CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 5, 1995
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 11523
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 11524
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11524
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11524
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11526
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11526
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11526
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11526
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11527
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11528
Bill C-320. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 11533
Bill C-321. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 11533
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11533
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn) 11533
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 11533
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 100 11538
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 11539
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 55; Nays, 173 11555
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 173; Nays, 53 11556
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11558
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11562
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 11565
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11567
11521
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 5, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bard of
Avon, William Shakespeare, whose birthday we commemorate
on April 23.
A weekend of special events including a silent auction, a cake
decorating contest and a gala birthday dinner will take place in
my riding to mark this occasion. The Lakeside Seniors, and
Hamlet School which is putting on a play, and many hundreds of
people are involved in this celebration. I congratulate everyone
who is involved in this, particularly Ted Blowes and Debra
Huggins.
On the heels of this celebration, the Stratford Festival is
opening its 43rd season which will take place on May 29. I
encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to attend
the productions this summer. I am confident it will be a
theatrical experience to cherish.
Members of volunteer organizations are the very heart and
support of this Shakespearian festival. This year the festival will
be missing one of the western world's leading classical actors
with the death of Mr. Nicholas Pennell. He will be missed this
summer.
I wish the festival every success in the upcoming season as the
Stratford adventure continues. I have put a playbill on each
member's desk today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Ogilvie Mills workers have, once again, demanded that the
Minister of Labour table an antiscab bill aimed at businesses
under federal jurisdiction. The minister responded like her
predecessor, saying simply that she was reviewing the matter.
The government has been studying the issue for nearly a year
and a half and the only reason for this delay is a total lack of
political will. The federal government is quite familiar with the
type of provisions already in effect in Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia.
The Bloc Quebecois, for its part, recently tabled in this House
a bill which would provide adequate protection for the workers
currently hurt by their employers' disloyal practices. The
minister is quick to trample workers' rights, as she did in the rail
labour dispute, but she is unacceptably slow in responding to
their legitimate demands.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, half a century ago
North America's first medicare plan, Saskatchewan Health
Region Number 1, was established in what is now my riding.
It was an experiment, a prototype and it was a Godsend. It
worked well and it cost little. This was partly because people
accustomed to doing without medical care did not abuse or over
use it and partly because it was run mostly at the local level by
country doctors and municipal reeves.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the experiment were quickly
forgotten. A great system was eventually suffocated by the cold
dead hands of political and federal bureaucracy.
The Liberals say there is nothing wrong with our health care
but Canadians know better. They know about the waiting lists
and the lack of accessibility.
It is time to be bold, as our Saskatchewan predecessors were,
and using common sense rather than grand schemes, revise the
Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to bring health care
back to health.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada has declared surplus the land holdings on Partridge
Island and Public Works Canada plans to dispose of the island.
11522
Partridge Island, a small island in the middle of Saint John
harbour, is a piece of Canadian heritage. It was used as a
quarantine station and welcomed over three million immigrants
and mariners between 1785 and 1942. Two thousand
quarantined immigrants died on the island and their graves are
located there. Partridge Island was designated a national
historic site in 1974.
The year 1997 marks the official observance of the 150th
anniversary of the great Irish famine. Saint John's Irish
community will be marking the next three years on the island
with special exhibits as well as an Irish homecoming and
memorial service in 1997.
I, as well as the people of the most Irish city in Canada, Saint
John, and the province of New Brunswick, call on this
government to revisit the decision to sell this national historic
site of Partridge Island. We ask that it be transferred to the
Department of Canadian Heritage for preservation.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House of the birth in my community of the
Grand River Hospital on April 1, 1995. This dynamic new
beginning in health care in the Waterloo region came together
with the amalgamation of the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital and
the Freeport hospital. The Kitchener-Waterloo hospital and the
Freeport hospital represent 175 years of caring with their unique
strengths and proud history of service.
The new Grand River Hospital will be governed by one board
of trustees and managed on two sites by one administration. It
will continue to provide the high standard of quality, innovation
and accomplishment to the residents of Waterloo region. What
is unique about this event is that it was initiated by two former
hospitals with the aim of delivering the best possible quality of
service and maximizing existing resources.
The people comprising the leadership of the two former
hospitals are to be commended for their vision in pioneering this
union under the aegis of the Grand River Hospital. Their efforts
are to be applauded by all Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the people of Guelph-Wellington know that
leadership requires risk taking and real leaders do not back down
from doing what is right. That is why they are proud of our Prime
Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister
of Labour.
These leaders have acted and succeeded where many others
would have failed. One has worked hard to make the world
aware of the impact of overfishing. The other, knowing how the
country was suffering, put an end to the rail strike.
These ministers could have listened to the usual negative
remarks of the Reform Party and the destructive policies of the
Bloc. Instead, they took risks and did what was best for Canada,
because what they did was right.
We are fortunate they are our leaders who are not afraid to act.
We thank them for standing strong.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 17
is International Haemophilia Day, and I would like to take this
opportunity to pay tribute to the Canadian Haemophilia Society
for its excellent work.
[English]
The Canadian Hemophilia Society was founded in 1953 by
people with hemophilia as a self-help group. Today the range of
people it helps and the ways in which the help is offered have
broadened considerably.
In the 1980s about 40 per cent of hemophiliacs and 1,200
other Canadians became infected with HIV through
contaminated blood. The primary goal of the Canadian
Hemophilia Society is to ensure safe access to the Canadian
blood supply.
[Translation]
Much progress has been made. Today, thanks to greater
awareness and technical developments, the risks of
contamination through blood transfusions are almost
nonexistent.
[English]
We can all help too by donating blood, time, or money. After
all, we are all related by blood.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, referring to the current tensions in Burundi, I asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he recognized that
concrete action was urgently needed, by supporting the
deployment of a monitoring force in that country among other
things, as the Burundian ambassador to Canada requested on
March 23 before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.
In response, all the minister said was that no request had been
received from the Government of Burundi along the lines of the
moving plea made by the Burundian ambassador. The minister
should know that the Government of Burundi has no leeway.
11523
This response from the minister confirmed our worst fears.
This government is turning a blind eye to the tragedy waiting
to happen in Burundi. The optimist front put up by the minister,
who talks about an illusive will to reconcile, brings back sad
memories of the tragedy in Rwanda, where the international
community was confronted with a crisis it was unable to
prevent.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, April marks
the beginning of spring, a time for new growth and a time of
hope. It is particularly fitting that April is Canadian Cancer
Society month.
The society works diligently to find a cure for cancer, to open
the pathways of discovery and to change the lives of Canadians.
Thousands upon thousands of Canadians benefit every year
from the research the Canadian Cancer Society performs.
Since 1948 the society's fundraising month of April has
brought Canadians together to contribute to the fight against
cancer. Last year more than $44.2 million was raised during the
campaign. This year's goal is $47.6 million.
I ask that my colleagues in the House join with me in
supporting this society for even one of our own members in this
House, the hon. member for Nepean, is now recovering from this
scourge.
With the work of the Canadian Cancer Society and the will of
the Canadian people, cancer will be beaten.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal interest rate policy is killing the hopes and dreams of
Canadians to own their own homes. As well it is severely hurting
our Canadian economic recovery.
Since the Liberal government jammed the interest rates
upward last fall, the result has been that the last half of 1994 was
the most brutal on record for house sales. The high
unpredictable interest rate policy is also forcing residential
construction into a nosedive which is costing thousands of jobs.
This Liberal government has not learned its lesson from the
last time it was in office when its high interest rate policy caused
the 1980 recession.
I am telling the Liberal government to listen. High interest
rates mean fewer home sales, less consumer spending, smaller
economic growth and fewer jobs. The Liberal high interest rates
are wiping out any chance Canada has of seeing an economic
recovery and it is hurting families desperately.
Canadians are worried about their future, but this government
is not interested in home buyers or Canadian consumers. It is
only interested in keeping the banks and the moneychangers
happy and wealthy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a ceremony was held today in the Hall of
Honour to reaffirm our Canadian citizenship. That ceremony
gives us an opportunity to show the importance which we attach
to our rights, our privileges and our responsibilities as citizens
of this great country.
I want to thank the Liberal member for Don Valley North for
organizing a ceremony which allows all of us, in spite of our
cultural diversity, to get together and to show how proud we are
to be Canadians.
[English]
This reaffirmation marks not only the importance of staying
united in order to be prosperous, but proves once again to the
world that Canada and its citizens are number one in this
Parliament. We should be proud of our accomplishments as a
young nation providing world leadership and an enviable quality
of life.
Vive le Canada. Long live Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
recently learned that 92 per cent of young Quebecers between
the ages of 18 and 35 feel happy and are primarily concerned
with the work world.
(1410)
It must be pointed out that separation is not one of their
priorities. In fact, the separatist movement is in rough shape
these days. A study conducted by McGill University confirms
that support for separation among young Quebecers has
drastically diminished since the 1980 referendum.
The Liberal government is doing something about the
concerns of that generation by creating jobs, while the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are stuck with their outdated
option.
Young Quebecers are happy in Canada and they want to
remain part of it because they know that it is the best country to
live in. Again, we can clearly see that the separatists are totally
disconnected from the real concerns of young people.
11524
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is it about Ottawa-its air, its bilingual culture,
its architecture, its tulip festival or the Rideau Canal-that
makes more and more members of the Bloc Quebecois want to
settle here permanently?
Two days before their convention, we learn that a few Bloc
Quebecois riding associations want to change the status of the
party to make it permanent.
This sudden interest in Canadian politics is surprising, to say
the least, particularly in the light of the remarks made by the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois on November 27 to the effect that
the members of the Bloc were not sent to Ottawa to make a
career out of it, that the situation could never become
permanent.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Michèle Fortin, Vice-President for
Television, at Radio-Canada, spoke to the metropolitan
Montreal Board of Trade. Some of her remarks echoed concerns
of the Bloc Quebecois about broad, varied and accessible
television programming. In addition, she reiterated her warning
about the cuts to Radio-Canada announced in the budget. She
noted that the SRC is of vital importance to francophones in
Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, having a much greater impact
on its audiences than the CBC does on anglophone audiences.
Now that Mr. Beatty is ready to implement the budget cuts, it
is essential that he not lose sight, in making his decisions, of the
performance of French television and of the success it enjoys
with its audiences. Draconian cuts to the French network will
jeopardize the growth and development of our culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
new midlife medical nightmares are surfacing, but childhood
cruelty still revisits polio victims.
Post polio syndrome undermines an adult future so many of us
take for granted with healthy active lives and being in charge of
our futures. It is not so for these adults who are stricken with
PPS. Muscular weakness, fatigue, joint pain and respiratory
problems result in necessary and dramatic lifestyle changes.
Today I acknowledge the courage of Dodie Spittal, Charly
O'Brien, Reny Chamberlain and Vern Hamm. They are with us
today and bring their stories of post polio survival to Ottawa.
I also salute Paul Martin, Sr., responsible for ensuring that
hundreds of thousands of Canadian children received the Salk
vaccine. His tenacity in securing the vaccine was evident in his
remarks taken from the Calgary Herald: ``On the basis of this
extensive experience and the safeguards provided, it is the
unanimous feeling of the provincial health authorities that the
vaccine is safe and no changes in the immunization program are
contemplated''.
Polio is not-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc quebecois has always
maintained that the Bloc quebecois was in Ottawa on a
temporary basis. Last fall, he said, and I quote: ``And to make
the options quite clear, I think Quebecers should realize, if they
have not done so already, that the Bloc quebecois is not an
accessory that comes with federalism as well as sovereignty;
you cannot be a federalist and expect to keep the Bloc quebecois
in Ottawa indefinitely''.
Today, a number of BQ riding associations want to make their
party permanent. The leader of the Bloc quebecois will have a
difficult choice to make: maintain his vision of a temporary
party or respond to the wishes of the grassroots and stay in
Ottawa indefinitely.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from April 8 to April 16, the 1995 Ford World Curling
Championships will be held at the Keystone Centre in Brandon,
Manitoba.
Leading the event will be the Canadian men's and women's
champions, all behind the broom and delivering from the
province of Manitoba.
(1415 )
Skipping across the world we will see over 30 countries in the
hack, sliding, sweeping and spieling for the world title.
Second to none, this international event will be attended by
over 12,000 fans per day, drawing weight from over 1,000
international visitors at each end.
Third in the history of Brandon's hosting of national and
international curling events, countless exhibits will be featured
at the curling world with the first ever Olympic flag flying
overhead.
11525
Off the ice and out of the rink, during the day and well into
the night, I invite and encourage everyone to get involved in
the nine fun-filled days in Brandon, the button of world curling.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was quite a sight yesterday to see the Liberal cheerleaders
celebrating the Prime Minister's 32nd anniversary as a member
of Parliament. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the
Prime Minister was elected on April 8, 1963, not April 4, and
that he has been an MP for 28 years, not 32.
I guess the health minister was too busy trying to protect her
own job to check the facts. Actually, it comes as no shock to
Reformers that the Liberals have such trouble with numbers.
After all, this is the same party that gave us a massive deficit, a
huge public debt and out of control government spending.
The Prime Minister shrugged off the mistake, saying what is
four days among friends and that there is not much difference
between 28 and 32 years. Numbers are important and I have a
few that this government should take note of.
The national debt is $548 billion. The federal government
spends nine times as much on debt payments as it does on
education and five times as much as on health. The national
unemployment rate is 9.6 per cent and 1.5 million people in this
country are unemployed.
_____________________________________________
11525
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to claim that the
agreement in principle reached by Canada and the European
Union will soon lead to a genuine agreement. However, Spain
and Portugal have rejected the very terms of the agreement in
principle.
My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. Could the minister report on the status of negotiations
between Canada and the European Union and tell us whether the
problem is still the introduction of enforcement and
conservation mechanisms?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken to the
president of the EU commission. Negotiators are meeting again
today, and conservation of the resource is a priority. Our main
objective is to obtain an agreement with teeth on conservation
and enforcement.
[English]
Canada remains committed to an effective conservation
regime. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have
negotiated in detail what we consider to be an effective
enforcement and conservation regime. What we are waiting on
now, as the opposition leader will know, is for the rather
complex and difficult and may I say time-consuming workings
and mechanics of the European Union to conclude the process at
that end.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think we all support the efforts of the government
and the minister, who by the way has done a very good job, to
provide partners in the fisheries, the various countries that are
part of this operation, with a vigourous enforcement mechanism
to preserve the resource.
However, that being said, what reason does the minister have
to be optimistic that he will manage to get this kind of result,
when two member countries of the European Union, Spain and
Portugal, who happen to be the main parties concerned, have
rejected the very terms of the draft agreement?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has noted before and notes
again today the clear support of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Leader of the Opposition for the position the government has
taken.
The Leader of the Opposition gave advice to the government
some time ago. He said it would take a mixture of firm resolve,
firm action and diplomacy to bring about a successful
conclusion to this dispute. That is precisely the manner in which
the government is approaching this problem.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that Canada is
negotiating bilaterally with the European Union. The bilateral
negotiation with the European Union has shown great progress.
It is not yet complete but progress is made every day. A detailed
text is now on the table. Frankly it is a matter for the European
Union to ensure that each of the member states complies with all
the clauses contained in the draft agreement.
(1420)
For the moment we still do not have the formal acceptance of
the European Union of the draft agreement.
I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the negotiators by
and large have finished their work and have put forward a joint
draft text. It is a text that meets the objectives of Canadians from
coast to coast to coast. We expect the European Union to do as
we shall do, embrace it with both arms.
11526
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is of course right when he says that we
are negotiating bilaterally with the European Union as a
comprehensive unit, but how does he expect to overcome the
problem arising from the fact that yesterday, the representative
of the European Union made it quite clear that he could not
conclude an agreement without the support of member countries
Spain and Portugal?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has negotiated in good faith.
Canada has never approached the negotiation from any
perspective other than that of achieving a conservation regime, a
means of preventing further destruction of fish stocks and the
rebuilding of the six species now under moratorium.
The response from around the world has been tremendous,
including that of the vast majority of EU member states.
Populations are generally saying this is right, this is good, this is
a question that affects the common heritage of mankind.
Even where the political will may be somewhat lacking, the
public expression of a commitment to preserving a resource that
belongs to the planet will win out and we will have an effective
regime agreed by both sides.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
By setting up the Canada social transfer as a block payment
for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance,
the federal government has given itself more power to impose
national standards while continuing to reduce transfer payments
for these programs.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that the Canada social
transfer will allow him both to continue reducing transfer
payments to the provinces and to tighten his grip on social
programs under cover of the new standards being planned now
for health care and eventually for social assistance and
post-secondary education?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget,
we gave the federal and provincial governments a mechanism to
tailor their deficits to their financial means. It was very clear
that this was a joint effort, and we gave the provinces the
requisite prior notice.
The issue of national standards is very clear. We said in the
budget that we were not going to abolish the Canada Health Act
nor tamper with the issue of residency for social assistance. The
Minister of Human Resources Development will negotiate all
other issues with the provinces. He is going to sit down with
them and discuss the issues.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two
things are clear. First, the Minister of Finance is cutting transfer
payments, second, he is trying to get a stranglehold on
provincial programs to serve his own purposes. Everybody
agrees that this much is obvious.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Will the Minister of Finance admit that
withdrawing his financial commitment and changing the rules
go hand in hand? He is putting this in practice now with the
Canada social transfer, in order to give himself the means to
ensure compliance with current and future national standards,
for example in the areas of health care, post-secondary
education and social assistance.
Will he at last reveal his intentions?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that
is clear to me is that we have given the provinces what they
asked for: flexibility to reduce their costs. We have given them
the flexibility that they need to improve the management of their
programs. Therefore, we have met the expectations of the
provinces and of Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, three of my Reform colleagues have just returned from
a fact finding tour of the indiscriminate logging that has taken
place on the Stoney Reserve in Alberta.
The member for North Island-Powell River, who has over 20
years of forestry experience, said he has never witnessed as
much timber cut in one place at one time.
The minister of Indian affairs, through the Indian Act and the
Indian timber regulations, has a legal obligation to ensure sound
logging practices and prevent environmental disasters on
reserves. The minister knew about the logging on this reserve
yet did nothing to stop it.
Why did the minister not act to prevent the destruction of the
forest on the Stoney Reserve in Alberta?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the assertion of the Reform
leader is incorrect. We did act. We do have someone on site. We
11527
have a forester there. We have fly-overs. I went out personally
and told the chief what I thought of what he was doing.
We are meeting with the chiefs. I do not think what they did
was correct. We told them so very forthrightly. If they do the
right thing, as they do in northern Saskatchewan or at the
National Forestry Institute that the aboriginal people have, then
we will support them. However, when they do it incorrectly we
are there to tell them so.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I asked why the minister did not act I meant why
does he not enforce his department's own forestry management
plans?
The department issued permits for 600 truckloads of logs per
year. Since last spring, however, at least 14,000 truckloads of
old growth forest has been harvested. Department officials knew
of the flagrant violations of the management plan but refused to
stop it.
Why did the minister's officials not discharge their
responsibilities to ensure sound logging practices on the Stoney
Reserve in Alberta?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an under-assertion
that these were totally aboriginal people. White cutters came to
the native people and said: ``Here is the money, let us take your
trees''.
Let us talk about who these people are. They are not
specifically aboriginal people. If you do not want to listen, fine.
However, if you want to hear the answer I will give it to you.
The RCMP are on the reserve investigating. I cannot get
involved with the RCMP investigation in any way, shape or
form. Charges may or may not be laid. However, we went in
there with force and we do not think what was done was right.
The Speaker: Ever so gently, I remind members to please
address your answers and the questions to the chair.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not blaming the people on the Stoney Reserve.
We are not blaming anyone. We are asking how come the
department itself did not enforce its own rules.
Through the inactions of the minister and his department, he
has permitted the destruction of an old growth forest on the
Stoney Reserve. Because of the federal government's apparent
unwillingness to treat all Canadians equally with respect to
environmental regulations, Canadians have lost trees that stood
for centuries. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
How does the minister intend to ensure that the forest
management plans endorsed by his department are not only
sound but strictly enforced?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the leader of the
Reform is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
At his press conference when he tried to explain his policy,
which no one understood, he said that my department has to be
dismantled and decentralized in its function of funding transfers
to local aboriginal agencies and governments.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Mr. Irwin: Having said that, he sent his Greek chorus
throughout B.C. This is what the church said about what they
have done.
(1430 )
``The Anglican bishop for northern B.C. has accused the
region's Reform MPs of breeding unnecessary fear about the
Nishga land claim negotiations. A series of public meetings
sponsored by Skeena MP, Mike Scott, is spreading half truths
and anxieties among whites about the Nishga land claims''.
``The Bishop of Caledonia, Don Hannen said that that is
exactly what is being done here today''. It is always the Indians'
fault, nobody else's. These are half truths.
The Reform leader should talk to his minions and have them
go out there and tell the truth to the people of Canada.
The Speaker: I am sure there is no question that all members
are interested in the truth. We speak the truth in this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification.
The future of certain Canadian team franchises in the National
Hockey League may be jeopardized by financial difficulties and
limited markets. According to some sources, the Minister of
Human Resources Development promised to give the Winnipeg
Jets $10 million in federal funds for the construction of a new
amphitheatre.
Does the minister responsible for Western economic
diversification confirm that discussions took place or are under
way to grant $10 million to build a new amphitheatre for the
Winnipeg Jets?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that
the private sector group that is engaged in raising private sector
funds has made an application under the infrastructure program
similar to those applications that were submitted by the cities of
11528
Quebec, Calgary, Edmonton and many others for similar help in
developing facilities.
I would suggest that the private sector initiative in Winnipeg
is no different from that which took place in the member's home
city.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I gather that the answer is ``yes'' for the Winnipeg Jets.
Is the minister in a position to confirm that, depending on the
results of the provincial election in Manitoba, the federal
government could contribute as much as $20 million?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will
recall very well how the federal government was a major
contributor in his home city for the development of the Centre
de congrès, which is a very important addition to that
community.
A number of other cities across the country have benefited
from both the development of job creation and also the
development of new facilities coming out of the infrastructure
program.
It is certainly the right of any city to make an application on
infrastructure. That is what they are doing in Winnipeg. They
are simply following the good example of the good people of
Quebec City.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question follows the question from my leader and is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I would like to quickly say that we foster sensible dialogue,
and in our aboriginal town halls in British Columbia offered a
very welcome and refreshing point of view.
I would like the minister, in response to the question about the
Stoney Reserve, to tell the House the current market value of the
timber removed in the last year and how he intends to collect
revenues lost to the band plus the reduced stream of future
revenues accruing to the band, which has now been lost.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the
Reform is asking for a quite a bit of detail.
I would appreciate if he would let me know about this detail
before question period. I will take the question as notice and get
him as much information as I can.
(1435 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the timber removed from the reserve in the last 12
months conservatively exceeds $35 million. The minister's
department knew logging at Stoney Reserve exceeded the
permits last April, one year ago.
Can the minister tell the House who is liable for these lost
revenues?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to
the Reform leader on three separate questions. My friend should
read the notes when they come out.
I might add this. This is the same member who said when we
brought in the Sahtu legislation that the sky would fall, but it did
not. This is the same member who said when we brought in the
Manitoba dismantling that the sky would fall, but it did not. This
is the same member who said what we did in the Yukon would
not work and it has. This is the same member going around B.C.
saying land claims should be stopped in B.C.
We did not listen to him on three separate occasions and we
are not going to listen to him now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
CIDA recently announced, at a week's notice, its intention to
stop funding organizations involved in public awareness of
international development that do not participate in overseas
projects.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not realize that, in so
doing, the government is chopping nearly half the international
development network available to NGOs in Canada, although
funds provided to these organizations amount to only half of one
per cent of the official development assistance budget?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to understand that choices had
to be made and it was decided to focus on poorer countries. In
11529
that context, CIDA was right of course in deciding to stop
subsidizing public awareness organizations here, in Canada,
because, if they realize how important public awareness of
development assistance is, they do not have to be paid to do the
job.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister, after spending nearly $1 million on the
Canadian foreign policy review, ignore a joint committee
recommendation to increase funding levels for the Public
Participation Program?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, numerous organizations, in Quebec in particular,
but also across Canada, do outstanding work in international
development. I am thinking of OXFAM Québec, the Léger
foundation, the Lajoie foundation and many other organizations
carrying out worthwhile development projects abroad.
What we are saying is that we will not only continue to
support but in fact increase our support to these organizations in
their development programs abroad. We hope that, as far as
public awareness is concerned, this work can continue without
Canadian organizations taking money that should normally go
to the poorest of the poor in the neediest countries.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
from Wild Rose and Stoney Reserve is in Wild Rose. I flew to
that site myself just the other day. I know very little about
logging so I took two experts with me who do know.
I have never seen such a mess in all my life. It is a disaster. It
is worse than the cod. That is how bad it is. Why will the
minister not stand on his feet and explain to the House why
something was not done for 12 full months?
(1440 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why does the member not
start pointing the finger at who actually went in there? B.C.
cutters went in there, big time, with a heck of a lot of money for
inducement. The logs have to be shared.
What happened there was not right. It was not all Indian
doing. Where did those logs go? Those logs went to some big
companies in B.C.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe some day we can change this from question period to
answer period.
I never said the blame was on anybody. I did not blame one
individual. I want to know why this department sat back and let
that go on for so long and did nothing?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to lower the
rhetoric.
I refer to what Bishop Hannen of Caledonia said: ``It is the
duty of Christians to address more than 100 years of native
injustice-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We just learned
that CIDA has completely cut its support to non-governmental
organizations promoting public awareness to international
development. That decision directly threatens the survival of
over 80 of these NGOs in Quebec and in Canada, as well as that
of the Quebec association for international co-operation
organizations.
How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs justify cutting
CIDA's support to NGOs promoting international co-operation,
while awarding a generous contract of $99,510 to his friend, the
unsuccessful Liberal candidate in La Prairie, Jacques Saada, for
developing a simple communication plan on CIDA's program
for the Maghreb?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member, who got
elected the last time, that he had better be good and ready,
because next time he will not get re-elected.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ouellet: He is not impressing his voters with this kind of
accusations.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
tell the minister that, in the meantime, he is financially
supporting the Liberal candidate who was defeated in the
October 1993 election, with the money of the taxpayers of
Quebec and Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bélisle: Will the minister confirm that, by setting the
amount of the contract at $99,510, he was making sure that it
would be awarded to his friend Jacques Saada, since, had he
gone over $100,000, the contract would have had to be awarded
through the tender call procedure?
(1445)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We want to hear the answer. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs has the floor.
11530
Mr. Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the
contract was awarded in accordance with the established
criteria-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ouellet: -that is the standards which were in effect at
CIDA when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the
Conservative government. These criteria have not changed.
They are still the same as when the opposition leader was a
member of the previous government.
Mr. Saada is competent, he does an excellent job and he is
being paid for the work he is carrying out.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
hear an awful lot from the Liberal government about sustainable
development.
I flew to Stoney Reserve last Friday. The sustainable cut on
that reserve was 600 truckloads per year. What went out was
14,000 truckloads per year. Twenty-five to thirty years of
sustainable wood went out in one year.
Why did the minister of Indian affairs allow this to happen?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the same
answer. Why can that party not be so forthright in directing us
and the Solicitor General to send the RCMP into B.C. and charge
these companies there with the money, knowing what they were
doing was incorrect? Why is that party not saying that? Why is it
leaving the impression this is Indian wrongdoing?
There is a heavier onus on the cutters in B.C. from big
companies who know the law, who have lawyers, who have
money and have the skills to do exactly what they did. Their
chainsaws did it.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister would have us believe people from B.C. would float
into the Indian reserve and take those trees out. Where is the
responsibility of the minister? Where is the responsibility of
Indian affairs?
Again, why did he allow this to happen on the Indian reserve
when it is his responsibility to make sure it does not happen?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last
supplementary. I want to advise the hon. member that as of
March 31 the RCMP has been in, has made a seizure and has laid
a charge.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is a good thing Wednesday only comes once a
week.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how I could have been so lucky to draw
Wednesday to ask a question.
My question is for the Minister of Health. As the minister is
aware, recombinant bovine somatotropin cannot be sold or used
commercially in Canada.
(1450 )
Knowing the controversy surrounding the use of rbST, even
among dairy farmers, can the minister tell the House about how
her department is dealing with this decision and when Canadian
dairy farmers can expect an answer on compliance from the
Minister of Health?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, rbST has not been approved for sale in Canada. Its use
is illegal in Canada.
Scientists at the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs are reviewing the
drug. It will be approved only when the scientists have
determined it is safe and effective.
At this time there also is a voluntary moratorium to which the
company that would be producing rbST has agreed. However,
the moratorium has absolutely nothing to do with the approval
of the drug and the approval process under way at Health
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Since the Liberal government was elected in October 1993,
the Minister of Justice has awarded 186 contracts for
professional and special services, for a total value of $7 million.
This money is used to fund criminological and legal research.
Could the minister tell us why individuals and companies
from Quebec have obtained only 5 per cent of the value of these
contracts awarded by his department, 15 times less than the
percentage obtained by persons and companies in Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take
the hon. member's question under advisement and provide a
detailed response to her as soon as possible.
An immediate response to the question is that much of the
business of the Department of Justice has to do with retaining
11531
lawyers in private practice to represent the interests of the
government in cases from time to time. It may well be that much
of that work is done in other parts of the country.
I will get the facts and respond to the hon. member in due
course.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister will have to take my next question under advisement as
well.
In the Ottawa-Hull area, it is even worse. The value of
contracts awarded to Quebecers is around 2 per cent, as opposed
to 98 per cent for Ontario. Furthermore, 99 per cent of all
research papers are drafted in English only.
What explanation does the Minister of Justice have for this
tendancy among his departmental of officials to prefer suppliers
in English Canada and a unilingual English approach?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the
question, I will get the facts and I will respond.
In the meantime, I am constrained to answer right off the top
that the business of the Department of Justice is in both official
languages.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
In 1992 the Auditor General's report warned the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development needed to get a grip
on what was happening in forestry practices on the reserves.
That potential was there for what has happened on the Stoney
Reserve.
Did you read that report? Did you pay any attention to that
report?
The Speaker: I ask all hon. members to please address the
Chair in their questions.
(1455 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will give a couple of
comparisons. We have a problem on the Stoney Reserve. I have
been there, the police have been there and my ministry has been
there. That problem has existed for one year.
The member stands up in the House, with all his truckloads
going out last week for the first time from a First Nation in his
riding; he has probably discovered the problem.
In B.C., where my critic sits-
Mr. Abbott: We are talking about Alberta.
Mr. Irwin: It is the same philosophy no matter where the
Reform sits or where the Nishga sit, who have been trying to
settle their claim on forestry for at least two decades. The
Reform sits quietly while it represents the Nishga while a load of
lumber leaves their territory every four minutes. Yet my critic
and the Reform remain silent. I have been there and I am doing
something about it. Maybe the Reform should do the same.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after a year of this happening and the minister having
had lots of time to look into it, could he assure us this is not
happening anywhere else?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
All Canadians want to ensure their tax dollars are used in a
responsible way. Many complained that last minute shopping
spree by departments at the end of the fiscal year should be
monitored and controlled.
Can the minister outline what Treasury Board has done to put
an end to the March madness spending binge?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about year end
spending and so did the Auditor General of Canada in his two
reports in the 1980s in which that issue was raised.
The Auditor General did not raise the issue in the sense that he
criticized what the money was being spent on, as he said the
purposes were well defined, but that there was a lot of spending
toward the end of the year and we needed better cash
management practices.
I am pleased to say we have instituted a 5 per cent operating
budget carry forward for departments so they do not get into that
year end spending spree. Furthermore, I have written my
colleagues in the ministry and my deputy minister has written
his counterparts to help ensure the procedure to cut out the year
end spending rush is followed.
We have asked for audits of each of the departments and have
asked that they be submitted by June 30 of this year so we can
get better control of the cash management of taxpayers money.
11532
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
This morning, Immigration officials were to deport another
family of Romanian refugees, the family of Carmen and
Alexandru Dima. This family, well integrated into Quebec
society, had appealed, as a last resort, to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration to intervene.
How can the minister justify his refusal to intervene on behalf
of the Dima family, which had adjusted very well to life in
Quebec, when he has intervened in other cases of families that
could remain in Canada and have become well integrated?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to
become familiar with the immigration system and with the
Canada-Quebec accord, because we determined that these
individuals were not refugees. They had access to the best
system in the world.
Mr. Dima appealed and applied on compassionate and
humanitarian grounds to the department. We said there were no
special circumstances precluding their return to Romania.
(1500)
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Province of Quebec to establish
independent immigration. I had declared that the individuals
were not refugees. We cannot allow everyone denied refugee
status to be accepted as immigrants. Last year, 3,000 Romanians
immigrated to Canada under the usual immigration process.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
constituency, Kootenay East, and the companies and the loggers
in my constituency consumed about 60 per cent of the logs that
we are talking about.
They have a moral responsibility, but this minister has a legal
responsibility for the fact that there was $35 million paid to the
Indian band. Why will he not own up to that responsibility? I
suggest that the minister's department has shown gross
incompetence.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest once again that the
Reform has shown its true colours.
I will repeat that the ministry is in there; we have a forester in
there. We have fly-overs. We have the RCMP and a charge has
been laid.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health, who will know by
media reports this morning that the Conservative government in
Alberta has indicated that it is going to be asking for
amendments to the Canada Health Act to allow for private
hospitals and that the premier of Alberta is supporting a two-tier
health care system.
She will also know that his supporters voted on the weekend
to free abandoned hospitals for the private sector.
Since the Minister of Health has cut back so severely in terms
of health care payments to the provinces, how on earth could she
do anything to stop this erosion of medicare and health care in
Canada that we have known over the last number of decades?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have repeated and repeated that we are going to
ensure a healthy health care system by maintaining the
principles of the Canada Health Act.
There is not one commission that has been called for across
this country that has said that more money is needed. The B.C.
Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs said it is more
management that is needed, not more money.
We know that the premier of Alberta is advancing different
propositions, and we will respond as we get these propositions.
Let me remind absolutely everyone here that the health care
system does not become more affordable just by moving
budgets, dollars and costs from the public sector to the private
sector. It certainly does not and we will not allow that to happen.
The Speaker: This brings to a conclusion our question
period.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Patricia L. Black,
Minister of Energy of the Province of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
11533
11533
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2)(i), I wish to table
in both official languages two documents describing
Department of National Defence policies. One is entitled
``Housing for the Canadian Forces'' and the other is ``Canadian
Forces Compensation''.
Mr. Speaker, I tabled both documents at once; therefore, I will
now table the second document.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (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
40 petitions.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act (registration of political parties).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a private
member's bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act.
The intention of the bill is threefold. First, this bill amends the
Canada Elections Act to allow registration of a political party by
the Chief Electoral Officer when the party nominates candidates
in at least 12 electoral districts throughout the country. This is
down from a present requirement of 50 electoral districts.
Under the present act, the Chief Electoral Officer must
de-register a party that does not meet the conditions set out in
subsection 28(2) of the act. Formerly, it was at the discretion of
the Chief Electoral Officer to de-register a party that failed to
meet these conditions.
Second, the bill removes the obligation placed on the chief
agent of a political party to liquidate the assets of that party
when it is deleted from the registry of political parties by the
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
Finally, the bill lowers the amount required for deposit with
the returning officer at the same time the nomination papers are
filed.
This bill has received widespread support throughout Canada.
I would invite all members of this House to support this
important democratic initiative.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(juvenile prostitution outside of Canada).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling today a bill
entitled: an Act to amend the Criminal Code (juvenile
prostitution outside of Canada). This bill is intended to combat a
criminal practice and to prohibit the use of prostitution services
offered outside of Canada by persons under 18 years of age; the
transportation of people to brothels outside of Canada for the
purpose of having sexual relations with persons under 18 years
of age; certain acts committed outside of Canada with a view to
procuring the services of persons under 18 years of age. It is my
dearest wish that all members of this House will support this
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
Second reading and reference of the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill
C-222, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extremity pumps).
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. I think
you would find unanimous consent that Bill C-222, standing on
the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Nepean, an
act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extremity pumps), be
withdrawn and the order for second reading discharged.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 4,600
members of my riding who are petitioning the government to
11534
proceed immediately with the clean up of the Lachine Canal.
This canal is so contaminated that if a child falls in, we have to
decontaminate him or her for fear of infection.
Once the canal is cleaned up, we could use it and the
surrounding area for recreational purposes. Many jobs would be
created both during and after the process. I would like to add that
I fully support this petition.
(1510 )
[English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am
presenting a petition signed by petitioners in the
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville area.
These petitioners call on Parliament to reduce the deficit by
cutting wastage and reducing the overall expenses of every
government department by at least 5 per cent.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition signed by the
people from the city of Fredericton, New Brunswick.
The petition states: ``Whereas human life at the pre-born
stage is not protected in Canadian society, the petitioners pray
and request Parliament to act immediately to extend protection
to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings''.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition signed
by constituents of mine as well as from people residing in North
Battleford, Aberdeen, Melville, Ituna, Herschel and other places
in Saskatchewan.
This petition pertains to repealing Bill C-91, which has
doubled the price of prescription drugs for Canadians and has
put in jeopardy the drug plans of many governments in Canada.
This petition asks the government, which in opposition
supported repealing Bill C-91, to keep its promise and to repeal
Bill C-91.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present a
petition on behalf of now close to 27,000 residents of the
Kamloops area who point out that they believe many violent
offenders and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely and
are being released without proper treatment and rehabilitation.
They believe that those convicted of these types of offences
should remain incarcerated until they have successfully
undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that
they have been completely rehabilitated.
Therefore, they are asking the House of Commons and the
Government of Canada to change the Criminal Code to take
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that these changes take
place.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition
signed by well over 600 constituents in my riding of
Stormont-Dundas. The petitioners ask the government to enact
legislation to review the Supreme Court ruling rendered
September 30, 1994, and enact legislation, which I am pleased
to say we have, to redress the repercussions of this ruling.
The petition pertains to the drunken defence ruling made by
the Supreme Court.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): I have another
petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by well over 70 residents of
Stormont-Dundas who call upon the government not to enact
legislation to amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Finally, Mr.
Speaker, some 400 petitioners ask the government to review and
revise our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the
courts to prosecute and punish the young law-breakers. The
petitioners also ask that officials be allowed to release the names
of young offenders and lower the age limit to allow prosecution
to meet the severity of the crime.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
155 and 156.
[Text]
Question No. 155-Mr. Althouse:
For each of the last 20 years, what proportion of gross domestic product has
Canada spent on: unemployment insurance programs; old age pensions; Canada
pension plan; civil service pensions (including military, RCMP and
parliamentary service); family allowance and/or child tax credits; health care;
protection of property (police, military and prisons) and interest on debt
payments?
11535
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): The
question concerns the relationship over the last twenty years
of the size of selected federal government expenditure
programs to the size of the overall Canadian economy, as
measured by Statistics Canada's gross domestic product (GDP)
estimate. The following table presents Statistics Canada
estimates of GDP, values for the requested federal government
expenditure programs and those values expressed in a ratio to
GDP for the period 1975 to 1994. The table also includes notes
briefly explaining the sources and certain aspects of the
estimates which might influence their interpretation.
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r4.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842204_r5.gif)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842203_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842203_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842203_r2.gif)
Question No. 156-Mr. Althouse:
For each of the last 20 years, what proportion of gross domestic product has
Canada received in tax revenue from: individual income taxes; corporate income
taxes; manufacturers' sales taxes; goods and services tax; payments for services
rendered by federal agencies; contributions to Canada pension plan and
contributions to civil service pension schemes (military, RCMP and
parliamentary)?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): The
question concerns the relationship over the last twenty years of
the size of selected federal government revenues to the size of
the overall Canadian economy, as measured by Statistics
Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) estimate. The
following table presents Statistics Canada estimates of GDP,
values for the requested federal government revenues and those
values expressed in a ratio to GDP for the period 1975 to 1994.
The table also includes notes briefly explaining the sources and
certain aspects of the estimates which might influence their
interpretation.
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842202_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842202_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842202_r2.gif)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842201_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842201_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842201_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842201_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117195718im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1842201_r4.gif)
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 39, I placed question
11538
No. 91 on the Order Paper on October 4, 1994. That was 186
days ago.
Last week, on the same point of order, the hon. parliamentary
secretary to the House leader said that: ``The Minister of Supply
and Services has been working diligently'', and that he would be
in a position to answer my question soon.
It is my understanding that on all Order Paper questions the
government does try to meet the 45-day period. One hundred
and eighty-six days is an unacceptable length of time to respond
to my question.
Would the hon. member please define what he means by
``soon'' and advise me as to when I will receive an answer to the
question I asked six months ago?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am more than happy to assist the hon. member in
carrying out her duties.
The minister, as I indicated, has been working diligently on
this question. I understand that the answer is being sent to the
office that reports to the House through me this afternoon. I hope
to be in a position to provide the hon. member with an answer
tomorrow.
(1515)
If not, obviously it will be after the break. I hope it is
tomorrow. I am doing my very best to see that is what happens.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11538
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons,
not more than one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the
second reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government
Business on the allotted day of the second reading consideration of the said bill,
any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the
purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of
the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further
debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 188)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
11539
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-133
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-100
PAIRED MEMBERS
Deshaies
Duceppe
Gaffney
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Plamondon
(1525)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: When Bill C-68 was last before the House, the
hon. member for Medicine Hat had seven minutes remaining for
debate.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate that I cannot give the speech I wanted to give today
because the government has just invoked a form of closure,
something that its members spoke out against very strongly in
the last Parliament. I am going to speak out against that very
thing right now.
(1530)
Canadians feel very strongly about the whole issue of gun
control. In particular, many people across the country are
opposed to the whole idea of registration.
In my judgment, this is an extremely cynical and political
move. Just before a break when MPs are going back to their
ridings to consult with their constituents, the government
invokes a form of closure. This prevents Canadians from having
the full input and type of discussion they should have on an issue
which is so important to them. The government is playing
politics with this issue and I want to speak about that in a larger
context right now.
As I mentioned, people feel very strongly about this issue.
The country in many respects is split along rural and urban lines.
I can see this whole issue being extremely divisive down the
road if it is not handled properly.
That is why Reform has offered a very good reasoned
amendment to split the bill in two. It would give people a chance
to vote on the proposals that would bring in tougher sentences
for crimes committed with the illegal use of firearms. That is
something many Canadians agree with.
Where people differ from the government is on the whole idea
of registration. If the government was going to be absolutely fair
about this, it would recognize that there are two separate issues
here and Canadians should have a right to vote on them
separately.
I want to talk for a moment about the whole process leading up
to where we are today. As a starting point, before the govern-
11540
ment brings forward a piece of legislation which is so
controversial and about which people care very deeply, I believe
it is reasonable that the onus be put on the government to explain
where the evidence is that points to registration being an
effective way to curb crime.
We have asked many questions in this House on that issue. We
have asked the justice minister on several occasions for the
evidence. All he could do, as people would say when talking in a
logic class, was make an appeal to authority, a false argument,
that the police chiefs say it is a good thing to do, but there is no
evidence. We have made that point over and over again. That is a
very cynical move.
It is also very cynical how the whole consultation process was
carried out. The minister did have some meetings with some
groups over the course of the summer, which is great. However,
when these meetings occur certainly there has to be some room
for compromise. We cannot go in there with the attitude that we
are not going to bend at all.
It got worse than that. After a while the meetings were by
invitation. That is very cynical. People wanted to have a say but
the minister said: ``No, some people cannot come into these
meetings because we want to make sure that things go our way''.
After that there is this omnibus legislation where the
government tries to sell the good with the bad. Again, that is
very cynical and very political and we absolutely disagree with
that.
The final straw is time allocation right before a break. In this
place, of all places, we should be talking about very important
issues and MPs should be free to go back and talk about these
things before they are set in stone. Unfortunately, members have
been denied that opportunity because the government has
invoked a form of closure.
We have spoken out time and time again on this issue. We
have asked the government to produce the evidence that this will
have an effect on crime. We have said that if it could produce the
evidence it would have our support. However, the government
cannot so we will not support it. That concludes my remarks.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support this bill today.
This bill represents the culmination of one of the points in the
red book. I want to quote from the red book in this connection:
``In order to combat crime, a Liberal government will work in a
broad range of areas. To strengthen gun control, a Liberal
government will, among other measures, counter the illegal
importation of banned and restricted firearms into Canada and
prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable drug related offence,
stalking offence or any violent crime from owning or possessing
a gun''. That promise was included in the red book. That
promise is being kept by this legislation today.
(1535)
It is that legislation the Reform Party is trying to destroy with
this phoney amendment which it put before the House today.
Reform members have run across the country misleading
Canadians, telling Canadians that the amendment splits the bill.
That assertion is totally and completely false.
The hon. member for Beaver River has been away. However,
she will have heard these false statements which are being made
by her colleagues as to the effect of this amendment across the
country. I know if she gets to speak later this afternoon, she will
want to dissociate herself from those comments.
With respect to the bill, first I would like to deal with the
allegations made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat about
the use of time allocation in the debate this afternoon.
We have asked repeatedly for assistance in dealing with the
bill. We have offered to sit late in the evenings in order to
accommodate members who wish to participate in the debate.
Those offers were declined, politely but emphatically, by the
members of the Reform Party. So we need not concern ourselves
about their genuine desire to debate the bill.
They are shedding crocodile tears this afternoon, alleging that
they are having their debate cut off, but let me review the record.
The bill was debated in the House on February 16 and February
27, March 13, March 27 and March 28 for a total debating time
according to the official record of 17 hours and 46 minutes.
Eighty-four persons participated in the debate before today. I
am number 85.
An hon. member: That shows how much interest there is in it.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says that shows how much
interest there is in it. It shows that a filibuster has been mounted
by the Reform Party.
If we look at the number of speakers, 35 Liberals, 12 Bloc
members, 34 Reformers, two New Democrats and one
Progressive Conservative have participated in the debate so far.
In other words, the Reformers have had almost every member
speak, while on the Liberal side, despite the significant
differences of view on this side, only 35 have managed to
participate in the debate. This is nothing but a filibuster. The
Reform Party is engaging in filibuster tactics and the
government is taking a very sensible approach in bringing the
debate to an end. The government is putting the Reform Party
out of its misery.
11541
So much for the argument about unfairness. The Reform
Party has been offered an extra opportunity to debate this bill
and it has consistently turned it down. The reason is that it
wants the government to use closure. The Reform Party wants
the government to bring an end to the debate so that it can get
off the hook with respect to its rather ridiculous opposition to
the bill.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat and dozens of other
members from that party in particular have gone after the bill
saying that there is no evidence that the proposals which the
government has put forward will do anything to stop crime. I
have some evidence and I would like to quote the evidence for
hon. members, particularly those in the Reform Party and some
doubting Thomases elsewhere in the House.
The proposal that the Minister of Justice has so courageously
put forward, in spite of consistent and persistent opposition
from Reformers and other people in the country, is based in part
on our promise in the red book. It is supported very amply by the
Canadian Police Association, whose members, after all, are
experts in law enforcement. These are the people who enforce
the Criminal Code across our country, yet members of the
Reform Party trumpet themselves as experts on law
enforcement. Most of them do not know a fig about law
enforcement. They do not know anything about the subject, yet
they rant and rave in the House all day that they want evidence.
I invite them to listen to the evidence of the president of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This gentleman, Mr.
Vincent MacDonald, made certain statements after his
association at its annual conference last August called for the
following: stiffer penalties for firearms misuse; a ban on
military assault rifles and replica firearms; registration of all
firearms; controls on the sale of ammunition; and full cost
recovery. Those were the five items called for by the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police at its convention in August
1994. These are the principal frontline law enforcers in Canada
and that is what they called for.
The hon. members in the Reform Party ignore these
suggestions and all of them are found in the bill of the Minister
of Justice which is before the House today. If they supported law
enforcement in Canada, they would be supporting this bill. They
are frauds in that connection.
The president of the association said: ``We must emphasize
that while it is, perhaps, controversial, we view registration of
all firearms as pivotal to the entire package, critical to
controlling the illegal gun trade, to supporting preventative
action and to enforcing the law''. There is evidence that this will
work.
(1540)
On February 24, 1995 Chief MacDonald said: ``Registration
of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the
misuse of legal firearms in a number of important ways''. This is
from an expert in the law enforcement field. Surely, members of
the Reform Party would bow to the ability and competence of
the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
and the collective wisdom of that body all of whom support this
bill and believe that this bill is the right way to go.
I want to quote another statement from Chief MacDonald. He
said: ``As the U.S. example has shown all too well, arming for
self-protection does not work but in fact escalates violence. For
this reason, we believe Canada has a historic opportunity to
chart a course that is different from the U.S. This legislation not
only goes a long way to address current problems, but is an
investment in our future''. That is what the chief said; I submit
that he was right.
If that is not enough to convince members of this House that
this is the right way to go, one has only to look at the polls that
have been conducted on this subject. I turn to the Environics poll
of October 1994. Ninety per cent of Canadians supported a law
requiring all firearms to be registered. In Quebec the figure was
95 per cent; Ontario, 92 per cent; British Columbia, 88 per cent;
Alberta, 83 per cent.
Members of the Reform Party are forever boasting that they
represent the wishes of their constituents. That is a false
assertion. These members have no more interest in the wishes of
their constituents than the man in the moon has.
The Reform member for Edmonton stood in this House and
admitted that his own constituents in his own poll were 69 per
cent in favour of the government bill. Yet he said: ``I do not care
what they say, I could not care less what they say. I am voting
against it because, by George, I know better''. Every member of
the Reform Party is spouting the same stuff and nonsense. They
may not use the same words. They cloak themselves in
righteousness and say: ``Oh, no. We are opposing this for good
reason''. But they know that their constituents support this bill.
They know they would support it in overwhelming numbers.
If Reform members were doing what they say they always do,
supporting and representing their constituents' interests, they
would stand up and vote for this bill in droves. They would all
show up. They would not pull that six and seven out of a total of
50 in the House which they pulled a weekend ago. They would
all be here voting for this bill. Instead, all we hear is their
ranting and raving and complaining about this government
action on the bill and the very sensible proposals the Minister of
Justice has put forward in this case.
I recognize there are deeply held views on this bill which
represent significant differences of opinion on this subject. I can
only say that the government has acted in the very best interests
of Canadians in bringing this bill forward. It has brought
forward a bill that is supported by the vast majority of the
population in every region of the country. It has brought forward
a bill that has been called for by the law enforcement experts,
who more than any other in Canada know what is required to
11542
deal with smuggling and illegal arms dealings and all manner of
problems with guns.
This is a sensible bill. I realize there are going to be some
changes made in committee. The minister has already
acknowledged that he is willing to agree to certain changes to
the bill in committee which will improve the bill.
The hon. member yaks about confiscation. He knows that
when talking about confiscation he is only trying to stir up
support for his party. He knows that at gun rallies he has been out
selling Reform memberships in an effort to boost the sagging
fortunes of the Reform Party. It is a shocking way to carry on.
The hon. member for Beaver River has missed some of the
antics which have taken place in this House. I am sorry she did.
She would have been ashamed of the conduct of most of her
colleagues had she been here to watch the debate. I am glad she
is back and I hope she will talk some sense to her colleagues
because honestly, they need a good deal of it.
The fact is this is a good bill. It has garnered widespread
support in the country. The Minister of Justice has proven time
and again that he is willing to talk and be reasonable and flexible
in respect of this bill. No minister has spent more time travelling
the country seeking the views of Canadians than has the
Minister of Justice. He has brought forward a bill-
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): He is not listening.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says he is not listening. He is
not listening to them, that is for sure, because they do not
represent anybody. They represent a small minority of people.
(1545 )
The vast majority of people support what the minister is
doing. If the members of the Reform Party would look at the
polls that their own member conducted and look at the national
polls that have been conducted on this scheme, they would agree
with everything I am saying, because they know I am right.
As I said, the Minister of Justice has indicated his willingness
to make changes in this legislation. He has indicated that in
committee he will listen to reasoned arguments. The committee
is set up and ready to deal with this matter. It is prepared to hear
a large number of witnesses. Indeed, the budget for the
committee for the hearing of a substantial number of witnesses
has already gone forward and is being considered by the budget
subcommittee of the liaison committee.
I think this bill will be dealt with fairly. The owners of guns
who have not yet had an opportunity to make their views known
to the minister and to the Canadian public will have that
opportunity before the committee.
Mr. Taylor: Every one of them?
Mr. Milliken: There will be ample opportunity there. There
will be another debate in this House on third reading.
Of course, now we have the NDP getting into the act. This is
the party that for decades has supported gun control and now all
their members but one have shifted gears and gone backwards.
They have all decided that this bill is not really what they
wanted, even though it was in their party platform. They used to
say they were bound by party conventions. Now they say they
are not bound by party conventions; they are not bound by the
obligations laid down at party conventions that have been set on
their caucus.
Only the member for Beaver River will remember this. We
used to listen in this House to the pontificating from the NDP
about how they were so democratic; they did everything their
party dictated. Now, today, we see them abandoning party
principles; they have gone out the window. I do not think the
NDP knows what a party principle is any more.
It is a most shameful abnegation of its responsibility to its
members, because the members of the NDP in my constituency
are strongly supporting the Minister of Justice in this gun
control bill. They think their members of Parliament have gone
wingy. I think they may be right. Things have really gone wrong
over there. Only the member for Burnaby-Kingsway seems to
have kept his head straight on his shoulders.
The hon. members of the Reform Party, who are supposed to
represent their constituents, should be with the NDP on this one.
It is unbelievable. I cannot understand how it is that two
supposedly responsible political parties in this country could
take such an irresponsible attitude in respect of such a
significant matter of public debate.
We have had ample opportunity for debate on this subject for
the last year. It has been debated in Parliament longer than any
other bill in this Parliament already. The time for decision-
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): It has only been here for two
months.
Mr. Milliken: We have been here for well over a year. The
hon. member for Calgary West is saying it has only been a few
months. He knows perfectly well that is not true.
We have been sitting here since February 1994. That is well
over a year. That is a good long time.
11543
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): When did you table the bill?
Mr. Milliken: January.
The hon. member has had ample opportunity to discuss this
matter. They have had opposition days when they could raise
this issue if they wanted to; yet we have not seen it then.
We have offered to sit at night. The hon. member does not
want to do that either. Why? Because he wants to have days and
days of filibuster and hold this bill up until next year or the year
after.
The government is decisive. The government made promises
in the red book. The government made promises to the people of
Canada when it introduced this bill. The government knows how
to govern. It will show leadership to Canadians and it will
proceed with this bill. It will do a great job in enacting
legislation that will help reduce crime in Canada and help to
solve the problems confronting this country in a way that is
meaningful and sensible, instead of the ranting, pillaging and
raving the Reform Party is engaging in.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the
government's gun control legislation, in particular to support
the Reform amendment that the bill be split into two parts, each
to be voted on separately.
In doing so I wish to vehemently protest the restrictions the
government has placed on this debate in order to rush the bill
through Parliament. It strikes me as supremely ironic that a
government that seems incapable of imposing any kind of
discipline on the criminal elements in society has no hesitancy
about imposing a strict discipline on its own caucus and on the
debates of this House.
For more than five years Reformers have been criss-crossing
this country asking the question, what do Canadians want and, in
particular, what kind of country do Canadians want for
themselves and for their children as we approach the 21st
century. One of the most frequent answers we get to that
question is that Canadians want safe streets, safe homes and safe
communities.
(1550)
This was expressed to me very eloquently several years ago at
a meeting in Toronto when in response to my questions, what do
Canadians want, a man in the audience got up and said the
following. He said: ``Do you know what I want? I want my wife
to be able to leave this hotel at 10 p.m. and go to our car in the
parkade a block away without running the risk of being mugged,
robbed or assaulted. I want the state to discharge the most
elemental of its responsibilities, namely, its responsibility to
protect the life and property of its citizens. I want to live in a
country where the rights and security of law-abiding citizens
and innocent victims of crime take precedence in criminal law
and the Constitution over the rights and security of criminals.''
There are not many MPs in this House who would disagree
that increasing public safety must be a priority of this
Parliament. The disagreements among us arise over what is the
best way to achieve that result.
With respect to Bill C-68 and the motion to split it, the key
question is this. What role does gun control have to play in
making Canada a safer place? Two different answers to this
question are being given in the 35th Parliament: the Reform
position and the Liberal position. Canadians must decide which
position maximizes public safety.
The Reform position, which has been stated eloquently by my
colleagues, is that gun control will only contribute to public
safety if its primary focus is on the criminal use of firearms. The
diversion of police attention and financial resources into
excessive regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms will
not enhance public safety. Canadian voters are telling
Reformers and pollsters that their number one priority for
justice is strong action directed toward persons who commit
violent criminal acts. Based on this position, Reform MPs have
taken the lead in proposing measures to tighten up the regulation
of the criminal use of firearms.
These measures include the following: implement a zero
tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms;
ensure that charges are laid in all firearms crimes and that plea
bargains are not permitted; impose mandatory one-year
minimum jail sentences for using any weapon in the commission
of a violent crime; provide for progressively more severe
penalties for repeat violent and firearms offenders; ensure that
all sentences for violent crime and firearms convictions are
served consecutively; provide for lifetime prohibitions from
ownership of firearms for all persons convicted of violent
crimes; impose the same penalty for the use of a replica firearm
as for using a real gun in a violent offence; create a new offence
of theft of a firearm sentence three to fourteen years; impose
sentences of three to fourteen years for unlawful importation or
illegal sale of a firearm for a criminal use; deem the seller of a
firearm to a criminal as having aided in any future crime
committed; and transfer young offenders to adult court for using
firearms in the commission of an offence.
In short, the Reform Party is opposed to gun controls that are
not cost effective in reducing violent crime, improving public
safety and saving lives, and would repeal any gun control
provisions that are not cost effective in reducing violent crime,
improving public safety and saving lives.
The position that the Liberal government has taken on gun
control is utterly predictable and typical of Liberals. If one
comes to a hard choice between two options, in this case
focusing scarce resources on regulating the criminal or non--
11544
criminal use of firearms, the Liberals invariably say: ``Do both,
even if doing one hurts the other''. They are following the
advice of that great American philosopher Yogi Berra, who said:
``If you come to a fork in the road, take it''.
So the justice minister has brought forward this Bill C-68-C
stands for compromise-20 per cent of it, under pressure from
Reformers, contains partial measures for tightening up the
criminal use of firearms, but 80 per cent of it focuses on
increased regulation of the non-criminal use of firearms for
hunting, recreational and collection purposes, including the
establishment of a universal, national firearms registry reputed
to cost anywhere from $85 million to $500 million. One reason
for this wild variance in the cost estimates is because the Liberal
government underestimates the number of firearms in Canada.
(1555)
In 1976 a Department of Justice document estimated the
number of firearms in Canada at 10 million, with about a quarter
of a million guns being added to the stock each year. Using this
estimate there should now be over 15 million firearms in
Canada, but the justice minister says there are now only 6
million or 7 million guns in Canada.
Bill C-68 cannot be effectively evaluated or costed out unless
and until the justice minister can explain where the other 8
million or 9 million guns went.
Reformers oppose the major portion of this bill for three
reasons. First, the registry will not be universal. The criminals
in whose hands firearms are a huge threat to public safety will
unfortunately decline to register. The minister cannot
understand why not. He will send polite letters to the Mafia and
ads will be placed in the smuggler and gun runners digests,
saying ``Please, fill out these forms in triplicate in either official
language and take them to the police''. In the end the registry
will omit the one group in whose hands firearms are most
dangerous.
Second, the cost of implementing this bill will be far greater
than what the minister says. Liberal cabinet ministers are
notoriously inept at estimating cost. That is why the federal debt
is almost $550 billion and the government will spend $35 billion
more this year than it takes in.
The Reform caucus has developed a table of multipliers to
help determine the real cost of any new proposal put forward by
a Liberal cabinet minister. The more soft-headed the minister,
the higher the multiplier.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, for
example, is a 10. If he says something might cost $100 million,
we multiply it by 10 because the real cost will be closer to $1
billion. The justice minister is not far behind. He is a 7. When he
says his registry will cost $85 million, we multiply it by 7 and
the true cost will be over $500 million, which is $500 million
that we do not have.
The third and most important reason for opposing Bill C-68
as it is now is that the proposed national registry of firearms for
hunting, recreational and collection purposes will not improve
public safety. The present handgun registry, which has been in
place for 60 years, has not improved public safety. The
Washington, D.C. handgun ban and registry has not prevented
murder and rape in that city from going out of sight. The police
in both New Zealand and Australia have recommended
abandoning their costly and ineffective gun registries for
precisely this reason.
Despite repeated invitations to do so, the minister has put
forward no evidence that his proposed registry will improve
public safety, nor has he even proposed public safety measuring
sticks against which the performance of the registry can be
measured.
In conclusion, if what Canadians want are safer streets, safer
homes and safer communities, if public safety is really our aim,
then Bill C-68 should be split, as the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville has proposed. The ineffective national
registration part should be defeated. The sections tightening up
the criminal use of firearms should be strengthened and passed
forthwith. This is the course of action that will truly make
Canada a safer place to live.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. In
particular, I welcome the opportunity to speak to some of the
points raised a moment ago by the leader of the third party. I will
come to that in a moment.
This is an extremely important discussion, and strong feelings
are being expressed by all sides in the House and by many
Canadians.
Approval of second reading will in fact send this bill to
committee for discussion and amendment, and then the bill will
come back to the House for a final decision and we will all know
what the facts are surrounding the bill.
What happens at committee will be extremely important in
relation to concerns that Canadians are raising and the concerns
that I have expressed with regard to this bill.
(1600 )
Constituents have raised their concerns with me with respect
to their views on Bill C-68 and I have expressed them to
members of my party. They also point out that they support
certain measures in the bill to control crime, promote public
health and safety and to impose stiff mandatory minimum jail
sentences for a range of gun offences. There is strong support for
that among my constituents.
My constituents also agree that the government should enact
measures to strengthen border controls and amend the Criminal
Code to address the problems of smuggling and the illegal
11545
importation of firearms. Let me relate two of the four principles
of the Firearms Act they strongly support.
I will come to splitting the bill in a moment. The splitting of
the bill that the Reform Party talks about is nothing but
misleading the public on the real intent of their amendment. The
leader of the Reform Party stood up a moment ago and talked
about moving toward safety measures. He had some good
suggestions, I will admit, but the real intent of the amendment
put forward by the Reform Party is not to split the bill but to
destroy it. The good suggestions that the Reform Party leader
talked about will not be put in the bill because the bill would be
gone if we went ahead with the amendment.
Let me come back for a moment to the principles that have
strong support in this bill. The criminal misuse of firearms will
be dealt with through amendments to offence and sentencing
provisions of the Criminal Code, including mandatory
four-year minimum sentences for 10 specific violent offences
committed while in the possession of a firearm. That is a good
point.
The 10 offences are attempted murder, manslaughter,
criminal negligence causing death, robbery, kidnapping,
hostage taking, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual
assault, extortion and the discharging of a firearm with intent to
cause harm. Upon conviction, the offender will receive a
lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted or a
prohibited firearm.
The second major important principle that there is strong
agreement on is smuggling and illegal importation. Smuggling
and illegal importations will be dealt with through legislative
amendments and the development of programs for controlling
the import-export and domestic transit of firearms, including
border registration and new Criminal Code offences for illegally
importing and trafficking in firearms. Those are good principles
and I and many others in the House support them.
I will admit other aspects of the bill are much more
controversial. They relate to the impact on legitimate gun
owners, hunters, collectors and sports people using firearms. I
have previously presented a petition on behalf of my
constituents opposing the bill as currently drafted.
Let me go back to the points I raised then. The petition called
on Parliament to ``desist from passing additional restrictive
legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct
its attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of
those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly
weapons''.
My constituents feel very strongly that the bill would not
accomplish what the minister intended as currently drafted.
They are concerned that law-abiding Canadians are already
overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun legislation.
They believe that the new proposals as currently drafted with the
introduction of mandatory gun registration would punish the
wrong people. Many of my constituents and other Islanders have
concerns with this legislation.
I tabled that position and raised those concerns. Now I want to
see that my constituents have the opportunity to go before a
committee in the proper forum to express those concerns
themselves or through their national organizations. I do not want
it to be the same as what we have been seeing in the past where
the Reform Party is using misleading amendments and holding
meetings across the country for political reasons.
(1605 )
The party talks about crime. Every day its members stand in
the House and say they are concerned about crime. The effect of
their amendment would, in fact, destroy the opportunity of the
bill going to committee and seeing that crime is controlled,
including the misuse of firearms.
This is how misunderstood the Reform Party amendment is.
Some of my constituents have suggested to me that I should
support splitting the bill, believing that the Reform Party
amendment will do that. It will not.
I listened closely to the leader of the third party. In his speech
he went through a litany of suggestions to improve public safety.
The amendment destroys that opportunity. I would suggest that
the leader of the Reform Party re-read the amendment. Allow
me to take a moment to emphasize to the leader of the third party
what the amendment states: ``this House declines to give second
reading to Bill C-68''. That would have the effect of destroying
the bill. They know it. They are misleading the Canadian public.
For the party that talks about crime control, it would have the
opposite effect.
In conclusion, I want to see changes to the bill. Those changes
can be made in committee. I suggest that the process is not all
that it could have been; however, we have a bill before us that
must be improved.
In discussions I have had with fellow MPs and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I feel I have
been given assurance that the bill will be decriminalized with
respect to legitimate gun owners, collectors, sports people and
hunters, at least on their first offence. With that assurance, I am
willing to support the bill going to committee to be improved so
that it meets the needs of all Canadians.
I am really disgusted that the Reform Party has tried to turn
this, by its amendment, into a political game. However I guess
that is life in the world of politics. Reformers are misleading
Canadians as to where they really want to go.
By this bill going to committee it will give Canadians the
chance to voice their concerns in a public forum, before a
legitimate committee, so that the bill can be improved to meet
the needs of all Canadians.
11546
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be recognized but not very happy
to be speaking at second reading stage of Bill C-68, the federal
government's ill-conceived firearms control legislation.
I am especially not happy to be here speaking today now that
the government has invoked closure on the bill. It has cut off
debate in the House so the parliamentarians who have been
talking to their constituents about the bill will not now have a
chance to share all they have heard in their constituencies with
other members of Parliament and, more important, with the
Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. Shutting off
debate on the bill at this point is quite a shameful act. First, the
government restricted access to the bill and now it is restricting
debate.
I have listened carefully to much of the debate since the
legislation was introduced. As emotional as it has been at times,
there has been much said that is worthy of note. I hope the
minister has been listening with a mind which will accept
change. Unfortunately I find that the minister, like many
Canadians, simply accepts the idea of firearms control as an end
in itself.
(1610 )
The legislation addresses firearms control. Therefore the
minister seems to be saying, for that reason alone it is worthy of
support. It does not matter if this is a good bill, a bad bill or an
inadequate bill. It should be worthy of support simply because it
deals with gun control. We are all supposed to stand up and
support it because of the premise. Whether it addresses all the
problems facing Canadians and their personal insecurities does
not seem to be relevant in the debate.
I believe these matters are relevant and I want to look at some
of them today. I have heard many stories told in this Chamber
over the past weeks, personal stories and quoted newspaper
accounts of stories affecting people in various communities
throughout North America. Each of these stories is told to gain
support for the legislation. The stories are about individual
tragedies of friends, relatives or people whose names appear in
the paper because of some firearms accident or wilful event.
If one listens closely and reads between the lines, these stories
are telling us that if we want to prevent the personal tragedies
outlined, we must get rid of firearms and not register them.
The people who raised those stories in Parliament and the
minister know that getting rid of firearms is not an option in the
legislation before us today. For all intents and purposes the
illustrative stories that have been brought to the debate, as
important as they are to the individuals affected, are diverting
attention from the real debate in front of us. The tragedies that
they represent-and tragedies they are-can occur just as easily
with a registered firearm as an unregistered one.
There is not enough time for me today, in 10 minutes, to
outline everything that the legislation does. I will support the
amendment before us which splits the bill into two parts because
a good argument can be made for debating the two issues
separately. My complaint with the legislation is the registration
and the way in which it is being presented to the Canadian public
by the government.
The universal registration of firearms is being presented for
something that it is not. Persons with legitimate and legal uses
for their firearms are being asked to pay for this misadvertised
purpose.
The government is telling Canadians that if all firearms are
registered they can feel safer and have more security in their
homes. They can feel safer and more secure on the streets. This
is simply not true. Peddling false hope while doing absolutely
nothing else to alleviate the fears of the Canadian public or to
attack the root causes of crime and violence in our society is
practically dishonest.
As members know, I believe in gun safety. Just because I do
not support the legislation of the Minister of Justice, I have been
criticized for not supporting firearm safety. Members will
remember that this was one of the reasons why I supported the
previous government's legislation on firearms. I supported that
legislation against the wishes of many of my vocal constituents
because it dealt with firearm safety. Today many of those who
criticized me in the past have agreed that the safety course being
offered is a good one, that the safe storage, handling and
transportation regulations contained in that legislation were
reasonable.
Bill C-68, the registration provisions in the legislation in
front of us today do nothing to enhance or improve on the
existing safety provisions already in place. The new legislation
should not be promoted as if it does. Also, we must reduce the
amount of violent death and injury. We as a nation must confront
this issue from all sides, including its social and economic roots.
Bill C-68 and its registration provisions by themselves will
do nothing to reduce violent injury, death or suicide for that
matter. If as a nation we are serious about suicide, spousal
violence or criminal street violence we have to do much more
than talk about creating a registry.
We have to do all that we can to reduce suicides and homicides
but as everyone in this Chamber knows, these suicides and
homicides will occur with registered legal firearms as well
unless other social and economic issues are dealt with.
(1615 )
Members of the Chamber will recall, because it was released a
few weeks ago, that the royal commission on aboriginal peoples
released a report on suicide among aboriginal people, particu-
11547
larly among aboriginal youth. To date the federal government
has done virtually nothing to respond to the recommendations in
this important and crucial report. The report indicated this issue
has been before the government for more than 10 years.
If the federal government were truly interested in dealing with
the issue of youth suicide it would respond in the affirmative to
the recommendation of the royal commission report
immediately.
It is a bit surprising the government says firearms registration
is critical to the reduction of suicide and violence and yet at the
same time is proposing a delay in the full registration process
until the year 2003. Surely if the government were serious about
this false contention and about the issue, if registration were
actually important to the reduction of suicide and violence,
would it not make compulsory registration immediate?
Why wait eight years if this is so important? The answer is
simple. There is no evidence to support the government's
claims. Registration is not important to the reduction of suicide
and violence, and the government knows it.
I also support the police dealing with real criminals in our
society. I have no trouble accepting the argument that those who
commit crimes against the rest of society must be sought out,
convicted and punished. However, I must remind the House and
the minister that every police officer from northwest
Saskatchewan I have spoken to and all the police officers I deal
with on a regular basis in my own constituency tell me
registration is not the answer for them.
When they are called to a domestic dispute or a location where
they are uncertain what they might find when they arrive, they
already assume every home they visit has a firearm. They
already take no chances when they visit a scene. The bill gives
them no additional security in this regard.
The police tell me that anyone who will shoot them is as likely
to use an illegal weapon as a registered firearm. The police in
northwest Saskatchewan tell me they need more time in the
field, better support services and more sustained opportunity to
work on preventative community strategies. There is a need to
work on programs that will help them prevent violence rather
than programs that respond only once violence has been
committed. The bill and government comments to that effect
offer no hope that this is being contemplated by the government.
If I had more time today I would happily put more concerns on
the record. Fortunately a few members in the House have
already begun to do so. Rather, I stress I remain critical of this
legislation. I am critical because the Liberals have set out an
agenda that they say will deal with safety and security and they
are asking the residents of my constituency who happen to own
legal and useful firearms to pay for them through the
registration system.
The government is doing this without offering any evidence
that any part of its plan will work any better than existing rules
which have not yet been fully evaluated. I find this wrong and to
a certain extent shameful politics.
I have already demonstrated that I do support firearms control
measures that have a real and meaningful impact on our nation
and its citizens. As I said earlier, while there is a role for
legitimate critique of Bill C-68 and the critique of the false hope
the Liberals are setting up with its passage, I trust the nation, the
House and especially the minister will not only allow room for
that critique to be articulated but also will take it to heart.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today. It is very
significant that we are in the House talking about this subject at
a time which I see as one of the last few periods when we can
make this kind of significant change to our gun control laws.
We are looking at the type of society in which we want to live.
(1620 )
The Minister of Justice has brought forward legislation on
young offenders and sentencing. He has made a commitment to
make changes to the dangerous offender laws and we have
before us today the bill on gun control.
I do not want to criticize because I am a very big supporter and
fan of our neighbours to the south. However, we have seen a
situation there in which citizens who want to change the law
cannot. We have seen a situation in which the number of deaths
by firearms has escalated to totally catastrophic levels.
In 1992 in the United States, 35,000 people died as a result of
firearms; 150,000 people wounded by firearms in the same year.
That is alarming. Those who were wounded might have been
killed at that time if infrared spotting devices were available.
They are now available in the United States, giving greater
accuracy in dark areas, at night and to those who really do not
have proficiency in the use of firearms to have good aim.
We have been told the United States is different. We have been
told this because of the second amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. We have been told there is a constitutional
right to bear arms in the United States. That is not correct in the
sense the National Rifle Association in the United States would
have us believe.
The right to bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court of the
United States applies to the militias and the constabularies of
the states to be able to arm themselves to defend against a
national army. That is the basis as interpreted by the Supreme
11548
Court of the United States of the right to bear arms. It is not for
citizens of the United States to have unlimited permission and
lawfully be able to have arms.
I want to give one example of how that applies with the case of
one small community in Illinois, Morton Grove, in the early
1980s, I think in 1982. It decided it wanted to do something
about the proliferation of firearms. It decided to ban firearms.
There was a municipal bylaw which banned firearms in that
community.
The National Rifle Association became very alarmed at this
and a great deal of lobbying ensued. As a result, the state of
Illinois passed a law that stated municipal laws could not be
more prohibitive with respect to firearms than state laws. That
destroyed any opportunity for any further municipality in the
state of Illinois to do what Morton Grove did.
There are other states with the same law. It was never
challenged. The right of the community of Morton Grove to do
that was not challenged on the basis of the second amendment. It
was the lobbying by the National Rifle Association to make sure
state governments moved in to prohibit that sort of thing
happening anywhere else in that state and to its determination,
any other state in the union.
The National Rifle Association is quite a prominent lobbying
group in Washington. It employs approximately 50 people, has
an annual budget of approximately $100 million and in the
Congressional elections in 1992 spent $1.7 million on
candidates favourable to its position.
There is no way the Americans will be able to strengthen their
gun control laws significantly in light of that kind of lobbying
and force opposed to them.
(1625 )
We just have to look at the Brady bill. Mr. Brady was shot at
the same time as President Reagan, a very valued and admired
public servant in the United States on the staff of the President
of the United States. He was impaired for life. He and his wife
worked tirelessly to bring forward a bill for stronger gun
control. The bill he wanted was one stronger than the one
eventually passed, but it was only through the force of
personality and the type of people Brady and his wife were that
they were able to get that bill at all.
Congress in the United States now wants to roll back some of
the advantages and some of the things obtained in the Brady bill.
I credit President Clinton when he says that under no
circumstances would he allow that to happen and he would veto
any such measures. That is not democracy. That is not allowing
the people of the United States to choose.
We in Canada do not have that kind of force opposed to the
free will and to the ability of Canadians to make their decision.
It is getting more difficult. The structured opposition is
becoming stronger. If Canadians want stronger gun control it
has to be now.
We want Canadians to decide. We want to have the bill go to
committee. We want to have an intense study of the bill in
committee. We are prepared to listen to witnesses, to members
of Parliament and to make some changes to the bill.
The Minister of Justice said he wants to have the areas of
black powder shooting, certified competitions and antiques
looked at and perhaps defined a little more clearly; perhaps
changes made in these areas. He has also given an assurance to
the Canadian Police Association with respect to penalties and
the criminalization of non-registration. He wants that looked at.
Those are very significant directions. I presume he will be
giving further instructions to the committee when he appears.
He has also stated that when he appears before the committee
he will give the breakdown and the background information on
why he has stated the registration system will cost
approximately $85 million. For those who are saying it will be
$500 million, I am sure they will want to hear the minister's
information. That is fair.
The previous speaker from the New Democratic Party said it
has not worked before so why are we trying again. We are trying
again because it has not worked before. We are trying to put in a
registration system that can work. It is not because it is a
registration system. The registration system will work because
of advances in technology, a registration that will be-
Miss Grey: The criminals can break in.
Mr. MacLellan: No, they cannot break in. That is nonsense.
That is pure fabrication, absolute rubbish.
The possession licences and the firearms registration
certificates will be cards similar to credit cards with magnetic
tape which will have the information and when it is run through
a machine similar to a machine that checks a Visa card, the
firearm will automatically be registered. It could be registered
in a place of purchase similar to Canadian Tire. It will feed into
the main computer system at which there will be fire doors to
prohibit the information coming back out.
It will be a safe system. That is one of the reasons we want to
wait until January 1998 to start registration. We want to have the
people of Canada realize this is a safe system, a beneficial
system and it will not cost what they have been told it will cost
them.
An hon. member: Will it fight crime?
(1630 )
Mr. MacLellan: It is going to fight crime too.
Unfortunately, I only have ten minutes. If the hon. member
comes to the committee and listens, he will hear that, if he has
11549
not understood it already. This is going to be a cost factor where
those who register, starting in January of 1996, will not pay
anything for their possession certificate initially and the cost
will increase in a moderate fashion throughout the five-year
period. When the five-year renewal period comes around, there
will be a cost of approximately $60 per person for the renewal.
The registration cost will not be $100 per firearm, as has been
stated by many members in the House. It will be $10 per firearm,
and for that $10 the person will be able to register 10 firearms.
That is a significant difference from what we have been told by
members opposite.
I also want to say that this bill will fight crime. If members
opposite do not know that now, they should make a point of
looking at the statistics to realize that.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I can just imagine all the criminals in Canada
waiting to run down to the nearest registration office to say, ``I
own this gun. Put my name on that list, by golly, because I want
to get on that computer.'' They just cannot wait for that.
Unfortunately, this is a tragic thought, but I can also imagine
how much better future victims of firearms crimes are going to
feel when an offence is committed against them with a
registered firearm. I say that facetiously, but still very seriously.
The motion put forward by my hon. colleague from
Yorkton-Melville will split Bill C-68 into two portions. I
believe it is imperative to be able to discuss separately, in a
substantial fashion, the so-called merits of universal
registration, as the Liberals would like to have Canadians
believe that there actually is some merit to it, and also to discuss
the improvements to the Criminal Code that would deal with
people who commit firearms offences. It is important that this
bill be split. Canadian people must have a chance to have input
on both sides of the bill. To create a bill that deals with these two
issues in one simply leaves the Canadian people and this House
with no opportunity to stop the bad side of the bill and, at the
same time, vote for some of the good points.
I believe there are members in the Liberal Party who would, if
given the opportunity, instantly vote against universal
registration and at the same time instantly support stricter
penalties and tougher laws for people who commit firearms
offences. We enthusiastically implore the Liberal Party to
support the splitting of Bill C-68.
I believe members should be concerned when changes to the
Criminal Code are tied to other measures that seek to impose on
the right of law-abiding Canadians to own and enjoy property.
This imposition is exactly what Bill C-68, when taken in its
entirety, seeks to accomplish: to impose red tape, more
regulation and more penalties on law-abiding firearms owners
in this country. At the same time, the bill does little to impose
stricter penalties, harsher penalties, rightful penalties on the
people who commit firearms offences. We should be looking at
deterring firearms crime while not imposing on the rights of
law-abiding firearms owners.
(1635)
The motion of the member for Yorkton-Melville to split the
bill is in accordance with a policy that the Canadian people
want. If this bill was split, this party can support enthusiastically
the part that deals with imposing stricter penalties on firearms
offences, while at the same time enthusiastically opposing it,
along with a lot of Liberal backbenchers who would love to do it.
Unfortunately, because of party discipline in the Liberal party,
they are not going to be able to oppose the registration.
The Minister of Justice, the Liberal members, with all their
rhetoric and all their talk about this new bill, Bill C-68, have
offered not one shred of substantive proof that universal
registration will prevent firearms crime in Canada. Not one
single shred have any of these Liberal members offered of proof
that firearms registration is going to cut crime in this country.
The onus is on the Minister of Justice and this government to
demonstrate clearly to law-abiding citizens affected by these
new registration laws that they will indeed produce a desirable
effect. That is what good legislation should be all about. This
bill cannot demonstrate that in any way; therefore, it cannot be
considered good legislation.
The onus was placed on the Minister of Justice to clearly
demonstrate how registration is going to cut crime. He has not
done it. The minister continues to state that registration will
improve public safety. Again, he has not presented one single
shred of evidence that it is going to do exactly that.
He says the association of police chiefs support him. I may get
a few of these chiefs mad at me, but I would like to remind this
House that the association of police chiefs has received about
$150,000 in grants for their organization from this government.
One can conjure up all sorts of thoughts of why there is this great
support for Bill C-68 and the Minister of Justice.
However, the facts simply do not support his claim. In New
Zealand the practice of registration was discontinued. They
tried it. In 1983 their police force discovered-I have to assume
that the New Zealand police are a fairly intelligent lot-that a
gun registry did nothing to combat crime. In Canada police
officers in Saskatchewan-I have to believe that police officers
in Saskatchewan are as intelligent as police officers in any other
part of Canada-
Mr. Taylor: Maybe more so.
Mr. Harris: Maybe more so, yes.
11550
The police officers in Saskatchewan have demonstrated that
they have absolutely no faith in Bill C-68 and its ability to
affect crime rates.
As time goes on we will see the police forces in some of the
other provinces come forward with the same conclusion.
We have had a handgun registry in this country for about 60
years. It was revamped in 1977 by Bill C-51, which was
introduced again by a Liberal government to, as they say-and
this is wonderful-enhance public safety. This sort of sounds
familiar. We have heard this same phrase from this government
and the Minister of Justice himself over the last several weeks. It
is to ``enhance public safety''. Since 1977, studies by Sproule
and Kennett, Robert Mundt, and Mauser and Holmes all showed
that the changes enacted in 1977 had no effect on firearms
homicide rates in Canada.
That is what we call substantive evidence, not the rhetoric and
the words that the Liberals use with nothing to back them
up-statistics.
(1640 )
It is very clear that while Bill C-68 does contain some
measures to deal more harshly with criminals and people who
commit firearms offences, which we can support, we would
have liked to have seen the government and the minister
introduce a whole lot stiffer penalties than what they have done.
While it contains some legislation that is good and that we can
support, I challenge the part that deals with firearms
registration.
I have been on talk show after talk show with anti-gun
advocates. When I gave them the specific opportunity to bring
forward substantive evidence that gun registration would cut
crime, not one single time were they able to give a substantive
piece of evidence. The most common answer was: ``Well, we
register cars; what is wrong with registering guns?'' That is the
standard answer from these people and this government here.
Let us go with that. Mr. Speaker, you tell me and any member
over here whether the registration of automobiles cuts down on
stolen cars, on traffic accidents or on the carnage that is on our
highway. How does car registration cut down on people who
steal cars and commit crimes with cars? Not one single bit.
I ask this government and any member over there to show me
clearly, please, how they substantiate their claim that universal
registration is going to in fact cut crime. I give that challenge to
them and so do millions of firearms owners in this country who
can see no justification for universal firearms registration.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is my duty to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Brant-justice; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-the environment.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill
C-68 today.
I have a distinct advantage over many of the members of this
House because I am a member of the justice committee. As a
member of the justice committee, when this bill is referred to the
justice committee I will have many days and hours, many
opportunities, to ask witnesses very pointed questions. I will
have an opportunity not only to examine witnesses but to
cross-examine witnesses and inquire about certain facts that my
friends in the Reform Party, for example, have suggested are not
facts and to ask certain questions that they want to ask.
My intervention today will not be to answer or attempt to
answer the questions that my friends in the Reform Party have
brought up, generally speaking. My purpose in standing today
and speaking is to examine and to try to help Canadians
understand precisely what it is that is going to happen today.
What I object to, quite frankly, is the misinformation that my
friends in the Reform Party are attempting to spread across
Canada with respect to what would happen if we were to support
their motion today.
What I want to talk about is the actual legalities of what would
occur if one were to support the Reform Party motion, and then
let us let Canadians decide what the Reform Party has been
saying and let us let them decide whether it is in fact what would
occur.
We are being asked to consider the government's motion. It is
a very simple motion. We may not agree with the bill or the
principles, but the motion is very simple. It states ``that the bill
be now read a second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs''. The government is
simply saying, all right, let us refer this to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that they can hear
witnesses and hear all of these people who wish to either support
or object to the bill.
My friends in the Reform Party have put forward a very
specific amendment. They are trying to tell people that their
amendment splits the bill. That is not the case. The motion is
very specific. All words after the word ``that'' are to be
removed. Remember that the original motion says that the bill
be read a second time and referred to committee. Reform
members want that passage to be removed. What do they want to
substitute it with? Do they want to substitute a motion that says
that the bill be split into two separate sections? No. This is what
they want to do:
11551
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for
licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of
offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.
(1645)
Maybe they should be addressed separately, but if this motion
were passed it would not allow the House to address those two
questions separately. If we passed this motion, we would not be
dealing with Bill C-68, period. The House would not read Bill
C-68 a second time. The House would not refer Bill C-68 to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Consequently, there would be no Bill C-68 and therefore, there
would be nothing to split and nothing to discuss.
In my respectful view, it is improper for members of the
Reform Party to suggest that their motion would split this bill.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Their motion would
have the effect of killing this bill, not splitting it. So let us talk
facts.
Members of the Reform Party have made a point of saying
that they are talking straight to the people. Then be straight with
the people. If they are going to bring a motion that says to kill
Bill C-68, then tell people that is the kind of motion they are
bringing forward, not that it is a motion to split the bill. That is
utter parliamentary nonsense.
Anyone who votes in favour of the amendment thinking that
the bill will be split is sadly misinformed. The actual effect of
voting for the amendment will be to kill Bill C-68.
If we were to kill Bill C-68 the justice committee would have
absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to consider the merits of
the bill. It would have no opportunity whatsoever to consider
any amendments that could be put forward. It would have no
opportunity whatsoever to try to excise some portions of the bill.
Let us be honest with Canadians. If members do not like the
bill, then say so. If you do not like the bill, tell Canadians that
the amendment would throw the bill out. Do not tell Canadians
the bill would be split because that is not the fact.
Miss Grey: Is that the end?
Mr. Wappel: No, that is not the end.
Let us talk about what will happen if common sense prevails
and we send this bill to committee. The bill is not perfect.
Nothing that is written in this House is perfect. There are
problems with the bill. The Minister of Justice acknowledged in
a press release that he would like the committee to consider at
least three amendments.
One deals with relics and whether they can be passed on from
generation to generation. The second one is how we deal with
prohibited classes of weapons that are used for competition.
That is a legitimate thing. We can deal with prohibited weapons
that might be used for competition. We can put an amendment to
the bill that would permit such a use. There is nothing wrong or
impossible about that. The minister has also asked us to look at
black powder historical re-enactments.
There are a couple of problems I would like to look at before I
have an opportunity to put forward my amendments. I
acknowledge that I have an opportunity which is not available to
most members. I am a member of the justice committee and I
can put forward all kinds of amendments at committee. Then I
can put forward more amendments in the House at report stage. I
really have two cracks at it, unlike most members, and I
acknowledge that.
One problem I have with the bill as it currently stands is the
possibility of confiscation without compensation. This is
anathema, unliberal. We have to deal with it. We have to look at
what the bill actually says and make some hard decisions. In my
view, there should be compensation for property that is legally
acquired and is subsequently confiscated for the greater public
good, if that is what this House decides. We do it with real estate.
There is no reason that we cannot do it in this situation.
I would like to hear some evidence on that. I would like to
hear the pros and cons. I would like to hear all those people who
wish to come to the justice committee to tell us what is wrong or
right with it.
(1650)
I have some problem with the mandatory sentencing. Let us
pick a section arbitrarily. Let us pick proposed section 244,
which is found in clause 138 of the bill which reads in part:
244. Every person who, with intent
(a) to wound, maim or disfigure any person,
(b) to endanger the life of any person, or
(c) to prevent the arrest or detention of any person,
discharges a firearm at any person-is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a
term of four years.
What does that mean from a legal point of view? Does that
mean if they wound somebody, they will get a sentence for the
wounding, then an additional four year consecutive sentence?
Or does it mean that if they wound someone and they are found
to have wounded someone under that section they will get a
sentence of a minimum of four years? There is a huge difference.
We have to hear from the justice department officials and other
people in the legal field as to exactly what that means.
The perception may be among some in the community that a
mandatory four year sentence means four years on top of any
sentence for the crime. Others might think it is four years in
total. That is called the totality principle. These are legitimate
concerns and questions.
There is another legitimate concern. That is the one expressed
by members of the Reform Party as to the actual purposes
registration would serve. Would registration serve the purpose
11552
of reducing firearm related crimes? How can we know unless we
hear from the experts?
We can sit in committee and listen to people on both sides, the
Ontario Handgun Association, the National Rifle Association or
the firearms people. We can listen to the Canadian chiefs of
police. Our friends from the Reform Party can ask them about
the grants that have been going on for one or two decades. Never
mind their innuendoes about the chiefs of police. They are not
appointed by the federal government but by their own
municipalities. These innuendoes are insulting to the chiefs of
police.
In any event, these questions can be put directly. We can ask if
there is any correlation between registration and the curtailment
of handgun or firearm related crimes. If not, then it may be
necessary to consider other reasons that we might want the
registration circumstances.
It is inconceivable to me that a reasonable person would not
want this matter studied in depth at the justice committee. All
groups and people across Canada who want to provide input on
this legislation would have the opportunity to do so. For the
Reform Party to say anything but the fact that its motion would
kill this bill is utter nonsense.
In conclusion, I want to say something to the people of my
own riding of Scarborough West. I have discussed this issue
with them on numerous occasions. I have put out a householder
which contains a survey. It will be in their mailboxes within two
weeks. I ask for their direct input and answers to the questions I
have asked on gun control.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
look forward to this debate as well. I am glad to be back in the
House. I am particularly pleased to be able to address a subject I
have heard about only in the last 24 hours. This is pretty handy.
It has to do with a debate that went on years ago. It seems like
40 years, but it was really only four, in 1991. My colleague from
Burnaby-Kingsway had said something about the member for
Beaver River supporting universal firearm registration. I
thought: ``This certainly is news to me. I have never spoken in
favour of that. Boy, I had better check this out''.
I had to chuckle when I saw it in a copy of Hansard, November
6, 1991. My friend from Kingston and the Islands brought it to
my attention this afternoon-
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the hon. parliamentary
secretary would refrain from heckling while the member is
giving her remarks.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that from the Speaker
and from the member for Kingston and the Islands.
It said that I was in favour of gun registration. Let me get one
thing straight. I would like to quote from Hansard, November 6,
1991, page 4687. I had already given my entire speech and was
on questions and comments. Remember that I was sitting way
back there all by myself and put up with any amount of heckling
from members.
(1655)
The parliamentary secretary, a dino-Tory, said to me, could I
please make some comments on this, that and the next thing. I
said to him at page 4687:
I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and
some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that ``over 90 per
cent of our respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered''.
The Canadian Police Association said that 90 per cent of its
respondents believed that all guns should be registered. I then
said right after that that I agreed with that and I think every
Canadian would agree with that. If those are its numbers, that is
the survey it did among its members, how can I disagree with
that? I am not going to dispute those numbers. If I were in favour
of universal gun registration, and here comes the English
teacher, I would have said I agree with them. I would agree with
them if I were in favour of gun registration. It makes sense.
Looking at this yesterday I thought that if this was such a loud
situation that I was in favour of gun registration, why in
heaven's name did I not hear about it on November 7, 1991 from
such groups in my constituency as the wonderful people who
belong to Lac La Biche Shooting Association, responsible
firearms owners, and Grand Centre's Cold Lake District
Sportsman Fish and Game Association? Do you think that if I
had supported gun registration these people would have even let
me off the aeroplane to come back home? This is bunk.
If the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is so concerned about
the fact that I support universal gun registration, he should have
found it in my speech and in my thesis. He did not find it there;
he did not find it now. He is in big trouble with his own small,
minute caucus here.
If we are going to talk about flip-flops, Mr. Speaker, let us
talk about when you and I listened in the last Parliament to Ian
Waddell, Margaret Mitchell, and I could list all 43 of them. I am
sure I can remember who they were. Audrey as well. They were
going on and on talking about how terrible this was. All of a
sudden in 1995 it is just amazing how things change. The NDP
caucus is not going to be supporting this legislation. I have to
admire them for that. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway is
not going to be able to. If he can justify that back home that is
fine. Things were different in 1991 of course. I did not agree
with universal gun registration then, nor do I now.
11553
Let us look at the Canadian Police Association's latest
viewpoint on gun registration: ``The Canadian Police
Association recognizes the clear value of information
availability to police officers, which registration of all firearms
provides, and supports a full firearms registration system, but
cannot support the registration system articulated in Bill C-68
unless there is a guarantee from the federal government that
any implementation or administration costs for such a system
will not come from existing operational police budgets''. I
agree with that too.
I do not agree with gun registration, but I have to agree with
what the Canadian Police Association says. Whether the police
will be able to enforce it on the frontlines or whether that money
will actually have to come from some of the operating budgets,
if there are fewer policemen in our cities, in our small towns and
on our country highways when people are hauling around
firearms committing crimes with them, that is where the money
should go.
The proposed national firearms registration system will
contain data for six million to 20 million guns, which is a lot of
guns, and three million to seven million gun owners. We just
heard our friend from the maritimes, the parliamentary
secretary for justice, saying that we are going to get something
like a Visa card and we will just run it through the magnetic
strip.
Has anyone here ever had their Visa card stolen? Is it going to
be guaranteed that that is safe, that they are not going to be able
to break on to the Internet and have absolute access and a shop at
home catalogue? Can we have any guarantee that someone is not
going to be able to get into the Internet? He promised us it would
be safer than safe.
When we talk safe, I want to talk about the fact that someone
who is a victim of a crime with a firearm does not give two hoots
about whether that gun was registered or not and whether
somebody in a criminal gang in downtown cities anywhere
across this country is going to be able to break into that system.
We hear about it all the time. Why should the gun registration be
any safer than anything else?
It is frightening to me that they would be able to know who has
guns, where they are, how many they have and have absolute
access to them. Those people are not going to register their
firearms. We have to be absolutely dreaming if we think such a
thing is going to happen.
(1700)
Do you think that someone coming across the border is going
to give up a gun? Who is going to seize these guns?
An hon. member: The police.
Miss Grey: The police are going to seize the guns. This thing
is going full circle because the Canadian Police Association just
said in its most recent document: ``Who is going to do the
seizing? Who is going to do the policing?'' How much time are
the police going to have for that? How much time does any
policeman in any constituency have for more bookwork and
paperwork? They should be out in their cruisers stopping crime.
A universal registration system will be a very large
undertaking with huge costs. People joked earlier when my
leader was speaking about us not having any idea of what the
costs are. We would like to know,or at least have an idea of what
the costs are. The Minister of Justice may talk about costs but we
have absolutely no proof of that.
The finance minister in his budget, somewhat recently, gave
us an idea of what to expect for deficits. We are going to be
spending $9 billion on interest payments for every dollar that is
cut. It goes on and on. One hundred billion dollars will be added
to the deficit. Give us an idea of the costs, it is a lot of money.
Canadian taxpayers are going to be paying for this. We hear
the government saying that it will be user pay, not just
taxpayers' money. What is user pay? It is nothing more than me
taking $10 out of my pocket to pay for registering my .22. It is
nothing more than giving my money to the government or to
someone to register my gun. It is user pay. Is it still costing me
money? Yes, of course it is. I would sooner pay that $10 to a
health care system that is going to be more efficient than
knowing that someone is just paying to have his gun registered.
The recreational firearms communities of two provincial
governments have huge doubts about the legislation and the
minister knows it. I participated in the rally in September and I
was proud of all the responsible firearms owners. Nobody acted
crazy or irresponsible that day.
I must say I admire the minister for going out and facing them.
The people in my constituency said they thought that was pretty
brave. There was no one to be ashamed of there. It is not the
responsible firearms owners who we should be attacking in this
legislation. It is the criminal misuse of firearms and a
registration system will do nothing to eliminate or even
alleviate crime.
This new scheme will represent a massive attack by the state
and its police on property rights and the privacy of millions of
law-abiding citizens. I frankly do not think I need to say
anything more about this. I never did support universal gun
registration regardless of what my friend from Burnaby says. I
do not agree with the police association's estimate. I agree with
the fact that they say those are their numbers, but I do not agree
with them. There would not be people in my constituency, and
many policemen as well, who could support that.
11554
Crime is what we should be attacking here, not registration.
Registration is not the answer. Therefore, let us split this bill
in two and make sure that we deal with crime. As the bill is
now responsible firearms owners are going to be labelled and
become criminals.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion. I have been
spending the last few days listening to the debate on it.
I must say that some good ideas came from across the floor.
Some good ideas also came from this side of the House of
changes we could make to really reflect the concerns of some of
my constituents.
Over the past few months I have been talking to a number of
my constituents who have been hearing a lot of misinformation
concerning this bill. It has been very difficult to really debate
the bill in an open and meaningful way. I end up spending half of
my time trying to explain to constituents parts of the bill that
they believe are there but actually are not. I find that a very
difficult way to deal with the legislation.
I have a number of concerns with the legislation but before I
get into that I want to talk about those areas which I think
everyone in the House supports. When Bill C-17 came into the
House under the former Conservative government I could not
support and voted against the sections on the increased criminal
sanctions for the illegal use of firearms. One of the reasons I
voted against the bill was that I did not believe it dealt with the
criminal use of guns. My constituents did not feel these issues
were properly dealt with.
(1705)
I brought those points forward and I want to thank the minister
for at least listening to Canadians who felt there was not enough
being done to sanction people who use guns in the commission
of crimes. I appreciate that he and the Prime Minister are taking
our ideas and moving forward with them.
As members know, the average sanction across the board is
about 16 months. The minister has increased it to four years. I
would rather have seen it go higher but I see that as a positive
step and a good way forward.
I also agree with what the minister is doing with the whole
question of smuggling. I have talked with the Minister of
National Revenue and he has indicated to me that he, along with
the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, have a task
force together. They are going to focus on smuggling.
This will not work unless smugglers are stopped at the border.
There is one major place at the border where the majority of
these guns are coming across. I call on the Minister of Justice
and the Solicitor General to deal with that situation and to get
the guns off the street. I also agree with the seizure of the assets
of those people who smuggle. If assets are seized and smuggling
is stopped it will go a long way in dealing with some of the
problems.
I have not heard anybody on the other side thank the minister
for dealing with the whole situation of young offenders with
regard to handguns. I see that as a positive step forward and
something we could support.
I want to get into those areas that I feel are not very well
represented. Specifically, there is the whole area of registration.
It is probably the area that concerns most of my constituents.
When I was putting forward proposals on that, I always said that
registration would have to be proven to me to be effective,
efficient and affordable. When I look at some of the proposals
put forward by the minister, I am concerned whether they
actually meet that criteria.
I hope the members of the committee on justice will tear the
bill apart, get the minister before them and get the proof whether
these sorts of criteria are met. I see that as an important role of
the committee and I hope it will take that challenge on.
I also wanted to split the bill. A lot of members wanted to split
the bill but I have to say to my colleagues across the way that
their motion does not split the bill.
Miss Grey: Make a motion.
Mr. Speller: I will make a motion. I wonder if I can have
unanimous consent to move this motion. I move:
That section 80 on page 36 through to section 112 on page 51 could be
removed from this bill and brought back as another bill under the name of the
Canadian firearms registration system.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have unanimous
consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The
member has the floor on debate.
Mr. Stinson: A Liberal said no.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, a number of members on all sides
of the House would support a motion like that. I hope that maybe
we can work as this bill goes through its other stages to convince
the minister to do something like that.
Miss Grey: Absolutely.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I notice that you gave our hon.
colleague a going over for heckling before.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has a good point. As the
member for Beaver River will agree, I asked the member not to
heckle her. I wonder if members on the Reform side would not
heckle the member.
11555
(1710 )
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Criminal Code
provisions and registration. A number of members have raised
concerns about people who do not properly register their guns
and therefore get a criminal record. I hope the committee will
look at the issue. I know the minister has indicated to the
Canadian Police Association that he would be willing to look at
it. I know that members of the Liberal caucus will be working
with the minister over the next little while to make sure that is a
fact.
I would like to see a sunset clause on registration. We have
found that there are difficulties with the handgun registration
system. Frankly, I am not sure how this one is going to work. For
instance if it is not working in 10 years, let's hoist it and get rid
of it. If the minister can prove it is working, then leave it alone.
However, something like a sunset clause may not be a bad idea.
Handguns are prohibited, however certain handguns are used
now in gun clubs. I know the minister has indicated his
willingness to work with national associations concerning
handguns they say they should be able to use. I also hope that the
minister and perhaps the committee will listen to other clubs
whose members use handguns, but which may not always follow
national association criteria.
I also have a real concern with how this bill deals with
regulations and how it will look at an area that is not normally
considered, that of long arms. An example is the Ruger Mini-14.
I know it is not considered in this bill. However, there will be a
provision created under which the minister can deal with the
Ruger Mini-14 and prohibit it from being used.
In my area a number of farmers use it to shoot coyotes. It is the
gun of preference to get rid of the coyotes. A number of people
will be concerned with that area. Should these guns still be used
to hunt or at gun clubs? I hope the minister will allow us time to
deal with that issue.
I have listened to members of the Reform Party over the last
while talking about the bill and how their constituents are
against it. As members of Parliament we must deal with that. It
is the Reform Party that says it has to represent the wishes of its
constituents. I agree with that. That is why I talk with my
constituents and try to get to as many areas as I can.
All members have to look at the results of national polls. I
refer to a poll that was done by the minister of justice of Alberta.
I want to quote from that poll. Obviously, everyone knows that
the polls taken showed that Albertans were against this. It did
not show that in the rural areas, which is of a concern to me
because a lot of areas of Alberta are somewhat like southwestern
Ontario. We have a lot in common.
If we look at the question: ``Do you strongly agree or strongly
disagree with registration of rifles?'' The numbers were 50 per
cent said they agreed and 48 per cent somewhat agreed or
disagreed.
However, in some rural centres the numbers were: strongly
agree, 58 per cent; strongly disagree, 43 per cent. It clearly
shows that even in rural Alberta they support the minister in the
registration of long arms.
As members of Parliament we not only have to consider our
constituents but we also must take into account the importance
of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to the
order made earlier today, in accordance with the provisions of
Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second
reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
The first vote is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 189)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Crawford
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Murphy
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Serré
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-55
11556
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-173
PAIRED MEMBERS
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Copps
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Gaffney
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Plamondon
Sauvageau
(1745 )
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 190)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
11557
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-173
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Crawford
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Serré
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-53
PAIRED MEMBERS
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Copps
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Gaffney
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Plamondon
Sauvageau
(1755)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the
bill stands referred to the standing committee on justice and
legal affairs.
My colleagues, your Speaker finds himself in somewhat of a
quandary. I have been approached by hon. members of
Parliament who wish to be recorded as abstaining from the
votes.
I have two choices. I can have them stand, put it on the record
and declare them out of order or I can simply ask those who want
to abstain from the vote to rise and I can declare them all out of
order at the same time.
I surely do not want to make light of this. Because we do not
have a mechanism for abstention I would ask the committee on
voting procedures to take this into account at some future time
in its deliberations.
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I
stood in my seat and that I would support neither the motion to
kill the bill nor the bill in its present form. I would like a
clarification of that from the Chair.
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it recorded that I
was present during the vote but abstained.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in this House, traditions have a
significance that cannot be overlooked. I think we have an
obligation to conform to what is customary in this respect.
It is assumed that if a member is present, he will make his
opinion known as his constituents have asked him to do, whether
he is for or against a bill. To abstain is not an option, as we see it,
and we therefore object.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Roberval
for his opinion. He is right. The reason I rose was to explain my
dilemma. It was simply for your information. I thank all
members for their attention.
11558
[English]
It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11558
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should transfer the
responsibility for cultural preservation to individuals by discontinuing federal
multiculturalism programs, relinquishing control of multiculturalism thereby
allowing multiculturalism to flourish by giving individuals the freedom to
pursue their own cultural ideals.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move this motion this
today. Canadians from all across this country have become
involved in a debate that explores the merits of the federal
government's policy on multiculturalism. The issue has its
defenders and its detractors. But most significantly, people no
longer are blindly accepting the status quo that multiculturalism
funding should be beyond reproach or even be beyond
questioning.
The position of the Reform Party is given expression in my
motion as just read. By relinquishing control at the federal level
for funding multicultural projects, we will also be giving to
individuals the chance to choose for themselves what cultural
endeavours they wish to support.
As a government we have diminishing resources and as
individual taxpayers we too have less and less disposable
income. It is in light of this that we as legislators should be
making efforts to maximize the freedom of individuals to
distribute their disposable income where they choose.
In contemporary Canada does it not seem a little arrogant
when the government decides which programs, which groups
and which individuals should be funded? Are these decisions not
better left in the hands of Canadians and not government? Why
is it that this Liberal government avoids all the difficult
decisions that concern Canadians the most?
I have sponsored two motions, both of which have been
deemed to be non-votable. Last June I sponsored a motion for
debate that related to the CBC. I recommended that the CBC be
partially privatized. In that debate I suggested that we make
some substantial changes to the CBC and that would include
funding reductions.
I received a very poor reception from the other side of the
House. In fact there was laughter and derision as I recall.
However, here we are in budget 1995 and surprise, surprise,
some of my recommendations have been acknowledged,
particularly the recommendations for reduced funding and
potential restructuring.
Another Reform proposition which the Liberals have recently
borrowed was the recommendation to amalgamate all of the
women's organizations into Status of Women Canada. I have
suggested that further to that we dismantle the organization
altogether.
Further to the debate on this motion, let me share with the
House some sentiments from an average Canadian. I recently
spoke to a group in Kingston, Ontario about my vision for
Canada. A woman who heard me that day sent me some of her
thoughts which echo mine. I would like to share them with the
House today. She wrote on something she called ``Acceptable
Behaviour in a Global Village''. She wrote:
The world of human beings has grown smaller and populations all over the
world have become so mixed that we have to learn to get along peacefully with
each other. The global village is no longer somewhere else. It is here and all of us
are mixed in with it. It does not matter whether someone of a different race or
nation lives next door or down the street or in a different part of town or halfway
around the world, we have to learn to live peacefully with all of those peoples
whose racial or national origins are different from our own. To do otherwise is to
bring about an end to our world. The intolerance, conflicts, fighting and wars
between peoples will bring an end to our civilization and the earth as a planet
much quicker than any pollution or natural disaster.
All peoples have some members who are great people, who have
accomplished things which are beneficial for all humankind. All peoples have
some members who are difficult people who make life miserable for those
around them. No one is perfect. Most people of all races are a mixture of good
and bad. It is necessary to recognize the best and the positive in others
regardless of what they look like, what language they speak or where they come
from. The positive values of honesty, integrity, the ability to do the job required
of them, the ability to care for family and other people and the ability to live
peacefully together with others; all provide the basis for a good and worthwhile
society.
Every race and nation of people has those individuals whose performance is
excellent in all of those values. Every race and nation has many who fail to
uphold those positive values. We need to change our attitudes to become more
objective and non-judgmental. We need to become more accepting of all
people.
(1805)
The woman concludes her letter with the thought that:
This is not an easy thing to do but if enough of us who feel this necessity start
to put these attitudes into our own lives and encourage others to also do so, we
will have a better world.
These are the sentiments of an ordinary Canadian. The writer
has no Ph.D. in peace issues. She has no certificates proclaiming
her to be an expert on eliminating racial discrimination. But she
clearly is an expert on old-fashioned Canadian common sense.
If we could only bottle these common sense attitudes and ship
them throughout Canada and around the world what a better
place this would be.
11559
I was mentioning earlier that the issue of multiculturalism is
of high profile in the media of late. I was reading a recent edition
of India Abroad in which Professor Milton Israel wrote about
the issue of identity as it pertains to multiculturalism. He wrote:
For some the emphasis on ethnicity facilitates division; for others, it provides a
means to cope and a possibility of unity on better terms. Still others insist that
national boundaries and the limited and distinctive identities they produce are
eroding and the future lies with the ``transnationals'', people who are at home in
more than one society. The loss of old home through migration or the substantial
immigration of others is not to be lamented but a new kind of cosmopolitan
nationalism is to be embraced.
I share this view. We do not need a special dispensation from
the government to foster this belief. Members of ethnic
communities also espouse these views. I experienced this when I
spoke to the Human Rights and Race Relations Centre in
Toronto, a privately funded organization that works to end
discrimination in Canada. I went there on March 21 which was a
day that acknowledged a race-free society. In fact it was called
``the day to eliminate racism in the world''.
I was so impressed that day with the individuals I met. They
were all volunteers, leaders from the ethnic communities in
Toronto. They had strived free of federal government funding to
bring together other community leaders to discuss the issue of
racial discrimination in the hope that it could be eliminated in
this century.
There was a wonderful letter in the conference package that
had been written by the hon. Paul Martin. He said he wished to
acknowledge the work and contribution of the Human Rights
and Race Relations Centre toward ending racial discrimination
in this country. He acknowledged the dedication and
commitment demonstrated by the staff and the
volunteers-indeed all of them in this centre are
volunteers-and that their efforts had been exemplary. He said
that they all deserved to be commended for their efforts.
This is an excellent example of a group of Canadians who are
working together without government funding to support and to
further the process to eliminate discrimination.
The Speaker: I wonder, only because I take a special interest
in what the hon. member is saying, would she clarify if that was
the hon. Paul Martin Sr. or Jr.?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, this was
from the hon. Paul Martin, Jr. It was a letter he had written dated
March 13, 1995. It was to help give support to this group in
Toronto. I wanted to share that with the House because he had
written such a wonderful letter to them.
The Reform Party opposes the current concept of
multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the
Government of Canada. We would end funding of the
multiculturalism program and support the abolition of the
department and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
If the Minister of Finance sincerely wants ideas on how to cut
the deficit he will get rid of this aspect of special interest
funding. He would immediately save the taxpayers of Canada
some $38.8 million a year. This also sends a powerful message
to all concerned that beliefs in self-reliance, the indomitable
spirit of the self in search of autonomy and independence is
encouraged and championed in Canada.
(1810)
Multiculturalism was introduced in the House of Commons
on October 8, 1971. In the 23 years that have followed, it has
been politically incorrect for anyone to criticize it. I will repeat
that. It has been politically incorrect for anyone to criticize it,
especially in the House of Commons. I do not know the number
of times I have had to bear the label of being bigoted because I
speak from a different point of view. I have no patience for that
any longer when all I want to do is bring reasoned and rational
debate to this issue.
In fact, members of Parliament from the Tories, the Grits and
the NDP have all used the multiculturalism policy in a way that I
believe is insincere, superficial and shallow in order to garner
political support from ethnic communities.
We all want the right to retain our roots, but what we have is
Trudeau's enforced multicultural scam and the costs have been
excessive. Ethnic group is pitted against ethnic group and the
country is fragmented into a thousand consciousnesses.
Trudeau's ideas about multiculturalism continue to contribute
as a primary factor in the erosion of federalism and Canada's
unity. Catering to special interest groups a la Trudeau and
company smashes the spine of federalism. This destructive
outcome is almost inevitable so long as we officially encourage
large groups to remain apart from the mainstream.
The multiculturalism policy of Canada was designed to
``recognize and promote the understanding that
multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of
Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members
of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural
heritage''. It is intended to ``promote full and equitable
participation of individuals and communities of all origins'' in
all aspects of Canadian life, including ``equal treatment and
equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing
their diversity''. The language of the policy is fairly innocuous
and well meaning, but in practice it endorses special interest
groups' agendas at the expense of the taxpayer.
Canadians remain unsure of what multiculturalism is, what it
is trying to do and why and what it can accomplish in a free and
democratic society such as ours. Multiculturalism can
encompass folk songs, dance, food, festivals, arts and crafts,
museums, heritage languages, ethnic studies, ethnic presses,
race relations, culture sharing and human rights. Much of the
opposition
11560
to multiculturalism results from the indiscriminate application
of the term to a wide range of situations, practices, expectations
and goals as well as its institutionalization as state policy, an
expensive one at that.
Public support for multiculturalism has been difficult to
ascertain. In the early 1970s when the Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended the government
introduce some ethnocultural policy, public support for
multiculturalism was at around 76 per cent.
An Angus Reid poll in 1991 showed that figure has not
changed much. It remains at 78 per cent. But what can we make
of this level of support? Little to nothing, I suggest. At the same
time that poll was being done, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's
Future reported some uneasiness about the Canadian public's
attitude toward multiculturalism policies. It stated:
Overwhelmingly, participants told us that reminding us of our different
origins is less useful in binding a unified country than emphasizing the things we
have in common. While Canadians accept and value Canada's cultural diversity,
they do not value many of the activities of the multicultural program of the
federal government. These are seen as expensive and divisive in that they remind
Canadians of their different origins rather than their shared symbols, society and
future.
Further to this, a Decima survey was commissioned by the
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews and was carried out in
October 1993. The survey found that three out of four Canadians
expressed a preference for an American style melting pot
approach to immigration over the multicultural mosaic that has
been officially promoted in Canada since the 1970s.
(1815 )
The survey also disclosed that Canadians generally are
increasingly intolerant of interest group demands and that there
is a relatively strong view that particularly ethnic, racial or
religious minorities must make more efforts to adapt to Canada
rather than insisting upon a maintenance of difference,
especially at federal expense. Roughly similar proportions of
visible minorities expressed the same sentiments.
This poll would suggest that it is the prevalent opinion
amongst the groups targeted to receive multiculturalism grants
that such grants are divisive. These are not my words; they come
from others.
As I mentioned, criticism of the status quo has been
increasing from the policy's supposed beneficiaries. For
example, a fellow by the name of Jimmy who emigrated from
Vietnam in 1980 and is now a technician at a photo processing
lab commented: ``The government spends too much money on
something that's not necessary. Canada has freedom and work
for anyone who wants it, and that is all newcomers need''. In
Richmond, a magazine editor by the name of Anthony agreed
that government-sanctioned segregation is no good for Canada.
What seems to be clear is that there is an erosion of support
for multiculturalism by the citizens of Canada. This erosion of
support for the multicultural approach, particularly given that
minorities themselves concur, does nothing to promote harmony
and unity in Canada because it does not recognize that all
Canadians are equal.
Our vision of Canada should be committed to the goal of
social and personal well-being that values individuality while
emphasizing themes like family and community assumption of
responsibility, problem-solving and communicating these
value-sets as a means to better group life. However, at no time
should the rights of a group supersede the rights of individuals,
unless the group happens to consist of a majority within Canada.
I have tried to show why the federal government's
interpretations of multicultural support must come to an end.
We can no longer spend money we do not have on financing such
a notion. The Angus Reid study from 1991 clearly shows that not
only has the multicultural program failed, but Canadians oppose
it. One of the main reasons that Canadians oppose this policy is
that it is divisive.
I would like to refer to Arthur Slessinger, Jr. Mr. Slessinger is
not a conservative thinker whom I trot out to support my
position. He is a well-known liberal, an American Democrat. He
is the quintessential Liberal's liberal. Slessinger believes that
by its very nature multiculturalism is dangerously divisive. It
encourages government to segregate citizens along racial,
ethnic and linguistic fault-lines. Then it compels them to dole
out rights and money according to the labels people wear. Far
better to focus on unifying forces, he advises, emphasising the
characteristics, desires and beliefs that citizens hold in
common. Otherwise, tribal hostilities will drive them apart.
Preservation of diverse cultural heritages can be left to
individuals, families and private self-financing organizations.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge that my own personal
circumstances are those that encompass a multicultural family. I
have a daughter who has dual citizenship with Australia and
Canada. I have another daughter who is married to a young man
from Mexico; his name is Fernando Rodríguez. I have European
roots myself, Croatian and Norwegian. My husband also has a
European background. Our family is multicultural. It reflects
very much the diversity and richness of those various cultures.
11561
I speak as a Reformer in this House. I believe there is no
place in our society for the federal government to continue to
fund multiculturalism. However, I do believe that there is a
price to be paid for forging a new nationality out of diverse
elements. Simply put, there is a fair degree of tolerance and
goodwill all around. I have learned that through my personal
experience.
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to take part in this debate and to set the record straight
and tell things the way they are. In Canada, multiculturalism is
not an ideal; it is a reality.
(1820)
[English]
Some people prefer to call this reality diversity or pluralism,
or refer to the programs, policies and issues as intercultural,
cross-cultural or ethnocultural. They can play the semantic
game if they wish, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
The hon. member who proposed this debate just said that we
should never support group rights unless they are a majority.
From my perspective and where I grew up, democracies are
judged by how they treat their minorities.
Multiculturalism is not just a matter of the right of choice,
which we all enjoy in our democracy in the maintaining of one's
cultural roots. It is about respecting the right and ensuring it for
all Canadians, whatever their race, religion, language or country
of origin. It is about fostering a climate of mutual respect in a
country where everyone is equal, where everyone has rights and,
yes, responsibilities too. It is about equality. As our Prime
Minister has said: ``Equality is not about special interests or
special rights. It is about social and economic justice.''
[Translation]
Canada has a rich democratic tradition. The principles of
justice, personal freedom, mutual respect, open mindedness,
freedom, integration and the shared notions of justice have
guided and shaped our social structures, our laws, our
institutions and our way of life.
[English]
These are basic community and fundamental Canadian
values. I would remind my hon. colleague-
[Translation]
-that the Prime Minister of Canada has often said our country's
unity depends on its diversity, which is also our strength. It is in
fact the essence of Canada.
[English]
I would say that we know that peace, prosperity and social
harmony do not come from wishful thinking or letting the
marketplace dictate or letting personal feelings prevail. They
are partners in that undertaking, perhaps. They can only come
about, in my perspective and in the perspective of this party,
from good public policy, collaboration with the private sector,
commitment and determination, and community goodwill.
[Translation]
The aim of the federal multicultural programs is to promote
understanding among the various cultural communities. Who
would quarrel with this objective? These programs are intended
to help newcomers integrate into the country, to eliminate the
obstacles to participation by all Canadians and to break down
borders and put a stop to racial discrimination.
[English]
From a business and trade perspective, we find these policies
have great economic benefits. The more we know about global
markets, the more we can use the cultural and linguistic
knowledge of Canadians in competing in those very markets
where we now do global business and the more we will all
benefit.
These are some of the things that multiculturalism is all
about. It is far more than a case of enhancing and preserving
culture. The hon. member surely realizes that we do not live in a
perfect society.
There is discrimination, and although we may be number one
on the UN list, we have not reached nirvana or utopia, to my
knowledge, as yet. There are still talented people out there,
citizens denied full access to the economic mainstream. There
are still people out there sitting on the margins who have a vital
contribution to make but are not able to make it because of
discrimination, because of lack of understanding.
[Translation]
Linguistic, racial and religious tensions lead to
misunderstanding. We sometimes take advantage of the public
good. We often want to do things our way and we find it hard to
put ourselves in others' shoes.
[English]
Good public policy and programs help all of us to stand tall
and walk in confidence and pride as if we were in the other
person's shoes.
(1825 )
I believe that Canada's multicultural policies and programs
have helped ensure peace and stability over our great land.
Certainly the rest of the world seems to think so.
By weaving together all the diverse cultures that people our
land, we have created a magnificent Canadian tapestry,
reflecting our Canadian culture, which is more than the sum of
all its dynamic parts. At a cost that is not extraordinary, less than
$1 per Canadian per year, this policy works at breaking down
barriers and promoting institutional advances, thus providing
individuals, as the member puts it, the freedom to pursue their
11562
own cultural ideals in a society that can accommodate
differences, build bridges, and profit from its pluralism.
Multiculturalism is not about living separately side by side; it
is about living together. It is not about building walls; it is about
tearing them down. It is about inclusion, not exclusion. It is
about the fact that we are all Canadians. It is about respecting
each other.
This government demonstrates leadership by tapping into the
current and potential benefits of diversity. The multicultural
program and policy, as I have said before, are good government
policies. Its practices have evolved and are complemented by
partnerships with individuals, corporations, organizations and
other levels of government, whom I thank, as well as those
individuals who serve them in a voluntary capacity.
Just for the member's information, we do not do song and
dance or festivals, as she points out.
I am happy to share with the hon. member the initiatives we
have taken with the Canadian Advertising Council and its study
called ``Colour Your Money'', which shows that with
sensitivity, good hiring practices and with the kind of publicity
one would like to put out in our advertising milieu, diversity can
be a very profitable business because one feels at home and
welcome in the environment. I would be more than happy to
share the successful partnerships we have had with the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Conference Board of
Canada, the Asia-Pacific Foundation, the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, Cineplex-Odeon, and many others too numerous
to name.
We look to the future by working together with Canada's
youth, with teachers, school boards and school trustees, by
assisting in the development of films and books and then making
them available to the children in our schools and in our public
libraries. We build an environment that helps shape their lives.
By encouraging understanding and co-operation among our
youth, we help shape the future of Canada, a future of mutual
respect, understanding and co-operation.
I would advise the hon. member-she spoke on the day to
eliminate racism-to look at that group. It is a fine group that we
help fund. We are very pleased with the work that many of these
groups do, both in their voluntary and professional roles.
[Translation]
We must affirm and reaffirm the Canadian values expressed in
our constitution and in the charter of rights and freedoms-the
freedoms we take for granted-the right and the duty of each
Canadian to protect and promote this exceptional democracy
and to participate in it fully and equally.
[English]
Recently the Governor General said during his moving
swearing-in speech: ``I believe we still learn as much from our
differences as from our similarities. When we only talk among
ourselves, all we get back are echoes. We only grow if we take
the time to quietly and carefully listen to each other.''
[Translation]
He added that, in Canada, we recognize one fact in life. People
here are true to their origins, and they bring their origins here
with them. An infinite variety of traditions and cultures make up
Canada's unique mosaic, providing a fine example for the
world.
[English]
I would say to my hon. colleague, who has put what I consider
to be an unenlightened approach before this House, that there
are no hyphenated Canadians and there is no segregation in our
policy. If someone chooses to segregate or hyphenate
themselves, they have the freedom and the right to do so. It is too
bad they feel they must separate themselves from the glorious
undertakings that we have as a country and a nation that is the
envy of the world in this regard.
(1830)
I would say to her in my closing remarks that the bottom line
to my hon. colleague is that national values can cut across racial,
religious and cultural lines in Canada, allowing
multiculturalism to flourish in the best interests of all of us. It
would ensure ``old-fashioned Canadian common sense'' to be
the inheritance of all of our children's tomorrows.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
intend to speak as the official opposition critic for
multiculturalism, and I want to thank the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast for giving me this opportunity to repeat the
position of the Bloc quebecois on the federal government's
multiculturalism policy. We believe there are several reasons
why this policy should be abolished.
To put this debate into perspective, it would be useful to
consider the official definition of this multiculturalism policy as
read in a news bulletin from the Library of Parliament. We read
that the term multiculturalism in Canada evokes the presence
and survival of various racial and ethnic minorities that identify
themselves as being different and wish to stay that way.
We should now look at the sequence of events that led up to
the adoption of the policy on multiculturalism. It is 1971, under
the Trudeau government, and the report of the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has just been
published. Always according to the library's news bulletin, the
fourth volume of the report dealt with the contribution of ethnic
groups
11563
to the enrichment of Canadian culture and recommended the
integration (and not assimilation) into Canadian society of
non-founding ethnic groups, recognizing their rights and
privileges as citizens and making them equal participants in
Canada's institutions.
We should also remember that a new political party was
founded in Quebec with the sovereignty of Quebec as its stated
objective, and that in the election held the previous year, it
obtained 22 per cent of the popular vote.
How ironic. Feeling the pressure from this new expression of
Quebec's desire for independence, coming as it did shortly after
the October crisis, the Trudeau team, including the present
Prime Minister, decided to make some adjustments to the
report's recommendation. As a result, the concept of integration
that would recognize the rights of members of ethnic groups and
their equal participation in society was abandoned in favour of
the concept of promoting cultural differences. In so doing, the
whole dialectic of two founding peoples with their own
language and culture was submerged and diluted in this ocean of
other languages and cultures.
It was a fine sleight of hand, and most Canadians did not
notice, except, of course, Quebecers. Through then Premier
Robert Bourassa, Quebecers resolutely dissociated themselves
from this concept.
In an open letter to Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Bourassa first reminded
his federal counterpart that his proposal was a betrayal of the
work done by the commission, whose focus had been
bilingualism and biculturalism, and thus the equal status of the
two peoples. He regretted Mr. Trudeau's decision to dissociate
culture and language. He went on to reject out of hand a policy
whose objective would be to promote languages other than
French in Quebec. Finally, he reminded the federal leader that in
this case, the jurisdictions were purely provincial.
Quebec never changed its position, although leaders and
political options changed regularly over the years. In fact,
Quebec developed its own policy for integrating cultural
communities, a policy similar to the one proposed by the
Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission.
In Quebec, the emphasis is on integration. Not assimilation
but integration. The official definition of integration is as
follows: integration is long term multi-dimensional process of
adaptation, distinct from assimilation. In this process, the
knowledge and use of the common language of Quebec society
is a fundamental driving force. The process is consolidated in a
society, where participation by all Quebecers is guaranteed and
where immigrants and members of cultural communities find
their place and are recognized as full members of the communal,
social and political life of a pluralistic francophone society.
(1835)
This policy has received unanimous approval in Quebec; it is
never an issue, unlike the Canadian policy.
We cannot help but notice that multiculturalism enjoys
anything but unanimous approval. The Decima and Gallup polls
published in 1993 showed that 75 per cent of Canadians rejected
the policy of multiculturalism and favoured a style of
integration similar to Quebec's.
Given the government's investment in multiculturalism, it is
a sad thing to see it fail. For the year 1993-94 alone, the
government invested $38,846 million. The program has existed
for 20 years. How many billions of dollars have been invested to
date in a flawed policy which the country does not want?
The policy is not working and even its target public, members
of ethnic communities, are criticizing it. I cite as an example the
overwhelming support for Neil Bissoondath's first book. His
supporters were unanimous in saying that the government
should only concern itself with helping immigrants to integrate
into our society and fighting racism-end of story. He noted that
the federal government's policy tended to create ethnic ghettos,
which in no way foster integration and full participation in
political, economic and social life.
We also cannot leave unmentioned the absurdities made
possible by the multiculturalism policy. Barely six months ago,
a consultation paper from the Minister of Justice proposed that
culture or religion be permitted as a defence against criminal
charges. Because of the ensueing uproar, the minister had to
recant and withdraw the proposal. That is one example of how
far some people will go to promote different cultures.
In closing, I would like to stress that a sovereign Quebec
would continue to favour integration and respect. The current
Minister of International Affairs, Cultural Communities and
Immigration, Bernard Landry, confirmed that position just a
month ago.
Please allow me to quote him: ``Quebec will not use the public
purse to subsidize cultural differences. Our government is
against multiculturalism. Although the Quebec government
acknowledges the fact that Quebec is multi-ethnic, it favours a
policy of cultural convergence in one common culture, fortified
by foreign sources''. That sums up well Quebec's position on
multiculturalisml and deals with the issue effectively.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill
M-364, a motion advocating the transfer of responsibility for
cultural preservation to individuals by discontinuing federal
multicultural programs, proposed by the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast. Today I would like to take the opportunity to
address some of the arguments utilized by opponents of
Canada's multicultural program.
Unfortunately, over the past few years the spread of
misinformation regarding our federal multicultural policy has
been prevalent. The popular misconception of multiculturalism
is of
11564
a government-funded program that pays people to, first, keep
their native cultures and languages, and, second, that serves to
divide the country. These myths have, to an extent, been further
propagated following the release of Mr. Neil Bissoondath's
recent book, entitled ``Selling Illusions: The Cult of
Multiculturalism''. Although I certainly welcome this
interesting publication as a means of stimulating debate in this
area, I must also state my reservation about the unsubstantiated
assertions made therein.
Mr. Bissoondath has misread the effects of multiculturalism
by insinuating that money spent on multicultural events will
reinforce stereotypes and lead to a break-up of the country
socially.
I find perplexing the assumption that, for example, the
display of a community's traditional dance could lead to
divisiveness and negative stereotyping. This conclusion clearly
is not credible. We know that multiculturalism does not promote
or reinforce negative stereotypes.
(1840)
In reference to the dance, I and my family, as individuals and
collectively, felt that we must preserve certain customs,
traditions and beliefs. Based on those needs, because of our
ethnic background, we preserved what we wanted, what we felt
was honourable and desirable to preserve and pass on from
generation to generation. One of those activities was Ukrainian
dance. Everyone in my family learned how to do the Kolemyka,
the Hopokola, and other dances, which we all immensely
enjoyed, not only with our members of the family but with other
people in the community.
In these dances, there were not only those who were of
Ukrainian ethnic background but of a multitude of ethnic
backgrounds. That was the composition of the community in
which I was raised. We all lived in perfect harmony with each
other. No one decided that there should be a barrier between the
Italians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Ukrainians or the
Slovaks. We all had basically the same needs.
Moreover, Mr. Bissoondath draws a link between
multiculturalism and the marginalization of immigrants. He
relates the story of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson, who, in a
24-hour period, was transformed in media sports from ``the
Canadian who had won Olympic gold through effort to the
Jamaican immigrant who had lost it through use of drugs''. It
was from the positive to the negative, from the Canadian to the
Jamaican immigrant. In my mind it is very clear that this type of
media report is a result of ignorance and unconscious prejudice.
It is certainly not a result of multiculturalism's assumed
marginalizing effects.
The reality is that multiculturalism brings strength to this
country. It is, however, a human characteristic to react in a
reflex-like and emotional manner when confronted with
unsubstantiated stories about certain communities. We should
not allow rumours and hearsay to determine our policies.
Unfounded stories are not based upon educated opinion and
most certainly are not based upon facts.
I expect that the Reform Party's position is the result of
sloppy and inaccurate research because I certainly do not want
to believe that they are intentionally misguiding the Canadian
public. Not for one moment do I believe that they would do such
a thing.
However, Mr. Neil Bissoondath in his book, when referring to
the Reform Party's opposition to multiculturalism, indicates:
my attitude is at best suspicious. Reform strikes me as a party that suffers from
an astounding lack of social generosity and counts among its membership too
many who are either racially minded or, to coin a phrase,
knowledge-challenged.
Multiculturalism was officially introduced into Parliament on
October 8, 1971. It was expected to be a vehicle through which
we would achieve a cultural mosaic, as opposed to the U.S.
melting pot. Today, 42 per cent of Canadians have origins that
are other than British or French. While people with European
origins still make up the largest number of Canadians, more and
more immigrants are coming to Canada from Asia, Africa, the
Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.
This is changing the face of the Canadian population. In the
1986 census, visible minorities accounted for 6.3 per cent of the
Canadian population. By 1991 this figure was almost 10 per
cent. The visible minority population of major cities is greater.
For instance, in Toronto it is 26 per cent; Vancouver, 24 per cent;
and in Montreal, 11 per cent.
Canada's multiculturalism policy is one expression of
leadership. The multiculturalism policy is rooted in Canadian
values. It is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which establishes the fundamental freedoms and
democratic rights of all individual Canadians, irrespective of
national or ethnic origin. It is also consistent with the Canadian
Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act and the
Citizenship Act.
(1845)
Multiculturalism, as described under federal policy, is
concerned with helping people become full participants in the
life of Canada. It is certainly not concerned with the mandatory
retention of culture and does not encourage cultural isolation, as
some critics erroneously charge. There are the so-called ghettos
of our communities where we my find, as we find in Thunder
Bay, a large gathering of a certain group of people with a
specific ethnic background. We find this happening because
they choose to be neighbours. They choose based on their every
day needs to be in constant contact with each other, to help each
other, until they reach the point where they can communicate
with anyone in their neighbourhood in the common language of
11565
the area. In our case it could be English or, as in Quebec, it could
be French.
In 1993-94, $25.5 million was spent on the federal
multicultural program, which is less than Brian Mulroney spent
on his prime ministerial aircraft. The notion that $25.5 million
per year, which is less than a dollar per citizen, could ensure the
isolation of Canadians into cultural-ethnic cliques is hardly
believable. Moreover, one must keep in mind that an important
component of the original policy was founded on the assumption
that encouraging people to be confident in their own cultures
would allow them to be accepting of the cultures of other
groups. The official policy encourages Canadians of all ethnic
origins to participate fully in the economic and social life of
Canada, sharing their cultures and histories with each other.
It is unfortunate that members in the opposition benches are
insinuating that multiculturalism and cultural diversity
somehow preclude national unity and inhibit our ability to be
part of the whole. This could not be further from the truth.
Canadians of all origins do maintain a sense of their own
cultural identity and at the same time adhere to the Canadian
values of democracy and tolerance. There is no reason to believe
that the two are mutually exclusive. That is a notion that has
somehow been propagated by opponents of multiculturalism
and it is extremely misleading and irresponsible. The proof for
this is in the Canada of today. We are culturally diverse, and yet
if we ask the majority of immigrants they will tell you that they
are first and foremost Canadians.
I would like to conclude with a quote from a Toronto Star
article dated June 21, 1991. It refers to the experience of an
author. Her name is Myrna Kostash, grand-daughter of
Ukrainian immigrants that settled in Alberta. She stated:
Multiculturalism policy and its institutions allowed me to take part in
Canadian life. It allowed me to get out of the ghetto. During my own childhood,
ethnic cultures were private, taking place in Ukrainian churches and in youth
groups. I was aware that I was dropping out of my peer group in order to be
Ukrainian. But with the advent of multiculturalism, I felt that when I spoke as a
Canadian-Ukrainian writer, I was doing it within the mainstream institutions of
Canadian literary life. I became a Canadian through this sense of entitlement. I
didn't have to choose between public and private cells. Both came together
through multiculturalism.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House to speak in favour of my
colleague's motion, private member's motion No. 364. The
motion provides for the transfer of the control of
multiculturalism away from the federal government to
individuals. Essentially, the motion put forward by my
colleague from Calgary Southeast calls for the withdrawal of
federal funding to multicultural groups.
I concur with that objective. However, just because I think the
state should not be funding various cultural groups does not
mean that I dislike these groups. Just because I disagree with
government imposed multicultural policies it should not be
construed to suggest that I dislike other linguistic or ethnic
groups. I am arguing against government policy, not against
cultural groups.
(1850)
After all my roots are different from the roots of many other
people. Together those generations of various ancestral heritage
came to this country to settle and build what became by far the
best country in the world. This country was opened up, settled
and built without a multicultural policy. In fact I doubt if the
term multiculturalism was even coined when my parents came
to this country back in the twenties.
My roots are a mixture, a real hodge-podge so to speak. My
linguistic heritage is Prussian German but my ancestral
affiliation and connection include not only central European
heritage but east European heritage, Slavic heritage, including
Ukrainian, Polish and Russian. My parents understood and
spoke these languages, plus what they called Yiddish. I am led to
believe that Yiddish is a kind of Germanic way of speaking
Hebrew. If that makes any linguistic sense I really do not know.
In a land, in a country, that encompasses much of the earth's land
mass with over 150 cultural groups, who am I to question what
makes sense in that part of the world. Come to think of it,
perhaps there are lessons to be learned given the turmoil that
existed for centuries in tsarist imperial Russia, then in the
former Soviet Union and presently in the newly created state of
Russia.
My parents left their homelands, along with hundreds of
thousands of other people from that area, having lived in those
lands for almost 200 years. They left to escape the tyranny that
was to enslave the people for over 70 years. They came to
Canada, where everything was new and very unfamiliar. They
had nothing when they came halfway around the world.
However they had freedom. They had liberty. They had liberty
and freedom that the people back in the land from whence my
parents came could not even imagine or dream about. My
parents embraced their newly adopted country with energy and a
zeal that was typical of newcomers during that time. Like those
who came from places other than Britain, they soon learned
English like everyone else. Some youngsters did not learn
English until they started school.
For years, for generations, like thousands of families not only
from eastern Europe but from all over the world they held on to
some aspects of the culture that they had lived with before they
came to this country.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to know something? These people
all came usually with little or no money and they received not
one thin dime from government. Not only did they not ask for
money, they did not expect any government money. They came
to this country for freedom and for the tremendous opportunities
11566
that this great and beautiful land afforded them. They settled and
built communities that helped to build this country.
I suggest to the multicultural minister that what transpired
during those pioneering decades was real, genuine, unvarnished
multiculturalism. All these people, these families from varied
backgrounds, from different parts of the world worked together
and co-operated to build churches, schools and communities.
Together they worked to build the country.
That was multiculturalism at its finest with no government
dollars. They were all proud of the fact that they had become and
were Canadian.
Since government funding for all types of programs began,
many communities have divided. Friction and animosity has
developed. Dependency on the state, on government handouts
has been created. Apparently the multicultural minister thinks
so too because she has recently mused that Canada has no
culture.
(1855)
I would suggest the minister leave the confines of Montreal
and Ottawa and visit rural Canada, the west and Atlantic
Canada. She might be pleasantly surprised, if she stays for
awhile, of the flourishing culture that she might not only see but
also feel. I suspect culture in this country would flourish even
more and probably bring Canadians closer together from all
parts of the country if the state would only get its nasty little
nose out of culture, along with its close sister multiculturalism.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know I have a very short time so I will try to be brief.
It is very difficult to be brief.
Multiculturalism is about a participatory democracy. The
members opposite have consistently used the myths out there in
society to defend a position instead of using that which they
know to be the truth and the facts from the department itself.
My colleague and I were talking about experiences when we
were growing up, experiences that are still happening today,
where the teachers would stream whole classrooms of kids into
vocational schools because they were Italian, Portuguese,
Ukrainian, Polish or what have you. That happened then and it is
happening now in Toronto with the Portuguese kids. It is
happening with the black children. It is happening everywhere.
Multiculturalism tries to break down those kinds of barriers
so that those children have equal access by providing race
relations programs and holding discussions in schools to
understand the differences, that these children are not inferior in
any way. We were not. My whole generation was streamed into
vocational schools when we came to this country.
Multiculturalism empowered my whole generation and a lot of
other Canadians who were of different backgrounds and did not
have the ability.
I will tell another story. Earlier today we were talking about
Harbourfront. Not long ago, in the late 1980s, a group was
putting on a poetry reading. They were choosing the names of
poets who were published but not yet well known across Canada.
One of the staffers who happened to be of Ukrainian background
said: ``Oh, there is a really good poet I know in Toronto who is
published in his community but not across the country. His name
is Pier Giorgio DeCicco''. They said: ``This is for Canadians,
not for foreigners''.
The multiculturalism policy is intended to create
participatory democracy, to give access, to give equality, to
allow Canada to evolve into a strong nation.
We talk about the fact that we are Canadians and we have all
these common symbols but it is a bunch of garbage and words
because it means bloody nothing when it comes down to the
facts and the lives of every Canadian, when it comes to the
systemic discrimination that exists in all institutions.
I spent 20 years of my life working in Toronto with
multicultural and immigrant groups. Most of that time I spent
fighting the invisible discrimination and systemic barriers in the
school systems and in social services that people could not
access because they were not of Anglo background. To this day
in metropolitan Toronto, one still cannot access the majority of
the dollars for social programs unless one is from the Anglo
community.
This is about participatory democracy, rights, equality and
being a Canadian. The members opposite should inform
themselves before they speak about myths.
(1900 )
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of things I would like to say. First, I have very much
appreciated having the opportunity to debate this matter today
with other members of the House. I note their passion and their
sense of wanting to debate this further. To that end I would seek
unanimous consent of the House that this become a votable item
and move it to committee as quickly as possible for further
discussion.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
11567
11567
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Justice on
February 15. It regards the disturbing trend whereby defence
lawyers subpoena private and confidential files and records
from counsellors at sexual assault centres, from psychiatrists,
doctors and other personal counsellors for use in the defence of
their clients.
I thank the minister for his attention to this issue and for his
informed response. However, I would like to share with the
House the angst and concern that exists among constituents in
my riding when they think of these personal documents being
brought into the courtroom.
I like to share with the House some words from a constituent
who wrote to me: ``For many of us, the only safe place to talk
about our injuries is in therapy. Therapy is a place where victims
can learn to re-establish their own self-worth without being
abused again. The counsellor offers the support that is
desperately needed in order to learn how to set safe boundaries,
learn about self-worth, the right to privacy, that it is okay to say
no, it is okay to validate our own needs, it is okay to be angry and
how to express that anger in a safe and constructive manner.
``In therapy, we learn that we are not powerless to our
perpetrators and that it was not okay to be violated in the manner
in which we were. We are given a place to safely express our
emotions and validate our own feelings, even if we are the only
ones that do. For many of us this is the only safe support that we
have.
``This is a very sad day because now the defence lawyers want
to take away what little privacy we as victims have and violate
us all over again. My therapy is very personal to me. I can talk
about my pain and my goals, my hopes and my fears. I pay good
money for the right for that support to allow me to create my
own boundaries. I urge you as a representative of my
government to stop this injustice''.
Those words are poignant and they are instructive. They tell
us that victims of violence do not want these very private and
therapeutic conversations to be part of the courtroom
proceedings.
In 1992 the House passed very good legislation with the rape
shield law. We know recently that in Nova Scotia the law was
challenged and fortunately, the Minister of Justice intervened
and the integrity of that law was maintained. With this right to
subpoena we see a back door approach to get confidential
information into the courtrooms where it should not be and
where it creates difficulties for people like my constituent.
I know the minister is working very hard on this. I know he
has intervened in the Supreme Court case that is reviewing the
result of a B.C. appeal that would require strict controls over the
use of this information in court. I thank the minister for that
intervention. I hope the Supreme Court will judge in favour and
allow the result of the appeal in the B.C. judgment to be
available to all of us in Canada.
I ask the minister to continue his diligent review in this
regard. I realize the issues are complex, but I ask him to find a
balance between providing a fair trial for the accused and for the
victim a right to privacy.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Brant has said, this is a
troubling and complex issue which places in conflict two
compelling sets of interests.
On the one hand, victims need to be able to seek counselling
and medical assistance in confidence and with full respect for
their privacy and personal integrity, both at the time of their
counselling and later on in any court proceedings. On the other
hand, people accused of serious offences need to be able to bring
forth relevant evidence that may establish their innocence.
Courts across the country are grappling in individual cases with
the very difficult balance of victims' and accused persons'
interests.
(1905)
The Supreme Court of Canada heard argument on this issue in
the case of O'Connor v. the Queen on February 1. The federal
government intervened in that case to urge the court to endorse a
strengthened version of the guidelines developed by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has reserved its
decision.
The O'Connor guidelines developed by the B.C. Court of
Appeal are designed to prevent fishing expeditions into the
complainant's past. They place the onus on the person seeking
access to the records to establish that they are relevant. This is
done through a two part procedure which may be done in camera
with a ban on publication and at which the complainant and the
holder of the records are not compellable witnesses.
At present and subject to the decision of the Supreme Court,
the O'Connor procedure is binding only in British Columbia. At
a January federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers
responsible for justice, it was agreed to review the B.C. Court of
Appeal guidelines with a view to having them adopted in each
jurisdiction. This would govern the situation pending the
decision of the Supreme Court in O'Connor and pending any
new legislation in that area.
11568
It was further agreed that the issue requires urgent attention.
Consequently, officials were directed to work on it and report
to the deputy ministers at their next meeting in the spring.
The Department of Justice is consulting with interested
groups and individuals to determine how personal records are in
fact used, to fully explore all perspectives and concerns, and to
develop ways of balancing the complainant's interests with
those of the accused.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on March 29 I rose in the Chamber to put a question
to the Minister of the Environment. At that time world leaders
were just beginning talks in Berlin aimed at stabilizing levels of
greenhouse gases now threatening earth's climate.
The talks are the result of the June 1992 meetings of 106 of the
world's nations. Those talks were held in Rio de Janeiro with the
purpose to sign the framework convention on climate change.
Since that meeting in Rio, more than 100 nations have ratified
the Rio treaty. Now in Berlin the world's leaders are meeting to
assess our progress since 1992 and consider proposals to
strengthen the agreement.
Sadly, as important and indeed as critical as this is, there is
not much to assess. Canada, like so many other countries that
made commitments to the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, has failed miserably to live up to those
commitments. As we speak tonight, the Minister of the
Environment is likely in Berlin. Just as likely, she is
embarrassed by the position Canada is in with regard to the
commitments we made in Rio.
When we look at what has happened since Rio, we do not have
to look far to see that nearly nine billion more tonnes of carbon
have accumulated in the atmosphere and the evidence of climate
change is mounting. In fact, in response to the crisis the Minister
of the Environment acknowledged the crisis and even went so
far as to say that if Canada and the other nations which are
emitting greenhouse gases do not do something about this,
climate change and global warming will create a situation where
floods will occur off the east coast of Canada and tiny but
beautiful Prince Edward Island will be all but submerged.
It is hard for me to imagine that the Minister of the
Environment knows about the possibility of this catastrophic
event and she is not prepared to take immediate and dramatic
steps to combat it. I hope we do not have to wait for the day when
my good friends in Prince Edward Island are looking for new
homes in Ontario or Saskatchewan before we begin to take this
issue seriously.
Carbon emissions are increasing. This represents a trend that
is moving dangerously in the wrong direction.
According to the latest Worldwatch magazine, in order to stop
the accumulation of greenhouse gases and allow the earth to
return to equilibrium over a period of centuries-yes, you heard
me correctly, Mr. Speaker, I said centuries-scientists say that
carbon emissions will have to be reduced to the rate at which the
oceans can absorb them, or 60 to 80 per cent below today's rate.
Yet on the current path, emissions are projected to increase by
60 per cent within the next two decades. Obviously the earth's
atmosphere will require sharp cuts in industrial country
emissions and a rapid slowdown in emissions growth in
developing countries. This means that all the nations of the
world need to have action plans in place to guide the progress of
this critical issue. No nation can afford to sit on the sidelines.
It is clear the world is facing an issue with uniquely large and
irreversible consequences. The delegates in Berlin cannot afford
to waste the opportunity to begin turning the ship around. Given
that, I ask the minister why Canada's wimpy actions on climate
change are not as forceful as our resolve to preserve the fish
stocks off the Atlantic coast.
I hope the government today is prepared to say we have to do
better.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government in partnership with the
provinces and territories has reached a national consensus on the
directions Canada will take to address the challenge of climate
change.
In a meeting in Toronto on February 20, energy and
environment ministers from the federal, provincial and
territorial governments agreed to Canada's national action
program on climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister tabled
the action plan today at the first conference of the parties to the
framework convention on climate change in Berlin.
The action program sets out the strategic directions Canada
will follow to meet its commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The action program is
based on the principle of sustainable development as advocated
by the Brundtland commission, an approach in which
environmental, social and economic policies are fully
integrated.
Consequently, the action program provides the opportunity
for each jurisdiction in Canada to undertake actions appropriate
to their circumstances. The program is a living document. The
federal, provincial and territorial governments are committed to
reviewing the program regularly to ensure that Canada's
stabilization commitment is met.
Toward that end all ministers committed to review progress
by late 1990 and agreed to continue developing options to close
the 13 per cent stabilization gap that currently exists. The
release today of Quebec's action plan on climate change is a
noteworthy example of the action being taken by other
jurisdictions in Canada.
11569
The aim of this government as stated in the red book is to
co-operatively work with provincial and urban governments to
improve energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable
energies.
Responding to the challenge of climate change represents a
tremendous opportunity for Canadians to use their
entrepreneurial spirit to forge ahead with creative and credible
solutions, solutions that work for the environment and for our
economy.
[Translation]
The President: Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order
38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.)