be set up in a way that will give the
police some confidence in the database that will be available so
they will know at least where the vast majority of the weapons
are in this country when they are fighting crime and it will
provide—
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend
from Mississauga West. I believe he is serious in his comments
in terms of reflecting the views of his constituents.
I have a question for him regarding registration. The assumption
is that if we have a decent registration system fewer people will
get shot in our country as a result of that. That is presumably
the bottom line.
I may have my figures out a point or two but the general thrust
will be accurate. Every year in Canada about 1,450 people are
shot one way or the other. That is the number of people who lose
their lives as a result of firearms. Eleven hundred of those
people commit suicide by firearms. Would these people likely not
commit suicide using a firearm if it was registered? About 100
gangsters kill each other each year. If we have registration will
gangsters not kill other gangsters?
About 100 people are shot in domestic disputes each year. If a
someone wants to shoot his or her partner, would they likely not
do that if the gun was registered?
About 100 people are killed in hunting accidents each year. If
the gun was registered would these people likely not be shot in a
hunting accident?
My serious question to my friend from Mississauga West is the
following. When I look at those categories it seems to me that
very little will change in those categories as a result of
registration. Am I wrong?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would always be
careful with the hon. member to make sure he is not reading from
one of our throne speeches from days gone by as he did one time
when we all got up and decided to go into a rant.
I am assuming those figures are accurate. The hon. member
raised some interesting issues. I want to just deal with the one
on suicide.
1530
Generally speaking it would be my view that someone wanting to
commit suicide would find a way and it would not necessarily
matter if a gun were available. We just had a tragedy in the
local community park where I live. Down the street where I walk
my dog in morning a man who was accused of shooting his wife shot
himself. I do not know that registration would prevent suicide.
They may find some other way.
All their issues are not what this is about. This is about
bringing some kind of order to registering guns and putting in
place rules that all Canadians know about. They can be licensed
and trained. It will help the police. It will not solve crime
but it will go a long way toward assisting the police in doing
their job.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the Reform Party motion on Bill C-68 with which we
dealt in the last parliament. It is interesting that the Reform
Party is using its first opposition day in the new fall session
to debate an issue on which it fought and lost an election rather
than using it for other important issues that Canadians are
concerned with. Where is the vision? Vision means looking
forward, not backward.
I agree that no one wishes to give you the finger, Mr. Speaker,
but I have been trying to give some of my colleagues opposite the
finger for a long time.
In reference to the opposition motion I find the language in it
extreme. It smacks of the kind of advertising the National
Firearms Association and others put out. It states:
That this House condemns the government for its refusal to
replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting
the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearm
registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a)
confiscates private property—
It does no such thing. It “contains unreasonable search and
seizure provisions” As my friend from Mississauga West just
said, that does not apply. It is not the way it is done. The
words in the motion are full of extra meaning.
There is a lot of waste of taxpayer dollars here and there. I
wonder what is the value of human life. My friend from Kamloops
referred to domestic disputes and 100 hunting accidents. Two
days after I was elected my friend, the former warden of Oxford
county, died in a hunting accident. His wife wanted to throw all
his guns down the well that afternoon.
It “is an affront to law-abiding firearms owners” to ask them
to register a gun, to ask them to pay a small fee for that
privilege. It “will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in
firearms”. What nonsense. Of course it will not exacerbate it.
It may help stop some of it but it will not exacerbate it.
Before the last election Reformers swarmed across southwestern
Ontario telling our constituents, mine in particular, that voters
had to send a clear message to the Liberal government about gun
control and Bill C-68. Imagine their surprise when a clear
message was delivered in Ontario regarding gun control. The
message was that the people of Ontario support Bill C-68.
I am sure many Reformers were embarrassed that the only Reform
MP to hold a seat in Ontario voted against gun control and that
seat was won by a Liberal MP. I assure all hon. members that the
Liberal member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford is serving her
constituents with distinction in the House.
I do not deny this is an important issue for many of my
constituents. Several of them have positions in the leadership
of the anti-Bill C-68 lobby. When Bill C-68 was first proposed I
received many postcards from gun owners who were opposed to
measures included in the bill. After a lot of work in caucus and
after voting in favour of this bill I received many letters and
calls of support from the constituents of Oxford.
In that original bill there were some far-reaching things that
had to be corrected.
There were prohibitions on black powder use. There were
prohibitions on re-enactment use. There were prohibitions on
certain handguns that were used only for target shooting.
1535
Many of those matters were corrected. The complaints that we
find in this resolution were largely resolved. At the polls
during the 1997 election most constituents indicated their
support for this piece of legislation.
My re-election is an indication of the support Oxford has for
this government and this legislation. The Reform candidate after
finishing second in the 1993 finished third in Oxford in 1997.
That is also an indication of the level of support Reform enjoys
in my riding.
I would like to discuss the particulars of the bill and some of
the questions that have been raised. It is true that criminals
will be unlikely to register a firearm. Everyone can concede
that point, but people must also concede that by that very fact
criminals will identify themselves. The fact that a firearm is
not registered will alert the police to the possibility that the
firearm may have been stolen, illegally imported, illegally
manufactured or bought on the black market.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian
Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards and
groups representing victims of crime support registration of all
firearms for practical reasons, the same reasons that we register
our cars, our bicycles, our birth, our citizenship and so on.
It will help police solve crimes where firearms are recovered.
It will identify the source of firearms that are recovered. It
will enable police to trace some 3,000 firearms lost or stolen
every year back to their rightful owners and to return many of
them.
It will enable police to determine whether firearms have been
skimmed from commercial shipments. It will allow information on
safe storage and handling regulations to be directed specifically
to firearm owners.
With these rules and regulations and the education of firearm
owners regarding proper storage, it will certainly prevent a lot
of people being killed by unloaded guns, the situations where the
child in the home points an loaded gun at somebody but when
father put it away it was unloaded. It does not hang above the
mantle piece loaded but unloaded in everybody's opinion. When
the loaded gun is pointed, people are killed.
Quite clearly, if a gun is registered the owner has the
possession certificate and there is nothing to fear in the bill.
It is only those who are in possession of illegal firearms,
whether prohibited, stolen or unregistered, who need fear losing
their firearms.
The motion put forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
said that the bill allowed our police forces to confiscate
private property. It does no such thing. I would anyway like to
ask my friend from Saskatoon—Humboldt how an item that is
illegal and illegally held can be considered private property.
Will the Reform Party be saying next that police cannot seize
drugs because they are the property of an individual?
I must also say how dismayed I was to hear the member for
Yorkton—Melville ask us to follow the example of Miami, Florida,
in dealing with crime. Perhaps this member would tell us how
many gun related deaths there are every year in Miami or how much
higher its crime rate per capita is to any city in Canada. Such a
comparison is somewhat ridiculous and the Reform member would
know it.
This is what we have come to expect from the Reform Party on
this issue. This is a party that regularly encourages its
membership to compare gun control measures to those of Nazi
Germany, a party whose thinks the government's legitimate
attempts to put forward measures supported by a majority of its
citizens is bordering on Fascism.
This is a party that brags about using direct democracy to make
voting decisions in the House. Yet only three Reform MPs had the
courage and honesty to vote in favour of the bill after
discovering their constituents supported Bill C-68. I applaud
them, all three. Those members mentioned represented Calgary
Centre, Edmonton Southwest and Vancouver North.
A majority of Canadians support the gun registry including those
in British Columbia and Alberta where most Reformers are from. I
guess the only way they could say that the public supported their
measures would be to trump up questions on a survey.
1540
I guess the deputy leader of the Reform Party certainly cannot
vote for the motion. An Optima Research poll taken in that
riding last year showed that 55% of respondents support the
registration while only 28% oppose it.
I do not deny that this is an important issue for many of my
constituents. I hope it will go forward after the vote this
afternoon and we can get on with the many issues in which we can
all get involved and do some good for Canada.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, many of the
people from West Nova in the riding I represent are hunters. They
are law-abiding citizens. They are honest, hard working people
who see hunting as many of us would see golfing or any
recreational sport of that nature. There is absolutely no
criminal intent on their part. There is no malice in what they
use their guns for.
My question to the hon. member across the way is very simple.
How would registration of long guns reduce the incidence of
violent crime? I ask him to explain to me how that would happen.
I am known as someone who thinks very rationally, who does not
rant and rave about issues, but I would really like to understand
how he sees it preventing violent crime.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I agree with my
hon. colleague that registering a gun may not in and of itself
prevent a crime. That is not what we are about. We are about
the safe storage, use and control of firearms. That is what
people—
An hon. member: It doesn't exist.
Mr. John Finlay: Oh, it does exist. Yes, it exists. Two
neighbourhood boys were visiting one another. They found the
father's gun and were playing with it in the bathroom. One boy
asked for the gun back and the young boy from next door said “No,
no”, pointed it at him and shot him.
If that were a serious, law-abiding gun owner, the gun would
have been locked up, would have had a trigger guard on it, the
ammunition would be nowhere near the gun and the accident would
not have occurred.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon.
government member was saying. The hon. member said that the bill
was not about decreasing crime and then went on to tell a tragic
story about an accidental death.
I will repeat what my hon. colleague mentioned. How would gun
registration actually decrease accidental deaths? Is the member
aware of something called opportunity cost? If money is taken
from a and put into b, in this case money from the
functional arm of justice being put into gun registration where
it is proven to have less effect than leaving it with the RCMP
right now, how does he account for his government's desire to
pull hundreds of millions of dollars out of the functional arm of
justice and put it into gun registration which is proven not to
make our streets safer?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, we do not have gun
registration now. How have we proven anything by that statement?
Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, we do. We have had it since 1934.
Mr. John Finlay: Of course not. Most democratic
countries in this world have gun control rules or gun
registration. Many of them—
Mr. Jay Hill: They are not as onerous as ours and they
have less crime.
Mr. John Finlay: Boy, oh boy. We do not have less crime
but we are the best place in the world to live. There is a real
objection, is it not? It is a perfectly good conclusion.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
heard the hon. member mention that we have to register cars,
this, that and one thing or another.
I want to talk about gun collectors. Does the hon. member realize
that he does not have to register a car? He can buy all the cars
he wants and take them to his home. They can sit there and they
are his. He cannot take them on the road, though. Then he would
have to register them. But he does not have to register to have
a collection of cars.
1545
If I am a gun collector what is wrong with me just owning guns?
I am not going to use them, so should I have to have a
registration?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite
right. It is not owning the car, it is using it. It is the same
thing with guns.
We said that if gun owners want to own a prohibited weapon, then
they can disarm it. If they have a collection they can disarm
all the guns. But no, they would not go for that. They do not
want that. The gun is not real then. I think black powder and a
ball will kill you just as fast—
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the Reform motion which
refutes many of the fallacies about Bill C-68.
I say at the outset that if Bill C-68 would make our streets
safer the Reform Party would support it. However, it is for the
reason that Bill C-68 is going to make our streets less safe that
we oppose it. I will get to the reason why.
Half of Bill C-68 is good. Half of it involves penalties for
the criminal use of guns. We support that. We have been fighting
for it for many years. Half of it, however, will make our
streets less safe.
Point one is the registration of guns. In this country
two-thirds of the people who are murdered are murdered with a
weapon that is not a gun. One-third die of gunshot wounds. Of
that one-third, which amounts roughly to 225 people, the number
that die with a registered handgun is five.
The point I am trying to make is that the cost of gun
registration is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars and
the government's estimate is over $1 billion. That money has to
come from somewhere. It is going to come in part from the
pockets of the citizens of this country. But in large part it is
going to come out of the functional arm of justice. That means if
we are going to remove money from the RCMP, if we are going to
remove money from the police forces we had better make sure that
where we are putting it has better bang for the buck. But the
reality is it will not.
We are going to have fewer RCMP officers hired, less equipment,
fewer training opportunities for them and in short, if we are
going to have fewer officers training, those officers are going
to be less able to arrest criminals.
One Liberal member I spoke to during debate some years ago said
if we can save five people, then we have saved five people. I
said to him if it is going to cost $500 million or $1 billion to
save five people, is that worth it. He said any price is worth
it. Although we cannot put a price or a value on human life the
reality is money does not grow on trees and the money is being
taken away from the functional arm of justice and will make our
streets less safe. That is the fundamental issue of why we do not
support this bill.
The former minister of justice appeared before the committee and
gave the reasons. One is that it will decrease murder. We have
proven that it will not. The second reason is that the minister
said it will decrease suicides. If a person is depressed and is
going to kill themselves, do they go out and get a firearms
acquisition certificate, take a course, wait six months to get a
gun and blow their head off? No, they do not.
1550
The facts are that gun registration will do nothing to decrease
the suicide rate. Will it help the police? In a domestic
dispute situation the police always go in with a view that a
dangerous weapon is on hand. This is standard procedure.
The members across the way have said that the police support
this. If that is the case why did 91% of the RCMP officers in
Saskatchewan and 85% of the police officers in Alberta not
support this? The men and women on the front lines of justice in
this country know full well that the money is going to come out
of their funds to fight crime. They know gun registration does
not work.
Does this decrease accidental death? Accidental death with a
firearm is a function of the use of that firearm. If a person
has registered that firearm, leaves it loaded on his or her bed
and the children come in to play with it and shoot themselves or
someone else and someone dies, that is a tragedy of youth. It is
a tragedy of people not using guns properly. Gun registration
will do nothing for that.
Contrary to the member across the way who talks about all the
good things that we have, implying that we do not have issues
such as the firearms acquisition certificates, storage rules and
regulations and trigger locks for handguns, we have those and the
Reform Party supports those. We believe, as does the government,
that these are going to make our streets safer and are effective.
However, our view is that we are simply not going to pursue or
support a bill that is going to make our streets less safe. That
is why we have been so vocal about this for so long.
If the government were truly interested in decreasing crime then
it would hit crime where it counts. The problem in this country
today is that we have rules and regulations on the boards that
are simply not being implemented. Most of the criminal activity
with the use of firearms is done by criminals using illegal
firearms. When those people commit an offence with a
firearm what happens? They often get the firearms offence
plea bargained away or to run concurrently with the other
offence. What message does that send to the criminals?
It tells the criminals to go ahead and use a firearm because all
they will get is no penalty or a penalty that runs concurrently
with their other sentence. This means that there is no penalty
whatsoever for those people who use firearms in the commission of
an offence. That is what our party has been fighting for so
long.
What we all want to do is to ensure that criminals are not going
to be using firearms. What we must do is enforce the law. If
somebody is using a firearm in the commission of an offence then
we should take that and run the sentence consecutively, not
concurrently. We must stop plea bargaining away those sentences.
If a criminal is guilty of pulling out a gun in the commission of
a robbery then we should hit them with the book. We must make
sure they pay the penalty so they know they will not get off scot
free when using firearms.
We also have to do something about the egregious situation we
have in the country concerning the trafficking of firearms
between our country and the United States. The penalties for
trafficking are there but they are not being applied. Trafficking
is taking place, for example, on certain reserves in Quebec and
the RCMP are sitting back and are being told, from what I
understand, not to intervene. That is a serious problem because
it ties the hands of our law enforcement officers when these
offences are occurring in front of their eyes. Furthermore, it
puts into jeopardy the lives and welfare of aboriginal people on
those reserves and the people outside the reserves.
Good effective justice and good effective laws would ensure that
the laws of this country are being applied in the courts and not
merely pushed underneath the carpet. That is what we are in
favour of. In that way we can hit the criminals and leave the
law abiding citizens out of it.
It is a serious offence for law abiding citizens, who have never
been a criminal in their lives, to transfer their guns to their
children and loved ones. Some of these guns are very valuable to
them but the government is violating their rights as property
owners. We would not be in favour of just allowing guns to go to
people who do not have to go through the proper criminal checks,
firearms acquisition certificate application process that
law abiding firearm owners have to pursue.
1555
We support that but we oppose vehemently the government's
violation of people's rights to merely take those guns away from
them with no recourse whatsoever.
I would ask any member of the government to tell us how that is
going to make our streets safer. If we look at history and what
has been taking place in other countries where they have applied
and implemented gun registration, it is proven that it does not
work. In Australia it did not work.
As members across the way and the government have clearly said
repeatedly, this may not make our streets safer. If it is not
going to make our streets safer, if it is not going to save
Canadian lives, if it is not going to increase the safety of
people, if it is not going to improve the ability of the police
to do their job, then why do it?
Why support something that is going to make our streets less
safe and hamstring the ability of our police officers to do their
job by tearing away the resources that they require to keep our
streets safer?
The government needs to pursue the enforcement of the laws of
this land when it comes to guns. It needs to scrap the idea of
gun registration. It needs to apply the penalties for
trafficking. It needs to work with us on effective measures to
prevent crime and give the police the tools to do their job, as
well as clean up our legal system and the judicial structure we
have that hamstrings and ties the hands of our police officers in
doing their job to keep our streets safer.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca reminds me that
the first dead person I saw was a suicide victim with a shotgun.
The technique was put the shotgun in the mouth and pull the
trigger and the head was completely blown off. I was 17 at the
time.
Subsequently I became a police reporter, a journalist, and I saw
a lot of murders and suicides in the course of that part of my
career. One of the things I learned about suicides is that there
are two things that often operate. One is that the suicides
generally do not want to hurt themselves. They do not like to
use knives and other methods that actually may do them injury or
may lead to a fairly slow death. What they prefer is something
that is instantaneous and something also that will answer their
impulses.
Often suicides are not planned over a long period. If they get
very depressed suddenly they will try to take their own lives. In
the presence of a firearm in a household where there is a person
who is known to be subject to these violent depressions who might
be a potential suicide, registration would be very important in
this instance. I would have thought that the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, in the light of his profession, would
appreciate that. I was very surprised that he said the opposite
because gun registration surely would save the lives of some
suicides.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
mentioned that because, as an emergency room physician, I have
seen a lot of people kill themselves, the vast majority of whom
did not use guns. Let us take the issue at hand.
All of us in this House would love to prevent suicides. I am
glad the hon. member mentioned the issue that suicide can be
impulsive. It can also be a part of an ongoing major depression
and the person can be ruminating about this for a long time.
However, if somebody was going to be suicidal and they wanted to
get a gun to kill themselves, in order to do that today without
gun registration, it would take them six to nine months before
they even get a gun because they have to go through a firearms
acquisition certificate, they have to take a course, they have to
go and buy the gun.
So if somebody was going to kill themselves, they would not go
through that. They would find many other ways of killing
themselves, which most people do.
The hon. member mentioned somebody killing themselves because a
gun was available in the house. How would gun registration
actually prevent that from happening? Indeed it would not
because we already—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Fundy—Royal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his speech.
I thought it was a very thoughtful presentation.
1600
I would like to highlight something he pointed out in his
comments, that is, the necessity for us to have severe minimum
penalties for any kind of criminal use with respect to a firearm.
Individuals such as myself and the member I believe as well are
not against gun control. This has become a very black and white
debate, whether someone is for gun control or against it.
We want to be very prudent with respect to gun control and
require that there be a clear acquisition certificate, that
weapons and ammunition be stored under lock and key in separate
places, that hunter safety courses be taken. The kind of
initiatives that were part of the previous legislation actually
accomplished that.
I ask the hon. member whether in his estimation would he believe
that this piece of legislation, Bill C-68, is more about politics
than crime prevention. Is it not more about taxation than
deterring the criminal use of firearms?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
from the Conservative Party. He is right on.
Unfortunately I think this bill, as my friend mentioned, is a
political bill meant to pit urban versus rural voters. It is
meant to seduce the urban votership onto the side of the
government by the government looking like it is the big defender
of the public good.
The facts are that everybody in this House wants to make our
streets as safe as possible. We are in favour of the firearms
acquisition certificate, the courses, the rules and regulations,
the criminal checks that do our best to ensure that people who
should not have access to guns do not have them, as opposed to
the situation in the United States which we completely abhor and
which the Reform Party opposes greatly.
The last point I want to make is on suicide. If we are truly
interested in decreasing suicides, we can take the money from gun
registration and put it into health care where it should be to
treat people with depression.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to address the
motion put forward by my colleague concerning gun registration,
specifically Bill C-68 which was about to be enacted in a couple
of short weeks. It actually will not be fully put into place
until December 1. That is what we have been told in the last few
days.
I recognize that 10 minutes is a very short time to address such
an important issue. When I say important issue, I really want to
target the majority of my comments today specifically to my
riding and more generally to the difference in how this issue is
viewed by people residing in urban centres and by rural people.
Regarding the whole issue of “gun control” as my colleague
from the fifth party just mentioned, the reality is that we who
are questioning Bill C-68 are not talking about no gun control.
It is not a question of gun control versus no gun control. We
already have some of the most stringent gun control legislation
and laws in the western world in place in Canada. My colleague
from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about that very eloquently.
What I want to do in the short time I have is to try to educate
some of our urban brethren as to what really constitutes the
difference on how this issue is viewed by rural residents in
Canada and those in the more urban centres, specifically some of
the vast urban centres and the crime problems in places like
Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.
I noticed that in the debate today a number of members of
parliament in representing their views have used specific
instances on both sides of the argument. I want to talk very
briefly about one tragic incident that happened in my riding.
The hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth who just spoke from the
government side used a very tragic instance from his recollection
where an individual used a firearm.
1605
I have one on the other side of this issue. I would like to
quote from the text of the Vancouver Province newspaper
that carried the account of this tragic incident on August 17,
1997, just a little over a year ago.
Her husband died a hero—that much Angela Kitchen knows.
But the sudden nature of Ray Kitchen's death and the random way
fate struck didn't make any sense to her yesterday.
One minute, the Fort Nelson father was stopping for a swim with
his daughter and her friend on a hot day. The next minute,
hearing the cries of a mauled woman trying to protect her son
from a rampaging black bear, Kitchen was throwing himself into a
situation that, as an outdoorsman, he knew could mean death.
The bear tore him apart. He died, as did the woman he ran to
help.
“Someone mentioned that he died a hero. I'm really proud of
him for that”, a tearful Angela Kitchen said yesterday. “It's
just so hard”.
The savage attack Thursday night also left the woman's son and a
28 year old Calgary man injured.
It occurred as Patti Reed McConnell, 37, and her two children,
Kelly, 13, and Kristin, 7, were out walking at Liard Hot Springs
Provincial Park, 310 kilometres northwest of Fort Nelson. The
family were on their way to Alaska from their home in Paris,
Texas to start a new life in a land McConnell had fallen in love
with.
It goes on to describe the incident in more detail.
More deaths were averted in this tragic incident. How were they
averted? Because one individual at that scene had a firearm. It
happened to be an American tourist that was stopping in this
location, Liard Hot Springs. I am very familiar with this area.
When I do my summer tour of my riding, and the riding goes all
the way to the Yukon, I travel up the Alaska highway. I stop and
talk to the lodge owners along the way. Most MPs on both sides of
the House visit their ridings during the summer and they converse
with their constituents.
I have often stopped at this hot springs. This was not the first
incident of a bear attack or of bear sightings at this hot
springs. At this hot springs there is a boardwalk of some 100
yards in length which carries people from the parking lot to the
hot springs itself where people bathe.
What happened when this bear attacked those people? Someone had
to run back along the boardwalk and find someone who happened to
have a firearm in their recreational vehicle. I am not sure
whether it was a motorhome or a fifth wheel trailer. An American
tourist happened to have a firearm which was stored separately as
the storage laws require. They rummaged around and got the
ammunition out. This was an elderly gentleman who fortunately
gave it to a younger person and said “Take my firearm and go and
save some people”. This person rushed back down the walkway and
shot the bear with one shot. Unfortunately for Patti Reed
McConnell and for Ray Kitchen, my constituent from Fort Nelson,
it was too late.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast world of
difference between ridings such as mine, Prince George—Peace
River, and this whole issue of gun control, gun registration and
gun storage because what we are relating this to is the people in
Toronto who do not understand guns. They do not ever want to
understand guns. They do not want to own a gun. They do not
understand why anyone would want to own a gun because they have
never been in situations like McConnell's and Kitchen's. They
have never been placed in those situations.
I was born and raised in Fort St. John in northeastern British
Columbia and was a hunter as a young lad. I was raised with and
had a strong respect for firearms and know how to handle them,
and I can say that I do not understand people like that either.
Therein lies the problem. The people in the big urban centres do
not understand this issue from the point of view of rural
residents. To me that is the fundamental issue.
Reform members throughout this debate, going right back to the
time when we were first here, first elected in any numbers back
in the fall of 1993, have tried to bring what we believe is some
common sense to this issue.
We have tried to represent not just the people who have
legitimate concerns about safety and the illegal use of firearms
in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton and
Calgary for that matter, but also to represent the very
legitimate concerns of law-abiding firearms owners in the rural
areas of our country, people who already fervently believe that
we have enough gun legislation in this country.
1610
In fact many would argue that we had enough under the old Bill
C-17, Kim Campbell's gun legislation that ranges back to the time
of the Progressive Conservative government. They would argue
that we did not need parts of that legislation or it should not
be applied the same in Toronto as it is at Liard Hot Springs in
northeastern British Columbia.
Let us take a look at this motion. “That this House condemns
the government for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms
Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of
firearms”. I will stop there and not go on to read the rest of
it. The rest has certainly been adequately covered by many of my
colleagues. Targeting the criminal misuse of firearms.
I want to read again into the record what I said when I
introduced a private members' bill to show what Reformers have
been actively endeavouring to do since we came to the House. On
December 5, 1994, almost four years ago, when I introduced
Private Member's Bill C-293 I said:
Today it is my pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. It
will increase the minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a gun
in the commission of a crime to five years.
Canadians are demanding stiffer sentences for the criminal
misuse of firearms but the recently proposed four-year mandatory
sentence of the justice minister is only restricted to 10
offences and is not consecutive.
He is merely introducing a minimum sentence of four years for
these crimes, and with parole it may be less. Although the
tougher sentences in his reaction plan are a step in the right
direction, the bill would go even further. It would make the
minimum five-year sentence consecutive to any other sentence and
would apply to any accomplices who had access to the firearm
during the crime or attempted crime whether or not the gun was
fired.
Canadians want deterrents and I believe the bill would provide
some.
That is concrete action that the Reform Party and indeed many
members in a number of parties would like to see. Let us get
tough on the criminals who misuse firearms and leave law-abiding
firearms owners alone because they are already respecting the
law.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity with which the member made
his remarks but in making his remarks he betrayed some of the
lack of understanding of the west with respect to Ontario and
central Canada.
There is wilderness in central Canada. I am one who for many
years has canoed and camped in the wilderness, oftentimes in
Algonquin Park which is only a few hours north of Toronto. Tens
of thousands of people use Algonquin Park and the area around
Muskoka. There have been two fatal bear attacks in the last 10
years in Algonquin Park.
This very weekend I was surrounded by wolves on an island as I
camped with my son. At my cottage in the summer, I killed a
three foot rattlesnake. My cottage just happens to be in the
range of the only poisonous snake in Canada.
To use the member's logic, everyone who goes to Algonquin Park,
everyone who goes to Muskoka, and there are thousands and
thousands of them coming from Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo and
Cambridge, should go with a firearm every time they get in a
canoe. We in Ontario do not feel that is acceptable. It is not
necessary.
Surely the member opposite will admit that an attack by a wild
animal, whether it is a cougar or a grizzly bear, is indeed a
very, very rare eventuality and we do not have to go armed into
the wilderness every time we want to go away for the weekend.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to know how
the individual across the way who posed the question killed the
three foot rattlesnake. With a shovel? I am not sure.
An hon. member: An axe.
Mr. Jay Hill: With an axe. He is a very brave
individual.
The reality is that many lives would be saved. Earlier on in the
debate individuals across the way were talking about how it does
not matter how much it costs if we just save one life. I heard
that statement across the way.
It does not matter how much it costs as long as we save one life.
What I was talking about was saving lives as well. Not every
individual should probably carry a firearm in every situation.
However, the reality is that people who travel outdoors and know
how to responsibly use firearms because they have been trained or
have been raised with firearms should carry firearms to protect
themselves. There would be less incidents like the one I
referred to.
1615
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is probably a fundamental
difference and fundamental disagreement between the hon. member
and me on gun control.
The hon. member has tried to use personal tragedy to score some
political points. He refers to an incident at Liard River Hot
Springs, which I gather is in his riding. It was a terrible
tragedy. He implied that somehow or another gun registration
would contribute to an incident that had already occurred at a
time when gun registration was not in place. Also the hon.
member implied that safe storage would somehow play into the
incident. He is trying to confuse the viewers of this House of
Commons session.
Bill C-68 insofar as registration is concerned is not invoked.
It is not in place yet and will not be on a compulsory basis
until 2003. I do not understand how non-registration would have
somehow prevented this terrible incident in Liard River Hot
Springs.
If somehow or other the hon. member could share this information
maybe we would be all better off, but as far as I am concerned I
do not think gun registration is relevant insofar as this
incident is concerned.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly share with
him my thoughts in that regard and he will be better off.
The reality is that legislation like Bill C-68 and its
forerunners are step by step and incrementally discourage gun
ownership in Canada today. That is what it amounts to.
It is the same as any other law passed in this place that make
it more and more onerous on private citizens to own certain
property. The more laws and the more difficult we make it for
people to own something, obviously there will be less and less
people who own it.
This legislation, as its forerunners, goes even further than
that. The government can arbitrarily decide that certain makes,
models and types of firearms are suddenly on the prohibited list.
No one on that side has ever adequately explained how that does
not constitute confiscation of private property. That is exactly
what it is. At least the people in rural Canada and the people
of Prince George—Peace River know that is exactly what it is.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise with some considerable interest in this issue as it is a
matter of great interest to Canadians and to my constituents.
The motion deals with two issues: Bill C-68 which was passed in
the last parliament and the proclamation of the attendant
regulations scheduled for October 1 and now postponed to December
1.
The principles behind Bill C-68 were quite eloquently stated by
the president for the Coalition for Gun Control. They are the
significant costs of not acting now in terms of victimization,
years of life lost and economic impact. The remedy is
understood, available, feasible and at a reasonable cost. Guns,
crime, injury and death is a problem which will likely escalate
if not addressed now. Finally the longer the proliferation of
unregistered guns continues, the more difficult it will be to
contain. In other words, gun registration addresses current
problems and it invests in the future.
The single most important motivation behind the bill is public
safety and the safety of police officers. I frankly have trouble
understanding the position of the members of the Reform Party.
Are they in fact against public safety?
Do they wish to put the lives of police officers at risk? Do
they prefer to see what we see in the United States of America?
1620
I will direct their minds to certain rates. There are 30 times
more firearms in the United States than in Canada. There are an
estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada. There are 222 million
firearms in the United States of which 76 million are handguns.
There is a much higher portion of homicides in the United States
that involve firearms. On average there is 65% of homicides in
the U.S. compared to 32% in Canada. Firearm homicides are 8.1
times higher in the United Stated than in Canada. Handgun
homicides are 15.3 times higher. In the face of such startling
statistics the government cannot simply stand by, ring its hands
and do nothing.
I have trouble believing that the hon. member who proposed the
motion wishes to go in that direction. This is a piece of
legislation which is broadly supported by the Canadian public and
the constituents in my riding.
I would draw the hon. member's attention to a recent Angus Reid
poll in which 82% of Canadians approved the universal
registration of shotguns and rifles. Contrary to the thesis of
the member previous to me, interestingly there was 72% support in
rural communities.
In addition, to give statistical response to the member's
previous statement that this was really people in Toronto who do
not know what they are talking about, may I suggest to him that
he refer to the analysis done which says that in populations of
one million the firearm homicide rate is 422 per 100,000. For
communities less than 100,000 it is 427. For other homicides it
is 768. In communities of less than 100,000 it is 804. Virtually
identical rates for cities in excess of one million and for
cities and communities of less than 100,000. There is no urban
or rural divide on this issue. This is broadly supported by all
Canadians.
The Reform Party and their kissing cousins, the reformatories in
Queen's Park, are not responding to the public demands for public
safety. Last week the reformatories proclaimed legislation
enabling 12 year olds to be licensed. One has to wonder what
they are thinking about by putting guns in the hands of children.
In my community destroyed it absolutely destroyed their
credibility on their big issue of getting tough on crime.
Canada has not been nor, if this legislator has any say about
it, will ever be a country in which the right to bear arms is a
constitutional, legal or moral mandate. The philosophy of Bill
C-68 is sound and enjoys wide public support among many segments
of the community, including those most likely to be victims,
namely police officers and women.
Turning now to the regulations, I am curious to know if the
mover actually has read the regulations or read the original
regulations which I have in my hand. If he did, he would know
that the government has moved miles in responding to quite a
number of legitimate regulatory issues. This set of firearm
regulations is a substantial change from that which was
originally presented to us on the committee. I congratulate the
government, as I do not often do, on its willingness to be
flexible and not impose unduly bureaucratic regulations on
Canadians.
Representations were made to the committee by manufacturers and
changes were made; by the entertainment industry and changes were
made; by shooting clubs and changes were made.
1625
At the end of the day when the regulations were presented for a
vote the only opposition on the committee came from those who
fundamentally do not believe in Bill C-68. This gun control bill
will never satisfy everyone no matter how reasonable, measured or
balanced the regulations might be.
Turning now to the motion, the first issue is the confiscation
of private property. If the mover thought about that for more
than five seconds, he would realize that a proper registration
system gives security of ownership and enhances value. Far from
confiscating, it does the exact opposite and legitimizes the
owning of firearms.
Certainly property registration does wonders for land titles and
land values as it does for motor vehicles and other forms of
property. Why would it not be true with firearms?
The second point is that it contains unreasonable search and
seizure. With the proclamation of the law, the police will know
if the occupant is licensed to own arms and what they might
expect to find behind that door. If I were a police officer
responding to a call I would sure like to know.
If individuals choose not to obey this law on some misguided
point of philosophy, they derogate from the rule of law. This is
not the advice the hon. member should be giving to Canadians. I
urge him to rethink his position.
The third point is that it violates Treasury Board guidelines.
These are conclusions rather than arguments and need no comment.
Given the more casual approach to public safety, I would not
expect him to say otherwise.
The fourth point is that it is an affront to law-abiding firearm
owners. As of October 1, now December 1, all owners of firearms
are law abiding, but in the days following those dates they put
themselves beyond and outside the rule of law. Until April 30,
1999 I am a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen, but if I do not file
my return I cease to be a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. So
also will it be for those who fail to register their guns.
The fifth point is that it will exacerbate the trafficking of
firearms. This is indeed a strange argument. Licensing will
enhance property values, facilitate the processing of insurance
claims and legitimize the owner. If anything, trade in illicit
firearms will be carried on at the fringes. After a number of
years those without proper licensing and registration will be
marginalized and unable to acquire, dispose or trade. The police
will know who they are, what they are doing, and will not have to
unduly intrude into the lives of law-abiding gun owners that this
motion purports to defend.
This motion deserves strong rebuke from the House as it defeats
itself.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the suggestion that weapons control or the registration
of firearms will actually enhance their value is one of the
funniest things I have ever heard said in the House.
As we speak, firearms dealers in the northern tier states are
scooping up enormous quantities of Canadian owned firearms at
bargain basement prices because people want to get rid of them
before the regulations come fully into effect. People in this
country have collections of heritage weapons. In my riding, for
example, one of the most popular collectors items would be a
carbine that was brought to the west by the Northwest Mounted
Police when when made their march west. Those things are being
sold off into the United States at 50 cents on the dollar because
people just do not want the hassle. It is all about hassle.
The member talks about protecting police officers. I wish he
would have gone outside and talked with the five serving and
retired police officers who spoke at the rally and who think that
the whole thing is nonsense.
No police officer worth his salt would approach a dwelling in
which a domestic violence has been reported without taking due
precaution. He is not going to look at a computer to see if
there are weapons in that house. If he did, he would probably
receive a reprimand from his chief. The last thing I—
1630
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Scarborough East.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I have trouble explaining
this issue to my hon. friend because he simply does not
understand.
This is the issue. I could have a pile of firearms in my home
and feel it will be too much hassle to get rid of them so I dump
them at 50 cents on the dollar or whatever. I recommend that my
hon. colleague speak to those who think that way because they are
being absolutely foolish. They are blowing out an inventory
which they should not. All they have to do is register. It is a
fairly simple system. Suddenly they will have preserved their
asset at 100 cents on the dollar. I cannot understand why anyone
would discount their assets on that basis.
On his second point about police officers looking into a
computer, I do not know how many times the hon. member has been
in police officer's car but there are computers in the car. They
punch up the name of the person, see whether there are guns,
whether the individual is a registered firearm user, and then
appropriately approach the residence. This seems to be fairly
fundamental. If I were a police officer, I would like to know
what was behind that door.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla who
are very interested in the member's speech.
I have heard a lot of claims from the Liberals but now they are
claiming that Bill C-68 will end the proliferation of guns. That
is very interesting because thousands of people are on the lawn
today who are law-abiding citizens. They are not smugglers. They
are not illegally bringing guns into the country. However, if
there is a problem with proliferation of guns coming illegally
into the country, that should be dealt with in a legal manner.
They should go after the criminals instead of the law-abiding
citizens.
What is the Liberal government planning on doing? Is it
planning to run ads in gun smugglers weekly magazine suggesting
that smugglers run to the local police station to register their
illegal firearms? That will not happen. This legislation is a
waste of taxpayers' time and money.
The member mentioned penalties. Let's talk about them. For not
registering a gun under Bill C-68 the maximum sentence is 10
years for one of those law-abiding citizens out on the lawn—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but time is up.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the first
point with respect to the proliferation of guns. It is my view
that a great number of homicides are committed by people who know
each other; in fact something in the order of 90%. They are
either business partners, spouses or family. The registration of
guns will diminish that level of homicide and that level of
violence.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John McKay: This is so patently obvious that the
members opposite are unable to grasp the point. There will
continue to be an effort on the part of the government to control
trafficking in firearms.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I begin by expressing some impatience with respect to
the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. In
condemning the government's legislation in Bill C-68 in the same
breath he condemned parliament and the procedures by which the
House operates.
I am very tired of this. The Leader of the Opposition fails to
realize we are one of the oldest and most successful democracies
in the world. We operate under the British parliamentary
tradition, not the American system. To put the matter very
delicately and to use an expression that is very common in the
countryside where I live, even swine don't defecate in their own
corner. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would direct his
remarks as they should be directed against the government but not
against parliament.
1635
Second, the Leader of the Opposition also cited the charter of
rights and complained in his remarks that the charter of rights
contains no provisions for property rights. That indicates how
the Leader of the Opposition equates human rights and human
values with property. It is true that in the United States
deadly force can be used to protect property. However, we in
Canada honour human rights above property rights. That is one of
the things that makes us Canadian. I am sorry the Leader of the
Opposition fails to realize that.
I reserve my main remarks for something the member for
Kootenay—Columbia said. He stood in the House and said from his
heart that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents, on
behalf of what he believed people wanted him to say with respect
to criticism of gun registration.
Criticism of gun registration is legitimate, but I remind
members what the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt said in reply to
a question very early in the debate from one of his colleagues.
He was asked what the government's agenda was in introducing gun
registration. The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt replied that
they wanted to register all the guns and disarm everybody. That
is what he said. Members can check Hansard and find that.
I want the Reform Party to hold that thought in mind.
I have always had a great interest in special interest groups.
Just a few days ago the Reform Party introduced a bill that
reflected my studies of special interest groups. One of the
special interest groups that I tried to probe during the debate
on Bill C-68 was the National Firearms Association of Edmonton
that turned out to be very prominent in the lobby against Bill
C-68. I found out that the leader of the National Firearms
Association in Edmonton was also the riding association president
of the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. I believe he still is.
That is all the information I could find out. There was this
lobby group behind the Reform Party and I could find no other
data. However a computer search I did turned up another
association with exactly the same name: the National Firearms
Association of Austin, Texas. Thanks to the Internal Revenue
Services I was able to get its basic financial data. I was also
able to get a constitutional document. It is a flyer it puts out
which explains what the National Firearms Association of Austin,
Texas, is all about.
Apart from saying that an attack on one gun owner group is an
attack on all and no compromise ever, and so on and so forth on
gun control, this is the key phrase:
Only through concerted action will we emerge victorious against
those who would seek to disarm the people of the United States.
Where in the debate did we hear that? We heard it from the
member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and we have heard it frequently
from members of the Reform Party.
There is nothing wrong in my mind with coming up here and
attacking the government because perhaps gun registration is
working out to be more expensive than it should be, but I caution
members opposite when they speak to make sure that they are
genuinely speaking for Canadians. I will show them the dangers
that might be inherent in speaking for the National Firearms
Association, which we suppose may have something to do with the
one in Alberta.
I have another statement from the document of the National
Firearms Association of Austin, Texas, which reads:
Our right to keep and bear arms is an absolute inalienable God
given right just like our right to live and breathe.
That is the kind of talk we get from the National Firearms
Association in the United States. Americans have the right and
the advantage of being armed unlike the citizens of other
countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms. That is the kind of rhetoric we have here.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against the
tyranny of government”. That is where it is coming from. In
the United States is a movement that wants to arm itself against
the government and is not too far removed from the citizens
militia that caused a terrible tragedy in the United States not
long ago.
1640
This document talks about the militia. It says “Who are the
militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress shall have no power
to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible
implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American”.
The document goes on and talks about a new world order. What
the National Firearms Association in the United States is all
about is that it is afraid there will be a new world order set up
in Europe that will persuade the president of the United States
to disarm all Americans and that they will lose their guns and
live under tyranny.
One of the final messages in this document is that they urge all
members to remember that it is not just a crisis in the United
States but a crisis in the entire world and that they should be
going out fighting for freedom, for guns in every other country
in the world including Canada.
When members opposite talk about problems with any kind of
legislation, they should remember that it is government
legislation. They should not condemn parliament because this is
where we have very good debates but should remember when they
speak to speak for Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are quite a
few indications of interest in questions and comments. We will
go first to Nanaimo—Cowichan, second to Yellowhead and third to
Battlefords—Lloydminster, but members will have to keep their
questions and responses short.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make an observation which I have not heard in in the
debate today and then ask a question of the member.
For many years I have been an observer of the somewhat sad
condition of the human race. In spite of the fact the government
maintains that gun registration will somehow lessen the number of
murders or whatever, I am afraid I have to say that gun
registration in itself will not in the least stop people from
killing each other.
My observation of the human race is that it is done only because
of the evil in men's hearts. When that is there, there is
nothing that can prevent someone from hurting someone else. That
is my observation.
In the face of not having any real statistics that gun
registration will decrease murders or criminal activity and it
being said that a number of people are now being killed by knives
in this country, on the same premise the government is now taking
on gun control can we expect that at some point in the near
future there will be knife control brought in by the government?
Is that what will have to take place?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if the member had been here
throughout the debate, as I have been, he would have realized
that the government has repeatedly stressed it does not believe
that registration is the cure-all or the end-all or even that it
will necessarily improve the situation with respect to crime.
The reason we are bringing in legislation, to sum it up for all
on the opposition side, is that we want to remind Canadians that
guns in Canada are a privilege, not a right as they are in the
United States, and as a privilege it must be managed competently
and securely in the interest of all Canadians. That is why we
are bringing in gun registration.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member from the government who just spoke talks about Reform
representing Canadians. Let us talk a little about Reform
representing Canadians. Let us talk about a phenomena that the
government seems to be forgetting or overlooking.
It seems that the federal government conveniently forgets that
it is being challenged in court over Bill C-68. Who is taking
the government to court? Is it a lone Canadian citizen or a
firearms association? The federal government is being challenged
in the court by government itself, not by one government but by
four provincial governments: the governments of Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, and the two territories, the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories, over half of the Canadian
population. What about geographics? It amounts to 75% to 85%
of Canada's land mass. That is the stark reality.
1645
This government is being challenged in court by over half the
Canadian population representing a big chunk of Canada's land
mass. Can this member at least tell me why the federal
government is not putting on hold the implementation of this bill
until at least the Alberta Court of Appeal comes down with a
decision?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is that
if we did that with every legislation every time there was an
appeal, the implementation of all legislation would be stalled
because it would be an open door to block every kind of
legislation.
I will address another point very quickly. I think it is the
correct process that if there is any area in society, any
province or group that objects to the gun registration, sure they
should challenge in the courts. There is nothing wrong with
that. That is due process. But the essence of my speech was that
I was afraid that many members opposite, and I respect many of
them, were nevertheless parroting myths and the aims of a foreign
organization. I challenge them to go out and look into the
finances of the National Firearms Association that is so much in
your pocket, or are you in their pocket? I am really quite sure.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Disability Pensions; the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest, Tobacco; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Millennium
Scholarships.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to split my time with my colleague from
Tobique—Mactaquac.
I would like to come at this with perhaps a different
perspective. I heard the fearmongering from the hon. member on
the Liberal side just recently with respect to all these terrible
antics of other organizations that are now going to throw the
government out. There is going to be insurrection. That is not
what I want to do, come to fearmongering. What I would like to
do is give detail of some of the truisms that are out there in
our society today.
Number one, I am not a member of the National Rifle Association.
Number two, I do not belong to the National Firearms Association
was mentioned by the hon. member. I do not even own a firearm but
I do represent an area of this country where firearms and long
rifles and shotguns are a part of daily living. It is a rural
area. It is a rural economy and in a lot of circumstances
firearms are still very necessary in order to deal with predators
on agricultural land as well other requirements, one of which is
of a recreational nature, duck, goose and dear hunting.
I do not do any of those activities either but I know of people
who do and they enjoy them. We are Canadians and we do have
rights and we do have freedoms and for those people who wish to
do so I see nothing wrong with honest, law abiding citizens of
this country having the opportunity to go out and take part in a
pastime which they enjoy.
As part of that pastime they require a firearm. Firearms are
not difficult to control in our society today. We in the
Progressive Conservative Party, and I would suggest members from
the official opposition, do not have any difficulty with control
of firearms, with safe storage of firearms so that they are not
going to go off accidentally, that they will be looked after
carefully.
1650
What we do have is some difficulty with the registration
component to firearms. I learned from a long time in this
business of politics that it is good to pass good laws. Good
laws are laws that can be enforced and maintained. Bad laws are
laws that cannot be enforced and maintained.
Let us touch on that for a moment. The registration component
of Bill C-68 is what we are opposed to and have always been
opposed to because it is bad legislation. It is not enforceable.
It never will be and never can be.
There are people who own firearms in their homes who do not and
who have not used those firearms for years, in some cases for
decades. These people are law abiding citizens. They will not in
most circumstances register that firearm.
Therefore at the date they have to register, if they have not
they are criminals. That in itself is criminal and it is
unenforceable unless the police departments are going to go into
people's homes to look for a firearm that may well be there that
is not registered. That is very dangerous.
In another venue in another government, we passed laws and we
listened to the people. People said to give the rationalization
for the law, tell them why we put it into place and is it
working.
We went to some of the laws that we refer to as bylaws and we
looked at them. They were not working. There were certain
licensing procedures that we put into place in the municipality
that were not working and we went back legitimately and said if
it is not enforceable and if it is not working, then don't have
the law.
We struck those laws from the book. What we are asking this
government to do right now is to simply take a step backwards,
look at the viability and the enforceability of this component of
registration with Bill C-68 and say it will not work, it will not
serve the purpose that it thought it was going to serve when it
put this legislation into place. Take the step backwards and do
the right thing for Canadian society. Do not take the police
officers off my street to enforce a law that is unenforceable
because I would prefer to have those police officers doing the
job they are supposed to do.
I am not going to chastise the government for spending $135
million to this day and not in fact registering one firearm. I
will not chastise its members because I think they thought they
were doing the right thing.
Those members should take what they hear now from the opposition
benches. They should take what they hear from the 20,000 people
who were outside this House today who were like us, law abiding
Canadian citizens who simply want to speak their mind and tell
the government that the law it has enacted is a stupid law.
Take out the registration component and everybody will be better
for it.
I heard the fearmongering. I heard that we will overthrow
governments. I heard that we have militia groups behind us. I am
a Canadian. I do not own a gun. I do not belong to the militia.
I do not belong to firearm associations and I believe it is a
stupid law. There are thousands and thousands like me out there
who believe the same thing.
I appreciate the regionality in this country. I appreciate the
diversity of this country and I ask nothing more of the
government than to appreciate the same diversity when I and my
colleagues from this side of the House say there are serious
flaws in the registration component of Bill C-68. Remember what
I said. Nobody here is opposed to the safe control and operation
of guns.
The previous speaker said it would diminish homicides if we have
gun registration. We can use that argument and I can give a
rebuttal on that as well but I am not prepared to do so right
now.
Simply, listen to the people who are out there telling this
government what they would like to see in legislation.
1655
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been holding my fire today on this issue but I
would like to put a bit of a lie to some of the comments that
have been made in the House today.
We are talking about confiscation and discouraging gun owners
and yet the Reform Party by its very arguments has demonstrated that is
not what has happened because it has pointed out that handguns
have been regulated now for 60 years and has not seen any of that
happening out of the registration of handguns.
To the member who just spoke, I am not very good at predicting
the future. We have to see the results sometimes. I do know that
I was very impressed in this debate by an international research
paper that was done by the International Police Association a few
years ago demonstrating very clearly that the stronger the
gun legislation is in a country, the lower the rate of violent
crimes and deaths as a result.
I wonder if the member is aware of that report. If he is aware
of it, has he chosen to totally ignore the results of that report
which show a very clear correlation between strong gun control
legislation and less violent crime? That is what I want to see
for this country.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say I have
not seen that report nor have I read it. But there are a number
of statistics that have been bandied about by the government used
when selling this particular piece of legislation to the House.
I was also told at that time that there was support from the
police association as well as the RCMP. However, false
statistics were used in presenting that piece of legislation.
Reports are reports and I have no reason to dispute the fact that
perhaps there is less violent crime where there is stronger gun
control.
However, for 60 years of gun control with handguns, which is
very strict, there are still homicides being performed by
handguns.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of sitting on the
standing committee on agriculture with the member for
Brandon—Souris. There are a few things we have disagreed on
there.
The member knows me as an active farmer living in rural Canada.
I am also a gun owner. I have black powder at home, shotguns,
a 44-40, a .303 and a .22. I can go on. They are all properly stored and
I have no problem with registration.
Some of the speakers on the other side have said that if we
register these long guns in a very short period of time police
officers are going to come into our homes and confiscate our
firearms.
We have had registration of handguns since 1934. When the
member for Brandon—Souris was mayor did he instruct his
police force to go into homes of residents in that city and
confiscate their handguns because he knew where they were, where
they were registered? I think not.
I would like the member to think about this and comment on it.
Registration is $10 for ten long guns or a thousand because it is
not just restricted to ten. We tried to make this as economical
as possible. In my opinion this is the cheapest insurance policy
we are ever going to get. If someone stole my shotgun
and they happened to be out in Manitoba and they were pulled over
they would be asked about the ownership. Under the new law they
will have to produce registration and ownership. I would get my
shotgun back.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to live in a
world of naivety and I do appreciate that from the hon. member.
I spoke nothing of confiscation in my dissertation. I spoke of
a piece of legislation that in my estimation and in the estimation
of thousands of Canadians is unenforceable.
1700
I appreciate the fact that the hon. member will register his
guns. I thank him very much for that. I can also assure the
member that there are law-abiding citizens in my area and in
areas of western Canada who will not register their guns. They
will be criminals.
Is my police force to go into those houses and look for those
people who have not registered a long rifle and charge those
law-abiding individuals? If they are, we will need substantially
more police officers in our municipalities to do that.
I do not subscribe to a lot of the rhetoric that has come from
these benches with respect to confiscation. However, I do know
in my mind that if legislation is unenforceable then it is not
good legislation and should not be on the books.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege to stand in the House today to talk about the
current Firearms Act, formerly Bill C-68.
When I ran for politics, during my campaign I became very
familiar with Bill C-68.
I come from a rural riding in New Brunswick. As a matter of
fact, I live in the woods and owned a gun at one time. When I
ran for office, a lot of people in my riding, in New Brunswick,
were totally against Bill C-68. As I heard and read more about
it, I became totally against the bill.
When I ran to become a member of parliament I was very vocal
about being against Bill C-68. My party, the Conservative Party
of Canada, at that time said that if we formed the government we
would scrap Bill C-68. I am now a member of parliament, but my
party did not form the government. The people who put this bill
forward have formed the government. I do not agree with it, but
that is how democracy works.
Since that time I have been bothered by a few questions. I have
personally been against firearm registration. I sold my gun
because I did not understand why I should have to register it.
As I had a licence and the gun was already registered, I wondered
why I should have to register it a second time. For me it is
purely political and a tax grab by the Liberals.
What bothers me the most is that today is a Reform supply day
and all day they have been talking about Bill C-68. The Reform
Party also said that if it formed the government it would repeal
Bill C-68, but it did not form the government. Since then the
Reform Party has been very vocal in the media and outside the
House as to what Bill C-68 will do to Canadians.
Sometimes inside this House I feel that the story is different.
We know that a subcommittee was set up last December by the
justice department, made up of the justice critics from each
party. Bill C-68 has now become law. It is harder to throw a
law out than to throw a bill out. Now that the law is there we
thought it would be easier for us to present amendments to the
subcommittee which would help change some provisions within the
law to make it easier for Canadians who live in rural areas to
hunt. Just because we own guns does not mean we are criminals.
When the time arrived for all parties to meet at the
subcommittee, the date was December 2, 1997. The critic for the
Conservative Party was there with five amendments. He would have
been able to change some of those provisions.
The Reform Party went to the subcommittee with one amendment,
which was to repeal Bill C-68 and nothing less than that.
1705
I met people who voted for the Reform Party. They told me that
the only gun control they want in the country is to be able to go
to bed at night with a loaded gun next to their bed. Do we live
in Canada or do we live in the jungles of Cambodia?
At the subcommittee, after the Reform Party brought in the
amendment to repeal Bill C-68, which was defeated, instead of
staying at the meeting to help the Conservative Party with its
amendments, Reform members left the room saying that it was not
an important issue for them. We had five amendments. On three
of them even the Liberal side was split. If the Reform Members
had stayed at the subcommittee three of the amendments could have
passed, but we lost everything.
Today in the House we spent all day listening to speeches about
Bill C-68. Personally I feel it is a waste of taxpayers' money
because when members of the Reform Party had the chance to change
some of the amendments they walked out.
Today there was a big rally on the Hill. From my office I could
see the people. I sympathize with all Canadians because I
support them and I am one of them. I do not know how many people
there were at the rally. There may have been 5,000 or more. I
support them and I will keep supporting them.
I am against gun control, but it is law now. Why can we not
work together to try to change some of the provisions within the
law to make it easier for people like me and many other Canadians
who live in rural areas to own a firearm?
Members of the Reform Party come to the House and advocate one
thing, but when they go outside it is another story. They tell
Canadians that they are on their side and they are fighting to
repeal gun control, but at the subcommittee they walked out,
saying it was not an important issue for them.
What is going on here? It is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the speech we just heard was a complete misrepresentation of the
facts.
The Reform Party has led the charge in opposition to Bill C-68.
There is a Reform Party motion before the House today to repeal
the legislation.
The only comment I have for the hon. member from the
Conservative Party is that if he is concerned about taxpayers'
dollars why is he in a party that jacked up government spending
and the size of the federal government from about $88 billion a
year when Mulroney took office to about $120 billion a year when
he left? Why did it crank up deficits that started to exceed
$40 billion a year?
Who is interested in saving taxpayers' money? It is certainly
not the Conservative Party. It, I might add, is comparable to
the sinking Titanic. It is impossible to plug the holes.
The ship is going down and the only reason that anybody is still
in the Conservative Party is because when a ship sinks there is
always somebody left on it when it hits the bottom.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is sad that a member
of the Reform Party would talk like that about the Conservative
Party. After all, we are a national party, whereas the Reform
Party is just a regional party. When it comes—
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member knows full well that the Reform Party—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order, that is a point of debate.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the
member of the Reform Party.
He did not talk very much about gun control. He talked about
the waste of the Conservative Party when it was in power. Since I
have been a member of parliament we have all criticized the
Liberals because of the waste they have created since 1993. I
sympathize with all opposition parties.
The Reform Party thinks it is number one because it is the
official opposition. It has criticized the government at every
chance.
1710
We remember well that during the campaign their leader said he
would not move into Stornoway. No, he would turn it into a bingo
hall. After the election he moved into Stornoway and wasted $1
million of taxpayers' money to renovate it. This year he is
going to waste another $230,000. The Reform Party has nothing to
show the Conservative Party.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we could get back to the business at hand, I have a comment and a
question for the hon. member.
The comment is to state that one of the primary reasons I
supported Bill C-68 and continue to support it is due to the
request of the Canadian Police Association. As the front line
officers dealing with law enforcement in this country, the
Canadian Police Association supported Bill C-68.
I know there is a lot of controversy over their position. I
would like to read from a letter dated February 19, 1996 from
Scott Newark, the executive officer of the Canadian Police
Association, to myself, where he indicates:
The issue of gun control is one on which we have expressed
opinions over the years. Indeed, we approached the current
government on enforcement aspects as early as December 1993. We
were alerted to the fact that the government was considering
changes along the lines of Bill C-68 and thus, at our Annual
General Meeting in August of 1994 we struck a National Panel to
examine the issues in the specific areas contemplated.
This group met and presented its report to our Executive Board
Meeting in March of 1995. Following this, our delegates,
assembled from every jurisdiction in Canada—
And I emphasize “every jurisdiction in Canada”—
—(Ontario being the largest), voted. Unlike when the Bill was
presented in the House, our delegates were afforded the
opportunity of voting on each item separately. Most passed
unanimously and registration was passed by an approximate two to
one margin, and, as you recall, subject to two very precise
conditions which the government met.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the
hon. member from the other side of the House was referring to.
He never put his question forward. I think he was just making a
statement.
The only thing I can say is that today we have a supply day
which is dealing with Bill C-68. I will vote in favour of
repealing gun registration because I believe in it. It is not
because of the Reform Party, but because I believe in it.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate here today
with some interest. I have to say, coming from Quebec, that I
think all members know that the overwhelming majority of people
in Quebec are not only in favour of the gun control act which was
already adopted, but also with registration.
One of the reasons is that there are studies that have shown
that deaths caused by suicide or accidents can be reduced by
limiting access. One of the ways that we limit access is to take
control and register guns.
People who are law-abiding will register their guns. Those who
are not will suffer whatever the consequences are in the
legislation. I think that is perfectly fair. There are a lot of
people who know how to drive, but do not get behind the wheel
because their licence has been suspended, because they have lost
merit points—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will give the last
minute to the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about
myself. I said that I did own a gun. I had an FAC licence.
What more do I need? Why do I have to register the same gun
twice? If that is not a tax grab, what does she call it?
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1750
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 83
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Folco
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Folco
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from September 21 consideration of Bill C-20,
an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and
related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill
C-20.
The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also
applies to Motion No. 3. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1
obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
If Motion No. 1 is negatived, Motion No. 2 will be put to a
vote.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party are opposed
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to be
recognized as being in the House and as voting with the Liberal
Party on this vote. I am voting no.
1805
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne – 36
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 231
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Folco
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were
to seek consent, it would be granted to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the following motions: Motions Nos. 2, 4, 8,
6, 9 and 10.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, my apologies but I wonder if
I could have the opportunity to correct the proceedings of the
vote just taken. It was my error in not picking up the fact that
our colleagues from the New Democratic Party should be shown as
having voted in favour of Motion No. 2. As I applied the votes,
I regrettably did not take note of the fact that the preceding
vote on which I asked for the application I misread their party's
voting intention. To correct the record, members of the New
Democratic Party of course on the Competition Act would continue
to have voted nay, but then when we go to Motions Nos. 2, 4, 8,
6, 9 and 10, they voted yea.
I apologize for that error, in particular to my colleagues from
the New Democratic Party.
The Speaker: Is there consent to make the changes
indicated by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 213
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Folco
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions 2, 4, 8, 6, 9 and 10
defeated. Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 11 are therefore defeated.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 213
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 54
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Folco
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of
those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers
who compete with them at retail), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
1810
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this private members'
bill.
I believe this bill was well intended. The bill proposes to
change the Competition Act which would prevent unfair pricing
practices by vertically integrated suppliers, especially in the
oil and gas industry.
I can understand the hon. member's reasons for bringing forth
this legislation. In my five years as a member of parliament I
have received countless letters, phone calls and petitions from
Canadians living both within and outside my riding, all
concerning gas prices and competition between retailers.
Both independent retailers and individual consumers have
expressed concern over what they believe to be unfair pricing
practices. I believe it is the concerns of the first group, the
independent retailers, that the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge wished to address. Unfortunately I have
serious concerns about the bill as it may not be effective in
serving the intended purpose.
The proposed changes to the Competition Act are intended to
prevent vertically integrated suppliers from practising below
cost selling when their own gas stations are competing with the
independent retailers they also supply. This is very important
to ensure fair competition. However, the Competition Act already
prohibits this.
Section 78(a) of the Competition Act specifically prohibits
anti-competitive acts including “squeezing by a vertically
integrated supplier of the margin available to an unintegrated
customer who competes with the supplier for the purpose of
impeding or preventing the customer's entry into or expansion in
a market”.
The Competition Act also prohibits selling articles at a price
lower than the acquisition cost for the purpose of discipline or
eliminating a competitor. Section 50 of the Competition Act
outlines severe consequences for those companies guilty of
anti-competitive acts.
Like the hon. member, I am strongly opposed to predatory
pricing. However, I believe the Competition Act already addresses
this issue as is. The problem does not rest with the provisions
or wording of the Competition Act but with the lack of vigour and
enthusiasm with which it is enforced by the government and its
regulators. If large oil companies are in fact engaging in
unfair pricing practices, a fact of which I am not convinced,
then the fault lies with the federal government for not being
more vigorous in enforcing existing legislation.
As I have stated before, I believe the hon. member had good
intentions in bringing Bill C-235 to the House. When the
committee began looking at this issue it wanted to unveil unfair
practices including price fixing and collusion, which was a noble
goal. However, when the hon. member found no evidence of this,
he switched his focus to protecting the interests of a small
group of independent retailers, some 20% of the retail market.
Somewhere in this process the interests of individual consumers,
the very group that the hon. member set out to represent, were
forgotten. Therefore, believing the hon. member to be an
individual of good conscience, I encourage him to be vigilant,
especially with regard to the bill's potential impact on
individual consumers. I would implore him to give greater
consideration to the millions of Canadians who will suffer as a
result of government intervention and excessive regulation.
I am a firm believer in fair competition in the marketplace.
However, I am also a firm believer in the market system whereby
market values are determined by supply, demand and corner
competition.
I am concerned that this bill if passed would result in the
abandonment of the market system and the adoption of a floor
price that would hinder rather than strengthen competition among
retailers.
1815
Canadian gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world and
have been falling for two decades. Conversely, taxes on gasoline
have been rising, now accounting for more than 50% of pump
prices. This in itself is one very good reason why independent
retailers are suffering
Both refiners and marketers of gasoline have seen their profit
margins shrink as a result of normal competition in the
marketplace but have also suffered the burden of government tax
grabbing.
When gasoline prices are considered in isolation from taxation,
however, it is abundantly clear that the individual consumer
benefits from the current competition among retailers. Pretax
prices are lower than they have been in two decades. The market
system is working exceptionally well for the consumers in this
way. Not only have gasoline prices fallen, but gasoline retailers
have found it necessary to improve services in order to remain
competitive.
Vertically integrated suppliers and independent retailers alike
have diversified operations by building car washes, convenience
stores and restaurants on site. These benefits to consumers are
on top of low gasoline prices as determined by the market forces.
I believe this bill would protect the most vulnerable, the
independent retailer, but I fear that it would also establish a
floor price for gasoline much higher than the price determined by
market forces.
Currently the province of Quebec is considering establishing a
floor price for gasoline in that province. Quebec Professor
Alain Lapointe has been studying the issue of gas pricing and
estimates that the floor price would cost Quebec consumers
anywhere from $140 million to $280 million.
So far I have discussed the negative implications of this bill.
In fairness to the bill and to the hon. member from
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, however, I think it is equally as
important to consider the long term impacts should independent
retailers be forced out of the market. This is one of the hon.
member's concerns and I share that concern.
Even so, I am concerned about the effects the proposed
legislation will have on other industries. To this point,
changes to the Competition Act have been discussed almost
exclusively in terms of their impact on gasoline prices. This is
primarily because the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge
has targeted major oil companies in his argument. However, if
accepted by the members of this House, the changes proposed by
this legislation would reach much further in their application.
This means Canadians would not only face higher prices for
gasoline but could face higher prices for electronic equipment,
cars and a multitude of other products. Canadians would also
face the inefficiencies of further government intervention and
control in their lives. The successful operation of the market
requires that market forces be allowed to run their course. The
successful operation of the market also requires fair competition
whereby predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position are
prohibited by law and this law is vigorously enforced. The market
system has operated well thus far, resulting in the declining
pretax gasoline price for consumers.
The Competition Act explicitly prohibits predatory pricing below
cost selling and abuse of dominant position. By my estimates
this means that the conditions necessary for successful operation
of the market should already be in place. Unfortunately, it
appears as though the market is not operating successfully.
I encourage the hon. member opposite to take a hard look at the
influence of his own party on market prices. Federal and
provincial taxes average 28.6 cents per litre which is more than
50% of the pump price. That is 28.6 cents per litre less for the
retailer. The lower the retailer's profit margin, the greater the
difficulty to survive.
1820
If the government is truly committed to protecting the
independent retailer taxes should be reduced. With lower taxes
and greater profit margins the independent retailers would be
better positioned to compete with the large oil companies and to
diversify their operations in order to meet the ever changing
needs of their consumer base.
I conclude by commending the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his efforts. I appreciate his
vigour and determination. I encourage him to continue his
struggle, albeit in a somewhat different direction. Instead of
pursuing a solution that would potentially hurt the consumer, I
suggest he try to encourage his Liberal colleagues for more
vigorous enforcement of existing laws and clearer definitions
within those laws.
Although I have concerns with this bill I see the merit in
highlighting this issue and hope that in the future the hon.
member and I will be able to study this issue from the same side
of the fence.
To this effect, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent for the following motion.
I move:
That Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act, not be read
a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill
withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on Industry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order. The debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am addressing the House on the
subject of private member's Bill C-235, an act to amend the
Competition Act.
I am pleased to state my full support for this much needed bill.
I wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, for seeing this bill to second reading
and for the work of his committee on behalf of all Canadians,
especially our small and medium size businesses.
In essence, this bill would provide for the enforcement of fair
pricing between a manufacturer that sells a product at retail
either directly or through an affiliate and who also supplies
product to a customer who competes with the supplier at the
retail level. This provides a supplier's customer with a fair
opportunity to make a similar profit as the supplier at the
retail level in a given market area.
1825
A supplier who tries to force a customer to set a certain retail
price on marketing policy may under this bill face a fine,
imprisonment or both. Bill C-235 would establish a clear
legislative basis for the enforcement of industry wide fair
pricing policies. That is why I believe the proposed legislation
would go a long way toward repairing the industry's battered
image among the general public.
The reason I am so concerned about gas prices today is there can
only be one winner or loser at the gas pump and that is the
consumer. Unfortunately a summer's worth of rapidly changing
prices at the pumps has only served to frustrate and anger
consumer in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale as
well as those living both in Ontario and across the country.
Without a doubt gasoline pricing is a politically sensitive
issue and will remain so until certain problems within the system
are addressed. After all, gasoline prices are probably the most
advertised prices in Canada. Every citizen sees them every day
and often is shocked when they suddenly go up. Unfortunately
normal supply and demand economics cannot account for the large
price swings that Canadians see at the pumps.
Though the committee on gas pricing's report concluded that
price fixing and collusion do not occur, it added that it does
not occur because it does not have to. All a station manager has
to do is look at his competitor's sign and match his price.
Indeed price signs on retail outlets can be an easy way for
market participants to achieve the same results without having
the resort to any illegal activity.
Still, I would like to make it clear that there remains too much
mystery surrounding the relationship between the refining and the
retail operations of integrated companies such as Shell and
Imperial Oil.
What is needed is greater transparency within the industry since
as things stand now very few Canadians have any idea how much
these big companies charge their own stations. There is still a
lot of smoke and mirrors within the industry.
I again acknowledge the tremendous initiative and leadership
demonstrated on this matter by our colleague, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. This member not only helped to create
the caucus committee on gasoline pricing, he also agreed to be
our chair.
Bill C-235 would give the customer a fair opportunity to make a
profit similar to that of the supplier, hence ending the practice
known throughout the industry as unfair pricing. Since that is
what the bill aims to resolve I wish to call on my fellow members
of parliament to join me in support of Bill C-235.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the
gas pricing issue in the House yet one more time.
I am pleased to stand and support the referral to committee of
Bill C-235 sponsored by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
It is a bill which has merit. It is a bill which will provide
some competition seriously lacking now in the gasoline pricing
industry.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a much needed first step
to implementing a predatory pricing definition in the Competition
Act.
1830
This is a definition that makes sense to non-integrated or what
we like to call independent gasoline retailers who compete
against the vertically integrated or the large corporate
marketers. It is the first step in re-establishing some retail
competition which, at this moment, is on the verge of breakdown.
The Competition Act was watered down significantly by the
Conservative government of Mr. Brian Mulroney. We used to have a
bill called the Combines Investigation Act. That bill gave
regulators the power to investigate if they suspected predatory
pricing or price fixing in the marketplace in gasoline or other
commodities. They had the power to go into a company suspected
of price fixing or predatory pricing and take the files for
investigative purposes.
What happened was that Mr. Mulroney wanted to change that
because the large corporations made huge contributions to his
party. In response he said “I am going to let you fix prices,
so I will repeal the Combines Investigation Act and set up what
we will call the Competition Act”. I call it, and many of my
constituents call it, the “lack of competition act”.
It is really a monopoly act. It provides large corporations
with the unfettered ability to do whatever they want in terms of
pricing goods and services in this country. The reason I say
that is because I have worked with the oil industry for a number
of years, in particular on the issue of gas pricing.
The bill which is before the House is a very important. It
tries to change the lack of competition in the current act to
make it a more competitive act by providing a definition of
predatory pricing.
In the act there is a very small section outlining predatory
pricing. None of the people who have been charged under this
clause have been found guilty by the courts. The reason is that
the definition is so narrow and so precise that it really does
not provide any flexibility to gather evidence to prove the
charges laid.
Compare that to the United States of America, the most
capitalistic society and economy in our world. They have pages
and pages in their legislation on predatory pricing and other
anti-competitive acts.
Twenty-eight states in the United States of America have
predatory pricing practice protection for their consumers. What
do we have in Canada? Zippo. We have nothing here for our
consumers. That is a very worrisome development.
I see that the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has
recognized this and has gathered some support in terms of having
the committee review it.
I want to point out a few things about the independent retail
gasoline marketers who are shrinking in numbers. They are the
people who market gasoline or heating oil. They retail under
their own brand and do not own a refinery. They operate under a
type of joint venture agreement with a refiner marketer who is a
vertically integrated company, such as Imperial Oil, Irving Oil
or Shell.
Defined in this way, independents refer to the group that
includes large retailers, such as Canadian Tire or the Olco
Petroleum Group, Sunny's Petroleum, as well as a number of
smaller businesses that operate only one or a few gasoline
outlets.
The past eight years have seen increasingly difficult times for
independent marketers who are attempting to remain viable in a
market controlled by the major refiner marketers, the companies I
referred to earlier.
As a result, several retailers have either sold all or parts of
their chains, or they have entered into partnerships with a major
oil company, for example, Pioneer or United Cooperative Ontario,
or they have left the business voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
Some examples are Safeway, Payrite, Gas Rite and Mohawk.
As a result, the non-affiliated independents' market share has
dropped dramatically in most provinces across Canada. During
this time all major refiner marketers have increased direct
market share and control over the market.
I want to use some statistics which are quite illustrative of
what I have just said.
In 1992, in the province of Alberta, the independent market
share was 27.8%. In 1997 it was 20.1%, a decline of 25% in five
years.
1835
Indeed, with the recent sale of Mohawk to Husky Oil, Alberta
will see a further decline of 6.3%, down to 13.8%, which from
1992 to 1999 will mean a 55% drop in market share of independents
in Alberta. In those five years alone this lack of competition
has cost Alberta consumers about $80 million.
In Saskatchewan, in 1992, the independent market share was
20.6%. That is now down to 15.1% of the market, or a decline of
25% in five years. Where has the market share gone? To the
major multinational corporations.
That is very alarming because once that market share gets to a
point where it is not relevant, these independent retailers will
cease to exist.
I am a small business person by profession. I see these people
as small or medium enterprises trying to make a living, but also
providing competition and some price options for consumers and
businesses. But as the market share declines with respect to the
independents, we no longer have competition. We have monopoly
pricing. It is pretty much the same in Manitoba in terms of the
decline.
What we are seeing are independents who have to buy wholesale
price gasoline at the pumps. Of course when there is a bit of a
war on, when the major retailers want to get rid of the
independents, they drop the price below what the independents
purchase at the pumps. The independents carry on for as long as
they can, but eventually they go bankrupt or they sell out to
larger companies in the marketplace.
I want to say to the people who are listening that what we have
here is a bill which is very supportable. It is something that
will enhance and improve the Competition Act as we know it. It
will indeed provide some competition. But why has the Liberal
Party or the Conservative Party not supported this kind of
initiative? Many Liberal members support it, but the majority
will vote it down. I hope I am wrong, but that is my suspicion.
I think it is because the major oil companies provide huge,
substantial political contributions to the Liberal Party and to
the Conservative Party. One can only conclude that if those
parties are getting huge contributions they will allow the oil
companies to do as they see fit.
The issue of gasoline pricing is quite phenomenal. I want to
make one reference to my home province, Saskatchewan. We have
seen the price of oil at the wellhead decline by approximately
50% year over year. It has been sustained for six or seven
months now in this country. It is down to $11 to $13 a barrel,
depending on which day you are looking at. It used to be $25
about a year ago.
What we have seen in this country is that in some areas the
price of gasoline does not go down. The refiners keep the price
high. They are making huge margins on their sales and everybody
else pays the fare. What we have seen is that in Saskatchewan
the price of gasoline has been inordinately high throughout the
last six months of this low oil price.
I have travelled across the country and I have talked to people
across this country. Saskatchewan has the same provincial sales
tax as British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and the Maritimes. We
pay between 3 cents and 9 cents a litre more in Saskatchewan.
I have been raising this issue in my province. I had a visit
from Petro-Canada, my good friends, and they showed me all these
graphs and told me how they are hard done by. They said “The
reason it is lower in other provinces is because of volume”. I
said “Why do the prices go up in the springtime in Saskatchewan
when the farmers need the fuel for seeding? That is more volume
and the prices go up. Why does that happen?” They cannot
answer that. It is the same in the fall with the harvest. It is
just pure price gouging.
It is my sense that we need some competition in this country. It
is my sense that we need this amendment to the Competition Act.
It is my sense as well that we need support for my private
member's bill, to be coming before this House hopefully before
long, which calls for the establishment of an energy price review
commission. That will assist the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge in his efforts to make sure that oil
companies are charging consumers fair prices.
1840
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to support Bill C-235, a bill that would
mandate that major oil companies selling gasoline to independents
would have to sell it to independents at the same price that they
sell it to their own branded dealers.
I have had the good pleasure of working with the member of
parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge on this initiative and I
would like to commend him for his leadership on gasoline pricing
and for chairing a task force that he put together. I was
fortunate enough to work with him on that initiative.
Some might ask “What is the concern? If independents are
charged for gasoline at a different price they can go to someone
else. Instead of buying from Esso they could go to Shell or
Petro-Canada”. The problem is that the wholesale market is very
much a homogeneous market. It is controlled by three or four
major companies: Petro-Canada, Shell, Esso and Ultramar. There
is really one wholesale price that is driven by what they call
the rack price. I will touch on that briefly later.
There really are not many choices, so it is imperative that the
independents are charged the same price as the branded dealers.
When we set up this task force we met with Canadians all across
Canada. In my own riding of Etobicoke North we had a meeting on
January 23. There were representatives from the Etobicoke
Chamber of Commerce, the gas dealers, trucking companies and
others.
What we consistently heard across Canada is that Canadians want
fair gasoline pricing. They are concerned also about the long
weekend pricing and the volatility of pricing, but they really
want a competitive and open market for gasoline pricing to ensure
that prices are fair.
In fact, looking at gasoline prices right now, they really are
not that bad. But the problem is that if the independent
gasoline dealer is eliminated in Canada, then prices in the short
run might be low but we will be burdened later with higher prices
through this sort of oligopolistic market.
To achieve the goal of allowing independents the room to
operate, to make a fair profit and to survive in a very
competitive industry is a very challenging and daunting task.
The independent gasoline dealers are really squeezed by the major
oil companies.
In the oil industry there is a high level of concentration.
There are now only 18 refineries in Canada, down from about 44 in
1960.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If I may beg the
indulgence of the hon. member for Etobicoke North, a little
earlier the hon. member for Athabasca moved an amendment and I
did not bring it to the attention of the House appropriately.
I am now asking for the unanimous consent of the House to revert
to where we were before I erroneously read the motion. Does the
Chair have the unanimous consent of the House to revisit the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It has been moved by
the hon. member for Athabasca that Bill C-235, an act to amend
the Competition Act, be not now read the second time, but that
the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject
matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
Is there unanimous consent of the House for this motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I was describing the large
degree of concentration in the oil industry. In Toronto, for
example, 75% to 85% of all retail gasoline sold is priced by the
major oil companies through controlled operations.
The major oil companies say that at the retail level the
competition is very fierce and intensive and the economics are
very poor.
1845
The independents are certainly struggling and fighting for
market share against the majors. The independents do not have
some of the opportunities which some of the major companies have.
They are unable to develop the ancillary services that a lot of
the major oil companies are doing today: car washes, convenience
stores, et cetera. They cannot access the capital to do these
types of things.
The banks will not touch the independent retailer of gasoline
because they are concerned about how long they will be in
business and what they call site remediation or environmental
problems with sites. The small independents cannot get capital
from the banks. The banks have said categorically that they will
not look at them.
What about the majors? Are they making money at the retail
level? They say they are not, but if we look at their annual
statements we could not tell because that information is just not
provided. Even if we could decipher that from their annual
statements, the fact is that major oil companies price the
product right through the whole chain. They are integrated oil
companies so they explore, drill, extract, refine, market and
retail. These are big oil companies such as ESSO and Shell. They
control the price at the wholesale level which they call the rack
price.
They say they have to charge the rack price at a certain level
because they are concerned about product substitution from the
United States. In other words, if they price their product too
high, independent retailers and others would import gasoline from
the United States.
In our consultations we discovered that in theory that is
interesting but in actual fact there are the problems of
importing gasoline, particularly in eastern Ontario and other
parts of Ontario. They are faced with transportation costs, a
lack of storage and terminal infrastructure, and a lot of red
tape and bureaucracy. In my view one would need at least an 8
cent per litre spread to make it worth while to import gas from
the United States. I think the argument of product substitution
is a little weak.
Since 1991 many independents have unfortunately left the Ontario
market. There could be a short term benefit for Ontario
consumers because of the kind of pricing that goes on in the
marketplace. What about the medium and long term? We have some
evidence to show what happens in cases like that.
In New Brunswick and Newfoundland where there are very few
independents the prices at the pump are among the highest in
Canada. What my colleague's bill addresses is referred to as
predatory pricing, in other words pricing designed to put others
out of business.
There are industry experts who believe that major oil companies
are trying to squeeze out the independents. I would just like to
cite a study by Bloomberg's which reads:
—major oil companies were going to use price wars, new credit
terms, and the strategic closure of service stations and
refineries to squeeze independent gasoline retailers out of the
market in central Canada.
Another study by ScotiaMcLeod suggested:
To set the stage for a better downstream environment beginning in
1993, it is our opinion that Imperial Oil Ltd. has put a strategy
in place in 1992 to discipline the retail markets, with the aim
directed at the independents.
Likewise Wood Gundy stated:
Imperial, Shell Canada Ltd. and Petro-Canada Inc. have targeted
the country's independent marketers as being their most effective
competition and with the current wave of rationalization, are
trying to get their cost structure down to the same level as
independents, who enjoy a two to four cent per litre advantage
over the majors.
That is because of their lower cost structure. They do not have
all the overheads to support. I think my colleague's bill
addresses very well the question of predatory pricing.
I would now like to talk very briefly about the Competition Act
and the competition bureau. Many Canadians have complained to
the bureau and the bureau because of the legislation conducts its
investigations by seeking meetings among the majors, and even at
the local level, where they sit around at Tim Horton's and set
prices. That does not have to happen because there are few at
that level. They are price leaders and price followers. They do
not have to sit around and discuss and decide on prices.
We need some beefing up of the Competition Act and to change the
criminal burden to more of a civil burden.
1850
In conclusion I sum up by saying Bill C-235 if passed would
protect the independents we need to ensure a competitive
marketplace. By ensuring that the integrated oil companies
priced their product to independents at the same price they
charge their own dealers we would ensure good prices for gasoline
in Canada and for Canadians.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-235, an act
to amend the Competition Act, the protection of those who
purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who
compete with them at retail.
That is a long way of saying let us go after the gasoline
companies and try to score some easy political points. The
problem is that it is not that simple. It is not that easy.
I want to deal with the bill in a thoughtful manner and outline
the many serious concerns my party has with it. Canada has been
oblivious to the issues addressed by the bill. The Competition
Act implemented by the previous Conservative government to
replace the Anti-Combines Act deals with the inherent issues of
Bill C-235 without making any amendments.
The issues of price discrimination, price maintenance and abuse
of dominance are already addressed by the act. Let us deal with
the issue of fair pricing first. The problem with the
legislation is that it would create an artificial profit margin
by gearing pricing to competitors based on any formula that
includes retail pricing.
The bill would be creating a floor price below which no one
could go. The elimination of the ability to engage in
discounting would be a peculiar approach to addressing fair
pricing. The result would in fact be higher prices, which
certainly is not in the best interest of the Canadian consumer.
The Liberal government has already overburdened small and medium
size businesses across the country with outrageous reporting
requirements either in the area of sales tax, payroll tax,
Statistics Canada or any other number of government bureaucracies
or agencies that enforce different degrees of compliance.
Legislators must begin searching for ways to ease the paperwork
burden and let Canadian businesses get back to their core
services. This would not happen under Bill C-235. In fact the
opposite would be the case.
Let us imagine how the government could possibly begin tackling
the issue of what constitutes proper wholesale prices, profit
margins and marketing expenses of firms. Quite simply it could
not be done. We would be creating another level of bureaucracy,
an extra burden of government, an enormous enforcement cost.
I am concerned about another implication of the bill. If a
vertically integrated company sells only a small portion of its
product to independent outlets, what would happen? Will it
submit to the burdensome review process it is required to go
through in order to change its prices? I suspect it would not.
In fact it would be my guess that it would cease selling to
competitors at all. This would lead to a very negative impact on
the independent retailers that my hon. colleague seeks to
champion.
Fundamentally this comes down to whether or not governments
should be trying to interfere in those affected industries or
allowing market forces to prevail. The fact is that price
regulations work well when prices are on the rise, but they do
not work well when they are coming down. We would in effect be
artificially skewering the marketplace to favour small
independent companies over the interest of consumers.
I would like to address something that was raised the last time
the bill came before the House on May 27 of this year. At that
time the hon. member for Palliser rose to give his support to the
bill. In so doing the spectre was raised of the Irving Oil
Company. It was as if the mere mention of this bogeyman should
be enough to rally support for the bill. While I understand the
rabid hatred the NDP harbours toward successful Canadian
companies, Irving Oil Company Limited does not sell gasoline to
its competitors so it would not be affected by this legislation.
That is why facts get in the way of good speeches.
I realize the bill is generic in its wording, but it is clear
that it will have a great impact on the retail gas industry. The
result would be to abandon market based forces as the proper
determinate of gasoline prices and instead move to a cost based
formula.
The hon. member who sponsored the bill is well known for his
tendency to do battle with oil companies.
Motivations aside, I am fearful that the implications to other
industries have not been fully thought through. He would not
want to inadvertently undermine another industry out of some sort
of zealous drive to take on the oil companies.
1855
The final issue I wish to discuss is that of alternatives to the
bill. During the last session of debate it was mentioned over
and over again that many of the provisions of Bill C-235 already
exist in the present Competition Act. They are sections of the
Competition Act which relate to abusive dominance and price
maintenance. Sections 50.1(c) and 78 on their own without any
amendments are currently drafted in a manner which addresses the
issues raised by Bill C-235.
Predatory pricing, which is defined as selling products at
prices unreasonably low, has the effect of substantially
lessening competition or pricing aimed at eliminating or impeding
the expansion of a competitor, is a criminal offence under the
act as it now stands.
In addition, abusive dominance in situations where substantial
lessening of competition results is a civil provision. One of
the subsections of that provision deals specifically with the
issue of dominance of vertically integrated firms squeezing the
profit margin available to non-integrated customers and competing
with the suppliers for the purpose of impeding or preventing the
customers' entry into or expansion in the market.
Even without the reassurance that comes from these provisions my
hon. colleague should take comfort in the M. J. Ervin report
which shows that since 1994 Canada has enjoyed retail gasoline
prices that on a pre-tax basis are among the lowest in the world.
Whereas the pump price of gasoline is made up of more than 50%
excise taxes, maybe the member's time would be better spent
lobbying his own government to reduce these if he wants to see a
real benefit.
I do not wish to appear to be advocating a laissez-faire
approach to industry. However, I prefer to see legislation that
creates an environment where businesses can operate and flourish
under normal marketing conditions. This is not a component of
Bill C-235. In effect it would be shackling the marketplace with
a central command approach to economic questions.
The reality is that the Competition Act must be above all else
focused on achieving desirable results for our consumers. It
should not be used to undermine the legitimate outcome of
competition such as low prices.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just want to make mention of a point for my hon. colleague from
Markham. Unless I am wrong or unless he wants to prove me wrong,
absolutely no part of the Competition Act addresses the
definition or standard of what constitutes predation or predatory
activity. Therefore the act is deficient. That is what we are
trying to address in the debate and with the bill.
I also want to congratulate the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I suggest again to the member for
Markham that he is not known for fighting oil companies. He is
known for fighting for consumers. I think his track record in
that regard is extremely admirable.
During the last sitting I had the very informative experience of
participating in the Liberal caucus committee on gasoline
pricing. Members will notice a lot of the speakers from this
side shared that experience. Many of the opinions that I have in
support of the bill were developed through that process. It was
a long and laborious process.
In fact the focus of the bill would seem to be the petroleum
industry. I must say that one of the most emotional components
of the gasoline pricing committee was the testimonials from
independents who were at the brink of collapse or who had
collapsed because of declining margins.
In all fairness we are seeing the downside of consolidation in a
number of retail sectors. The corner hardware store comes to
mind. I honestly felt at the time, as I do now, that something
was not working in the case of gasoline retailing. Although this
bill has its roots in the petroleum industry, it is a timely
debate to have as the forces of globalization and centralization
begin to impact virtually any economic sector with high levels of
vertical integration combined with oligopolistic market
structure, which what we have in the gasoline-petroleum industry
in Canada. We are not only talking about the petroleum industry
because deregulation will cause us to have similar concerns and
similar debates in the telecommunications industry, the
information technology industry, the travel industry, utilities
and the financial services sector, just to name a few.
My hon. colleagues talk about the role that taxes have in
reducing margins.
Taxes in this country are based on per litre, not price. They
are a fixed cost. The debate over taxes may be valid but it is
not a reason or it is not a contributing factor to forcing
independents out of business.
1900
On the surface this discussion obviously seems to be a classic
debate between those who advocate free market and those who
advocate government regulation. There are larger issues here
that need to be examined.
As hon. members across the way point out, the current federal
Competition Act provides for criminal sanctions against persons
involved in agreements or actions that unduly lessen competition.
The burden of proof in the Competition Act is that predatory
pricing and price discrimination must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. In large part because of this burden of proof,
very few cases make it through the courts.
The paradox is that although we recognize the seriousness of
anti-competitive behaviour by enshrining the offence in the
Criminal Code, that high standard as opposed to, as was
suggested, a civil code standard make enforcement of the
regulations very difficult. It is not always easy to distinguish
competitive from anti-competitive practices. There is nothing
wrong with tough competition even from a dominant firm, but when
its intention is to eliminate competition or prevent entry into
or expansion in a market, there could be an abuse of that
dominant position.
Why is this bill necessary? Traditional approaches to defining
predatory pricing use costs as a measure of intent. In most
cases pricing above total average costs results in non-predatory
practices. Pricing below average variable cost is likely to be
treated as predatory in the absence of some clear justification.
If a company is selling off inventory that is perishable, then it
is justified in doing that. But it is prices between average
variable and average total costs that are the grey area. They do
not even get looked at because of the high standard in the
Competition Act.
The problem with vertically integrated companies is that the
seamless nature of their operations, the womb to tomb continuum
that they enjoy makes it very difficult to clearly define and
allocate costs at specific points.
What this amendment does is it takes the focus away from the
allusive and historically futile endeavour of trying to prove
predation based on costs and puts it on price, the wholesale and
retail prices of the supplier in relation to an independent that
purchases product from that supplier. What could be clearer? My
hon. colleague says that would be impossible. It is hanging on
the street. Price we know; price is public.
Why the focus on the petroleum industry? First of all gasoline
is not a discretionary purchase for most Canadians. It is a cost
of living. We all know that. When the price spikes up, we get
the calls. There are few substitutes for gasoline powered
automobiles in the market today. Putting my environmental
sentiments aside for a moment, the price of gas is an economic
issue to most Canadians.
Apart from octane level and a few product variations such as
ethanol, there is little if any opportunity for independent
retailers to differentiate the product once they purchase it
wholesale. They are at the mercy of low brand loyalty. And
there are significant barriers to entry.
The notion that the loss of an independent gas retailer is only
a slight temporary adjustment and that any attempts by the
dominant firms to increase margins will be offset by new
entrants, classical economic theory, goes out the window here.
The classic self-policing concept of competition does not apply.
The current players are simply too big. We need to recognize
this concentration and ensure that we protect fair competition at
the retail level.
Other countries are also trying to come to grips with these
changing market forces. The French government amended its law in
1996 to make predatory pricing an infringement on its own
regardless of any issue of dominance. The Americans, the keepers
of the capitalist faith, have recognized this risk and have put
in place statutory variations of divorce legislation that limit
the percentage of retail operations a vertically integrated
supplier can own. It is not because they see this as an
intervention of the government into a free and competitive
market, but as a necessary action to ensure the long term
viability of a free and competitive market.
As the pressures of globalization put pressure on companies to
grow through mergers, the accompanying concentration makes
vertical integration a viable and sensible strategy. In order to
protect consumers and promote effective competition, federal
legislation must not simply prevent companies from pursuing
growth strategies. That growth must come from the effective
implementation of a solid marketing strategy and not simply
disadvantaging competitors by exploiting proprietary control over
essential components of the distribution channel.
In conclusion, this bill will allow the intent of the
Competition Act to be enforced by setting a benchmark for
predatory practices that is both public and workable.
1905
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The
hon. member for Cambridge will have six minutes and will be able
to carry over another four minutes, but he has six minutes at
this time.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to have the opportunity to debate this important bill
which was introduced by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
The Competition Act was designed to promote competition and
efficiency in the Canadian marketplace. It sets out a basic code
of conduct for businesses in this country and covers criminal
offences such as conspiracy, discriminatory and predatory
pricing, price maintenance, misleading advertising and deceptive
marketing practices.
However based on what I have been hearing from my constituents
in Cambridge, the Competition Act is not protecting consumers in
the case of the gas industry. Very real concerns remain about
what has been happening in this sector. In fact these concerns
have been growing. There has been much debate over the issue of
gasoline pricing. Independent gas retailers and many consumers
believe that the major oil companies are using their dominant
position in the marketplace to set out prices which adversely
affect competition.
During a town hall meeting in my riding of Cambridge, consumers,
trucking companies and independent retailers all expressed
frustration over fluctuating gas prices. We know that across the
country gas prices prior to long weekends and during summer
vacations go up and in midweek they go down. Sometimes retail
outlets owned by the major companies charge less for their gas
than the independent retailers purchase it for but the price
mysteriously goes up again.
The major companies say that this practice is because of the low
supply of gasoline, production problems and of course the
refinery shutdowns. I do not believe that Canadians, including
myself, buy that argument. When there is a frost in Florida
the price of oranges does not go up only over the weekend.
I was a member of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing
which travelled throughout Canada. Time and time again we heard
from independent gasoline retailers how truly difficult it is to
stay in business when the supplier they are competing against is
the same person who sets the cost at which they are going to
receive the supply.
Mr. Speaker, if a supplier wants to increase his market share at
your expense or the Canadian taxpayers' expense, it is not hard
to predict that the independent retailer will be out of business
in a very short time. This is the story of the bully on the block
who is bigger and stronger.
Many complaints have been filed with the Competition Bureau
about unfair practices. Unfortunately we hear from the
Competition Bureau that it does not have the tools to resolve
these ongoing complaints. We must give the bureau those tools
and this bill is doing exactly that.
The holes in the Competition Act have been identified by others.
We know that in 1986 the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
recommended that the federal government take steps to determine
the limits of appropriate pricing in the specific dual
distribution context of the petroleum industry.
The New Brunswick all-party committee also looked into the
operation of the petroleum industry. In 1997 it issued a report
which stated that the Competition Act has little effect in
preventing discriminatory pricing or predatory pricing.
We know from the committee when it was travelling that consumers
and independents in New Brunswick and Newfoundland have been
squeezed out. Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that I have another minute but I could
go on and on.
I would urge all members of the House to support this bill.
1910
Again I congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge
for his tireless work in this area. I urge the House and members
to be responsible to their constituents.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on March 27,
1998, I rose in my place to ask the government to review its
practices concerning disability benefits. In Bill C-2 introduced
at the beginning of this Parliament, the Liberals turned their
backs on those living with a disability.
In their program-slashing frenzy, this government attacked our
society's most vulnerable members, those living with a
disability.
The government expects to cut $1 billion in disability benefits
between now and 2005.
I would like to address the appeal process. It takes three to
four months for the first-level appeal to be heard. The second
stage, the appeal to the review tribunal, takes six months. The
third level of appeal, to the appeal board, takes one year.
Let us take the example of one of my constituents, Jean-Marie
Doiron. An accident when he was 21 left him in a wheelchair.
That was 40 years ago. Jean-Marie worked throughout this period.
He did what he could. During the last 14 years, he repaired
school textbooks. On turning 60, Jean-Marie decided to apply for
the Canada Pension Plan. His doctor decided he should leave the
work force because of his handicap eight months after his 60th
birthday.
But, because more than six months had elapsed since he had
applied to the CPP for disability benefits, he was turned down.
Jean-Marie took his appeal to the first level and won. But the
government told him it would go to the appeal board.
Jean-Marie has already been waiting one year, and will have to
wait one more before his case is heard. There are already
several cases like his in the works. It is unbelievable that
people are treated this way by the Government of Canada. It is
unbelievable that the government goes after the most vulnerable
citizens, those who have worked for our country, people like
Jean-Marie Doiron, who has been in a wheelchair for the last 40
years and who cannot get CPP benefits, despite all the
legislation governing the plan.
I call on the Government of Canada to amend the disability
benefit eligibility criteria.
In addition, this government should do something about the
appeal process so that it does not take Canadians three years to
get disability benefits. It is high time that this government
demonstrated its commitment to those living with a handicap.
1915
Not content with robbing workers of over $20 billion, now the
federal government is going after the disabled. I would like
the government to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is very concerned about all issues involving persons
with disabilities. We are equally concerned about client service
because timely service is one of the fundamental responsibilities
of Human Resources Development Canada.
With regard to the length of time to process CPP disability
applications, it is important to point out that over the last
decade there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
applications. This rise was due to a number of factors, including
changes in eligibility rules, referral of cases to us by private
insurance companies, as well as some provincial social service
departments.
This put a tremendous strain on departmental resources as well
as on the CPP review tribunal and the pensions appeals board.
In his 1996 report the auditor general raised concerns about the
rapid increase in CPP disability expenditures. As a result,
changes to the administration of disability benefits were
introduced to ensure that the benefits were granted only to those
for whom they were originally intended.
Let me be clear. We are attacking the problem. We have already
taken action. We have recruited and trained new staff and we
have taken staff from other areas to address the workload. We
have moved the first level of appeal to regional centres. This
will reduce the time required to obtain correct information from
clients.
We are also working with the administration of the CPP review
tribunal and the pensions appeals board to improve service. For
example, we have increased the number of judges and panel members
in order to enable us to hold more hearings and to use a better
scheduling system.
TOBACCO
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Thornhill, our new
parliamentary secretary to the health minister. As a former
minister of the crown in the province of Ontario, I am sure she
will do a good job. I am glad to see her there.
There are a few points I want to make in relation to a question
I asked the minister before the House rose in June. It had to
deal with the 1994 decision by the Government of Canada to reduce
taxes on cigarettes. This was the biggest capitulation by the
Government of Canada in the history of Canada and led to the
largest increase in the number of new smokers in the history of
this country.
Why I am concerned about it is that 40,000 Canadians a year die
as a direct result of smoking. That is a statistic that can be
proven by any measure. It is not an exaggeration. We know 40,000
Canadians a year die from it.
What I suggested the government do, which it has not, is have a
three pronged approach to attacking smoking, especially with
young Canadians. It has to attack pricing, that is taxation. It
has to attack advertising and, most important, there has to be
education out there so that young smokers know what is happening.
One of the interesting things happening and one of the most
interesting bills introduced in parliament in recent history is a
bill introduced by none other than Senator Colin Kenny, an
example of how much the Senate can contribute to the Parliament
of Canada when decides to do so.
1920
What he is suggesting is that we should have a levy of 50 cents
per pack on cigarettes. He is calling this a levy because
technically he cannot call it a taxation measure. Normally a
senator cannot introduce a taxation measure. That 50 cent levy
would bring in revenues to the tune of over $100 million a year.
That $100 million would be broken down to be spent in the
following ways. Some would be used to assist farmers moving out
of tobacco crop. Millions would be used to educate young
Canadians as to why they should not start smoking. Some of it
would be used for the arts and sports programs that now depend on
funding from the cigarette manufacturers, which I think is
absolutely wrong.
We are asking the government to do something and take some
strong measures to combat smoking. It is a big problem. I would
love to get into the details of Senator Kenny's bill but I do not
have the time now to do that. However, I think it is a positive
example of how the government can do something with no cost to
the taxpayers.
We are talking about hepatitis C victims and the cost to the
taxpayers because of mistakes by the government but here is an
example of where the government can do something right at no cost
to the taxpayers and it is time it acted and acted very quickly.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has had an enviable record
in smoking cessation and in its smoking cessation policy. This
government is committed to public education. We realize that
public support is essential in a civil society if we are to make
progress toward our goal of a smoke free society.
Specific to the member's point in question regarding the 1994
tobacco tax reduction, it is important to remember that at that
time, as the Prime Minister explained on February 8, 1994, we
were dealing with an enormous problem of law enforcement and
organized crime.
The problem had become a deep rooted and far reaching national
issue of smuggling of contraband tobacco. Action was necessary.
The four point national action plan on smuggling was an
enforcement crackdown, a reduction in consumer taxes on tobacco;
a special surtax on tobacco manufacturer profits and, most
significantly, the tobacco demand reduction strategy which was
the most ambitious tobacco control initiative in Canada's
history. It was designed to counter the impact of the tax
reductions.
Further, the reduction in Canadian tobacco taxes was clearly
stated as a temporary measure. Because of the government's
actions since that time in the area of anti-smuggling efforts,
the contraband situation has improved.
The Minister of Finance in collaboration with the provinces has
introduced three tax increases in provinces where taxes were cut
in 1994. In addition, the 40% surtax on the profits of tobacco
manufacturers was instituted in 1994 and will remain in place
until March 2000.
These tax measures are consistent with the government's desire
to increase taxes in a gradual manner to meet our health
objectives without creating renewed contraband activity.
Yes, public education, particularly to our young, is important.
Pricing is important. Advertising policy is also important. As
the member opposite knows, we are moving toward an absolute ban
on advertising tobacco products.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.)