CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 28, 1995
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 11105
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11112
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11131
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11135
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11136
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11136
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11136
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11137
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11138
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11138
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11138
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11138
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11139
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11139
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11141
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11141
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11143
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11143
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11143
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and amendment 11144
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11144
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11148
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11151
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11155
Bill C-73. Consideration resumed of motionfor third reading 11166
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 11166
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of reportstage and amendments 11166
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 38;Nays, 183 11166
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 48;Nays, 174 11167
Motion for concurrence 11168
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 90 11169
Bill C-73 Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 11170
(Motion agreed to.) 11170
Bill C-263. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 11170
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11174
11099
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 28, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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
25 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages,
the 1994 Public Report and Program Outlook of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present to Parliament the fourth annual
statement on public security. I have just tabled in the House the
1994 Public Report and Program Outlook of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
This year, for the first time, the CSIS public report provides
both a review of the current security environment and a
projection of CSIS resource requirements in future years.
As well, in the program outlook section of the public report,
the service gives detailed breakdowns of both budget and
personnel levels in this and future years. This is a continuation
of the government's commitment to accountability and
openness in the security sector.
[Translation]
1994 was marked by a number of events involving CSIS. The
allegations made last summer regarding the service's
connection with the Heritage Front were investigated extremely
carefully. In spite of the stir caused by all these events, CSIS
continued to operate and adapt to a changing world.
[English]
1994 also marked the 10th anniversary of the creation of
CSIS, our civilian security agency. What a change we now see
from those early days of 1984 when the Warsaw Pact alliance,
under the leadership of the Soviet Union, was one of the
dominant factors in world affairs.
In 1984 we were in the middle of an era of east-west relations
where the focus of security services such as ours was aimed at
the counterintelligence aspects of protecting national security.
It could be said that 10 years ago when CSIS came into being it
was a simpler world. We thought we knew where most of the
threats came from and therefore targeted our resources
accordingly.
Today we face a very different situation from 10 years ago
with the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact following the
collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the end of the
intelligence struggles of the cold war. We know and are very
much aware that today's threats come as much from groups and
individuals as they do from sovereign states. Today's threats are
targeted as much against economic targets as they once were
against military objectives. Today's threats involve
organizations which do not recognize international boundaries
or jurisdictions.
We have also seen the emergence of new national security
threats, including weapons proliferation and an increase in
transnational organized crime. Along with the evolution of some
of the mainstream global linkages such as those in business,
information and technology, security issues as well have
become truly global in nature. Just last week we were witness to
a shocking act of terrorism on the subway lines of Tokyo. These
senseless acts have a chilling effect on public confidence. They
bring home immediately and graphically the concerns we all
have about the continued proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.
Canadians have had to deal with terrorists and acts of
terrorism. We must continue to do our part to monitor and
combat international terrorist organizations in order that tragic
incidents do not repeat themselves.
11100
CSIS works hard to contribute to the international fight
against terrorism through its domestic security investigations
as well as through liaison with foreign counterparts, by working
closely with domestic police services at all levels and through
effective consultation and information sharing with other
government departments.
(1010 )
CSIS helps to prevent terrorists from either entering Canada
or from using our country as a recruiting or a training ground for
illegal activities. Coupled with this international co-operation
is a concerted effort, through the CSIS counter-terrorism
program, to prevent foreign conflicts from taking root in our
communities.
In order to accomplish this CSIS undertakes a broad range of
activities such as investigating attempts by terrorist
organizations to raise moneys in Canada to support terrorist acts
in other lands, to manipulate members of immigrant
communities in Canada or establish safe havens for those who
have committed acts of terrorism in their homelands.
[Translation]
It is ironic that the very characteristics of this country that
give us this quality of life we enjoy in Canada and endear it to
honest citizens are also the ones that attract terrorists looking to
escape international justice.
International terrorism has become such a serious concern
that discussions at the highest level will continue. I expect this is
an issue the Prime Minister will raise at the G-7 summit he will
be chairing in Halifax in June.
[English]
Although serious political violence is most frequently
manifested in the international arena, it can also find its roots
within our nation's borders. The Heritage Front affair brought
home for many Canadians the fact that terrorism has a
psychological component as well as a physically violent one. It
brought home the fact that extremist organizations such as the
Heritage Front operate both in our major cities and in our rural
communities.
It gave Canadians a rare glimpse of how our security service
investigates the kinds of political extremism that can pose a
threat to our national security. The Heritage Front affair also
gave Canadians an insight into the checks and balances which
were built into the CSIS act.
The allegations surrounding the service's involvement with
the Heritage Front triggered an immediate investigation by the
Security Intelligence Review Committee, just as the legislation
intended. This test of the review mechanisms in the CSIS act
reaffirmed the importance of these mechanisms and confirmed
that they are generally working well.
SIRC conducted a thorough and timely investigation of the
allegations and presented a report which found that the white
supremacist movement ``was and is a threat to the security of
Canada'', that CSIS acted properly in its dealings with the
Heritage Front, and that the allegations made against CSIS were
without foundation.
As members of the House know, the service is expressly
prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or
dissent. However, it is mandated to investigate politically
motivated acts of violence. I am sure that all members of the
House will agree that racism, neo-Nazism and white
supremacism have no place in Canadian society and certainly do
not belong in Canada.
The accountability cycle does not end with special reports of
the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It is important to
note that in response to the variety of allegations which
accompanied the Heritage Front affair, the inspector general of
CSIS prepared a report dealing with the handling of national
security documents in the office of my predecessor and is also
preparing a report on the handling of human sources by the
service. As well, SIRC performs ongoing work in the
preparation of its annual report, which I as Solicitor General
tabled in both Houses of Parliament in the fall of this year.
Operational accountability is one thing, but in these times of
restraint and program review there is a need for fiscal
accountability as well. Last year, for the first time, CSIS' actual
salary, capital and operating costs were released by me in what I
referred to at the time as a three-line budget. I should point out
that this is a major departure from the traditional one-line
budget that is released by most western intelligence services.
(1015 )
This year, in conformity with the changes this government has
implemented in order to provide members with more
meaningful financial information, I am pleased to report that the
CSIS 1994 public report and program outlook provides more
information than ever before about the service's resource and
personnel levels. I want to compliment the service on being one
of the first government departments or agencies to publicly
release their program outlook documents.
Upon examination of the program outlook, and I conclude my
statement with some comments about this, members will find
that CSIS is being fiscally responsible and is a full partner in the
government-wide program review exercise.
It will be noted that the service's resource levels will decrease
from $206.8 million in the 1994-95 fiscal year to a projected
$159 million in 1997-98. As well, the personnel levels will drop
from a peak of 2,760 under the previous government to roughly
2,000 by 1997-98.
This means that the service will have to continue to respond to
Canadian security needs in a manner consistent with the
government's fiscal targets. I want hon. members to know that I
have been assured by the director of CSIS that the situation is
11101
manageable and will not compromise Canada's national
security.
I look forward to the comments of opposition colleagues. I
hope they will agree that the global security intelligence
environment is a volatile and unpredictable one. I trust they will
understand that the basic nature of threats to national security
have changed with the times and that this government and its
security service are adapting to those changes.
I hope members opposite and Canadians as a whole will
recognize the need in these rapidly changing times for the
continuance of a domestic security service. We must be prepared
to deal with threats to our national security. To do otherwise
would be irresponsible and could lead to the undermining of our
cherished freedoms and values.
[Translation]
By passing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in
1984, Parliament established an organization responsible for
ensuring the security of Canada and its citizens, while at the
same time providing mechanisms, in the legislation, to fully
protect the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens.
[English]
I believe those goals are being met by CSIS. I am confident
they will continue to be met in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I wish to thank the Solicitor General of Canada for
sending me the notes for the statement he gave today on national
security.
We must keep in mind that, in his 1992 response to the first
statement on national security, the Liberal member for
Scarborough West pointed out that then Solicitor General Doug
Lewis had hardly said anything in his statement, only assuring
the Canadian public that CSIS was not doing anything illegal. To
support his statement, the former Solicitor General quoted the
reports from the Security Intelligence Review Committee or
SIRC.
However, we now know that CSIS acted, if not illegally, at
least in a highly questionable manner in its dealings with the
Heritage Front and the Reform Party while the Solicitor General
was preparing his first statement on national security.
As in previous statements, the solicitor general announced
today that the review mechanism provided under the law was
tested by the Heritage Front affair. The solicitor general proudly
said that SIRC concluded that the allegations made against CSIS
were without foundation.
In fact, the statements on national security are silent on this
and sound pretty much the same year after year. We in the Bloc
Quebecois-and probably the members from the Reform Party
and even some Liberal members as well-suspect that today's
statement by the Solicitor General ignores whole aspects of
CSIS activities.
(1020)
Does CSIS engage in legal or illegal activities? No one
knows, not even the Solicitor General. According to the
inspector general for CSIS, the annual reports submitted by that
service to the Solicitor General do not provide an accurate
picture of its activities. Consequently, it is nearly impossible to
think that the Solicitor General can hide from us information
which may not have been transmitted to him regarding the real
activities of CSIS, whether these are successful or not.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm pointed out last year, in reply to the third
statement on national security, that SIRC members are all
supporters of the Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat party.
Neither the official opposition, nor the Reform Party is
represented on the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
The five members of that committee are not ordinary citizens. If
you look at the lists of contributors to the federal parties since
1990, you will see that SIRC members contributed a total of
about $34,000.
The member associated with the NDP distinguishes himself
from the others by contributing an average of less than $200 per
year to his party, which may be an indication that the NDP must
is in poor shape. The Conservative and Liberal SIRC members
contribute an average of over $2,000 per year to their respective
political party. The official opposition is asking that current
SIRC members be replaced, so that this monitoring committee
can better represent the Quebec and Canadian population, and
also better reflect the 35th Parliament, as it was shaped by
Canadians in the October 1993 federal election.
The Solicitor General's statement on national security is
silent on the activities of the Communications Security
Establishment. Yet, all those involved feel that the CSE, which
receives its instructions directly from Privy Council, in other
words the Prime Minister's office, poses a serious threat to the
freedom of all Quebecers and Canadians. The CSE can easily
intercept any telephone conversation in Canada, whether these
communications are transmitted through satellite or the
microwave toll network. This means that the CSE can intercept
virtually any long distance or international phone call placed in
Canada.
I may recall what the Deputy Prime Minister said last year in
response to questions from official opposition members about
allegations made by a former CSE employee. The former
employee accused the CSE of spying on Canadian citizens, and
most Canadian espionage experts confirmed this, but the Deputy
Prime Minister always gave the same answer, and I quote: ``The
CSE has no mandate to spy on Canadians''.
11102
The Deputy Prime Minister never said that the CSE does not
spy on Canadians. She simply said that the CSE had no mandate
to do so. The Prime Minister said that the CSE no longer spies
on Canadians, which implies that the CSE did at one time.
However, the Prime Minister never repeated what he said
inadvertently.
What do we know about the apparently unwarranted and
perhaps even unlawful activities of the CSE? Almost nothing,
except for a few articles by reporters and a book by a former CSE
spy. No details in the Estimates. Although the most obscure
council subsidized to the tune of one million dollars provides
detailed information on its operations, we know nothing about
the CSE and its activities. Should we simply forget about the
individual rights protected under the Quebec and Canadian
charters of human rights, when the CSE is manifestly engaged in
electronic eavesdropping?
The annual statement by the Solicitor General does not even
mention the CSE.
(1025)
I hope that the government, considering the adoption of
Motion M-38 presented in this House which proposes concerns
monitoring the CSE through an outside civilian authority, with
the requirement to report to Parliament, will table as soon as
possible a bill providing for an external mechanism to monitor
the Communications Security Establishment.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to
respond to the Solicitor General's statement on national
security.
The minister is quite right when he states that we are facing a
very different world than we did 11 years ago when CSIS was
created. Although Canada was generally considered to be a
peripheral player in the world of espionage, our proximity to the
United States made this country a base of operations for hostile
intelligence services operating against the Americans.
The traditional targets of the Warsaw pact nations have
disappeared and some of our old adversaries are now our
friends. At the same time, we see a different relationship with
some of our old allies.
Recently the French and Americans quietly expelled some of
each other's diplomats for activities that were inconsistent with
their duties. I understand this is the diplomatic way of saying
these people were kicked out of each other's country for spying.
Imagine if the French and Americans, two countries which
have had cordial relationships going back to the American
revolution, start spying on each other. Is anyone safe in today's
environment? We used to be able to rely on our NATO allies to
put up a common front against the communist bloc. How times
have changed.
Today, the country that is viewed as the greatest threat to
Canadian sovereignty is none other than our NATO ally, Spain.
As Canadian and Spanish vessels play out a game of high seas
brinkmanship off the Grand Banks, Canada is seeking
diplomatic support among other countries, including Russia. I
only hope during this confrontation that all Canada's
intelligence agencies are providing our government with the
best possible information and analysis that is available.
I agree with the minister that there is a need for Canada to
have a security intelligence capability. The Reform Party
supports the use of such agencies, as long as they are
accountable to citizens of Canada.
Canada's intelligence services are faced with a rapidly
changing political environment. How well they are able to adapt
to it may become evident in the weeks ahead. Let us hope they
pass the test.
Turning our attention to the world of counter-terrorism, the
minister points to the recent nerve gas attack on the Tokyo
subway lines as an example. It is interesting that he used this
example to justify our continued vigilance against terrorist
attacks. Last year it was the bombing of the World Trade Centre
in New York. Both these incidents were high profile attacks on
innocent civilians and both appeared to have involved intricate
conspiracies. Yet these two attacks had two very different
groups behind them.
The attack on the World Trade Centre appears to have been the
work of a fundamentalist Islamic group carrying on with its
traditional battle against what it perceives as American
imperialism. This incident can probably be viewed as a
traditional terrorist attack.
The nerve gas attack in Tokyo is very different. Here the group
that is suspected of being behind the terrorist action is a
religious cult. It is not a group previously thought to be a
terrorist organization, but rather an eccentric religious cult.
We have several religious cults in Canada. Are they capable of
terrorist activities? Who knows? Does CSIS? Would CSIS be
monitoring this doomsday cult if it was in Canada? When does
an eccentric cult go from being a relatively harmless religious
sect to being a threat to the security of the nation?
If an intelligence agency is to be useful, its interest in the
group has to occur before the attack, not after. The question
remains: Could CSIS have monitored a similar religious cult in
Canada and prevented a nerve gas attack in Canada? It likely
could have done it if the group was an extreme right wing group
like the Heritage Front.
The best known example of Canada's domestic
counter-terrorism has received a great deal of attention this past
year. Canadians have had a rare glimpse inside a CSIS
operation. However a glimpse is all that CSIS, SIRC and the
Solicitor General seem prepared to give Canadians. The
minister ad-
11103
dressed the Heritage Front affair to some extent in his speech
and unfortunately seems convinced that CSIS has acted in an
exemplary manner. I will provide the House with a different
interpretation.
(1030)
I have no argument with CSIS monitoring the activities of the
Heritage Front or similar groups. The manner in which CSIS
used its human source, Grant Bristow, in relation to Heritage
Front activities that targeted the Reform Party caused my
colleagues and me a great deal of concern.
CSIS appears to have no problem with one of its sources
playing an active role in the Heritage Front plan to discredit the
Reform Party. SIRC appeared to have no problem with this.
From what the minister has stated, he appears to have no
problem with this either.
I wonder if the Solicitor General would be so understanding if
the CSIS source had been operating within the Liberal Party
instead.
As the Solicitor General is aware, the subcommittee has been
meeting with SIRC over the past couple of months in camera
reviewing its report on the Heritage Front affair. I am confident
that when our committee goes public once again a very different
picture of CSIS investigations will appear.
One thing the Solicitor General will have to address or
perhaps readdress is the issue of CSIS sources involving
themselves in legitimate political parties.
The ministerial directives issued in October 1989 by the then
Solicitor General, the Hon. Pierre Blais, appeared to have been
ignored. Then we have the issue of CSIS providing reports to the
government of the day about rival political parties. Is it right
that CSIS should be providing information to the party in power
about another political party when it refuses to inform that
second party? I do not think so.
We must not forget the alleged investigation or, as the
government would prefer, the non-investigation of the leader of
the Reform Party by CSIS. The SIRC report mentions that in late
1989 and early 1990, CSIS conducted an investigation into
completely unsubstantiated accusations about campaign
funding. The report says the subject of this investigation was
Lnu Fnu, unknown contributors to the leader of the Reform
Party's electoral campaign.
After a little prodding SIRC later reported that a mistake had
been made, that during the three-month period the investigation
actually was on the leader of the Reform Party, but that this was
just a clerical error.
The Solicitor General has continued to try to portray this as a
clerical error. The cold, hard reality is that on October 17, 1989
CSIS began a TARC level one investigation on the leader of the
Reform Party and it ran for three months. Two months after the
conclusion of this investigation which CSIS knew it could not
possibly justify, it changed the name on the file to this mythical
contributor and CSIS, SIRC and the Solicitor General want us to
believe there is nothing wrong with this.
If a domestic security intelligence service is to exist in a
democracy it must have the support of the people. The Solicitor
General asks for the support of the opposition parties in
acknowledging the need for a domestic security intelligence
service. I ask the minister in return does he expect our party to
give him any support when there are so many unanswered
questions about the service's conduct in the Heritage Front
affair?
The Reform Party is not prepared to give either the minister or
CSIS a blank cheque. The Solicitor General will have to provide
us with answers to a lot of questions. He should look carefully at
the reports issued by the previous inspector general about the
completeness of information that directors of CSIS have been
providing to the minister.
While I can accept the notion that Canada's security
intelligence apparatus must operate behind a veil of secrecy, this
does not mean it can hide its mistakes behind this veil as well.
All government agencies must be held accountable to the
Canadian people. This is especially true for organizations like
CSIS and CSE.
If the minister wants our support, it is available. Do not expect
us to buy into something sight unseen.
* * *
(1035)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions. One petition is signed by people
from Hagensborg, Bella Coola. The second is signed by
constituents from Williams Lake and places like Alkali Lake,
Soda Creek, 150-Mile House.
In each instance these petitioners are of the opinion that
existing controls on law-abiding responsible firearms owners
are more than enough to ensure public safety.
They therefore call upon Parliament to support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime, to support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions that recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, to
support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun
control laws that have not improved public safety, have proven
not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so
as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
11104
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today according to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition from 43 petitioners from the town of Hedley
in my riding and also from my home town of Summerland,
British Columbia.
The petitioners are opposed to further legislation for firearms
acquisition and possession. They ask the government to provide
strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
These 43 petitioners add to the some 3,010 petitioners who
have also signed this petition in my riding.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased this morning to present a petition in a course of
action undertaken on behalf of citizens who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer
for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early
release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of
their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and their families and the families of the
victims of convicted murderers.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present the following three petitions from
constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
In the first, containing 477 signatures, the petitioners request
that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
In the second petition, containing 37 signatures, the
petitioners request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718(2) as presently written and in any event not to
include the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the bill.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the third petition, containing 380 signatures, the petitioners
request that Parliament revoke the directive of the Minister of
Transport to proceed with a program of unmanning all west
coast light stations and that Parliament hold a complete and
thorough public inquiry in British Columbia into the need for
manned light stations on the west coast.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to present a petition signed by 33 of my constituents.
They pray and request that Parliament be fully aware and that
we strongly oppose any initiatives to sell or merge CN or CP
Rail or dismantle CN Rail by way of disguise of the
commercialization of CN Rail.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to table from 73 people in the
Cobourg, Port Hope area asking Parliament not to amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relations or
homosexuality.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions calling on the government not to amend the
human rights code in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.
(1040 )
I am pleased to present these two petitions on behalf of my
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present this petition signed by a number of my constituents.
[English]
The petitioners pray that Parliament 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. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present this morning pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
The first states that managing the family home and caring for
pre-school children is an honourable profession which has not
been recognized for its value in our society, that the Income Tax
Act discriminates against families that make the choice to
provide care in the home for pre-school children, and also
discriminates against those who provide care in the home for the
disabled, chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray that Parliament pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care for pre-school children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged.
11105
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is very complex, submitted to me by Mr. Cyril
Fleming of my riding of Mississauga South. Because of the rules
of the House I will not be able to read all of it. I will at least
highlight the two most important points.
The petition has to do with the question of the rights of the
unborn. The two relevant phrases in the petition are that
Parliament recognize the unborn foetus from fertilization
onwards as an entity separate from the mother, and that
Parliament act to provide a wider interpretation of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in the interest of obtaining and enhancing
human dignity and to cause to cease by the most expedient
means available the public funding for and the practice of
abortion, thereby honouring Parliament and government's
obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that because of the ministerial statement Government
Orders will be extended by 28 minutes pursuant to Standing
Order 33.
_____________________________________________
11105
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 27 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.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on Bill C-68, a comprehensive package
of legislative reforms respecting firearms. It amends the
Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff Act, the Import Export
Permits Act, the National Defence Act, the Young Offenders
Act, related regulations and Lord only knows what else.
I also want to congratulate the whip and the Minister of
Justice for enabling me to put my views on the record. It is a
good sign that members of the government with a different view
can join the debate.
I want to put my perspective, my point of view and my bias on
the table. I am a gun owner and have been for over 50 years. I
bought my first gun when I was between eight and nine. I am a
gun collector and have been for over 30 years.
(1045 )
I have been a hunter most of my life, since the days when my
father first taught me to shoot a gun on the farm. I am a past
president of the Dover Rod and Gun Club. I have been involved
with the local group in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters for over 35 years. I was raised in rural southwestern
Ontario so guns are a part of my background and a part of life for
my neighbours and I.
We are the many thousands of legitimate law-abiding safety
conscience and honest citizens. I and other gun owners applaud
two of the four principal aspects of Bill C-68. I totally support
the first one on criminal sanctions. It is well known that Canada
already has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. The
justice system does not enforce the laws we already have on the
books.
In the bill the criminal misuse of firearms will result in
mandatory four-year minimum sentences for the following
offences committed while in possession of a firearm. They are
attempted murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing
death, robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault with a
weapon, aggravated sexual assault, extortion and discharge of a
firearm with intent to cause harm. Upon conviction the offender
will be prohibited for life from possessing a restricted or banned
firearm. I feel this should go one step further and should include
any firearm.
Stronger sentences are something that all Canadians favour.
They are something gun groups have been pushing for years. In
fact they asked for a minimum of five years. I am pleased the
Minister of Justice is tackling that aspect of the issue.
The second principal section of the bill I fully support deals
with smuggling and illegal importation. New Criminal Code
offences will be added to deal with illegal trafficking in
firearms. That could be the reason the government will be laying
off 45,000 civil servants, so they will be able to work at the
border between Canada and the United States.
Unfortunately I just heard this morning that another 15 per
cent of customs officers will be laid off. I am well aware of the
offices in Sarnia and in Sombra. They have been cut back. If they
were to check every car for guns that came across the border
from Michigan, they would have a lineup from Flint, Michigan,
to London, Ontario, which is approximately 100 miles.
At the present time we do not have staff and we do not have the
money. Yet somehow we will put more people to work. This is
great, though, if it is at the border.
11106
The third section of the bill deals with handguns and military
assault weapons. Some of these weapons should be banned or
restricted unless the collector can prove their merit. Originally
in the November 30, 1994 statement in the House by the
minister all handguns were to be prohibited. I am glad he has
changed his tune on that one.
Bill C-68 now provides that individuals who possessed
certain handguns on or before February 14, 1995 will be able to
buy and sell among themselves. Owners of the handguns will be
able to use them for the purpose for which they were originally
obtained, whether for target shooting or collecting.
I was shocked to discover my handguns are registered for
protection. There is no classification for protection. Do I now
lose my collection of handguns?
Before I deal with the fourth section of the bill, that of
national registration, I take the opportunity to outline to hon.
members exactly what the process is to acquire a legal handgun
for target shooting. I personally taught FAC safety courses so I
know how demanding and rigorous they are. Over 16 steps have
to be taken before people are able to obtain handguns and have
them in their homes. I will not go into the steps as others have
covered them.
(1050)
Some members of the House sincerely believe that guns of
any size, shape or form are evil objects that must be banned,
thrown away or kept in a museum. Certain tragic incidents serve
to remind us of the criminal misuse of guns. The people who
commit such crimes should be punished to the full extent of the
law; we should throw away the key.
With respect to registration some have made the statement in
the House that cars are registered and have asked: Why not
guns? We are comparing apples with oranges. It is the same as
the lady in California who drove down a sidewalk killing 19 and
maiming two dozen people. The car was registered. Should any
further models of the car be removed from production?
There will be hundreds of registrations. From where will we
get the money? We are over $550 billion in debt. Estimates have
been given from a low of $80 million to a high of $350 million. I
believe it will cost $350 million. Associates of mine, 10 of them,
own over 1,000 guns. If we average them across Canada there
must be at least 21 million handguns and long rifles.
Registration will not stop anyone from using a gun to kill.
The minister stated that in rural areas there have been quite a
few suicides committed with guns. Who is to blame? I blame the
government. I know of several suicides which occurred when
interest rates rose to over 24 per cent and young families could
not compete. They were losing their farms. The government
does not mention how many hanged themselves or how many
gassed themselves, but we lost many young Canadians during
those troubling times of the late seventies and early eighties. I
cannot blame guns for that.
There were several polls taken in my riding by myself and
others. Most of my constituents know where I stand on matters.
When I was campaigning in 1988 I only made two promises: that
I work hard for my constituents and that I would bring their
views to Ottawa and support them. I am here to represent my
riding. If the majority of my constituents were in favour of a
national registration system I would act accordingly, but
surveys show that they are not in favour. One survey was at 87
per cent, one at 96 per cent, and another at 91 per cent asking that
I not support Bill C-68.
Along with my own personal sincerely held views, I will be
voting against the piece of legislation. I should like to take a
minute to quote a letter:
I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for all your help in the past.
Whenever I have come to you with a problem or concern you were always there to
offer support and assistance. Although we believe that you have been, and
continue to be, the best candidate to represent this area, I can not in all good
conscience support your party in the next election.
I have received hundreds of letters.
(1055)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-68 deals with firearms and certain other weapons. As we all
have seen here in the House, support for this bill is not
unanimous. And we all know that in our ridings, certain groups
have voiced their support for or their dissatisfaction with the
bill.
Please allow me to put this debate into the current context as I
see it. Two groups are making representations. One of them is in
favour of the bill, which aims, among other things, to control
firearms; the other is opposed to the bill.
The group in favour of the bill says that it wants to reduce the
number of deaths involving firearms. We know that some of
these deaths are accidental, some are the result of family
disputes, some are suicides or of, course, some occur during the
perpetration of other criminal acts.
The supporters of firearm controls also support a public
awareness campaign on the use of firearms and are looking to
this legislation to provide stricter controls through licences to
possess weapons, the registration of weapons, the prohibition of
military and paramilitary weapons, the control of ammunition
sales and strict restrictions on the use of handguns.
Those who oppose the bill believe that the legislation should
above all target criminals. The group claims that the current
legislation already sufficiently controls the possession and use
of firearms for hunting, target practice and collection purposes
and disputes the claim that the current legislation is not being
applied. Lastly, this group opposes additional legislative mea-
11107
sures because it claims that they would pointlessly tax honest
citizens without actually reducing crime.
The bill before us intends to meet the following needs: clamp
down on smuggling, prohibit the possession of certain firearms
and restrict the possession of others, institute mandatory
registration of all firearms and set a certain number of rules
regarding the purchase, possession, storage, sale, exchange,
loan, transfer and, naturally, the use of firearms.
Which criteria should we use to evaluate this bill? In my
opinion, there are three. The bill's first aim is to reduce the
number of lives lost and injuries inflicted because of the use of
firearms. I presume that everyone would agree that legitimate,
controlled and careful use of weapons would reduce the risk of
death or injury. Lastly, I believe that no legislation will ever be
able to prevent an act of insanity, but that legislation can and
should increase the probability that the consequences of such an
act would be less serious.
I am concerned about several aspects of the bill before us.
(1100)
First of all, I think that the proposed measures against crime
and smuggling could be made more effective. I also question the
impact on collectors, competitors and hunters, as well as the
usability of the registration system. I understand that it involves
entering into a computer the specifics of all firearms owned
across the country, but does this registry and the information it
contains make the system easy to use? Will this registry really
produce the promised results and, if so, at what cost and is there
an easier way to achieve the same results?
I am not questioning the goals that have been set but the
advisability of the means used to reach them. I, however, have
serious reservations about the authority to search without a
mandate, which is provided under this bill. Sections 98 through
101 create new powers to carry out inspections anywhere, even
in residential premises provided that the inspector-not the
police officer but the inspector-obtains either the occupant's
consent or a warrant.
Under the regulations currently in effect, these powers only
apply to businesses. The decision to extend their application to
residential premises will arouse-and is already
arousing-controversy and may, if this bill becomes law, be
challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Clause 101, among others, would require police officers to
obtain either the occupant's consent or a mandate before
entering a residential premises. As we know, a justice of the
peace could sign a warrant for the same purposes and reasons as
the cases covered under clause 99 regarding inspections, but
only if entry has been refused or if there are reasonable grounds
for believing that entry will be refused.
In general, although I agree with the bill's goal of reducing
violence, I am not certain that the bill as it now reads adequately
serves this goal while respecting the other rights and freedoms
of citizens. That is why I encourage the various groups and
individuals to make their views known to the Committee on
Justice, which will soon hear evidence on this bill. I hope that
this evidence will help all members of this House, especially
government members, to improve this bill so that it achieves our
goals and makes firearms handling safer for people in Quebec
and Canada, as we all generally hope for.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to speak on this matter when you come
from Saskatchewan. In that province the provincial government
is opposed to the proposed legislation. The opposition parties
are opposed to it and there is a vocal element that does not seem
to quit in opposition to the legislation. However, it is important
to look at and dissect the legislation and examine the different
aspects of what is being proposed.
(1105 )
Over the past year the Minister of Justice has travelled the
country and talked to different groups and individuals. In effect
he has been consulting with people as to the proposals
individuals want or do not want in the legislation.
Whenever one comes down with such legislation, few are
generally happy even though the legislation is generally good
legislation. The problem which arises is that emotions take over.
Then neither side wants in any way to give in on any of the
aspects, to discuss the matter and to determine whether society
as a whole would benefit from such legislation.
The problem the minister has had is to come up with a
balanced approach. This approach would help to ensure the
safety of Canadians and would crack down on the criminal
misuse of firearms. At the same time it would respect the needs
of hunters and farmers and would respect the rights of legitimate
gun owners.
Quite often one has to be pigeon-holed as to whether one
supports the legislation or one is against the legislation. There
are good aspects of this legislation. The parts of the legislation
calling for increased penalties for use of firearms in the
commission of offences obviously is very good. It is long
overdue and certainly will now be in effect. Hopefully the
provinces will enforce these provisions and not treat them the
way they have in the past by dealing these penalties away.
Those aspects are commendable. One then has to look at the
other aspects. What about the initiative for controlling the
11108
illegal importation or smuggling of guns into this country?
There it appears everyone is in agreement. That aspect is good.
However, one has to look at that aspect practically. How do we
control such a provision? Such a provision cannot be effectively
dealt with without registration. Without registration such an
aspect cannot be dealt with whatsoever. It appears a phobia has
taken over with respect to registration, that this is a restriction
on legitimate gun owners.
I own a gun. How the filling out of a page, signing it and
sending it in to the appropriate authorities is going to restrict me
in any way with that gun is a matter I do not understand to this
day. There is absolutely no restriction on legitimate gun owners.
We have to deal with the question of registration and what its
possible benefits are. Sure, we have many legitimate gun
owners. There are people, the criminal element, who use guns
and obviously do not register them after they have stolen them
or come to have them in some other way.
We have to make sure the legitimate gun owners show some
responsibility. Being a legitimate gun owner means storing guns
properly, which matter has been often overlooked in this
country. Storage is crucial in keeping guns out of the hands of
the criminal element which has used this as a source of getting
guns. There are break-ins to homes where guns are not properly
stored. Guns are stolen from homes of legitimate gun owners
who do not properly store them.
They have to pay a price for that. That price is an offence if
they do not properly store their guns. If they do not properly
store their guns, they will be charged. That matter has been in
effect for many years, but has not been properly enforced or the
mechanism has not been in place. With registration there will be
more responsibility on the part of the gun owners.
(1110 )
As the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police put it, the
registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft
and the misuse of legal firearms. It continued to explain what is
meant by this.
The association indicated that with respect to smuggling,
guns do not have to be smuggled into this country; they can be
brought in legitimately. Any member in this House who has a
proper certificate can bring a dozen guns into the country.
Under the current system, the type of guns, the number of
guns, and the serial numbers of the guns are not tracked when
they come into Canada. A recent report indicated that customs
officers are more focused on the value of the gun shipments than
on any other aspect.
Once these guns are in the country, we do not know what
happens to them. We lose complete track of them as to whether
they get into the hands of illegitimate gun owners, et cetera.
That matter will be taken care of if registration comes about.
Registration will leave a paper trail. The guns will be traced
back to the source to determine how they got into illegitimate
hands, if they have transferred to such hands, once they have
come into the country.
Not always but generally, guns that are stolen have not been
properly stored. Registration will promote safe storage which
will reduce gun theft as well as reduce suicides and accidents.
One may say, how will it reduce suicides? Safe storage
generally prevents the gun from getting into the hands of a
person who is in a temporary state of depression. Again, as the
chiefs of police so eloquently put it in their report on this matter,
suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
A person with a problem becomes depressed and if there is
easy access to a gun, deals with the problem on the spur of the
moment. If access to the storage container is just a little more
difficult, especially for young people, and if they do not have
access to the ammunition, a temporary problem may pass and
the permanent solution will not occur.
Certainly that is an important factor. If we can save some lives
from suicides, that would be an important factor for us. That
aspect and the suicides in this country are matters we have to
look at very closely. It is important to prevent the senseless loss
of young people's lives, those people who have been unable to
deal with temporary situations and have immediately dealt with
them by ending their own lives with a gun.
Of course, there is the question of collectors. No one believes
that collectors should be disarmed of their gun collections. That
matter can be dealt with in committee. No one indicates that
firearms safety is not an important factor.
What we have to understand is that registration will in no way
whatsoever cause any restrictions on legitimate gun owners. The
filing of the certificate once in a lifetime for a gun is not a
restriction but it is certainly a help to the authorities in enforcing
the laws. It is not a restriction whatsoever on anyone in society.
The question really is, what is the problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this House
and the people of Canada in support of the motion put forth by
my hon. colleague from Yorkton-Melville.
(1115)
This motion suggests that firearms control and crime control
be addressed separately by dividing Bill C-68 in two. By
making the two issues of lawful possession of firearms and their
use for criminal purposes separate, this amendment could help
introduce nuance and sophistication in this debate on firearms
11109
use. It seems to me that this would enable us to break the current
stalemate over Bill C-68.
Our proposal is to address separately the administrative
issues relating to the acquisition, storage and transportation of
firearms and those legal issues relating to the Criminal Code and
what to do when offences are committed with firearms. This
way, the principles of the right to have free disposal of one's
private property and the right to public security could be debated
and legislated in a more consistent way. It appears that this
approach would enable us to deal with the problem of firearms
use for criminal purposes without criminalizing at the same time
law-abiding owners who only use their firearms for recreational
purposes.
As it stands, Bill C-68, if adopted, would be a failure in every
regard. Many legal loopholes remaining unplugged, offenders
would continue to avoid sentences commensurate with the
seriousness of their crimes. The deterrent effect of the sentence
must have an impact on individuals. It has no impact on an
object such as a firearm.
Among the legal loopholes that remain in Bill C-68 is the
provision for lesser charges than those for violent criminal
offences. In addition, it would still be possible to plea bargain
for lesser charges. Finally, this bill does not address the problem
of minimum sentencing even in cases where it is recognized that
a violent crime was committed with a firearm. Such
inconsistencies in the Criminal Code and its enforcement by the
judicial system are not dealt with in Bill C-68.
In other words, this bill would offer no guarantee against an
eventual outbreak of sensational crimes such as those
committed by Denis Lortie at the Quebec National Assembly in
1984, by Marc Lépine at l'École polytechnique in 1989 and by
Valéry Fabrikant at Concordia University in 1992. Of course,
you will argue that there really cannot be any guarantee and this
is a realistic way of minimizing risks. However, when you
consider the fact that this legal system allowed Lortie to serve a
minimum sentence and Fabrikant to own handguns in spite of
the warnings of Concordia lawyers, you quickly realize that
there is something very wrong with the Criminal Code, both in
terms of its concepts and its enforcement.
Making the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code,
which would include decriminalizing the storage and carrying
of firearms, as well as providing strong deterrents and stiff
sentences when firearms are used for violent purposes, might
help reconcile the various interests expressed by Canadians. The
Liberal government could preserve its integrity by fulfilling its
promise to improve safety at home and on the street, thus
allowing Canadians to heave a sigh of relief. The opposition, at
least the Reform Party, would be prepared to co-operate.
I want to correct some outrageous claims made on December
6, regarding the existence of a correlation between domestic
violence and the availability of firearms.
(1120)
I fully agree that violence against women and children has its
roots in the existence of a sociological and historical power
relationship. However, I totally disagree with claims to the
effect that the availability of firearms is a direct and primary
cause of that type of violence. Firearms are only used as the
ultimate means of violence; in most cases, victims of violence
suffer physical or emotional abuse long before their tormentor
decides to use a firearm.
I share my party's position as regards extending the
monitoring system to include compulsory registration for
everyone as well as possible confiscation of firearms. It is
obvious to me that the arguments of the Reform Party against
such a system are more numerous and better documented than
those submitted by the Minister of the Justice to support his
proposal.
The minister cannot provide evidence confirming the
existence of a link between firearms control and crime control.
In fact, buying, carrying and storing firearms are already
extensively regulated activities. In spite of the stringent existing
legislation on the traffic of legal firearms, criminals manage to
obtain such firearms by relying on other sources such as
smuggling, the black market, etc.
In the absence of any study on the effectiveness of the present
system, we think it appropriate to adopt the recommendation
made by the auditor general in 1993 that such a study be carried
out before consideration is given to extending the regulation of
firearms at an exorbitant cost of several hundreds of millions of
dollars. It would make no sense at all to implement other
regulations, when we still do not know the merits and
shortcomings of our present system.
There is no direct relationship between the control of firearms
and the control of criminal activity. When we compare the
situation in Washington, D.C. to that in Switzerland, it is
difficult to argue otherwise. In Washington, where the
possession and sale of firearms is prohibited, the homicide rate
is 81.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. Conversely, in Switzerland,
where the possession of firearms is almost universal, the
homicide rate is 1.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.
An examination of these statistics leads to the inescapable
conclusion that a complex assortment of factors-social,
economic, cultural, political, psychological, symbolic and so
on-is at work in how individuals and societies approach
firearms on the one hand and crime on the other. Trying to
establish a direct link between the control of firearms and the
control of criminal activity is too simplistic.
11110
In proposing that Bill C-68 be split into two separate parts,
my colleague for Yorkton-Melville and the Reform Party are
making a constructive suggestion that might satisfy all
Canadians. Helpful criticism and practical solutions have been
offered in the House by a number of Reformers. I hope that this
Parliament will have the wisdom and good faith to give serious
consideration to this motion and to make a commitment to act
accordingly.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68 which
proposes to make changes to Canada's gun control system.
I support the efforts of the government in Bill C-68 to impose
stricter border controls on smuggling, stiffer penalties for
illegal importation and trafficking of firearms and tougher
measures on criminals who use guns. I support raising of the age
to buy ammunition. I fear, however, that the government is
targeting law-abiding gun owners while trying to get at the
criminal use of guns. That is why its approach is misguided and
will not work.
(1125)
Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the
world. It has barely begun to take effect and the government is
imposing another layer of controls that will do absolutely
nothing to cut down on crime or improve public safety. Under
the existing gun law, applicants must obtain a firearms
acquisition certificate, often referred to as an FAC for which
they must take a gun course, undergo a police check and wait 28
days.
All handguns are considered restricted weapons. Owners
must have an ownership permit and register them. Most handgun
permits are issued to certified gun collectors, sports club
members or those taking part in shooting competitions.
The private ownership of most military assault weapons is
already banned or restricted.
If you want to hunt you must take a mandatory hunting course,
which also covers firearm handling and safety. The current law
also includes stringent storage and transportation regulations. It
is an offence to breach the regulations.
This law, although it passed on December 5, 1991, came into
force in stages. This means that some very major measures did
not come into effect until very recently. One of those measures
was the firearms safety education training course needed for an
FAC.
Because many measures in Bill C-17 took effect just recently,
it is too early to tell what impact they will have. Therefore, it
follows that it is too early to add other controls such as a
registration and licensing system which will demand even more
resources and time to implement.
I fear that the government is moving too quickly and in the
wrong direction with a national registration system. As a result,
it is law-abiding Canadians who will end up paying from their
pocketbooks and in their freedoms.
Criminals do not register guns. If you intend to commit a
crime, you are not going to take your gun in and register it the
day before you shoot someone. We cannot emphasize this point
enough. They use stolen weapons or firearms which have not
been properly registered. To assume that registration will
somehow prevent or even reduce most forms of violent crimes is
flawed. Creating a registration regime for firearms which are
rarely used in crimes seems like a plan designed by bureaucrats
for bureaucrats.
The onus is on the Minister of Justice to prove that a national
registration system will be cost effective and increase public
safety. He has not done that.
There is a disagreement at this time about the number of
unregistered firearms in Canada as well as the ultimate cost of
universal registration. Our understanding is that registration
could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Neither law-abiding
firearm owners nor other taxpayers deserve to be burdened with
an expensive system the minister cannot prove will cut down on
crime or improve public safety.
Taxpayers could be paying for this boondoggle for decades to
come. If there was any real prospect that the additional
registration procedure would make a significant impact on
violent crime, there would be reason to support such a plan.
However, there is no convincing proof of that.
At a time when other levels of government are looking for
ways to cut costs, it is absurd that the federal government is
setting up a whole new bureaucracy on an expensive project
whose value is highly questionable.
The government should not be punishing law-abiding gun
owners when criminals with illegal guns are the real problem. I
know about law-abiding gun owners because I have brothers
who are hunters. My father was a hunter and I always wanted to
be one, but they would not trust me with a gun so I could not go
with them.
It is for these reasons that I back the notion that universal
registration and licensing be considered separately from
criminal sanctions and border control. I also believe the
government should spend more of its energy educating
Canadians about current gun laws instead of trying to impose
more controls on law-abiding citizens.
11111
(1130 )
There is evidence that despite some very good material on
current gun laws most Canadians lack a basic understanding of
the measures already in place. Before adding to the law it is
essential to find out if education programs are working. If they
are not, let us fix them. Because many people are not aware of
the control and limits on private firearm ownership, many do not
distinguish between the legal firearm owner and user and the
criminal who uses guns.
It has been argued that the lack of public awareness about the
existing law extends to gun owners and law enforcement
officials. This prevents the law from being applied properly. It
also may prevent those directly involved in or aware of
dangerous situations from informing the police and preventing
tragedies.
The federal and provincial governments need to sponsor an
effective public education program to inform Canadians of all
aspects of current gun control laws. They should at least wait to
see if current laws are working before imposing what may be
unnecessary limits on Canadians. Public safety balanced with
the rights of legitimate law-abiding gun owners should be the
guiding principle for any changes.
The minister should also remember that for many Canadians,
especially aboriginal peoples and those living in the north,
firearm use is a part of their tradition and culture and may be
necessary for survival. For others such as farmers, hunters and
sportsmen, firearm expertise is a part of the job or a legitimate
hobby.
The new bill also prohibits gun collectors from leaving their
guns to members of their families after death. A number of gun
collectors have come to me very concerned about this. I cannot
believe the minister understands any of this when he called-as
he did at the Canadian Club-lawful, responsible gun owners
who disagree with parts of his bill an American style gun lobby.
Comments like this show he is not recognizing, let alone
understanding, the reality of many Canadians.
I believe in public safety. I believe in the kind of public safety
brought about by effective laws that protect the victims and
punish the criminals. I am not convinced the measures in this
bill will do that.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about Bill C-68, the
firearms legislation.
As a representative from rural Ontario I have some concerns
about the legislation which I intend to address in a minute. I
want to express both my support and the support of my
constituents for the minister's objective to curb violence in our
society. That is the intent of the legislation and I fully share that.
My constituents share that. It is a worthwhile objective. The
debate on Bill C-68 is about the best method to curb violence in
our society.
I support a number of the things the minister has proposed. I
support increased criminal sanctions for the illegal use of a
firearm. On average right now it is about 16 months for
committing those 10 designated offences. Under this legislation
it would be four years, an increase of 300 per cent in the
sentence.
I agree with the sanctions individuals will have to absorb if
they are caught smuggling firearms. I agree with his direction to
provincial attorneys if they have evidence not to bargain away a
firearms offence, go to court and find the individual guilty.
I agree with an enterprise crime for the smuggling of firearms.
If someone is caught doing it, the assets they have gained can be
seized by the crown and used for further criminal control. I
agree with increased border controls, recognizing that we will
not be able to stop every vehicle that crosses the border. If we are
able to reduce it by 20 per cent or 30 per cent, it is better than not
doing anything. I agree with his interdiction activities.
I was very pleased to hear that the minister agreed there are
legitimate uses of firearms. He agreed that hunting is a valid
pastime. He agreed that target shooting is a valid sport. He
agreed that collectors have a right to collect.
(1135 )
He talked about the needs for pest control and the needs of
trappers. I agree with that. I agree with his statement of the
economic impact hunting has on areas like mine. Every fall
thousands of people travel to Parry Sound-Muskoka to
participate in hunting. They have a significant economic impact
on my area.
I hope the committee studying the bill looks at ways of having
that support better enshrined in the legislation because it is an
important concept which should be in the legislation.
I do not agree with the comments by some of my colleagues
opposite regarding self-defence. I agree fully with the minister
that police officers and military officers should carry firearms
for self-defence. I do not agree with arming civilians for the
sole purpose of self-defence against criminals. We are not the
United States. We do not settle our arguments at the end of a gun
barrel. That does mean there are not legitimate uses like
hunting, target shooting and gun collecting. We have to make the
distinction between the two.
I have some concerns regarding some of the proposals,
particularly related to registration. The minister has suggested
we are going to spend $85 million to register firearms. I want to
be clear that is the best way to control violence.
The minister said registration will not stop a criminal from
using an illegal weapon. He indicated it will not stop somebody
11112
intent on killing himself. It probably will not stop somebody
intent on committing violence against somebody else.
I need the committee to demonstrate in its hearings exactly
what the link is between universal registration and curbing
violence. I want the committee to look at models from other
countries to see how it has worked. I want it to come forward
with statistical data showing that direct link between
registration and the curbing of violence.
I want the committee to listen closely to witnesses, both pro
and con, so we can understand how this works, registration and
controlled violence. I want the committee to talk to the people
who will have to enforce this legislation, the police officers on
the street who will actually have to enforce this, handgun clubs
which will be a big part of the enforcement, legal firearms
owners about how this will work.
The committee has to compare the $85 million expenditure
with some other options. Would $85 million spent on more
policing be a better way of curbing violence? Would $85 million
spent on breaking the cycle of poverty in our inner cities be a
better way of curbing violence? Would $85 million spent on
education for spousal abuse and protection of battered
individuals be a better way?
In its report I want to hear that any system it eventually
suggests will be effective. It must demonstrate that directly. It
has to be efficient, not creating a large bureaucracy and not
setting up ongoing and escalating costs. It has to be a secure
system. I want it to tell me it will not be costly to individual
firearms owners. Most important, I want it to demonstrate it is
not the first step along the road toward prohibiting all firearms.
I support the minister in his objective of controlling violence.
I support his sanctions against criminals. I support trying to stop
smuggling. I want to see the benefits of registration clearly
demonstrated by the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-68,
the gun control bill introduced by the Minister of Justice. The
purpose of the bill is to tighten controls on firearms, which may
be seen as a response to the unfortunate incident that took place
at the Polytechnique more than five years ago. According to the
polls, a majority of the public is in favour of tighter gun
controls.
(1140)
In fact, for many years nearly 80 per cent of Canadians and 91
per cent of Quebecers have been asking the government to take
action in this respect. The public wants access to, and
acquisition of, firearms to be made more difficult. It wants
assault weapons to be strictly for military use, it wants handguns
to be prohibited and it wants stricter controls on the sale of
firearms.
The bill is a partial response to these concerns, and the
minister will establish a national firearms registration system.
According to the information we received from the minister, the
new system is supposed to be the foundation of the gun control
program. It will be administered by the RCMP, in co-operation
with the provinces and territories. The system will be used to
fight the criminal use of firearms by issuing prohibition orders,
taking action against smuggling, monitoring compliance with
safety regulations and helping the police to trace stolen
weapons.
The minister tells us the system should pay for itself. It will
cost an estimated $85 million to implement this measure. In
December, the minister said that the cost would be amortized
over five years. In February, he said seven, and that the system
would generate revenue. I am sorry, but I doubt the system will
pay for itself. We do not know how much it will cost the
provinces to co-operate with the federal government, and what
will be the cost to the general public, both nationally and
provincially, of sharing the responsibility with the federal
government, and how much taxpayers will have to contribute to
make this system an effective one.
The minister also said that holders of firearms acquisition
certificates will not have to spend a single penny to get their new
licence to own a firearm, and I suppose they do not mind.
Current firearms owners only have to pay a renewal fee of $60
five years from now. In some cases, I heard at my office that this
might be a problem for people who practise target shooting. This
area is not quite clear to me. Meanwhile, in accordance with the
new federal creed, the provinces are being asked to help
implement a system without knowing what the cost will be.
A memo from the office of the Minister of Justice, dated
January 19, said that the government hoped, but could not
confirm, that current owners of firearms would not be charged a
fee for a licence to own a firearm. So it is not quite clear whether
firearms owners who have already paid will have to pay again.
The same memo goes on to say that once again, the fee
schedule will be progressive, in that fees will increase over time
to encourage the public to register their firearms as soon as
possible. This is all very praiseworthy, but when we see how
taxes are going up, the public probably has every right to say:
``First we will be able to register free of charge but pretty soon
we will be paying enormous amounts to be able to own a
firearm''.
``Once again, we hope the cost will not be too high during the
first year'', said the minister. In short, the method for financing
the system is somewhat obscure, there is some question as to the
final outcome.
11113
Another point to be made is that certain weapons will remain
in circulation. Despite the bill, 13,000 military type automatic
weapons, including over 4,000 AK-47s will remain in
circulation due to the system of vested interests. I might be
tempted to indulge in a little black humour here and say that
it is really too bad that the unemployed do not own such
weapons, then they could keep at least one vested interest.
Coroner Anne-Marie David held hearings in Montreal in
November and made certain recommendations. She called for
simpler and more consistent storage regulations, easier to
understand.
(1145)
She also wanted the regulations amended to force those
selling weapons to keep them locked or inoperative. She called
for a specific regulation governing shipments of weapons stored
and transported by an importer. She asked that weapons be
confiscated in the case of a second unsafe storage, display or
transportation offence. She called for a vast information
campaign to increase public awareness, a request echoed by a
number of associations of firearms users.
None of these measures is contained in the current bill.
Representatives of the Quebec police force and the Association
of Police Chiefs told Dr. David that the existing regulations are
so complex they require police experts to interpret them. How
are ordinary citizens going to figure them out?
Between 1926 and 1992, 64 per cent of the homicides in
Canada were committed with weapons other than firearms.
Between 1988 and 1991, 95 per cent of violent crimes did not
involve the use of firearms, but, rather, kitchen knives, force or
dangerous instruments. In 1991, 0.3 per cent of violent crimes or
murders were committed with firearms. For 1991, statistics
indicate that 67 per cent of violent crimes were repeat offences.
Two rights oppose each other in this bill: the right to the
enjoyment of safety in life and the right to privacy and to own a
firearm.
Like many hon. members, I have received a lot of
information. This information has come from the person
responsible for this issue, but also from people keenly interested
in the matter in my riding. From this information, I would like to
share two interesting points with the hon. members, if I may.
The first is that criminal acts and domestic accidents do not
involve weapons that are legally purchased and registered, but
invariably weapons obtained illegally on the black market, no
matter the calibre and barrel length. I note that the present bill
contains no provision in this regard.
The second is that the minister would be well advised to
prohibit certain weapons and accessories: certain pistols, for
example, are no longer made of tempered steel but of a
composite material combining plastic and carbon, and can pass
almost undetected through metal detectors. Airports are
beginning to give this serious thought. There are also laser
sights and infrared telescopic sights of use only to hired killers.
My information indicates further that these items are not used
for legitimate target practice and are more dangerous than the
old .25 and .32 calibre handguns and guns with a barrel length of
less than 105 millimetres.
I therefore believe it is important to proceed with this bill.
People want firearms controlled. But they have to be controlled
in a way that users living peacefully in the country, for example,
who want to take a walk on their property, regardless of the time
of day, and perhaps take a shot at a partridge, are not harassed by
a system that tries to control things but that fails to get to the
heart of the problem.
I therefore invite everyone, whether they agree or disagree, to
express their viewpoint to the committee to further enlighten
those who will have to decide on this bill.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to make a few remarks
about Bill C-68. First I must comment on the fact that the whole
debate has been derailed. Its basic values have been destroyed
by much of the rhetoric that has been going on around it.
Across the province of Ontario there have been major gun
rallies sponsored by the Reform Party of Canada. In some cases
it has been more interested in selling memberships in that party
than in improving constructively the laws of the nation. That is a
fact of life.
(1150)
Dr. Sobrian from the Omemee area near Peterborough visited
my constituency a short time ago. It was at exactly the same time
as we were having a church service and the laying of the colours
for the airborne regiment. He appeared before a gun rally at a
high school in Pembroke and was using my name all over the
place.
I do not consider myself to be part of a gun lobby. I consider
myself to be a parliamentarian who is trying to put something
constructive into the legislation. Dr. Sobrian would be well
advised by his cohorts to stay home in Omemee. He does more
harm when he leaves Omemee and goes into the countryside
than he would if he stayed at home. I have no hesitation in saying
that to him because I do not get scared off by such people. We
have to keep our feet on the ground around here.
My decision will be based on my own judgment, not on a lot of
hype and cursing and swearing by people who would appear to
be leaders when in fact they are feeding their egos and spreading
misinformation with their rhetoric.
11114
The impact of the legislation on the average Canadian has
to be considered. One has to ask whether making some people
pay for the justice system for all is fair and just. There are
people paying for the education system who do not use it. They
are paying for it the same as everyone else. Why should not
Canadian people as a whole pay, if it is to serve the justice of
the country and their safety? Instead we are targeting many
people who are innocent and law-abiding Canadians. If the
system is to benefit all, why should not all of us contribute?
I have no problem in that regard, and I do not own a gun.
Training program costs have been mentioned as a great
inhibitor. The costs for training courses are considerable. People
are complaining to me about the red tape they have to go
through. Many police officers whom I have been talking with
have not taken the training, yet they will be faced with it. There
are major problems in administration out there.
They talk about a coalition of forces. That is not the point. The
point is providing good legislation with common sense logic,
fairness and justice built into the system. Decisions based on
emotions will not stand up over time, but decisions based on
justice, fairness and common sense will stand the test of time.
A lot of the problems, the real hype and the gearing up of
emotions started with incidents such as the murder at the Just
Desserts restaurant in Toronto. In Montreal and in the Quebec
legislature such incidents were quickly linked to all guns in
general. That was wrong. It should be targeted to certain
weapons and not to people who are capable of handling weapons
safely.
It is unfair to attribute the problem we are facing today in part
to everyday honest people. The ferociousness of the debate does
not make for constructive solutions. I have heard some very
outlandish speeches in the House and more outside it.
Guns increase violence is the saying, but what about countries
where there are guns in nearly every home and there is no
violence?
(1155 )
I quote from a very good speech delivered by the hon. member
for Cochrane-Superior two weeks ago yesterday:
A number of inquiries conducted in various countries have shown there is no
connection between the percentage of crimes involving firearms and the degree
of regulation of firearms in that country. In countries with a very low rate of
violent crimes or homicide like Japan or Switzerland, the presence or absence of
firearms is irrelevant. However making young people socially responsible,
giving them a good education and warning them against criminal behaviour, is a
major factor in producing low crime rates.
If we look at Switzerland, by its nature over many years it has
been a fully armed nation as far as its citizenry is concerned yet
has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
It is a culture. It is the enforcement of law. It is the values we
put into society. It is the way we train people generation after
generation. That will improve the legal system and the courts by
taking away plea bargaining in such cases.
The justice minister has made a good start in the legislation.
Let us make the justice system work and not have people on the
streets who should not be there, not have innocent people
become victims of law and become criminals by virtue of it.
Because of lack of information or indeed a lack of memory, if
someone forgets to do something, according the act as it is
written now he would be charged under the Criminal Code.
Nobody would argue about the need for anti-smuggling
legislation. It is motherhood. It is necessity. Everyone in
Canada, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, would support
restrictions against smuggling. On the possession of stolen
weapons outdoor sportsmen's clubs would support restrictions
on that. They enforce laws within their own clubs, their own
bylaws or their own regulations. They have very severe rules in
that regard.
Export-import laws are great. They prevent the inflow or
outflow of illegal arms. We have a 4,000-mile boundary to
handle and it is very difficult to control border problems. With a
4,000-mile border we will have a challenge on our hands with
the export-import laws. However it must be done and I give the
minister credit for bringing forward that part.
No one should be in illegal possession of a firearm. There is a
charge in that regard. We should get rid of plea bargaining and
the minister has done part of it.
There is absolutely no sympathy out there for illegal
trafficking of firearms, not by sportsmen or anyone else. They
know if people with firearms get into trouble it will impact on
them. The message is immediately spread on radio stations, TV
stations and newspapers. It is very easy to start the hype that
everything is wrong in society when certain things should be
corrected.
The minimum sentence of four years for a list of 10 crimes is a
good start. The court system, plea bargaining and the justice
system must generally be upgraded and enforced. It is supported
by the general public. There will be no pity on anyone who
allows the system to deteriorate in any way. Canadians want the
sentence to fit the crime.
This is my fourth time around on gun legislation. None of
them has been easy. None of them has been very productive in
the sense of the rhetoric used. We keep coming forward with
legislation. As time goes on we must pass legislation to deal
with the times. We are going through difficult times but let us
11115
remember that the good things in this bill can be supported by
almost every Canadian. However, there are matters in it that
affect the average Canadian. These must be corrected. There are
things in this bill that affect estates. I want to see some of those
corrected in committee.
(1200)
I have voted over 2,000 times in the House of Commons and
on only one occasion have I voted against the government. If
further changes are not made to this legislation, I am afraid I am
going to have to see the second time that I will vote against my
own government. That does not sit well with me personally
because I am a loyalist and a constructive worker trying to get
things done. I do not want to vote against this bill, but if I must, I
will. My constituents are not part of the problem with their
hunting and their sports clubs that operate throughout the area.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
respect the comments of the preceding speaker. I suggest to him
that he seriously consider what we are debating today, which is
an amendment by the Reform Party to split the bill into the parts
that he and I agree are workable and necessary.
I also refer to the comments of my Reform colleague from
Nanaimo-Cowichan. He spoke about the amendment to split
the bill as being a practical solution.
For the benefit of the justice minister and his staff, I would
like to set my speech around some things that have been in the
public domain that his staff should have brought to his attention.
However, I assume they have not, otherwise he too would be
inclined to split the bill.
I would like to identify the real problem. Referring to
documents that are in the public domain, I would like to read
briefly from one. It is an article referring to Project Gun Runner
in the Kingston Whig-Standard Companion of April 9, 1994 and
I read in part:
A total of 86 charges were laid during Gun Runner, which ended last April. Of
the 17 guns the team bought on the black market, one came from a break-in. The
rest were smuggled into Canada.
That is one out of 17. It goes on:
Of the 243 other firearms that participating police forces seized during the
operation, the vast majority came into the country illegally from the United
States.
``The project certainly opened our eyes to the fact that stolen guns from
B&Es aren't the problem. Smuggled guns are the area of concern,'' says
Detective Sergeant Wayne Moore of the Hamilton-Wentworth police criminal
intelligence unit.
Gun Runner helped open a lot of people's eyes.
It is unfortunate that many of the eyes belonging to the
backbenchers and the Liberals were not opened by this
information. Perhaps they should review it.
Metro Toronto firearms expert, Detective Paul Mullin says:
It's a lucrative business-On the streets of Hamilton and Toronto a handgun is
going to sell for $300 to $500.
And when it comes to smuggling, handguns are an easily concealed
commodity.
Let's face it, 10 handguns don't add up to a carton of cigarettes in size. And at
$500 apiece, that is $5,000 to be made.
Further on in the same article it describes how they are getting
into the country. You name it: trains, planes, boats, trucks and
cars. Last year Canada Customs seized 1,681 guns at border
crossings with the U.S., an increase of 124 over the previous
year. But 98 per cent of those firearms were seized from
American tourists who were simply not aware of Canadian gun
laws.
There are a lot of areas and ways and means of getting into
Canada without coming through customs. ``There are lakes and
backroads and rivers and unmanned locations,'' says a director
of intelligence services with Revenue Canada and Customs.
And when a smuggler comes across he is usually carrying more than one or
two guns.
He's going to be come back with a quantity-10, 15, 20 guns. He's going to
make the run worth his while because he's going to get into as much trouble for
one gun as he is for 20.
A Davis .380-calibre sold to a licensee for $70 may be sold to a first-level
street dealer for $90. The dealer then sells it to a Canadian importer for maybe
$120 and then the importer or his mule will drive it across the border and sell it
for $500.
(1205)
This article clearly delineates the fantastic profits that can be
made.
Again, for the benefit of the justice minister and his
researchers, they might want to take a look at a January 7 article
in the Montreal Gazette, headlined ``Illegal guns pour in from
U.S.'', detailing a number of illegal importations. I will cite two
here:
Toronto, September 13, 1993. Three Armenian jewel thieves enter a
downtown jewellery wholesaler, pistol-whip the owner with a 9-mm Sigarms
and escape with $90,000 in merchandise. Where did the gun come from? From
Vermonter Wayne D. Reed.
Vancouver, October 15, 1993. Five men, three of whom are jailbreakers, steal
$500,000 worth of jewellery from a Birks store. They are armed with a 9-mm
Cobray Mach II with the serial numbers drilled out, a .25-calibre Sundance and
a 9-mm Glock pistol. Where did the guns come from?-Wayne D. Reed.
Wayne D. Reed, 49, lives with his wife and four children in a
lower-middle-class housing development in north Burlington.
The article continues:
From this modest home Reed has fed since 1991 an ever-expanding hunger
for guns in Canada's criminal underworld. According to his own estimates
given to The Gazette, he has sold about 900 firearms, mostly high-powered
pistols, to Mohawk Indians who smuggled them over the border into Quebec
and resold them to criminals across Canada.
11116
The same routes developed for cigarette and booze smuggling-river
crossings at Akwesasne on the St. Lawrence River, and Walpole Island on the St.
Claire River north of Detroit-are now being used for the more lethal commodity,
firearms.
Further on in the article it states:
With a U.S. federal dealer's licence, Reed can legally buy and sell any firearm
except machine guns. He waits for the orders to pile up so he can get a cut rate
from the wholesaler by buying in quantity.
Criminals place their orders through various Mohawk gun dealers who in turn
place the orders with Reed or dealers like him. The Mohawks fill out U.S. federal
firearms transaction forms (referred to as ``yellow sheets'') with false names
taken from the Vermont phone books.
We have seen from Project Gun Runner and other
documentation that the problem is one of illegal importation or
smuggling. The fundamental problem here, although it does
occasionally relate to guns that are stolen from private owners,
is illegal guns.
What is the response? As the revenue critic I was very
interested to read the fact sheet put out by Revenue Canada on
the government's firearms control initiative. It reads in part:
New firearms control measures. November 30, 1994. An expanded
commercial permit system. All commercial import, export and in-transit
shipments of firearms will require a permit in advance issued by the Solicitor
General, with the approval of Foreign Affairs;
I think that Mr. Reed will shake in his boots.
Revenue Canada will verify that every firearms shipment, import and export,
is accompanied by an approval permit.
I am sure that the criminals that are bringing them in illegally
will be concerned about this.
A National Firearms Registration System. Under this system, which will be
implemented by January 1, 1998:
all firearms entering, leaving and moving through Canada will have to be
registered in the National Firearms Registry;
Again, I am sure that Mr. Reed will be complying with that,
along with the rest of the people who are smuggling guns into
Canada.
Firearms Control Enhancements: Summer, 1994
Enhanced verification of the accuracy and integrity of documentation
accompanying shipment of firearms;
Implementation of a more rigorous inspection program at all land border
crossings-100 per cent of firearms shipments are now examined;
(1210)
That certainly gives me a lot of confidence that all of Mr.
Reed's firearms are now going to be examined. Perhaps he might
not care. What does this have to do with the problem?
Absolutely nothing.
The enforcement activities contained in the bill are bogus in
light of the fact that the government is bringing down penalties
in Bill C-68 while at the same time it is loosening restrictions in
a bill that was just passed through the House, Bill C-42.
These restrictions are supposed to help when there is domestic
violence and in the illegal use of weapons. I have in my hand a
document from the provincial court judiciary, provincial court
of British Columbia where it explains that the act that was just
passed will be changing assault with a weapon or causing bodily
harm from an indictable offence to one that could be treated in a
summary fashion in court.
How serious is the government about gaining control? We
know that the Saskatoon police officers are not in favour of this.
We know that there is presently a meeting of the Canadian Police
Association and its members may or may not be in favour of
this. We know that Saskatchewan will not be enforcing this.
I conclude by drawing to the attention of the House something
I raised with the justice minister last Tuesday with a question.
The environmental extremist, Paul Watson, who allegedly
was attacked by concerned residents in the Magdalen Islands
was widely reported as saying that he held off his alleged
assailants by using a stun gun and his fists.
I asked the justice minister this. Stun guns are prohibited
weapons under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Watson
admits to having this prohibited weapon in his possession.
Would the minister confirm if the gun was confiscated, if Mr.
Watson was charged for having an illegal weapon in his
possession. If he was not charged, why not?
In part, the justice minister answered: ``I commend the
member on his knowledge of the Criminal Code but I also
remind him that enforcement of such provisions is entirely a
matter for the provincial authorities to which I invite his
attention''.
I asked, if that is the case, are we going to have two sets of
laws, one for people outside of Saskatchewan and one in or is
this whole thing bogus?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons.
The issue of gun control has generated a tremendous amount
of controversy over the last year. I have heard from many of my
constituents expressing concerns on both sides of the debate. I
would like to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing a
bill that took into consideration the concerns of gun owners
while at the same time acting to improve public safety.
11117
I believe there is broad public support for the bill. I know
it has responded to the concerns of my constituents by
delivering stiffer penalties for the criminal use and smuggling
of firearms.
At the same time, the bill provides a context in which legal
gun owners can pursue their interest in a manner that is
consistent with public safety. The creation of a national
registration system is an essential part of the legislation.
Registration of all firearms will improve public safety and help
police fight the criminal misuse of firearms.
I understand that the registration of firearms is one of the
most controversial aspects of the bill.
(1215 )
Opponents of the bill have charged registration will cost the
government in excess of $1 billion. This is not true. To set up
this system will cost $85 million spread over seven years. This
will be recovered over time from the fees charged to gun owners.
Opponents of the bill have charged registration will not
reduce the criminal use of firearms because criminals do not
register their guns. They charge registration will not improve
public safety. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
agrees with the Minister of Justice that the registration of
firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse
of legal firearms.
Registration will make it more difficult for criminals to
acquire illegal firearms by helping police trace and eliminate
sources of firearms entering the underground market.
Registration will help ensure legal gun owners are held
accountable for their firearms and do not sell them illegally or
give them to individuals without appropriate authorization.
Registration will promote safe storage which will reduce gun
theft as well as reducing suicides and accidents. Police and
women's groups both support the bill because registration will
assist the police in removing guns from volatile domestic
situations. The bill will help the police in enforcing the
estimated 13,000 prohibition orders issued every year, to
remove guns from volatile domestic situations and from
individuals considered to be a risk to society.
I will vote in favour of the bill because the registration of
firearms will save lives. It is critical to controlling the illegal
gun trade, to prosecuting offenders, to promoting safe storage
and to removing guns from the hands of dangerous individuals.
Many opponents of the bill have told the government to deal
with crime control, not gun control. The bill deals harshly with
the criminal misuse of firearms. I am pleased to see the bill
includes minimum sentences for violent offences using
firearms, a lifetime ban on owning handguns and stiff penalties
for illegally importing and trafficking firearms.
I have listened to the concerns of legal gun owners in my
riding. I am pleased to see the bill has also taken their concerns
into consideration. To avoid undue financial hardship on the
owners whose guns will be prohibited, the new legislation
allows them to buy and sell to individuals owning firearms in the
same category. This measure addresses one of the very
legitimate concerns of gun owners.
Our government is working on many fronts to reduce crime
and improve public safety. Strengthening gun control is only
one part of the government's strategy on crime prevention. We
must also address the social roots of crime including poverty,
illiteracy and family violence.
Gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. It is subject to
regulation by government because firearms can be dangerous. It
is in the best interest of society to have some degree of
regulation.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for recognizing me at this time. The firearms bill
introduced by the Minister of Justice is motivated by the best of
intentions. I am sure.
Who in this House is for violence? Who does not want control
to be exercised over violence? I do not think anyone in this place
or in the general public does. Polls show that 100 per cent of the
population is against violence, and already 73 per cent of the
population says it wants stricter firearms control.
(1220)
In this regard, the views of my party are no different from
those expressed by the public at large. It is just that, sometimes,
debates such as this one lend themselves to extremes that need to
be moderated. When I hear certain members opposite tell us that
73 per cent of the population is for the proposed firearms control
measures, I cannot help but wonder if all these people who are
for the control measures are aware of what implementing such a
system entails and how much it will cost.
A study conducted by a British Columbia university professor
indicates that there are between three and seven million firearms
in circulation and, if all of these weapons now had to be
registered, it would cost the Canadians taxpayers, the public
purse, or the hunters at the very least $500 million. That is half a
billion dollars.
Of course, these figures are just thrown at us. Can they be
checked? It would be rather difficult. On the other hand, if we
look up in the auditor general's 1993 report how much the
present registration system or firearms acquisition certificate
system has cost to operate-these figures are now available-
we can see that an inefficient and counterproductive system
costs at the very least $50 million.
I did not pressure in any way the Auditor General of Canada to
say that the current system fell short of our requirements. There
is therefore reason to believe that the proposed system may well
11118
have a starting cost of $500 million. In the current economic
context, I wonder if clear information regarding the costs
involved would have made a difference in how the public
answered the poll.
Needless to say, this kind of bill leaves the door wide open to
sheer demagogy. It has been said that even if this bill saved only
one life in Canada, it would deserve our support. I say this with
all due respect for the opinion of my colleagues across the way
who made that claim, including the hon. member for Ottawa
West, who spoke to this bill yesterday, the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis and the hon. member for Nickel
Belt.
Of course, I would try to contribute to the $500 million
needed to save a life. However, if we invested this amount in
public awareness, in the fight against spousal abuse-if that is
really the purpose of this bill-, I would not think it is too much.
I am convinced that investing $500 in one of these areas could
certainly save more than one life, at least two, as I am sure you
will agree, Mr. Speaker. This bill would then be 100 per cent
cost-effective in relation to the position of my friends across the
way.
There is another aspect to this bill. In this regard, I tend to side
with my friends here who say that this bill should be split in two.
First of all, by giving the federal government the opportunity to
create new crimes as it sees fit, this bill will-in Quebec and, I
assume, in all Canadian provinces-encroach on areas of
provincial jurisdiction, namely civil rights and freedoms as well
as the sport of hunting.
In this regard, I am very reluctant to give my support, unless it
is conclusively demonstrated that the bill cannot fail to achieve
the goals established. As you know, hunting generates regional
revenues of $300 million a year in Quebec at a specific time of
year.
(1225)
This is a windfall for most Quebec regions: the Eastern
Townships, the Upper Laurentians, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue
area, the Lac Saint-Jean region, the North Shore, the Gaspé
Peninsula, you name it. In these regions, some small
communities live off sport and recreational activities such as
hunting in the fall and fishing in the spring and summer. They
could lose all of that. I am not saying that I oppose this bill, but I
wonder about its consequences, which may not be obvious at
this stage.
However, I do think this is a prime example of federal
interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec
environment minister also had reservations about this
legislation. Sure, the initial intent is laudable and everyone
supports such a measure, the Bloc perhaps more than any other
party. However, given the current economic context, we have to
be careful before adding an extra $500 million to the deficit. Let
us not forget that our deficit is the sum total of 20 years of good
intentions in Quebec. It is thanks to all those who meant well and
tabled various pieces of legislation if we are now struggling with
this uncontrolled and uncontrollable deficit.
As regards this aspect, I hope that those who support this
legislation, as well as those who oppose it, will come to present
their respective views to a parliamentary committee. There is
another aspect of this bill which concerns me. I said earlier that
we should make sure that the goals sought are indeed reached. In
addition to being able to afford all this, we should have some
assurances that these objectives are reasonably attainable.
When we consider the opportunities for smuggling, in his study
Professor Mauser said he is not at all sure that smuggling will be
stopped.
In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
expressed some reservations in this respect. The Reform Party's
brilliant representative said earlier that a single shipment of
guns can generate incredible profits, as much as 400 or 500 per
cent. That is quite a lot. We had a terrible time trying to stop
cigarette smuggling last year. We never succeeded, so that the
federal government finally abdicated its responsibility and
reduced taxes, although it needed these to pay for its current
operations. It is no secret that the government raises revenue
through taxes. Since the government realized it could not stop
cigarette smuggling otherwise, it preferred to forgo revenues
that were legally acceptable and warranted.
So will it be the same in the case of firearms? Will the
government abdicate its responsibility, will they still shoot at
government helicopters about to land on a reserve straddling the
border between Canada and the United States, the message
being: ``Get out of here, this is our business''. At least, that is
what happened with cigarettes. I would appreciate some
certainty in this respect, some assurances that smuggling is a
thing of the past.
You know, we have another problem with imports not
necessarily connected with smuggling. Recently, I was working
on the Customs Act and the notorious procedure I mentioned
here in the House during Question Period, the so-called low
value shipment, a term used in the customs sector. For instance,
a truck comes in from the United States, a bonded carrier with a
shipment of merchandise, and they do spot checks. They look at
the manifest, they look at the list and they say: Okay, Mickey
Mouse watches, straw hats, whatever. They do a spot check.
They take items at random from the truck and check whether
these items correspond with what is on the manifest.
11119
(1230)
Customs officers told me that in nine cases out of ten, if not
ten out of ten, they might be carrying a handgun or a firearm that
is not only restricted but prohibited in Canada. In nine cases out
of ten this would go unnoticed.
So that is why I have a number of questions about this bill. I
am not saying I am against the bill but I am not saying I support
it either. I think we should all discuss this. That is why we are
debating the bill here in the House, so that in the end, we can
make an informed decision.
[English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. I particularly wanted to
speak on this legislation because of the great deal of concern it
has caused both myself and my constituents.
This legislation is an important part of the Liberal
government's broad strategy on crime prevention. It should
work in concert with previously introduced pieces of legislation
relating to sentencing reform, corrections and parole reform, the
Young Offenders Act and the consultation document on the
National Crime Prevention Council.
I agree with the overall intent of this legislation as well as the
three principles that motivated this government to introduce Bill
C-68. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon all
members of this House to recognize that there are two sides
which must be heard. We must recognize the sincerity with
which both sides bring their views to the table.
I have constituents in my South Shore riding who are in favour
of the government measures and I certainly have constituents
who are opposed. For this reason, I have formed a riding
committee which will meet with me on a regular basis to review
the legislation in detail. This committee will be reporting to the
Minister of Justice and to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs on areas of concern with a view to offering
suggestions for improvements.
I expect that people on both sides of this issue would agree
with the three principles as previously outlined by the Minister
of Justice in this House. In essence these principles are: one, that
Canadians do not want to live in a country where people feel
they want or need to possess a firearm for their protection; two,
that if we are to retain our safe and peaceful character as a
country, those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime
will be severely punished; and three, as a government and as a
country, we must acknowledge and respect the legitimate use of
firearms by law-abiding Canadian citizens.
The Minister of Justice and this government have
acknowledged throughout this debate their respect and
consideration for the traditions of hunting, both for sustenance
and for sport, as well as the use of firearms for farming,
ranching and other legitimate activities. It is not the intention of
this government with this legislation to interfere with these
rights. As well, we wish to go on record as acknowledging that
these rights will continue to exist into the future.
I would like at this time to comment on the various
components on the firearms control package as outlined in the
legislation.
I believe that increased penalties will act as a deterrent to the
criminal use of firearms. A mandatory four-year jail term for
the use of a firearm in the commission of a serious crime, in
addition to charges for the offence in which the gun was used, is
deemed by those concerned with law and order to be much more
acceptable than the status quo.
The present law is often criticized as being inadequately
enforced with charges too often dropped as part of a plea bargain
or otherwise not pursued. This problem is addressed by this
legislation.
In relation to the aforementioned, I fully support any change
that will see young offenders who commit firearms offences
being treated in the same manner as adults. The criminal
penalties as outlined in the legislation will also limit access to
firearms for felons, including young offenders.
Prohibition orders on the possession of restricted and
non-restricted firearms for those convicted of serious violent
crimes will range from 10 years to life. People convicted of
stalking or drug related charges will be subject to prohibition
orders.
Not only does this make good common sense, but it is a crime
prevention measure that will go a long way toward restoring
public confidence in the justice system. It is clear that the
intention of this legislation is to offer more protection to the
law-abiding citizen.
Bill C-68 includes border control measures which are
directed at curtailing smuggling activities and tightening up
importation regulations. In addition, the bill adds a number of
new offences arising from the trade in illegal firearms or other
weapons. The overall penalty provisions will put these offences
among the most serious class of crimes in the Criminal Code.
The most contentious part of this legislation is the registration
provision which will apply to all guns, regular, restricted, and
prohibited. Many of my constituents have raised concerns or
worries about the registration requirement. They are concerned
about the cost, both to themselves as individuals and to the
country at large. They have concerns that the system will be
cumbersome. They have concerns that registration will lead to
the eventual confiscation of their firearms. They are concerned
that the registration system will not be secure and that others,
including criminals, could gain access to the information.
11120
(1235)
They have asked me how registration will address the issue of
crime in our communities. They have asked if the $85 million or
more would not be better spent on social programs, thereby
attacking the causes of crime.
They are concerned that they will become criminals by not
registering their guns. They are also concerned about and wish
to have addressed further the question of compensation to the
owners of handguns that are being banned.
These are legitimate concerns. We owe it to Canadians to
address these concerns item by item. I do not believe we have
really done this, but I hope in the weeks and months ahead we
are able to ensure that our communities are better informed on
these issues. I know I will be reviewing all of them with the
committee in my riding and bringing them forward for
consideration.
I would like to take a minute now to explain my understanding
of some of these issues.
The first issue is on the matter of cost. The Minister of Justice
has been quite clear and emphatic that the cost to gun owners in
the first year is expected to be zero, or at the very most, a
nominal amount in the range of $10. For this fee the gun owner
can register up to 10 guns with no further registration being
required during his lifetime. I am convinced that the
government has no hidden agenda to eventually confiscate guns.
It is also important to explain that when formulating this
legislation the government listened to the law enforcement
community. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has
long requested and encouraged the adoption of universal
registration. The chiefs of police cited a number of reasons for
this and explained how it would help them in the fight against
crime. The following are the reasons stated by the police
association:
Tracking guns that are imported to Canada and then sold is
critical to controlling abuse. It will be easier to prosecute
individuals for possession of illegal and stolen weapons because
the police will be able to distinguish between legal gun owners
and illegal gun owners.
The police say that registration will assist in high risk
situations. The police say that registration will assist in taking
preventative action against domestic violence by allowing them
to remove firearms from a volatile situation. They say
registration is essential for the enforcement of the estimated
13,000 prohibition orders issued each year.
Members of the strategic weapons and tactical units of many
forces feel that more information about the presence of firearms
is critical. In most cases, guns which are stolen were improperly
stored. The police say registration will promote safe storage
which will in turn reduce gun theft as well as reduce suicides and
accidents.
These reasons need to be explored in more detail.
One facet of this legislation I am particularly opposed to is the
use of orders in council to add weapons to the existing
prohibited weapons list. I support banning weapons that have no
legitimate purpose. I see no reason for people to own assault
weapons, handguns with no legitimate purpose, compact or
single-hand crossbows, but I object to the process whereby this
has been accomplished.
I was particularly pleased to see that the Minister of Justice
has asked the standing committee to consider a number of issues
that have been raised since the firearms control action plan was
first introduced.
My office has received a number of representations from
persons concerned with being able to leave their relics and
heirlooms as part of their estate. I should also make it clear that
there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent an
individual from passing on their long arms upon death. I have
also received a number of letters from constituents who feel
their weapons have been wrongly prohibited. These concerns
are ones the minister is going to have addressed by the standing
committee and I appreciate that.
Upon reviewing the legislation, I am of the belief that its
intent is to control crime and promote public safety while
respecting the needs of legitimate gun owners. This legislation
acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons for people to
own firearms and that firearms are essential tools for many
Canadians. This legislation does not set out to inconvenience
these individuals.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Minister of Justice
has stated that Canadians will have their opportunity to make
their views known when the legislation is reviewed by the
standing committee. I trust that the concerns of my constituents
will be addressed and that answers to their legitimate concerns
will be provided.
I also wish to state that I support the objective of the
legislation. Its objective is to reduce violent crime in our
country, an objective which I think all of my constituents would
support.
(1240 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and speak in support of the Reform Party's
motion to split Bill C-68 into two bills.
The Minister of Justice said this bill is about the kind of
Canada we want. I and the Reform Party can certainly agree with
that statement. He also said that the overwhelming majority of
Canadians support his position. I take exception with this
statement.
11121
Certainly if the question was asked whether they were in
favour of gun control, any reasonable, fair-minded, clear
thinking Canadian would say yes. The fraud being perpetrated
on Canadians is that pollsters have been paid to ask the wrong
question, and ask they have over and over again. The minister
must not get away with this misconception, pushing his agenda
and serving the interests of the minority and the elitists.
Though the answer from the majority regarding firearms
control is yes, it is not yes to more firearms control, but rather a
firearms control that respects without question the rights and
freedoms of law-abiding citizens. I must repeat that statement:
a firearms control that respects the right of life, liberty and
security of person and that respects the inherent right of every
citizen to own and enjoy property and that respects the rule of
common law.
Canada's required firearms law must be in a form that is
simple, economically attainable, and derived from common
sense. Canada's required laws dealing with criminals must also
be simple, economically attainable and derived from common
sense. I mention both firearms laws and laws dealing with
criminals separately, because that is exactly what they should
be, separate.
An owner of any object, be it a knife, a rock, a club, a gun or
even a pillow is not a criminal until he or she violates the rights
and freedoms of another person with that object. The object now
becomes a weapon which then is bound to the criminal act and
dealt with by criminal law.
Now that we have separated firearms and criminals, it would
be easy to ask Canadians a fair question. They would
undoubtedly say no to more firearms control and yes to more
criminal control.
As we can see, the single politically correct question that
should be asked of all Canadians regarding the Criminal Code is
if citizens had a choice in methods used to curtail crime, which
would they favour: control of law-abiding citizens or control of
the criminal? I am sure that 100 per cent of the citizens would
vote for the second choice.
A democratic government would act upon the will of the
people unless, of course, that government lacked the will or the
ability to deal effectively with criminals and crime and tried to
create a false impression of dealing with the problem by further
regulating law-abiding citizens. That is exactly the fraud which
is being perpetrated on Canadians by the Minister of Justice.
The minister says this bill is about the type of society that
Liberals want in our country. He says that Liberals believe only
police officers and armed forces should have the right to possess
arms. He apparently means but does not include criminals in the
category of those allowed to possess firearms or this
government would be taking some very specific action, which I
will come back to later on.
If this bill is leading us to the kind of society the minister
wants, that society must be one in which governments fear
law-abiding citizens. It is one where governments seize
privately owned property without compensation. It is a country
where instead of dealing swiftly and decisively with criminal
activity, the government and law enforcement authorities turn
their heads and pretend they do not know what is going on.
I fully agree that a kinder, gentler society is a highly desirable
goal. However, I see no evidence of success on the part of those
promoting that concept. Instead, I see a constantly rising
confrontational crime rate, the result of a criminal justice
system repeatedly basing action on theories that turn out to be
wrong. As the risk factor rises, the public is moving toward
self-protection, whether it is legal or not.
Prohibition is not a method of control; it is a method of losing
any control over the situation. It is a lawyer's theory that just
does not work. Most lawyers regard it as an axiom that reducing
the number of weapons in society will reduce weapons crime. In
all of our research we have found nothing whatsoever to support
that idea. The evidence strongly indicates that the successful
disarming of the community simply turns control of the
neighbourhood over to the biggest, meanest thugs in the
neighbourhood.
I will leave members with the conclusion of Chief Inspector
Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary in
Britain, a country long known for strict gun control. He has done
a comprehensive study on firearms control methods and their
actual as opposed to theoretical effects in many countries. I
quote his findings:
At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory
control on private ownership of firearms is irrelevant to the problem of armed
crime; yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent
crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the
availability of a type of weapon.
The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is small, and
these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls had serious
effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history
of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be
shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduce
crime.
(1245)
He was right. The latest British Home Office statistics for
England and Wales show violent crime has doubled every 10
years since 1946. Britain's recreational firearms industry has
been destroyed.
Many honest shooters now keep their firearms in Belgium to
avoid the next wave of confiscation. Has gun control worked?
No, it has not worked. British firearm crime rates are at an all
time high and continue to rise. What else could one expect?
11122
Firearms are easy to smuggle, police are easy to avoid while
committing a violent crime and their government guarantees
that the victim will have no effective way to protect himself
or his family. Any criminal who has a firearm can totally
dominate any victim situation.
Our Minister of Justice said on several occasions that no
Canadian has any need of firearms for self-protection. If that is
so, why does he and the Prime Minister regularly dip into the
public purse to cover the expense of armed bodyguards to
protect their own sacred skins? Are their skins any more sacred
than those of other Canadians?
I must expose one other area of fraudulent injustice arising
from this legislation, the whole matter of how this legislation
will apply to Canada's aboriginal peoples.
When I raised this question in a departmental briefing I was
chastized for suggesting there was perhaps racial inequity in the
application of the legislation. My constituency has a large
aboriginal population and both aboriginal people and
non-aboriginal people have a right to know how this law will be
applied.
The minister stated in the House this law must apply to all
Canadians but will be enforced with cultural sensitivity on
Indian lands. Indian chiefs and even aboriginal MLAs tell me
this law will not apply to the Indian people and would be a
violation of treaty rights or that it would not apply because
Canadian law does not apply on sovereign Indian lands.
I hope this is not the view of the Minister of Justice because
every Canadian must be equal under the law. To do otherwise
would promote racism and non-compliance with the law.
The minister under section 110 of the Firearms Act has the
authority to decide which persons do or do not need firearms. I
am told the minister agreed under section 112(1) to exempt
aboriginal people by order in council and that the issue need
never come before Parliament.
I hope this is incorrect because it would be a recipe for
disaster. If this is not true, when will the government do
something about the illegally stored arms on the reserves along
the U.S. border and do something to stop the illegal smuggling
that everyone knows exists?
How will the minister apply the law in the self-governing
Indian lands in Yukon where legislation passed in the House
recently removes jurisdiction for firearms from the federal
government?
There is no reasonable justification for treating aboriginal
people any different under this legislation than anyone else.
Firearms are no more a part of aboriginal culture than
non-aboriginal culture. Firearms, after all, arrived in this
country with the Europeans.
If this law is bad for aboriginal people, this law is bad for all
people. We are convinced the major predictable effect of
enacting this legislation, so poorly researched, so badly
designed, so basically silly, is an increase in the number of
Canadian voters killed, injured and robbed in the years to come.
We reject this legislation.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am the only veteran of Gettysburg to speak to this bill
today in the House or at any time.
(1250 )
I fought on the fields of Gettysburg a few years ago. It was the
125th anniversary of that civil war battle. I am a civil war
re-enactor, a black powder enthusiast. I go to these events
dressed up. Members should see me in my butternut tunic with
my haversack, my canteen and my 1863 Enfield musket as I
march and counter march.
I was in a Hollywood movie, ``Gettysburg''. Members will
notice that in Pickett's charge there are 6,000 Confederate
soldiers coming toward the camera. If members examine these
soldiers very carefully they will see in the first wave on the left
flank, eight over from the standard bearer, they will recognize
me.
I support the bill very much. Although my only association
with firearms is a hobby that does not involve bullets, I do very
strongly feel the legislation is warranted, not for many of the
reasons that have been presented in the House, but primarily
because it addresses the fundamental issue of keeping Canada
the way it is and avoiding the type of gun related violence that
exists in the United States.
I refer to the restrictions this law will put on the possession of
handguns for personal protection. Current law provides that a
Canadian is to have a handgun only for the purposes of
collecting, sport or as a result of their employment. We in
Canada have no provision for having handguns for personal
protection. However, statistics have shown that a larger number
of handguns have been acquired apparently to be kept at home in
bureau drawers on the offhand chance of a break and enter when
the person might be able to use this handgun.
This is what is wrong in the United States. It is because
handguns are in many private homes that when criminals enter
to commit what are essentially petty crimes they fear for their
lives and consequently go in armed. This legislation will do a lot
to get the guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners.
I can speak for many gun owners in my riding, legitimate
sportsmen, collectors and hunters. These people are the first to
say guns should not be kept with the idea of defending one's
television set by shooting some kid entering a home.
All other things aside, the bill will not stop criminals from
using firearms but it will get firearms out of circulation when
they are acquired for purposes that are not considered
responsible and legitimate.
11123
It really is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have listened
very carefully to the members of the opposition and also to
members of my own party who have felt very passionately that
there are inadequacies in the legislation, that it penalizes
responsible gun owners. There have been six or eight months
of debate in the House, in caucus and out in the communities.
I applaud the Minister of Justice, for he has consistently gone
around the country and listened.
I invite my opposition colleagues to take satisfaction in
knowing there have been improvements in the legislation since
it came in the form of proposals. The bill now before us
represents an enormous step in dialogue between a government
initiating bills and individuals in the community through their
MPs trying to make legislation that meets its target of restricting
the spread of guns for illegitimate purposes and at the same time
does not penalize those who wish to have firearms for legitimate
reasons.
(1255 )
I thank the Minister of Justice because he has set an example.
He has shown Parliament works. Legitimate gun owners who
had genuine concerns, a lot of them based on misrepresentation,
have been heard. The bill before us is not perfect. We have to
polish it and perfect it. It is a product of genuine debate. We
should all be proud of that.
I do not want to go over all the aspects of the bill already
covered. I would like to react to three points that I am interested
in specifically. Quite a few people on both sides of the House,
my own colleagues included, have spoken against registration of
long guns.
The Minister of Justice had consultation with the experts, the
RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. If they
advised the minister that registration is worthwhile in order to
control the illegitimate circulation of guns and the theft of guns,
I have to accept the word of these experts.
Most Canadians would agree that we have the best police
forces. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the best
national police forces anywhere. If the Minister of Justice
chooses to listen to those experts and chooses to spend the $80
million or so on registration, I have to accept that he is going on
the best advice.
It is not a debate about registration, although I appreciate the
passion with which it is debated in the House. I do not have the
expertise to challenge the recommendation of the RCMP or the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
There is another aspect of the bill that I am worried about. My
colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn raised the issue that the
bill seems to give police rather sweeping powers of searching
private premises, getting a warrant to search private premises
for compliance or non-compliance with respect to the bill.
Any legislation before the House that would interfere with
fundamental liberties I would oppose. I know the Minister of
Justice is aware of this. It will be carefully examined. When the
legislation goes to the parliamentary committee it will be
determined whether this is a danger. I am sure that if this clause
in the bill is a genuine problem it will be altered accordingly.
I would like to see something else changed in the bill. It would
silence a lot of the legitimate concern among gun owners I have
talked to. Many gun collectors are afraid the provisions for
describing restricted handguns are too sweeping and might
capture weapons that are genuinely antique.
One amendment in committee that would help the bill
enormously is if we put a simple date and say for example that
pre-1913 firearms can be considered antique. Then we allow
certain guns to be regarded as intrinsically valuable and exempt
as well so that we would not unnecessarily penalize those who
have genuinely valuable collections and would like to pass them
on to their heirs.
With a few relatively easy adjustments after the
parliamentary committee the legislation can come back to the
House and be a law capable of satisfying 95 per cent of
Canadians, gun owners or not.
(1300)
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to the justice
minister's gun registry bill.
I cannot call the bill firearms control legislation because the
crime control aspects of the bill are hidden behind legislative
measures which the Liberal government promised to anti-gun
groups in its pre-election platform. This is unfortunate.
Notwithstanding the political shenanigans the justice
minister and his party have chosen to pin on the bill, I think all
Canadians including everyone on this side of the House and
anti-gun groups would like to have the opportunity to discuss
real crime control measures. As a result of the Reform motion to
split the bill we may have the opportunity.
I make no mistake in describing the Liberal government's
firearms legislation as simply amounting to a gun registry. I
reinforce the term gun registry. The crime control aspects of the
bill are hidden behind the gun registry being created by the
minister.
Canadians including anti-gun groups, Liberal party
supporters and others will be sorrily disappointed if the
minister's legislative proposals are enacted. My constituents
have not been fooled for one minute with respect to the matter. It
is obvious to everyone that some special interest groups are
emotionally out of control with regard to the issue of gun
control. Because of that
11124
an all-out debate on the subject of crime control in the House is
being prevented by the government.
The bill is solely aimed at punishing law-abiding legitimate
owners of firearms in Canada. These law-abiding citizens are
more concerned than anyone with the safe usage and storage of
firearms. Of all people they should not be the target of the
legislation.
All Canadians want crime to be reduced on the streets, in our
cities and in our towns. Canadians want to be able to feel that the
authorities are able to control crime.
The Minister of Justice stated in the House that it was
estimated some 375,000 guns were smuggled into the country
and about 3,800 weapons were lost or stolen within our borders.
The justice minister introduced legislation which concentrated
on the 3,800 weapons loose in society.
What about the 375,000 smuggled weapons? As far as I can
see the minister's actions are twofold. First, his actions are
directed at punishing legitimate owners of firearms, appeasing a
special interest group. Second, as some kind of afterthought his
actions may do something about the real problem, the 375,000
weapons smuggled into the country. This is preposterous.
Anti-gun groups are not amused. Neither are sporting groups,
hunting clubs, target shooters or Olympic sports spectators. The
grassroots of Canada is not amused.
There is no reason the government cannot attempt to control
smuggled weapons without slapping the faces of law-abiding
citizens. My constituents therefore stand in favour of splitting
the bill.
Recently I conducted a household survey in my riding and 78
per cent of my constituents said that they did not want all guns
including shotguns and rifles registered. Seventy-eight per cent
of my constituents said that they did not want short barrelled
pistols banned. Most important, 92 per cent of my constituents
want tougher mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns.
(1305 )
To date I have presented 43 petitions in the House containing
over 3,000 signatures of constituents who oppose further
legislation for firearms acquisition and possession. They call on
Parliament to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences
for the use or the possession of a firearm in the commission of a
violent crime.
People do not have to look far for an example. They can turn
to their local newspapers for examples of how the criminal
justice system is letting the public down. For instance, I turn to
the Penticton Herald that had an article entitled ``Slap on the
wrists no deterrent''.
The article was about a man convicted of a weapons offence
involving a restricted weapon. He was convicted, given a slap on
the wrist, a $440 fine and a year's probation. Canadians must be
asking themselves, if the courts do not do their part in placing a
deterrent on this kind of offence, what good is it to demand that
hunters and sportsmen register their shotguns and long arms.
As members of the House we ought to be doing all we can to
protect our borders from those who seek to bring crime to our
otherwise free and peaceful nation. We ought to make it very
clear to the international criminal community, as well as our
own criminal community, that Canada will put behind bars
anyone who attempts to bring weapons into the country. We
must ensure that is well known beyond our borders and that the
maximum punishment for those bringing weapons into the
country will be applied.
Not only anti-gun groups but all Canadians want smuggling
stopped. I might add that all Canadians want the full force of our
laws and maximum punishment delivered to persons using
firearms in the commission of an offence.
While the citizens of the nation have the privilege of owning
firearms, we must make it perfectly clear that we do not and will
not tolerate abuse of the privilege. We must adopt a zero
tolerance policy on criminals in the country.
Society has been living with handgun registration for over 60
years. Because of the difficulty our citizens face in terms of
obtaining an FAC, we do not take lightly abuse of firearms laws.
Virtually every constituent, firearm owner or member of an
anti-gun group that contacted me during the debate of this issue
has left me with one thought above all: punish the criminals who
use firearms. Firearm owners, law-abiding citizens and
anti-gun groups are sick and tired of legislators going after the
wrong guy when dealing with the problems associated with
firearms in society.
Together all groups and all Canadians ask the minister not to
follow the precedent set by former ministers of justice. He
should do us all a favour and split the bill. Let us do some work
in the House on crime control. Canadians will continue to read
in the newspaper and see on television the mayhem, the
bloodshed, the heartache and the horrors lethal weapons in the
hands of criminals are causing on our streets. We will continue
to see and hear of such criminals walking away from their deeds
in that our courts refuse to deal out maximum penalties for
crimes committed with a firearm because of plea bargaining and
other reasons.
In other words, by splitting the bill in half we would be
allowed to deal with the two issues: first, crime control and,
second, a gun registry. All sides of the House would be able to
work on crime control first and most importantly. Surely the
Minister of Justice would have us believe that he is so well
11125
intended he can accommodate the desire of this side of the
House and Canadians who recognize that crime control is the
most important issue.
Any right thinking Canadian knows that with some 375,000
weapons being smuggled into the nation, the criminal use of
firearms will continue. The criminal use of firearms does not
exist because of hunters, sportsmen, gun collectors and
law-abiding citizens. The criminal use is by criminals.
(1310)
In closing, the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt would support the bill being
split in two. By doing so we could deal with crime control and
then the gun registry. We could salvage some good sections in
terms of protecting our borders from international criminals. We
could try to protect law-abiding Canadians at the same time.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us start by calling what we have before us today
what it really is. We have before us a motion. It is not to split the
bill. That is utter and sheer nonsense. The motion asks that the
House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68.
The effect of adopting such a motion is not to split the bill, no
matter what words are in the motion. Any member who says that
the effect of adopting such a motion is to split the bill either does
not know the rules of the House at all or knows better and refuses
to say so, not to put it too unkindly.
Citation 559 of Beauchesne, just in case the member across
does not know how it works, is entitled: ``Types of Motions''. It
refers to different types of motions. The motion introduced by
the member is known as a dilatory motion. In that motion is a
reasoned amendment. We decline to give second reading to a
bill. Perhaps the reason he wants to decline giving second
reading is that he would prefer to have the bill split two ways,
three ways or ten ways. It does not matter, because any member
voting in favour of the motion would be voting to kill the bill.
The hon. member and other hon. members have sent letters to
my constituents and other constituents across Canada asking
them to tell us to support the motion, the effect of which would
be to split the bill. Let me say kindly that it is not true. There is
no such effect. It would kill the bill.
I am a rural Canadian. I live in the riding of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I was born on a farm. Yes, guns
were around my home. That does not mean, as some members
are trying to portray, that rural Canadians want to have guns that
are not registered and that they have a right to do so, or that
urban Canadians want rural Canadians to be deprived of all
firearms. Both concepts are wrong.
Mr. Penson: Should your father have registered his gun?
Mr. Boudria: My father died when I was four years old, in
answer to the question being asked about my father.
Perhaps I could get back to the topic at hand; it would be more
appropriate. There were guns in my home. Guns were not
registered 40 years ago. Motorcycle drivers did not wear
helmets 40 years ago. Cars did not have seatbelts and there was
no such thing as a freeway in Ottawa. The concept that may
escape some members across the way is that we have evolved.
Things have changed. Hopefully we are here to make life better
for all our constituents. That is what the Minister of Justice is
trying to do.
Perhaps not all initiatives proposed by everyone with regard
to gun control have been perfect. Perfection is not here, but we
have a good bill before us that will go to committee. It will be a
better bill when it comes out of committee because there are
members of the House who will do a job for Canadians by trying
to make the bill better.
[Translation]
And what do we want? First, we want legislation that provides
stricter punitive measures for those who use weapons illegally.
Second, we want to put a stop to arms smuggling or limit it as
much as possible.
(1315)
Third, and there are perhaps other elements I could
enumerate, we also want to register firearms so we know who
has them and how many they have. Is this such a strange concept
in civilized society? After all, I register my car.
[English]
I do not have a dog now but when I did I had to register it.
Some people are telling me if we register our firearms that
automatically means it is the first step toward confiscation. No
one ever attempted to confiscate my dog. It was registered. To
pretend, as some hon. members have, that this is the first step
toward confiscation is not right.
Some of those people saying that will someday have to justify
what they are doing before their constituents. An hon. member
sent me what he called his test as to whether we should support
gun control. In the hon. member's test was a questionnaire. In
the questionnaire of the member from the Reform Party it said:
``Do you think members should vote according to the majority
of their constituents?''
If that were the only test applied to the bill-not that it should
always be the strict and only test any member should be
governed by-to the hon. members across, this debate would
have been long over. That is not the only test. The members
across should not pretend it is either, because they are wrong.
11126
[Translation]
A few days ago, there was an attempt at a sort of ambush in
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
[English]
A group calling itself-I use the term loosely-the
responsible firearms owners of Stormont-Dundas and
Glengarry sent a poster inviting people to a meeting. Do you
know what the poster said, Mr. Speaker? I think you do for
obvious reasons. The poster said: ``Attention all firearms
owners. This is the last chance to save your firearm'', in
reference to a meeting at which they asked me to be present
along with an hon. member from the Reform Party.
They sent that kind of information out trying to excite people
to make them as angry as possible so they would show up with
anger in mind, not justice. People would go to that meeting
thinking it was the last chance to save their firearms. Then they
organized this debate with a neutral chairman who just happened
to own the local gun shop. When I discovered the local gun shop
owner was the chairman of the meeting I objected. I said it was
wrong. They said they would change the chairman for a better
one.
They changed the chairman for a local optometrist. When the
name became familiar, my staff discovered in our file that he
had sent me one of those little cards in which he bragged he
owned 20 guns and if I or my party dared to propose any stricter
gun control he would work to defeat me, work to defeat my party
and that those who supported further gun control would never
remember and that he would never forget. That was the neutral
chairman they had appointed for the meeting. He was the second
neutral chairman because the first was not neutral enough.
Having done that they decided on the format of the debate in
which they had an educational presentation by the gun group
which lasted 20 minutes. It was followed by a presentation by
the provincial member for the riding who said he did not like the
bill. That was followed by a member of the Reform Party who
spoke 15 minutes against the bill. To even it up, on the other side
they had me speaking for the bill for 15 minutes. That was a fair
debate? It was an ambush. Mr. Speaker, you know what I am
talking about.
Then they tried to get coverage for this event and those people
would claim they represented the majority of my constituents.
(1320)
[Translation]
No, Mr. Speaker. And I am ready to debate with anyone in my
riding, with equal time for both sides. I am ready to do so. I am
ready to prove that the hon. Minister of Justice has put a good
bill before us, and that this bill will be improved by a
parliamentary committee made up of members from both sides
of the House, people who know what they are doing.
Whether they come from the Reform Party, the Bloc
Quebecois or even from here in the minister's party, people will
work and will work well on this committee, and we will have a
better bill as the result. But we are not going to make any
progress so long as people continue to try to dupe others in the
way I have described. There is nothing to be gained by listening
to those who claim that voting for the motion tabled in the House
today by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville means voting
to split the bill into two distinct parts.
[English]
Nothing is further from the truth. A vote for the motion today
is not a vote to split the bill. It is a vote to decline second reading
to the bill. It is a vote to kill the bill. I will not vote to kill the
bill. It is a good bill. I will work to improve it. We have a good
piece of legislation and we will make better laws for the citizens
of Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems they are starting to feel a little heat on the other side from
some of their constituents.
I would like to add my voice to the chorus we are hearing from
this side of the House. The Reform Party is opposed to Bill C-68
because it makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who are
responsible gun owners. We would like to separate the criminal
use of firearms from the ownership, transportation and storage
of firearms in the bill.
We heard the chief government whip give us all of the legal
procedural reasons why this cannot be done. People in Canada
are sick and tired of the Toronto big city lawyers trying to define
what can be done. The minister knows we can separate the bill if
he has the will to do it. He is not willing to do it. He is trying to
give us an omnibus bill incorporating two things, the protection
of Canadian citizens and registration. They are not linked.
We say strengthen and enforce the law dealing with criminals
who use guns to commit crimes. That is a reasonable alternative,
but leave responsible gun owners alone.
This bill will place unnecessary restrictions on us. It will limit
our freedom. It will waste our time and it will put a dent in our
pocket books. I do not care what the minister says. It will be
significantly higher than what he estimates.
In my riding of Peace River the lawyers who write the laws
concerning firearms are known as those out of touch eggheads
from Toronto. I live in a northern riding. These are fancy
lawmakers who have no idea what it is like to live and work in
the north. These are lawyers who have never had to worry about
bears or wolves killing their livestock. Come up north with me
11127
and maybe I can paint a picture of what it is like. I encourage the
minister to do that.
Several years ago a rancher in my riding saw a black bear
approaching his young child playing outside. Being a crack shot,
he grabbed his rifle and pumped two shells into the animal. He
assumed the bear was not coming over to make a polite
introduction. Had this incident occurred today the child
probably would be dead.
Talk about saving one life, is it worth it?
With the law as written today the rancher first would have to
go from one room to get the gun and into another room to get the
ammunition. He would not have had time to get that bear before
it got his child.
Many people in my riding voted against the Conservatives
because they hated Kim Campbell's Bill C-17. Now they are
finding out this government is even worse. Maybe there is a
lesson there to be learned.
How will one store ammunition in another room if one lives in
a one room cabin? Who lives in a one room cabin? Trappers and
outfitters do. They have lots of them on their trap lines. That is
what Kim Campbell's law demanded. Hunters and trapping
guides who depend on their guns for a living do not have fancy
multiroom houses. They have one room cabins. They would
have to store their ammunition in one room and their guns in a
separate one. They would have to build a separate cabin to store
their ammunition. How ludicrous this gets.
(1325 )
If a person is moving around their property to fix fences, as
ranchers do in some parts of northern and western Canada, does
it make any sense to unload the firearm, put the ammunition
under the seat and get back into the truck? It does not. Bear
stories are not as frequent as they used to be but there are still
parts of the country where bears are a menace to livestock. We
still have the occasional tragic incident. I encourage the
minister to listen.
Six years ago two tree planters were replanting some cut
blocks in a reforestation project in my riding. They were
unarmed and they were charged by a large black bear. One
managed to climb a tree high enough to get out of trouble. The
other tree planter was not as lucky. He was killed. Five years ago
an unarmed timber cruiser had the misfortune of running into a
grizzly. He did not live to tell his story. If we talk about one life
being saved, those are a couple of examples.
Let us talk about a different kind of hardship, money. In most
rural areas people cannot afford to register their firearms even if
it did make any sense. When we start telling a young couple with
little children struggling to make ends meet who have already
lost a cow to a wolf or a bear and some calves to other
misfortunes that they must shell out $300 to $400 to register
their firearms, we have to wonder from where that money is
going to come. It will come straight from the mouths of their
children.
Please do not tell me that it is only going to cost $10 or so to
register a firearm. To properly register anything we need an
inspection. I believe the minister knows this. When we are
talking about inspecting distinguishing features such as serial
numbers and calibre we are going to run into costs.
The minister knows that up to 20 per cent of long guns do not
have proper identification at the moment. Is the government
planning to run a deficit in this area as well? The cost of
registering handguns is approximately $75. It is difficult to
understand how the registration of rifles and shotguns is going
to be any cheaper. The government estimates the total cost of
registration at around $85 million. It will probably be a lot
closer to $500 million, almost six times as much; seven million
long guns multiplied by $75. Members can work out the math.
We have had a handgun registry for some 60 years. Has it
reduced the incidence of store robbery or domestic violence?
No, it has not. It has probably increased. How will long gun
registration improve that balance? If there were any solid proof
that domestic violence would be reduced as a result of more gun
control, in rural areas this law would be easier to swallow. There
is no such proof.
The real red herring here, the one I resent the most, is when
the minister talks about how it will reduce suicides. This is the
worst case scenario I have ever heard of. My nephew committed
suicide. It was the most tragic thing that ever happened in our
family. Did he use a gun to do it? No, he did not. When people
are in that state of mind they will use whatever they find
necessary to get the job done. Whether a gun was there,
whatever was there to get the job done, that is what he used. That
is the worst possible case the minister put forward.
In situations of domestic violence it is much the same. A
distressed person will use whatever is handy. They will use their
fists, they will use knives, they will use egg beaters or any item
they happen to find. Suggesting these items should be registered
is as ludicrous as registering rifles and shotguns.
If there were any solid proof that murders would be reduced
by requiring registration, tougher gun laws would be more
palatable. Again, there is no such proof. A retired RCMP
sergeant wrote recently that in his 27 years with the RCMP he
was directly involved in investigating 14 murders and attempted
murders. In only three of those were firearms used. The murders
involved fire, axes, fists, two-by-fours, strangulation and
kitchen knives. Registering the few firearms used would not
have prevented most of those crimes from occurring.
Our fancy lawmakers say that cars are registered, so why not
rifles and shotguns. Has car registration reduced the carnage on
11128
our highways, prevented cars from being stolen or used in the
commission of crimes? Obviously not.
Most of the people in my riding use their guns only
occasionally. This is very important. These guns have been
handed down from grandfather to father to son. Most people,
including myself, use their guns very infrequently. It really
bothers people that they will have to go through this whole
process when it is not going to be effective.
Mark my words, it is not going to be effective in reducing
crime. There will be a big cost involved and it will be a big
inconvenience. These are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who do
not like to have their freedom limited without a good reason. If it
could be demonstrated that there is going to be a reduction in the
criminal use of firearms, that would be a different matter.
(1330)
Many have guns which are heirlooms having been passed
from father to son and so on. Putting all the rules and regulations
in place to limit the use of these through registration does not
make any sense. The government will be forcing people to break
the law in many cases. Many people in my riding have said they
are not going to register their guns.
I urge the government to reconsider this ill-conceived bill.
Punish the criminal use of guns and do not make criminals out of
peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the justice
minister's bill on gun control.
I speak as a member who was in the last Parliament which on
two occasions dealt with firearms legislation. At that time there
was a large body of support for the initiative in principle. The
process of finally adopting it did bring about some minor
modifications which most people in Parliament believed
improved the bill.
In any event, I want to be clearly on record as supporting the
justice minister's initiative in principle. I am committed to
working with other colleagues in the House to improve the bill
where possible and to reframe it so that at the end of the day we
have the best possible mix of statute, regulation and
administration for the benefit of the public as a whole and gun
owners as a group.
Before I go further into my remarks, I want to make two quick
points.
The government and I hope, the House have reached a point
where we are prepared to say that in relation to firearms,
everything is in. We are not going to have a statute that covers
just some firearms and not others. Everything is going to be
recognized as being part of the system or however we choose to
deal with this. All firearms are seen to be part of the system.
Some members opposite and I believe some members on the
government benches are very sensitive to the issue of this statute
criminalizing individuals who but for this statute would not be
criminals. In saying that, we are referring to people who own
firearms now who might fail, either advertently or
inadvertently, to fulfil a provision in the new act and thereby
would be subject to criminal sanction.
At first blush, I am sympathetic to that position. Thousands of
Canadians do not spend very much time worrying about criminal
law because they are law-abiding citizens. By passing this
statute we will impose upon them a standard where for a certain
period of time they are going to have to think about it. They are
going to have to do something or not do something, comply or
not comply. It is going to bring them belly up to provisions in
this statute which create criminal sanction.
I am sensitive to that but I want to point out there are already
provisions in the Criminal Code where otherwise law-abiding
citizens who own firearms are subject to criminal sanction. In
existing law, if an otherwise legal owner of a firearm breaks a
provision of the code dealing with regulation of restricted or
prohibited firearms, or improper use of other non-prohibited,
non-restricted firearms, they are subject to criminal sanction.
I make those two points. Everything is in. I am sensitive to the
issue of criminalization, but I am not so sure there is not a way to
do it which is rational, fair, just, and in compliance with the
charter and common sense.
(1335)
With those two things out of the way I want to address three or
four segments of the bill.
First and perhaps most important is the issue of registration.
This bill would impose on Canadians an obligation to register
every firearm. There may be the odd exception here or there, but
generally everything is in. Every firearm is going to be
registered. If it does not have a serial number, it will have to
have some markings or characteristics by which it can be
identified.
The concept of registration has been thought out rationally. I
do not think it was a political initiative. No one is trying to pull
the wool over anybody's eyes. Rational individuals, including
the justice minister, have decided that registration will produce
certain benefits for Canadians. It will not get rid of disease and it
will not balance the budget. There are many things it will not do.
However, registration will have a positive effect in the
enforcement of prohibition orders.
Most rational people will understand that, if they are
cognizant of what happens when the police are asked to deal
with the allegation of an illegal firearm at a residence. It is all
too easy for those who occupy the residence to say: ``That is not
my firearm; it is her firearm,'' or ``it is my kid's; it belongs to
my 19-year old''.
11129
If there is a functioning registration system, ultimately the
owner of that firearm will be registered. There will not be much
doubt about who the owner is. Maybe it is the kid; maybe it
is the spouse. In any event the uncertainty will not be there and
enforcement will be enhanced.
Second, those who deal with the trafficking of firearms
believe, although I do not have any statistical evidence, that it
will assist in combating smuggling. The fact that domestically
owned firearms are registered and in the system allows for the
ability to then identify firearms which are not in the system. The
good guns are separated from the illegal guns. That will help
authorities in dealing with smuggling. Otherwise they often do
not know whether it is a smuggled gun. They just do not know
the derivation of the firearm.
Third, the obligation to register will increase the propensity
of the gun owner to comply with the existing legislation. He or
she will see themselves as part of the registered gun owning
public with a commensurate obligation to take care of their
firearm properly.
At the moment a lot of orphaned firearms are sitting in
basements and attics. All of us know where they are. They are in
a little box up in the rafters, or on top of the furnace. In so many
houses across this country that is where these little orphaned
guns are.
Registration is required so that the people who know the guns
are there will pull them out. They will get rid of them. They will
give them away or turn them in. They will disable them, or
whatever they are going to do. At the end of the day, the guns
will be registered. They will know they have an obligation to
make sure the firearm is safely stored and that it is not an
orphan.
(1340 )
I think the same thing happens with motor vehicles, aircraft,
and other things that we register. In any event, I do not know if
that is going to happen for sure. In a rational way I can see the
linkage. I am prepared to take the risk of imposing obligations
on the gun owning public.
Last but not least, it is obvious that a firearm with a serial
number and a registered owner is much easier to trace than a
firearm with a serial number and no registered owner. That is
simple logic.
I accept that registration is going to have some positive
benefits and to be sure, there are costs. As colleagues have
pointed out, there could be huge costs. As I read them, the costs
will be more than manageable. The costs are bearable by the gun
owning public. We can find an efficient and effective way to use
new technology to do it.
I accept that there is a grandfather clause which will be to the
benefit of many gun owning Canadians. I note that the House of
Commons steering committee of the justice committee was
meeting this morning to make plans to deal with the initiatives
of the public in dealing with this. Many MPs will take part in
that process to try to make the bill better.
I believe that my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River has
Canada's only handgun manufacturer. That manufacturer does
about $25 million worth of business a year. Ninety-nine per cent
of the product is exported into markets all over the world.
The firearm has been purchased by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation hostage release team. It is a quality firearm. We
have quality firearms here in this country. We make them here. I
am going to do everything in my power to make sure that this bill
and the regulations do not impair the ability of my constituent
business to continue to do $25 million worth of business in
Toronto and Montreal which is a significant export.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Reform's
amendment to Bill C-68 put forward by my colleague, the
member for Yorkton-Melville.
This amendment proposes to split Bill C-68 into two separate
bills, one dealing with the criminal aspects of the bill and the
other dealing with firearms regulations. These are two entirely
separate and unrelated items. It makes sense that these two
issues be separated and dealt with as two separate bills for
expediency, simplicity and fairness.
Canadians want the opportunity to examine and debate the
firearms sections of this bill openly and thoroughly. Canadians
also want to see the crime control sections implemented as soon
as possible.
Most Canadians will agree with increased crime control
provisions but have difficulty with proposals to increase
restrictions and control over firearms ownership. There has been
a great deal of public discontent over proposed firearms
restrictions which means that this bill is going to be subject to
intense public scrutiny.
Our proposed amendment to split the bill allows the crime
control provisions to go ahead without delay while the debate on
gun control regulation continues. I strongly support this motion
because it is practical. It allows government to push forward
crime control provisions. At the same time it allows reasonable
debate and consideration of the controversial proposals
regarding gun registration and confiscation.
Although Canadians would prefer to see more crime control
than is contained in this bill, the provisions included are clearly
required and should go forward without delay to be reviewed in
committee. For example, sections of this bill that I agree with
call for stiffer sentences and these items should be imposed as
soon as possible. Canadians have been waiting too long for
mandatory sentencing of criminals who commit crimes using a
firearm. This bill proposes mandatory sentencing with terms
11130
ranging from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 14 years
to be served consecutively with other sentences.
This bill also contains initiatives to toughen gun smuggling
penalties and mandatory jail sentences of at least four years for
the criminal misuse of firearms. I wholeheartedly agree with
these proposals. However, we must not forget that sentences for
the criminal misuse of firearms have been on the books for
years, yet remain largely unused. Reformers have been pushing
for enforcement of these laws and I am pleased to see some of
our efforts realized in the bill. However, the bill still falls short
of expectation, as mandatory sentences for criminal neglect
causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, sexual assault
with a weapon, robbery, kidnapping and other violent crimes
still need to be addressed.
(1345)
Despite sections in the bill that strengthen the punishment of
criminals, there are still many concerns with gun registration
proposals which must be dealt with separately. An independent
examination of gun proposals should not hold back efforts to
address and strengthen criminal sentencing. That is one of the
fundamental reasons we proposed splitting the bill.
Canadians are concerned that gun registration will be
cumbersome, expensive and, most important, will have
absolutely no impact on crime prevention. The justice minister
proposes to squeeze taxpayers out of more than $500 million but
cannot provide a shred of evidence that this expenditure will
help control crime.
Gun owners are simply not comfortable with proposals to
sentence law-abiding citizens that fail to register their firearms
to prison terms of up to 10 years. These proposals are overly
severe and when compared with other laws are inconsistent and
do not fit the principle that punishment should fit the crime.
There appears to be a complete lack of logic and an absence of
justice when the bill proposes to make prison sentences for
non-violent gun owners as severe as those for convicted
murderers. It is nonsense.
I support the increase in penalties for violent offenders.
However, I cannot support such a ludicrous and unjust sentence
as contained in section 92 of the bill. How can the minister
justify sentences of up to 10 years for failing to register a gun
when there is no evidence that registering guns will reduce
crime?
The bill would have much more support if the government
could provide Canadians with some evidence showing results.
However, all evidence from New Zealand and Australia shows
that registration will not have the desired effect of reducing
crime. Both countries tried gun registration but have since
abandoned the idea because it was expensive and did nothing to
prevent or reduce crime.
Not only are these proposed laws flawed, they are
ill-conceived because they cannot be enforced. Police are
already overworked and understaffed. Our prisons are full and
are operating at 115 per cent of capacity. It costs over $47,000 a
year to house a prisoner. Why is the justice minister on a crusade
to put law-abiding gun owners behind bars? Talk about a
misguided sense of justice.
Government simply cannot enforce these laws without
spending millions of dollars on more police, parole officers and
prisons, and the cost of enforcement will be of no benefit to
Canadians.
Current storage and transportation regulations should not be
punishable under provisions of the Criminal Code. It is nuts.
The logic and rationale of this section clearly have to be
reworked. The minister has openly stated that he believes the
only citizens who should be able to carry guns are those in the
army and the police. This bill aims to fulfil that goal by
penalizing legal gun owners with registration and confiscation.
Bill C-68 clearly confuses two principles: crime control and
gun control. These two issues must be separated in order that
they can be dealt with clearly and logically. Gun registration
affects law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. Criminals, on
the other hand, must understand that severe penalties are or will
be in place should they decide to defy Canadian law. The focus
of the bill should be on the criminal element, not on punishing
legitimate gun owners.
In good conscience, I cannot support ineffective legislation
which has as its only measurable function a drain on the public
purse. Bill C-68 places members in the unenviable position of
having to choose between voting against ridiculous and wasteful
proposals such as gun registration or voting for proposals to
strengthen laws against criminals. As members of Parliament
we must ensure that the laws we pass are fair and just and that
they punish the criminal use of firearms, not legitimate gun
owners.
(1350)
Canadians are demanding to live in a safe and just
environment, one that protects the rights and safety of
law-abiding citizens and punishes criminals. This is the vision
of Canada that I will support in legislation. The bill as a whole
does not support that vision. I will support a bill dealing with
Criminal Code amendments but not one that includes such
expensive and redundant measures as those contained in the gun
registration proposals.
I would like to have an opportunity to vote for the Criminal
Code amendments but I simply cannot support the wasteful
expenditures contained in the registration proposals. These
measures are not a cost effective way of improving public
safety. I will vote against the bill if gun registration is included.
11131
Few bills are perfect. Clearly it is difficult to draft a bill that
will meet the needs and concerns of all Canadians. Let's get
real. As the bill now stands, as one comprehensive,
all-encompassing bill, members of Parliament will be forced
to vote against the entire bill because they disagree with the
expensive and unworkable gun registration section.
The division of intent in Bill C-68 is obvious. The proposed
amendment put forward by my colleague to cut the bill into two
sections, one dealing with Criminal Code amendments and
another dealing with gun registration, makes good sense. Crime
control provisions need to be pushed forward right away.
However gun control proposals require serious and careful
examination.
Considerations of both cost effectiveness and crime control
effectiveness need to be primary considerations. These must be
clearly established with solid evidence to back up proposals.
In conclusion, if the government is seriously committed to
meeting the needs of Canadians, then it will support the
amendment. If on the other hand it is determined to ram the bill
through as presently drafted against the will of many Canadians,
then it will simply pay the price for not listening, the same price
the Conservatives paid after the last election. Only time will tell
if the Liberals are listening to Canadians.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a
few brief remarks regarding the government's proposals on gun
control. I would like to separate my remarks. I have substantive
concerns about the legislation and I would like to indicate why it
is worthwhile to support the amendment to split the bill into two.
Also I have some concerns from the public at large.
I would like to congratulate those legitimate gun owners
across the country who have been seriously concerned with
these proposals and for the way that they presented cogent
arguments. There has been very little hysteria or exhibitions of
frustration on their part, although they would have been more
than justified in doing so.
What we are talking about is a respect for different points of
view. People have different ways of life. They do different
things for their livelihood, recreation and hobbies. Gun owners
deserve to have the tolerance of those who do not share their
views and their activities. This unfortunately is not the case with
regard to the government's proposals.
I would like to mention some concerns about public attitudes.
In spite of indications that there is overwhelming support for
more gun control proposals, the only poll that really has asked
Canadians whether or not they think the bill will make any
difference took place in Saskatchewan.
Of the people canvassed in Saskatchewan, 50 per cent were
women and 50 per cent were men. Fifty per cent owned guns and
50 per cent did not. Eighty-six per cent indicated that expanding
the registration of firearms will not decrease crime.
Of those who supported registration, almost 50 per cent
thought it would not reduce crime. Seventy-five per cent of
those polled thought there should be an evaluation of the current
gun control laws before further changes are made. Surely this is
a perfectly legitimate and justifiable concern.
(1355 )
Canadians were asked at the turn of the year whether they
thought their perceptions about the increase in violent crime was
caused by the absence of stronger gun control laws. Only 5 per
cent thought increases in violent crimes were caused by
insufficient gun control regulations. When that was broken
down by region, 10 per cent of Quebecers thought it was a result
of inadequate gun control legislation, in the west only 1 per cent
thought it was as a result of inadequate gun control legislation.
Canadians have recognized that these proposals will not
work, they will not reduce crime and they will not reduce
violence in the home, but will just constitute a tax on legitimate
gun owners.
It is often said that the police are in favour of these gun
control proposals. Again I have some numbers from
Saskatchewan. Of the Saskatoon police force, 98.5 per cent is
opposed to these recommendations, 94.5 per cent of the Prince
Albert police force and 100 per cent of some of the smaller cities
in Saskatchewan are opposed. Therefore, there is no support
either among rank and file police officers, those who actually
have to deal with the question of guns in people's homes and
who have to risk their lives every day.
The last point I would like to make is that aboriginal peoples
have clearly indicated that these proposals are an infringement
on their treaty rights to hunt. It is unfair and inappropriate to
attack aboriginal peoples and their way of life as the government
is doing.
I have some substantive points. For years Canadians have
been asking for more crime control but the minister is not
responding to the demand. He has missed the boat on that issue
and instead is hitting responsible, law-abiding gun owners with
yet another round of tighter and tougher gun control restrictions.
Those parts of the bill that are tough on the criminal use of
firearms are supportable. We need to be tough on the smuggling
of illegal weapons and the use of guns in serious offences. We
11132
can all support those recommendations. However, concerning
registration and the way in which Bill C-17 works, we still do
not yet have a full analysis of the effectiveness of the last gun
control regulations. I am sure we should have that before we
move on.
Even the Auditor General has called for a thorough evaluation
of existing gun control programs before any additional changes
are made. He says that Canada's gun control program is
controversial and complex. An evaluation of the program is
essential to give the Canadian public and members of
Parliament the assurance that its objectives are being met.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor
immediately after question period when we resume debate.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) we will now
proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
11132
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 27 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities announced
the establishment of a 20 per cent club of Canadian
municipalities taking action on climate change. The
announcement took place in Berlin just prior to the conference
of the parties to the framework convention on climate change.
Canadian cities have emerged as leaders in responding to the
challenge of climate change. As founding members of the 20 per
cent club, they have all committed to significantly reducing
emissions of the gases that cause climate change by amounts in
the order of 20 per cent.
In Berlin they will challenge other municipalities around the
world to follow the Canadian example and join them in efforts to
combat climate change.
In addition to the global benefits that can result from
municipal actions, each member of the 20 per cent club is
realizing significant economic benefit from increased energy
efficiency and improved health for its citizens through
reductions in local air pollution.
In joining together, members agree to share information,
monitor progress and celebrate results on actions which they are
taking.
Founding members of the 20 per cent club include the cities of
Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Regina-
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last
budget showed the true colours of the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration: No more talk about readiness to accept
immigrants. Instead, we impose on them a new tax to reduce the
federal deficit even though they have yet to step foot in the
country. Worse yet, we are asking refugees who arrived less than
a year ago, or who are still outside the country, to absorb
Canada's debt.
How can we believe that the minister is acting in good faith
when even the United States and Australia impose no settlement
fees on refugees?
How can we exact settlement fees from refugees when they
were forced to leave their countries and when Canada has
recognized their right to settle here? The minister's attitude is
incomprehensible, unjust and discriminatory.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this 35th Parliament has an enormous responsibility to
get Canada's economic, democratic, constitutional and criminal
justice policies in order. The clock is ticking on all fronts.
This is why many Canadians were upset with the recent
political manoeuvring by which the House was delayed in
passing back to work legislation on the rail strike.
Farmers lost sales, mines laid off workers, manufacturing
plants shut down and our export customers were again forced to
look to other countries for supplies.
Labour management disputes must be settled through an
improved collective bargaining process. Canadians were
disappointed that the Liberal government defeated Reform's
final offer selection private members' bill and yet the very next
day ran into the political squalls of the Bloc and the NDP.
Let us learn our lessons and make the system work better in
the future.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
red book the Liberal government made a commitment to
reducing carbon dioxide levels in Canada by 20 per cent by the
year 2005. In December of last year the government took a big
step toward meeting this target by introducing the national
biomass ethanol program which has encouraged large scale
production of ethanol.
The ethanol task force was encouraged by this commitment
and is now focusing its efforts on promoting new renewable
11133
fuels such as diesel fuel made from vegetable oil. Biodiesel has
already established a large market in Germany and France. The
Canadian mining industry has shown interest in using the fuel
underground due to a lack of harmful emissions.
Biodiesel also holds the advantage of being 100 per cent
biodegradable. If it spills, costly environmental cleanups are
unnecessary.
I hope the government will respond to renewable diesel fuel
with the same enthusiasm it did with ethanol.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the world's silence was deafening when the
Government of Singapore ten days ago hanged for murder Flor
Contemplacion, a Filipino nanny, rejecting a plea from Amnesty
International and others for a judicial review.
Why was the international community not outraged? Where
was the United Nations, which just last year discussed the plight
of immigrant workers?
Had this nanny been a woman of power and wealth, would she
have met her tragic fate? Wrongful convictions are known to
have happened. Canada had Donald Marshall, David Milgaard
and Guy-Paul Morin in recent times. Time gave these victims of
injustice a chance to prove their innocence, a chance denied to
Ms. Contemplacion.
Why did the world turn a deaf ear and blind eye to her tragic
plight? Injustice wherever it incurs inflicts injuries not only to
individuals and families, not only to a nation, but to all
humankind.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for the environment has announced the
Ontario region's contribution to the green lane on the
information super highway.
The green lane provides a user friendly way to access
environmental information, products and services. Therefore,
Canadians as well as other computer users around the world can
access information from national and regional levels of
Environment Canada.
The green lane represents the government's commitment to
efficient, environmentally friendly information systems
outlined in the blueprint on renewing government using
information technology.
This initiative provides information to help people make
environmentally responsible decisions. It serves as an
electronic forum for environmental education.
I look forward to the day when all regions of this great country
will be up and travelling on Canada's green lane.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-72, claiming that it would
resolve the sensitive issue of using intoxication as a defence.
Need I remind the House that the Supreme Court decision on the
Daviault case was heavily criticized, given that intoxication was
used as a line of defence against a charge of sexual assault or
assault.
The minister claims that his bill will ensure that all people
who commit violent crimes in a state of extreme inebriation will
be considered criminally responsible for their behaviour.
Regardless of the minister's bill, a sexual aggressor whose
victim succumbed to his attack is still free to use extreme
drunkenness as a line of defence.
How can the minister claim to have resolved the problem of
the drunk defence when his bill only covers a small group of
offences?
* * *
(1405)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the incidence of suicide in the armed forces in very
disquieting. Over the past few months, six soldiers have
committed suicide. The families of these soldiers have asked the
department to explain the circumstances of their deaths and, up
to now, have received inadequate answers. This raises serious
questions about the competence of the Minister of National
Defence and of his department. Once again, the minister has
demonstrated his lack of leadership skills.
This affair is but an episode in the long string of bungled
issues at the department: first, Somalia, then the Petawawa
videos; on top of those incidents, the Fowler-Doyle intrigue and
now, these families demanding a public inquiry.
The families affected by this tragedy deserve answers and the
Reform Party is insistent that the minister give them these
answers.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
the last 20 years at least 150,000 Canadian women have received
silicone gel breast implants. Many of these women live daily
with the harmful effects of silicone leaking into their bodies
causing immune deficiencies, implants contracting and massive
scarring from their bodies' attempts to reject a foreign
substance.
11134
Tomorrow Health Canada is hosting its second workshop on
risk assessment of breast implants in Canadian women, two
years after its first workshop convened to study the issue. The
federal government has all but ignored the women most
affected.
No more studies. It is time for the federal government to make
a real commitment to the health of Canadian women by actively
supporting civil suits for compensation, making sure women get
the real information they need on removing the implants or
making a choice about implants and playing a more active role
in counselling and support.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Hollywood last night the Academy Award for best animated
short film was won by ``Bob's Birthday'', a National Film Board
co-production with filmmakers Alison Snowden and David
Fine. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the National
Film Board on winning its tenth Oscar.
``Bob's Birthday'' is an entertaining and whimsical appraisal
of the self-scrutiny part of every birthday, and represents a
continuation of the rich tradition of superior films with which
the National Film Board has been involved. This film has
already won prizes at major festivals in Canada, the U.S. and
Europe.
In its 56 years of existence, the film board has received 60
Academy Award nominations. Of the ten Oscars it has won, five
have been for animated short films, an area that has gained very
great respect and recognition around the world.
Bravo.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
``conservation is our main issue'', cried Emma Bonino,
spokesperson for the European Union. However, the activities of
the Spanish fishermen off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks
give the lie to that statement.
While the world community works toward a treaty in high
seas fishing, the Spanish continue to pillage fish stocks. While
tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadian ground fishermen can no
longer earn their living from the sea, the few remaining
groundfish stocks are being overfished by foreigners. We cannot
simply stand by and watch this happen. We first and foremost
have an obligation to defend the interests of our people and our
marine environment.
The European community's own report in 1992 condemned
the Spanish for violating fishing regulations. We must have
effective international agreements, one providing for legitimate
international inspection, one providing for legitimate
international enforcement and one dealing with our real
conservation concerns.
I commend the minister for his efforts to achieve such an
agreement. At the same time I encourage him to stand firm in
protecting Canada's interests in this dispute. He can do so
confident that Canadians stand with him.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following the Parti Quebecois youth forum on Sunday,
the Premier of Quebec said that Quebecers were not ready to
vote for sovereignty at this time.
On this point, the PQ leader is right. His only problem is that
Quebecers will not be ready either in September 1995 or next
year. The people do not want Quebec to separate.
This is clearly demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted
by the council of Quebec employers, according to which 97 per
cent of council members want the referendum to be held in 1995
while 89 per cent of them favour a June plebiscite.
As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently said, the
referendum must be held as soon as possible.
* * *
(1410)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
stubbornly making working conditions worse for railway
employees, the federal government could be shooting itself in
the foot.
As Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote in today's Le Devoir: ``The
current option of mediation-arbitration denies the right to strike
without ensuring a satisfactory settlement. This approach could
even aggravate the crisis in the railway industry and prevent the
privatization of CN''.
By trampling the rights of workers, being inflexible and
refusing to make the slightest concession regarding the
arbitrators' mandate, the government may have done what it
should have avoided at all cost, namely causing labour relations
at CN to deteriorate on the eve of this company's privatization.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Canadian public is aware of how the Parliamentary
11135
Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the
member for Halifax, feels about the people from Spain.
The member for Halifax, it was reported, on speculating about
doctors who advised Silken Laumann to take an allergy drug that
cost her her gold medal commented: ``They must have been
Spaniards''.
Not only is this a blatant insensitivity aimed at the Spanish
people, it is absolutely unacceptable behaviour given her
position as a parliamentary secretary for immigration. The
member should be ashamed.
Canada may be in conflict with the Europeans over turbot
stocks, but there is absolutely no need to attack Spanish people
directly. Canada has a long standing friendship with the people
from Spain. Many Spanish people are among Canada's most
successful and contributing immigrants and are an integral part
of our common culture.
When the member for Halifax denigrates an entire people like
this, it is time to reconsider her credibility as a parliamentary
secretary for immigration.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the
Diary of Anne Frank is a poignant reminder of the
tragedy of the Holocaust. March marks the 50th anniversary of
the death of Anne Frank in the Bergen Belsen prison camp.
Canadians should not and must not forget the lessons of
history. We must be vigilant at home and abroad to ensure that
no minority is oppressed and that human rights are respected.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to a recent headline in
Le Devoir, Quebec is
hiring lobbyists to explain sovereignty to the Americans. Alain
Dubuc, for his part, wrote in
La Presse: ``If there is one theme
that invariably surfaces in every report from every regional
commission on Quebec's future, it is that Quebecers want more
information on the sovereignty project''.
All the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois have done so far is to
create uncertainty among Quebecers, and they now want to
export this uncertainty to the U.S. The people in
Brome-Missisquoi have just reaffirmed their faith in Canada
and I salute them for that. Canada will continue to evolve within
the context of flexible federalism, thus allowing us to better
manage our economy and increase our real exports.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as of March 15, 199 out of 202 members of the
Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers have indicated they
are opposed to the Liberal's Bill C-68. That is 98.5 per cent
opposed. In case the minister needs help with his math, that is
only three Saskatchewan police officers in support of this
legislation.
Other surveys of police produce similar results. In Moose Jaw
29 city police oppose, only 6 in favour; in Prince Albert 69 city
police oppose, only 4 in favour; in Estevan 23 city police
oppose, none in favour; in Weyburn 13 city police oppose, none
in favour.
The police on the street in the cities of Saskatchewan are
nearly unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-68. The justice
minister's coalition for gun control is starting to unravel. What
will he do when similar results come in from every city police
force in Canada?
_____________________________________________
11135
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, despite an apparent lull in Bujumbura, tensions
between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes remain very high following
massacres that claimed more than 500 victims. More than
20,000 people have fled to Zaire from Burundi. The president of
Burundi admitted this was the beginning of genocide, and
meanwhile, our Minister of Foreign Affairs is so optimistic he
seems indifferent to what is happening.
Could the Prime Minister indicate what measures were
considered last night at a meeting of the UN Security Council to
put a stop to the violence in Burundi?
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
is very concerned with what is going on in Burundi. We do not
want to see a repeat of what happened in Rwanda.
Last week the secretary of state appeared before the
parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs. We spent
three hours debating how we could help people in Burundi so as
not to repeat the atrocities of Rwanda.
The Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa was in
Burundi from February 15 to February 17 at a conference.
11136
Strategy was discussed with the neighbouring countries. These
were then forwarded to the security council.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about incipient genocide. We have
just seen a terrible example of this in a neighbouring country,
Rwanda, and the Prime Minister has nothing to say about this.
My question was directed to him, since he is responsible for the
government and is ultimately responsible for determining
foreign policy.
I want to ask him whether, instead of hiding behind a junior
minister, he, as leader of the government, the Prime Minister of
Canada, the man who has the responsibility, will finally realize
and admit that the only way-
Some hon. members: Question.
Mr. Bouchard: They will first have to calm down, Mr.
Speaker. Then I will go on.
The Speaker: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to put
his question.
Mr. Bouchard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the leader of the government, assuming there is
one, whether he will finally realize and admit that the only way
to avoid a repeat of the terrible blood bath in Rwanda is to send a
UN ceasefire monitoring group to Burundi as soon as possible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is unconscionable that when I ask a member
who is a parliamentary secretary, who has more experience in
this House than the Leader of the Opposition and is very well
informed-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -and who took the trouble
to prepare for Question Period, when I ask him to give
information on behalf of the government, I think members
should respect these people who are parliamentary secretaries
and have certain responsibilities. They have information on the
issue at hand.
In Burundi, as in the case of the country next door, Canada has
always made a point of staying, whatever the circumstances.
When all other countries had left Rwanda, only Canada stayed
behind. We have always maintained a visible and occasionally
unique presence, in the circumstances. In Burundi, we are now
trying to avoid the worst. I think the information the House was
given by the parliamentary secretary was very properly
expressed and accurately described the government's position.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to hide his failure to act under
soothing assurances, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or
not he would agree Canada must show leadership by putting
pressure on the UN to send a ceasefire monitoring group to
Burundi which, I may remind him, is a member country of the
Francophonie?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, I had a chance to discuss this kind of
problem and the Francophonie with the Secretary General of the
Francophonie.
We discussed the possibility for the Francophonie to get more
involved in political problems, for instance in Rwanda and
Burundi, more or less like we used the Commonwealth to try and
find a solution to the problems in South Africa. We want the
countries of the Francophonie to be able to intervene in
circumstances like these, and I am entirely satisfied with the
way the Minister of Foreign Affairs is handling this matter.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
debate between Canada and the European Union at the
Conference on the Law of the Sea under way in New York City
shows the extent of the disagreement between the parties despite
the rift emerging within the European Union. Indeed, apparently
realizing the importance of Canada's complaints, a number of
countries, notably the United Kingdom, refuse to impose
sanctions.
Will the Prime Minister report on the progress of the ongoing
negotiations between Canada and the European Union and tell
us whether or not talks will continue with European Union
Fisheries Commissioner Bonino, who has just been recalled to
Europe?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are still negotiating with the European Community
on this issue. We have clearly indicated to the European
Community that our intention was to develop a fisheries
protection plan for this area. Our goal is to protect the
environment and we will press our point.
We want to protect fish stocks for future generations. That is
what is a stake and I think that progress has been made in the
negotiations. We are urging the European Community to make
sure that all vessels comply with international laws and refrain
from harvesting fish that should not be harvested. Once an
agreement has been reached on this subject, I am sure the
problem will disappear.
I should tell the House that, when I spoke with Mr. Santer, the
President of the European Commission, who took the initiative
of phoning me yesterday, we talked about the need to give top
priority to settling the conservation problem.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the Prime Minister confirm that, while favouring of course a
negotiated settlement with the European Union, Canada will
stand firmly by its position and take whatever measures are
11137
necessary to enforce the fishing moratorium on the Grand
Banks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have taken rather dramatic measures so far, but our
goal is to find a solution through negotiation and preserve the
species on the Grand Banks.
I think that our policy meets the support of all Canadians and
we intend to pursue our efforts until we have the assurance that
these fish stocks will be preserved for future generations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the removal of Anne-Marie Doyle as a commissioner
on the Somali inquiry because of her connections with Bob
Fowler, the former deputy minister of defence and a key figure
in the inquiry, raises some disturbing questions.
Her appointment and removal is just another in a long list of
events that suggest the minister of defence simply does not
know what is going on in his department. He was kept in the dark
about the third airborne video. He was not briefed about high
level reports on morale and now this.
If the Somalia inquiry commissioners were investigated and
chosen for their knowledge and their impartiality, as he said,
how could he have possibly been unaware of the connection
between Ms. Doyle and Bob Fowler? Everyone else seemed to
know about it.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find
the line of questioning of the hon. leader of the third party to be
most disturbing.
Ms. Doyle has agreed to withdraw her name as one of the
commissioners. She is a person of great talent, ability and
knowledge of government. She would have served with great
distinction in that commission. However there have been
questions of perception as to whether or not she would be
impartial because of her friendship with the former deputy
minister.
(1425)
She decided, although she felt she could discharge her duties
as the government expected she would be able to do, that it
would be better for her to withdraw at this point in time.
As to the events that led up to the selection of the
commissioners, there was much discussion about the suitability
of those appropriate. The degree and the longevity of the
friendship with the former deputy minister and his wife were not
fully explored. If that is a cause for concern on the part of hon.
members of the House, I apologize for not having had the
information in my possession before we made the decision to
select those people.
A replacement will be chosen soon. I suggest we let the
commission get on with its job.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians will be wondering whether this was just a
bungle for which an apology is sufficient or whether there is
something more to it and whether it was planned.
The Minister of National Defence announced his intention to
hold an inquiry in November. Bob Fowler did not leave his post
as deputy minister until January. Before he left did Mr. Fowler
play any role in the drafting of the terms of reference of the
inquiry? Did he recommend any names of commissioners to the
government?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this line
of inquisitorial questions is absolutely anathema to the
Canadian parliamentary system.
We have seen members of that party adopt the most scurrilous
of congressional American tactics in dragging the names of
public servants through the mud in this country and we will not
tolerate that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are simply doing our job. The minister would do a
better service to the House by answering the question.
Surely the minister will acknowledge that any appearance of
partiality or connection with the people the Somalia inquiry is
investigating undermines the whole purpose of the inquiry.
Could the minister categorically state that Bob Fowler, the
former deputy minister of defence, had nothing to do with
framing the terms of reference of the inquiry and played no role
whatsoever in proposing the name of Anne-Marie Doyle as a
possible panel member?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made a
number of inquiries on the suitability of certain individuals for
the inquiry. I consulted with some of my cabinet colleagues.
The name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come to my attention as
someone who had served with great distinction at the OECD. It
was I who put her name forward. I certainly feel that she was a
good choice.
With respect to the terms of reference of the inquiry, the terms
of reference were made public last week. I worked on the terms
of reference personally with the Judge Advocate General, an
individual appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, directly
responsible not to the chief of defence staff, not to the deputy
minister, but to the minister who stands responsible in the
11138
House. I take responsibility for the terms of reference and stand
by them.
If the hon. member finds something wrong with the terms of
reference, if he has accusations to make, let him have the guts to
make the accusations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia
is facing increasing provocation in Bosnia. This situation has
led to Serbian artillery fire against four Muslim security zones
placed under the protection of UNPROFOR, namely Sarajevo,
Bihac, Tuzla and Gorazde.
Can the minister give us an update on the situation in Bosnia,
given that the temporary truce, which was violated, will expire
in May, and can he also tell us about the upcoming renewal of the
mandate for Canadian peacekeepers?
(1430)
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are very concerned about the current situation in the former
Yugoslavia. We discussed the issue of personnel rotation in
Bosnia and in Croatia. A final decision has not been made with
regard to the next two to three months. I believe that the Prime
Minister will consult the other party leaders regarding the
possibility of holding a debate, perhaps tomorrow evening.
Following that, we will maka a decision on our commitment.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary.
Can the minister tell us about the recent meeting of the
contact group in London, and can he also tell us if Canada still
opposes new air strikes by NATO forces, as suggested by the
new general in charge of UNPROFOR?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
not changed our position on the use of NATO air power. It can be
used in certain circumstances under the supervision of the
United Nations.
As the hon. member knows, we have been one of the strongest
proponents of the dual key mechanism whereby the actual use of
that air power is under the auspices of the United Nations, the
special representative, Mr. Akashi, in the former Yugoslavia.
Nothing has changed to alter our views on the use of NATO air
power.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Somalia
inquiry was to look into the possibility that a high level
cover-up occurred in DND, yet the Prime Minister's office
approved the appointment of one of Fowler's oldest friends to
the inquiry and strongly defended Mr. Fowler's record in
question period.
Since the Prime Minister's actions have prematurely judged
Mr. Fowler's role in the Somalia affair, does he not believe he
has compromised the integrity of the entire inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry involves a lot of people. I am not the type of
person who finds someone guilty until there is proof.
I know Mr. Fowler and a lot of people in the Department of
National Defence and the armed forces who have been involved
in this problem. I am not presuming anybody has done anything
wrong until the inquiry is over.
As far as Mr. Fowler is concerned, I have known him a long
time. He has been an excellent public servant. He has rendered
great service in many departments. He was the deputy minister
of defence. He will testify like anyone else. I am not about to
cast doubt on the character of any person who works very
faithfully for the Government of Canada.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that
the government has finally bowed to pressure and has arranged
for Ms. Doyle to resign from the Somalia inquiry, but the
question still remains. I cannot believe that inquiries were not
made on this sort of person. Why can the defence minister not
anticipate these problems until they blow up in his face? Has the
minister lost control of his entire department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has answered those questions.
Ambassador Doyle was very well known in the public service. It
is very difficult for a minister to presume that somebody knows
somebody else in the department if they do not know them
personally. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the
government. Even in my own office it is very difficult to know if
someone knows someone else.
When this came to light, an investigation was undertaken with
the other members of the commission to determine whether she
was qualified. There was consultation as to whether it was an
impediment. We sought advice from outside and everyone said
there was no impediment. However, Ms. Doyle decided for the
11139
good of the inquiry to withdraw her name. It is sad because she is
a very competent person.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Last week, in a residential neighbourhood in Montreal, a
bomb exploded in front of a building belonging to a motorcycle
gang. That bombing, which could have injured local residents,
was yet another episode in the gang war which has been going on
for several months in the Montreal region and which is related to
control of the drug trade.
(1435 )
Since the conflicts between various trafficking groups are
escalating, will the Minister of Justice amend the Criminal Code
to include specific anti-gang provisions?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government
has received and is considering suggestions made by the
Montreal police as well as other police forces with respect to
amendments to the Criminal Code to outlaw the membership in
criminal organizations.
I want to point out to the hon. member we are considering
those suggestions and I am doing so with the Solicitor General's
ministry and the RCMP. We are examining the difficult question
of how such an organization can be defined and how
membership in such an organization could be determined.
In the meantime, I want to emphasize in response to the
question that the criminal activities engaged in by these groups
are already proscribed by the Criminal Code, including
conspiracy to commit such criminal acts.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to obtaining a definition of a gang or a
criminal organization from Justice officials or the police, will
the minister, who seems more bent on conducting studies than
taking action, pledge to amend the Criminal Code, so as to
include specific and concrete measures to deal with these gangs?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is only responsible
for the government to look carefully at the implications of the
suggestion before responding to the request. If the hon. member
has a formula of words which he would care to bring forward for
our consideration, we would be happy to receive it.
The challenge is to identify the nature of the group that is to be
covered by such a provision, the characteristics the group would
have and the method of objectively determining membership.
We all know what we want to achieve. The question is how to do
it without infringing upon legitimate organizations. If the
member has a suggestion, we would be pleased to receive it.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
It has been widely reported that the minister's own officials
had prepared an extensive analysis of the Pearson airport
transaction prior to its cancellation. It clearly established that
the selection process was fair and transparent. It ruled out any
role of patronage and indicated that the deal was much better in
terms of returns to the government than anything the
government's own advisers said could be expected.
Can the minister confirm that this document dated November
1993 exists, that he read it and that he passed it on to Mr. Nixon
for his review?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately for the Reform Party, we do not have
Stephen Leacock working at Transport Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Young: I can say that the report in question, which was
dated November 4, and an earlier report had been prepared prior
to my becoming the Minister of Transport. I want to indicate to
the hon. member that nowhere in that report did it indicate that
the deal was one that should be supported by the government.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can the
Minister of Transport confirm that he read the Nixon report? If
he did, did he advise the Prime Minister that it contradicted
entirely the advice and analysis of the government's own
officials and an outside adviser?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a rather pathetic sight to see Reform Party
members who talk of trying to save money for the Canadian
taxpayer and who are very concerned about getting the facts
bring up a matter like this. Not only did I read the report but I
also read the Nixon report.
What the hon. member might be better off doing is checking
with the staff at Transport Canada, including the deputy minister
and assistant deputy minister, who were not privy to writing the
report. Not only that, they were sent home because the
government that was there at the time the deal was done did not
like the kind of advice it was getting from senior public servants
at Transport Canada.
11140
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general. According to the inspector
general of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Ursula
Menke, CSIS failed to include important information in its
annual reports to the solicitor general.
(1440 )
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would appeal to you in question
period to please let us hear the question as well as the response.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, how does the solicitor general
explain that CSIS keeps important information from him
regarding its operations, although it is his ministerial duty to be
fully informed of the activities of Canada's secret service?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Ms. Menke's report concerns a period prior to my
becoming minister. It concerns 1992 and 1993. I must also add
that its annual report is not the only method CSIS uses to inform
its minister. It reports orally and in writing to the minister and
does not depend solely on annual reports. I am currently
reviewing Ms. Menke's recommendations and will do my best to
improve the situation, which dates back to a period before the
government came to office.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since we now know that CSIS deliberately kept information
from the solicitor general, how do we know the solicitor general
is answering our questions fully on CSIS activities, given that he
himself has been kept in the dark?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat what I said before to the hon. member.
The annual report of CSIS to the Solicitor General is not the
only means by which the Solicitor General is informed about the
activities of CSIS. In between the annual reports, the Solicitor
General gets many oral and written reports and briefings as time
goes on. This material may or may not be reflected in the annual
report. This is just one of many ongoing means of informing the
minister.
My hon. friend should not have hesitated to say that the
certificate of the inspector general dealing with the 1992-93
annual report to the minister actually concluded: ``I have
concluded that overall, the 1992-93 annual report provides a
reasonably accurate, comprehensive and balanced account of
CSIS activities''. I wonder why the hon. member forgot to tell
the House that.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In the face of worldwide condemnation of Turkey's invasion
of northern Iraq which started last week, what is the Government
of Canada doing to stop this invasion, the slaughter and the
deportation of thousands of innocent Kurdish people?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon.
member for his speaking out against human rights violations
anywhere on this planet. He will be pleased to know that last
Friday a senior official of the foreign affairs department called
in the Ambassador of Turkey to express Canada's concern about
the recent actions.
It is our hope that the Turkish military forces will remove the
troops from northern Iraq and will do everything possible to
avoid civilian casualties there. We call on Turkey to respect
human rights, but in particular the cultural rights of the Kurdish
community in Turkey. I am sure that the Government of Turkey
will listen to our concerns.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Immediately
after the last election he stated that getting to the bottom of the
Pearson deal was his government's top priority.
Would the Prime Minister inform this House if he was aware
of the internal analysis which suggested the Pearson deal was a
good economic deal for Canadians, that the selection process
was fair and transparent, and that cancellation of the deal could
cost the taxpayers between $500 million and $2 billion?
(1445 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party member who asked the first question
inquired whether I had read the report. I indicated that I had. It
seems the transport critic for Reform has not read it.
11141
Two options were put forward in the document to which the
hon. member refers. Let me tell you what the two options are,
Mr. Speaker, so the hon. member will be aware of them.
One option was to cancel the deal. That was the option in the
document. The second was to renegotiate the deal. Nowhere in
the document did anybody recommend that the deal that was
struck days before the election by a lame duck government
should be maintained.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a copy of the document which contradicts what
the minister says.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Allegations of a Liberal cover-up in the Pearson deal are being
made in the nation's media as well as in the House. At the same
time, more and more documentation supporting these
accusations keeps surfacing.
When is the Prime Minister going to hold an inquiry into the
whole sordid affair, not an inquiry by a Liberal dominated
Standing Committee on Transport or a Senate inquiry by the
Tory dominated other place but a real, impartial public judicial
inquiry, the kind the Minister of Transport threatened the Senate
with in October?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a court case is now under way. The other place will
determine whether it wishes to pursue the matter.
I would have thought the hon. member and most responsible
members in the House of Commons would understand the
biggest threat that exists at Pearson today is the fact that we
could have 10,000 to 15,000 people working at Pearson. We
could be building the kind of facility that the travelling public
deserve if only people would act in a responsible way.
At this time in our history when the budget has been brought
in, with all the efforts being made by Canadians from coast to
coast to get our fiscal House in order, the hon. member and
others are prepared for political purposes, and for political
purposes only, to put the Canadian taxpayer at risk for $445
million.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury
Board.
According to Treasury Board's latest statistics, anglophones
in Quebec are five times better served by the federal public
service than francophones in Canada in general. In fact, to serve
an anglophone minority of 9.2 per cent in Quebec, the federal
government staffs 52.4 per cent of its jobs with bilinguals. If the
federal government used the same ratio in Ontario, it would
have to staff 10,000 bilingual positions instead of 3,000.
How can the President of the Treasury Board justify this
lopsided application of federal standards for service in the other
official language?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we quite clearly-as the commissioner of official
languages has also indicated-want to ensure that people can get
service in the official language of their choice in this country.
Obviously a high level of service exists now. The
commissioner indicated that in 90 per cent or more cases, people
can get the service they want when they want it. It is not perfect.
More work still needs to be done. Certainly the government is
committed to help make a reality the choice of Canadians to
have federal government services in the language of their
choice.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the official statistics would lead us to believe that
the only well served minority in Canada is the one in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker,
given the unequal service provided to francophones and
anglophones in this country by the federal government, will the
President of the Treasury Board commit himself in front of this
House to ensuring that the planned staff cuts of 45,000 do not
erode even more the quality of service provided to francophones
outside Quebec?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise that in other parts of the
country people are not being served in the official language of
their choice. People can get and should be getting services in
either French or English throughout Canada. It may need
improvement in some areas but there is still a very substantial,
good service being provided in all parts of the country.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in debate last Thursday, the Minister of National
Defence stated that the cabinet had not yet taken a decision as to
renewing or ending the commitment of Canadians to
Bosnia-Croatia. He repeated that today.
11142
Can the minister tell the House what special considerations
or concerns have caused the government and the minister to
delay to this last minute before making a decision one way or
the other?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should know that there have been a number of
developments in the former Yugoslavia in the last few months,
not the least of which is President Tudjman's belief that
UNPROFOR should leave Croatia.
This matter was resolved some weeks ago and there have been
discussions about a new kind of force in Croatia. The role of
Canada and other nations in that force is something for
discussion.
We have been preparing the two battalions of the Royal 22nd
Regiment to go to Croatia and Bosnia. They are set to leave next
Monday. However, a final decision on the actual deployment is
yet to be taken.
The government House leader may be talking with the
opposition House leaders to see whether or not a debate could be
arranged tomorrow to get a sense of the House on this very
difficult subject.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are glad to hear there have been discussions with
other parties but there have been no discussions between the
government and the opposition on whether they should go
forward.
The minister now says perhaps a debate tomorrow. The
mandate expires on March 31, just four days from now. Does the
minister not think that this is short notice and a little late in the
game to be going with a debate at this stage?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while
the hon. member is technically correct in the sense that the
mandate expires on March 31, should a decision be taken
whereby we do not continue, those troops would stay in place for
a certain period of time until replacements could be found.
However, we believe that we have the flexibility to discharge
our obligations to UNPROFOR.
With respect to a debate in the House, it is a matter between
House leaders and is something that will be discussed between
them, hopefully later today.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Every day AIDS continues to take the lives of Canadians from
my riding and across the country. AIDS organizations must
conduct effective research and education, prevent the spread of
AIDS and support victims and their families. They require
consistent and stable funding.
Can the minister confirm or deny reports that there are to be
cuts to vital AIDS funding this year?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to say there will be no cuts to AIDS
funding at this time. The government's commitment to fighting
HIV remains undiminished, as you can see with the figures in
the budget. Half of these funds will go toward prevention, care
and treatment and the other half will go toward research
funding.
At this time I would like to acknowledge the tremendous
amount of work that the hon. member has done on this both here
in Ottawa and in his riding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In 1993-94, a
lump sum of $640,000 was paid to the Kanesatake Band Council
to fund land claim negotiations.
Can the minister tell us why the band council, who had
received a $640,000 special grant for negotiation purposes in
1993-94, did not even appoint a negotiating team until
December 1994?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
the problems at Oka and Kanesatake are longstanding. People
did not even want to be there. Mohawks from Montreal Island
and Algonquins from the Ottawa Valley were moved to this site.
The Abenaikis were moved there. The Attikamekw were moved
there.
We now have the housing authority. We signed an agreement
in December last year to resume negotiations. There is a good
negotiator, a good mediator. We have made progress at the
Mohawk round table.
(1455 )
As I pointed out yesterday these people want relationships.
They want progress. They want prosperity and we will work
with them.
Any suggestion that the Bloc and the hon. member can make
on those three subjects that will help me, I am prepared to listen
to and implement if it makes sense.
11143
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
gather from the minister's response that $640,000 of Canadian
and Quebec taxpayers' money has disappeared and he has no
idea where the money went. In fact, last year, the minister
launched an inquiry into the use of federal funds by the band
council.
Were the findings of this inquiry submitted to the minister and
do they substantiate the disbursement of $640,000 in
government funds?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take that specific
question as notice and give the information to my friend.
Again, what we inherited was a community in chaos. The
Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada spent
over $230 million. By any standard, by any stretch of the
imagination, what is happening today where people are sitting
down, talking and reaching conclusion is better than what we
started with.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the day that the minister of immigration can show us what
decision making and integrity really are.
The minister only needs to follow the advice of his own
officials and use existing legislation to immediately deport
Laotian gang enforcer, Boujan Inthavong, and overrule the
refugee board.
This thug Inthavong helped beat a young 17-year-old to
death. He was ordered deported, appealed his deportation and
got a refugee decision in 50 minutes.
Will the minister today tell me what his decision is on Boujan
Inthavong? Will he declare this thug a danger to the public and
use existing laws to deport him today?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member asked me this
question some time ago.
I told him then and I repeat again today that our officials have
served him notice that they will be recommending action
according to section 53 as a result of that. The individual has a
certain length of time to respond. Until that time has elapsed the
recommendation cannot be made to the minister.
As I told the member then and I tell him today, when the
recommendation comes to my desk I know fully what to do.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a reason why I ask these questions. In case the minister
is not aware, the deadline is today, March 28. That is why I am
asking the question.
All we are trying to do is help the police forces clean up our
streets of thugs like this.
If the minister orders this thug deported to Laos can he
actually get him out to Laos? My understanding is that Laos is
going to say to us: ``Sorry, we don't want this thug''. How is the
minister going to get him out of the country?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the act provides for the
minister to deem individuals dangerous to the public. That
recommendation from our departmental officials, according to
statute, has not been made. When it has been, the government
and this minister will deal with it accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week I met in an Ankara, Turkey, prison with four
respected members of the Turkish parliament, including Leyla
Zana, who were sentenced in December to terms of up to 15
years for speaking out for human rights and democracy for the
12 million Kurds in Turkey.
In light of this appalling attack on elected members of
Parliament, I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain why his
government is sending a ministerial delegation to Turkey on
April 23 to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the same Turkish
parliament. Will the Prime Minister in these circumstances
agree to review this decision which deeply concerns not only
these members of Parliament but I am sure many Canadians?
(1500 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly look into that possibility. It might be a
good occasion for the ministerial delegation to raise the issue of
human rights with the government when it is there. One way or
the other, I would like the question of human rights to be raised
with the Government of Turkey.
Perhaps one way is to cancel the delegation or the other way is
to send the delegation with a mandate to talk about it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the very grave human rights abuses
committed by the Turkish government, including its history in
Cyprus and the current illegal assault in northern Iraq, will the
Prime Minister now explain why the head of the Turkish air
force was invited to Canada last month, invited to fly the CF-5
aircraft himself?
Will the government finally do the right thing and not only
cancel any potential sale of the CF-5s to Turkey but join our
NATO ally, Norway, in saying that there will be no arms sales
whatsoever to the repressive regime in Turkey?
11144
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has answered the
question a couple of times in the last 10 days.
There has been some indication by the Government of Turkey
about the surplus CF-5s and there have been some informal
discussions. However there is no deal pending.
Our position is well known on the exporting of arms. We want
to make sure, if that is done, that certain safeguards are in place.
I believe the question at this time is somewhat premature.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have Beauchesne with
me but I understand that once a minister quotes from a specific
government document the document should then be tabled in the
House. I call on the minister to table the document with the
House.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on the same point of order. I sent notice to the Minister of
Transport in relation to an answer that he gave in the House
during question period with respect to a document from which
he clearly quoted in relation to the Pearson affair.
I quote from the French version of Beauchesne, the sixth
edition, at page 158, item 4, paragraph 495:
[Translation]
(1) A minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state
paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the table.
[
English]
The Speaker: Order. By the minister intervening at this point
perhaps he can clear up the matter being raised as a point of
order. If it is not cleared up I will return to the hon. member for
Sherbrooke.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform critic and the hon. leader of the fifth party
in the House have both raised a point of order dealing with the
issue of the report.
(1505 )
I know the hon. leader of the fifth party is not often in the
House and the Reform critic often misses-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I remind members of the longstanding tradition
that we do not refer either to the presence or the absence of any
member of the House.
I was hoping the Minister of Transport would be able to make
a definitive statement, hopefully clearing up the matter. I invite
the Minister of Transport to make his point.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I place on the record of the House
the document to which I referred.
Just for the record, it was made public in December of last
year in the court proceedings.
The Speaker: I guess that clears up the matter.
_____________________________________________
11144
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed 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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate with
the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who has four
minutes remaining.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Madam Speaker, as I was saying before the break, the
Auditor General of Canada advised the government to evaluate
the present gun control program before moving on to any
additional provisions. I quoted from the auditor general's
statement.
It is also interesting to note that the Wade report indicated that
police officers across the country have said that present gun
control regulations are ``a nearly impenetrable maze''.
Instead of the federal government taking the time to see if
Canada's gun laws are working, and they are already among the
most stringent in the world, it has preferred to go after
law-abiding people with more laws, more restrictions and more
costs. If passed the legislation will result in law-abiding
citizens having their legally acquired personal property subject
to unprecedented scrutiny and red tape, again unmatched
anywhere else in the world.
Law-abiding citizens will face criminal records unless they
succumb to the legislation that will do nothing, as we all know,
to reduce crime but will cost millions of dollars and will be very
complex and cumbersome to administer. It appears members
opposite simply do not trust people who legally own and
responsibly use guns. The western provinces have taken the lead
in ensuring that the government is aware of the widespread
opposition across western provinces to the legislation which, as
I say, simply will not work.
It is easy to support proposals that deal with the criminal use
of firearms which is, after all, surely what gun control should be
about. Proposing to clamp down on the smuggling of illegal
weapons can be supported as can proposing stiffer penalties for
11145
the criminal use of firearms. We should be dealing with crime as
those provisions do and with crime prevention. We should be
putting the millions of dollars the proposal will cost toward
fighting crime in the streets.
A couple of specific provisions are worthy of note. In
particular let us be reminded that all provinces and the country
at large are facing extreme difficulties with regard to finance.
Instead of tying up enormous police resources in a bureaucratic
registration system, police officers should be on the streets
dealing with crime in our communities.
(1510)
I should like to close on the following two points. One is the
quite remarkable arbitrary powers provided in the legislation to
the Minister of Justice in section 109. The Minister of Justice
clearly is of the view that provincial attorneys general will not
uphold the law with regard to any legislation that is passed.
That is quite a remarkable reaction when we know that every
attorney general has the legal responsibility and will carry out
the law as implemented. The arbitrary extreme powers awarded
to the federal minister in the legislation are completely
unacceptable and should not be countenanced.
I point to one provision that raises the absurdity of the
legislation. Clause 35 will make it easier for an American hunter
to hunt on Canadian publicly owned land for 60 days than it will
for a Canadian to do so. Surely it is absurd and surely it points to
some of the major problems contained in the legislation.
I wish the minister would evaluate, as the auditor general and
as the western ministers of justice have asked him to do, the
proposals to see whether or not they are working effectively. If
they are not working effectively and if indeed we could reduce
crime and violence in the home by something similar, we could
support it. However at the moment there is no evidence to
suggest that and I am happy to support the amendment.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to split
Bill C-68 respecting the Firearms Act.
As debate progresses on the bill the level of emotional
rhetoric increases. We heard from members of the House
interests of all kinds represented here. Feminist groups and their
representatives in the House have somehow managed to find a
correlation between long gun ownership and violence against
women.
We have heard from people who claim there is a correlation
between the number of guns in the country and the levels of
criminal activity, even though they are unable to show us
numbers to back up the implicit assertion.
We have heard from anti-gun purists. The parliamentary
secretary to the minister of immigration told us that when she
walks into a gun club she says: ``Gentlemen, I am your worst
nightmare''. Most disturbing is that the Minister of Justice
thinks only armies and police ought to be able to own guns.
Those interests deserve to be represented as do all interests in
the House. However, we achieve nothing by clouding Bill C-68
in rhetoric arguing that guns are inherently evil and must be
done away with or rhetoric presuming that violence against
women is somehow related to whether or not Canadians need to
get a licence for their duck hunting shotguns.
I do not doubt the intention of people who say this type of stuff
may be good. However their logic is trivial and is intended to
cloud an issue that deserves careful, rational consideration
because of enormous costs that would be involved in
implementing Bill C-68, the implications of the legislation for
gun owners and the mandate the bill would give to police to
monitor people who legally own guns. The police can barely
handle the complaint load they have without being downloaded
additional duties to follow up on registration.
There are two intentions buried in the bill. One is crime
control and the other is control of guns. They are two very
different intentions. It is a profound mistake to confuse the two
issues as Bill C-68 does.
As I previously said, some members of the House seem intent
on confusing the two issues. They would have us believe control
of crime and control of guns are hopelessly intertwined. That is
irrational. It ignores not only empirical data but common sense.
(1515)
In Canada we have a crime problem. No one would disagree
with that. We also have gun control laws that are among the most
restrictive in the world. The following question begs to be
asked: How can it be that we have extremely restrictive gun
control laws and a crime control problem at the same time? The
answer is there is literally no correlation whatsoever in the
developed world between gun control laws of a country and its
crime rate.
The auditor general's report clearly gave direction to the
government to review all gun control laws that presently exist
and the government refused to do anything about it. I ask why.
There may be a correlation between the number of crimes
committed with guns and gun control laws. It is not what the
proponents of Bill C-68 are trying to convince us of. They are
trying to convince us that if we legislate burdensome
registration on the owners of hunting guns we will see a
reduction in the crime rate. That is absolute nonsense.
11146
If Bill C-68 passes, which the government seems intent on,
the Reform Party will be monitoring the crime rate daily, that
is if the crime rate is reported accurately. There is some
question whether it is consistent.
If there is no drop in the crime rate-I doubt very much if any
will occur-the Reform Party will remind Canadians of the
intrusion into their personal property rights the government has
undertaken. We will remind the Canadian people it was all for
nought, just another means to draw dollars out of their pockets.
The only purpose served by this needless and authoritarian
expansion of government power and the application of the
outdated ideology which still animates the party across the aisle
seems to be more restriction or more involvement into the
affairs of the average individual.
Like most reasonable and responsible Canadians, the Reform
Party understands there is a social good to be derived from
controlling access to and ownership of weapons in Canada. That
is only reasonable. However, we think the restrictions have gone
far enough and need go no further.
Even further than Bill C-68 are the sentences imposed for
using firearms in the commission of a crime. We would like to
see more emphasis in this area. Members on the other side of the
House possibly disagree that the way to control criminal activity
is to control criminals. Can the members on the other side of the
House possibly disagree that controlling the perpetrators of
crime is far more important than controlling the tools a
perpetrator uses to commit a crime?
Bill C-68 flies in the face of common sense logic. The
government is flying in the face of logic. The government is
attempting to foist on Canadians a radical ideology of
government intervention veiled in the garb of crime control,
obscured by rhetoric that appeals to the common desire to
control criminals.
There are two very different intents underlying Bill C-68.
One to control criminal use of guns; the other to control and
restrict the ownership of guns. One is a criminal office; the other
is not. One is an offence which the government and our party
want to see made a more serious offence. The other is a
legitimate activity-the ownership of property-the
government wants to slowly, if inevitably, do away with. That is
unacceptable. It is a power grab by the government. It is an
infringement upon individual liberties.
The government wants Canadians to pay a very high price in
freedom despite being unable to show there would be any
reciprocal payoff in social benefits. What kind of deal is that?
What kind of government is that?
(1520 )
As a former police officer who served on the Calgary police
department for 22 years I can say with no hesitation whatsoever
that this bill, if passed without the amended split we are arguing
for and for which I seek support of the members of the House,
would have unexpected consequences for most of my colleagues
in the House, including the Minister of Justice.
Realistically, mixing the criminal and the regulatory
enforcement would have the effect not only of allowing for
criminal prosecution of people or even farmers who neglect to
register a legal or useful tool, but would also give police officers
the right and even the obligation to search out owners of
unregistered or poorly stored guns. That obligation on the part
of the police would not differentiate between those people who
use guns to commit crime and those who collect weapons or hunt
with them.
As a former police officer and someone who has given his
entire working life to law enforcement and who is very much
committed to reasonable gun control measures, I can say the
consequences of bringing things like gun storage and
registration into the Criminal Code will have unexpected and
frightening consequences.
It would not assist any police officer to register every weapon
and have that so-called list when the record in other
jurisdictions of non-compliance is very clear. People would not
comply with the law in that respect, given the track record of
Australia and New Zealand as examples.
I urge my fellow members of the House to come clean with the
Canadian people. I urge them to allow full access to debate on
the bill. There are some serious flaws in it. The bill must be split
and I urge all colleagues in the House, on the Liberal and
opposition sides, to support the amendment to split Bill C-68.
To keep it in its present state is not forthright.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to debate Bill C-68, an act to restrict firearms and
other weapons.
I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for making good on
the government's promise to fight crime with tough but fair
firearms legislation. The minister is to be congratulated because
Bill C-68 is the product of an open dialogue between ordinary
Canadians, police officials, people working in the justice
system, sharp shooters, legitimate gun collectors and the justice
minister.
Last November when the government originally announced
the action plan on firearms control a number of people expressed
concern about certain conditions of ownership, including the
sale, trade and exchange of particular firearms among legitimate
owners and collectors. The minister listened to these concerns,
demonstrated his flexibility and changed his action plan so that
legitimate gun owners are treated fairly under Bill C-68.
11147
Overall, I do not think anyone in the House or any
law-abiding Canadian would dispute the minister's efforts to
crack down on the criminal misuse of firearms. All law-abiding
Canadians welcome harsh penalties for the violent misuse of
firearms.
In keeping with the Liberal promise of safer homes and safer
streets, Bill C-68 will impose mandatory prison sentences and a
lifetime prohibition from gun ownership for anyone using a
firearm in the commission of a murder, attempted murder,
robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and five other criminal
offences.
Critics of the current gun control legislation brought in under
former Conservative Justice Minister Kim Campbell say that
some of the previous legislation is not proving very effective in
court. This is true. That is why we need Bill C-68, to win court
cases and to justly punish criminal behaviour.
For example, statistics from the justice department show that
two thirds of weapon charges were dismissed, stayed or
withdrawn due to plea bargaining or problems with presenting
evidence in court. To overcome this legal wrangling, Bill C-68
will put in place tough measures to ensure swift and sure
punishment.
Let us turn to the traffic of illegal weapons across our borders.
(1525 )
Last year the federal government took organised crime head on
and successfully quashed the illegal trade of cigarettes. The
same must be done to halt the illegal trafficking of firearms
across Canadian borders. Bill C-68 will impose stern penalties
against gun smugglers, including the immediate seizure of
vehicles, boats and aeroplanes used in the trafficking of
contraband. New import and export controls will provide a
greater degree of protection to legitimate Canadian commercial
interests. Cheap imitations of so-called Saturday night specials
which have a propensity to misfire and cause injury will be less
common and not as easy for criminals to access. Consequently,
all Canadians will benefit.
All told, it seems the main objection to Bill C-68 is the
proposed registration system. It does not matter how many times
the minister has said registration does not mean confiscation.
The purpose of registration is to limit access to firearms, to
promote their safe use and storage and to control their
movement. Careless ownership does cost lives. For example, the
gun that killed Constable Todd Bayliss in June of 1994 was
stolen from an Etobicoke widow. The gun was left lying on a
shelf in her closet and was easy prey for the thief who stole it.
While there are many responsible gun owners who follow safe
storage rules, far too many do not. The registration system will
require all gun owners to be responsible. I do not think any
legitimate gun owner worth his or her salt would disagree with
safety measures which would prevent children from having
accidents with carelessly stored firearms or from keeping
loaded weapons out of the hands of criminals on a smash and
dash, break and enter. The registration system coupled with
increased border controls will make it far more difficult for
criminals to access prohibited weapons.
The cost of the system, estimated at $85 million, will be
entirely recovered through user fees. This is consistent with
principles laid out by the federal government's recent budget.
These fees are a small price to pay for public safety. The
Minister of Justice does not, as some assert, have a hidden
agenda to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. The
registration fees applied to the ownership of motor vehicles does
not prohibit millions of Canadians from driving cars. There is
nothing which would indicate that gun registration would be
more expensive than any other registration system. In short, we
need the co-operation of legitimate gun owners to ensure public
safety for all Canadians.
I am curious about the position on gun control taken by my
hon. colleagues in the Reform Party. Strangely enough, an
October 1994 Reform Party resolution echoed support for the
federal government's initiative. I quote from the Reform Party
resolution under social issues: ``If elected, a Reform
government will introduce legislation by which the criminal
misuse of firearms will be severely punished and the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms will be
protected''.
That sounds like it is Bill C-68 promised in the Reform
platform. What happened since then? Did the gun lobbyists get
to Reformers? Are they that weak kneed that they gave into the
gun lobbyists? They should stick to their platform as promised.
That is why they were elected. Under this legislation only
criminals will be prevented from owning a gun and the rights of
law-abiding citizens will be protected. Perhaps the leader of the
Reform Party might clarify things for us. If he would state his
precise position on gun control instead of making vague
statements we might know exactly where Reform stands on the
issue.
The residents of Parkdale-High Park strongly support the
government. I did a poll two years ago in my riding on tougher
controls on firearms and 67 per cent said they want and support
stronger firearms control. In my town hall meetings today, two
years later, that percentage would probably jump up to 80 per
cent or 90 per cent. Instead of a weakening position, it is a
stronger position for Bill C-68. I hope we can count on all
members of the House to protect Canadians by supporting Bill
C-68.
Not long ago the President of the United States spoke to a joint
sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons in the Chamber.
He congratulated Canada because we recognize the legitimate
use and ownership of firearms as opposed to the criminals
owning them and the guns getting into the wrong hands. The
President of the United States is complimenting our country on
our way of doing things.
11148
(1530)
We can take a lesson from that. Let us not go the U.S. route.
Let us go the Canadian route. Let us do it the Canadian way. The
Reform Party wants to go the U.S. way. If we go that way, I am
afraid the crime rate will grow and the cities, especially the
inner cities, will be more violent.
That is not what we want for Canada. We want safe
communities and safe streets. It has to begin in the families, in
the schools, in the municipal and provincial governments, and
here in the federal government where we must bring in
legislation which is good for all Canadians.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill today.
I strongly support the initiative to split the bill. Splitting the
bill would allow us to deal separately with the proposed changes
to the Criminal Code and the proposed changes to firearms
restrictions such as registration.
The issue of gun control stirs great emotion in the hearts of so
many of us. This demonstrates to me a pressing need for
Parliament to allow free votes on this matter. I am sure there are
more than a few Liberal backbenchers who agree with me on this
point.
My constituents, as far as I have ascertained, are struggling
with all of the arguments and appear split on the issue. I
recognize there are good arguments to be made for both
positions. However, today I will address, as we are meant to do
at second reading, the intent of the legislation.
Remember, the Liberals consider this bill to be a substantial
component of their so-called safe streets package. I am going to
address three safe streets issues that this bill, in my view, fails to
address: guns in the commission of violence against women;
guns used in suicides; and guns used by gangs.
As parliamentarians we face difficult issues. As a member of
the Reform caucus I acknowledge that I have the freedom to
follow the wishes of my constituents on issues such as these. I
believe that for too long now the voices of average Canadians
have not been heard. In fact, they have been completely ignored.
I believe it is my job to represent the constituents of Calgary
Southeast in this Chamber. I strive in everything I do to bring
their views to Ottawa. Members of Parliament have many
opportunities to listen to their constituents. Letters, phone calls,
faxes, newsletters and Internet are all wonderful vehicles to
highlight constituents' concerns. In turn, I have made every
effort to bring the issues of the day to the constituents.
On the matter of gun control specifically, I ran a survey in the
late summer of 1994 in my householder. Slightly more than 400
people responded to the more than 51,000 mailed. This in my
view does not represent any kind of a credible sample. I am
therefore undertaking another effort on the same issue using a
new voter technology incorporating the convergence of
telephone and computer.
I expect a much higher rate of response and my vote will be
dependent upon the consensus view as expressed by the
constituents of Calgary Southeast. No amount of pressure from
lobby groups will interfere with this democratic and populist
process. Of the hundreds of letters, faxes and phone calls that I
receive, most come from a well orchestrated lobby outside my
riding. Rest assured, and I want to be unequivocally clear here,
my objective is to achieve consensus with only the residents of
Calgary Southeast.
According to the minister, this piece of legislation is meant to
make our streets safer for Canadians. Unfortunately, the
measures in this bill do not address some relevant concerns. We
in the Reform Party will support any initiatives that address the
rights of victims and will also address the issue of public safety.
I previously asked a question of the Minister of Justice about
this legislation. I am concerned that it does very little to address
the root causes of crime, especially those of violence against
women.
I remind the House that the Liberals introduced gun controls
in 1977. The Tories imposed more controls in 1990. We have had
gun registration in Canada since 1934. Despite all of these
controls and restrictions accompanied by haphazard
enforcement, rates of spousal homicides have remained
constant for the last 29 years.
(1535 )
Clearly the problems of domestic violence are not caused by
unregistered guns. How can the minister suggest as he has that
registering a gun will keep someone from using it to kill their
spouse? In fact he has yet to put forward an acceptable and
reasoned argument to support that suggestion.
Domestic violence is a serious problem which needs to be
remedied, but gun controls will do nothing to address this
problem. Less than half of all spousal homicides are committed
with guns whether they are registered or not.
The National Crime Prevention Council is studying violence
against women and children. The heritage ministry is studying
violence in broadcasting. The health ministry is studying
violence against women and children. Domestic violence has
been studied for over 20 years. It has been studied to death and
there has been no action. Why is the Minister of Justice focusing
on guns instead of looking at measures to address the root causes
of violence in our society?
Violence against women is a sordid reality and not a fantasy
confined to the pages of a tabloid newspaper or a pornographic
magazine. The history of violence against women is like
Pandora's box that opens and reveals the ugliest side of the
human condition. We would expect by now that complacency
would be
11149
shattered in the details of horror and abuse that so many women
have lived to tell, and what of those who have died?
It was inexcusable for the justice minister who professes to
champion women to artfully dodge my questions posed in this
House. We do not need the minister's platitudes nor his citing of
statistics to tell us that we have a problem of domestic violence
in this country. What specific plans does this government have
to get at the root causes of violence against women?
Until gender roles are eliminated, until the family no longer
serves that convenient arena for male violence, until wife
beating is no longer a logical extension of male domination, and
until our justice system demonstrates its capacity for justice, we
do not have a blueprint for change. Intellectual and political
anguish have become meaningless. Violence against women
exists. We have endured enough. These gun control measures do
little or nothing to address it.
The measures in Bill C-68 simply fail to go far enough. What
we need are measures which will deal effectively with the
criminal use of firearms. Unfortunately, the legislation provides
only minimum sentences of four years for the commission of
any of 10 specific violent offences with a firearm. The
legislation does not require that these sentences be consecutive
to other sentences. This leaves open the possibility that such
sentences could be concurrent.
The Canadian public is no longer satisfied with the judiciary
giving out concurrent sentences, especially for violent crimes
committed with a firearm. It is time that individuals who
commit crimes and multiple criminal infractions with guns paid
for their mistakes to the full extent of the law.
In response to a question on March 23, the Minister of Justice
suggested that his gun control bill would address the use of
firearms in suicides. These sentiments are carefully crafted and
indeed noble, yet there are no provisions within this bill which
will reduce the use of firearms in suicides. In fact, short of
banning all firearms, I can think of no gun control measures
which will curb this phenomenon.
Since the gun controls introduced in 1978, the suicide figures
for Canada have remained fairly stable. So too have the number
of suicides committed with firearms. Suicide is a tragic
consequence of current societal dysfunction and particularly so
for our native communities where the problem is
proportionately greater. Banning guns is not the solution.
Statistically, guns are not often used in a suicide attempt. In
1992 only 1.3 per cent of the suicides were committed with
guns.
More important, people who attempt a suicide need help.
They need to know there are many in this country who are
working to ensure personal autonomy, socially and
economically. Greater economic opportunities will encourage
this objective. Giving people a new start is all that some will
need.
Let us not be foolish in our approach. We will not solve the
problem of suicides by banning and restricting guns.
Another issue which this bill fails to address is the growing
problem of gang crime. The proposals will do nothing to prevent
the commission of crimes by gangs. This is an increasingly
frightening problem in our urban centres. We cannot continue to
address the problem after the fact. We treat the wounded or bury
the dead, sometimes lay charges and even convict. Would it not
be more effective to implement those measures which would
prevent the commission of these senseless acts of violence?
The Reform Party has consistently argued for more vigorous
sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. We have
recommended the elimination of firearms charge plea
bargaining. If the charges are consistently thrown out, why
would criminals worry about using a firearm? We support
attacking the healthy gun smuggling trade. We have already
discussed substantially increasing the penalties for the use of
firearms in crime. We should start an overhaul of our prison
system.
(1540)
Finally, what the bill fails to address and what the government
fails to realize is that we need to come to terms with what drives
people to violence.
In conclusion, I wish to remind the House that this bill deals
with at least two substantively different matters. It deals with
registration of firearms as well as their criminal use and
distribution.
I would also like to reiterate that I will consult with my
constituents and will make every effort to reflect their wishes on
this bill in the House.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
government's commitment to tougher gun control has been the
subject of some controversy. I wish to explain in some detail the
position I have taken on this issue after talking with numerous
gun owners, attending many meetings with gun enthusiasts, and
giving this matter lengthy and serious consideration.
The debate on gun control ranges from those who would ban
all guns, with which I disagree, to those who feel they have the
right to bear firearms unrestricted and unregulated, anytime and
anywhere, with which I also disagree. Gun ownership is a
privilege and carries with it certain requirements and
responsibilities which can and must be regulated. Most gun
owners would acknowledge this. The argument then becomes
one of degree.
It is fair to say that gun owners and gun control advocates can
agree on some of the desired results: reduced crime, reduced
accidental death, and reduced suicide. The passionate disagree-
11150
ment seems to stem from the methods being used to achieve the
desired results.
Police across the country have been crying out for tough gun
controls to help fight crime and protect the lives of their fellow
officers. Victims of crime, health professionals, mayors from
across Canada and many other groups have demanded tougher
gun controls.
An average of 1,400 Canadians die each year in gun related
murders, suicides and accidents. Many others are seriously
injured. Of the 732 homicides committed in Canada in 1992, 34
per cent or 246 people were killed in accidents committed with a
firearm. Suicides account for 77 per cent of the 1,119 firearms
deaths in Canada in 1991. A recent survey showed that guns
were used in 40 per cent of murders of women by their spouses.
Many deaths are by depressed youth acting impulsively with a
weapon easily had and in their home.
How can anyone ignore this situation? How can any
government ignore this situation? In many of the cases,
impulsiveness was a factor. Ready access to a firearm allowed a
dispute to escalate to a murder, or a depression to a suicide. In
some of these cases, firearms presented a permanent solution to
a temporary problem. Many of these lives would have been
saved if the gun had not been readily available.
There are few who disagree with three of the principal aspects
of the gun control legislation: criminal sanctions, smuggling or
illegal importation, and assault weapons.
The most controversial aspect of this gun control issue is
unquestionably a new computerized national registration
system for all firearms and firearms owners in Canada. The
government asserts that universal registration of firearms is a
cornerstone of our strategy to target criminals, tighten border
controls and enhance public safety.
Opponents of gun control argue that registration will not
reduce crime. I ascribe to the opinion of the president of the
Association of Chiefs of Police who states that without
information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun
control. A cost effective registration system will help control
smuggling, gun theft and misuse of firearms in many important
ways, some of which are as follows.
The illegal gun trade is a serious problem. Presently, firearms
are not registered when they are imported into the country. The
type numbers and serial number of each gun are not recorded. A
recent newspaper article underlined the fact that guns imported
legally can be sold illegally. Unless illegal firearms can be
distinguished from legal registered firearms, it is impossible to
curb the smuggling problem. Registration will help stem the
theft, diversion and smuggling of firearms from legal
shipments.
Registration will also help in the enforcement of court
ordered firearms prohibition orders. It is estimated that 13,000
prohibition orders are made every year to take away firearms
from individuals considered a danger to society. Unless the
police know what firearms are registered in the names of those
persons, they are limited to searching the premises, or to hoping
that all firearms will be surrendered voluntarily. This is not
sufficient.
The inquest into the suicide of Jonathon Yeo, who is believed
to have murdered Nina de Villiers while out on bail for another
violent offence, recommended the registration of firearms.
When the police prepare to intervene in a dispute, a
registration system will determine if firearms are present, the
type and numbers. Inspector Park whom I may quote from the
Niagara Regional Police in my riding of Erie said: ``The more
information about what you are facing, the better you can deal
with it''.
While police officers always presume that a suspect is armed,
they often discover more than they bargained for. In one
example given by police, what looked like a .22 calibre rifle
turned out instead to be a more lethal Lee-Enfield. The firearm
was loaded with military ammunition that was capable of
penetrating the bulletproof vest of a police officer.
(1545 )
Firearms registration will ensure that people are held
responsible for their guns. The current firearms acquisition
certificate allows individuals to buy as many rifles and shotguns
as they wish over a five-year period and these guns cannot be
tracked to the original owner. Registration will help ensure that
gun owners do not sell their firearms illegally or give them to
individuals without proper authorization.
Registration will also encourage the safe storage of guns.
Canadians have heard enough accounts involving children and
guns to know that some gun owners should take more care in
storing their weapons. More than 3,000 firearms are reported
stolen every year. They are falling into the hands of criminals.
Studies have shown that many firearms used to commit
crimes were originally acquired lawfully, in many cases stolen
from their original owners because they were stored improperly.
The semi-automatic pistol that was used to kill Constable Todd
Bayliss was stolen from a widow who had inherited the second
world war relic when her husband died. The gun was left lying
on the shelf in her clothes closet as it had for years. The gun was
stolen and Constable Bayliss is dead.
Registration will further assist the police in high risk
situations. Despite the emphasis on the criminal element, most
murders involve people who know each other. Almost 40 per
cent of women killed by their husbands are shot mostly with
legally owned firearms. Spousal violence generally surfaces
11151
gradually and the police are often aware of the problem before a
life is threatened. Gun registration will allow for preventive
actions such as temporary removal of the firearm from the
premises.
Registration will also help in the enforcement of the law in
prosecution of offenders. One can appreciate that it is difficult
to prosecute someone for possession of a stolen weapon if the
identity of the lawful owner cannot be ascertained.
Gun owners feel that registration of every shotgun and rifle
would place a heavy and expensive bureaucratic burden on
law-abiding gun owners. In fact the registration system is
hardly onerous. The proposed registration system for firearms
will replace existing FACs and other permits with new
possession certificates and registration cards. It will simplify
the system.
The registration system has two components. A possession
certificate will begin in 1996 to register the gun owner and to
acquire new firearms in the future. The registration card will
begin in 1998 to register individual firearms. Possession
certificates will be similar to drivers' licences, are valid for five
years and can be renewed simply by filling out a form.
Registration cards for firearms are a once in a lifetime exercise
with no renewal required.
For example, someone already owning long guns will only
have to register their firearms once for as long as they own them.
The process is expected to have a minimal charge estimated at
approximately $10 for up to 10 guns. It will be as simple as
licking a stamp and mailing a form. A registration card or
possession certificate will enable people to buy ammunition and
hunt or target shoot the same way they have been doing for
years.
The costs of registration to the gun owner are as comparable
or less than that of other registration systems we are involved
with such as cars, boats, drivers' licences, et cetera. On balance
there are some who will consider registration a hassle, but it is a
minor one when set against the benefits referred to earlier.
There are no further restrictions on ammunition save and
except that one must be 18 years old to purchase ammunition
and it must be stored properly. Restricting ammunition sales to
those 18 and over makes sense. Young people under 18 cannot
legally buy cigarettes now. Why should bullets be any less
restricted? It will ensure that if a youth wants ammunition at
least an adult will be in the know and able to ask questions or
provide supervision if it is deemed necessary.
Gun owners make a good point that the vast majority of them
are responsible law-abiding citizens. This is true. Although the
gun laws may make small time criminals think twice, gun
registration will not deter professional criminals or drug
dealers. This is also true. Unfortunately there cannot be one law
for the crooks and another for honest citizens. There must be one
law applicable to everyone.
Some opponents to gun control feel it is a threat to democracy,
an infringement of their right to bear arms, a right I suggest they
never truly had in the sense in which it is uttered. Despite
popular belief it is a right American citizens do not have with
their constitution granting only the right to bear arms for the
purpose of army and militia.
Canadians have a country founded on the principles of peace,
order and good government. Gun control fits this expression.
There is nothing undemocratic about ensuring that ours is a safe
and peaceful country.
Registering guns does not remove the right to exercise one's
privilege to own or use them, but it does make it easier to ensure
they are owned and used responsibly. It does make it easier to
remove the privilege when it is abused.
Opponents often tell me that responsible gun owners are being
penalized when criminals are not. All gun owners are
responsible until they do something wrong. Marc Lépine had no
criminal involvement until he massacred 14 women at
Montreal's l'École Polytechnique with his Ruger Mini-14.
Moreover it is difficult to imagine how a responsible gun
owner could object to a law designed to ensure that others are
also responsible. What do Canadians think of responsible gun
owners who are now vowing to ignore the law and refuse to
register? Is that responsible? Is that law abiding? Hefty fine for
such action is a poor alternative to the small gun registration fee.
(1550)
Suggestions that gun registration is a prelude to confiscation
by a Hitlerain government are unfounded. There is no evidence
to support fears that someday somewhere the federal
government will seize all firearms.
If the gun lobby would look at the legislation objectively and
responsibly it too would support the bill. I encourage it to do so.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the motion of
my Reform colleague to split Bill C-68 into two logical and
rational bills that separately cover the two different topics
included in Bill C-68.
It may well be that tough action on the criminal element will
eliminate the extremely costly, not to mention intrusive and
unproven registration aspect.
It is obvious to all in the House that the crime control
measures included in Bill C-68 are long overdue. Canadians
have been calling on the government to get tough on smuggling
for a year and a half now. The stiffer sentences prescribed in the
bill will act as a deterrent to those who consider smuggling an
11152
occupation, but only if the government actually starts enforcing
the law everywhere along our borders.
The mandatory minimum sentencing requirements are also
crime control measures that Canadians have been demanding for
a long time. They have repeatedly asked the government to
crack down on violent offenders. Unfortunately the provision
will directly affect only a small portion of weapons related
crimes.
According to the Centre for Justice Statistics over 94 per cent
of victims killed or injured in a robbery were harmed by
weapons other than firearms. The minimum sentencing
provision should be extended to the use of any weapon in the
commission of an offence.
On the other hand the bill contains measures that will force
citizens to register all their firearms. This issue must be
considered separately from the crime control measures in Bill
C-68. Gun control is not related to crime control and has no
place in crime control legislation.
The justice minister may believe that future restrictions on
law-abiding gun owners will somehow reduce crime. However
he has completely failed to explain to the House what crimes
will be reduced and how gun registry will accomplish it. All
available research indicates exactly the opposite. Tighter
restrictions on law-abiding citizens will only encourage the
criminal element. After all, criminals will not register their
guns.
The Auditor General pointed out that the current gun
registration system has never been properly evaluated. Why
would the justice minister forge ahead with his expanded
registration system plans when we do not even know what good
the current system is?
How many crimes has the current system prevented? What
use has the current system been? Until these questions have been
responsibly answered there is absolutely no reason we should
consider spending more money on gun control. No one would be
against additional gun controls if they could be proven cost
effective in their ability to save lives and reduce crime.
The minister has made a great many inconsistent statements
in the debate over registration, confusing not only the public
affected but even members of his own caucus.
We hear the statement that people register their cars so why
should they not register their guns. Does this seem like a
reasonable comparison? I think not. We do not ask people to
prove they need a car to get a licence. We do not introduce
policies to grandfather the ownership of automobiles or ban the
sale of replica cars. Unlike an applicant for an hour-long driving
test, a firearm owner must go through a three-month safety
process including an extensive police background check. There
is no comparison.
As we know the licensing of cars is mainly a revenue
gathering tactic. It does little to prevent 100,000 car thefts
annually or over 3,000 traffic deaths. Gun registration will do
nothing to prevent theft or death either. It is another bureaucracy
creating, tax collecting excuse for the state to intrude further
into the lives of private Canadians. If the justice minister thinks
otherwise then let us see the evidence he has to back up his
claims that registration will save lives.
A second inconsistency is found in the sentencing provisions
of the bill. The crime control provisions call for mandatory
four-year sentences for certain violent crimes. Reformers
support the measure. However the bill will make failure to
comply with the registration requirements a criminal offence
with sentences of up to 10 years in prison.
(1555 )
Given these facts it is conceivable that a rapist who used a gun
could receive a four-year sentence, while on the other hand a
farmer who has an old shotgun out in the barn which is used
occasionally for pest control may find himself serving ten years
for failing to register a little used farm implement. The state has
no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I suggest the
government has no business in the barnyards of the nation either.
The minister's proposal for registration was followed by
many statements about how the rates of suicide and accidental
death will fall. The justice minister thinks he knows what is best
for us. He even said he was doing this regardless of what others
thought because it was right.
It is my duty to point out to the minister that Canadians who
fear the dangers of firearms have always had a choice. Each
Canadian already has it within his or her own power not to own
firearms, not to keep them at home, and never have anything to
do with them if he or she so choose. However, for those
Canadian homes, about half of them, where citizens feel
comfortable with their guns, their kitchen knives, their cleaning
solvents and many other dangerous items they may have around,
why does the justice minister think he should dictate what
Canadians may have or do? It is time for governments to have
more faith in the common sense of the common people.
Another key indication that the gun registration section of the
bill is a poorly thought out Liberal attempt at problem solving is
its obvious intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Here
again we find a reason for the bill to be split. The crime control
measures are clearly Criminal Code issues that must be dealt
with by the federal government. The gun control measures
intrude deeply into provincial jurisdiction in the areas of
property rights, taxation and education.
It seems as though the Liberals have not learned their lesson
yet. It was just last month that they started to cut federal
spending for provincial social programs they had no business
11153
being in. Now a whole new social program, gun registration, is
being introduced in another area of provincial jurisdiction.
Under our Constitution the provinces are guaranteed the right
to deal with property issues. Guns, cars, houses, land and money
are all examples of private property. This is one reason the
federal government is not in the business of registering
automobiles. It has not right to. It should not assume it has any
right to register any of the other private properties of Canadians
either.
The second area of intrusion is in education. Currently
firearms training courses are run by the provinces. The new
legislation forces a federally designed course on all provinces. It
is yet another example of federal intrusion in an area of
provincial constitutional jurisdiction.
Because enforcement of any of the registration provisions
will have to be investigated and prosecuted by the provinces, the
administrative costs of the legislation will have to be borne by
the provinces.
In closing, why not first place the emphasis on the criminal
use of firearms? Once the get tough policy on smuggling and the
violent use of firearms has been employed, the need to spend
hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars and harass
law-abiding gun owners may well be eliminated. Why not give
it a chance? I would encourage all members to do so.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to take the opportunity to comment on Bill C-68
respecting the Firearms Act on behalf of the constituents of
Bruce-Grey.
Bruce-Grey is one of Canada's most blessed ridings with an
abundance of clean air, pure water and excellent people. It is
located in the beautiful Bruce Peninsula in southwestern
Ontario. My riding has one of Canada's first underwater
national parks.
The traditions of the people are very strong. I also have two
native reserves in my riding, Saugeen and Cape Croker. I am
pleased that the minister is going to take into account the
traditional way of life of the native community.
Hunting still plays a very important economic role in my
region for the service industries, outfitters and guides. Tourism
is a major industry in my riding. Almost every farmer and many
rural residents own firearms, not only for hunting or sport but
also for the protection of their livestock from predators.
I have held several meetings with organizations in my riding
such as hunting and shooting clubs and numerous meetings with
individuals regarding Bill C-68. The greater majority of my
constituents applaud the minister and support the call for stiffer
penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of crime and
for stiffer penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in
firearms, as well as stricter border controls on firearms.
(1600 )
My constituents have two major concerns, the first dealing
with the prohibition of the 105 millimetre or 4.14 inch barrel
length handgun. I am pleased the minister has requested the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs determine
which handguns in the prohibited class can be exempted due to
their use in recognized shooting competitions. I feel the
standing committee can resolve the issue and make
recommendations to accommodate the legitimate user.
The other major concern of my constituents is the universal
registration system for legal hunting rifles and shotguns. In all
my meetings and discussions this portion of Bill C-68 elicits the
most serious concerns and the strongest objection. Many of my
constituents believe this system will make criminals out of
innocent law-abiding citizens who do not register their legal
rifles or shotguns or who are unable to do so.
These citizens are responsible, respectful people who enjoy
hunting as a sport. They value their rifles and shotguns and take
great care to secure them. As I said earlier, most of the rural
residents do have a rifle or a shotgun. It is a necessity and
legitimate tool of their everyday working and recreational lives.
They are law-abiding citizens.
I do not wish to reiterate everything previous speakers said on
this portion of the bill except to say that I feel the bill can be
improved by removing from the Criminal Code the penalties
under section 91 for non-registration. My constituents prefer
that we have no registration of rifles and shotguns. That would
be my preference also. However, if the standing committee
determines registration is a necessity I hope it recommends the
penalty for non-registration be removed from the Criminal
Code under section 91.
This simple amendment would take nothing away from the
strength of the bill. It would ensure that law-abiding Canadians
are not recorded as having a criminal record due to an omission
or oversight. This amendment would dispel much of the concern
of my constituents.
An umbrella groups representing hunting and shooting clubs
has requested an opportunity to appear before the standing
committee. It will be bringing forward its positions. It is
important that our legislation will achieve the goals for which it
is intended, to make our communities and streets safe for our
families and for all Canadians. There are many positive sections
in Bill C-68 that will accomplish this.
I ask that the standing committee take into account my
comments particularly about removing from the Criminal Code
penalties in section 91 for non-registration.
11154
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, there are some aspects of Bill C-68 which
have some potential for support, although not many.
The main unsupportable area is registration of rifles and
shotguns. There are a number of reasons this is absolutely
unsupportable. The previous member spoke of the possibility of
the standing committee determining the need for this. The
citizens of Canada determine these needs.
One of the objections to registration is the cost versus the
alleged benefits. The cost is reported by the Minister of Justice
as being in the neighbourhood of $85 million. I am polling my
constituents on this and in order not to be misleading I am using
that figure. That figure is a fabrication by the Minister of Justice
and the Justice Department. The reality is it will cost not
less-this is done through different methods-than $500
million. The cost could run as high as $1 billion or beyond.
The rationale for this is if we take the current known cost of
registering a handgun and apply it to the low number the
Minister of Justice estimates for rifles and shotguns, it comes to
almost half a million dollars. There are probably far more
firearms out there than the minister is letting on.
(1605)
Another issue raised by many owners of firearms, sports
enthusiasts and competitive shooters is future confiscation. The
minute this is raised we start getting the minister and many of
the members opposite suggesting it is paranoia on the part of
firearms owners.
It is not paranoia if there is justification for it based on past
practice. There is past practice. Bill C-17 introduced by the
previous government took away many firearms that law-abiding
citizens purchased legally and essentially said. That
government said: ``Sorry, we changed our mind. Those are now
illegal. Turn them over. No compensation''.
This proposed bill also bans certain firearms legally
purchased by Canadians and the Liberals are saying: ``Sorry, we
changed our mind''. There is validity in the fears these people
have. In the future we could be faced with confiscation of all
semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. There are things like the
Beretta 12-gauge, very expensive, very popular for skeet and
trap shooting. There are semi-automatic hunting rifles. They are
very legitimate firearms, functionally identical to many of the
firearms banned. Then we could be looking at high calibre rifles
as well with the rationale that a 30.06 is good enough, one does
not need anything else.
Then we have the security risk aspect. We have already had
cases in which criminals have been able to get into RCMP
computer files and find out who has weapons and where they
keep them. The last thing people who own firearms want to do is
provide a more complete list for criminals to access.
Then we have the proposed banning under the current
legislation of .25 and .32 calibre firearms and those with barrel
lengths under 4.14 inches. At least we have the minister's new
version of banning.
This suggests these calibres were innocuous to start with and
should never have been banned. First he was going to ban them
and grandfather them. One could not use them. One could not
sell them or trade them. Then he backed down and said: ``These
weapons are okay. You can use them. You can sell them to
somebody who already has a firearm in that category. You can
take them to the range. You can do everything with them you did
before''. If that is true, why is there the ban in the first place?
There is a lot out there to make people suspicious.
What we are doing with this legislation is making criminals of
law-abiding citizens. We are bringing out new regulations
harder to comply with and then we are saying: ``If you break
these regulations, you will be a criminal''. What about the real
criminals?
We should be looking at the areas of the bill that can perhaps
be strengthened to really mean something. That is why we are
suggesting the splitting of the bill, so we can work with the
things that have some potential of doing some good in society.
The registration of rifles and shotguns is not going to prevent
one single criminal misuse of a firearm. Crooks do not rob banks
with 30.06 hunting rifles. As far as any question of an argument
or a fight that breaks out at a party or whatever, the victim will
feel very comfortable knowing they were shot with a registered
rifle instead of an unregistered one. That argument does not
carry.
We need to look at penalties for those who criminally misuse
firearms. We are talking about sentencing, the length of the
sentence, the concept of plea bargaining and consecutive
sentences.
The current legislation proposed does not have any teeth in it
because it matters not what kind of sentence comes out if most
of those are plea bargained away and also if they are served
concurrently with the other main sentence. There is absolutely
no teeth to that.
We need lengthy sentences for criminal misuse of firearms,
for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. We need to
remove the possibility of plea bargaining from sentences and
they need to be served consecutively, not concurrently. We also
need to deal with smuggling strongly. We need to make strong
examples of people who smuggle firearms or people who use
firearms for any criminal activity.
11155
(1610)
The bottom line is this legislation should deal with the
criminal misuse of firearms, not the use by legitimate,
law-abiding citizens. Let us not make them criminals as well.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to speak on Bill C-68.
One of the goals of any civic minded parliamentarian and law
maker is to produce laws and regulations which make our
country a safer place while respecting the rights and privileges
of its citizenship to engage in peaceful, law-abiding activity.
Never would we in this party uphold the right of anyone to
engage in activities which would cause harm to innocent
civilians. That is why we fully support bills which address
criminal behaviour and activity. Bill C-68 deals with part III of
the Criminal Code, often referred to as gun control laws.
One can see when looking at this bill that there are two
distinct parts to it, one that will almost universally be applauded
by people in the House, the other that will be very divisive and
by and large by the majority of people in our caucus will be
opposed. It will be opposed for very clear thinking, logical and
civic minded reasons.
Let us ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Are all
guns and their uses criminal? The answer is no. Therefore it is up
to us to figure out and deal with what is criminal and what is not.
God bless us in Canada that we do not have the gun culture of
the United States. Our culture is personified by tough gun
control laws that force people who wish to acquire a firearm to
jump through some very complicated and multiple hoops in
order to acquire a firearms acquisition certificate. These hoops
include waiting periods, personal checks, taking a course and
strict storage requirements to which there is absolutely no
parallel in the United States. That is just to get a rifle.
If a person wishes to acquire a handgun, the rules are even
more stringent. They require a trigger lock for the handgun and
they force the person to be a member of a gun club; rules and
regulations we heartily support.
It is a delusion that we can acquire a weapon, stick it
underneath our pillow and use it whenever we wish. Perhaps that
is what occurs south of the border, but thankfully it does not
occur here. Our situation bears absolutely no resemblance to
that of the United States. The failure to pass half of this bill will
never remotely bring us close in any way, shape or form to what
occurs south of the border.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no desire whatsoever,
especially among legitimate gun owners, to be anything like the
United States where guns of all kinds are widely available to
anyone who wishes to possess one. This is an environment I
abhor as does as any other law-abiding citizen. The responsible
environment in Canada is the one that legitimate gun owners
happily find themselves in.
Let us look at the criminal use of firearms which should really
be the end point of any thoughtful gun control regulations.
Between 1961 and 1990, 63 per cent of all homicides were
committed by an object other than a firearm. The object of
choice was a knife. Illegal handguns, which would not be
addressed by the registration aspect of this bill, were
responsible for 13 per cent of the homicides. Legally owned
handguns were used in less than 1 per cent of the cases. Last
year, of the 720-odd homicides in Canada, five were committed
with illegally owned handguns.
Criminals using firearms to commit offences are not legal gun
owners but rather those who acquire firearms through different
measures.
(1615 )
Criminals do not go to the police department and say:
``Constable, I have this illegal weapon that I would like to
register'', or ``I would like to acquire a firearms acquisition
certificate''. These people cannot get an FAC through the
current regulations. Rather they get their weapons illegally
through smuggling across the border from the United States or
from those people who have acquired guns in that manner.
Therefore, the Reform Party supports completely the justice
minister's endeavours to increase penalties for smuggling, theft
and for using a firearm in committing a criminal offence with a
four-year minimum sentence.
As an aside, I would strongly recommend to the Minister of
Justice that with this sentence goes certain stipulations. First,
that there be no plea bargaining whatsoever. Second, that parole
be not applied to this aspect of sentencing and that the sentences
run consecutively not concurrently.
If the government does this, it will send a strong message to
those individuals who are committing offences with firearms.
Currently most weapon offences are plea bargained away in
order to get an expeditious conviction on another offence, such
as a break and enter, which ensures that there is virtually no
penalty whatsoever to the criminal who chooses to maliciously
pick up a firearm and commit an offence. He or she knows no
effective penalty is going to be applied to them. Thus, we
completely support direct measures to address the criminal use
of firearms.
We do not support punitive actions taken against legal gun
owners. These individuals jump through hoops to get firearms
acquisition certificates, take courses, join clubs, et cetera, and
have proven not to be the element in our society that commits
criminal offences. As I have proven before, these are not the
individuals who do this.
11156
Some people have said that having a firearms acquisition
certificate, increasing the penalties that we already have and
having gun registration in particular, is somehow going to
decrease the rate of suicide. The fact of the matter is that
between the time that strict gun control measures were brought
in to the time before that, the rate of suicide per capita has not
changed. Furthermore, the number of individuals who use
firearms in committing an offence has not changed at all.
Another aspect that is very fundamental to this case and
perhaps one of the most potent reasons why not to vote in favour
of gun registration is the cost. People have not given this enough
thought. The cost is anywhere between $80 million and $500
million, as has been claimed, and will be passed on to the
consumer to some extent. However, not all of it will. That leaves
the ultimate payer in all of this, the taxpayer, who is already
taxed to death.
This means that money is going to be pulled away from other
functional aspects of the justice department. I cannot emphasize
this enough. We are going to be taking money away from police
officers which should have gone for training and equipment.
Police officers are already hamstrung because of lack of
finances in part. Think about it. The government is cutting the
effective arm of our justice system, the arm that protects us, to
do what? To invest in something that has proven not to work.
We are going to see fewer arrests for those committing
offences such as rape, murder, attempted murder, assault and
break and enter. All of this is going to decrease the power of the
police forces to deal with this. Is this an effective use of the
taxpayers' money? I think not.
We will not support any measure that has proven not to
decrease the rate of crime, as has been proven in Australia. It
enacted gun registration and it has proven to be a failure. The
police forces there are asking the politicians to revoke it.
Furthermore, contrary to what is being said here by members
of the government, these measures are not supported by the rank
and file police officers. That is very important to recognize. Of
all people, those who are in the field should know best.
In closing, we support the bill. We support that it will be
divided into two sections. The part that we support is the
effective measures to reduce crime. The part that we do not
support is the aspect of gun registration and the punitive actions
against law-abiding gun owners.
(1620 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in debate on a
Reform amendment to split Bill C-68 and thus bring the real
issue of safety and security of Canadians into focus.
The amendment presents the Minister of Justice with a real
opportunity to protect Canadians and prosecute and punish those
who break the law.
As the bill is currently structured, the legitimate issues
concerning firearms control are clouded and confused. This
obfuscation was no doubt conceived, cultivated and foisted on
the minister by select individuals of the Coalition for Gun
Control and some stealthy, arrogant, policy counsels within
justice. Like a rock these beacons of virtue and public service
are telling Canadians what is good for them. If these same
people are so concerned for the welfare and safety of Canadians
and fairness in laws, then any rational thinking bureaucrat
would have seen this major deficiency in handiwork.
Anyone can see that splitting the bill will focus the wrath
where it should be, at those individuals who use firearms in the
commission of crimes and who continue to make our streets
unsafe for law-abiding citizens.
As Bill C-68 is currently constituted we are being asked to
deal with two separate issues. Let us try to remove some of the
emotion from the debate. Let us deal with the issues in chewable
chunks. If the minister believes so firmly in firearms
registration, then let him stand up and debate his notion of
fairness. If he is so concerned with criminal justice let him stand
up and debate his notion of fairness. Let the issues stand on their
own merits and not on stealth.
Recently the Minister of Justice during a speech in Montreal
was quoted as saying: ``More than anything else Bill C-68 is
about the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of society
we want as Canadians''. He went on: ``We are willing to have it
out right now. Let's decide who is running this country. There's
no room for an American style gun lobby in this country''.
I want to tell the justice minister that Canadians run the
country and there is room in this nation for all kinds of people
representing many points of view. Comments about gun control
like the ones he made in Montreal are intolerant. Debate is
dissent according to the minister. What is he afraid of? If he
really wants, as he said, to have it out, then level the playing
field. If he feels he has such support, deal with the legislation in
Bill C-68 upfront, each issue at a time without the rhetoric.
Let us take a look at some of the statistics and at the real issue.
Last year roughly 3,800 firearms were either lost or stolen by
those who lawfully own them in Canada. Some of these would
have been from police and from the military. During that same
period 375,000 firearms were smuggled into Canada. That is one
hundred times as many.
The onus and emphasis of the minister's legislation is
registration which impacts on lawful citizens. Why does he not
beef up security at our borders and crack down on the gun
smugglers and runners?
11157
The minister says he wants to take this issue on. He thinks
establishing a national registry at likely cost estimates upwards
of $500 million to implement is taking the issue on. Tying up
police resources in software programs and registration
verification is really getting tough on crime. The criminals are
shaking in their boots. One does not have to go two miles from
Parliament Hill as recently as last Thursday when three
parolees shot it out with police, wounding two officers because
of better fire power. I am sure those three, who will be out on
release shortly because of our revolving door justice system,
will be the first to run out and register their illegal guns. If
anyone is playing politics with emotions, it is not the Reform
Party on this issue.
(1625)
The minister conveniently uses the Canadian Association of
Police Chiefs to make and carry his message on gun control.
This is the same organization that receives federal funding and
which has never done any polling of its members. How weak.
I can make a case for the other side based on my conversations
with real police officers who are fighting crime. It is backed up
by letters and calls. I even received one petition from Sault Ste.
Marie with 5,000 signatures, demanding that their point of view
be heard. These are responsible, law-abiding citizens who may
not meet the minister's social standards and are thus dismissed
as not worthy of a point of view.
The whole issue of registration is a red herring in my books.
New Zealand has had universal registration and is abandoning it
with the blessing of the police because it is time consuming,
expensive and is not accomplishing anything.
Australia is considering abandoning its universal registration
with the blessing of police. Police in Australia estimate that only
one firearm in four is registered due to non-compliance.
Criminals for sure do not register their firearms. For heaven's
sake, they do not even register their cars.
The shootout in west end Ottawa last Thursday night involved
a stolen getaway vehicle. The answer to all this is Bill C-68, an
issue the minister says he wants to take on.
A national firearms registry does not meet the views of the
majority of Canadians who are seeking less government, less
intrusion into their lives, and reducing the cost of government.
The legislation and the minister's bill will impose a 10-year
jail term for failure to register firearms and includes the right to
search and seize without a warrant. This is the minister's view of
how Canadian should be governed, by a police state. After
everything is said and done, the criminals will be running the
justice system.
Bill C-68 is a complicated, convoluted attempt to shift the
focus of the real debate. If it is left in its current form we will fail
to tackle the real issue, which of course is crime control. This is
bad law. The justice department argues that registration will
make gun owners more accountable.
As a firearms owner, I already store my firearms according to
the rules, as do the majority of gun owners. I can tell the minister
that no registration system will force gun smugglers, gun
runners and criminals to be more accountable. It is misguided
and focused on the wrong premise.
This is the easy thing to do and the way one would expect a
bureaucrat to deal with an issue. In their perfect, self-contained
world, any gun owner is a criminal. We are all lumped in the
same category. It is convenient, easy but dead wrong. This is bad
law.
I therefore support the motion to split Bill C-68 and get down
to the business of solving crime.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to begin by congratulating my colleague for
Yorkton-Melville for introducing this amendment.
The universal registration of firearms is one of the most
controversial and ineffective sections of Bill C-68. The
amendment separates gun control from crime control. It allows
the crime control portions of the bill to be dealt with separately
and expeditiously.
For the last year members of the Reform Party have been
telling the government that Canada has a crime problem, not a
gun problem. It is a difference it has so far refused to recognize.
The government persevered and introduced Bill C-68 which is
seriously flawed.
(1630)
The minister claims his intention is to crack down on the
criminal use of firearms. Certainly that is an area I would
support him in. In fact, all he has done so far is to take aim at the
easiest available target: the legitimate owners of guns. He really
means that gun control lies at the heart of the Liberal Party's
effort to derail the nationwide surge in interest in tougher and
more effective criminal justice.
Public safety must be the overriding goal of any government.
Punishment of crime should come before all other objectives.
The Reform Party believes the target should be the criminal use
of firearms, not the law-abiding gun owners.
Passage of this amendment would allow Parliament to get on
with dealing with the crime problem. There is no connection
between the legitimate gun owner who owns a firearm for
hunting, target shooting, or for the protection of his family or his
animals from preying wildlife and the criminal who obtains a
firearm illegally for the purpose of committing a crime. There is
no correlation between the two at all.
11158
As my friend pointed out, last Thursday in Ottawa a few
miles west of this Chamber there was an armed robbery. Not
only were two of the participants in this botched hold-up on
parole, but they also had a history of armed robbery
convictions. That is what they had been jailed for on their last
convictions. One of them was even prohibited from owning a
firearm for life.
How would gun registration have made any difference
whatsoever in this case? Would it have saved the two Ottawa
police officers from the gunshot wounds they suffered? Not
likely. Let us face facts here. No amount of gun control
regulation would have stopped this trio from obtaining the guns
they needed to carry out their robbery or any other robbery they
might plan.
The real problem here is the criminal misuse of firearms.
Those convicted must be severely punished. The separation of
this bill into two parts would accomplish that goal.
More crimes are committed in this country with knives than
guns, but no one is suggesting we register our kitchen knives, at
least not yet. This government is more interested in proceeding
with the mandatory registration of firearms than it is with
solving our crime problem. Mandatory gun registration is not
just a tax on law-abiding gun owners, but one that will cost all
Canadians millions of dollars to implement.
The minister's supporters, the anti-gun lobbyists, claim that
firearms registration is justified because we register our cars
and our dogs. The truth is that these registrations exist primarily
as a form of taxation.
The Minister of Justice estimates universal registration will
cost $85 million. If you will pardon the expression, I think that
is a rather conservative estimate. Experts at Simon Fraser
University put the cost somewhere between $400 million and
$500 million.
Here we have a Liberal government using parliamentary time
to debate gun control when we will be paying some $50 billion
in interest this year. This government has its priorities
completely mixed up. So much for an assault on the deficit. This
is merely another assault on the wallets of Canadian taxpayers.
In addition, mandatory registration will turn police officers
into bureaucrats. The Minister of Finance announced in the
February budget that thousands of public service jobs will be
eliminated and he is going to shrink the bureaucracy. Someone
should tell the Minister of Finance that his colleague, the
Minister of Justice, is creating a whole new bureaucracy. Once
the minister turns police officers into bureaucrats, they will be
so bogged down with paperwork and chasing otherwise
legitimate gun owners that they will not have time for regular
law enforcement duties.
We have asked the minister repeatedly for evidence proving
that a national gun registry will save lives. So far he has been
unable to give us that information and has been successfully
ducking the issue. We know the reason he cannot give those. He
simply cannot. He does not have a shred of evidence to provide
to us.
(1635)
The Minister of Justice has taken on gun control purely as a
personal crusade. Somehow he has managed to confuse crime
control with gun control. Now legitimate gun owners are afraid
that this minister is so blinded by his personal agenda that he
will stop at nothing until he reaches his ultimate goal: the
complete confiscation of all firearms in Canada, maybe with the
exception of law authorities and military. We have heard this
minister and other members of the government state that they
would like to see a society in which only police officers and the
military have weapons. The only way that can come about is
through confiscation.
The minister hopes that by making firearms ownership so
complicated and expensive that Canadians will give them up.
More than likely, it will put more guns into the underground
market, not less and ultimately, more guns into the hands of
criminals.
The Minister of Justice hopes that all this attention on gun
control will divert attention away from the roots of our crime
problem. After all, the Liberal Party policy on crime is that it
somehow is society's fault. He often drags out polls to support
his stand.
If he is really interested in the polls and what people think, he
should look at the Simon Fraser University opinion survey. It
showed that Canadians knew little about gun control laws and
that their support for firearms registration weakened as they
became more knowledgeable about this issue.
The reason people voice support for gun control when
questioned by pollsters is that they think or hope that
registration of firearms will somehow improve public safety and
reduce violence. Most Canadians do not know that handgun
registration has been in effect in Canada since 1934, 61 years.
There is no record to show that a single crime has been
prevented as a result of this registration.
Most Canadians do not know that experiments in firearms
registration were expensive failures in Australia and New
Zealand. As my friend has pointed out, they are now being given
up in those countries.
Most Canadians do not know that in 1993 the auditor general
reported to Parliament that the previous government had no
statistical basis for implementing the last round of gun control
regulations.
Most Canadians are unaware of the findings of project gun
runner which was undertaken by the Ontario government.
Project gun runner found that 86 per cent of all handguns used in
the commission of crimes were smuggled into Canada. Does the
minister really believe that the new owners of these smuggled
11159
weapons will register them? Surely, he is not that naive. I do not
believe he is.
Reformers are not opposed to the government's plan to crack
down on smuggling. That is why we believe the only solution is
to split this bill so that crime control and gun control can be dealt
with separately.
It is too bad the Minister of Justice cannot see that his
determined efforts to reduce crime are so far off base. He started
down this road and he is too proud to admit he is lost. He is
afraid that if he turns back he will be seen as abandoning his
principles.
The minister should thank his colleague from
Yorkton-Melville for bringing forth this amendment. The
member has done him a big favour. He has given the minister an
avenue to save face. If he takes it, he can preserve his standing in
the next leadership race.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in opposition to
the amendment which has been tabled by the member for
Yorkton-Melville and to speak strongly in support of the
principle of Bill C-68.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come
before this House. In saying so, I want to take this opportunity to
make very clear that this legislation is the product of the
dedication, the commitment, the integrity and the energy of
many men and women across this country.
I am proud of the history of my own party in speaking out for
strong and effective gun control. One of my former colleagues in
the House, Stuart Leggatt, the former member of Parliament for
New Westminster-Burnaby, was one of those who originally
participated in the debate on gun control legislation in 1976 and
1977. He spoke very eloquently about the importance of
effective gun control.
(1640 )
I took the opportunity to review those debates and to look at
some of the newspaper coverage of the debates at the time. It
was eerily familiar. One headline was: ``West up in arms over
government's gun control proposals''. In 1976, a group calling
itself the Firearms and Responsible Ownership coalition
distributed a commentary suggesting that the purpose of the
government's bill was to ultimately stop any and all legitimate
use of firearms in Canada. It went on to suggest that gun control
legislation was a threat to sportsmen. That was in 1976 and we
are hearing the same kind of unfounded allegations today.
It was my colleagues, Ian Waddell, the member of Parliament
for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and Dawn Black, the member for
New Westminister-Burnaby, who in the last Parliament spoke
out very strongly for tough and effective gun control legislation.
They called for a stronger Bill C-17, a strengthening of the bill
that was brought in by Kim Campbell.
Our platform in the last federal election was unequivocal. It
stated: ``New Democrats have consistently argued for more
effective gun control. We support the most recent legislation and
have fought hard against efforts in the House of Commons to
weaken it. We continue to promote an even stronger, more
effective law. In particular, we want a national firearms registry
system which would provide law enforcement agencies with a
list of each firearm in circulation and its serial number. This
would facilitate the tracking of all weapons stolen or used in
crimes''. I am pleased and honoured to stand in my place in the
House of Commons today to reiterate that commitment to strong
and effective gun control legislation.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun
Control. It has done such an outstanding job in helping to make
Canadians aware of these issues. I particularly pay tribute to
Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen, the executive director.
[Translation]
Heidi Rathjen had the good fortunate to survive the massacre
that left 14 dead at l'École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989.
I would also like to pay tribute to Mrs. Suzanne Edward, whose
daughter was among the victims of the December 6, 1989,
massacre.
[English]
Finally, I would like to pay a special word of tribute to the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who has so tirelessly
advocated strong and effective gun control legislation over the
years. I have seconded a number of private members' bills that
he has tabled and he has seconded a number of mine.
It is not often that I take the opportunity to commend a
minister of this government. I see the Minister of Justice in the
House today and I know he has made a genuine effort to respond
to the concerns of Canadians. He has travelled extensively
across the country and has listened to hunters, gun collectors
and others in all provinces and territories, including my own
province of British Columbia. I want to take this opportunity to
commend the minister for his efforts to genuinely understand,
listen to and respond to legitimate concerns of those in the field
of gun control and for the leadership he is demonstrating in
moving forward on this very important legislation.
I listened with interest to the previous speaker from the
Reform Party who asked the question: Where is the evidence to
back up the call for registration? I have a very interesting quote
from the first Reform Party member of Parliament to sit in the
House of Commons. The member for Beaver River spoke in this
House on November 6, 1991. What she said on the question of
firearm registration was very interesting.
11160
She said: ``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 all
respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be
registered''. The Reform Party member for Beaver River went
on to say: ``I agree with that and I think every Canadian would
agree with that as well''. Let me just say that I agree with the
member for Beaver River when she spoke in November 1991.
I can only ask why it is that her colleagues have not listened
to the very thoughtful analysis of the member for Beaver River
as well.
(1645 )
The previous speaker for the Reform Party asked where the
evidence is. I will cite a statistic to the Reform Party member
who asked the question and left the House. In Britain in 1993-94
there were a total of 55 firearms deaths. That is in a country with
a population of 60 million. In Canada there were over 1,400
deaths caused by legally owned firearms.
What more do those who ask for evidence need? We will save
lives. We will reduce the level of crime. That alone is grounds
for rejecting this amendment and moving ahead on this very
important legislation.
Recently the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police issued
a very comprehensive memorandum on the issue of registration
because that is the issue. No one is questioning the importance
of getting tougher on smuggling. No one is questioning the
importance of tougher criminal sanctions. That is clear.
Some concerns have been raised about the potential impact of
lengthy mandatory minimum sentences on prison populations
and I share some of those concerns. The real issue and the
purpose of the amendment is registration.
What do the chiefs of police have to say about registration?
They say without information about who owns guns there is no
effective gun control. Tracking guns that are imported into
Canada and then sold is critical to controlling abuse. They point
out registration will help promote safe storage which will reduce
gun theft as well as suicides and accidents.
I have seen this in my own constituency. There was the case of
a young man 18 years old who was at a party with a group of
friends. He took out his father's gun and tragically was involved
in a fatal shooting. A police officer from the Burnaby RCMP
said it is a typical case of firearms not being secured the way
they should and firearms not being handled the way they should,
a life gone for nothing. How many other lives will we lose before
we recognize this madness must come to an end?
I am proud that we do not have the American psychology of
the right to bear arms. We do not have the pressures of the
National Rifle Association intimidating elected representatives.
We have seen powerful attempts to lobby.
One of the factors I am proud of that distinguishes Canada
from the United States is we are prepared to say we do not
believe in that culture of unrestricted gun ownership. This bill
will help to preserve and to strengthen that commitment.
We will save lives with this bill. There is no doubt about that.
Police, women's groups and others have made it very clear they
want to see strong and effective registration. They want us to
remove firearms from volatile situations. Those situations
include circumstances in which there may be a suicide, in which
there may be a homicide.
We want to make sure there are not undue costs of
registration, that the system is not unduly burdensome. We want
to put more resources into dealing with violence against women.
The leader of my party has spoken out very eloquently on the
importance of that.
We want to see more resources for enforcement at the border.
The government is cutting back on public service. I am
concerned that we not cut back on resources that will help us to
fight smuggling. We want to do more in terms of prevention. I
am deeply troubled by the cuts in the budget in social programs.
I am proud to stand in the House to oppose the amendment, to
support the principle of this legislation. I believe in doing so that
I am maintaining a long and honourable tradition of New
Democrats who have spoken out for strong and effective gun
control, for safer communities and for saving lives. I am very
proud to continue in that tradition.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Royal Canadian
Mounted Police; the hon. member for North Island-Powell
River-Indian affairs.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion proposed by my
colleague from Yorkton-Melville. The intent and the effect of
this motion are very clear, to split the bill into two parts. One
part would contain the Criminal Code amendments dealing with
the criminal use of firearms while the second would contain all
the regulations governing the ownership of a firearm, including
such things as storage, transportation requirements, training
courses, minor permits, et cetera.
(1650)
The bill as it stands addresses two facets of firearm
possession. One facet is directed toward those who possess
firearms legally and the other is directed toward those who
possess firearms illegally.
11161
The Minister of Justice through the bill is requiring all
persons who legally possess a firearm to register their firearm
and that this will reduce the number of persons who possess
a firearm illegally. The first response to this is how will this
approach achieve that?
Before pursuing that, let us look at the approach to solving the
problem. The problem we have is the illegal possession of
firearms and the misuse of these firearms. The approach of the
bill is to impede or to put up barriers to the legal possession of
firearms, which will supposedly reduce illegal possession of
firearms; in other words, punish the law-abiding citizens to get
at the law breakers.
Gun control measures aimed at reducing crime and the
registration of firearms are two separate issues. If the purpose of
Bill C-68 is to reduce crime, why does it include the registration
of all firearms? Should it not be plainly demonstrated
beforehand how registration prevents and reduces crime?
This is what Reform members have been asking the Minister
of Justice and so far they have failed to get a clear, concise,
satisfactory answer. Establishing how these two components are
linked has not been forthcoming.
On February 16 the Minister of Justice opened the debate on
Bill C-68 and spent much of his speech dealing with
registration. One of the minister's arguments was to reduce the
number of firearms smuggled into Canada. The minister stated
we should reduce the number of firearms smuggled into the
country. It is a laudable goal and one which the Reform Party
supports. Then the minister went on to state this would be
achieved through registration. He said the registration of all
firearms will enable us to do a better job at the borders.
The minister added on February 16:
We will never stop the smuggling of firearms entirely. There are 130 million
border crossings a year. We cannot stop every vehicle and check every trunk and
glove compartment. But we can do a better job than we have done in the past and
registration will enable us to do it.
How does registering a gun allow them to work better at the
border? If cars are not stopped in the first place, how will they
know if the gun is there?
Perhaps members opposite will grasp why Reform members
are so frustrated with the bill and the minister's rationale. We
can divide the minister's arguments with regard to smuggling
into three statements: one, the registration of firearms will
enable us to do a better job at the borders; two, it is hard to stop
the smuggling of firearms entirely because of the volume at
border crossings; three, we can do a better job and registration
will help us. It sounds like a circle to me.
That seems to be the argument on how registration will reduce
smuggling. That argument utterly fails to answer the question of
how the registration of firearms in Canada will reduce
smuggling. I can see how more border inspections and more
border guards will reduce smuggling, but I fail to see how
registration will work in this regard. It is incumbent upon the
minister and the government to provide clear answers to these
genuine questions.
One reason firearm owners oppose registration is they see it
as a step toward confiscation. While the Minister of Justice has
tried to allay that concern, prominent colleagues in his own
party seem to favour that view. In the debate on March 13 the
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women
said the following:
In 1987 the English writer Martin Amis wrote: ``Bullets cannot be recalled.
They cannot be uninvented. But they can be taken out of the gun''.
(1655 )
The speaker went on to say: ``I would add that the safest way
is to take away the guns''. This certainly sounds like
confiscation to me.
I would like to comment on the politics of this issue and this
bill. They have become very interesting because of the reaction
of the Liberal and NDP caucuses. Members of the government
who support the bill like portraying this as a right-left
ideological debate or a debate between the people of Canada and
the gun lobby.
The justice minister on February 16 said:
We have an opportunity for Parliament to make a statement about the kind of
Canada that we want for ourselves and for our children, about the efforts we are
prepared to make to ensure the peaceful and civilized nation that we have and
enjoy and to demonstrate just who is in control of firearms in Canada. Is it the
gun lobby or is it the people of the country?
This type of talk is simply presumptuous.
At a town hall meeting I held in Surrey in March most people
wanted to talk about the government's proposed gun legislation.
They were overwhelmingly in favour of tougher criminal
penalties for criminal misuse of firearms but they were opposed
to the registration of their firearms, seeing it as expensive,
intrusive and impractical. These people were not members of
gun lobbies. They were individual citizens who are hunters,
collectors or target shooters.
One person I remember quite well was a Delta police officer
who talked at some length about how the proposed registration
would be totally ineffective at reducing crime. Citizens such as
these are the ones opposing the registration aspects of Bill C-68.
The sooner this is realized by the government the better.
If opposition to the bill is just the gun lobby, why are members
of the minister's own caucus having trouble with the
legislation? Why are eight of the nine members of the New
Democratic Party supposedly opposed to the legislation? To
think that all of these members of the NDP and Liberal caucuses
have been coerced by gun lobbyists is phenomenal.
11162
The motion the member for Yorkton-Melville has
introduced reads as follows:
That all the words after the word ``That'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefore:
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.
I would like to finish with the following quote that expresses
my sentiments also:
My constituents have been asking all along that the bill be divided into two
parts: legislation that directly affects law-abiding gun owners and legislation
that affects the criminal use of firearms.
That was a quote from the March 13
Hansard. The person who
said those words was not another Reform member, nor was it
some member of the nefarious gun lobby, but the Liberal
member for Cochrane-Superior.
I read the motion that has been put forward. To that member
and to other reasonable Liberals, the member for
Yorkton-Melville has provided members with the
opportunity-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-68 and also
to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville.
I am pleased to join my Reform colleagues in calling for Bill
C-68 to be split into two bills, one dealing with crime and the
other with gun control. These two issues are both important but
are not connected.
Crime control deals with the issue of public safety while gun
control deals with the issues of red tape, bureaucratic burden,
additional taxation and, from some extremists, Liberal social
engineering.
(1700 )
There is no evidence anywhere to suggest criminal activity
and legal gun ownership are connected. Many studies have been
done that clearly demonstrate that no such link exists.
No doubt there is a real crime problem in Canada. The
politicians know it. Canadian citizens know it. Everyone knows
it. Naturally the government wants to be seen as doing
something about it. We on the Reform benches would rather the
government take real steps to deter crime than opt for the quick
fix, look good attack on legal gun owners. It may create a lot of
activity that gives the impression of real action, but it will have
no real impact on the rates of crime and violent crime in Canada.
One study on the relationship between guns and crime was
recently done by Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser
University. Professor Mauser's report entitled ``Gun Control is
not Crime Control'' has been published by the Fraser Institute
and contains some very interesting facts.
Professor Mauser looked at homicide rates in countries
around the world and compared them with gun control laws to
see if there was a correlation between the two. There was none.
The professor pointed out that no government anywhere in the
world could claim to have reduced crime through gun control.
Firearms have been banned altogether in Jamaica, Hong Kong,
New York City and Washington D.C. without leading to a
decrease in homicide rates. Those places have some of the
highest crime rates in the world.
To highlight some of his findings I think all members would
be interested to know some of the comparisons found in the
study. As Canada is a wealthy industrialized democracy, I will
limit my comparison to other nations that fit roughly into the
same category, namely the United States, France, Switzerland
and Japan.
Both France and the U.S.A. have higher homicide rates than
Canada. In the United States gun control is more relaxed than
here, but in France it is somewhat more controlled. Switzerland
has very liberal gun laws. Private gun ownership is encouraged.
Not only is the homicide rate in Switzerland lower than in
Canada, but it is also lower than in Japan where gun ownership is
prohibited entirely. The murder rate is higher in a country that
prohibits guns than in one that promotes their responsible use.
An even more telling comparison is the case in Great Britain.
Faced with a growing crime rate in the 1980s the British
government introduced extremely restrictive gun controls in
1988. In the five years that followed, the crime rate in Britain
rose at precisely the same rate as before gun control laws were
imposed.
There is a very important message for the government. I hope
it is listening. Gun control will have no effect on the crime rate.
According to Professor Mauser:
The federal government's current proposals for stricter gun controls would,
if introduced, not only fail to reduce crime but would vastly increase the size of
the federal bureaucracy.
He went on to say that while legitimate gun owners pose no
threat to society, ``the violent offender poses a significant threat
to public safety and greater efforts must be focused here. It is a
truism that laws only apply to the law abiding''.
How true it is that more gun control laws will only punish
those responsible Canadians who are already following the
current laws. The tragedy is that an otherwise good crime bill is
being ruined by the inclusion of gun control measures that will
not reduce violent crime, suicides or firearm accidents. If they
did I would be the first to support them. All these measures will
do is punish responsible gun owners and have a serious impact
on the industry they support.
11163
I want to talk about the economic impact of Bill C-68. The
economic value of all hunting, target shooting and gun
collecting in Canada is estimated to be $1.2 billion per year and
growing. In my province of Saskatchewan the provincial
government is currently engaged in a study of how much
economic activity will disappear from the province if the
legislation goes through without amendment. The province
raises over $8 million annually from the sale of hunting and
fishing licences. Some of the revenue will be lost or at least
greatly reduced if owning and operating a firearm becomes too
expensive or too bureaucratic to be worth it.
American hunting groups are already saying that many
hunters will not come to Canada if the gun control is in place.
The loss of tourism dollars will be devastating to many parts of
Saskatchewan including the area of Kindersley in my
constituency.
(1705)
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands does not
particularly care about the economy of Saskatchewan but I am
very concerned because it is the economy in my province that
puts bread on the table, provides a future for young people and
gives them some reason for optimism. I am really disappointed
the government is trying to impose legislation on my province
that will harm the economy.
The number of businesses attached to the hunting and tourism
industry is tremendous. Has the government considered how
many hunting lodges and outfitters will be forced to close? What
about all the stores that sell hunting clothing and equipment and
the sale of offload vehicles and RVs? We are talking big
business. It is not a trivial matter.
Members across the way seem to think it is a trivial matter.
They mock the legal business practices of the people of
Saskatchewan who are benefiting from the tourism and hunting
industry as it now exists. They do not seem to care that it will be
squelched with the introduction and passage of Bill C-68.
It is not only the small business men and women who will
suffer from the collapse of the hunting and fishing industry.
Many local charities run food concessions at gun shows. It is not
uncommon for a church group to raise $3,000 or $4,000 for
charitable works from a single weekend show.
When farmers retire and auction off their equipment many put
a rifle or two in the auction because it brings more people out to
the sale. Many in my constituency have expressed the concern
that losing this activity will drive down the money they raise for
their retirement.
Many outfitters to whom I have spoken from all across
Saskatchewan say that business in their stores and at gun shows
has dropped by 40 per cent in anticipation of the bill passing.
There is a 40 per cent loss in business because they understand
the government is fixated with passing Bill C-68. They are
expecting it to get much worse once the full impact of the bill is
felt.
The Government of Saskatchewan estimates that for each
white tail deer licence it issues to non-Canadian residents,
$3,000 in related spending is added to the provincial economy.
In 1993-94, 2,850 deer licences were issued to non-Canadians.
If the American hunters boycott Canada, $8.5 million in direct
spending alone will be lost from our economy.
As long as the herd is properly managed, this is a renewable
resource that could continue to provide enjoyment for
Canadians and our guests as well as contribute to our economy.
White tail deer hunting is very important in my riding at the
moment as the new world record buck was recently shot by a
constituent of mine from Biggar.
Myles Hanson broke an 80-year old record previously held by
an American from Nebraska. Because of this new world record,
potential for increased tourism revenue exists for the local
hunting industry, potential that is put in risk by this type of
legislation.
It is unfortunate that we cannot have more time to debate the
bill. I will close by saying that Bill C-68 should be split into two
bills, one dealing with the crime control that all Canadians want
and the other dealing with the gun control wanted by the
Liberals and other elites.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that gun control
and crime control are separate issues. We should treat them
separately in the House. The economic impact of the bill will
devastate the tourism industry in Saskatchewan. I call on all
members, particularly those from Saskatchewan, to support
splitting the bill. It would be a shame to lose a good crime bill
because of some ill thought gun control idea.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the
amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville.
I have heard a lot of debate on the issue. I have heard a lot of
statistics. We sometimes wonder what is being done with all the
information. In Manitoba we register cars. There is insurance on
them. If I am not a responsible driver pretty soon it costs me a lot
more to drive the vehicle.
I heard that gun owners were very irresponsible, that there
were many accidents in the home, that guns had to be locked up,
and that something had to be done to prevent these things. I
thought: Why not go to insurance companies to find out how
they look at the issue? I want to read some statistics from
Ontario and Manitoba. Maybe hon. members can put the figures
together and match them against what has been said.
11164
(1710)
The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters offers a public
liability to its members included in the membership fee. They
get the umbrella coverage through Royal Insurance. The
insurance premium is extremely cheap. It works out to about $3
or $4 per member per year. It provides $2 million for public
liability. That is pretty cheap public liability insurance. The
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not offer life
insurance as part of its membership.
The Manitoba Wildlife Federation includes a $5,000
insurance on death or dismemberment at no extra cost. That is
very cheap insurance for a very dangerous occupation, I would
say. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not
offer it because it is no more difficult to get a personal life
insurance package if one is a hunter than if one is not.
Apparently a life insurance company will ask questions to
determine if one is involved in high risk activity. It will ask if
one sky dives or scuba dives but will not ask if one is a hunter.
Insurance people work on a profit margin. If terrible accidents
were costing a lot in compensation or insurance, they would
have increased premiums. In Ontario in the late 1950s there
were about 40 to 50 hunting accidents per year. Now there are
less than five per year because of the extra emphasis on hunter
safety training courses provided by gun clubs and by hunting
organizations. It a pretty efficient education.
According to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
there is no question regarding gun ownership on home insurance
policies. The Manitoba Wildlife Federation reports basically the
same. It provides a $2 million third party supplementary
liability policy with membership. It is meant to be
supplementary and the homeowners policy would kick in first.
The wildlife federation policy would cover the next $2 million.
If there were no homeowners policy the wildlife federation
policy would become the primary policy.
The Manitoba Wildlife Federation gets its insurance through
Bolls and McMartin Insurance in Winnipeg. My assistant spoke
with Bolls and McMartin Insurance this morning. There are no
extra premiums for firearm owners on its homeowners policy. It
is not a question they ask potential customers. Whether or not
the person wanting insurance owns a firearm is not an issue. The
number of firearm related accidents is so small that it is not of
concern to the insurance companies. Why is it such a concern to
Liberals?
Its homeowners policy is quite comprehensive and provides
public liability for hunting accidents in the same way that it
would provide for a chimney crumbling and damaging a
neighbour's house or for a shingle blowing off the roof and
hitting the postman. That about says how dangerous it is when it
comes to gun ownership.
Prudential Insurance Company in Ottawa offers a home
insurance policy that provides a $1 million liability. It covers a
wide range of circumstances: accidents with a gun in the home
or during hunting, someone slipping on a step or someone being
hit by a brick falling off a chimney. They are all under one
category. It does not ask specific questions regarding firearm
ownership. It asks for the total value of goods in the home and
guns are usually under the category of sporting goods.
When a home is broken into and the thieves want guns, they
will also steal the guns that are stored and locked up. It is a
matter of the criminal looking for whatever he needs. It is not
the guns that are causing all the problems.
(1715)
I would like to inform the House that there have been hunters
in my family for five or six generations. My grandfather, whom I
knew well, was an avid hunter, my father, myself and my
youngest son. We have never had a hunting accident or a gun
related accident. I have had the experience of my youngest son
almost being killed by an attacker in a parking lot in the city. In
one generation I have had that experience where five
generations of hunting have never given me that experience.
Have these criminals been apprehended? No. It is impossible
to catch them. Why? I would like to read a story and perhaps
hon. members across the way will find out what our problem is.
This is a Canadian Press story from Winnipeg of January 23:
The bodies of Rhonda, 22, and Roy Lavoie, 30, were found Friday in a van
parked in a farmer's garage north of Gimli, Man. Police said they died of carbon
monoxide poisoning.
Roy Lavoie had been charged on at least two separate occasions and released
on bail both times.
``I don't know why Roy got out the second time,'' (a friend said) as a police
chaplain helped family members break the news of the murder-suicide to the
couple's sons, age 2, 3 and 6.
He was allowed to go free on bail after being charged with assaulting and
abducting his wife in November.
(On testimony given in Queen's Court on January 11 this lady) described how
her husband had driven her to a cabin against her will, tied her up inside the car
and threatened to kill her with exhaust fumes from the vehicle.
She had to promise she would not release this to anyone.
There are laws to protect us from criminals but they are not
being enforced. Until such time as we as members of Parliament
make the police enforce these laws any gun registering will do
nothing to deter crime.
It is evident to anyone who has ever had anything to do with
criminal activity that it is not the gun or the club or the stone or
whatever it is that he is using, it is the man using the weapon.
11165
If we want to do something, let us go after the criminal. Let
us divide the bill. We support the section dealing with the
sentencing of criminals. I fully support the amendment of my
colleague to divide the bill and I hope the rest of the House will
too.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the amendment
introduced by my hon. colleague, the member for
Yorkton-Melville.
The amendment is to divide Bill C-68 into two parts: the first
part dealing with the criminal use of firearms and stricter
penalties to punish crime; and the second part to force
law-abiding citizens to go through a very complicated, a very
structured and a very costly procedure to register all their
firearms. This is in addition to handguns, which are already
registered and have had to be registered for over 60 years.
We support the division of the bill. Most Canadians want the
criminal use of firearms to be dealt with swiftly and
energetically. We need to make the criminal use of firearms, the
violation of the safety and the rights of law-abiding citizens, a
high risk activity. Criminals should think long and hard and
should pay a very high price for violating the rights of citizens,
for harming them and for interfering with their safety. We all
agree on that. We wish the government would get on with it.
(1720)
What we do not agree with is this time-honoured, political
ploy of marrying a very important and very desirable public
policy objective with a very problematic, very unpopular and
very indefensible objective. That is so often the case in
legislation where two different matters are put together in a bill.
Legislators are forced to swallow some unpalatable parts of the
legislation in order to get the desirable ones.
My colleague has given the House the opportunity to get what
we need, which is better law enforcement and better punishment
of criminal activity. It would deal in a more rational and sensible
way with some of these proposals to get tough with law-abiding
citizens and to interfere with their freedoms and their right to
live their lives in a peaceful and uninterrupted manner.
The justice minister made some rather interesting claims
about the gun control portion of the legislation. I would like to
examine those claims. I hope that members opposite will be
quiet long enough to listen to what I have to say.
First, the justice minister said that registration will improve
safety for police by letting them know who owns firearms. The
fact is that fully 96 per cent of guns involved in criminal activity
are illegally obtained. Police do not know who owns these
firearms because criminals do not register their guns. They are
criminals. They are not operating within the law and they are not
going to do it just because the justice minister thinks it would be
nice if they did.
Second, the justice minister claims that registration will
combat smuggling by monitoring the types and quantities of
firearms coming into Canada. Perhaps the justice minister,
being a very educated man, could look at the dictionary. The
dictionary defines smuggling as ``unmonitored and secret
activity''. I fail to see why smugglers will register firearms. Will
they say: ``We are smuggling these in and we will send you a list
of what we are smuggling?'' That is a little ridiculous. I am sure
that even members across the way can see the logic in that.
Third, the justice minister claims that registration will
improve public safety and only penalize criminals and those
who fail to accept responsibility for gun ownership. The justice
minister has been repeatedly asked but has never produced
information to support his claims that registration of firearms
will increase public safety and decrease the criminal use of
firearms.
If we could be safer with registration, every one of us would
wholeheartedly enter into this activity. We have asked for this
kind of evidence and we have asked for documentation to
support this unfounded allegation made by the justice minister.
If he has a shred of evidence, why does he not bring it forward?
All he does is say that the association of police chiefs wants this.
The association of police chiefs wants capital punishment to be
reinstated. Is the justice minister going to accede to that request
as well?
This is an important issue and the justice minister should be
putting forward the facts on which he is basing these allegations.
The justice minister claims that registration will help police
to enforce prohibition orders against individuals prohibited
from owning a firearm. My colleagues have cited case after case
where crimes have been perpetrated by people who have already
been prohibited from owning firearms but are still using them.
In fact, in Ottawa a few days ago that very situation took place.
Plain, real life experience shows that the claims of the justice
minister simply do not hold up. It is very important that we
examine this in a common sense and rational manner. If we are
going to make these kinds of claims and promises, they should
stand up to real life scrutiny and they do not.
(1725 )
The justice minister also claims that registration will ensure
that owners of firearms store them safely and securely beyond
the reach of thieves. Any responsible firearms owner has
already been doing this for decades.
Registration simply puts unwarranted restrictions and red
tape on responsible, law-abiding, freedom loving citizens as a
substitute for getting tough with criminals. This is simply
unacceptable in our society.
11166
We have literally millions of firearms in our country. Every
one of them under this scheme will have to be examined and
registered. This will entail an enormous amount of paperwork
and administrative time for our already overworked law
enforcement agencies.
We want these people out on the street. We want them
responding to our calls for help. We want them to be there when
we need them, not shuffling paper to make sure that all the hoops
are jumped through, all the ps and qs are minded by people who
have never committed a crime in their entire lives nor are they
likely to.
There is a real commitment in our country to democracy, to
freedom, to individual rights. This kind of government
intrusion, this kind of restriction on freedom, this type of
interference in the way we order our lives, we own our property
and manage it, is simply not warranted. It is simply not
acceptable.
I urge members of the House to put a stop to this nonsense by
supporting the amendment, dealing with what should be dealt
with and leaving law-abiding citizens alone.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will follow up very quickly on what the hon. member for
Calgary North said.
I am very concerned that although we have asked the justice
minister on many occasions to give us the evidence that shows
that registration of guns will lead to a reduction in crime, each
and every time he has used a phoney argument.
He has tried to appeal to the authority of the police chiefs. The
police chiefs are just offering their personal opinion as
politicians, certainly not as experts in the field. We have given
him instance after instance of other jurisdictions where gun
control has been attempted, where registration has been
attempted, not the least of which is Canada.
I point that out to the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands. We have had the registration of handguns for 60 years
and we still have an increase in the criminal misuse of handguns.
That is a very powerful argument against the further registration
of long guns.
Also, we have pointed out what has happened in other
jurisdictions around the world, such as Australia, where they
have had to repeal the idea of the registration of guns because
the system did not work. Let us not engage in emotional
arguments about guns. Let us look at some of the evidence out
there.
The fact is that in other jurisdictions and in this jurisdiction
gun registration has not been effective in controlling crime. If it
had been, this party would be at the lead in promoting it but it
has not. For that reason, we cannot support it.
I also want to touch for a moment on the whole idea of
personal responsibility. There is a concept that many people
believe in very strongly, which is that if one is responsible for
something then that person should personally pay the
consequences. In this legislation the government has stood that
concept on its head. It said that if the bad guys do something bad
then everybody should pay for it. That is what the legislation
promotes.
I urge Canadians around the country to write to the
government and tell it that this is wrong-headed legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Your time has not
expired. When debate resumes you will have seven minutes left.
* * *
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for
the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the third time
and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
Friday, March 24, 1995, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the
fiscal year beginning April 1, 1995.
Call in the members.
(1745 )
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if
you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent that the
House deal with the report stage motions and the concurrence
motion with regard to Bill C-69 before Bill C-73 and do Bill
C-73 immediately afterward.
The Speaker: Members have heard the terms of the motion.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of Bill
C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral
boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral
boundaries, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this
motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. This is in the
first group.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
11167
(Division No. 185)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Williams-38
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-183
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Finlay
Gaffney
Grose
Harvard
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
(1755 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 186)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
11168
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-48
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-174
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Finlay
Gaffney
Grose
Harvard
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
[Translation]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker: 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:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House in
the following manner: Liberal MPs voting yea.
11169
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members refuse
this proposal.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will also
oppose this bill, except for those members who wish to vote
otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, as a PC member I will be voting
nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I say yea, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 187)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
Williams-90
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Finlay
Gaffney
Grose
Harvard
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
11170
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for
the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Friday, March 24,
1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-73, an act
to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning
April 1, 1995.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that, if you ask the House,
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote
taken on the previous motion to the motion now before this
House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mrs. Wayne: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 187]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11170
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof
(exempted crown corporations), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I present the government's position on Bill C-263
tabled by the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I will be speaking to this
House about the International Development Research Centre, or
IDRC as it is better known, and why it is and should remain
exempt from the Financial Administration Act, or the FAA.
It is with great pride that I tell you about this well respected
Canadian organization in true Canadian form. It is one of our
institutions that is better known outside this country than it is by
the taxpayers who support it.
IDRC was the first such institution in the world. Lester B.
Pearson, a strong proponent of IDRC, was named as its first
chairman. The centre was then copied in Sweden, set up as
SAREC in 1975, and in the U.S.A., Australia, Germany and the
Netherlands.
The debates here and in the Senate showed there was strong
agreement that IDRC should represent a new approach to
relations with developing countries. The idea of the centre was
to bring together Canadian and foreign experts on the problems
of developing economies.
During second reading the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, well known
to everyone in Canada, who was then Secretary of State for
External Affairs, pointed out that the centre would be ``a
Canadian institution with an important international dimension.
Both the board and staff will include specially qualified people
from various parts of the world, including the developing
countries. The centre will be structured so as to provide the best
possible environment for creativity and problem solving''.
Therein lies the reason why IDRC is not an agent of Her
Majesty. Canadians must form the majority of its board
members but the remainder is made up of prominent residents of
developing countries. The current board members include Sir
Sridath Ramphal, former Secretary-General of the
Commonwealth, and Dr. Miguel de la Madrid, former President
of Mexico. It would be very difficult for non-Canadian
governors to serve, without a conflict of allegiance, an
institution which was an agent of Her Majesty.
The importance of having staff from outside Canada is the
reason the employees are not members of the public service. To
this date the centre's staff comprises many scientists from
developing countries. These bring to the centre's work a unique
knowledge and appreciation of local conditions which is
essential to finding practical and useful results. If its staff were
to join the public service, it would become extremely difficult to
recruit scientists in developing countries.
Now we come to the thrust of Bill C-263, the question of
IDRC's exemption from the FAA. When the centre was created
the parliamentary subcommittee reviewing the bill noted in its
report that there was concern that there be ``a reasonable
measure of accountability for the use of public funds''. At the
same time it was recognized that ``an essential prerequisite for
11171
such an institution is that it be fully free to exercise purely
professional standards of prominence and integrity''.
The report went on to say that ``constant vigilance will be
required to protect the independence and integrity of the centre.
The object will be advanced by the diversification of the sources
of financial support and this should be a high priority for the
governors''.
Throughout its existence, IDRC has used its exemption from
the FAA to enable it to seek financial support from diverse
sources, something which it has had some success in doing.
However in the current climate of government fiscal restraint,
IDRC has made it a priority within the centre to reduce its
dependency on the public purse by raising and leveraging
resources from organizations outside Canada: multilateral and
bilateral institutions and private not for profit foundations.
Many of these, because of their mandates, would be unable to
provide funds to the receiver general of a developed country.
In other words, by putting IDRC under the FAA which the
member wants to do in his bill, we would make it more reliant on
government funding and limit its ability to diversify its revenue
resources. I am sure this was not the intention of my esteemed
colleague when he tabled this bill.
This exemption from the FAA does not mean that the IDRC is
unaccountable. On the contrary, IDRC is accountable to the
Parliament of Canada. Its transactions are audited annually by
the Auditor General of Canada who has also just completed a
second value for money audit undertaken at the centre's request.
The centre's annual report is tabled in Parliament and the
centre's chairperson and president frequently appear before
House of Commons committees. I know I cannot use props but I
do have the International Development Research Centre's
annual report for 1993-94 if any member is interested in
obtaining a copy.
(1820)
I have just returned from Montevideo where I visited the
regional office of IDRC. I also have a copy of its annual report
which is available to any member who wishes to study it.
The current status allows for flexibility and enables the centre
to move with great speed when political situations change, as
they did in South Africa, Vietnam, Ukraine and who knows,
maybe Burundi in the future.
IDRC's work at implementing sustainable development was
given a positive mention in the special joint committee review
of Canada's foreign policy. Its performance was rated highly by
the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's
review of science and technology in Canada.
IDRC's flexibility has brought enormous benefits to Canada
and the developing world. The centre is seen internationally as a
dynamic, knowledge based and results oriented organization
which has helped improve the lives of people in developing
countries. It is particularly suited to these times of considerable
change and constant upheaval.
I could refer to many examples of the outstanding work of
IDRC but I know my time is limited. However, I would like to
share a few examples with the House.
Members may have heard of the fog catcher in Chile. Peter
Gzowski on ``Morningside'' a month ago and the extremely
influential British magazine The Economist in January had
stories describing this IDRC technology which is bringing clean
drinking water to the poor people of a Chilean village. It is now
being introduced in neighbouring Peru and Ecuador. It has the
potential to bring water to many other communities in Africa,
the Middle East and Asia.
In this its 25th year, IDRC and Canadians who have supported
it have much to be proud of. IDRC is a leading Canadian agency
for research and innovation, an area this government regards as
key to our future growth. Its work benefits not only people in
developing countries but also people here in Canada.
I visited the IDRC regional centre in Uruguay just two weeks
ago and held a round table meeting with the regional director,
the staff and the researchers. I learned how the work of IDRC in
developing countries provides information, technology,
goodwill and knowledge that can lead to business opportunities
for Canadians at home or in those countries.
I also learned that the IDRC can contribute in a unique way in
helping economies in transition to prepare for a market economy
and build ties to Canada. IDRC's assets in this regard are its in
house expertise and its international network of experts in this
field.
IDRC helps emerging economies tap Canadian scientific and
technological expertise and establish links with Canadian
researchers and the private sector. This was the case, for
example, in IDRC's work in Vietnam, China, Singapore,
Pakistan and India.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that IDRC's exemption
from the FAA has served it and Canada well. Removing this
exemption would make it difficult for the centre to raise revenue
from sources outside Canada. It would make it less flexible. It
would thus hinder its fine work and would limit the international
component of the centre.
When we have a good institution, a uniquely Canadian
institution, why change it? For these reasons and others, the
government does not support Bill C-263.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill
before the House today, Bill C-263, an act to amend the
Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence
thereof, deals with exempted crown corporations, and is, in the
opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, entirely useless, and we will
11172
therefore vote against this bill. Let me take a few minutes to
explain.
There are nearly 50 crown corporations in Canada in various
economic sectors across the country. These crown corporations
employ around 115,000 people. In 1992-93, the government
spent a little over $4.5 billion through parliamentary votes on
these corporations. Their impact on the country's economy is
therefore very substantial.
(1825)
The Financial Administration Act, Part X, sets the
management framework for crown corporations. These
corporations are responsible for producing certain documents,
since they are accountable to Parliament through their minister.
Every crown corporation must submit a corporate plan annually
to the department and every corporation must also submit an
operating budget for approval by Treasury Board.
Every corporation must also produce an annual report
containing financial statements as well as accounting data. They
must also proceed with internal audits to ensure that assets are
protected and that operations conform to the regulations. In
addition to the obligation to produce documents, a special audit
must be conducted at least every five years by an in-house
auditor, to determine whether the corporations develop and
implement sound management practices.
Consequently, crown corporations are subject to very strict
and very specific rules. However, not all corporations are
subject to Part X. In fact, the Act contains a number of
exemptions, including the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Wheat
Board, to which the hon. member referred earlier, and the
International Development Research Centre, but he forgot to say
that votes had been cut in this sector. The same applies to the
Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the
Canadian Film Development Corporation-here again, the
government has slashed the budgets-and of course the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which we discussed last
week.
These corporations were exempted because in 1984, it was
felt that it was necessary to protect their arm's length
relationship with the government. The bill before the House
today wants to do the opposite, except in the case of two
corporations, and I am referring to the CBC and the Bank of
Canada. I will get back to this later on. These corporations are
under no obligation to produce a corporate plan or to be
accountable for their results, and they are under no obligation to
carry out internal or special audits. Bill C-263 is intended to
eliminate exemptions from the application of divisions I to IV,
and thus from the obligations I mentioned earlier.
This bill does not, however, affect the Bank of Canada or the
CBC. In fact, the CBC is already subject to accountability. Why
should we impose additional rules on the CBC or other
corporations, through further legislation? And of course that is
why the Bank of Canada and the CBC are not part of the group.
As far as the Bank of Canada is concerned, the position seems to
be that the arm's length relationship of the Bank of Canada to
the government could be affected, and that is the reason for
excluding them.
This position, in other words, the arm's length relationship to
the government, is not as strong in other cases where political
interference would not have the same impact. So there is an
attempt to open the door to patronage. This bill goes too far in
terms of controlling the administration of these corporations. It
would subject the five crown corporations to close supervision
involving both their accountability and control over their
management. Instead, why not make them more accountable?
Since 1985, the Financial Administration Act has been
amended 58, yes 58 times, which means an average of once
every two months. I understand very well that the aim of the
changes over the years was to keep in tune with and to adjust to
the so-called changing environment. But 58 times? Think of all
the time wasted.
(1830)
People then wonder why Quebec wants to become sovereign.
What choice is there when Quebecers see their federal
government being inconsistent to the point of wanting to amend
legislation every two months.
Would it not be smarter to take the more flexible approach,
proposed in 1991 by the auditor general in his annual report, of
incorporating into the legislation the legislator's undertakings?
It would also be a good idea to see, after analysis, how best to
provide for accountability and a level of control in each
corporation, in keeping with its particular mandate and mission.
It would be much wiser, indeed, to make these corporations
accountable by giving them more responsibility instead, I
repeat, instead of controlling them as the bill proposes.
It is important to give officials in crown corporations more
responsibility in all areas. Why? To make them accountable to
Parliament and thus enable us to more fairly and better evaluate
their individual performances.
This bill accords the same status to all crown corporations,
which should not be the case. This bill also gives the minister the
power to meddle in the policies of crown corporations that have
a cultural mandate, when they should have more discretionary
authority in their respective areas.
The comments of the auditor general can help us significantly
on this. I therefore say simply that, with regard to staffing, these
crown corporations will no longer be able, once the bill is
adopted, to recruit employees with training in the disciplines
they require. I do not understand why the government, which cut
45,000 jobs in the public service in its latest budget, is trying to
11173
prevent crown corporations from obtaining qualified people
from outside the public service.
I repeat; this bill is not needed, and we will of course be voting
against it.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on
Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
[English]
The purpose of the bill is to subject five crown corporations to
the provisions of Part X of the FAA. Three of these crown
corporations, the Canada Council, the Canadian Film
Development Corporation and the National Arts Centre
Corporation are accountable to Parliament through the Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
Crown corporations are vehicles permitting the government
to reach goals which are in the public interest when it is
necessary to distance the crown from the management of
day-to-day operations. Each crown corporation has an enabling
act which loosely defines its functions, powers and objectives.
[English]
Parliament legislates the general governance of crown
corporations and the allocation of public funds to individual
crown corporations. Parliament votes the estimates to which
operating subsides, loans and advances are made to the crown
corporations.
The main estimates of the Canadian heritage portfolio are
annually submitted to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage for review. In conjunction with this review, heads of
crown corporations may be called before the standing
committee to make presentations and reply to questions from
committee members. The committee examines the financial
resources provided to these crowns and their plans on spending
these resources.
Part X of the FAA outlines the control and accountability
framework for crown corporations subject to this section. The
framework entails the following six elements. The preparation
of a corporate plan for the approval of the the Treasury Board
and the governor in council; the tabling of a corporate plan
summary in Parliament; a requirement to disclose in their
annual reports the extent to which certain objectives have been
achieved; the use of generally accepted accounting principles in
the preparation of financial statements; the undertaking of
internal audits or the establishment of internal audit committees
as well as a requirement to undergo special examinations by the
Auditor General of Canada.
(1835)
These agencies have been exempted from part X because of
the need to protect the special nature of their relationship to the
government, that is, a degree of independence from political and
bureaucratic control.
[Translation]
This means that the government does not interfere with the
day to day management decisions of these organizations. The
government, nevertheless, is responsible for developing
detailed policies on issues of national importance and must be
able to keep the paths followed by crown corporations in line
with the government's main game plan. This arm's length
relationship should not prevent these organizations from being
fully accountable to government.
[English]
In this vein the exempt crown corporations in the Canadian
heritage portfolio follow the control and accountability regime
outlined in their enabling legislation and many have chosen to
voluntarily adopt a number of the key accountability provisions
of part X of the FAA.
[Translation]
Founded in 1957, the Canada Council promotes and
encourages the study, appreciation and production of works of
art. It also co-ordinates UNESCO's Canadian operations and
Canada's participation in that organization's operations abroad.
[English]
With the assistance of the Canada Council, Canadian artists
and cultural institutions have played an integral role in
developing a strong Canadian cultural fabric recognized at
home and abroad, have fostered a deeper awareness of our
history and have bestowed on us new visions of possible futures.
The Canadian Film Development Corporation, now more
commonly known as Telefilm Canada was established in 1967.
Its mandate is to foster and promote the orderly growth of an
independent film and television industry in all regions of
Canada through investment and financing of the development,
the production, the marketing and the distribution of Canadian
motion pictures and television productions. It also administers
Canada's co-production treaties with foreign countries and
assists with foreign marketing and the promotion of Canadian
productions.
[Translation]
Telefilm Canada is a veritable economic and cultural pillar in
the Canadian film and television industries. As a key investor in
these industries, Telefilm has forged a strong partnership with
Canadian film and television professionals, participating in all
aspects of production.
11174
Over the years, Telefilm has gained worldwide acclaim for its
expert production, distribution and marketing support of
Canadian productions of cultural importance. Canadian
companies count on Telefilm for many different kinds of
financial support. In fact, the works financed by Telefilm
Canada produce an economic spinoff of close to $300 million
each year.
[English]
The National Arts Centre, which opened in 1969, arranges for
and sponsors performing arts activities at the centre in the
national capital region, across Canada and abroad, as well as
radio and television broadcasts of performances at the centre.
The NAC plays an important role in the development of the
Canadian performing arts.
As such, the centre strives to develop new works and new
talents as well as develop audiences for the arts in Canada by
showcasing the finest Canadian and international works and
talents and to foster the development and touring of Canadian
music, theatre and dance.
As a group, the three exempt crown corporations encourage
the creation, production, distribution and consumption of
cultural goods and services which are essential to Canada's
identity as a country. They comply either with their enabling
legislation or voluntarily with several of the key accountability
provisions of part X of the FAA including the following
measures. All utilize generally accepted accounting principles
in the preparation of their financial statements. The auditor
general audits these financial statements to ensure that the
accounts and statements are a fair representation of the financial
position of these organizations.
(1840)
Each organization's board has established an audit committee
which reviews and advises the board on its financial statements,
reviews its accounting procedures and internal controls,
oversees any internal audits undertaken, reviews and advises the
council on reports from the auditor general and reviews any
corrective measures implemented as a result of audits.
Each organization prepares an annual report which is tabled in
Parliament. This document offers to central agencies,
parliamentarians and the general public alike valuable
information concerning each organization's activities and the
important roles they play.
Each organization prepares planning documents which
outline missions, issues, objectives and strategies for a specific
planning period. These documents contain information similar
to that which would appear in a corporate plan required by part X
of the FAA.
The government strongly supports the principle of effective
accountability of crown corporations to government. The
challenge before us is to ensure that an appropriate balance is
struck between accountability of crown corporations to
Parliament and the public demand for how these crown
corporations spend public moneys, and the essential autonomy
of these organizations to operate without interference from
government on issues such as artistic merit and taste.
The accountability regimes which the Canada Council,
Telefilm and the NAC follow, either in compliance with their
enabling legislation or through voluntary compliance with
several of the key accountability provisions of part X of the
FAA, are strong evidence that the balance between
accountability and autonomy can be achieved.
Indeed, in his 1991 report the then Auditor General noted that
he was not aware of any accountability problems in the exempt
crown corporations that might have been avoided if they were
subject to part X.
The proposed bill by the Reform, as tabled, unfortunately
would not provide the exempt crown corporations with adequate
protection from directive power from the government. The
arm's length relationship of these crown corporations and the
government is a hallmark of Canada's cultural tradition, one we
wish to maintain. Moreover, the bill would bring more
employees into the public service at a time of fiscal restraint and
downsizing.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the bill, in the light of
the government's commitment to the accountability of crown
corporations, I want to inform the House that the government
intends to work with the exempt crown corporations to ensure an
appropriate accountability regime.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to
Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
The bill is about a non-partisan issue, one of which we as
members of the 35th Parliament should be keenly aware, and
that is accountability. Accountability is what Canadians want
from their governments, from their elected officials and the
institutions which they fund. The last government failed in
many areas, but one area that really disturbed the voters was the
lack of accounting for funds spent in the name of the taxpayer.
That government paid the price for its failings, so I feel
confident that this mistake will not be repeated by current
members and changes will be made in the way we conduct the
nation's business.
The bill does not require anything of the crown corporations
listed other than the standard of accountability imposed on most
government operations. All that we are asking for is a corporate
plan, a budget summary and an annual report.
As a small businessman I can tell the House that without a
business plan, proper accounting and auditing, any business is
doomed to fail. We are not dealing with a small business though,
we are dealing with the nation's biggest business and its
funding. It comes in trust from the Canadian taxpayer. We have
11175
a moral obligation to ensure that these funds are spent as wisely
as possible.
The Canada Council is one of the affected agencies in the
proposed legislation. As a granting council, budgeting should be
a fairly simple and non-controversial matter. A corporate plan,
setting out the corporate vision, objectives and a timetable for
meeting those objectives are fundamental to the proper
operation of a granting council. Without such a business plan
businesses fall apart. Without such a plan the granting council
leaves itself open to be captured by special interest groups. A
gap forms in accountability between an organization and those
who fund it and the taxpayers feel disenfranchised.
(1845)
Perhaps this is part of the real problem with the Canada
Council. With no ongoing vision, plan or objective, special
interests are able to find a measure of control in deciding who or
what is worthy of funding. This can be the only explanation for
the council to even consider giving $10,000 to the Writers Union
of Canada for its ``Writing through Race'' conference in
Vancouver last year. The conference openly discriminated
against a segment of our society on the basis of race, and it did so
with public money.
Robert Fulford wrote at the time: ``The idea of the Writers
Union reinventing apartheid for any purpose would have been
beyond belief''. Unbelievably, when the issue broke in the
media, associate director of the council, Brian Anthony, dared to
defend the grant. He said that support to such conferences that
seek solutions to the problem of systemic barriers, whether they
be gender, cultural, artistic or race related, is an essential step in
bridging the gap between artists and the public.
These are not the viewpoints of the Parliament of Canada and
they are not contained in the statutes that created the Canada
Council. However there is no holding the council to account for
this outrageous action.
A further example of waste at the council came to light last
week when it was revealed that the agency's director is receiving
a $1,300 a monthly stipend in addition to his generous salary
which is something between $110,000 and $130,000. The
allowance in lieu of moving costs is given to the director
because he lives in Montreal and commutes to Ottawa to work.
My suggestion to the heritage minister is to find a bureaucrat
who is willing to move to Ottawa and so save the taxpayers some
hard earned dollars.
I was interested to find that the council receives $98.4 million
from federal taxpayers each year. Believing that the council was
a granting agency, I was shocked to learn that of the 98.4 million
in tax dollars, the council spends $21 million on administration.
It would appear that the 248 full time cheque writers at the
council have managed to create quite a bureaucracy since it was
formed in 1957.
Accountability to Parliament over the years might have
prevented the current situation from developing and could help
the organization to downsize efficiently along with the rest of
government as the recent budget requires. A clear corporate
vision with financial accountability would help to avoid the
paper shuffling and internal policy development that now go on.
There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the
purchase of some paintings at the National Gallery recently. A
few of the paintings were reported to be worth millions of
dollars, even though they appear simplistic to the untrained eye.
The question many have asked me because of the controversy is:
Were the paintings a waste of tax dollars? The debate that
follows usually centres around a question of how art is defined.
According to the Canada Council Act the object of the council
is to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of the arts. I
believe part of the answer about how art is defined is found in
the following phrase. The key word is enjoyment. If Canadians
do not like it, if they get angry and upset that their tax dollars are
frittered away on such items, enjoyment is lost.
If my constituents come back from Ottawa upset after a visit
to the National Gallery, how can we say that value for their
money was achieved? We certainly cannot justify it by the
statute definition because they felt resentment and not
enjoyment as the law requires.
Many proponents of art try to brush off these criticisms and
suggest that people such as my constituents simply do not
understand art. While this may or may not be true, it is not
relevant to whether such art should be funded by tax dollars. If a
large majority of my constituents believe that our scarce tax
dollars would be better spent on medical research, national
defence or policing, I am happy to support their position.
The Reform Party has developed a policy on cultural
industries that will affect the Canada Council, the National
Gallery and other arts bodies. The Reform Party will promote
the freedom of the Canadian cultural community to develop and
grow without needless protection and government regulation,
encouraging a free cultural market that offers choice while
lowering cost to consumers as services are provided by the
sectors that are able to do so most cost effectively. This is our
vision of how culture should develop.
(1850)
Our vision of a new and better Canada allows Canadians to
use their own judgment in picking winners and losers in the
cultural marketplace. This already happens to a large extent.
11176
If we look at the Canadian television industry we see two
private national broadcasters that both manage to make a profit
most years. Then we have the CBC which is mortgaged to the
hilt and costs over $1 billion a year. The major reason two are
winners and one is a loser is based on incentives or lack of them.
The winners must produce programming its audiences want to
see. The loser can produce whatever it wants and then forget all
about the consumer because it already has its funding kindly
appropriated by Parliament.
Reform policy would place the government sponsored loser in
a situation where subsidies are weaned away and the future of
the company is based on consumer satisfaction.
I received a card a few weeks ago, as did all MPs, that asked
me to imagine Canada without musicians, painters, writers and
other artists. The card implied that without the Canada Council
we would lack culture and imagination.
Canadians have culture and imagination in spite of the Canada
Council. Our art galleries, theatres, music halls and libraries are
full of examples of Canadian culture and imagination that
existed long before the Canada Council was ever conceived. No
grants were handed out prior to 1957 yet artists have flourished
in Canada for centuries.
I was elected on a platform of accountability. I promised my
constituents I would represent their concerns before all other
considerations. I also promised to help put in place the kind of
democratic reforms that would hold myself and other elected
officials accountable to the people who elect them. If Parliament
is to be responsible about spending tax dollars I believe there
must be a direct accounting from all those who receive funding.
The Canadian taxpayer is demanding accountability. The bill
moves us in that direction and I ask all members for their
support.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too
am pleased to speak on Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof,
especially with respect to exempted crown corporations.
The bill as presented would remove exemptions from the
application of divisions I to IV of part X of the Financial
Administration Act for five crown corporations, the
corporations being the Canada Council, the Canadian Film
Development Corporation, Canadian Wheat Board,
International Development Research Centre and the National
Arts Centre Corporation.
I believe all members agree that part X was designed to
achieve an appropriate system of accountability and control for
all crown corporations. The need for such a system was
highlighted by the auditor general in his 1979 and 1982 annual
reports to the House. The Auditor General reports noted that
three main parties effectively participated in the corporate
accountability process: Parliament, government and the boards
of directors and senior management of the entity involved.
Part X clearly establishes that corporate management was
empowered to be responsible for acting in the best interest of the
corporation and its day to day operations. At the same time part
X ensures that shareholders' rights and objectives are duly
considered.
Increasing globalization of trade and recessionary forces have
pressured both private sector and crown corporations to be more
competitive and efficient. Additionally crown corporations
must also achieve the public policy objectives for the reason that
their statutory mandates remain respective of taxpayers'
dollars.
The government recognizes that crown corporations served
the public interest in a business environment. They are expected
to use the best available private sector business practices and in
practicality are treated in the same manner as private sector
firms.
Having rules to govern accountability is one way to cement
the expectation. These rules also make roles very clear.
[Translation]
Until 1983-84, the Financial Administration Act did not
clearly specify these roles. Because of the resulting lack of
co-ordination, it was impossible to ensure effective control or
properly account for certain activities such as the creation of
new crown corporations and making financial commitments for
which, in the end, the government would be responsible.
[English]
In 1984 the Financial Administration Act was amended to
address these shortcomings and part X as we know it came into
existence.
(1855)
[Translation]
Under part X, a crown corporation annually submits a
corporate plan specifying all its projects and operations,
including its investments and those of affiliates of which it is the
sole shareholder. The crown corporation must describe the
mandate of the corporation, its objectives for the duration of the
plan and the strategy for achieving those objectives. It is also
required to do a comparative study of projected results and
annual objectives.
[English]
Corporate plans of crown corporations subject to part X
require annual approval by the governor in council.
Corporations may not carry on any new business or activity that
is not consistent with an approved plan.
As well, once a corporate plan receives approval its summary
must also be tabled in Parliament by the appropriate minister.
11177
This element of planning and planning approval was regarded as
a progressive part of part X of the system.
[Translation]
This accountability framework was not ideal for all crown
corporations. The 1984 legislation contained exceptions which
may be found in subsection 85(1) of the Financial
Administration Act. Under this subsection, seven crown
corporations are not subject to part X.
[English]
Along with the five corporations mentioned in Bill C-263,
subsection 85(1) includes the Bank of Canada and the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. In addition, the legislation that has
been passed but not yet proclaimed would create another crown
corporation exempt from part X, the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation.
The grounds for exemption are significant and relate to the
uniqueness of corporate mandates. The 1984 inclusion of the
CBC was due to its uniqueness as a corporation. It required
arm's length protective measures although not from the rules of
good planning and accountability but from the possibility of
political interference in the actual day to day business choices.
[Translation]
Subsequently, in 1991, amendments to the Broadcasting Act
integrated many elements of part X in the legislation governing
the CBC, while maintaining the arm's length position of the
corporation. The auditor general felt this was a step in the right
direction, since he had expressed his concern about the
exemption.
[English]
Some of the remaining exemptions follow certain part X rules
on a voluntary basis. Progress in accountability has been made
outside part X. Bill C-263 is well intentioned. Although there
may be merit in bringing other exemptions under a modified
form of accountability framework similar to the part X regime, I
suggest that additional work be done first.
For example, Bill C-263 contains the provision that
employees of the National Arts Centre, Canada Council and
International Development Research Centre become members
of the public service.
Why does the bill aim to increase the size of the public
service? Bill C-263 has clearly not addressed all the issues. The
bill does not respect the fact that corporate independence in
certain sensitive areas needs to be protected.
[Translation]
In the past, it was felt that it was necessary to maintain
corporate independence and to avoid excessive controls as
opposed to providing for an acceptable accountability
framework.
For instance, the museums, which are crown corporations, are
subject to the provisions on accountability in part X. However,
under the museum's enabling legislation, no guidelines may be
imposed that would affect their decisions on the acquisition and
dispersal of works in their collections.
Similarly, one cannot impose guidelines on the CBC that
would encroach on its journalistic freedom.
[English]
Specific wording in section 27 of the museums legislation
states:
No directive shall be given under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the
Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including
(a) the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material
relevant to its activities;
(b) its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays
and publications; and
(c) research with respect to the matters referred to-
(1900 )
I ask if there are better ways to ensure accountability for those
crown corporations named in this bill.
Subject areas such as auditing, corporate governance,
financial management and control, corporate planning,
reporting to Parliament and borrowing plans have been
thoroughly addressed in part X of the Financial Administration
Act. It has resulted in a system which according to the Auditor
General is working well.
This system does not rule out modifications which are
prepared to meet the specific circumstances of the majority of
exempt crown corporations. Whether this is best achieved
through one bill or through a series of amendments to existing
statutes for each crown corporation is something we may need to
further explore.
[Translation]
In concluding, I am convinced that every effort will be made
to achieve the ideal combination of accountability and the arm's
length relationship enjoyed by crown corporations that are
exempted, and that Canadians will continue to consider this to
be in the public interest.
[English]
In closing, I cannot recommend support for this bill, despite
its valiant effort.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
to speak on Bill C-263 sponsored by my colleague from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt regarding bringing five
crown corporations under part X of the Financial
Administration Act. These five crown corporations are the
Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation,
the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development
Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation.
11178
Why would my colleague suggest that they come under part
X? It is because part X of the Financial Administration Act
requires a corporation to submit an annual report, a corporate
plan, and budget summaries to be tabled in Parliament. It seems
fairly simple to me that we would want to have that information
from crown corporations. Therefore, it seems perfectly
reasonable that we would want to put them under part X of the
act.
The section also allows the Auditor General of Canada to
conduct special examinations once every five years. A special
examination is a value for money audit. There are auditors in
these crown agencies and external auditors, but it is only the
Auditor General of Canada who does value for money audits.
When we are spending money by the billions in this country, a
lot of it being wasted, it sure is good for Parliament and
Canadians to know that somebody is taking a look at these crown
corporations to find out if we get value for our money.
I have just come from a public accounts committee meeting.
Every time a department or crown corporation comes before us
we find that management has been lackadaisical and unfocused.
We find there is no real commitment to maximizing the benefits
for the money which has been spent. Therefore, I cannot think of
any better thing than bringing them under part X of the Financial
Administration Act, even if it is only to get a value for money
audit once every five years.
This bill will bring greater accountability for taxpayers'
dollars. It would ensure that Canadians achieved value for their
money.
I understand and I have heard from members on the other side
that these corporations are exempted because they are cultural
crown corporations and they need independence but I cannot
buy that argument. The fact that they are involved in the cultural
aspects of our society is absolutely no reason whatsoever that
they be exempted from good management, fiscal responsibility
and accountability both to this House and to the Canadian
people. Therefore, there is no valid reason whatsoever that they
should not be included in part X of the act.
I do understand that there are two crown corporations that are
also exempt from part X of the act. The private member's bill
does not require them to be brought under part X.
(1905 )
One is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and it is
already subject to similar requirements of part X under the
Canadian Broadcasting Act. The other one is the Bank of
Canada. Of course, we know it is absolutely vital that the central
bank maintain its independence which is critical for the proper
conduct of monetary policy. There is no doubt that we can leave
these two corporations exempt and bring the other five in to
obtain this greater accountability.
There were 42 other crown corporations included under the
Financial Administration Act in 1984 and it certainly has not
done them any harm. I understand it has resulted in improved
management. Of course, the whole argument being put forward
here is improved management and greater accountability. In
1993 the auditor general stated that the requirements for
planning, strategy and cost systems resulted in improved
management practices for these non-exempted crown
corporations.
The auditor general also supports the idea of greater
accountability. If I may quote from his 1991 report, section
4.100, he said: ``The office strongly supported the strengthened
legislative framework for crown corporations, and it is
continually urged that those crown corporations that were
exempted from part X of the FAA be brought into line with its
accountability provisions. It is important that Parliament have
assurances that appropriate accountability provisions apply to
all crown corporations. When exemptions are granted, means
should be found to ensure adequate control and accountability''.
More recently the finance minister stated: ``The operations of
various other cultural agencies, commissions or corporations
will be reviewed to reflect tighter fiscal circumstances''. That
was a quote from the 1995 budget, page 104. When the Minister
of Finance calls for greater accountability, I cannot think of any
greater way he could achieve that than to support this private
member's bill.
We listen to the government side giving us all the reasons it
should not be. There are all the reasons from the Bloc because it
is culture and therefore it should be exempt from all kinds of
examination allowing them to do whatever they want as far as
Quebec is concerned. We therefore need to have the
accountability for Canadians that they deserve. They are the
ones who put up the money. They are the ones who have to dig
deeper and deeper every year so that these crown corporations
can spend money on culture.
Remember back to the big outrage we had in the National Art
Gallery a few years ago with the ``Voice of Fire''. A couple of
million dollars was spent for a piece of canvas painted red and
blue. Or was it red and white? Or red and green? I cannot
remember. It made a great impact upon me.
An hon. member: Yellow and green.
Mr. Williams: Yellow and green. I think we will have to take
a vote on this. It seems that I do remember red. These are the
types of things the Canadian public want to know about.
Accountability cannot be oversold in this day and age, when
we have a debt of $550 billion and a Minister of Finance who
adopts a policy of gradualism to deal with a budgetary crisis. I
11179
think this bill has to be supported. It should be supported
because it makes sense.
The Auditor General talks about accountability. The Minister
of Finance talks about accountability. The Reform Party talks
about accountability. Surely, we should get all kinds of
co-operation and perhaps even all-party support on this bill.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak this evening on the bill presented by the
hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
I believe wholeheartedly, as do all of my colleagues I hope,
that the objectives of the bill are well intended. I am in favour of
ensuring that accountability for all of our crown corporations is
adequate.
(1910 )
Before indicating whether or not this bill should be supported,
I want to examine it objectively and in some detail. What we
want is responsible accountability. This is a fairly technical bill.
We are talking about a bill that has as its basic purpose the
removal of exemption from application of divisions one to four
of part X of the Financial Administration Act for five crown
corporations. These are the Canada Council, the Canada Film
Development Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, the
International Development Research Centre and the National
Arts Centre Corporation.
[Translation]
The accountability framework set out in part X is widely
viewed as being very well designed and progressive. However, it
has some shortcomings where some crown corporations are
concerned. The act passed in 1984, which first included part X,
contained exemptions which are now found in subsection 85(1)
of the FAA. This subsection exempts this crown corporation
from the provisions of part X, which deals with operations.
[English]
As I said earlier, this is not bedtime reading. It is a fairly
technical bill. Along with the five corporations named in Bill
C-263, two other crown corporations are exempt, the Bank of
Canada and the CBC. In addition, legislation has been passed
but not yet proclaimed that would create another crown
corporation exempt from part X, the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation.
Perhaps when examining what Bill C-263 is trying to
accomplish hon. members should also be willing to examine the
grounds for exemption. Why were these particular crown
corporations exempted from part X when others were not? This
is an important fundamental question. While not found in any
written or formal criteria or regulation, the reasons for
exemption reflect some of the very special sensitivities in the
relationship between the government and these particular
corporations.
I note that all of these corporations were created by special
acts. All have mandates carefully specified in these acts and for
some they involve administration of resources provided by third
parties.
The Canada Council as an example is mandated to foster and
promote the study, enjoyment and production of works in the
arts and to co-ordinate United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization activities in Canada and Canadian
participation in various UNESCO activities abroad. Part of its
activities involve administering an educational fund created by
its act and other funds established through private donations.
Certain of these funds specify the payment of grants and
scholarships in the arts field ``in such manner as the council
shall determine''. Would contributors to these funds feel as
comfortable if the Canada Council were not an independent
crown corporation?
[Translation]
I believe that the hour reserved for consideration of this bill at
this time is drawing to a close, so I will finish in the next hour of
debate.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to
the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper and
will come up again for a third hour.
_____________________________________________
11179
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on February 7, over 500 members of the RCMP
marched for the first time in history here on Parliament Hill to
denounce the attempt of the Liberal government to deny them
their fundamental constitutional rights to free collective
bargaining and in fact to even punish them for talking about
collective bargaining.
(1915 )
The next day I asked a question in the House of the Solicitor
General. I asked him to explain why the government intended to
proceed with Bill C-58, legislation that would clearly deny the
most basic rights of members of the RCMP.
11180
At that time the minister stated that the bill does not add to the
powers of the commissioner and it does not take anything away
from members of the force.
The bill has now gone to committee, has gone through
committee and has been reported back to the House. What is
very clear is that statement of the minister suggesting the bill
does not take anything away from members of the RCMP is
completely and utterly false.
What the bill does very clearly is deny and override the effect
of the 1994 judgment of the Federal Court in the Yvon Gingras
decision. Pursuant to that decision it was clear RCMP
employees are guaranteed certain rights under the Public
Service Staff Relations Act. In other words, the commissioner of
the RCMP was not free to simply rule arbitrarily with respect to
all working conditions of members of the force.
In addition there is a strong argument that part II of the
Canada Labour Code, the provisions with respect to
occupational health and safety, are guaranteed now prior to the
bill to members of the RCMP.
The effect of this legislation, this draconian bill, is to take
away those existing rights. The bill may as well dramatically
affect entitlement to other benefits, to other entitlements such as
the bilingualism bonus which will now be completely
discretionary.
The current provisions of governing labour relations within
the RCMP are totally unsatisfactory. The divisional staff
relations representative system has been vigorously condemned
by among others the E Division Members Association from
British Columbia and the C Division. I want to pay tribute in
particular to the president of the E Division Members
Association, Michel Funicelli, and members of his executive.
[Translation]
I would also like to pay tribute to Mr. Gaétan Delisle who has
been fighting in Quebec for some time now for the rights of
members of the RCMP stationed in that province.
[English]
Also the Canadian Police Association and its executive
officer, Scott Newark, who have worked long and hard to expose
this attack on the basic rights of members of the RCMP.
I am calling today on the government to realize it has made a
mistake, to come to its senses and to back off on this legislation,
to allow members of the RCMP to make their own decisions
about their future, about their labour relations.
This bill would eliminate any possibility of third party
intervention in employee-management relations. It would
basically put all power in the hands of the commission. It is a
bad bill. I call on the government to withdraw it now.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway says Bill
C-58 will if passed deny RCMP members collective bargaining
rights.
RCMP members have never had the legal authority to enter
into collective bargaining. How can they possibly be denied
these rights by the passage of this bill if the right is one they
never had? He is misleading the Canadian public when he makes
that statement. They have never had the right to engage in
collective bargaining. Therefore they are not being denied these
rights by this bill.
Collective bargaining is not a natural or inherent right but a
right granted by Parliament. Collective bargaining rights have
never been extended to RCMP members under either the RCMP
act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the Canada Labour
Code.
The Solicitor General has repeatedly said Bill C-58 has one
purpose and one purpose only, to confirm the status quo that
existed before the Gingras decision and with regard to the
management of the RCMP.
Mr. Robinson: Point of order.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member knows there are no points of
order during the adjournment debate.
That continues to be the case. Collective bargaining is a
completely separate issue from Bill C-58 and would have to be
looked at by both the government and Parliament as a separate
matter. The RCMP already has its own labour-management
forum for members to raise and discuss issues of concern
regarding forced management.
Created in 1974, the RCMP division staff relations
representative, the DSRR program, was intended to respond to
concerns expressed by members for greater involvement in
management issues. That program has proved to be successful
and workable-despite the assertions of the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway-at which members at all levels can voice
their opinions through representatives elected by the force's
general membership across Canada, regardless of rank, category
or grade.
(1920)
Each division elects at least one full time representative and
two part time representatives. These people met three times with
the Solicitor General in the last 14 months. They continue to
meet. The system works well and the RCMP members are
represented well at those meetings with the Solicitor General.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, for the past 16 months the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development has been consulting with
11181
native leaders and native groups across Canada on the issue of
native self-government.
To date the minister has provided funding to national and
regional native organizations in the amount of $5 million to
assist these groups in preparing their briefs and input on the
consultation process. The consultation was to last six months
and culminate in a report on self-government.
Last week, the national chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, Ovide Mercredi, called a press conference to protest
the minister's procrastination and to ask him to release a
document that he said the minister was using in his meetings but
keeping secret from the Assembly of First Nations and others.
Chief Mercredi released copies redone from memory of the
minister's document that Chief Mercredi was allowed to read
and that the minister allowed to be read to a meeting with
Alberta chiefs in Calgary.
I am concerned with the minister using and allowing the
contents of this still secret document in meetings and not being
forthcoming with the House and Canadians on an issue that
affects us all.
On March 23 and again on March 24, I questioned the minister
on the contents of the document. I asked him the nature of the
document and why parliamentarians had to rely on the chief of
the Assembly of First Nations to shed light on this undertaking
and make the process public. The minister told the House on
March 23 that it was not a secret document. If it is not a secret
document, the minister should release it today.
My further concern was with the delay in completing the
projected six-month undertaking which has now run over 16
months. I am concerned that the consultation on the inherent
right to self-government does not become another aboriginal
royal commission. That is now two years overdue and over
budget with spending at $58 million from an original projected
cost of between $8 and $12 million.
I am not satisfied that my question of March 24, taken as
notice by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on behalf of
the minister of Indian affairs, will prompt the minister and
government to finalize its consultation on self-government and
to release the contents of what the minister has called ``not a
secret report'' to Parliament and the Canadian people rather than
only to individual chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the
question raised by the member for North Island-Powell River
on March 24, 1995. More specifically I wish to reply concerning
the status of the so-called secret federal document on the
inherent right of aboriginal self-government; the $5 million
price tag referred to by the hon. member; and finally when the
federal government's consultations will conclude.
First, I wish to comment on the $5 million referred to by the
member. That is the amount of funding provided by the federal
government in 1994-95 to some 69 aboriginal groups across
Canada to support their participation in the inherent right
consultation process.
Second, the so-called secret document is personal speaking
points that the minister is using in his discussions on the
proposed general approach to the inherent right that federal
ministers first set out in Quebec City in May 1994 at a meeting
with their provincial and territorial counterparts and leaders of
the national aboriginal associations.
These discussion points are intended to continue the
minister's consultations with the parties concerned, aboriginal
people, provincial and territorial governments and third parties,
on how to proceed. The minister has used them extensively in
his recent meetings with those parties.
The government has not yet taken any policy decisions. The
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
clearly stated he wishes to ensure the views of all parties are
considered before proceeding further. He has not picked a
specific date for concluding his consultations. However, the
minister has indicated he wishes to complete the consultations
as quickly as possible. This will enable him to report back to his
cabinet colleagues.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, it being 7.26 p.m. the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)