CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 13, 1995
Bill C-68. Motion for third reading. 13685
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13707
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13712
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13718
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13720
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13720
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13720
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13721
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13721
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13722
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13722
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13722
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13722
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13722
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13723
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13723
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13723
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13723
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13724
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13724
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13724
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and of the amendment. 13728
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and of the amendment 13729
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13730
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13734
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13737
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 13745
Bill C-295. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 13748
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13755
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion 13757
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 57;Nays, 198 13757
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 192; Nays, 63 13759
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 13760
Bill C-41. Report stage (with amendments) 13760
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 13769
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 13769
Motions Nos. 11 and 12 13769
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13788
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 13793
13683
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 13, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the information commissioner for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1995, pursuant to section 38 of the Access to
Information Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this
document is permanently tabled with the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I set my document down upstairs.
I expect to have it in a few moments. I am sure that given the
importance of the documents the hon. members opposite will
consent to me reverting to those in a few minutes. Perhaps after
the petitions are done that could be done.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.
The first petition that I have the duty to present is signed by
quite a number of constituents from the communities of
Meadow Lake, Loon Lake, Rapid View, Makwa, St. Walburg,
and Dorintosh in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens who respect the
law and that the majority of Canadians believe that physicians in
Canada should be working to save lives, not to end them.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to act immediately
to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
The second petition I have today, Mr. Speaker, is signed by
Canadians who live in the town of Wilkie and the area
surrounding the town of Wilkie in northwest Saskatchewan in
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency.
The petitioners note that the subject of pornography is a very
controversial and complicated one, which poses a great threat to
family life in Canada through negative images of women, men,
and children, and note that the violent behaviour depicted by
various media such as killer cards and video games have the
potential of negatively affecting the attitudes and behaviour of
children.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take action toward
ending pornography in all its various forms and call upon
Parliament to pass legislation that contains clear definitions
reflecting the advanced technological and rapidly changing
nature of Canadian society and reflecting local community
standards of tolerance.
(1010 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada.
This petition originates from the Surrey and Delta regions of
Canada. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of
the House that managing the family home and caring for
preschool children is an honourable profession, which has not
been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that
the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
13684
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by
numerous residents of Toronto, Ontario, who call upon
Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
137 and 191.
[Text]
Question No. 137-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
How many full time and part time staff are involved in and what is the total
cost of administering the current firearms laws and regulations for all of
Canada and what share of the costs is borne by the three levels of government:
Federal, Provincial and Municipal?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
The federal cost of administering the current firearms control
program is borne mainly by the Department of Justice Canada
and the firearms registration and administration section of the
RCMP. Federal expenditures and the number of staff in
1993-94, the last completed fiscal year, are shown in the
following table. The provincial and territorial governments and
the municipalities should be consulted directly in order to obtain
their cost information.
1. Department of Justice Canada
Staff (Full time and term employees)-10
Operating budget (including salaries)-$5.7 million
Money transferred to provinces-territories pursuant to
financial agreements-$8.4 million
(2) Firearms registration and administration section, RCMP
Staff (Full time and term employees)-47
Operating budget (including salaries)-$1.4 million
Total federal cost-$15.5 million
1. This figure includes certain one time only cost. Approximately $2 million
were invested in the development of the Canadian firearms safety training
course: a 1.2 million grant to provinces and territories to initially set up their
safety training program and $1.4 million was spent on the development and
implementation of the automated system for firearm acquisition certificates
and accompanying forms.
2. This amount represents the compensation to provinces and territories for
1993-94 as per new agreements.
Question No. 191-
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast):
Of all the people travelling in their country of origin and referred by airlines
to Canadian authorities abroad for the purpose of document verification in
1994, how many, in each country where such document verification took place,
were, (a) permanent residents landed in Canada as convention refugees, or (b)
persons residing in Canada after having made a refugee claim?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Canadian authorities abroad do not
routinely maintain statistical information on the number of
persons referred by airline companies for the purpose of
document verification, although it is true that certain individual
missions abroad may choose to compile figures in order to audit
their own workload, where such verifications constitute a
significant proportion of mission immigration activities.
Consequently, the government is not in a position to provide
country by country figures on the number of referrals involving
convention refugees or refugee claimants in their countries of
origin.
However, we can say that referrals either involve persons
whose documents are subsequently found to be inauthentic and
who are attempting illegal travel to Canada, or involve persons
about whose documents there are doubts for one reason or
another but who are later confirmed to be properly documented
travellers. This latter group includes foreign visitors, foreign
students, permanent residents and Canadian citizens. While
some of those who are confirmed to be permanent residents are
persons who were landed as convention refugees or are persons
who had earlier made refugee claims, others are persons who
were landed as independent immigrants, business immigrants or
members of the family class. In addition, it must be appreciated
that persons holding Canadian permanent residence documents,
whatever the category of landing, are also referred for other
reasons altogether, for example to establish whether following
an extended absence from Canada they are still entitled to
Canadian resident status.
We have no reason to believe that the numbers of referrals
involving persons who were landed as refugees or who had
earlier made refugee claims are in any way disproportionate to
their share of the overall immigrant movement.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I note that Question No. 137 stands in the name
of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. I know that he has
been very anxious to get this reply before consideration of third
reading of Bill C-68 is complete. I am very pleased that I am
able to comply with his request and provide the answer today. I
recognize that it is late, but we wanted a thorough, complete,
and accurate answer for the hon. member.
While I am on my feet, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand and I ask for consent to revert to tabling of
documents for the purpose of tabling answers to certain
petitions.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I would like to thank the parliamentary
secretary for that information. I look forward to receiving it. It
may be a little late for the debate today, as I see that Bill C-68 is
13685
on the Order Paper, but maybe we can pass that information on
to the Senate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Regarding the unanimous
consent of the parliamentary secretary to revert to tabling of
documents, is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
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
five petitions.
_____________________________________________
13685
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this morning we embark on the final
stage of a process begun over a year ago by which members of
this House of Commons have studied and debated questions
dealing not only with the regulation of firearms but questions
that in a broader sense touch upon the kind of country we want
for ourselves and for our children.
It is little wonder that the debate about firearms has at times
been spirited, often clamorous, and sometimes divisive. There
are many voices that want so much to be heard: the farmers, the
ranchers, who must be permitted to continue to use their
firearms as the tools of their trade; the hunters and the target
shooters, whose choice of sport demands our respect; the
outfitters and the townsfolk whose livelihood depends on the
success of the hunting season; the sustenance hunter, who feeds
a family with a firearm; the police, who like all law-abiding
Canadians want the means to deter, to detect and to punish those
who would use guns in crime; and Canadians everywhere, who
want the government to preserve the civil character of our
society and strengthen the values that have always set us apart as
a nation, Canadians who have watched the American experience
with sadness and who want our national government to chart a
different course for our future.
(1015 )
I sincerely believe Bill C-68 now before the House has
fashioned an instrument that will ensure a future in which we
can preserve those unique Canadian values while respecting the
legitimate interests to which I referred while also dealing
effectively with the use of guns in crime.
[Translation]
The government believes that the primary objective of
regulating firearms should be to ensure that Canada remains a
peaceful and civilized country. Canadians firmly intend to
safeguard and strengthen the exceptional civility which has
always been their hallmark. Our policies attest to this
government's commitment to this objective.
The components of Bill C-68 that we will be focussing on
today are as follows: firstly, strict measures to counter the
criminal use of firearms; secondly, specific penalties to punish
those engaged in the smuggling of firearms; and thirdly, broad
measures to define what constitutes the lawful use of firearms in
a manner that poses no threat to public safety.
In the case of each component, universal firearms registration
is a fundamental requirement for achieving the stated
objectives.
[English]
The government has been consistent throughout in its defence
of Bill C-68 with respect to the core principles of the
legislation. We have made changes to reflect our response to
constructive criticism when it has arisen and to respond to well
founded concerns.
May I today express the gratitude I feel toward members of
the Liberal caucus who have through their efforts reflected
concerns in their communities and have caused us to make many
constructive changes to this proposed legislation. May I also
acknowledge the hard work done by every member of the justice
committee of the House of Commons. Colleagues from all
parties in their painstaking work examined clause by clause
every aspect of this bill and brought their own scrutiny to bear. I
am very grateful for and admire the work they did.
We have made many changes along the way. We have created
a new Firearms Act to take the process of regulation out of the
Criminal Code to respond to the concerns of firearms owners.
We have changed the rules with respect to the use and
disposition of those firearms that are prohibited either as
handguns or otherwise so they can be traded within the class of
existing owners.
We have phased in the process of licensing and registration
over eight years to minimize inconvenience for firearms
owners. We have changed the nature and effect of the penalty for
the first time a person inadvertently fails to register a firearm
under the scheme. That will only become compulsory in 2003.
13686
We have changed the inspection powers to respond to those
who saw room for abuse. We have provided for relics and
heirlooms to be passed down from generation to generation and
kept in families for their sentimental or historical value.
The core principles of this legislation have remained
constant: stiff criminal penalties for those who would use guns
in crime; the longest mandatory minimum penitentiary terms in
the Criminal Code for those who use guns in any one of 10 listed
serious crimes; cracking down on smuggling by reinvigorating
our efforts at the border, by investing in means to reduce
smuggled firearms coming into this country; taking handguns
out of circulation that have no place in legitimate sports and
target shooting; providing for renewable licences for those who
own firearms; and the mandatory universal registration of all
firearms. We have done this so that as a nation we might have
some meaningful control over guns while respecting the
legitimate uses of firearms for traditional purposes.
(1020 )
It is the registration of firearms which has attracted the most
intense controversy. Many criticisms have been levelled,
unfortunately too often without foundation in fact. It is said that
before we proceed with such a measure the government must
satisfy a heavy onus of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that
mandatory universal registration will reduce the crime rate, that
we must establish how many lives will be saved by such a
measure.
I reject that false premise. I say it applies no more to this
proposal than to any other. The government has by the evidence
it has proffered to the committee, to the Commons and to the
public, met any reasonable standard of proof required to justify
legislation which would regulate the conduct of human affairs.
We tender the evidence of the chiefs of police. We rely upon
the views and the opinions of the Canadian Police Association.
We put forward the convictions of the Canadian Association of
Police Boards. We stand with the victims of violence who have
lost family members to crime. We stand with the physicians in
the emergency rooms of this nation, with the trauma doctors,
with suicide therapists, all of whom contend with one voice that
mandatory universal registration of all firearms is nothing more
than common sense in the regulation of property in this country.
There are those who attack the concept of mandatory
universal registration by trafficking in fictions, and those
fictions must be addressed. It is said that registration means
nothing because criminals will not register to which I respond:
That is the very point. Criminals will not register and by that act
will identify themselves. When universal mandatory
registration is fully in place as a seamless system for the
registration of firearms, the criminals will be identified by
exception.
I refer to an anecdote described to me by my colleague, the
hon. member for Waterloo. He spoke last week in his riding
about an incident where police entered a place on a raid because
they had reasonable grounds to believe there was criminal
activity going on inside. They found long arms and they were
unable to tell whether those long arms were possessed
unlawfully or whether they were lawfully in the possession of
the people who were arrested. With registration the authorities
will have the means to determine just that.
I call to mind the jury in the inquest into the death of Jonathon
Yeo who was implicated in the shooting death of Nina de
Villiers, the young woman whose life was tragically taken in her
youth by crime. At inquest the jury heard months of testimony
about those events. Among its many recommendations for
strengthening the system to prevent such tragedies in the future,
that jury recommended the mandatory registration of all
firearms including rifles and shotguns.
While they are trafficking in fictions, those who oppose
registration contend this is an effort to solve an urban concern
about crime on the backs of the rural part of Canada. I point out
that time after time it has been shown that the fatality and injury
rates from firearms are significantly higher in rural areas in this
country than they are in the cities.
The majority of the people in this country, when they die by
firearms, die at the hands of someone they know.
Preponderantly firearms are used as the weapon of choice when
there is death in the context of domestic violence. On average a
woman is shot to death every six days in this country, almost
always in her home, almost always by someone she knows,
almost always with a legally owned rifle or shotgun.
What has that to do with registration? The police tell us that
with a mandatory system of universal registration in place over
time they will have the means to enforce court prohibition
orders made against people who have shown a propensity for
violence. Lives will be saved if those guns are collected in that
kind of situation.
(1025 )
Those who would oppose this system traffic in fictions by
pretending that the cost is an impediment. They throw around
numbers like $1.5 billion to establish the system, $100 or $300
per rifle to register. They are trafficking in fictions.
Someone on the west coast did a study for the Fraser Institute
pretending that the cost of registration would be $1.5 billion
because the cost to register a handgun under the existing system
is on average $82. Factoring in the present antiquated system
and individual police inquiries about the background of the
applicant, it works out to $82 per handgun on average.
That person has taken that number and applied it directly to
the six or seven million long arms in the inventory existing in
Canada today. However, he has overlooked the fact that in the
registration of the existing inventory of long arms we are going
13687
to ask only that the owners mail in a card to identify themselves
and their firearms. There will be a simple CPIC check to ensure
that there is no order prohibiting the owner from having firearms
and then he or she will be licensed and registered. This will cost
nothing like the $82 which this man pretends is going to be the
cost of registration in Canada. This is trafficking in fictions and
not meeting the point on the merits.
It is also said by those who oppose registration that the system
has been tried in New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere and has
been found not to work. That is not so.
In New Zealand the registration system was established in
1920. It was carried out through handwritten cards. It was
abandoned in the early 1980s when the volume overwhelmed the
system. In any event, New Zealand does not sit on the border of
the world's most gun preoccupied country. It does not have to
deal with the challenges we face in Canada. The system in New
Zealand was rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with the
merits of the argument in Canada.
As for Australia, five of the eight states and territories have
mandatory registration of long arms now. In 1990 a national
committee on violence recommended it be extended to the
whole of the country. Those are the facts. It is time we stopped
trafficking in fictions.
Testimony before the House justice committee established
that in those European countries where mandatory registration
of all firearms is in place, the accident, injury and death rate
from firearms is lower compared to countries where that is not
the policy.
As to confiscation, those who oppose registration allege that
it is the first step to confiscation. To them I respond that in 1940
the government of this country introduced mandatory
registration of rifles and shotguns as part of the war effort. There
was compliance and no confiscation. To those persons I say that
in 1977 when the present system of firearms acquisition
certificates was introduced, the voices again were raised that
confiscation would be the inevitable result, but there was no
confiscation. This is the position of the people who have run out
of real arguments against gun control. They are trafficking in
fictions.
I would like to spend just a moment on those who have made
themselves conspicuous in this House by their opposition to this
bill. I speak of course about members of the third party. I bear in
mind as I do so that the third party came into this House 18
months ago as the party of the people insisting that the positions
its members took, the policies they supported and the views they
expressed would reflect the values and views of Canadians in
general.
I well recall the days sitting in this place when hon. members
of the third party would rise in question period to put questions
that were inspired by members of the public. They wanted so
much to reflect the views of Canadians in the work they did in
this House of Commons.
Some of the members of the third party have stuck to those
principles and are going to stick with them. They are going to
vote for this bill because they know the majority of the people in
their riding support it. To those members I offer my
congratulations for their consistency in their principles.
However, the third party, the party of the people, the party of
law and order, the leader of this third party and the majority of
its members have said they will vote against this bill and against
what the majority of Canadians want. As recently as two weeks
ago a poll showed that 74 per cent of the people in British
Columbia, 58 per cent of the people in Alberta, and 72 per cent
of the people in Ontario support registration. Two weeks ago an
Angus Reid poll demonstrated consistently that the people of
Canada want Parliament to pass the legislation.
(1030)
Mrs. Chamberlain: We represent Canada.
An hon. member: Alberta is 50:50.
Mr. Rock: I call on the third party to stand with the
government, with the police, with the emergency room
physicians, with the victims of crime, and support this bill in the
name of the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity, on behalf of the
Parliament of Canada, to speak out on the kind of Canada we
want for ourselves and for our children and on the efforts that we
are prepared to make to preserve the peaceful and civilized
country in which we take pride, and to show just who exactly
controls firearms in Canada. Is it the groups who support
firearms or Canadians in general?
[English]
Today, June 13, I have two little boys who are turning eight
years old. They join with their 10-year old sister in wanting to
grow up in the kind of country we enjoyed in our youth, a
country that is safe, a country that is civil. Those qualities can
slip away so easily. They slip away incrementally over time.
They require constant reaffirmation of our basic principles as a
nation if we are going to keep that unique quality that sets us
apart. We must always focus on what is the predominant value
for Canadians.
In Bill C-68 we have just such an opportunity to focus on
those values. The bill is respectful of the legitimate interests of
those who use firearms, but its predominant purpose is to
preserve what is uniquely ours. My children, all of our children
13688
and our grandchildren deserve nothing less for their future in
Canada.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a bill before the House
generates the kind of public debate that we have seen in the past
few months, a debate that will end with the vote scheduled for
the end of our proceedings today.
This bill has prompted a public debate because it brings into
focus the values that we hold as a society. Before I go any
further, let me say-and I am certain there will be no
disagreement-that our society is undergoing rapid change, and
not always the kind of change we want to see. Violence is on the
rise.
This debate is taking place because we are cognizant of the
fact that danger threatens our society at every turn. Danger is not
a problem found only in cities. It affects people everywhere. It is
a problem observed not only here in this country, it also touches
our neighbours and friends to the south. In the United States,
increasing social problems have led to an upsurge in violence
and we are now beginning to witness the same phenomenon
here. This is not a trivial matter that we are discussing, nor
something that should leave us indifferent. It is an extremely
important issue, both for the present and for the future.
Violence can manifest itself in many ways. The use of
firearms is not the only factor associated with violence. Very
serious social problems can lead to a sense of frustration which
in turn, can breed various forms of violence. Psychological,
domestic, personal and community problems can all lead to the
use, among other things, of firearms.
(1035)
However, there is nothing trivial about firearms. They
represent one of the most significant ways of manifesting the
violence to which I alluded. I think we would all agree on this,
regardless of the party to which we belong, that a society such as
ours which claims to be reasonable, vigilant and civilized, has a
responsibility to ensure that the use of firearms is better
controlled.
So far, so good. I do not believe that even our friends in the
Reform Party would oppose legislation that gives the state the
ability to control violence and to intervene to stop its spread. If
they would oppose it, I am certain that they will let us know. In
any event, I would be surprised if the Reform Party opposed
some control over firearms, given the social context. In a society
such as ours, it is essential that the state be allowed to step in and
assume its responsibilities in the area of gun control.
The bill now before us is a reflection of the government's
vision of gun control. What course of action is the government
advocating? The key feature of its proposed legislation is
firearms registration. Many of the bill's provisions relate to
registration. Some reforms were introduced in 1992, primarily
to ban certain types of assault, prohibited and military weapons.
Some administrative controls regarding storage and so forth
were also introduced. This series of reforms will complete the
cycle of government action in this field. The central element of
the reform is the universal registration of all firearms,
essentially those used for target shooting, hunting and so forth,
since other kinds of weapons are already prohibited.
The debate has, without a doubt, been controversial, since
very opposite views have been voiced. I do not think that we can
accuse anyone of failing to understand the validity of the other
party's arguments. Clearly, we are dealing with a clash of two
different value systems. On the one hand, we have an
overwhelming majority of citizens who are concerned about
violence in society and recognize the need to control guns, one
of the instruments used to commit violence. On the other hand,
we have those who perceive the intervention of the state and
additional restrictions as an unnecessary attack on individual
freedoms.
We cannot dismiss the reaction of the second group lightly.
Honest citizens own firearms. The fact that they own guns does
not make them any less honest. I would even venture to say that
the vast majority, if not virtually all, of the citizens who own
guns, who use them for sporting purposes and who have done so
for generations, are upstanding citizens. The introduction of
these measures has made them somewhat uneasy. They are upset
to see the state interfere once again in their affairs and this has a
great deal to do with their attitudes.
Although this country has existed for several hundred years,
ours is still a young society, still close to its roots, to the time
when vast territories had to be conquered and people had to
tame, colonize and settle this vast land. Obstacles had to be
overcome. Wild animals roamed the landscape and people
needed to defend themselves. Trapping and hunting were
important survival tools.
It is well known that beaver trapping was a very important
activity in Canada. It was the basis of the country's economy. In
other words, the country's origins are closely linked with
firearms. To many, firearms symbolized-and I would imagine
this still holds true today-freedom and man's dominance over
an often hostile environment. The issue speaks to
long-standing, profound values. Then there is the issue of
hunting. The hunting instinct is one of the first known to man.
Had men and women not been hunters, humankind as we know it
would not have survived to this day.
Therefore, this issue is complex and it is understandable that
the debate has been controversial and quite emotional. Another
reason why opponents have reacted so negatively and have
13689
expressed outrage from the moment the bill was tabled in the
House is because the state has already intervened a great deal.
(1040)
Individual freedoms have already been restricted
considerably by the administrative and bureaucratic actions of
the state, so much so that many citizens are quite fed up with
what they view as government harassment and red tape.
Some dream of returning to the free, somewhat bucolic
society of yesteryear in reaction to the excessively large public
service and the systems and networks springing up everywhere.
The bureaucracy has exploded, particularly in the last 20 years.
People are very leery about more government intervention,
particulary now when they feel that their civil liberties are been
affected.
Moreover, many people live on large tracts of land or own
farms. That was true of my ancestors and of my father. I myself
was born on a farm. These people accept that there is a
government, a country and law enforcement agencies, but their
farm is their domain. When they are at home on their farm, they
cannot fathom that someone should be able to interfere and
restrict in any way their right to do whatever they want on their
own property, their right to use firearms to hunt and so forth.
Along comes this bill which challenges long-standing beliefs
and deep-seated cultural reflexes.
Here we must appeal to reason. It is alright for those who
oppose the bill to say so. While the vast majority of people
support the bill, the Bloc Quebecois included, we must try to
convince those who are against it, particularly the hunters who
are directly affected by its provisions. We must try to convince
them to accept the government's intervention in this area for the
sake of higher principles. The citizens of this country are all
reasonable people and they will reflect upon this and
understand. However, it still comes as a cultural shock.
When the use of seat belts in automobiles became mandatory,
I remember clearly my reaction to this announcement. I was a
young man at the time, driving my first automobile. All of a
sudden, I was required to buckle up. As a young man, owning my
first car symbolized freedom. Everyone remembers how
important their first car was, what colour it was, how much it
cost, and so forth. Not everyone was pleased, myself included,
to see the government legislate seat-belt use.
However, I had to learn to live with the law. I have to admit
that occasionally, in a moment of weakness, I neglected to
buckle up. However, I have been using my seat belt for many
years now and it has now become a part of our everyday habits.
This decision was initially viewed and dismissed by many
people as government interference. Over time, seat belt use was
accepted because it was proven to be in the common interest.
Large fines were also imposed.
The same will be true for firearms registration. Registration
as such is not something new. People are accustomed to
registering their automobiles, their bicycles, even their dogs.
They may not have been too pleased the first time that had to get
a license for their bicycle-imagine, a teenager having to get a
license for his bicycle-but they accepted it.
People have come to accept many things because it is in the
common interest and I am confident that this is one such issue. I
am confident that the government will work hard to convince
people to go along with registration. I have no doubt that the
minister, who is an intelligent individual with a good
understanding of society, will see to it that these measures are
implemented properly, by appealing to people's sense of reason,
not by using a strong-arm approach. I am confident that he will
proceed in a civilized fashion and be respectful of individuals
who have different opinions.
Registration may well be a bother, but fundamentally, this is
not a transcendental debate. There are no fundamental
principles at issue. The resulting inconveniences will be very
minor. After all, people will only be required to register the
firearms they own once in their lifetime. Only once!
Furthermore, the process will only begin in three years' time.
Therefore, we have three years to think about this, three years to
discuss the matter, three years to calm down, three years to
analyse the situation, listen to others and try to understand the
reasons behind this decision. Once the process begins, people
will have five years to register their firearms.
In my opinion, this will facilitate the implementation of the
legislation and give people time to accept psychologically these
measures.
Having said this, I do not believe and our party does not
believe that the bill is perfect. On the contrary, we would have
preferred something different.
(1045)
We would have liked to have greater power of persuasion over
the minister, in order to make changes we thought were required.
However, I must acknowledge that some changes we requested
were accepted.
We in the Bloc Quebecois tried not to address the issue from
an ideological point of view, not to make it a debate on principle
or a debate on religion because, in religion, everyone is right and
everyone is wrong. We tried to address it from a pragmatic point
of view and to make a party contribution, through the
parliamentary process, to bringing in a balanced piece of
legislation.
13690
We are in agreement with government intervention, and with
registration, and we wanted-or at least we tried-to bring a
certain balance to the bill tabled by the government.
We were successful with some amendments, including one
essential matter, one essential aspect of the bill:
decriminalization. We think this aspect is important, because it
is essential that good citizens, the vast majority of hunters, for
example, not have the perception that the law lumps them
together with criminals.
It is important for honest citizens to be sure that the
government does not treat them like criminals, and that hunting
and using firearms for sports activities do not make them
criminals or people who are reprehensible in the eyes of the
government or of society. This is a fundamental right which, to
this extent, must be respected.
That is why we thought the government had to be persuaded to
make a distinction between people who use firearms to commit
crimes and people who use them to behave like normal citizens,
for sports like hunting. That is where we got the idea of not
making failure to register a firearm, in the case of a first offence,
a crime as such. We have never claimed that there should be no
penalties. We have never claimed that there be no sanctions, that
the first offence of failing to register a hunting firearm, for
example, should not make someone liable to punishment. That
act had to remain something against the law, a reprehensible act
to be punished under criminal law. But there is quite a
distinction between criminalizing and penalizing that has not
always gotten through to the public.
We would have liked the first offence, someone who fails to
register for the first time, to be prosecuted-that is summary
conviction procedure-and convicted if guilty, but fined. We
would have wanted a first offence not to be a crime within the
strict meaning of the Criminal Code, but to lead to a
considerable fine, say, from $500 to $1,250, confiscation of the
firearm, and a requirement to register it within seven days:
briefly, something reasonable and severe-quite severe-, but
something that indicated this distinction between a crime as
such and an offence to be penalized.
The government did not accept the Bloc Quebecois vision but,
on the other hand, it did take a step in the right direction. It made
a first offence a new, special offence, ensuring that people will
be prosecuted under a statute and not under the Criminal Code;
the summary conviction procedure will be used, but the first
offence will not be a crime as such-although it is not clear what
will happen with the criminal record. There will not be a
criminal record in the traditional sense, but it does seem that
there will be a register in which offences, even first offences,
will be noted. Still, this flexibility is welcome, since I believe it
will also give the Crown an option when prosecuting. If a person
who has not registered a firearm is a habitual criminal, it is not
the same thing as if the person were an ordinary hunter; the
Crown can prosecute under another statute. There is discretion
that could make it possible to eliminate the aspect we criticized.
Another amendment we proposed has to do with that
prohibition on a person who wanted to obtain a firearm licence,
if the person was an associate of some other person prohibited
from possessing firearms. There, the problem with the initial
bill was quite far-reaching, since it had to do with association.
(1050)
Basically, it was a problem of guilt by association. As soon as
you were ``an associate''-as defined, an extremely vague, very
elastic expression that could have led to witch hunts-of a
person who had been prohibited from possessing firearms, you
could be prohibited from owning them as well.
So, what we proposed was to keep the expression ``an
associate'', of course, but to specify an associate living under
the same roof. If you live in a house where someone prohibited
from possessing firearms lives, it would be rather stupid and
irresponsible for you to be given a firearm, when the other
person living there, in the same house, could have practically
the same access to the firearm as you do-even though
elsewhere the bill prohibits that person from possessing
firearms. The government accepted this amendment.
By means of amendments we proposed two days before the
government's amendments, we also persuaded the government
that there should be a grandfather clause, that is, a clause
recognizing firearms handling courses people have already
taken. We know that Quebec in particular has had a system of
firearms handling courses, as a prerequisite for firearms
licences, for quite some time now. So these courses that people
had taken had to be recognized. We must not require people who
have already taken courses in Quebec-very well-designed
courses, by the way-to take them again. So the federal
government agreed to recognize these courses and not require
people to take them again under the bill.
We also requested an amendment to tighten up the bill in order
to limit the government's former discretion to make regulations
allowing the purchase of non-prohibited ammunition starting in
the year 2001, during the transition period. The government
agreed to tighten up the bill and make those regulations much
stricter.
Another aspect to which we drew the government's attention
was the power of inspection contained in the first version of the
bill. We were not the only ones to make this point; in our society
and in all regions, a great many worries and complaints were
expressed about the excessive extent of the power the bill
conferred on police officers: they were given practically the
power to search and seize, without being required to follow the
procedures that limit the action they take in other situations,
such as the requirement to obtain from a judge a warrant citing a
reasonable ground for carrying out a search. Now, in the bill, no
13691
warrant is required, but police officers' power is limited to
places other than dwelling-houses, strictly to places where there
is reason to believe that there are 10 or more firearms, and the
ground must be a reasonable ground, not just an opinion a police
officer might have before taking action.
But there are other amendments with which we were not
successful. We regret that, although those amendments are not
as significant; the issue of fees is an example. We would have
liked the government to provide a legal control, a guarantee of
its political commitment to act reasonably and not raise fees
unduly. We therefore proposed an amendment adding to the bill
a mechanism limiting increases to registration fees. We know
that the government is in power and we know the present
minister's intentions; but there are the public service, the
apparatus of government, circumstances and changes in the
situation. In five years, who is to say that a deputy minister will
not convince a minister to double registration fees? There is no
legal guarantee. We would have liked there to be one in the bill.
The minister is showing the best of intentions. We hope they will
be repeated, but we really would have liked there to be this kind
of control; one possible way of providing it would have been,
say, to index changes in registration fees to the consumer price
index. But the government did not want any such hindrances,
and we regret that that was the case.
We also proposed something we think made a lot of sense: a
requirement to lock, to install a locking mechanism on, any
firearm manufactured or sold in Canada, so that if you are a
hunter and you show up in a firearms store to buy a .12 or a .20 or
a .22 rifle, you will automatically be sold a firearm on which a
locking mechanism has already been installed, for greater
safety. We hear that there is nearly consensus on this point, and
that even many organizations representing hunters agreed with
it. The government did not agree to this request, and we wonder
why not. Would the manufacturers' lobby have been that
powerful? We do not know. It would have been advisable for this
amendment to be accepted, but it was not.
(1055)
We consider that another aspect of the bill raises an issue of
principle, a much more important one: the legality of law
enforcement. By means of this bill, the government is giving
itself an arbitrary power to make regulations that would allow it,
for example, to exempt aboriginal people from respecting the
bill and from the constraints the bill imposes on other citizens.
I am not saying that the government will avail itself of that
power and exempt aboriginal people but, since the bill includes
express mention of this point, we fear that inequitable treatment
of citizens under the same law will be set up. It would be a real
shame, and terribly irresponsible, to do that.
I do not see how aboriginal people are threatened by the
enforcement of this bill. If the bill is acceptable for other
citizens, it is acceptable for them, too; they, too, have the right
to ensure their safety. The problems of violence exist in their
communities, as they do in ours. I do not see how the
government can give itself that power. Why is the government
giving itself that power?
That point makes me think-in a much less significant
vein-of the debate that took place during the referendum on the
Charlottetown Accord, when it looked as though the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms would not apply in aboriginal
communities. I remember that even Mr. Trudeau-on that point
alone, I must admit-agreed with the Quebec sovereignists who
were saying that made no sense.
We agreed that, under the rule of law, as is the case in Canada,
where we favour law enforcement that is equal for everyone,
there simply had to be equitable treatment of all citizens, and
that it was inconceivable that we could accept that outrageous,
incredible, irresponsible concession made by Mr. Clark and Mr.
Rae in particular, excluding aboriginal people from the
application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have
somewhat the same thing here.
If this bill is so important, if it is so deeply rooted in respect
for citizens' rights and obligations, why would aboriginal
people be exempted from its enforcement? We were not
successful on this point, but we do count on the government, and
on the minister, to reassure us and tell us that citizens will be
equal under this bill, as they are under any law, as is appropriate
in any democracy.
Lastly, we would have liked to have another amendment
passed, and we are very worried that it was turned down. We are
really upset about that amendment; it raised considerable debate
within the Bloc Quebecois. People in caucus took very strong
positions on this point, and we understand them. This point is
the requirement that any court impose a minimum four-year
sentence on any offender who commits a crime with a firearm: a
four-year minimum.
I consider that the minister has lapsed into political
correctness and let himself be swept along by the lobbies that
have sometimes gone too far. We are going to vote for the bill,
but we, too, have been buffeted by headwinds. Outrageous
things have been said by both lobbies. The pro-gun control
lobby itself has sometimes gone too far.
I feel that, in this instance, the minister may not have
maintained a balance. I feel that the minister should have
resisted those excessive pressures, which are not at all
progressive, which will fill up the penitentiaries with
18-year-olds with no chance of rehabilitation and, further,
which will introduce inequity and disparity in sentencing.
13692
Let us take the example of an 18-year old committing his first
offence. We do not know what incites an 18-year old to hold up a
corner store-we are not justifying it, it is completely
unacceptable, serious things happen in those situations-but we
do know that often these young people are grappling with drug
problems, are in withdrawal, are in fact very well brought up-it
happens everywhere-; for the first time in his life he goes and
uses a firearm to hold up a corner store, and automatically gets
four years in prison.
There is no possibility of the judge looking into the case,
making distinctions, taking circumstances into account, or
trying to give that young man a chance. When you are 18, you
can be rehabilitated after a first offence and become a very good
citizen. But with this bill, I tell you, I hesitated before taking a
position. I deeply regret that the minister, who appears to be
progressive in all respects, has made this abusive lapse, which
will mean automatic prison sentences.
(1100)
Incarceration becomes the only means of rehabilitating young
offenders, of reintegrating them in society. That is serious. That
smacks of a philosophical conception which worries me a lot. I
am surprised that the gun control lobby would have steered the
minister in that direction. I am truly astonished because I
believe that the forces which impel us to adopt this bill are
progressive forces, but not in this case. In this case, there is
something absolutely deplorable and senseless, there are things
that defy comprehension.
For example, if a sharp 12-inch dagger is held to the throat of
a convenience store clerk to commit the same crime, the
offender will get the minimum, not four years. I do not see the
difference between a dagger and a gun-the clerk might not
have his throat cut. It is the same thing with rape. These are
dreadful acts. What is the difference between using a dagger or a
gun to commit rape on a young woman? The two acts are
absolutely abominable. And yet, in one case, it will be four
years, automatically, and in the other not.
It seems to me that the minister in charge of developing the
Criminal Code could have had a common sense reflex. It is not
too late, by the way. I sincerely believe that this is something
that should be fixed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I know that opponents have their arguments, I
have heard them many a time. All members of this House have
been submitted to intense discussions with the lobbyists, but I
do not think a bill has ever been better scrutinized, analyzed in
such depth.
I know the arguments, for example those of the lobbyists. The
arguments of those who oppose this bill are not all ridiculous,
but I believe they can be refuted. For example, there are those
who say that it makes no difference whether firearms are
registered or not because criminals are not forced to use a
registered gun to commit their crime. But there are criminals
who can use registered guns too. A sawed off twelve-gauge
shotgun becomes an extraordinary assault weapon. If the
weapon is registered, it is that much easier for the police to
conduct their investigation.
Do not tell me that police will not be helped by the fact that
weapons are registered, that the owner can be identified, that his
name can be instantly retrieved in the central registry, in the
computer. This will obviously be a powerful tool in the hands of
the police when investigating crimes committed with registered
weapons.
Unregistered weapons are already banned. It is just a matter of
putting in place the means of stopping the illegal importation
and sale of prohibited weapons in Canada. To the extent that
there are millions of legal firearms, let them be registered. And
if, as happens so often, they are used to commit crimes, their
registration will greatly increase the effectiveness of police
investigations. That argument does not hold water.
All the more so since habitual criminals are not the only ones
who commit violent crimes with firearms. We all know that in
the case of family violence, acts of desperation, etc., legal
weapons are used most often, weapons that are found in the
house. Some will say that it makes no difference whether they
are registered or not.
I believe that registration will have an extremely important
educational value. If, after this great public debate, the bill is
passed, there will be an immediate result in that people will no
longer be able to take firearms for granted, to treat them as if
they were commonplace objects like a slingshot. The attitudes
toward weapons will not be the same, the perceptions will be
quite different. People will know that the State treats weapons as
dangerous instruments.
Indeed, contrary to cars and bicycles, for example, weapons
are made to kill. Except for the few of us who practise shooting
as a sport, a firearm, if we keep one at home, is used essentially
to go hunting, to kill and it is very efficient at that. It is
practically the most efficient way to kill.
(1105)
One must realize that a firearm-and people will become
more conscious of this fact, especially if they have to register
it-is not an ordinary household object but a dangerous weapon
which can easily be used to commit a crime or a violent act.
It is therefore false to say that ragistration will accomplish
nothing. Indeed, if such was the case, then why did the powerful
lobbies make so much noise? We also heard about costs which
would be too high. We have here estimates provided by the
minister. There is no reason to question them or to doubt that the
minister and his department did their job carefully. The numbers
13693
might vary slightly, since mistakes are always possible. But we
are talking here of an average of $24 million a year over five
years, for a five-year total of about $119-120 million. Once the
registration system is in place and rolling, it will obviously cost
less to manage.
Yes, it will cost, but its price does not seem disproportionate
to its significance for society, compared to other initiatives
which cost much more and amount to very little. Moreover, I
was always a bit surprised by the intense opposition, given the
benefits for individuals. Let us think about what this act means
to an individual, a citizen, for someone who, for instance, goes
hunting once a year or keeps three or four firearms at home,
maybe a .12, .22 or .20 caliber shotgun. This worried citizen,
perhaps made anxious by all the commotion raised by the
lobbies, should know what will happen, what this act means.
If the act were passed tonight, what changes does it entail for
this person who keeps three firearms at home? There will be
absolutely no changes for three years, nothing in 1995, 1996 or
1997, right up to 1998. Then, starting in 1998, that person will
have five years to register up to 10 arms all at once, for $10. Now
tell me, is it worth putting a country to fire and the sword? There
has been much exaggeration. Canadian citizens are used to
dealing with much bigger complexities and to co-operate much
more with government. This is not a case of undue harassment.
This is within reasonable limits, in my estimation.
[English]
This debate has pitted people against each other in good faith.
Without that, very important principles were at stake, collective
principles: the need to address the issue of violence in Canada
and in Quebec and, on the other hand, the propensity to protect
individual rights. Those are very legitimate questions. All those
people are very honourable people and they defend and protect
quite legitimate values.
We have to make a judgment, an assessment of those values.
In last resort when we think it over calmly and quietly as good
citizens, we will have to conclude that it is the right law, the
right move to make. It is not the best law. Many things could
have been done to improve it. We tried. We succeeded in certain
cases; we did not succeed all the time. On the whole there is a
balance. If we want to protect our society against the rise in
violence we have to do something like that.
For private citizens the negative effects will not be very great.
It means that an individual who has three, four, five or ten
hunting rifles at home will have nothing to do for the next three
years. Starting in 1998 he will have to think about the fact that he
will have to register his arms. He will have five years to do it
from 1998. Once it is done it will be for life and it will cost $10.
I do not think there is a need for the kind of debate that we
have on many other issues in Canada. There will be a much
harsher debate this fall. It would be good practice now to accept
this as a reasonable question to settle before addressing much
more important questions.
(1110)
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois is not entirely satisfied with the act, but
its members believe that respect is a matter of striking the right
social balance and that, in the common interest, they must vote
in favour of the act. This is what we intend to do tonight.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we sat here
until eleven o'clock last night and voted on the final
amendments to Bill C-68. In less than 24 hours we are into our
final debate, third reading of the bill. It did not really give us
much time to assess the consequences of the amendments which
are now part of the bill. It reminds me a little of what happened
in the clause by clause amendments that were hurried upon us
with such short notice after the final witnesses before the
committee had concluded.
I begin my address by telling the House and the justice
minister of a firearms court case that was heard in Alberta. The
judge was a man by the name of Judge Demetrick. In his
decision he said that the definition of a firearm as contained
presently in the Criminal Code was so convoluted as to be legal
fiction and twice removed from reality. When I read that I was
absolutely amazed that the Parliament of Canada was producing
legislation that our courts are now declaring to be twice
removed from reality. I am satisfied that we cannot have
legislation that is twice removed from reality unless we have
thinking behind the legislation that is twice removed from
reality as well.
The present gun control bill is really not a gun control bill at
all. It is not going to control guns; it is simply going to register
them. When I looked at the bill I realized that it was not an
aberration from the good sound thinking that has run the country
for the last 25 years. It is not unlike Judge Demetrick pointed
out. What has been guiding the country for the last 25 years?
When we examine the debt, the Young Offenders Act, the parole
system or the judicial system, and some of the disparities in
those systems we wonder whether or not the thinking behind
them is twice removed from reality.
How can we be in a situation where we are $600 billion in debt
if the thinking behind our fiscal and monetary policy is not twice
removed from reality? How can we have a Young Offenders Act
when the justice system cannot deal with young offenders under
the age of 12 for their criminal misconduct? How can we have
13694
that unless the thinking of the creators of the legislation is
completely removed from reality and the people it will impact?
Let us look at the parole system, the latest victim of which is
Melanie Carpenter. The prime suspect in her murder, Mr. Auger,
was paroled, was released, by way of statutory requirement after
serving only two-thirds of his sentence, even though the
officials felt that it would be a danger to release the individual
into society. We have to ask what kind of thinking has produced
that kind of legislation. Judge Demetrick told me a bit about that
kind of thinking when he suggested that it was twice removed
from reality.
(1115 )
This bill is not an aberration from the reasoning that has
guided Parliament over the last 20 or 25 years. It is simply a
continuation of thinking that is far removed from the impact it
will have on the people. I often think the justice minister and his
officials do not know what they are doing.
It is an attempt by the government to create the impression it
is getting tough on crime and criminals. Yet when the justice
minister had an opportunity to vote either for a safer society or
against first degree murderers when a private member's bill
came up to eliminate section 745 from the Criminal Code,
everyone knows he voted in favour of the first degree murderer
and against a safer society, in favour of the first degree murderer
and against the Melanie Carpenters of this country. We should
study carefully the motivation behind this legislation.
We have heard the minister speak today of things such as
trafficking in fiction. I have the talking points sent from the
Prime Minister's office to members of the Liberal Party on Bill
C-68. The first item reads: ``The government has reached an
agreement with the official opposition to allocate time for
debate on Bill C-68, gun control, and Bill C-41, sentencing''. Is
that not nice? They got together and decided to terminate any
lengthy debate that would give an opportunity to all members to
express the concerns of their constituents on these two very
contentious bills.
The second item says: ``Any reasonable person would have to
agree that there has been extensive consultation and debate on
this legislation''. Let us examine this whole business of
consultation for a moment and see who is trafficking in fiction.
In response to questions in the House the justice minister
stated that he had been in continuous consultation with the
attorneys general of the provinces. That has been directly
refuted by the testimony of the attorneys general who appeared
before the standing committee. In particular, I refer to the
Attorney General of Manitoba. When we asked her, she
commented that there was extremely little consultation with the
justice minister and officials on the gun control legislation.
We heard from the Attorney General of Alberta. The Attorney
General of Saskatchewan led a delegation made up of the
Liberal leader, Lynda Haverstock, as well as the Conservative
leader. They also refuted the whole concept of consultation. The
Attorney General of Alberta indicated exactly the same thing.
We heard from the justice ministers of the Northwest
Territories and Yukon. They refuted the whole idea that they
were involved in any significant way in consultation with the
justice minister in the development and creation of this
legislation.
People like the president of the Olympic handgun competitors
claimed there was no consultation whatsoever. This statement is
supported by the fact that when the justice minister brought in
his proposals before Christmas of last year he had such little
knowledge of handguns that he was banning those used in world
cup competitions. When we asked him if he would consider
exempting the .32 calibre handgun, which is one of the handguns
used in world cup competition, the record tells how much
consultation really went on between himself and those groups of
people.
(1120 )
He stated he would certainly not consider exempting the .32
calibre. Why? The barrel length was under 105 millimetres and
those short barrel firearms are inaccurate and are made only for
killing. That is basically the reason to justify the banning of 58
per cent of the legally held and purchased handguns.
When we talk about trafficking in fiction, who is trafficking in
fiction? I ask the justice minister who really is trafficking in
fiction? To carry on with this whole idea that the justice minister
has consulted broadly, widely and in depth with people, groups
and organizations involved with firearms is a little ridiculous.
These consultations did not take place with the justice ministers
of the territories or at least with the attorneys general of the
provinces.
Several groups of native peoples also appeared before the
committee. The James Bay Cree were represented.
Representatives from the Yukon Indians appeared before the
committee. Ovide Mercredi and a delegation from the Assembly
of First Nations appeared. A group represented by Mr. Borin
appeared. They all deny that there was any in depth consultation.
I have a copy of a letter which was tabled with the committee
from Mr. Ovide Mercredi to the justice minister dated February
17. I will just quote from this. It states:
Once again your government has acted in a manner that shows a complete
disregard for the rights and interests of the people I represent. Your
introduction of the gun control legislation without prior consultation with First
Nations is a violation of your responsibility as Minister of Justice to uphold the
fiduciary trust obligations of your government for all First Nations.
In imposing your plan for firearms registration and regulation, you are
breaching our treaties with the crown. You promised a consultation process
with First Nations in our meeting on November 14, 1994. Where is that
consultation process?
13695
He ends by saying:
For God's sake, respect our rights.
That is what the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
wrote the minister.
During the committee meetings I asked if there had been
consultations in the prescribed manner according to what
amounts to the appendages to the Constitution with regard to the
agreement that was made with the James Bay Cree. It was called
the James Bay Cree and Northern Quebec Agreement. I also
asked if there were consultations with the Yukon Indians who
recently signed an agreement for self-government. The ink is
hardly dry on that agreement. The officials of the department
assured me and the committee that consultations had taken place
in accordance with the constitutional requirement.
When I asked Mr. Mosley, the assistant deputy minister, to
table with the committee evidence of such consultations, he
agreed to do so but did not. When he next appeared before the
committee I asked him about the agreement and the undertaking
he had accepted to table documents from the department that
would substantiate the claim that substantial consultations, in
the prescribed manner, had been undertaken with the James Bay
and Yukon Indians, he said that the minister would be tabling
those documents when he appeared on the last day that witnesses
were to appear before the committee on May 19.
When the justice minister appeared he tabled a half inch stack
of documents. That did not give us a chance to examine them so
we could prepare questions for the justice minister.
(1125 )
When I did have a chance to examine the documents they did
not show evidence of consultation at all. It was evidence, at best,
of letters of notification to the 630 bands that these proposals
had been presented before Christmas. There was no evidence of
consultation.
When the justice minister talks about broad consultations
throughout the country with the various groups of people and
organizations on which the legislation will impact, I ask, who is
trafficking in fiction? There is no doubt in my mind who is
trafficking in fiction. It is certainly no one from this caucus
when it comes to these kinds of issues.
How in the world was it possible for the justice minister to
overlook the requirement to consult with the aboriginal peoples
of the country? How could he do that? He understands the law as
well as any of us. As stated in the letter by Mr. Mercredi to him,
he understands the constitutional requirements to abide by the
consultative requirement when legislation is going to impact on
the treaties or constitutional rights of aboriginal people or any
other Canadian.
I am satisfied that the reason the justice minister and his
officials did not first consult with the aboriginal people is
because the aboriginal people would have told him exactly what
they told the committee with regard to the gun control bill. They
would reject the vast majority of it, particularly the licensing
and the registration requirements.
Had he gone to them first they would have set the standard for
all Canadians. That would not go far enough for the minister
because he wanted to impose the restrictions and licensing
requirements on law-abiding gun owners. He knew if he went to
the aboriginal people first, as he ought to have done, he could
not have refuted them and come forward with the kind of
legislation he has brought forward today.
Had he gone to the aboriginal people first, they would have set
the standard, the benchmark for all Canadians with regard to the
manner in which their rights would be interfered with by
legislation. He did not want to do that because he knew the
aboriginal people would not accept it, as Ovide Mercredi said in
his letter.
I refer again to his letter where he said when talking about his
own people: ``I know that they will not comply with any
legislation that violates their treaty and aboriginal rights and I
will encourage this non-compliance''. That is the Grand Chief
of the Assembly of First Nations telling the justice minister that
they will not comply with these kinds of regulations.
The justice minister of the Northwest Territories told us as
well that many gun owners in the Northwest Territories today
are not complying with the firearms acquisition certificate
requirements. He and his delegation explained in very
straightforward and understandable terms why they are not. It is
so impractical for them. He talked about isolated communities
where there is no facility to obtain the passport photograph
required to obtain an FAC.
Therefore, the present laws are not being abided by in those
isolated communities. We heard the Grand Chief of the First
Nations say that he will encourage his people not to comply.
(1130 )
There was no in depth consultation before this bill was tabled,
because he would have heard the same thing. He did not want to
deal with them before the fact; he wanted to deal with them after
the fact. How is he going to do it?
13696
Last night the justice minister put forward an amendment in
Motion No. 5. That amendment states: ``For greater certainty,
nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or
derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982''.
What does that mean? It means that through section 110(t) he
is going to be able to go back to the aboriginal people by way of
regulations and orders in council and provide whatever
exemption he wishes to provide. It is going to result in not all
Canadians standing equal before this law. I heard the official
opposition leader address this as well. It appears that we may
have a two-tier system where there is one set of laws for the
aboriginal people and a different set for the non-aboriginal
people.
I submit that had he gone forward and obtained the
consultation and the input from the aboriginal people first, then
based upon those considerations we would all be happy and we
could all support that legislation. But it would not have gone far
enough for the minister, because he does want to register, he
does want to license, he does want to impose those restrictions
and those interventions upon the people of Canada.
He has put the cart before the horse and he is trying to finesse
this whole thing by going back and saying that through the
power of the regulations he has in this act he will be able to
consult with aboriginal peoples and address their concerns on
their treaty rights and their constitutional rights when it comes
to hunting, trapping, and food gathering.
What is emerging here-and I hope I am wrong-is evidence
that we are moving toward a two-tier system as far as gun
legislation is concerned in this country. I regret that very much.
If the minister had consulted with the aboriginal peoples in
depth according to what I believe are their constitutional rights,
this would not have happened. Now we are going to find
ourselves perhaps in a situation where there are going to be
constitutional challenges on the basis of discrimination. That is
unfortunate. It ought not to be.
My own personal point of view is that in this case the
aboriginal people are on the right track when it comes to the
control of firearms. They are on the right track. The standard
they are saying they want for the use, ownership, and the giving
and lending of their firearms ought to be applicable for all
Canadians. If that were the case a vast majority of Canadians
would agree with it and support it. We should have started with
the aboriginal people, used their needs and their requirements as
the benchmark for all of our legislation in this bill. I submit that
respectfully.
I want to touch on a couple of other points. I want to deal with
this whole area of smuggling. I sat in the justice committee
when the Canadian Police Association delegates were there. I
listened to them carefully. They had basic support for a majority
of the contents of the bill, but I remember very clearly what the
president of the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Neal Jessop,
said. He pointed out that the strength of this bill will be based
upon the ability of the government to stop smuggling in Canada.
I have a document here that was produced by the MacKenzie
Institute called ``Misfire: The Black Market and Gun Control''.
They did an eight-month survey into firearms smuggling in
Canada. They talked to police officers, aboriginal peoples,
smugglers, taxi drivers, the whole host of people involved in the
milieu of gun smuggling and illicit firearms trafficking. They
concluded that if Bill C-68 goes through there is going to be an
explosion of smuggling in Canada.
(1135)
When I compare this to the report submitted from the justice
department on smuggling, their report is a hollow whitewash
compared to the information contained in this document. I will
not take time to go through it, but it is here. It is here for anyone
who wants to look at it.
We have real problems, not with the law-abiding gun owner
but with the extent of gun smuggling and the smuggling of illicit
firearms, prohibited firearms, these so-called assault weapons
into Canada. We have a real problem. The authors of the
MacKenzie report are saying that it is going to explode if this
bill goes through. I just mention that.
I want to touch on the polls and the support. I do not place
much support in polls because they go up and they go down,
particularly on a bill like this, where the people who are being
contacted really do not know the extent to which the guns are
controlled now by way of legislation.
We have over 60 pages in the Criminal Code dealing with the
ownership, acquisition and use of firearms. The legislation
dealing with firearms in this country is very extensive. So when
we have a 124-page document adding to that and we ask people
on the phone what they think about gun control, adding more
laws to the gun control bill, I am not sure how well informed
they are when they respond to that.
I do know that if I received a phone call and someone was
telling me the government was moving in a direction to extend
greater control over guns, I would say that sounds to me like a
good thing to do, because it is going to make the homes and
streets and communities safer in Canada. If that were my belief,
if I were led to believe that from the question asked, Mr.
Speaker, you bet I would support it. I would support it today if I
could see it in the bill, but I cannot see it. I can understand why
the polls vary, depending on the questions and depending upon
the extent of information they have at their disposal about the
bill.
We can see very clearly that as more and more information
gets to the people, not just about the gun registration but what
appears to be the possible violation of civil rights, the extension
of police powers in order to inspect or search and to seize and so
13697
on, we see a broadening concern over this legislation and a drop
in the support for the bill.
I might add that the clearest indication in terms of polling has
to be the result of an election where gun control is an issue. We
have had two provincial elections recently. I would like to
mention at least the one in Manitoba, where the government
headed by Premier Filmon publicly rejected the gun registration
portion of this bill, as did the NDP in that province. The Liberal
Party embraced it. It is interesting to note that a few weeks
before the writ came down in that province for the election call
the Liberals were very, very close in the polls to the Tories, the
government, and it looked like they could form the government.
We saw what happened. They lost over 50 per cent of their seats
and the Liberal leader lost his seat.
(1140 )
I have an item in the paper here that quotes one of the Liberal
candidates. He states that the Liberal campaign was badly
damaged by unpopular federal decisions like gun control and
budget cuts. He went on to say that it infuriated him to hear the
justice minister say after the election that gun control had
nothing to do with the Manitoba Liberals' poor showing. ``He
has his head in the sand'' is what this defeated Liberal candidate
from Manitoba said.
When we hear the justice minister talk about support and
trafficking in fiction, we should examine it carefully. I wish the
debate would be made on facts. We can look at the polls, but let
us be honest about it and look at the real polls. In this country we
now have at least five provinces whose premiers have concerns
about this bill. We have the Saskatchewan, Alberta, and
Manitoba premiers who are concerned about this bill. We have
had the Liberal premier from New Brunswick express concern
as well about the registration system. Now we have the new
premier of Ontario, and I would like to hear further from him. I
would like him to have a good look at this bill so that we hear
from the premier of the most populated province in Canada. I
would like to hear what he has to say now about this bill and
whether there will be support from the province of Ontario for
the registration system.
I want to end by discussing the cost. Members were accused
on this side of trafficking in fiction when it comes to the cost.
Let us look at the cost for a moment. The justice minister is
indicating $85 million to set up the registration system. That is
just to set up the registration system. We first have to register the
three million gun owners. We have to license them before we can
register a single gun they own. If they are not eligible to hold a
licence, what is the point of registering their firearms? They will
have to give up their firearms if they are not able to be licensed.
What will it cost to license an individual?
Ms. Catterall: Ten bucks for ten guns.
Mr. Ramsay: Ten bucks for ten guns, if we talk about
trafficking in fiction. I am talking about licensing the owner, not
about registering the firearm. If we look at the cost to license
three million gun owners, we can estimate the cost per
individual by looking at what the cost is now to process an FAC,
a firearms acquisition certificate, because the requirements are
similar.
Under clause 5 of this bill, the chief provincial firearms
officer is going to have to conduct a review of the criminal
record of the individual, a mental health record, and perhaps a
neighbourhood background check to see if there is any history of
violence. That is not unlike the requirement for an FAC. They go
through a similar background check.
The Metro Toronto Police Board analysed the cost to process a
single FAC in 1994, and it was $185. That might be high,
because it is in Toronto, where the costs are high. But if we take
that figure and multiply it by three million gun owners who have
to be licensed, what do we get? We certainly do not get $85
million. We get about $550 million. If there are six million gun
owners, as some estimate, then it will be well over $1 billion
using those figures.
If the Metro Toronto Police Board cost for the application of
an FAC is the highest in the country, and we level it out to $100
per FAC across the country and take that as an average-I do not
think we can label that as trafficking in fiction-we can get an
idea of what the enormous cost is going to be to someone in this
country, whether it is the gun owner, the taxpayer, or whoever.
That is before a single gun is registered and we come in with the
$10 cost to register 10 firearms. What can we register today for
$10? It may cost me $10, but what does it cost the taxpayer?
What does it cost the organization? What does it cost for the
manpower?
(1145)
I do not know what it will cost, but I am convinced it will not
be $10. I do not know what can be processed today in that form
for $10. My licence costs me more than that. The registration for
my car costs me more than that. It cost me $5 to register my
children's bicycles and I did all the work. I took it down to the
police station where it was filed. That is what it cost me. I do not
know what it cost the police to file it, process it and record it.
When it comes to the cost, $85 million may be a fair
representation of what it will cost to set up the registration
system, but it is not anywhere near the overall cost to set up a
full-fledged universal registration system where individual gun
owners will have to be licensed and have to bring in their
firearms to have them registered. There is absolutely no way.
When we talk about trafficking in fiction, who is trafficking in
fiction?
13698
The government has not provided a common sense
justification for the registration of rifles and shotguns. I asked
witness after witness who appeared before the committee how
the registration of rifles and shotguns would reduce the criminal
use of those firearms, and they were not able to answer. I have
never heard a straightforward answer from the justice minister
although I have asked him that question.
We have a handgun registration system that has been around
for 60 years. We know it has not reduced the criminal use of
handguns, because the handgun is the weapon of choice for the
vast majority of street criminals. We see that it has been
ineffective in this area and we ask why the justice minister
would want to expand a failed system to include rifles and
shotguns.
We have spent considerable time on the bill, but is it enough
time? I say absolutely not. There was not enough time. When
members are denied the right to express the concerns of their
constituents in the House, those who want to express them, there
is something wrong with the system.
I do not think we have had enough time either at the
committee stage or at second reading stage. Time allocation was
utilized. A deadline was placed on the number of days to hear
witnesses. We went immediately from there into clause by
clause study. We did not even have time to examine the
testimony of witnesses on a day to day basis, because the time
lag from the time they testified to the time we received the
written testimony was four days. We did not even have time to
fully draft our amendments, go over them with legal counsel and
present them in proper form. The bill has been rushed and I ask
why. If it is not to become mandatory for eight years, what is the
big rush?
I make reference to a wonderful set of speaking points. At the
bottom the Prime Minister said to his Liberal colleagues:
The Reform Party says it needs more time to debate gun control, but cops on
the beat say they need gun control now.
It is very disturbing that Reformers are prepared to put the safety of police at
risk in order to satisfy the gun lobby.
(1150)
Talk about trafficking in fiction. I have not talked to a street
police officer who has supported the bill although their political
masters do. I have talked with colleagues all across western
Canada. I have been all across the country from Kamloops in the
west to St. John's, Newfoundland, in the east. I have talked with
people who say that the bill is nonsense anyway.
My point is that if the cops on the beat need the bill now, why
are we waiting eight years before bringing it in? It is not the
Reform Party that is saying we should wait eight years; it is the
government that is saying eight years.
As I said the other night, if guns are really dangerous and if
this is not a hysterical response from people who do not know
anything about guns and fear them, why are we leaving 58 per
cent of the handguns that are supposed to be dangerous in the
hands of the people? Why are we leaving them where they are?
In conclusion I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word that and
substituting the following therefor:
``Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be not now read a
third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in
order. We will resume debate on the amendment and go to the
next stage of debate where members will have an entitlement of
20 minutes and 10 minutes for questions and comments.
I ask members to indicate to the Chair if they will be splitting
their time.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberal speakers will be splitting their time.
I am proud to rise in the House today in support of the bill. I
believe gun control legislation will make our communities safer
and will preserve and help Canada to evolve as a civilized nation
where we can walk the streets and drive our cars with greater
safety. It says a great deal about the kind of society we want to
create for the future. Quite simply the bill seeks to prevent the
killing of human beings.
There has been a great deal said about values in the debate. I
have been concerned and have expressed my concern about the
rhetoric of American values that seems to have permeated the
debate. Let me give an example. Recently a survey was done in
the United States among school children. When asked how they
should respond if somebody tried to take something that
belonged to them, the majority of American children said: ``Kill
them''. When asked how they should respond to an insult, the
majority said: ``Shoot them''.
An American senator on national television not too long ago
suggested his mother should take out her gun and shoot if an
intruder broke into her home, obviously not aware that in the
majority of cases where that is the response to an intruder
breaking into a home the home owner and not the perpetrator
ends up dead.
As I said, the bill is about preventing death. Reformers have
provided the strongest opposition to the bill yet their response is
contradictory. They also say they are in favour of greater crime
controls and greater punishment for criminals. Those are in the
bill as well.
(1155)
Let me just tell the party that says it is so concerned about the
victims of crime what Steve Sullivan, a spokesperson for the
Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, says. He
believes better gun control laws would prevent similar
accidents, for example the deaths of two young children from
13699
shotgun wounds which took place in his community not too long
ago. Mr. Sullivan said that many of the cases his organization
heard about were crimes committed by ordinary people in nice
communities rather than by criminals.
That is one main thought I want to leave with people this
morning. While the bill is about crime control, it also deals with
the fact that the vast majority of deaths by guns do not occur
during the commission of a crime. They do not occur because a
criminal, a stranger, shoots and tries to take something from
someone or tries to perpetrate some other crime. The majority of
gun related deaths and injuries happen in the home and are by
someone known to the victim. That is the side of the legislation I
want to address.
Let me give some facts. In this community in the last six
months seven people have died at the hands of a family member:
five of the deaths were caused by guns and two were school aged
children. Five of the seven deaths were gun related yet probably
less than 20 per cent of homes in this urban area have guns. That
tells me a great deal. Of the 1,400 deaths in the last year caused
by guns, 1,100 were suicides. That reflects in large part the
accessibility of a gun to commit suicide.
Over 200 of the 1,400 deaths were homicides and the
remainder were accidents. The majority of homicides, 86 per
cent, are committed by family members, friends or
acquaintances. Guns are a particularly serious threat to women.
Almost half the women were killed by spouses or ex-spouses
and almost half the women killed by their partners are shot even
though half the homes in the country do not have guns. Also 78
per cent of the guns used in these killings are legally owned. The
problem is not only illegally owned guns. The problem is legally
owned guns, which is what the legislation tries to address in
part.
Domestic and other intimate assaults are 12 times more likely
to result in death if a gun is involved. I was serious when I said
the bill is about preventing the deaths of human beings. We have
significant evidence that a large number of offenders act
impulsively, suggesting that the simple availability of a gun
determines whether a homicide will or will not occur.
We cannot forget our children. Since 1970, 470 children have
died in accidents involving firearms. If we truly believe in the
value of our children we should do all we can to protect them,
and this is one measure to do so.
The most contentious issue in the legislation is the
registration of guns. Seven million firearms are held by
approximately three million Canadians. We have no way of
knowing how many guns are in the country at any one time, who
the owners are, and whether or not the guns were legally or
illegally acquired. Registration is designed to change that.
I realize I have very little time in the debate this morning.
Crime control is important and the bill addresses that. It is also
important to control legally owned guns in the hands of their
owners, because those are the guns that are responsible for the
majority of gun related homicides and deaths in the country.
A constituent who wrote to me said quite simply that she
believed we should go ahead with the legislation and that it was
important for people who owned guns to be accountable and
held responsible for the use of those guns. Is that not what good
citizenship is all about, accountability and responsibility as well
as rights and privileges?
(1200)
I urge all members of this House to consider the large number
of deaths that occur in this country every year. Consider the role
that legally owned guns play in those homicides. I urge members
to consider whether they do not want to be part of making this a
safer society.
The justice minister referred earlier to how important he feels
this legislation is for his children. I want to make the same
personal comment. Later this afternoon I am going to the airport
to pick up my daughter and my six-week old grandson but I am
not going home to have dinner with them. I am coming back here
to vote for this legislation. I am doing it for my daughter and I
am doing it for my grandson. I am doing it for the kind of society
I want him to be able to grow up in.
In Canada, we have never believed either as a nation or as
individuals that settling our problems by violence and by power
is the way we develop. That is why Canada has become a nation
that symbolizes around the world a peaceful resolution of
problems. It is why we have evolved a reputation that has made
our flag, which we will celebrate again in just a few weeks, a
symbol to the world of how people can live in harmony.
It is because we have had a different sense of values than those
more American values I have heard expressed in this debate. We
have not felt we have to rely on weapons to evolve a civilized
society. By peaceful means, by peaceful resolution, by
collectively agreeing on control of the criminal elements in our
society and by creating a safer environment we will have the
kind of country we want to live in and that we want to leave to
the next generation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member for Ottawa West why her
party decided to change the status quo, stipulating that, in the
future, the restricted firearms safety courses mentioned in
subclause 7(2) of the bill on firearms will have to be approved
13700
by the federal minister? The way things are now, the attorney
general of each province approves the courses. That is how
things currently work in Quebec, for example, and I suppose that
that is the way things must be working in other provinces. Since
latitude was given to one province, it must have also been given
to the others.
What I would like to point out to you is that, in Quebec, these
courses are very well structured. Of course, I am still talking
about restricted firearms safety courses. Our courses in this area
are extremely focused. Some are specifically for target shooters.
Others are specifically for security guards. The first course is
3.5 hours long; the second, 6 hours. They are really quite
specific and have been very successful, up to now.
Therefore, we wonder why the government would not accept
the amendment we proposed to have the attorney general of each
province continue to approve these courses on the handling of
restricted firearms.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the bill inside and
out. I did not have the privilege of discussing the issue for
several weeks in committee, as did the hon. member opposite.
(1205)
It is very important, in my opinion, that this act contain
provisions which apply uniformly across the country. For this
reason, I feel that it is acceptable and important for the federal
government to set the regulations, so that we know that they will
be the same everywhere in Canada.
I hope that another hon. member from our party will be able to
give a more detailed answer to the hon. member's question.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
many other members on that side of the House have stated a
number of times, the member stated she surely did not want to be
like the Americans south of the border.
Many of my relatives live in various parts of the United
States. Some live in areas where guns are completely prohibited
and some live in areas where the only gun law is simply that no
guns are allowed in school or in court. The variance in violence
does not seem to make much difference across the country where
these relatives of mine live. The violence is there regardless of
what the gun situation is.
I would like to know where you get the information that would
enable you to stand in this House and say-
The Speaker: Order. I would remind all hon. members to
please address the Chair rather than each other directly. Could
the hon. member rephrase his question.
Mr. Thompson: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker.
Where does the member receive her news about the violence
that occurs in the states? Where does she get her information
that things are so terrible throughout the U.S. when I know for a
fact that in many places they are not?
Mr. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly true that many
places in the United States are not the same. However, for
anyone who has spent any substantial amount of time in an
American city, I know people who have come from the United
States to live in Canada who are thrilled by the fact they can
walk around a city at night. It was something they had never
done before in their entire lifetime. Guns were an important part
of that. The fact is that the rate of deaths by guns in the United
States is 10 times what it is in Canada. In general, the right to
own guns is sacred in the United States and is reflected in the
laws.
There has also been substantial international research by the
International Association of Police Officers. It shows quite
clearly that the more stringent the gun control, the much lower
the death rate from homicide and the much lower the rate of
violent crime. I will be happy to provide the member with that
research.
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the
minister of Indian affairs is going to address the House next.
I wish to inform the House that the hon. parliamentary
secretary is going to address the House in his language. I was
apprised of this and there is no impediment to using a language
other than the two official languages in the House. The hon.
member has taken care in this sense and has provided the
interpreters with a complete translation of what he is going to be
saying to the House. The hon. member has informed me that he
will be strictly adhering to the text.
(1210)
Therefore, I see no impediment to this, providing that all the
steps have been taken so that all of us will know in either of the
two official languages what is being said to the House.
With that I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut, translated as
follows:]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on
third reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons.
The proposals contained in this bill have generated a lot of
discussion throughout the country. A lot of misinformation is
out there. I will use my time to dispel some of that misinforma-
13701
tion, particularly as it affects my constituency and the people I
represent. I will tell this House what I have been telling the Inuit
hunters in my constituency.
No hunter is going to kill one less caribou or one less seal on
account of this bill. I know that. The ability and right of the Inuit
to hunt will still be there under the provisions of this bill. It will
always be there.
No piece of legislation can take away the Inuit way of life.
This bill does not take away the Inuit way of life, nor can
anything else unless the Inuit themselves choose to let it go.
That way of life is protected in the Nunavut land claims
agreement and in the Constitution of Canada.
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land and
all the other laws of Canada have to be consistent with the
Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution states:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this act, ``aboriginal peoples of Canada'' includes the Indian, Inuit and
Metis peoples of Canada.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1), ``treaty rights'' includes rights
that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the aboriginal and treaty
rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female
persons.
Article 2 of the Nunavut land claims agreement is clear on the
constitutional status of the agreement. It states: ``The agreement
shall be a land claims agreement within the meaning of section
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982''.
Mr. Speaker, the most basic aboriginal and treaty rights are
the rights to hunt, trap and fish for sustenance. While there are
many disagreements between aboriginal peoples and
government on the exact scope and content of all aboriginal and
treaty rights, there is at least agreement on harvesting rights.
There is no question that aboriginal and treaty rights include
hunting, fishing and trapping rights. Even the courts have said
so.
Harvesting is central to the aboriginal way of life. It is at the
heart of our being, who we are, who we have been, and who we
want to be. We do not want to lose our connection with the land.
It has sustained us for thousands of years. It has kept us alive. It
sustains us still.
Most Inuit and most other aboriginal people who live in
remote communities still make a living from the land. It is a
proud thing and an honourable thing for us to go out on the land
and come home with food for our families and neighbours. That
is why there is such worry in aboriginal communities about this
bill. There is a deep fear that the bill is affecting our core
identity and will take away our ability to buy, possess and use
firearms. Some people have been exploiting that fear. I want to
address this issue now.
The government is well aware that aboriginal and treaty
hunting and trapping rights exist. Some very specific provisions
exist in these agreements concerning these rights.
(1215 )
For example, the Nunavut land claim agreement has a whole
chapter on wildlife. That chapter recognizes that Inuit are
traditional and current users of wildlife and that the legal rights
of Inuit to harvest wildlife flow from their traditional and
current use.
Under the Nunavut land claim agreement a wildlife
management system has been created that reflects the
traditional and current levels, patterns and character of Inuit
harvesting and avoids unnecessary interference in the exercise
of the rights, priorities and privileges to harvest. Subject to the
terms of the chapter, an Inuk with proper identification may
harvest up to his or her adjusted basic needs level without any
form of licence or permit and without imposition of any form of
tax or fee.
In addition, the agreement states that where there is any
inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial and
local government laws and the agreement, the agreement shall
prevail.
Those provisions in the Nunavut land claim agreement offer
protection. Other land claim agreements offer similar
protection.
It will be necessary for the government to work out with
aboriginal peoples an accommodation between existing
aboriginal and treaty harvesting rights and the provisions of Bill
C-68. There must be discussions, there must be consultations.
There must be a dialogue so the various provisions can be
reconciled and integrated. The government knows this and
intends to carry out these essential discussions.
For this reason, the government put section 110(t) into Bill
C-68. Section 110(t) says the governor in council, or cabinet,
can make regulations, and I quote:
Respecting the manner in which any provision of this Act or the regulations
applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and adapting any such
provision for the purposes of that application.
This section recognizes that the government and aboriginal
peoples have to work together to implement this bill in ways that
are respectful of and sensitive to aboriginal and treaty rights.
These discussions will occur. There will be opportunities for
aboriginal peoples to have a say in implementation.
By the way, aboriginal peoples should know that both the
Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois tried to remove this clause
from the bill during the committee hearings.
During the committee hearings on this bill, aboriginal
representatives asked for something more than section 110(t).
Some groups, like the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Grand
Council
13702
of the Crees of Quebec, specifically requested the inclusion of a
non-derogation clause.
I am very pleased to say that the minister and the government
responded positively to this request. The minister has brought in
an amendment to Bill C-68 that adds a non-derogation clause to
the bill. It reads like this:
For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or
derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
While the government's position is that the bill does not
abrogate aboriginal and treaty rights, this non-derogation
clause has been included in the bill to provide greater
reassurance. I pushed for this amendment and I thank the
Minister of Justice for responding.
The minister and the government have also made another very
important change to Bill C-68. It is a change that I also pushed
for and it affects the lending provisions of the bill.
When the bill was drafted initially, it stated that when
someone loaned a firearm to another person the registration
certificate for the firearm had to be loaned along with the
firearm. I expressed my concerns to the minister about this
provision. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who
appeared before the justice committee also raised the lending
provision as an issue. They talked about the impracticality of
lending a registration certificate along with a firearm when
someone is out on the land hunting for food.
Again, the minister and the government responded to the
concern. The amendment made to the bill by the minister
removes the requirement to transfer the registration certificate
along with the firearm when the firearm is being loaned to
someone who will be hunting for sustenance purposes.
This is a practical change. The government is acknowledging
a way of life in rural and remote communities. Lending firearms
is a common occurrence in the north, where I come from.
Lending your firearm in the north is as common as lending a
lawnmower to your neighbour or borrowing a cup of sugar from
your neighbour in the southern parts of Canada. In northern
communities, when your neighbour needs something you have
in order to put food on the table, you help out in whatever way
you can. Sometimes you lend your skidoo, sometimes gas, and
sometimes your gun.
The change the minister has made to the lending provisions of
the bill responds to the very real circumstances of all sustenance
hunters, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. It is a positive change
and I welcome it and I thank the minister for his consideration.
(1220 )
There are some other issues related to the bill that will need to
be addressed and worked out between the federal government,
the government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal
peoples.
The firearms safety training course has to recognize northern
circumstances. In the north it must reflect and be adapted to the
northern reality. Accommodation should be made for the
aboriginal languages. I encourage both the federal and
territorial governments to continue working on this matter.
The issue of traditional gun giving is also one I am sure will be
addressed in discussions between government and aboriginal
representatives.
I am confident these issues can be worked out satisfactorily.
Reasonable people working together in a spirit of good will can
sort these things out.
I support this bill. It is better now following the committee
hearings and report stage. Many changes have been made to the
bill to improve it.
I had some concerns, which the minister has gone a long way
to address. Protections for the Inuit way of life are contained in
the Nunavut land claims agreement and the Constitution of
Canada. The bill contains a clause that says the government will
discuss with Inuit how the bill is to be implemented in Inuit
communities. Our communities will be able to have their own
firearms officers. Sustenance hunting is recognized in the bill
and we are doubly protected now with the addition of the clause
that says that nothing in the bill can take away or limit
aboriginal and treaty hunting rights.
I have never had any problem with the principles of this bill. I
have no problem with gun registration. I am a hunter. I am an
aboriginal hunter. I am not afraid of registering my firearms. I
may experience some inconvenience with registration, but I
support the principles underlying it.
The overriding objective of gun registration is public safety. I
am prepared to do my part.
[English]
The Speaker: During the question and comment period I
would ask if the hon. member would consider that in whatever
official language the question is asked, he would consider
answering in one of the official languages.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for Nunatsiaq for his
comments.
I notice that he spent his time reassuring his constituents that
the bill would not be too harsh on them. I know that even the use
of his language was an effort to better communicate that to his
constituents.
13703
I also have made an effort to consult and to try to get the
feelings from my constituents as well. I had a town hall meeting
to discuss this bill in an open forum. I could not get a
representative from the justice department to present the
government side. No one would come. I could not get anyone
from the police chiefs to come to put their spin on it. I just could
not get them. I could not get a representative from Wendy Cukier
and her gun control group. They would not come. Frankly, I
could not get anyone to come to defend the bill in a public
forum.
A dentist got up at this public meeting and said that he wanted
to shoot recreationally. He said that he wanted to shoot a
handgun. He was pretty nervous. He said: ``This is my first ever
public presentation, but this is what I have to go through already.
I decide that I want to take the course and it takes me a year to
get a handgun. I have to get an FAC. I have to go through the
course. I have to spend money. I have to have a background
check. I have to allow them to question my neighbours. They do
a criminal check on me. When I finally get a firearm, I can only
transport it in the trunk of my car. Any other guns I might have
are locked up; they have a trigger lock and the ammunition is
separate.''
(1225)
This is already the case in Canada. In Canada we do not allow
sawed off shotguns; we do not allow automatic weapons; we do
not allow machine guns. This just is not allowed. People
watching should know these things are already not allowed. The
gun owners by and large say they are willing to go through the
hoops, that it is a pain and they question its effectiveness, but
they are willing to do it because they are law-abiding citizens.
But they also say that there comes a time when they do not know
what they are going to do any more: ``I can't do more than I'm
doing. I am not the problem''.
The constituents of the member for Nunatsiaq are not the
problem. The problem is the criminal element. This bill does
very little to clamp down on the criminal misuse of firearms.
This dentist who gave a speech and the other gun owners I have
talked to say that when we find a criminal misusing a firearm,
using it in the commission of a crime, we should throw them
away for the rest of their lives: ``I don't care, because they're not
part of us. They're not law-abiding citizens, so throw the book
at them''. The problem is this bill is primarily concerned with
the law-abiding citizens.
My question to the member is how will the universal
registration portion of this bill make my constituent, this
dentist, feel any safer? He has already jumped through a full
year's worth of regulations trying to be a totally law-abiding
citizen. Now he finds out that is not enough. He is exasperated,
and I share his exasperation.
Mr. Anawak:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the problem is? The problem
is we are too much of a me, me, me society, rather than we, we,
we. We should be looking after the interests of Canadian people
as a whole. Instead, what is happening with the gun control
lobby is ``You're going to take away my right to have a
firearm''. This is not a right; it is a privilege to have a firearm.
A little bit of inconvenience in registering a rifle should be no
big deal. I really do not have a problem with the registration.
By the way, I should also thank the House for its indulgence in
allowing me to speak Inuktitut earlier.
It is too much of a me, me, me society, rather than one that
considers what is good for the country. I would like the members
from Reform to support us on the issue of a non-derogation
clause. Yesterday they did not support us after the hon. member
for Crowfoot said: ``I find it unacceptable that the government
will make agreements with our aboriginal people and then
violate those agreements. This is unacceptable. What's the
purpose of the agreement and where is the honour in the
agreement if it's simply going to be violated? No wonder the
aboriginal people come forward. I admire your patience. I can't
get over your patience in the face of this kind of treatment''.
This was from the member for Crowfoot. Then last night he
voted against a non-derogation clause, which recognizes our
rights under section 35 of the Constitution.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone has an opinion on Bill C-68. From Lutselk'e in the
Northwest Territories to Blanc-Sablon, the bill has been
discussed in our homes, in our communities and especially in
this House. The debate continues down into the last stretch.
Yesterday again we talked about it for hours in this House.
(1230)
The main source of controversy in Bill C-68 is undoubtedly
the proposal for a national registration system.
This universal registration system will consist of a
computerized registry listing the names and addresses of
firearms owners and a description of the firearms in their
possession. The system will be operated by the RCMP.
Firearm owners have to apply for the new ownership licence
starting in January 1996 and will have until 2001 to register.
Firearms will have to be registered starting in January 1998, and
owners will have until 2003 to do so.
Reform Party members, the pro-gun lobby and several
Liberal colleagues of the Minister of Justice are pleased about
the fact that the minimum sentence for using a firearm in the
commission of an offence has been increased and that existing
owners of
13704
firearms have a grace period of nearly eight years to comply
with the national registration system proposed by the minister
in Bill C-68.
I am convinced that registration of firearms plus ownership
licences will have a positive impact on homicide and suicide
rates and on controlling the number of firearms in circulation.
We cannot ignore the statistics on deaths caused by the use of
firearms. Guns are used in more than one third of homicides in
Canada. In the past ten years, the majority of homicides were
committed using shotguns or hunting rifles.
In their presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs, the Conférence des régies régionales de la
santé et des services sociaux du Québec gave a telling summary
of the situation in Quebec, and I quote: ``In Quebec, firearms
claim at least one victim per day or 420 deaths annually, of
which 7 out of 10 are suicides. During the same twelve-month
period, 400 people in Quebec died of AIDS, 400 died due to
accidental falls, 900 in car accidents, 100 by drowning and 80 of
accidental poisoning. The number of deaths caused by firearms
is comparable to many other health problems that have raised
the concerns of the public, the media and government. The
annual economic cost of the wrongful use of firearms has been
estimated, in 1993 Canadian dollars, at $6.595 billion in Canada
and $1.659 billion in Quebec alone. The vast majority of deaths
caused by gunshots occur in the home, with legally acquired
rifles''.
These are the depressing facts, and we cannot ignore them.
Gun control is necessary in a society that wants to curb violence
and enhance public safety.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of gun control that does not
however, discriminate against those who use guns responsibly.
The Bloc Quebecois and 90 per cent of the people of Quebec
support firearms registration. That is the kind of society we
want.
The bill is well received by Quebecers who are looking for
ways to keep our society peaceful and secure and to combat
smuggling more effectively. Like women across the country,
women in Quebec support stricter gun controls. This is not
surprising since they also have the highest rate of deaths due to
gunshot wounds.
In all opinion polls, women and the more highly educated
were 88 per cent in favour of a registration system for all
firearms. On the other hand, men in general were only 78 per
cent in favour of gun registration.
I have upset some people by saying that gender had a lot to do
with this debate on the future of our society. The statistics show
I was right, for the following reasons: The first is obvious; the
statistics speak for themselves as regards women's support for
gun registration. The second is that men are generally the
aggressors, while women are more often than not at the other
end of the barrel.
(1235)
Even the Minister of Justice agreed with me, when he cited
disturbing statistics. On the average, a woman dies through the
discharge of a firearm every six days in Canada. Three times out
of four, the murdered wife was shot with a rifle or a shotgun.
Firearms control, whether we want to admit it or not, is a matter
of gender: that of the victims and that of the women who support
Bill C-68 by an overwhelming majority.
For reasons I set out earlier, I believe the establishment of a
national registration system is a positive step. I must repeat,
however, my considerable regret that the Minister of Justice
yielded to the gun lobby.
By spreading the registration of owners and their weapons
over eight years, the minister is making it clear that he does not
want the system implemented while he is around. He should
have shortened the registration period for firearms by two years.
The system would have been in place next year.
There is no justification, either logistic or political, for
firearms registration not to begin at the same time as licensing
for ownership. Registration could have begun on January 1 next
year and ended December 31, 2000.
We must remember that firearms are registered only once in
the owner's lifetime. The certificate need not be renewed. The
operation is a very simple one, requiring little of owners.
Lives could be saved if all firearms were registered quickly.
What are we waiting for? I have chosen to live in a responsible
society, and I hope my colleagues will make the same choice.
Allow my to express my delight at the end of fruitless debates
and of the ineptitudes of the Reform Party. Bill C-68 will soon
become a law that all Quebecers and Canadians will have to
observe.
The Minister of Justice received a passing grade, barely, in
this examination. His marketing operation proved a complete
failure.
I have been interested in the matter of firearms since 1989 and
I have never looked back. From the first, I fought for tightened
gun control. As early as 1989, I asked that firearms sold in
Canada be equipped with a safety locking device. I participated
in the debate on Bill C-17 until it was passed in 1991.
Thank God, Reform members did not take part, and the
pro-gun lobby had to find other allies in this House.
I am happy that the firearms bill will be adopted today.
Although flawed, it represents a kind of social reform toward the
safe and peaceful society I want.
13705
Whatever Reform members may say, legislation on gun
registration is not limited to New Zealand and Australia. If the
Reform Party likes to use these examples, it is because the
experience was a difficult one for these two countries. New
Zealand had an obsolete, manual system that had been
introduced after the first world war.
Like Canada, Australia is a federal state, but gun regulations
come under the jurisdiction of the states and territories. It seems
difficult to standardize a national registration system, when it
comes under the jurisdiction of states with different sets of laws.
In any event, for the information of my Reform colleagues, I
would like to talk briefly about other countries in the world that
have introduced gun control measures. I welcome the idea that
we will soon be part of this responsible community.
(1240)
In China, a non-professional hunter can obtain a licence
allowing him to own a weapon, but he cannot own more than
two.
In the Czech Republic, an applicant must specify the reasons
why he wants a licence and attach recommendation letters as
well as a medical certificate vouching for his physical and
mental health. The licence is valid for a three month period only.
After obtaining his licence, the potential gun buyer must receive
authorization from the district police. He must then, in the
following days, take the gun he bought to the district police for
registration.
In France, the registration data includes the buyer's name,
place of residence and birthplace. Firearms must be registered
with the gendarmerie. In France also, certain individuals are not
allowed to purchase firearms, for instance those convicted of a
crime or sentenced to prison for more than three months; those
who are mentally disabled; those on probation; and finally,
violent alcoholics.
In Germany, manufacturers and gunsmiths are required by
law to apply various procedures, such as record keeping,
labelling and notifying. These procedures are designed to help
the authorities keep accurate records on firearms and
ammunition belonging to private or business interests.
In Great Britain, anyone who has a firearm, whether they own
it or not, must register it and get a licence.
In Greece, to be eligible to hold a licence, applicants must be
21 years of age and substantiate their need to have a firearm for
personal safety, guarding a public building or target shooting.
Firearms registration is mandatory and the licence to possess
firearms must be renewed every three months.
These are a few countries around the world where firearms
control was a societal choice. India, Israel, Sweden, South
Africa, Poland, the Netherlands, Mexico, Malaysia, Japan and
others also have similar legislation.
As you can see, contrary to what the third party would have us
believe, responsible governments are not only found in Western
Canada.
In addition, Bill C-68 as amended by the Standing Committee
on Justice recognizes, in clause 7, long gun safety courses
approved by the provinces. In Quebec, safety courses were
approved by the Minister of Public Security in 1969 and have
been offered ever since.
Quebecers who have undergone training in firearms handling
in recent years should not have to take the course again to
comply with the new legislation. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois
supports clause 7, as poorly worded as it is, since people who
have already taken the safety course will not be compelled to
take it again.
In closing, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on
Justice and the 70 organizations and individuals who have
travelled to Ottawa to express their views on Bill C-68 at the
committee hearings.
Let us bear in mind that every major social project has raised
controversy. Bill C-68 is one of those. Our efforts will not have
been in vain.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions and make
a couple of comments on the member's statement.
I am not sure what suppositions she starts from but I would
like to comment on two or three. She mentioned that if we
register weapons we must register guns because often rifles are
used in suicides, murders, domestic disputes or whatever. I do
not see how registering them makes any difference. If a person is
crazy and is going to shoot somebody, does it matter if it is a
registered weapon or an unregistered weapon hanging on the
wall? I do not see how it really makes any difference. If someone
is crazy enough to shoot somebody, he or she will do it anyway.
(1245)
I want to show it is not the registry that controls crime but
other factors that can help to control crime. For example,
Florida relaxed its gun laws in 1987. The murder rate has fallen
13706
20 per cent and is now lower than the American national
average.
Great Britain introduced tougher, more restrictive laws in
1988 which lowered the number of guns by 22 per cent and its
violent crime rate has doubled.
The hon. member mentioned, for example, Israel,
Switzerland and Sweden, that have firearm registration. I am not
that familiar with them except to say that in Israel every
able-bodied male of military age has an assault rifle in his
house, not just a shotgun. He has a weapon with which to go to
war.
For my relatives in Sweden every single man must go through
military training and keeps the gat right in the House.
Registering them is not a factor. It is other things and what we do
to prosecute and persecute those who are involved in the
criminal use of firearms.
Concerning the suicide argument, in Japan for example
virtually no guns are allowed. They are banned in Japan. The
suicide rate is much higher than Canada's. Just banning guns
will not necessarily do away with suicides or domestic violence.
It is a horrible thing but men, not that we take any comfort in
it, are assaulted at probably 10 times the rate of women by other
men. Men glory in shooting other men too. Some people are
crazy and we cannot legislate against that. Registering weapons
will not do away with those people. We need an absolute
clampdown on the criminal misuse of firearms.
I had a case in my riding. A guy sneaked across the American
border in Columbia valley. He had with him a totally
unregistered firearm, a .357 magnum, shoved in his jacket. He
was stopped by a police officer. He knocked the police officer
down. He stuck the muzzle of the gun in the female officer's
mouth and said: ``I'm going to kill you''. He had plastic bullets
which are only used for destroying people.
Thankfully someone intervened and was able to talk him out
of this incident, although he threatened to kill two people. He
had two firearms because he stole the police officer's firearm as
well. He stole the police vehicle, took it up into the mountains
nearby and torched, to the tune of about $40,000.
He had committed illegal entry. He had an unregistered illegal
firearm. He had assaulted a police officer. He had threatened to
murder two people. He had some drugs on him. On and on it
went. Finally they tracked the guy down and caught him. What
did he get? They dropped the firearms offences and for all of the
incidents he got 15 months in jail.
That guy should have been thrown in jail for 25 years. That is
how we should handle misuse of firearms. That guy will be on
the streets by June, I suppose with a totally unregistered illegal
firearm waiting to threaten to kill the next person.
My question for the member is this. Is it not true that what we
need in Canada is not more control of law-abiding citizens but
stricter control and stricter sentences against those who misuse
firearms?
(1250)
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an answer to
the member who asked why firearms should be registered, since
it will not serve any purpose, etc. We heard his speech. I want to
tell him that the purpose of registration is, first and foremost, to
make people realize that a firearm is something designed to kill.
It is not a toy.
Some may claim that westerners are born with a gun in each
hand, the fact remains that these guns were made to kill. This is
the message being sent to the public right now. People must be
aware that a firearm is dangerous. Once they realize that, they
will give more thought to registering their guns, since the
registration process requires that some steps be taken, through
the mail or otherwise. People will ask themselves: Should I keep
that firearm in the house? Is it necessary? Do I really need it, or
am I just keeping it in some corner without taking real care of it,
without being concerned about it and about the fact that anybody
could use it to commit an offence?
So, people will ask themselves if they need a firearm. I
personally have firearms in my house. I am a hunter, but I have
not gone hunting since 1992. As you know, the hunting season is
in the fall. In 1992, we had the referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord. In 1993, the federal election took place. In 1994, a
provincial election was held in Quebec. And in 1995, we will
have a referendum in our province. I had to give up hunting over
the past few years, and I now wonder if I should keep my guns.
I discussed the issue with my spouse and he agreed that,
indeed, if we do not go hunting any more, then we should
consider getting rid of these guns. I should add that, this year,
my name was randomly selected to go goose hunting in
Cap-Tourmente. This is an exceptional opportunity but, of
course, I will not be able to make it because something more
important will take place in Quebec, that is the referendum, and
I will have to be there of course.
So, we have to consider whether we want to keep our firearms
at home, since we no longer use them. Do we really want to keep
hunting? Can we still go hunting? Do we still have time for that
activity? The fact that we need a license to own a gun, and that
we have to register guns, makes us think about the whole issue
and, as far I am concerned, promoting this kind of awareness is
the purpose of that legislation. The other goal is of course to
make our society safer, but the primary purpose is to make
people aware of the fact that a gun is something that kills.
13707
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, although there is so much to add to what has been
said already, I will keep my remarks very specific and short.
The hon. member talks about awareness. I would like to bring
to the attention of the House some other information and ask for
her support at the same time.
The hon. member was here earlier in the day when the member
for Ottawa West commented that later today she was going to
drive to the airport to pick up her daughter and grandson and
return to the House to vote.
If we can believe the statistics that have been collected, if the
hon. member for Ottawa West or any other member were to drive
to the airport in Saskatchewan, the chances of being injured or
killed on the way to or from the airport or on the way to or from
any community in the province would be much higher than
being injured or killed by a firearm.
According to statistics collected regarding the Trans-Canada
and Yellowhead highway in Saskatchewan, let me briefly put
three statistics on record. The number of accidents, injuries and
fatalities over five years in the province of Saskatchewan,
average per year accidents are 1,026 injured; 389 fatalities; 24
on the highway.
Firearm statistics: the five-year average in the province of
Saskatchewan gives number of accidents with firearms, 18;
number of injuries, 16; number killed, 2.6.
(1255 )
The third statistic, five-year average, the total number of
homicides in the province of Saskatchewan are 28.2. The
five-year average, number of homicides involving guns, 5.4.
The average number of people killed on the highways in
Saskatchewan average 24 a year. The average number of people
killed in gun related homicides, 5 per year.
This year the federal government has withdrawn all support
for the national highways program. There is no commitment of
federal funds to support the upgrading of highways in the
province of Saskatchewan yet it is imposing increase costs on
the people of Saskatchewan for safety reasons, to register
firearms.
I wonder if the representative of Canada's official opposition
can tell us in the interests of safety whether she is as committed
to national highways funding as she is committed to the national
gun registry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The member
wonders what difference there is between a car and a firearm. It
is very simple: A car is used for transportation purposes, while a
firearm is used to kill.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share
my time with another government member.
Bill C-68, as drafted, has certainly raised a great deal of
interest throughout Canada, particularly in the western
provinces. One thing we can say is that this bill does in fact have
the approval and support of a large number of Canadians.
First of all, let us be clear that almost 80 per cent of Canadians
are in favour of this bill, including 90 per cent of Quebecers, and
I have also learned that 68 per cent to close to 80 per cent of
Albertans back the government's gun control bill.
Throughout this debate, we have listened to the opposition
describe for us their vision of Canadian society. It is not a vision
I share, particularly the vision of the members of the third party,
who accuse us of daring to compare Canada and the United
States. They would have us believe that the Canadian
government wants to limit the rights of its citizens. Their
allegation that the Canadian government, and especially the
justice department, is violating the most fundamental rights of
Canadians, is simply not true.
I would also like to tell you that I come from a small
community where rifles and hunting are part of everyday life.
My grandfather was and my own father to this day is an avid
hunter. With him, I explored the forests of this country,
especially those in the Gaspé area. My father also taught me how
to handle a firearm and I can only say I am most grateful. He did,
however, instill in me a certain respect for firearms and the
danger they can represent for society and for the individual.
[English]
It is important to make the statement that never did the
government ever intend to withdraw the right to hunt. That is a
fundamental right we all share. However, it is the view of the
government to make sure that people understand that owning a
gun is a privilege. It is an item, a tool which we use that requires
a lot of respect, requires some amount of control.
I will not on any further about my personal experiences. A
number of people testified in committee over the course of the
past few months and without any doubt there is a definite need
for gun control.
(1300 )
There are all kinds of reasons; social reasons such as health
and safety which require some kind of control in order to
maintain the Canada we know, the kind of society that
regrettably some of us might take for granted.
13708
We were also told through allegations made by the opposition
that the registration of guns would cost approximately $300
million. That is absolutely false. We have to make it very clear
to all Canadians that the registration of guns will basically cost
$10 up to a maximum of 10 firearms.
We are not confiscating weapons. We are asking Canadians to
register their guns. We register dogs and automobiles and all
kinds of things. It is very important to underline the cost and not
to pursue the exaggerations put forward by the third party.
The Minister of Justice said the cost of this program will be
approximately an $85 million disbursement over the next five
years. However, having listened to the testimonials from various
health groups we were also told we would probably save $100
million a year in various incarceration costs because there
would be fewer Canadians either murdered or facing justice,
fewer Canadians in the courts. The cost savings are quite
incredible.
Health officials from Quebec and other provinces estimated
that in terms of lost productivity, economics, trauma care, the
general cost to society once one has been either a victim of crime
or a family member of a victim, close to $6 billion a year is lost
in total Canadian productivity. Six billion dollars is an
incredible amount of money. These stats which were brought to
our attention we must use in order to demonstrate to the
opposition and to the Canadian population that in the end with
the registration of guns we are actually saving Canadians money
and we are also obviously saving lives.
Other aspects of the bill I find most interesting. Violence
seems to be more and more of a preoccupation of the general
public, and with reason especially in terms of guns. It was well
explained to us by the opposition this morning, by the hon.
member from Saint Hubert, but I think it is worth repeating. A
statistic provided to us by a number of our witnesses states one
stands twice the chance of being injured or killed by a firearm in
rural Canada compared with any other urban area. One stands
twice the chance because of the prevalence, the existence of
firearms in these communities.
We are also told according to the New England Journal of
Medicine that with the presence of a gun in a home there is five
times the chance of someone committing suicide. With the
presence of a gun in a home there is three times the chance of a
homicide.
We also know guns are often the weapon of choice in domestic
violence. Let us discuss domestic violence. I think it is a
preoccupation shared by all parliamentarians regardless of their
political stripe. We are told 87 per cent of victims of violence
know their aggressors. We also learned 84 per cent of victims
are women. Sixty-one per cent of the weapons used were long
guns legally acquired. There is obviously a certain correlation
with a weapon in a home and violence in the family. We must
address that.
(1305)
I could go on and speak more about the police who would like
to know when they go to a home following a call on conjugal
violence what they will face. Does a police officer not have the
right to know what is in the home, 12 gauge, a .22, whether there
is a history of conjugal violence? Is the person in possession of a
gun at a certain address posing a problem to his family and does
he have a history of causing problems to society? Those are
legitimate questions which police officers must ask every day.
We are not only doing it for them, we are doing it for the
families. We are doing it for the victims, for society as a whole.
These are the questions we must ask.
I would like to conclude on a positive note but regrettably I
cannot. I am thinking of my brother who was at l'École
polytechnique in December of 1989 and tells me the story of a
young women he knew very well. She was in her late twenties.
She had the courage to return to school and was on her way to
write her final examination. My brother had bade her farewell,
wishing her the best of luck in her work, in her new career. On
that dreadful day in December of 1989 he was to learn a few
hours later that she was the victim of one of the most cruel
crimes ever committed in Canada.
The passage of this bill will keep in mind the victims and will
keep in mind those who regrettably could have been protected
had such a law existed. I am hoping to pass this law for the
victims of l'École polytechnique and above all to make sure
fewer crimes and fewer deaths will result in the years to come.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, all of Canada heard it from this hon. member and
the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who preceded him. Let it be
known the Liberal government has made a statement today on
two occasions that it is not a right to own a firearm but rather a
privilege. Liberal members have made the judgment that a
citizen is privileged to own property. Will they extend that
philosophy to the right or privilege of Canadians to own cars,
houses, boats, to go on a vacation, to vote freely? Is it a right or a
privilege?
I would like the hon. member to stand in the House, look right
into the television camera and tell every aboriginal person it is
not a right for them to own a gun but a privilege.
The member said that in rural Canada a person has twice the
chance of being injured by a firearm, that where firearms are
present there is five times the chance of suicide and that where
firearms are present there is three times the chance of homicide.
We have asked the government time and time again during this
debate and I ask this member now to give us one substantive,
specific piece of evidence that if a firearm were registered these
statistics would be different.
13709
(1310 )
We have asked the government on many occasions and it has
not supplied to the House one substantive piece of evidence to
support its claim that registration of firearms will cut down on
accidents, crime or suicides. Registration will not affect this.
I have talked to many law enforcement officers across the
country specifically about officers attending the scene of a
domestic disturbance. They have told me to the number that any
police officer who attempts to enter a residence where there is a
reported domestic disturbance and who does not first and
foremost assume automatically there could be a firearm in there
will not be on that beat tomorrow.
The member told about this grand plan that the police officers
would know in advance whether there is a firearm there. Now
they automatically assume there is a firearm and have been
doing that for many years. Many of police officers have told me
the reason they are staying alive today is they assume and take
precautions which is part of their training.
I ask the member to stand up, face the cameras and tell all of
Canada including aboriginal peoples that owning a firearm is a
privilege extended to them by the Liberal Government of
Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I caution the hon.
parliamentary secretary that he has only one minute remaining
to respond. I ask members to be aware that when members are
speaking for only 10 minutes there are only five minutes of
questions and comments. Accordingly, if a member uses the
entire five minutes there will be virtually no time to respond.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, in the United States one has the
right to bear arms. In Canada it is peace, order and good
government. This is what we are attempting to do.
We will defend the right to hunt but like anything else
sometimes there are privileges and owning a gun is one of them.
This is not the United States. This is Canada. We are Canadians.
We have lived and abided by this philosophy. One thing the bill
will certainly prove is that the rule of law will prevail.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not a right to own a firearm in the United States
either. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the second
amendment to the U.S. constitution giving the right to bear arms
applies to state militias in their wish to defend against an
arbitrary national government. That was the point of view of the
amendment, not to give individuals the right to bear arms. This
is a misunderstanding many Americans and certainly a great
many Canadians have. However, the subject is not the United
States.
Bill C-68 is at third reading now. We wanted to create a bill
which will be fairer to lawful gun owners and which will offer
additional protection to Canadian citizens and reduce crime.
Members opposite ask how we will reduce crime and how
many lives will we save. I have to agree there is no common
denominator that is going to give us that figure. Certainly with
the information available from witnesses who appeared before
the committee we have every reason to believe a good many
lives will be saved.
(1315)
I want to talk about what we are going to require from a
firearms owner who has 10 or fewer long guns. We are going to
ask that person to register his or her firearms. The registration
will take place between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2003.
The cost for registering the firearms will probably be nothing to
begin with or for the most part will be $10. One will also be able
to register 10 firearms for the amount of $10. Toward the end of
the five year period that figure may go from $10 to as high as $18
for the registration of 10 firearms.
For someone who has 10 long guns there will not be an
inspection of that person's home. If there are 10 or fewer
firearms there is no inspection whatsoever for safe storage. If in
any case an inspector requires verification of a serial number or
other information, that verification would take place outside the
home or perhaps the owner could be requested to bring his or her
firearm to the inspector's office.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Or they might
come to the home.
Mr. MacLellan: They do not go inside the home. If it is more
beneficial for the individual to have the inspector come to the
home, the inspector could wait outside the door while the
individual brings the firearm for verification. There is no right
of that inspector to go into the home.
We are saying it will cost a maximum of $18 but more likely
$10 for the registration of 10 firearms for life. Those firearms do
not need to be registered again unless they are sold to someone
else. That is the situation.
If an individual wants to gain a possession licence then that
registration will take place beginning January 1, 1996 and will
continue for five years until December 31, 2001. The cost of the
possession licence will not be anything to begin with. There will
be a fee after the system has been in operation for a while during
the five year period. For those who want to renew their firearms
acquisition certificate and gain a possession licence toward the
end of the five year period, it could be as much as $60. That
would give the person a possession licence for five years.
There is going to be a training course for those who want to
purchase a new firearm. This requirement is in place at the
present time. However, if someone wants a possession licence,
13710
already has firearms and has no intention of buying new
firearms, then the training course will not be required.
There is nothing here that is going to dreadfully harm the
lawful gun owner. Sure there is going to be an inconvenience and
there are going to be other things in the regulations which may
be an inconvenience.
The member for Saint-Hubert talked about trigger locks. The
regulations are going to require that new firearms purchased at
retail dealers have a trigger lock on purchase.
(1320 )
That is not going to be a major inconvenience. It is going to be
a safety factor. What we want to do is to create safety in the
homes, to ask for and require safe storage, not to unduly
interfere with the rights of the individual. By registration and
requiring safe storage, we hope people will realize what a
firearm can mean in the hands of someone who would use it
improperly, whether that is someone who steals the firearm from
the home or someone who is intending to commit suicide.
We have heard time and again in this House and in committee
that in Canada on average there are 1,400 people killed by
firearms every year. Approximately 1,100 of those are suicides.
If the gun is not readily available, the chance of that suicide
taking place has diminished. If there is a locked door, even if it is
a glass door, and the key is somewhere else, it is going to be
somewhat of an effort to find that key. If the ammunition is
somewhere else, it is going to be a deterrent.
Many people have told us that some people fail to plan a
suicide well in advance. Sometimes it is an instant decision.
Some people decide they want to use firearms. If they do not use
a firearm, they will not use anything else. Psychiatrists have told
us that in committee.
We made very important amendments to this bill in
committee. I think personally it is a much better bill now than it
was before it went to committee.
We have taken the first offence for the non-registration of
long guns out of the Criminal Code and put it in the firearms act.
We have changed the inspection provisions, an example of
which I gave earlier.
For those who are veterans, those who have heirlooms and
relics, handguns which would otherwise be prohibited and only
sold to those who have similar firearms, they can pass them
along to members of their family. These handguns are
mementoes of a very important time in some people's lives,
perhaps when they served overseas. This is extremely important
and is the sort of thing we want to do. We did it because we heard
witnesses and because the members of the committee worked
together.
This bill is going to be a good act. It is not going to be a perfect
one but it is going to be a good one. Along with the other things
this government hopes to do, it will reduce crime in Canada.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to
hear the hon. parliamentary secretary is already changing the
bill. It has not even been passed yet. I wonder if this comes under
section 110.
Bring the guns to the door indeed. We know better than that. It
is not in the bill and the hon. member should not say things like
that.
He talks about the right and privilege question again. I
wonder, when did the common law die in North America if what
the hon. member says is true. I believe the hon. member is a
lawyer. I hope he has read his Blackstone. If he has not, I might
refresh his memory.
Blackstone's chronicles state that any Englishman has the
right to possess personal weapons. Without those personal
weapons, no other rights of Englishmen are effective. They are
void. That is very clearly spelled out. It is a long and ancient
tradition in the English speaking world.
Now that it has been declared by the Liberal government that
firearms, a piece of property, are something we are privileged to
own, what other types of property does this government intend
to declare a privilege, seditious literature perhaps? Where do we
go from here?
The hon. member mentioned the question of veterans and
their heirlooms. I do not know how many letters I and other
members have received that begin with words: ``I carried a gun
for my country for three years and now my country does not trust
me with a gun. What is happening to my country?'' I would like
to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments on that.
That is a very common observation I have run into. In fact the
most vociferous opponents to this legislation or gun control
legislation in general actually are the veterans.
(1325)
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the last point
first with respect to the veterans who have a lot of firearms. In
Atlantic Canada a great many of the veterans have Enfields.
That is a long gun which is neither prohibited nor restricted now,
nor will it be after this bill is passed. It will not be restricted in
any way. It will have to be registered but it can be utilized as it
was before. It can be passed on by the owner to anyone he or she
wishes. Other than registration there is no further change in the
ownership for that individual. The firearm will have to be
licensed.
Mr. Morrison: That is the point.
Mr. Gouk: What about the 600,000 you are taking away?
13711
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Clearly this is a
serious matter the House is deliberating. All interventions must
be made through the Chair. We are certainly feeding on each
other's time. With the little time left for the hon. parliamentary
secretary I would ask him to be succinct.
Mr. MacLellan: The only difference will be that there will be
registration, the possession licence for the owner and a
registration certificate for the firearm. Nothing else will change.
With respect to the owner of the firearm coming to the door to
show and give pertinent information to an inspector, that is
exactly what can happen with an agreement between the two
parties. That is not a difficult situation.
With respect to the right to bear firearms, the hon. member is
talking about the bill of rights in the U.K. which was passed in
the 17th century and gave the right to bear arms. He will also
note there has been very meaningful gun control in the United
Kingdom. If it applied to the right of every individual to have
any kind of firearm he or she wanted, then certainly that gun
control would not have taken place.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the rest of the Reform
speakers will be dividing their time.
[Translation]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my arguments
regarding Bill C-68. I would like to begin by reading excerpts
from a letter which was read in the House in 1976 during the
debate on Bill C-83.
I quote: ``The proposal to give bureaucrats the authority to
determine who may or may not possess a firearm is an alarming
example of the philosophy that ``all that is not compulsory must
be prohibited''. If this measure is to become law, it is not
difficult to predict that within a few years firearms in Canada
will be restricted to a privileged few and that these arms will all
be registered with their serial number. Subsequently it would be
easy for a megalomaniac government to seize all rifles under the
pretence of emergency measures and therefore secure the
submissiveness of the people. If you think that the present
government's policy is indeed very moderate and my fears
exaggerated and unjustified, or even paranoiac, let me remind
you that fascism is like cancer: if they are not restrained from
the very beginning, they can completely destroy our system.
``There is no proof that firearm control can effectively reduce
the rate of crime except in a totalitarian state. Of course, with a
total lack of freedom and with the support of relentless police
forces there is not much violent crime''.
(1330)
``But having lived and worked in some of those peaceful
paradises I do not hesitate to take the moderate risks and
responsibilities involved in living in a free society even if it is
armed.''
``If my government is not afraid of me, in return I will have no
reason to fear that same government. If this moderately
repressive measure becomes law, I will start to become
alarmed''.
I wrote this letter and Réal Caouette, the hon. member for
Abitibi, read it. Things have not changed: the Liberals are still
proposing repressive laws and I am still defending the rights of
individual citizens.
I am, I always have been and I always will be opposed to the
registration of firearms used for hunting, searches without
warrants, the confiscation of private property without
compensation and a minister being invested with the power to
issue regulations without the approval of Parliament. A reform
government would put an end to all of this; we promise.
Currently, Quebecers in rural areas and in the north-farmers,
lumberjacks, trappers, etc.-are not being represented by their
MPs.
Liberal, Conservative and Bloc members all refused to
support the hundreds of thousands of members of a seven-group
coalition from Quebec who are opposed to Bill C-68.
Ultimately, the Reform Party decided to represent their interests
in Parliament.
[English]
Réal Caouette knew that I was not one of his supporters, but
he presented my letter here for the same reason that we
Reformers are representing the people of rural Quebec. He was a
genuine populist and he despised the unnecessary heavy hand of
government.
We here are all aware of the threats to civil liberty in clauses
99 to 112 of Bill C-68, even with the feeble conciliatory
amendments made in committee. These clauses have been
discussed in detail, both in the House and at scores of
information meetings and mass rallies throughout the country.
And they were at least partly reflected in the recent landslide
won by Ontario politicians who came out and strongly opposed
Bill C-68.
Instead of further addressing those clauses, I would like to
draw the attention of the House to some little-known historical
information. I have been studying the weapons laws of pre-war
Germany, and they are very closely parallel to existing and
proposed laws in Canada. I will read a couple of examples.
``Firearms acquisition permits must only be issued to persons of
undoubted reliability, and only upon proof of need''. Here is
another: ``Firearms can only be professionally sold or otherwise
transferred domestically if they bear the manufacturer's or
13712
dealer's company name or registered trademark and a
consecutive manufacturer's serial number''.
The legislation also provided for confiscations without legal
action and without compensation, for the prohibition of certain
types of weapons, and for arbitrary changes in regulations and
fees.
In fact, the justice minister could have saved a lot of money by
dismissing his high-priced legal help, getting a copy of the
Reichtag legislation and running it through a photocopier,
except that this document contains no search and seizure
provision. Of course, outside of the English-speaking world
search warrants are of as little consequence as they are to our
Minister of Justice. And the penalties for non-compliance were
much lighter than those proposed in Bill C-68. O Canada.
(1335)
Some friends have suggested to me that I should not talk about
these matters because by drawing attention to the recent past I
am going to somehow destroy my credibility as an opponent of
gun control by being too strident, too extreme. I disagree. After
all, I am only the messenger drawing attention to irrefutable
historical fact. Anti-gun people, above all others, should not
shoot the messenger.
The laws are essentially the same. What I want people here to
understand is that governments often chip away at civil liberty
little by little by little. A common destination can be reached by
many different roads. I am certainly not suggesting that the
self-righteous authoritarianism of this government places it on
the same level as the Third Reich. In fact I am satisfied that
everything the Liberals and Conservatives have done and
propose to do regarding guns reflects a sincere belief that gun
control will somehow reduce violent crime.
The fact that this is not logical and has not worked anywhere
else where it has been tried does not deter them, because they are
driven not by logic but by their elitist prejudices. And prejudice
is a very weak foundation on which to build the laws of a nation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate now for the last
couple of hours and I find it very, very interesting to listen to the
doublespeak and the doubletalk and all the rhetoric that has been
going on.
I listened to the first speech given by the justice minister, and
he made a statement that I think all of Canada ought to know. It
is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. He
said that criminals will identify themselves because they will
not register their guns. Criminals will identify themselves. I am
not taking that statement out of context. If that is not
doublespeak, if that is not one of the most ridiculous things I
have ever heard! By targeting law-abiding citizens, he said we
will somehow flush out the criminal element.
The people of Canada ought to know what debate is taking
place here today. He says the cost will be minimal. He says that
we have too many guns in society and this will simply be a minor
inconvenience. The contradictions are there. We have too many
guns in society. We have to get rid of them, but this will only be a
minor inconvenience. It will not really restrict law-abiding gun
owners. Right there are the contradictions. They are talking out
of both sides of their mouths. I have a difficult time sitting here
calmly listening to this debate.
One of the things they say is that it will make society safer,
and then they go on to explain how they are going to tie up the
police and all of our resources. How does that make society safer
when you are dealing with 99.99 per cent of the people who are
not a problem and you are going to tie up your police behind
their desks dealing with these law-abiding citizens rather than
being out on the street dealing with the criminal element? That
defies logic. That is speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
That will never work.
They are going to increase our taxes. They are saying it will
not cost very much, $10 for 10 guns, et cetera. Who is going to
pay for it? The finance minister has admitted that the increase in
taxes is destroying jobs. If they destroy jobs in this country, the
first people who are going to suffer are the young men of this
country. Do not tell me that is not a risk or will not increase
crime in this country. They cannot have it both ways. They are
actually doing the opposite of what they are leading us to believe
in their speeches. This is really a problem.
(1340)
We have repeatedly stated that the registration system will
provide information to the wrong people. It will fall into the
wrong hands. A senior RCMP officer admitted that. He said
there is no way we can prevent criminals from obtaining the
information. We have a problem.
They talk about Great Britain and how much safer it is there.
In Great Britain 59 per cent of the attempted burglaries are
committed while someone is at home and the lights are on. In the
U.S.A., less than 9 per cent of burglaries are committed when
people are at home and the lights are on. Why? Because a
criminal will not put himself at risk. I do not have time to go
through the whole argument, but research shows that victims of
attempted robbery and assault are less likely to be injured if they
can defend themselves.
There are so many statements that contradict themselves. For
example, the government proposes to ban .25 and .32 calibre
handguns and handguns with barrel lengths of less than 4.14
inches, implying that will make society safer. What does that
do? Does that restrict the criminal element? No. They will
simply go to the guns that are larger and more effective.
Mr. Stinson: More killing power.
13713
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Yes, they will have
more killing power, as my colleague has suggested.
This is convoluted logic. He says that over 500,000 handguns
are dangerous and they need to be banned, but they are not
dangerous if they leave them in the hands of their owners right
now. There is a contradiction in what they are doing.
I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on some of
the doublespeak, some of the contradictory statements we have
been hearing today that somehow this will improve public
safety. I rather doubt it will.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not doubt that the
hon. colleague would like to respond, but the member has used
up the entire five minutes for questions or comments.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is the alleged purpose of Bill C-68? To listen to
the Liberals, Bill C-68 is somehow magically supposed to keep
our homes and streets safer. However, simply put, Bill C-68 will
not prevent the criminal misuse of firearms.
There are two principal parts to the bill to which many people
object. The first is the registration of rifles and shotguns.
Criminals will not register their guns. Even the Liberals admit
that. Therefore, the legislation will do nothing to prevent
premeditated crime. Criminals do not rob banks with hunting
rifles. If shotguns are used they invariably use a barrel that has
been sawed off, which makes it illegal and not registrable.
Consequently, Bill C-68 will not effect any positive change.
The second part involves the banning of hundreds of
thousands of currently legal sports firearms. I speak of .25
calibre, .32 calibre, and handguns with barrel lengths of 105
millimetres or less. According to the minister, the reason for the
ban is the fact that these firearms are inaccurate and ineffective
and therefore there is no justification for owning them. What is
really inaccurate and ineffective is the minister's research that
came up with this whole rationale.
The .32 calibre is the World Cup and Olympic calibre. Canada
has won many cups and medals with this so-called inaccurate
and ineffective firearm. Linda Thom, who used a firearm
proposed to be banned under Bill C-68 to win a gold medal for
Canada in an Olympic competition, said that she represents the
minister and stated that the firearm she used was so inaccurate
and ineffective that her winning that medal for Canada must
have been a fluke.
Many people who have never used a gun assume that
recreational shooting involves only buying a gun and a box of
ammunition, going to the range, pointing at the target and
pulling the trigger. If that were true it certainly would suggest
that there is little sport involved in the activity. The truth is that
real recreational and competitive shooting involves much more.
The firearm itself requires much consideration and work, both in
the selection and refinement of its use. Purchasers must
consider barrel length, sighting radius, the type of sight, type of
action, type and fit of grips, trigger pull, as well as many other
considerations. Many of these items require changes and
modifications to suit the type of shooting gun as well as the style
and ability of the individual.
(1345 )
Ammunition is rarely bought at the store but instead is custom
loaded by the individual. Custom loaded ammunition is much
more accurate than store bought. The actual loading is a
specialized activity in itself. Each firearm shoots differently and
the development of the best ammunition is an activity that
requires time and dedication to the sport.
When one gets down to shooting, it involves much more than
pointing at the target and pulling the trigger. Each club
competition is rigidly controlled for both safety and enjoyment.
The objectives of each shoot are designed to be both challenging
and enjoyable. Participants compete against both their own
abilities and those of other competitors.
Shooting involves the development of a series of skills, a
great deal of practice and friendly competition, just like any
other sport. Stereotyping of the sport of competitive shooters is
not justifiable. Enthusiasts range from labourers to office
workers, mechanics to doctors, men and women.
The minister claims, in rather vague terms, that registering
rifles and shotguns will prevent crime and thus save lives. A
total of 1,354 people died from firearm related incidents in
1992. This includes suicide, homicide, accidental death and
legal intervention. The minister has not given any figures on his
projections of lives to be saved as a result of the legislation or
even demonstrated that any lives will in fact be saved. At the
same time, he implies this is the principal reason for his action.
Many of the current supporters of the legislation do so with
the rationalization that if it saves any lives at all then it is worth
whatever it costs. Let us have a look at these costs. In doing this,
I am going to use the minister's own figures despite the fact that
I believe them to be inaccurate and misleading.
According to figures tabled by the minister at the justice
committee it will now cost $118.9 million to set up the
registration system. This is up from the original estimate of $85
million. What the minister avoids talking about is the actual cost
of registration.
All handguns are registered now so we know the cost to the
system to register a firearm. That cost is $82 per firearm. The
minister and his advisor, Wendy Cukier, have estimated the
number of rifles and shotguns in the country to be about six
million, which is curious given the auditor general puts the
figure around 18 million. Using the six million figure and the
known cost of registration, puts the actual cost of registration at
$492 million. If the true amount is halfway between the two
13714
estimates on the number of firearms then there goes another
billion dollars in bureaucratic spending.
Somehow I think that if we really worked at it we could find
something better to spend that money on.
One in nine women will develop breast cancer during their
lives. This year alone 17,000 women will be newly diagnosed
with the disease and over 5,400 of those will die of breast cancer.
If cancer of the testicles had statistics like this the men on the
other side of the House would cross their legs and pass $500
million worth of funding for research and prevention before the
end of a single day. They would tell the women on their side of
the House how to vote as is the Liberal procedure.
However, as it stands now, they would rather spend $118.9
million setting up a registration program for rifles and shotguns
without any evidence that it will save a single life.
I have done some research into the use of $118.9 million for
the detection and treatment of breast cancer. The results were
very interesting. This $118.9 million could double detection
screening of women in the appropriate age group. Experts tell
me that this would prevent about one-third of the current deaths
from this dreaded disease. That amounts to 1,710 women a year.
That is more people than the total number of firearm's related
deaths and we have not heard one single word of evidence that
even a single life would be saved through following the
minister's ill-conceived legislation.
There would be those who would point out that this
expenditure for breast cancer treatment would be an annual cost
whereas the setting up of the registration system is a one time
cost. Ignoring the fact that setting up the registration system
does not include the cost of registration itself, which is many
times the initial cost, I looked at what a one time funding of
$118.9 million would do for the problem of breast cancer in the
long term.
(1350 )
As we all know, each disease has an associated health care
cost. The cost of a terminal breast cancer patient for hospital
time, chemotherapy and other expenses averages about
$100,000. This does not include the human cost of the victim or
her family. If we could prevent the death of 1,710 women a year
with an associated health care savings of $100,000 each we
would reduce health care expenses by $171 million.
Although the initial $118.9 million spent on the real saving of
lives versus the minister's wild fantasy of forcing his values on
others would be a one-time expenditure, 70 per cent of the
health care system's savings would provide this amount each
year while continuing to save the health care system an
additional $52 million a year. In light of this, the minister's
fantasy does not seem very supportable.
We are at a very troubled time in our country's finances. The
government is talking about many cuts in federal spending. The
cuts are necessary but it means the government has to learn how
to set priorities in order to preserve the quality of life while
addressing the financial problems we face.
It seems the government, particularly the Minister of Justice,
has some very mixed priorities. It is time to tell the minister that
restricting the activities of law-abiding citizens is not a priority.
Its legislation is a waste of the taxpayers' money at a time when
we have none to waste.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to enter the debate on this matter.
I was here this morning when the Minister of Justice gave his
presentation. He talked about the members of the third party
trafficking in fiction. If the member who just spoke had been
here he would have been the beneficiary of some of the
information, in particular the cost of registration.
The minister was very clear in pointing out we cannot
compare the registration cost of handguns to long guns because
with handgun registration there are police investigations, et
cetera involved which makes it much more expensive.
We also had the member for Wild Rose telling the House there
is no difference in crime rates between the United States of
America and Canada. Let me tell the Reform Party that is
trafficking in fiction and Canadians will not buy that line.
Members of the Reform Party say we have had registration of
handguns which has not lowered the crime rate. Let me suggest
to them that when a police officer arrests an individual who is
carrying an unregistered handgun and he does not have a permit
to carry that gun, the police officer can now arrest that
individual for the possession of a restricted firearm. He can take
him to the police station and no doubt the investigation will
reveal that many crimes have been committed.
Let me also use another example that was cited by the
Minister of Justice this morning. It relates to an incident where
police officers can raid a motorcycle club where they will find
20, 30 or 40 long guns. Under the present legislation there is no
way for the police to determine whether those are illegal guns.
It is important to get all the facts. This legislation is trying to
move toward maintaining the kind of society Canadians have
come to accept. We do not believe in mirroring the Americans
and their crime rate.
(1355 )
On Tuesday, June 6, an article Second Opinion appeared in the
Kitchener-Waterloo Record. The author of this article was John
Dadds of Kitchener who was an OPP police officer for 20 years
13715
and previously was with the metro Toronto and London, England
forces.
This former police officer took aim at the Ontario Handgun
Association which produced an 84 page booklet called ``Politics
of Panic''. In his article he says that what he wanted to do was to
make sure that the police have the ability to control the spread of
guns, the police have the ability to control the use of guns and to
make sure that the United States does not become a model for
this country.
In closing, I have a question for the member. We have heard
often enough from members of the Reform Party about
commissioned 1-900 calls to hear what their constituents have
to say. With the exception of three members who are a bit more
enlightened than the rest, when are they going to come clean and
actually start listening to their constituents and not say to us, as
was said earlier on by the member for Crowfoot, that they do not
believe in polls. You guys promised to represent-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Thus far we have
had a good vigorous debate, meeting all the criteria of good
parliamentary debate. I hope that will continue after question
period. I would caution also all members that all interventions
must be made through the Chair, otherwise we know what can
happen.
With one minute remaining, the hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke because the Speaker will want to get on with
members' statements.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, in response to the direct question
that the hon. member finally asked, I sent out a questionnaire in
my riding. The question was: ``Do you support the mandatory
registration of rifles and shotguns, as expressed in the
government's Bill C-68?'' It is a fair and honest question. The
result was 84 per cent no; 16 per cent yes.
As far as the hon. member suggesting that the Reform Party,
the national opposition party, is trafficking in myths, I would
suggest to him that he might look to his own party when he talks
about cardboard registration. The government is going to keep
the cost of registering rifles and shotguns down by giving
everybody a simple card to fill out and mail in and the firearms
will be registered.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government is
actually stupid enough to do that, we are going to have
neighbours registering other neighbours, enemies registering
enemies, pro-gun people registering people opposed to
firearms. Everybody in the world will have an Uzi because that
is the way those cards will be filled out.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
13715
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I
attended the annual Stoney Creek battle re-enactment in my
riding of Lincoln. For all of us the war of 1812 was a war we
learned about in history books. There are no pictures, videos or
films of the battle.
Therefore the annual re-enactment of the battle of Stoney
Creek takes on an even greater significance, not only as an
educational experience but more important it portrays the
realities of war and the struggles suffered by our countrymen.
Many who attended the re-enactment voiced their concern
over provisions of Bill C-68 which might jeopardize future
re-enactments. The British North America Living History
Association presented a brief to the Standing Committee on
Justice. I am sure committee members have taken into
consideration the points made to ensure re-enactments can
continue unobstructed.
The Stoney Creek battle re-enactment is a community event
and a source of pride for the city. The quality and performance of
the re-enactment has earned Stoney Creek praise throughout
North America. Let us not lose the opportunity to continue to
provide-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
name of the city chosen to host the Winter Olympics in 2002 will
be announced officially this Friday in Budapest.
Many factors point to Quebec City as the ideal location,
including the city's outstanding record for organizing major
events, the many sports facilities that are already in place, the
region's cultural and tourist attractions, the solid and
enthusiastic support of the entire community and the civic pride
of all Quebecers.
If we add to the flame burning inside every Quebecer, the
torch carrying the Olympic flame for the 2002 Winter Olympics,
the whole world will witness a joyous outburst of enthusiasm
and pride.
The caucus of the Bloc Quebecois joins me in wishing Quebec
City the best of luck in its bid for these games, which will be
truly exceptional.
Good luck, Quebec.
13716
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, increased competition in broadcasting by telephone
companies will increase consumer choice and result in lower
prices.
The people of British Columbia are in danger of losing these
benefits because B.C. Telecom is partly foreign owned and
therefore prohibited from holding a broadcast licence.
I urge the government to remove the relevant foreign
ownership restrictions altogether to maximize benefits for
consumers.
As a second best policy, I urge the government to permit B. C.
Telecom to own a broadcasting licence by a special waiver of the
foreign ownership restriction just like it has for the company's
other activities.
The people of British Columbia would be sure to benefit
greatly.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, today the Sierra Club announced that a coalition of
12 Canadian environmental organizations will be in Halifax
during the G-7 summit later this week to urge G-7 leaders to
keep their promise to review international financial institutions.
The coalition's five point plan includes a review of the
policies and practices of the Bretton Woods institutions, a Tobin
tax on speculators, ending world bank lending to
environmentally and socially destructive megaprojects,
measures to reduce multinational debt and the end to structural
adjustment programs.
The draft G-7 final communique leaked last week shows the
G-7 countries are interested only in protecting the interests of
international speculators and investors.
It is the people's summit that will be discussing fundamental
reform of the Bretton Woods institutions to move us toward a
more stable, equitable and sustainable international financial
system.
I congratulate the Sierra Club for taking the lead in this
important initiative.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the
House that this week is Canadian occupational safety and health
week, a week designated to focus public attention on the
importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.
This year's slogan, ``Communicating: Open the Channels'',
stresses the need for co-operation. The importance of
prevention is clear when we look at the figures. In 1993 alone
733 Canadian workers were killed and nearly 830,000 were
injured while at work. This translates into more than 15 million
work days lost with direct and indirect costs of more than $10
million.
I commend the people trying to reduce these numbers by
increasing awareness of the problem. I urge all members of the
House to work with business and labour to stop this tragic waste
of human and economic resources.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leaders of the world's wealthiest countries are meeting in
Halifax this week for the G-7 summit to discuss greater
economic and political integration.
In this climate of global change we are witnessing the
dismantling of barriers to commerce regionally, continentally
and globally. This coupled with the changing nature of
federalism in this country offers the maritime provinces the
opportunity if not the necessity to redefine their role within
Confederation.
For too long the common concerns of maritimers have been
diluted on the national stage by far too much local parochialism.
If the maritime provinces are to re-establish their economies in
the context of the national or international marketplace strong
leadership must be shown now to arrive at a true economic and
by extension political union of the maritime provinces.
I call on the maritime political, business and economic
leaders to take up the challenge to place the maritime provinces
in the position to succeed as Canada continues to undergo
profound periods of restructuring.
* * *
(1405)
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I call on
all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Kresimir
Zubak, president of the federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and
Mr. Vladislav Pogarcic, deputy minister of foreign affairs for
the Bosnian federation.
The federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina was created last year
in Washington, D.C. Its creation signalled a small step toward
peace in what has been a tragic and lengthy war. The federation
is currently comprised of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims
who have agreed to work together toward a lasting peace.
13717
The tragic events in Bosnia have touched us all. Television
images have haunted us, as have our concerns for the safety of
the hundreds of Canadian peacekeepers currently in Bosnia.
We pray for an end to the fighting in Bosnia-Hercegovina and
we wish Mr. Zubak much luck in his endeavours to find a lasting
peace in his homeland.
The Speaker: Colleagues, Mr. Zubak is here now with us in
the gallery.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
soon this House will be asked to debate the anti-scab bill
presented by the Bloc Quebecois. The purpose of this bill is to
end the inherent injustice in the Canada Labour Code that allows
federally-regulated employers to hire scabs, which tends to
delay dispute settlement and penalizes workers.
I ask members to recall the case of Ogilvie Mills, where a
strike has been going on for more than a year, because the new
employer wants to impose a collective agreement. Although the
Minister of Labour has done nothing about this case, the Bloc
urges the government to support our bill. Several Liberal
members,including the present Minister of Human Resources
Development, voted in favour of a similar bill in 1990.
To our Liberal colleagues I say: you now have a chance to
show whether you are prepared to defend the interests of the
workers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over the
past few weeks it has become obvious that ministerial arrogance
is sky high. I will suggest a few pranks backbenchers can play on
cabinet to bring it back to reality, the rookies.
The first trick is to pose as maintenance staff and remove the
name plates off the doors of the ministers of health, national
revenue and Canadian heritage. When asked what you are doing,
simply reply you are getting a head start on your summer job.
Another idea is to call on the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf
of Shady Acres retirement homes. Tell her an amount is still
owing on her room deposit as she forgot to include the GST.
Remember that promise?
How about phoning up the minister of defence and asking him
if DND cleans windows too.
Finally, backbenchers, send the Prime Minister a clear
message that the strong arm, disciplinarian tactics of the past no
longer wash in today's world. Vote the will of your constituents
even if it bucks the party line.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since launching its fundraising campaign, on
January 23, the Bloc Quebecois has been boasting about the fact
that it was complying with the Quebec legislation on political
party financing, by only accepting donations of less than $5,000,
and only from individuals.
Yet, the preliminary data just released by the director general
of elections concerning the 1993 election campaign show that
dozens of corporate donations were accepted by Bloc Quebecois
candidates and MPs, and that these donations amount to several
thousands of dollars.
Now we understand why the Bloc Quebecois relied for such a
long time on the Canada Elections Act clause which allows
parties not to release the list of their contributors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Halifax
is ready. World leaders will begin to arrive tomorrow in
beautiful Nova Scotia for the Halifax Summit.
They will discuss issues that will affect all of us. Reform of
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund can help to
build peace and economic stability throughout the world. Better
co-operation to fight organized crime is key to all of our
security whether we live in Tokyo or Timberlea.
(1410)
I thank everyone who has worked so hard to make this Halifax
summit a great success.
The summit action is not just around the table. Mount Saint
Vincent University will bestow an honorary degree on Hillary
Clinton. Halifax West will welcome hundreds of international
media to see a few of our fabulous sites and we will show off our
cultural industries and have a Ceilidh on the Cove in Hubbards.
We welcome the world for a fabulous summit.
13718
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Château Frontenac was all lit up. Those in charge of
the protocol had been at work since the early morning;
everything was ready for the big ceremony. Mr. Parizeau
himself, also known as ``Vibrant Weasel'', was presiding and the
excitement filled the air.
This is how we learned that the leaders of the PQ, the Bloc and
the ADQ had signed a document in which they ask that a
referendum on the separation of Quebec be held this fall. But,
for many observers, there was no need to wait for this so-called
signature ceremony to learn that the PQ leader and his two
associates want Quebec to separate.
Four months ago today, people in Orford, Sutton,
Cowansville, Lac-Brome, Bedford and the Brome-Missisquoi
riding as a whole, said no the separatist adventure. They chose
Canada. Quebecers do not want separation, and they will make it
clear at the referendum.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
UI reform proposal tabled last week, the Minister of Human
Resources Development strikes a direct blow at young people
entering the job market by now requiring first time claimants to
have worked a minimum of six months before they become
eligible for any government assistance.
This reform proposal is ridiculous, considering the appalling
situation young people in Quebec and Canada, a generation with
16.5 per cent unemployment, are being plunged into.
Thousands of young people are being penalized, even those
who are qualified. In Canada, 30 per cent of poor families
included at least one graduate, a proportion that has doubled in
the past ten years.
To continue to add to the burden of a generation that has
already undergone great hardship is just plain cruel. The
minister must withdraw his proposal and stop attacking the
young.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tonight's vote on Bill C-68 will be a decisive moment in Ontario
politics. Ninety-seven Liberal members will have an
opportunity to represent the views of their constituents. We will
have a chance to see if last week's lesson in populism renews the
desire of all members to do what is right for their ridings and
their province.
Time allocation may speed some bills through the House but
Ontario members know the final vote on this issue will take
place in 1997 on the gun bill, on pensions, on sexual orientation
and employment equity. Liberals must choose between
supporting their party or supporting their constituents. Will it be
Liberal, Tory, same old story? Do not allow your decisions to be
Mcleoded. Vote with your constituents.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the final vote in the House on Bill C-68.
Just as we faced some tough questions on the bill, it is time for
the other side to answer one or two. We know who they are, the
new politicians, the great populists, the members who came here
to represent the folks back home; the wundekinders who will
ignore special interests and stay true to their constituents.
I think their whip said it best when he said a few minutes ago
to vote the will of your constituents even if it bucks the party
line. The member from Simcoe-Centre was telling us the same
thing. In the face of a clear consensus, in the face of the clear
wishes of the constituents in Calgary, their leader is kowtowing
to the gun lobby, turning his back on his constituents and bowing
to the will of his caucus-some populist.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, along with the Solicitor
General and members of criminal justice associations, launched
``Between the Lines'', an information kit on literacy and crime
prevention which points out ways in which we can make a
difference in reducing crime in our modern society.
[English]
The answer to crime does not lie only in building more prisons
or adding more police. The answer lies also in a combined effort
by everyone in reducing and eliminating the social inequalities
and injustices that contribute to crime in the first place.
(1415)
We already see the tragic consequences of crime in our federal
penitentiaries. The majority of offenders who enter our federal
correctional institutions have poor academic skills. Many are
unable to read a newspaper or a comic book or follow a simple
set of instructions.
13719
The literacy program Between the Lines will make a
fundamental and lasting contribution to the prevention of crime
and the reduction of illiteracy in Canada.
* * *
The Speaker: Before we begin question period today, I would
like to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of
fellow parliamentarians, members of the planning, budgetary
and public accounts committee of the Mexican congress.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13719
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with its UI reform, the federal government is
preparing once again to substantially cut eligibility and UI
benefits. According to today's
Globe and Mail, Quebec will be
the principal victim of the additional cuts to the unemployment
insurance plan, which will amount to $1.6 billion.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Would he confirm that,
as usual, Quebec will bear the cost of the additional cuts of $1.6
billion in unemployment insurance, since it will assume 40 per
cent of the cuts for a total of $605 million as compared with only
$255 million for Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said it yesterday and I will repeat it today: the
government has reached no decision yet. The Minister of Human
Resources Development is currently conferring on the matter.
There will be a reform of all social programs in the fall to enable
us to put funds at the disposal of those who want to work and
take training courses.
This is our focus-we want to enable workers to find jobs and
recover their dignity. The specific program will be announced
once consultations have been completed. At the moment, no one
can claim that one party or another in Canada is forced to
contribute more than the others.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in other words, if we unscramble the Prime
Minister's answer, we may conclude that no decision has been
made, the project is in the works and the Globe and Mail was
right to refer to it today.
I would ask the Prime Minister if we are to understand that he
and his government want to put off a decision until the fall, that
is after the referendum on Quebec sovereignty, so that the
announcement of the cuts, affecting the unemployed in Quebec
primarily, will follow afterwards?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I am pleased to hear that there will be a
referendum. We are looking forward to having one.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I hope that the question will
be clear, that they will say ``we want to separate from Canada''
and that they will not try to trick people into thinking that the
intent of the referendum, is anything other than separation.
As for us and our UI program, reforming all the social
programs requires consultation with the provincial
governments. The minister is consulting them now. The papers
can only speculate at the moment. This is not the first time
articles have appeared in the papers, with the results of the
federal government programs differing entirely from what the
Globe and Mail saying. This is usually exactly what happens.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Prime Minister seems willing to talk
about the referendum. He told us that he is looking forward to
the referendum and to a straightforward question. Quebecers
know full well that the only thing the Prime Minister can offer
Quebec is the status quo, the same old unfair cuts, and that his
only objective is to finish the job started in 1982.
Mr. Loubier: Hear, Hear.
(1420)
Mr. Bouchard: Since he wants to talk about the referendum
and wants a straightforward answer-because the answer will be
as straightforward as the question-, does the Prime Minister
admit that, faced with the decision made by a sovereignist,
clearly sovereignist Quebec people, he, as the Prime Minister of
Canada, will then have to sit at the table and negotiate on a
one-to-one basis with the Quebec government?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, we would really like to know what the
question is. They came up in December with a scheme that the
people very quickly got wise to. This whole scheme was nothing
but smoke and mirrors. They then tried to change directions, so
that the December program was already over by March.
Quebecers will probably get wise to the new June scheme by
October. Everyone will understand that the opposition leader's
question is purely hypothetical, because I know that if
Quebecers are asked, ``Do you want to separate from Canada?'',
they will always vote to stay in Canada. I am convinced of that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
13720
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister uses the word ``scheme'' to
refer to what is the clear and straightforward expression of an
economic responsibility initiative in the mutual interest of the
people of both Canada and Quebec. He himself will have to take
note of that after Quebecers vote Yes to sovereignty.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I ask the Prime Minister, who is one of the
champions of federalism without any ideas, any thoughts or
anything else to offer, how he can claim to be addressing
Quebecers' desire for change, when he and other federalists
have nothing to offer Quebec but the status quo, the federal
system that has always been denounced by Quebec federalists,
as well as resignation and increasing encroachment on Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition rose in the House today to
explain to Quebecers: You will vote for sovereignty, but you will
keep Canadian citizenship, the Canadian currency, the Canadian
passport, the economic and political union with Canada. The
only thing missing in his bag of tricks is what I said in
Trois-Rivières: ``We in the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc
Quebecois will keep the name ``Canada''. You can find another
one for the rest of Canada, because Canada is so great that we
want to keep the name `Canada` for ourselves''.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will take the next two questions.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Interesting.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister is
not interested in what happens to the economic interests of
Quebec after sovereignty. I want to ask him whether, if only for
the sake of the economic interests of Ontario and the rest of
Canada and the need to maintain trade relations between the
parties, he would not feel obliged as Prime Minister to sit down
and negotiate with Mr. Parizeau who would have a mandate from
the people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am willing to meet Mr. Parizeau at any time to discuss
the concerns of Quebecers: job creation, economic growth, and
improving the situation with regard to public finances. That is
what people want to discuss. I only hope that the Leader of the
Opposition will tell Quebecers that their proposal is about
separation. That is what they want.
(1425)
They would have Quebecers believe that once they have
separated, they will still be part of Canada. This is a mirage, a lot
of smoke and mirrors and shows a lack of intellectual honesty.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Let the
Leader of the Opposition rise in the House and tell Quebecers
and Canadians what he told the Americans: ``Please realize I am
not a sovereignist, I am a separatist''. Let him repeat that to all
Quebecers, and he will lose his referendum.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I deplore the fact that the Prime
Minister should dismiss as intellectual dishonesty the wishes of
a people that for 300 years has been working towards the
culmination of its destiny as a nation and will do so
democratically and lawfully.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, when this fall the votes are
counted on the evening of the referendum and Quebecers, as I
hope they will, vote yes, on the basis of our present mandate, I
want to ask him how he sees his responsibilities as custodian of
the economic interests of the part of Canada he will still
represent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my position has been known to all Canadians for a long
time. I am a federalist, and I believe in a united Canada where
Quebec will feel at home.
[English]
I am not the one who has to do some virage to try to find words
to hide the truth from the people who will be voting. I know the
people of Quebec want to stay in Canada. All the polls say that.
Mr. Parizeau came with his astuce in December. That was a flop
by the month of March. Then came the Leader of the Opposition
who tried to hide the truth. He made a virage. Today the virage is
back to square one. He is a separatist and he does not have the
guts to say that to the nation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to change the subject to the separation of
one of the government ministers from the cabinet.
When we first raised the issue of the heritage minister's
dollars for contracts dinner, we were told that it was merely a
routine fundraiser to pay off the minister's campaign debts. This
was the story of the organizer, Richard Gervais, and was
confirmed by many of the guests who attended the dinner.
(1430)
Now we learn from Elections Canada that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage had no election debts to pay. In fact his
receipts and reimbursements minus his expenses left him
$25,000 ahead. The dinner was held, therefore, for other
purposes, which will go undisclosed until the government
releases all the information surrounding the minister's dinner.
13721
My question for the Prime Minister: Will the government
table the complete list of who was invited to the heritage
minister's dinner and who contributed the money for what
purposes? The Prime Minister knows full well that Elections
Canada documents will not provide the information.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, whether the Minister of Canadian Heritage had debts or
no debts is irrelevant.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We used to have debt, but we
do not have debt any more. For the last eight years I raised
money to pay the debt. When we raise money it is to pay the debt
and to have enough money for the next election. The minister
raised money for the Liberal Party that will be used in the next
election. That money will compete with the money the leader of
the Reform Party is raising when he has his own private dinners
around the country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's obsession with protecting a party
loyalist is clouding his judgment.
The heritage minister violated the federal code of ethics, not
once, not twice, but three times. He targeted departmental
clients for donations. He rewarded some with heritage contracts
and appointments, placing himself in direct conflict of interest.
Now there is the question of raising money under cloudy
pretences to pay off debts that did not exist. Canadians are right
to wonder what kind of example this sets for other ministers.
My supplementary is to the ultimate arbiter of government
ethics. Since the Prime Minister is unwilling to discipline the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, does this mean that other
ministers are free to hold similar fundraising dinners that target
departmental clients?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ministers are advised as I am that they have an
obligation, like any other member of Parliament to help to raise
money for the next election of the Liberal Party. They have to do
it according to the rules, and the rules are very clear by Elections
Canada. Every contribution has to be made public if it is more
than $100. That is exactly what ministers are instructed to do
and they are doing it. It is known by the public.
I had great success in the city of Calgary. Many of the friends
of the leader of the Reform Party came, paid, and were happy
with the speech.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to Mitchell Sharp, the government's original
ethics adviser, the heritage minister's dinner may be just the tip
of an iceberg.
Mr. Sharp said yesterday the government's code of ethics was
clear and tough but that some cabinet ministers are not
following it. He went on to say that business should be separate
from fundraising to eliminate the appearance of conflict of
interest and that cabinet should receive a refresher course on the
code of ethics.
Since the Prime Minister has personally assumed the role of
ethics counsellor, which other ministers are not following the
government's guidelines? And will they be invited to an ethics
summer course, which Mr. Sharp advises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Sharp advises me and ministers when we need
advice. He is correct when he tells every one of us to be prudent.
Being prudent is to make sure that every contribution is paid, a
receipt is made, and it is published under the Canada Elections
Act. That is exactly what happened in this case.
Every contribution has been above the table and according to
the laws of Canada. Unless we pass a law in the House that all
political party expenditures are paid by the nation, we will have
to raise money according to this law. This law permits ministers
and members of Parliament of all parties to raise money as long
as they give receipts in accordance with the Canada Elections
Act.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, net job creation over
the past six months has been zero, although the Minister of
Finance's budget predicted job growth of three per cent in 1995.
In addition, economic growth has literally gone flat in the first
three months of 1995, with an annualized growth rate of 0.7 per
cent, yet the Minister of Finance forecast in his budget that the
rate of growth would hit 3.8 per cent this year.
Since everything points to the fact that the minister's
predictions will not come true this year, will he acknowledge
that zero economic growth will not generate any new jobs and
that he is going to have to review his budgetary forecast
regarding the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would
like to congratulate the hon. member for getting his leader to
allow him to ask a question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I know why this is; those
hon. members contradict themselves so much.
13722
I would like to point out to the hon. member that over 200,000
private sector jobs were created in the past eight months. This
trend even applies in Quebec, where over 50,000 jobs were
created in the past year.
There is no doubt that the economy is slow, due to a slowdown
in the American economy and to the fact that the economic
recovery was based mostly on our capacity to export. This
having been said, most economists predict that the slowdown
that everybody was expecting next year will hit us this year and
that next year, we can expect a recovery.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, instead of spinning yarns, the Minister of Finance
would be well advised to take a real look at his balance sheet
since coming to office.
Mortgage rates, for example, have increased by 30 per cent,
the growth rate for exports dropped 90 per cent over three
months and there has been no net job creation over the past six
months. That is the real balance sheet of this government, of the
Minister of Finance. Therefore, he should have given me real
answers and real figures instead of making it all up.
I would like to ask him the following question: Will he
acknowledge that a growth rate of close to zero confirms the
failure of his economic strategy, which has not enabled us to
create any new jobs or to offer Quebecers and Canadians the
hope of dignity through employment, which the Prime Minister
keeps on repeating?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea
where the hon. member gets his figures. Maybe from the ``Just
for Laughs'' festival. Please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give you
the real figures.
The unemployment rate in May of this year was 9.5 per cent,
compared to 10.4 per cent in May 1994; shipments in the
manufacturing sector were 17 per cent higher this month than in
May 1994; the trade balance surplus hit an all-time high of
$23.2 billion in the first quarter of 1995; the deficit in Canada's
current account, which is normally around 4 per cent, is
currently at 2 per cent. We are very proud of our
accomplishments.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since it
appears the Canadian hostages in Bosnia are being released, the
government now has an opportunity to safely scale down the
Canadian commitment to Bosnia, which is scheduled to end in
just three months. An orderly withdrawal started now would
take about that time to be completed.
Will the Prime Minister end his chronic waffling and
hand-wringing and announce the Canadian contribution will not
be extended beyond September?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the Canadian soldiers there are playing an
extremely useful role. We have decided to extend our mandate
for another six months. We will make a decision at that time. We
have to finish the job we started. We will not quit in mid-term.
We said we were to be there for six months, and Canadian
soldiers and the Canadian people are the kind of people who do
the job they say they will do. If we decide to go it will be decided
in accordance with our commitments and with our partners in
this situation.
(1440)
I have to say to the House of Commons that when we look
objectively, before the UN troops arrived there were
approximately 200,000 people killed in one year, and it was
reduced to 3,000 last year. This means the presence of the UN
troops there has saved thousands and thousands of lives. The
Canadian soldiers and the others in the UN force have done a
very good job.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talking about
Bosnia, the Prime Minister stated in this House: ``We are very
far away from this part of the world and in many ways it is
somewhat more of a European problem than a Canadian
problem''.
If the Prime Minister actually believes what he said, will this
be the position the government will take at the G-7 summit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I said it is more of a European problem than a
Canadian problem. But peacekeeping around the world has been
a very proud policy of the Canadian government.
We have had peacekeepers around the world. We initiated
peacekeeping during the Suez crisis when Mike Pearson created
that solution to solve that very difficult war with Great Britain
and France versus Egypt.
Since that time Canadians have always been present at
peacekeeping operations. We have been in Cyprus; we have been
in the Golan; we have been everywhere there has been a need for
Canadian soldiers. There is nothing more satisfying for me when
I am travelling to meet with the leaders of other countries than to
have them tell me that Canadian troops are always the best.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The first victims of an economic slowdown are always young
people in low-paying jobs. The situation has continued to
deteriorate, since youth unemployment has gone up from 11.2
13723
per cent in 1989 to 16.5 per cent in 1994, an increase of nearly
50 per cent in five years. In Quebec, more than one out of every
three unemployed workers are young people.
When we realize that young people are usually in low-paying
jobs, how can the Minister of Finance expect to give them any
hope, when he has no job creation policy to offer and on top of
that, limits their access to unemployment insurance by making
them work for at least six months to qualify for unemployment
insurance benefits for the first time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very
concerned about the unemployment situation among young
Canadians. We have always been very concerned about this,
even before the economic downturn we are experiencing today.
That is why at the beginning of our mandate, the Minister of
Human Resources Development put in place a number of
programs for the purpose of creating jobs for young people, to
provide incentives for them to go back to work or start a career.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister seriously claim that his government has given
young unemployed workers hope and the dignity of work, when
the unemployment statistics fail to reflect a situation that many
are experiencing, and I am referring to the fact that more and
more young unemployed workers are on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looked
at the figures he would see that the unemployment rate for young
people is now at its lowest point since 1990 when the recession
began.
The job creation measures have helped to bring down the
youth unemployment rate by three or four points to its lowest
level. In the meantime, to recognize the special importance of
young people, in this last year we have increased the direct
investment for youth training and youth employment programs
from $193 million to $236 million, a net increase in this one year
alone. At a time when budgets are very limited and we are facing
real fiscal restraint we have increased the investment for young
people by $43 million. That means this year we will have 15,000
to 20,000 young people enlisted in various forms of internship
programs, the youth service corps and other youth-related
programs.
Our commitment to young people admits of no question from
the Bloc Quebecois. We are committed to helping our young
people get back to work.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals' February budget based its revenue projections on a
GDP growth of 3.8 per cent. The actual growth in the first
quarter of 1995 was less than 1 per cent. There is little prospect
of improvement in the second quarter. The budget did not plan
for a recession.
(1445)
Is the Minister of Finance willing to admit that his budget
forecasts are wrong and that his deficit targets are being
threatened?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our deficit targets
are not being threatened. At the time we made them we made it
very clear that we have brought in both prudent assumptions for
growth and for interest rates. We also put in place substantial
contingency reserves. I can assure the hon. member that we are
on target in terms of the deficit.
The hon. member knows as well that a majority of economists
projected strong growth for this year with a decline in growth
next year in the United States and consequently in Canada. The
view today on the decline that was projected, I believe, is that it
is going to occur earlier than expected and that it should lead to
an increase in growth next year.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
speculation certainly in that answer. I do not think the minister
can downplay the current poor economic conditions. A lot of
Canadians are very concerned. They are concerned about their
jobs. They are not buying houses as they did a few months ago.
They are not buying cars. Consumer purchasing is down.
Reform has told the minister that the one thing government
could do to restore consumer confidence is to lay out a plan to
eliminate the deficit. The minister and the government have not
taken our advice.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. What is
the plan of the government to restore consumer confidence and
avert a recession in the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows that consumer confidence is not dependent on whether
the government provides, as we have decided to do, rolling two
year targets in deficit reduction or a longer target.
The member also knows that the credibility of long term
targets by Canadian governments has not been all that great. We
are the first government in a long time to not only hit its target
but to do substantially better. This is the realization of a
13724
government doing what it said it was going to do which is to
re-establish confidence in the country. I am very confident.
Yesterday, Gallup polls found that the Canadian people had
more confidence in the government's handling of the economy
than any government in the last 22 years. That is confidence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. Last weekend, the
Bosnian President tried to meet the American President, Bill
Clinton, to have the embargo on arms to Bosnia lifted. In the
American Senate, a majority of Republicans and Democrats
voted in favour of lifting the embargo, but the President is
maintaining it for the time being.
Given the importance of maintaining the embargo, did the
Prime Minister reiterate the need to maintain it to the President
of Bosnia when they met?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did exactly that on my trip to Sarajevo last June.
Speaking on behalf of the French and the English, who knew I
was going there, I told the Bosnian Prime Minister himself, in
Parliament in Sarajevo, that, for us to maintain our troops there,
it was vital the embargo not be lifted.
Our position of last year remains unchanged, and I am pleased
to see that the President of the United States respects it.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while the Prime Minister's position is clear on the embargo, how
does he explain the fact that, 48 hours before the start of the C-7
Summit, Canada has yet to decide on its participation in the
rapid reaction force, which is to be debated at the G-7 Summit in
Halifax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have expressed the government's position, which is
that we are not keen to take part in this new initiative. We have
said so to our partners. We are still looking at the proposal.
(1450)
We want to know exactly what form the force will take, what
the chain of command will be and what the relationship will be
with the UN. We still lack satisfactory answers on many points,
and so are not prepared to make a commitment.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government has been restoring hope and prosperity by
fulfilling commitments made in the red book. One of those
commitments on page 22 involves replacing and eliminating the
GST.
Will the Minister of Finance outline the progress that has been
made with respect to the GST? Is he any closer to seeing this
commitment implemented?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley North
has shown a great interest in this subject, as has the Prime
Minister.
As the member knows, there is tremendous support for
harmonization among consumers and among small business.
Already there are tremendous savings from greater efficiency.
The problem has been that a number of the provincial
governments have not seen the same degree of urgency. I am
glad to say that we have had a number of very fruitful meetings
with a number of the provincial governments. There is no doubt
that we are progressing.
In the last budget in Quebec, there was virtual harmonization
realized. We have all seen the public statements of premier elect
Harris to the effect of his interest.
When the hon. member for Don Valley North goes back to
Toronto, if he sees premier-elect Harris, he can tell him that as
soon as he names his finance minister, whoever he or she may
be, I will meet them here in Ottawa, Toronto, Nipissing or I will
meet the new finance minister in the member's office in Don
Valley North.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
It looks like the Clinton administration may prohibit
Canadian companies that do business with Cuba from exporting
to the United States. Such a move would infringe on our
sovereignty and would violate key provisions of the North
American free trade agreement as well as the WTO.
What is the minister doing to ensure that Canadian companies
continue to have access to the U.S. market?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter first came up when the so-called
Helms bill came before the U.S. Congress.
13725
At that time, we made our objections clearly known to the
United States government. Since then the administration has
questioned the terms of the bill in such a way as to suggest it will
not go forward in the way that was first anticipated.
On the more specific question the member raises, I have asked
our embassy in Washington to inform us of the details of the
U.S. treasury's proposed action. We do not have all the details
yet. However, I can assure the member opposite we will do
everything to make certain Canadian companies have the full
opportunity to participate, as they are now doing, in the Cuban
economy.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
reassuring to know we do not have Jesse Helms setting Canadian
trade policy. However Canadian companies like Lantic, Redpath
and B.C. Sugar may be targeted as early as tomorrow because
they buy raw sugar from Cuba.
What is the minister doing to protect these interests today?
These are interests that have to be looked after at this very
moment.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we do not have the details and
certainly not details on the supposed action that might be taken
against Canadian sugar companies in the context that the
member mentions.
Our present concern is to ascertain the possible action the
U.S. treasury might take against four Cuban Canadian joint
ventures led by the Sherritt company. In that instance, we are
seeking further information. I hope that I shall have more
information I can provide the member in due course.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
According to an Angus Reid survey, three out of four
consumers are concerned about the use of BST. Even the dairy
industry is against it. The Dairy Council, which represents
processors, rejects this product, deeming it unnecessary and
undesirable, while dairy producers have demanded that the
minister extend the moratorium.
Does the minister admit that neither the dairy industry nor
consumers want BST on the market and that they all want the
moratorium to be extended?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when concerns were first raised
about the potential use of rBST, a synthetic product, in the
spring of last year, the House of Commons agriculture
committee undertook a very useful examination of a number of
issues surrounding that question.
It produced a report. That report recommended a number of
things, including a delay period during which a task force could
be structured to bring forward further information which would
be of assistance to producers, processors, consumers and others
that are interested in the question.
Over the course of the last year this process has gone forward.
The delay period has been in place and remains in place until the
first of July. The task force has completed its work. A great deal
of useful information has been brought forward which will be
helpful to all of those interested in this question so they can
understand and appreciate all of the issues and all of the
arguments, pro and con, with a little more detail.
The key question is one of health and the efficacy of this
product, which is being studied as is required by law by the
regulatory and scientific officials within the Department of
Health. Unless and until the Department of Health issues a
notice of compliance, the use of this product is governed under
the controls of the Food and Drugs Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, less than
19 days before the moratorium expires, the Minister of
Agriculture must admit that both the public and the dairy
industry expect him to act quickly. Does the minister undertake
today in this House to extend the moratorium on the use of BST?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that many in the
dairy industry have expressed the concerns to which the hon.
gentleman has referred. There are others in the dairy industry
who have advanced the other point of view.
The existence of the moratorium or the delay is not the critical
issue, quite frankly. The critical issue is whether this product
has a notice of compliance issued to it by the legal regulatory
authorities in Health Canada. No such notice of compliance has
been issued. Therefore the sale and distribution of this product
in Canada remains illegal.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 31 I faxed the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development regarding the Adams Lake road
blockade to tell him that both the native spokesman and the
lessees behind the blockade urgently requested his personal
involvement. As of 9.30 this morning I have had no reply.
13726
In law and in good conscience how can the minister continue
to hide behind the bureaucracy and ignore the Adams Lake road
blockade which has been in place since March 21?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been two
blockades in B.C. in the last month: Upper Nicola and the one at
Adams First Nations.
The blockade at Upper Nicola, as the hon. member knows, is
down. The other is up. It is more sensitive than Upper Nicola
because it was fish and this is an archaeological site. Artefacts
have been found which the province has designated. The
developer gave an undertaking that he would do an
archaeological study, which he has not done. The province has
sent him a letter under the B.C. heritage conservation act
demanding that he do the study and cease the work. That has not
been done.
Reformers said we were going to have three Okas there, which
meant military force, if we did not follow their instructions. I
would like to point out to the House that two men came forward
at Upper Nicola. Their names were Stanley and Belleau. They
went to the chiefs, talked to them with dignity, and the blockade
at Upper Nicola came down. They were RCMP officers and a
proud tradition did the job. Also, they were aboriginal RCMP
officers and I want to commend them in the House.
(1500)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the blockade on Douglas Lake was
taken down and I appreciate what the RCMP did there.
Adams Lake Chief Ron Jules has confirmed that the band will
remove two cattle guards eliminating all vehicle access as of
June 15. The RCMP have advised residents to form an
evacuation plan. We are talking about private property here.
What recommendation would the minister of Indian affairs
make to the Adams Lake residents regarding the evacuation plan
which his continued inaction has created?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is clearly
provincial. I have worked well with Mr. Cashore out there.
Mr. Stinson: It is not clearly provincial.
Mr. Irwin: It is off reserve and it is clearly on provincial
property. As hon. members were told last week the RCMP are
under contract to the B.C. government and it is their call. If
requested we will go in and facilitate.
In the Upper Nicola there was a difference. The member of the
Reform Party offered to go in and help. I am hoping this member
will take some lessons from his seatmate over there and will do
the same thing.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
In Bosnia-Hercegovina innocent lives are being lost every
day. Conditions continue to worsen for the people in Bosnia. Our
soldiers are doing a magnificent job in their attempt to protect
citizens. What action has the minister taken on behalf of the
Canadian government to assist those who are fleeing the
bloodshed in Bosnia?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the valiant
efforts the member of Parliament noted on behalf of our
peacekeepers, the government has seen fit to extend two special
immigration programs to try to assist some of the citizens of the
former Yugoslavia.
The first has been a family class program that has had its
criteria relaxed so that people can be reunited with families
living in Canada. As a result of that program, over 7,200
individuals have been reunited with their loved ones in Canada.
The second program has been to try to focus on some of the
refugee relief work in that troubled area. To date the results
indicate that over 8,200 private and government sponsored
refugees now call Canada their home.
These programs are working well but it is a modest response
to a horrific situation. The only answer, as we all know, is for
civility and peace to return to the region. We all hope and pray
that it will be sooner rather than later.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention
today to the presence in the gallery of two outstanding
Canadians.
One is an internationally acclaimed author. She won the 1993
Governor General's Award and the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for her
novel The Stone Diaries. Colleagues, I present to you Carol
Shields.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the other prominent Canadian
made history in 1984 when he became Canada's first man in
space. He continues to be a source of inspiration to many young
Canadians and will be returning to space in 1996. I present to
you Dr. Marc Garneau.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
13727
(1505 )
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of
privilege raised by the hon. member for Saint John on May 30,
1995. For providing me with the relevant facts and documents
related to this matter and for their contributions to the
discussion, I would like to thank the hon. member and the hon.
Minister of Health.
In her presentation, the member brought the House's attention
to a photograph of her used in an expert panel report entitled
``When Packages Can't Speak''. The report concerning plain
and generic packaging of tobacco products had been prepared at
the request of the Department of Health.
The member claimed that the unauthorized use of her picture
in a visual impact study included in the report had violated her
privacy, was an assault on her dignity as an individual and as a
member of the House, had opened her up to ridicule and had
stereotyped her in a manner that misrepresented who she was
and thus could impede her ability to perform her duties as a
member of Parliament. She therefore requested a public apology
from the Prime Minister and an explanation from the Minister of
Health as to how her picture could have found its way into this
expert panel report.
[Translation]
On June 1, 1995, the hon. Minister of Health responded to the
matter. In her intervention, the minister explained that she,
members of the expert panel and representatives of the private
company charged with selecting the photographs, when
informed that the picture used was one of the hon. member, had
immediately issued a letter of apology to the member. The
minister then tabled a copy of a letter to the hon. member
explaining how her picture had been selected.
This matter has troubled me and I have looked into it
carefully. I believe that it is important that I give the House a
chronology of certain events which preceded the raising of this
question of privilege, for the panel report in question is part of a
larger study in which the House, through one of its committees,
has been directly involved.
[English]
On June 21, 1994 the Standing Committee on Health
presented its first report entitled ``Towards Zero Consumption:
Generic Packaging of Tobacco Products''. Pursuant to Standing
Order 109 the government was requested by the committee to
table a comprehensive response. On November 18, 1994 the
Minister of Health tabled the government response to the
committee report. In responding to the standing committee's
recommendations the government noted that:
-an expert panel, comprised of specialists in marketing, package design
and consumer behaviour, and chosen in collaboration with provincial and
territorial partners in the National Strategy to Reduce Tobacco Use, has
established a study framework designed to determine what relationship may
exist between generic packaging and the taking up of smoking by youth.
[
Translation]
The Government response also noted that Health Canada
would thoroughly review and analyse the evidence assembled
by the expert panel and would take into account the study and
conclusions of the Standing Committee on Health. Thus, the
standing committee could be said to have been anticipating the
opportunity to give detailed study to the panel report.
[English]
The report dated March 1995 was released to the media and
the public on May 19, 1995. To ensure that the committee was
familiar with its contents, that morning Health Canada held an
informal briefing for the committee attended by members, staff
and researchers. Copies of the report were also distributed to all
members of the House in the usual manner.
(1510)
[Translation]
Photographs of members of Parliament and images of the
House of Commons and the Parliament buildings are seen
everyday on television and in newspapers and magazines. These
images form part of the media coverage of Parliament that we
have come to expect. They may be used in a straightforward
manner or satirically, but their focus is ultimately on the work of
Parliament and parliamentarians.
[English]
It is possible however that these same images of members and
of the institution of Parliament may be misrepresented. In our
history there exist examples of cases where the symbols of
Parliament have been used inappropriately. In each instance
objections have been raised in the House.
As examples, I would refer members to Speakers' rulings
regarding the Sperry and Hutchison Company, as found in the
Journals of February 16, 1960 at pages 156 to 158, and the
Steelworkers of Hamilton Council as found in the Journals of
March 23, 1965 at pages 1159 and 1160. In both cases,
documents meant to look like Hansard, a publication carrying
with it the image of the House of Commons, were published and
distributed by non-parliamentary bodies. The Speaker ruled
both matters to be prima facie cases of privilege.
13728
[Translation]
As members are aware, Erskine May's 21st Edition, at page
69, defines privilege as follows:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each
House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by
Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge
their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or
individuals.
Neverthless, not every matter which is seemingly offensive to
the House may fall within the strict definition of privilege. As
May continues:
When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked, the
offense is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of
Parliament. Each House also claims the right to punish as contempts actions
which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, obstruct or impede it in the
performance of its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity,
such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its
members or its offencers.
[
English]
Most relevant to our current situation, May further points out
on page 121 of the 21st edition that:
Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published
reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished by
both the Lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to
obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the
respect due to them.
Reflections upon members, the particular individuals not being named or
otherwise indicated, are equivalent to reflections on the House.
My role is to determine therefore whether or not at first glance
the circumstances of the question of privilege before me fit the
criteria as described by Erskine May. The question is: Has the
use and publication of the photograph of the hon. member for
Saint John constituted a contempt of the House?
(1515 )
The hon. Minister of Health has explained to the House and to
the hon. member for Saint John how this incident arose. She has
also apologized on more than one occasion, as have others
involved in the production of the report.
Based on my research and my understanding of the citations
found in Erskine May I cannot conclude the member, although
perhaps embarrassed by this event, has been impeded in
performing her duties as a member of the House of Commons.
In the absence of malicious intent or any other obvious motive
it is difficult to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.
Members of Parliament are public figures and frequently
appear in the media. Those who interact with government and
with Parliament must remember the use of a member's
photograph in a situation totally unrelated to his or her
parliamentary duties may well lead to unforeseen difficulties
and could cause considerable embarrassment.
In this case I can only go so far as to remind everyone that the
House of Commons and its members must be treated with
respect and dignity first by its membership and also by all
intervening parties. I hope all members appreciate the
seriousness and potential dangers of a repetition of a situation
such as this.
_____________________________________________
13728
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the
third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to offer my support for this vital piece of legislation
currently before the House of Commons.
I am particularly honoured to offer my congratulations to the
House on its passage of the non-derogation clause as requested
by numerous presentations to the justice committee.
Unfortunately I am faced with the irony of the Reform Party
which in its presentation in debate and through question period
attested to the valid and warranted requests by aboriginal people
for their treaty of aboriginal rights to be respected in this matter.
Yet it voted against this clause last night in an effort to continue
to try to discredit what we as responsible parliamentarians are
privileged to support.
Why have we created this clause? Since the government's
action plan on firearms control was tabled in November of last
year aboriginal people throughout the country expressed their
concerns about the impact of the legislation on constitutionally
protected aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt and trap.
Submissions were made to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs by several organizations including the
Council of Yukon Indians, the Assembly of First Nations, the
Grand Council of the Cree, the James Bay and Northern Quebec
agreement hunting, fishing and trapping co-ordinating
committee, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapirisat of
Canada. Submissions were also received from the governments
of the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
The federal government recognizes the need to take into
consideration these concerns. The government has moved this
motion to address such concerns and has thereby ensured
aboriginal treaty rights are respected when this new law is
implemented throughout Canada.
The legislation will help protect the aboriginal treaty rights
and the aboriginal people of Canada. We will see these rights are
13729
reconciled with the highest standards for public safety which is
in this firearms act and part III of the Criminal Code.
We must challenge ourselves as people who are wiling to do
the best for our country and our fellow Canadians. We have
acted responsibly in showing Canadians that in a number of
instances we have heard their concerns with respect to this
legislation and have acted on them. I am proud we are
accomplishing that in the House.
I am a bit disappointed with the Reform Party. It says it is the
party that will listen to the people, but it will not. When three of
its members will eventually support this legislation I will not
mock out of respect because I respect parties and people who
keep their word. Reformers said they would listen to the people
but they will not. They said they would allow free votes in their
party but they are not adhering to that. They ran on the issue of
safe streets but they have forgotten that promise. They said they
want to come to Parliament and address fiscal responsibilities
but they obviously do not know the difference between a bond
and a bullet.
(1520)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been an experience in the House today
listening to Liberal members trying to defend this indefensible
gun control legislation, Bill C-68.
We in the Reform Party, the hon. member would be surprised
to know, understand the recognition of aboriginal rights
contained within the Constitution. We certainly can read
although he may doubt that sometimes.
Recognizing that in the Constitution hunting, fishing,
trapping and gathering rights are protected for aboriginal
people, the Constitution does not specifically refer to methods
of hunting, trapping or fishing. We are not talking about
entrenched treaty rights in the application of Bill C-68 to
aboriginal people. We are talking about the use of an implement
to carry out their hunting, fishing and trapping rights.
This same instrument is used by many non-natives in
northern hinterland areas. I assume these non-natives who hunt
for sustenance enjoy the same or similar hunting rights as
aboriginals. I find it questionable that the government in its
amendments to this bill has not recognized hunting for
sustenance activities of non-natives who live in remote northern
areas.
I ask the hon. minister of Indian affairs whether his
government specifically sees a difference between a remote
residential aboriginal hunting for sustenance and a
non-aboriginal who lives in a remote district of Canada and
hunts for sustenance. Why would one under the proposed
legislation be required to comply with all the regulations of Bill
C-68 and yet a special provision might be given to another?
Mr. Irwin Mr. Speaker, in broad terms we have populations of
aboriginals in Winnipeg, Toronto, Kenora and other areas as
high as 60,000 to 65,000. Within these areas aboriginal people
are more at risk to violence by all facts right now. It is in their
best interest to look at our policies of safe streets, knowing that
we are not attacking gatherers or hunters or tourism or farmers,
all things the Reform, I thought, stood for.
The hon. member says I would be surprised by some things
Reform does or says. Nothing surprises me when it comes from
the Reform.
There are provisions in the act having nothing to do with
being Indian or not. If you are under 18 and a gatherer there is an
exemption. You can use your gun if you are a gatherer of food.
(1525)
The member talks about methodology, and I have said over
and over again this does not free any person on methodology.
Surely using the test of reasonableness under the treaties no
aboriginal person can go hunting with a Sherman tank. By any
test of reasonableness we can control and legislate on
methodology.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we resume debate I understand
the hon. Secretary of State for Financial Institutions wishes to
table a motion.
_____________________________________________
13729
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion to amend the Customs Act and the customs tariff and to
make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for the
consideration of this motion.
_____________________________________________
13729
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons be read the
third time and passed; and of the amendment.
13730
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on third reading of Bill C-68
on the final day of debate on this fine bill.
I am very proud to rise as a member of this caucus because I
am proud not just of our position on this bill but also of the
strength of our caucus in standing up to criticism which,
although many times unfair and certainly very emotional, has
been strong and relentless. I am also proud of the Prime Minister
and particularly of the justice minister who has seen this
legislation through from beginning to end.
I am proud also because I know I am representing the views of
my constituents in Windsor-St. Clair. We have heard a lot of
the importance of representing the views of our constituents
today. We heard a lot from the third party about that. There are
some very specific reasons the people of Windsor-St. Clair
want me to vote for the bill.
In Windsor we enjoy a great deal of American tourism. We are
less than a mile from the United States. When thinking where to
go for lunch one can actually factor in restaurants in Detroit.
One can go there and get back on one's lunch hour. That is how
close it is. We have clean, safe streets. We have tremendous
cross-border shopping in reverse and we have a casino which
attracts 17,000 visitors a day, 90 per cent of whom are
American.
People who are active in the tourist industry in Windsor,
hoteliers, people at the casino and others, tell us one of the great
reasons for the attraction of our community is that it is in Canada
and people feel safe there. They tell us clearly and
unequivocally that when they canvas their customers, when they
talk to the patrons at the Windsor casino, gun control is a factor.
This bill in a very specific economic sense is good for my
riding. The people of my riding appreciate it, understand it and
want it. That is not my only reason for supporting it and
certainly is not the only reason my constituents have for
supporting it.
It is my view and the view of the majority of my constituents
that the bill is not just about crime control. The people of
Windsor-St. Clair and I as their representative suggest the bill
is about the kind of Canada we want for the future, in our
retirement for our children, for our grandchildren. It is about the
values we share as a country.
There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada. There
is no right to pack a pistol on one's hip or to hide one in one's
car; nor should there ever be. On the other hand as a society we
value hunting, sport shooting and aboriginal rights and we
struggle to find the balance between those seemingly competing
interests. In Windsor we know this very well. We also know
what happens when firearms as a commodity go out of control.
(1530)
As I said, we live less than a mile from a country with a very
different view of this commodity, a country where firearms are
indeed out of control. We watch the Detroit news in Windsor,
and every night purposeful criminal shootings and accidental
shootings are displayed on the air as though they were car
accidents or as though they were just another fact of life. In
those American cities they are.
I worked in Windsor in the criminal courts as both a defence
lawyer and a prosecuting lawyer. Every Monday morning in bail
court-court room number three, for those of you who are
listening in Windsor-there would be a parade of American
visitors to Canada who came into the country, passed that great
big sign that says that firearms are prohibited in Canada, came
across the border and had their firearms seized. Why? They
would tell us they had forgotten they were in the car. They would
be under the front seat, loaded, or in the glove box loaded or in
the trunk loose and loaded, sometimes carelessly stored,
sometimes kept loaded and right on hand.
Very often these same people would be offended by our laws
and highly indignant, all of them feeling that they have a
God-given right to carry a gun, and in spite of the warning at the
border they were going to continue to carry it. Why do they feel
that way? They feel that way because their culture is different
from ours, but also because many of them feel a need to carry
that gun. They feel they need protection. This is not the society
or the culture the vast majority of Canadians want to live in.
I enjoy Americans very much. I like going to the United
States. There is much to admire about their culture, their
industry, their enthusiasm, their protection of individual rights.
There is much to recommend in their democratic system. Yet
last February the President of the United States came to this
House and spoke to a joint sitting of the House and the Senate,
and what did he talk about? He talked about our efforts to control
firearms in our society. What did he talk about when he was
introduced to our justice minister that evening? Both he and
Mrs. Clinton wished him well in his struggle to control this
commodity.
My friends opposite like to talk about democracy and about
the need for us to represent our constituents. They like to talk
about the importance of representing the folks back home in this
House. I believe that is what I am doing. I believe that the
constituents of Windsor-St. Clair support me, support this
government, support the Prime Minister and the justice minister
in this effort to control this commodity. I believe as well that the
vast majority of the constituents of the members of the third
party feel the same way.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech the member
made. I know she has spent some time on this.
13731
I feel very frustrated in trying to communicate to the
Canadian people all of the things that are contained in this
128-page bill, so I took it upon myself for the last year and a half
to regularly inform them through news releases. I think I have
sent 31 or 32 news releases out informing them as to the contents
of this legislation.
We have also promised that if it proves to be ineffective we
would repeal it. We are quite confident that it will not meet the
high expectations this government has put forth in this
legislation.
My question for the member is simply this. Why did she
oppose my amendment to have an independent auditor review
this legislation after fives years to see whether it is
cost-effective and whether it is meeting the goals this
government claims it will meet? If they are so confident that it is
going to make our society safer, why did they oppose that
common sense amendment?
(1535)
I also have another comment with regard to the comments
made by the previous speaker.
I have many native people in my community and I regularly
visit with them. They are strongly opposed to Bill C-68. And
even with the amendments that were introduced yesterday, they
are still going to be opposed to it, because they say they do not
want more provisions in Canadian law that give them special
status. They would like to see us move toward equality. They are
not appreciative of what the government is doing by trying to
tinker with C-68 to make it more palatable for native people.
They are very concerned about that.
In light of the events of last night, I should review them for the
people who are watching on television. Last night we sat here for
hours and hours simply going over all the amendments that were
made at the last minute, many of them by the government, to fix
up this flawed legislation to make it a little more workable in
their eyes.
Would it not make sense to postpone this, in light of the fact
that it will not take full effect until the year 2003 anyway?
Would it not make sense to postpone it a few more months to
make sure it is workable? Because we have pointed out many
flaws in it.
Would the member object to those two amendments? We feel
it is really important to look at these things. I would like some
good answers from the government. Maybe the member can
address those two questions.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I think there were basically two
questions asked. The first was the question of whether I would
agree with my hon. friend that there should be an audit of the
situation in a few years.
I think the hon. member is confused about the nature of the
bill. This bill is about cultural values, crime, and a variety of
issues, none of which are capable of being dealt with in a
financial audit. It is not an economic bill.
With respect to the second question, about postponing the
legislation, the people of my riding do not want the legislation
postponed. They want us to get on with it and get on with our
agenda.
I would suggest to my hon. friend this his constituents
probably have concerns other than guns as well.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not mention specifically the costs of the bill. It is a
significant factor, but the member is trying to portray it as
simply a cost item.
I am asking whether she would agree to an independent audit
to see if it would be cost-effective, but also whether it was
meeting the targeted government claims that it will reduce
crime. That is the question I asked.
I also asked if she would agree to postpone it for a few more
months. It does not even begin to take effect until 1996, so why
rush it through now? If there are this many amendments coming
at the last minute, we have a serious problem in the justice
department. If they have to propose this many amendments and
all the things that need to be addressed, would it not make more
sense to wait and get it right the first time? I think this is
something she should address.
I would like to make another comment. We have listened to all
the rhetoric coming forth from the government. I would like to
remind the Canadian people that we heard exactly the same
rhetoric before the Young Offenders Act was introduced. So the
same people who brought us the Young Offenders Act are now
bringing us this gun control legislation, the same people who ran
up the debt.
This bill is going to be a horrendous cost. I wonder if the hon.
member would rather spend the money on crisis centres or
counselling for families at risk, rather than on this legislation?
Would it not make more sense? We are running further and
further into debt. I do not think we need more legislation like
this.
The same government that is giving criminals more rights
than victims is also bringing us legislation that will put a heavy
burden on law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals. I
cannot see how we can accept that.
(1540)
I would appreciate the member looking at and fairly dealing
with the questions that I have. Let us wait a bit. This time line
does not mean that we have to pass it today. Would it not make
more sense to wait? That is the amendment we are debating
before the House. Maybe she has forgotten that.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, in response I would say that I did
answer the hon. member's two questions before, but apparently
he did not like the answers.
We have never sold this as a bill to reduce crime by reason of
its existence in Canada, although it is being used as such on a
faulty basis for argument by the opposition. This bill will
provide the tools to law enforcement agencies and the cultural
13732
basis that will enable us to have less crime in the future. There is
a substantial difference.
Also, with respect to the issue of delay, the hon. member
should give his head a shake and realize that the people of
Canada want us to get on with the business of governing. The
people of Canada are not obsessed by guns. The people of
Canada are worried about jobs and unemployment. Equating
money for gun control with money for crisis centres is unfair,
particularly coming from a party whose members tried to turn
down summer grants for those very services in their ridings.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, at third
reading, of Bill C-68, the gun control legislation. My short
experience as a parliamentarian has made me more familiar with
the whole enactment process, and also more aware of the
importance of lobbies.
There is a lobby in favour of gun control and one opposed to it
but, in my opinion, the only lobby that really matters is my
constituents. Consequently, my position on this issue, which is
also that of the Bloc Quebecois, reflects the discussions which I
had with my constituents. I am thinking in particular of the
residents of Saint-Médard, in the Rivière-du-Loup area, the
community health department official who came to my office to
discuss the impact of that legislation, and also those
representing shooting clubs and firearms merchants. This is not
a black and white issue.
In this case, I believe that the approach is very different from
the one used with the social program reform, when the
government tried to impose a UI reform on the backs of the
unemployed and seasonal workers. In that case we had no choice
but to oppose such measure.
This is the first time in 18 months that I have had to really
weigh the government's intentions and the real impact of its
legislation, including in rural areas, which have the highest rate
of accidents related to the use of firearms, even though the use of
such firearms, including by hunters, is generally much more in
compliance with the legislation.
In terms of its purpose, this bill seeks to reduce the number of
deaths and injuries related to firearms, as well as to ensure
legitimate, controlled and prudent ownership of such weapons,
even though it will not prevent certain uncontrollable, impulsive
reactions leading to tragedies. The objective is no doubt very
laudable. However, is universal registration the solution? Given
the increasing number of acts of violence in today's society, it
seems that we have to use a curative approach and see if we get
good results.
My philosophy regarding this bill is the same as the one which
prevails in the occupational safety and health sector.
(1545)
The basic principle we must consider is that in order to
prevent crimes or accidents involving firearms, an effort must
be made to eliminate the problem at the source, as with any
accident at work.
Take noise, for example. In certain cases, we can completely
eliminate the noise made by a firearm with a silencer or another
similar device, and, when that is not possible, people can wear
earplugs to protect their hearing. Using this model, the question
in the case of firearms is how to cut down on the number of
deaths.
The first approach that I think is important and that is not the
focus of this bill, but should be taken into consideration, is to
eliminate problems at the source. We must have information
about the kinds of accidents that are associated with the use of
firearms, how criminals go about smuggling firearms, how, in
cases of domestic violence, one of the spouses uses a gun with
results that are irreparable and final, how many hunting and
other accidents take place. This is how we can reduce the
number of mortalities from the outset, by eliminating the
problem at the source.
This is an area in which Western society has not been too
successful. We have an increase in violence, a very high rate of
unemployment, a growing need for the services of psychologists
and too much violence on television. These are all significant
factors that require a systemic approach.
With particular respect to firearms, we have a situation where
we cannot solve the problem at the source, but we must try to
reduce the negative effects of firearm use. We can say that the
purpose of the bill should be to ensure that firearms are not
available to someone wishing to take an irreparable step.
In order to achieve this goal, and that is the purpose of
registration, we must know who possesses firearms. Are they
legally entitled to do so? We must ensure that people with
firearms are honest people, in so far as possible, and that they
are capable of using those firearms correctly. Will the method
proposed, registration, be effective? We shall see.
Plenty of time has been allowed for implementation. There
will be no change for three years. After that, there will be a five
year period, taking us to the year 2003, during which
registration can be carried out. That is when we will see whether
values have changed in our society, because that is really what
this bill is proposing, a change in values. Because our society
views violence differently, a long established practice needs to
be changed to ensure adequate control over firearms.
13733
We will see whether or not this goal is achieved in concrete
terms. I will remind you that success will have to be determined
by taking into account all the actions taken. Last week, I learned
that additional resources will be allocated to the RCMP to fight
smuggling. Will these resources be enough? I do not know. This
measure must be part of an action plan and I think this is an
interesting idea.
On the other hand, as you solve one problem, you want to
make sure you are not creating new problems in the process; in
the case in point, this means not making life impossible for
honest citizens who use firearms correctly. In that sense, it is a
shame that the government did not see fit to incorporate some of
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, particularly
with regard to having the legislation apply equally to everyone.
It says that the First Nations, aboriginal peoples can be
exempted by cabinet decision from the application of any or all
provisions of the act. It seems to me that creating two classes of
citizens like that is unfair.
(1550)
With respect to cost control, we were assured that it would not
cost more than $10 to register up to 10 weapons per owner and
that this registration would be good for life.
We, however, put forward a proposal to ensure that, for
example, the next government would not suddenly be tempted to
do what was done in many other registration systems like those
in the auto industry and other sectors, to turn this into a cash cow
for the government through very substantial cost increases. I
think that this would be inappropriate and that the government
would have to be accountable for its actions should it do so in the
future. We would have liked this to be included in the bill, but it
was not.
Another amendment called for a minimum four year sentence,
provided for in the bill, for crimes committed with weapons. We
think that this will create a double standard and that judges will
have a hard time implementing this provision because crimes
committed with firearms will have to be treated differently from
those committed with other tools or instruments. I think that the
government should have spent more time considering this.
In the debate on the firearms bill, the Bloc Quebecois's policy
has always been to ensure that we have a balanced bill at the end
of the day. Will it be sufficiently balanced for us to vote in
favour? In this regard, the amendments deliver a number of
gains.
For example, with regard to decriminalization, converting a
Criminal Code offence to a statutory offence, which does not
involve fingerprinting, mug shots, and entry into the police
electronic network for first time offenders, is an interesting
gain, because those who forget to register during the five year
period would not be considered to be criminals but simply
citizens who forgot to do something and who must rectify the
situation.
Another element on which gains were made is the decision to
issue licences. We do not rely only on reports from other people,
we take into account the place of residence of the person. A
person will not be kept from owning a firearm on the ground that
he or she is in contact with a specific individual. Rather, the
decision will be related to that person's place of residence, and
whether interdictions apply to other individuals in that
residence. That is, in our opinion, a valuable gain.
Another important issue raised by several hunters is the fact
that the firearm handling courses which they took under the
Quebec legislation were not recognized. Again, an important
gain was made regarding this issue and the situation will now be
more acceptable to Quebec hunters. That change is a good one. It
does not go against the principle which underlies gun control,
but it eliminates the frustrations experienced by hunters who use
firearms for an honest purpose, their hobby.
I also want to point out that, after a few years, only those who
have a valid license will be allowed to buy non-prohibited
ammunition. This will surely help avoid accidents which occur,
for example, when young people go out and buy ammunition.
Indeed, this type of situation often results in accidents, and that
is unacceptable.
We are dealing with a bill which, in my opinion, is not perfect,
a bill which has been the object of numerous debates. This
legislation led us to examine the pros and the cons of an
interesting principle, a principle which is aimed at reducing
violence as well as the number of accidents and tragedies which
we hear about on the news, including violence against one's
spouse. This is not to say that all accidents and tragedies will be
eliminated. People will still be able to use other means of
violence.
(1555)
We have witnessed this recently, but the use of a firearm has
such a devastating and often definitive effect that we hope that
implementing this bill will have positive effects.
I would like to conclude by saying that I drew my reflections
on this bill today from personal experience, and I tried to see the
bill's everyday implications. I still remember a story I was told,
like the one about one of my uncles who died in a hunting
accident years ago. At the time, no training courses were given
to hunters to inform them regarding the proper use of firearms.
Courses were introduced to try to remedy this situation. I could
also talk to you about one of my friends who was in a corner
store when suddenly, in came a gang of robbers. I hope that this
law will correct situations of this kind.
13734
The most obvious goal for me is preventing people from using
a firearm to commit suicide. Often, access to a firearm is the
definitive, deciding factor on the outcome of the situation.
Although the Firearms Act will not directly help people who are
contemplating suicide to deal with their crises, it will at least
save some lives by barring access to firearms in cases where
people are refused licences for justifiable reasons.
In conclusion, I believe that this law is not the best firearms
bill we could have introduced, but that it is better than none at
all. I want to ask those people who have been long-time regular
users of firearms to calm down and consider what the actual
impact will be on their daily lives.
As I said earlier, for three years there will be no impact as
such. After that, a person has five years to register his firearm.
We will have plenty of time to find out whether there will be any
negative impact.
If firearms registration is done properly and if in eight, ten,
fifteen or twenty years we as a society are able to show that our
statistics on the number of accidents, the type of accidents and
the number of suicides have gone down, then it will have been
worthwhile. From this point of view, aside from the constraints
on lawful users of firearms, I wish they would think about that
other aspect and realize that, in the best interests of our society,
it would be advisable to support this bill and provide for
adequate supervision.
For instance, the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, which were defeated, made provisions for Cabinet to
use its regulatory authority with respect to aboriginal people.
We need practical applications to ensure that the department is
sympathetic to certain needs and to ensure that the bill passed in
this House makes our society different from other societies
where there is a lot more violence and, in the process, ensures
that we have a quality of life and a social model that is far
superior.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is one statement my hon. colleague from Quebec
has made that I strongly disagree with. He said that the bill was
flawed but it was better than no bill. That is one of the problems
in the country. Bad laws are worse than no laws.
Why can he not agree with the amendment we are debating
this afternoon to wait for at least six months and work on it to
make it not such a bad law?
My first question is not the most important of my two
questions. I have been working with the Senate; I have been a
watchdog for a year and a half. Would he agree that we should
allow the Senate to examine the matter very closely, to be a
chamber of sober second thought? Does he feel that the Senate
has a legitimate role to play in the legislation? Would he like to
see a Senate that would be truly representative of Canada, all
provinces, create equality and play a legitimate role in checking
out the legislation?
(1600)
My second question is the key question. I cannot figure out
why the Bloc is not opposed to legislation that so clearly
infringes on areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education,
requiring federal education courses to be taken in the provinces;
regulation of private property, clearly in the Constitution as an
area of provincial jurisdiction; and licensing, increasing
provincial taxes.
I understand the Quebec government is looking for $300
million in compensation to implement the bill and the minister
says it will only cost $85 million. How can the member go along
with a bill that so clearly infringes on areas of provincial
jurisdiction?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I will answer generally first on the
matter of the Senate. I believe the Senate is outdated. The other
House is an outmoded institution, which reflects the view of the
19th and earlier centuries that elected representatives lacked
sufficient education and therefore needed the opinion of wiser
individuals, advisers.
Today, with the quality found in the House of Commons, the
Senate has become more of a political reward for those who have
contributed in some way or other to the party in power. I hope
elected officials will have control over this sort of legislation. If
voters, in the end, had to decide on the basis of legislation we
passed, they would decide on the situation as a whole.
However, as regards the six-month delay, I myself believe
and I think the Bloc caucus agrees, I cannot speak for the other
caucuses, that we have been very well informed on the entire
question of firearms. Lobbying has been very strong from all
sides, I daresay even exaggerated at times. We had to examine
all of it. I met many groups of voters in order to form an opinion
about what should be in the bill and I think I have all the
information I need.
As for the matter of training, the bill provides that training
courses given by the Government of Quebec will be accepted by
the federal government and that hunters who have taken the
courses will not have to take them again. In this regard, the Bloc
has won a major point by protecting the lives of ordinary people
from disruption, and this is one of the amendments that leads me
to believe the bill is balanced enough for me to vote for it and
promote it. With the support of the vast majority of Quebecers
for gun control, this amendment, among others, serves the needs
of the rural population, which I represent here, and which I
believe will enjoy long-term benefit from this new bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, perhaps I may draw
your attention to Standing Order 18 which says we do not have
13735
the right to criticize the other House. I realize very few people
are aware of this rule, but I do want to point this out.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments on the bill by
the hon. member across the way. The important discussion that
is going on today has been going on for nearly a year now. I
heard him mention the various things he has done in his area to
garner input from all factions.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question from his
perspective in the area he represents in Quebec. Knowing full
well that Quebec has many hunters and many people who enjoy
outdoor sports, especially in the wooded and northern regions of
Quebec, has he received input from various groups that makes
him believe the bill will impact on responsible firearms owners,
owners of rifles and shotguns who are legitimate hunters in
Quebec? Does he believe the legislation will impact on them,
impede them or cause them any particular hardship in carrying
out their sports and their competitions as target shooters as they
have in the past?
(1605)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, when I met the people in my riding, I
also spoke to members of the hunting community and people
from the department of public health who argued in favour of the
legislation. In the case of hunters and all people involved in
outdoor activities who use firearms, there will be some changes
that will be frustrating. That is quite true.
First of all, they will have expenses they did not have before,
and they will have to understand the new rules and how these
affect them. In this area, we have to deal with people's
perceptions of the bill as well as with the bill itself. In fact, I
hope that thanks to the timeframe provided under the bill, the
first three years and then another five years to register, the
government avoids what happened to the previous legislation,
which was never operational mainly because the government at
the time did not take the trouble to inform the public and make
the legislation acceptable to all voters, to all citizens. I think this
is a legitimate change that will require sensitive enforcement of
the legislation.
I recall the amendment we proposed regarding
criminalization and a number of other aspects, where we wanted
to ensure that the minister would be flexible-I am thinking of
the minimum sentence of four years. I think the minister will
have to give this some serious consideration and perhaps, in the
years to come, a number of technical amendments might be
considered, because people may end up in the penitentiary
system and become criminals as a result of a single misstep.
This morning the Leader of the Opposition gave the example
of the young person who breaks into a cornerstore with a gun and
as a result will get at least four years. Under the Young
Offenders Act as applied in Quebec, under the previous
legislation, he would have had a good chance of being
rehabilitated. If he is sent to the penitentiary for four years,
chances are he will acquire some bad habits before he comes out
and by that time it will be too late. So there should be some
flexibility on the part of the government to ensure the legislation
is enforced correctly.
As for hunters who will have to change their habits, I think we
have to look at the benefits to society as a whole.
We also have to be very clear about what the government
intends to do about smuggling. If the money people spend on
additional registration is used to cover the cost of the system,
that is all right, but these people will need tangible evidence that
they are not the only ones who are paying and that further action
is being taken in society, so it is not just a matter of plugging one
hole but making sure all the holes are plugged, like smuggling
firearms into Canada across what is perhaps the longest border
between two countries. The government has already announced
significant initiatives, but I think that we will have to ensure that
they are enforced because hunters will be most frustrated if they
are forced to pay fees when, ultimately, all of the other measures
end up not achieving their intended results.
We come up against the same things in this sector as we do in
the environmental sector. The way I see it, to all intents and
purposes, the real effects of a law are more evident 8, 10, 15, 20
years after the fact than they are immediately after its
introduction. It is important to realize this. We are bringing in
legislation today for the sake of future generations. We cannot
talk about a piece of legislation like we talk about next year's
budget, which can be corrected the year after.
(1610)
This was one of the considerations which got me thinking and
strongly defending the arguments put forth by the inhabitants of
rural regions on the issue. All of this notwithstanding, I think
that this legislation will allow us to distinguish ourselves, as a
society, from the American model, for example, where violence
is so widespread that certain states have decided to permit
almost anybody to carry a firearm. I am not interested in this
model. If I have a choice between the two, I would much rather
choose the model proposed here.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the justice committee which intensely and
thoroughly examined the bill for over seven weeks, I should like
to report more fully to the House of Commons.
13736
After the bill was sent to the committee on April 24, we held
52 meetings lasting until June 5. In that time we heard 70
witness groups.
While I am and always have been a strong supporter of gun
control and a supporter of Bill C-68, I took the position as chair
of the committee that I would bend over backward to
accommodate those groups which opposed the bill, to
accommodate those members of Parliament and parties who had
concerns about or opposition to the bill. I did this because I think
the credibility and integrity of the parliamentary system take
precedence over partisan views and behaviour. As a result,
approximately two-thirds of the witnesses who appeared before
the committee were in opposition to the bill and 61 amendments
were made.
Further amendments were made last night at report stage. Of
course not all amendments were accepted, which is normal in a
democratic society where there are opposing views. Some of the
amendments would have cut out the essential elements of the
bill, and therefore they were opposed. Other amendments which
were directed to major and minor improvements in the bill were
not convincing to the majority on the committee.
Now I should like to take off my committee chairman's hat
and put on my House of Commons hat and show my support for
the bill. Ever since I was elected in 1965 I have been a strong
supporter of gun control. Nearly all the elements in this bill and
in Bill C-17 from 1992 were contained in one or other of my
private member's bills from the late 1960s and early 1970s.
With this bill nearly all the proposals I made 30 years ago will
have been legislated.
Over and over again, before the committee, witnesses
opposing the bill said there was no evidence that the licensing of
gun owners and the registration of guns would reduce crime.
That is not correct. There is overwhelming evidence that where
guns and gun owners are more strictly controlled there is less
crime with guns.
If we examine the situation in western Europe where in nearly
all countries guns are registered, they have a much lower rate of
crime with guns. In Canada, where we have had the registration
of handguns for many years, we have had a lower rate of crime
with handguns than in the United States where handguns or no
guns are registered at all.
Some people might refer to some of the states of the United
States that have very strict gun laws, but we cannot really
consider them because in the United States there is no border
control between the states. For example, if one is in New York
State one can very easily travel to a neighbouring state where
guns are easily available. Therefore the strict gun laws in one
American state do not have very much impact on the control of
crime with guns.
However, in Canada, as I say, we have had very strict control
on handguns which have been restricted weapons since 1934. In
Canada 53 per cent of our crimes with guns are with long guns,
whereas only 17 per cent of crimes with guns are with handguns.
It is interesting to note that in the United States the statistics are
exactly the opposite where two-thirds of its crimes with guns
are with handguns. This demonstrates that where we control
handguns we have a much lower rate of crime with handguns.
Because we have no control on long guns most of our crimes
with guns are with long guns.
(1615)
The purpose of licensing is to screen out irresponsible,
imbalanced reckless persons who might acquire guns, to screen
out people who have problems with alcohol or narcotics. The
licensing system in the bill is merely an extension of what we
have already had for several years with firearms acquisition
certificates.
The registration system will require more responsibility from
gun owners and provide police with more tools for crime
prevention and crime detection. The purpose of both of these
measures is public safety. The bill requires no more of gun
owners than we already have in varying degrees for
automobiles, boats, aircraft, ski-doos, dogs and bicycles. In
other words, the measures in the bill with respect to licensing
and registration are for preventive policing, the approach of the
police these days, to prevent crimes than after the crime
applying a harsh penalty. It is much better to prevent the crime
by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous, irresponsible
people than to punish them after they have committed the crime.
Furthermore, I want to make absolutely clear there is no
intention at all by me or anybody else in government to ban all
guns or ban hunting or competitive shooting.
This is my fourth gun bill debate since I came here in 1965. On
those four occasions this fear was raised by opponents of those
bills. It never happened. We have as many or more hunters today
than we had in 1965 when we first started introducing bills to
control guns.
On the other hand, while there has been no real reduction in
the number of hunters or competitive shooters there has been a
gradual reduction of crime with guns. In 1974, 47.2 per cent of
homicides were with a firearm. In 1976, we passed a law that
brought in a certain restriction on firearms. That was the year we
brought in the firearms acquisition certificate. By 1980 only
32.9 per cent of homicides were committed with a firearm. In
1992 we had Bill C-17 with further restrictions and further
controls on firearms. In 1993, the last year for which we have
statistics, only 30.6 per cent of homicides were with firearms.
In that period homicides have declined as well. The highest
rate for homicides in recent years was in 1975 when we had 3.02
homicides per 100,000 population. In 1993 there were 2.19 per
13737
100,000, a considerable drop after stricter controls on guns and
as well the abolition of capital punishment in 1976.
I will deal with some of the myths raised during the hearings
of the committee, one being if we control guns more strictly
only criminals will have guns. Sixty-six per cent of homicides
are committed by people with no prior criminal record. In other
words, 66 per cent were law-abiding until they committed
homicide. Marc Lépine, who killed 14 women at l'École
polytechnique, had no prior criminal record. Valery Fabrikant,
who killed four professors at Concordia University, had no prior
criminal record.
(1620 )
We will never control professional gangsters or professional
criminals; they will always get their guns. The great majority of
our murders are not committed by those people but by people
who were previously law-abiding.
The other myth is that guns do not kill, people kill. That is true
but people kill more easily and more effectively with guns than
with other weapons. Guns are the most lethal of weapons. When
a gun is readily available what might have been an assault
becomes a murder.
There is considerable evidence from Canada, the United
States and all over the world that where guns are more available
there are more crimes with guns. The bill will restrict the
availability of guns to many who might use them criminally. It
will also put barriers in the way of those who want to acquire
them quickly and irresponsibly. The bill will reduce crime with
guns. It will control not only guns but crime.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member.
I find it very interesting how they can look at some of the
statistics from around the world and twist them to suit their own
purposes. The member cited statistics from Europe. England
embarked on a campaign against guns and he is perfectly aware
that violent crime increased in England as these laws were put
into effect. I am making him aware that it depends on how one
twists these statistics.
I agree with him when he says we need to get at the root of the
problem. This is not getting at the root of the problem. We are
simply seeing someone bleeding on the rug and we are saying
please bleed over here. Instead of trying to stop the crime,
instead of trying to stop the problem we are simply shifting it
somewhere else. We are not targeting the problem of crime.
Prevention is the principle. If we are to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars and save lives, which the government stated
is the intent of the bill, would it not be better to spend it in some
other way? Would it not be more cost effective?
Why does the member oppose my amendment to have a
review of this legislation by an independent auditor to see
whether it is meeting the goals and objectives the government
has set? I cannot understand why he would object to that.
The statistics he quotes beg the question of how many more
lives could be saved if we would spend the money in other ways.
Another key question the government has never addressed is
how many lives will this cost. I presented evidence to the
government that showed guns have saved many lives.
This legislation will tie up our police. How many lives will it
cost because the police are no longer on the street but are tied up
with law-abiding citizens registering guns? How many jobs will
be destroyed because of the increase in taxes this will make
necessary? What will those people without jobs do? Some of
them may possibly turn to a life of crime.
We as parliamentarians sometimes forget to look at the
secondary aspects, the secondary effects our legislation has.
Could the hon. member address those two questions I have
raised?
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what statistics the
hon. member is looking at. I do not have them here before me
today but I looked at some this morning because I have to give
another speech tonight on homicide at another place.
The rate of murder in the United Kingdom is less than 2 per
100,000; less than in Canada where it is 2.19 per 100,000. In the
United States the rate of murder is 9.6 per 100,000. I do not
know what the hon. member is talking about. Let us hear his
figures.
The rate of murder in the United Kingdom is lower than in
Canada and the rate of murder with guns is much lower than in
Canada and much lower than in the United States.
(1625 )
The member has not presented us with any facts. I challenge
him. I will come back to the House tomorrow under a standing
order and put the facts on record. In all of Europe the rate of
crime committed with guns is substantially lower than in the
United States and in Canada. He cannot state otherwise. There
may have been a slight increase, but the slight increase is
nowhere near that of the United States which has open access to
guns.
He asked why we do not spend the money on other programs
which might deal with the causes of crime. I am rather surprised
by that. Every time the government has put proposals to the
House in that direction members of his party vote against them.
Not only do they not approve of the cuts the government has
made in social programs, they want to cut them even
further-what hypocrisy.
13738
The people who will pay for the registration system and the
licensing system will be the gun owners, just like those of us
who own automobiles have to pay for the registration system
and the licensing system. The general taxpayer should not have
to pay for the gun control system. It should be paid for by the
people who own and use guns, and rightly so. The moneys we
would use for general social programs to attack the causes of
crime will come out of general tax revenue. They should not be
played one against the other.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons.
I congratulate the Minister of Justice on his efforts and
perseverance in bringing this important and timely matter to the
House of Commons. More important, I commend the minister
for his willingness to listen and to respond to the comments of
all Canadians regarding the bill without sacrificing the major
goals and initiatives of it.
I do not believe any other bill in this session has generated as
much discussion and debate among Canadians as has this one.
However, as I have listened to the discussion and the debate
some of the major aspects of the legislation are being
overlooked. I will comment on some of the issues I feel have not
been adequately highlighted.
The legislation sends a clear message to criminals, judges and
the public. If a person uses a gun while committing a crime they
will be punished. The Criminal Code will be amended to provide
that when a person has committed one of the ten listed serious
crimes with a firearm they will be subject to a minimum
sentence of four years in prison. In many cases the actual
punishment will be more severe. If a person uses a gun in the
commission of a crime they will be punished. No matter what
other mitigating factors are involved, a judge will have no
choice but to sentence people guilty of these offences to four
years in a federal penitentiary.
The message is clear. The protection of the public must be the
main goal of our penal system. In addition, people convicted of
these offences will be banned from owning a firearm for life. I
believe it is important to reflect on these provisions because
they highlight the central goal and purpose of the legislation, to
ensure Canada remains a safe place and that Canadians continue
to enjoy protection from gun related crime.
The provision aimed at tighter border controls was referred to
earlier by my hon. colleague with respect to the importation of
firearms. One need only look to the south to see the dangers guns
pose. It is with great pride that many Canadians compare the
relative safety of our cities and towns to those of the United
States. Given the easy availability of firearms in the United
States it is clear any legislation aimed at controlling the use of
guns must address the importation of guns.
Import-export controls for firearms are presently based on
the premise that guns are a commodity and therefore are subject
to the same trade controls as any other commodity. Under Bill
C-68 changes will be made to provide for a fundamental
reorientation of the policy toward firearm imports. In particular,
the legislation will recognize that importing firearms may have
important consequences in terms of public safety and crime
control.
Under Bill C-68 for every firearm coming into Canada the
person responsible will be required to have either an import
permit for commercial use or a customs declaration for personal
use. Every gun coming into Canada will now be tracked. These
import declarations and permits will only be issued to those
individuals and companies who have the necessary permission
to possess firearms while in Canada. These controls form part of
the bill's effort to reduce the underground market for guns and
provide for the accurate tracking of all guns in Canada.
(1630)
Of course, in conjunction with these new measures, the act
provides also for penalties for those individuals who do not obey
the import guidelines. Under Bill C-68, the Criminal Code will
be amended to provide for a new offence of importing a firearm
without the proper customs declaration or permit. This offence
will be punishable by a minimum of one year imprisonment if
prosecuted on indictment. In addition, the court has the power to
prohibit the offender from possessing a firearm for up to 10
years.
Again, the theme underlying Bill C-68 is clear in these
provisions. The theme is the protection of the public and the
reduction of crime.
The bill also recognizes the legitimate use of guns, but at the
same time it is aimed at limiting the use of guns by those people
who have no legitimate purpose to do so. This will be done by
reducing the underground market for guns, the place where
criminals get their guns, and by increasing the penalties for
those who use guns for illegitimate purposes.
There are other measures which I would like to briefly
highlight. Any future sale or importation of handguns that have
a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less will be banned. In
addition, the definition of firearm in section 85 of the Criminal
Code will be expanded to include imitation firearms so that
those who simply use or threaten with a fake gun will not escape
the penalties under the Criminal Code.
I would now like to take a few moments to comment on the
section of the bill that has by far generated the most public
debate, the system of universal gun registration. In my
conversations, letters and meetings with constituents, it is this
section of the bill that has been the focus of much discussion.
Before understanding the purpose of universal gun registration,
one must be cognizant of the other initiatives contained in Bill
C-68 which I have previously touched upon. I repeat, Bill C-68
13739
is about increasing public safety and controlling the criminal
misuse of guns.
The universal registration system supports and supplements
the other provisions of the bill. The registration of all firearms
enables Canada to control and track the flow of firearms across
its borders. Without registration, the increased penalties for
illegal importation would be unenforceable. It enables Canada
and its police forces to address the issue of criminal misuse of
guns by helping enforce prohibition orders issued by the courts,
by helping police to trace stolen guns and guns used in crimes
and by helping increase compliance with safe storage
requirements. Registration is the backbone of this bill and it is
the section upon which the rest of the bill can be effectively
implemented.
Many critics of gun registration have argued that registration
will not work because criminals will not register their guns.
Frankly, this misses the whole point. Criminals obtain their guns
from the underground market which is fed by smuggled and
stolen guns. Registration will help eliminate two sources of
supply for this market. It will enable police to accurately track
the point at which the guns enter the underground market.
Police have been calling for a form of gun legislation for
years. If anyone is in a position to say whether gun control will
effectively assist in the prevention of crime, I believe it is the
police.
I would like to quote from a letter from Chief Vincent
MacDonald, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police. Speaking on behalf of the association, Chief MacDonald
stated: ``We view the registration of all firearms as pivotal to the
entire package, critical to controlling the illegal gun trade, to
supporting preventative action and to enforcing the law''.
It is for these reasons that the registration system contained in
Bill C-68 is both necessary and desirable.
Many of the concerns with the registration system rest on
what I believe has been a lack of accurate information. For
instance, the cost of implementing the registration system will
be funded 100 per cent through fees charged for licences and
registration certificates. There will be no drain on existing
police resources as a result of the implementation of the
registration system.
(1635)
The cost of registration for individual gun owners will not be
excessive. For owners who wish to register currently owned
firearms, a registration certificate will cost between zero and
$10 in the first year of availability. Additionally, a
non-acquisition firearm licence will cost between zero and $10
in the first year of availability. The actual process to acquire
certificates and licences will be straightforward and quick.
In addition to my own views on gun registration, like other
members of the House I have consulted and listened to my
constituents. I have received many telephone calls and letters. I
have attended town hall meetings and have spoken personally
with constituents.
I believe in this bill. I support it fully and I am very pleased at
this time to have the opportunity to say so in the House of
Commons.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for getting this bill successfully
through committee and back into the House. As a member of the
committee I know we worked very hard to make the bill suitable
for everybody in Canada and easily adaptable to the desires of
most people.
I would like to refer to a letter I received by fax today. This
letter was sent to the Minister of Justice from the Federation of
Medical Women of Canada and states: ``The Federation of
Medical Women of Canada support the gun control legislation
Bill C-68 now being debated and voted on by Parliament''.
The letter goes on to state that in 1990 Statistics Canada
reported 1,400 deaths per year involving firearms. Research has
shown that the risk of homicide and suicide is greater for people
who live in houses with firearms. The federation also states:
``We view domestic violence as a social and health issue which
requires an effective preventative approach with a combination
of education and legislation. As an organization, we recognize
that we have a role to play''.
It is about the role to play that I would like to make a further
comment. I am pleased that most Canadians are not the source of
the problem for which the law is geared. This makes Canada
unique. We have an abundance of law-abiding citizens but an
additional attribute of Canadians is that even Canadians who are
not directly affected do share a common sense of responsibility
for the welfare of others.
To those who oppose the bill on the basis that they are good
citizens and need no laws, I appeal to their higher sense of
responsibility for they could make true models for all others.
They could accept the bill as it is, respect it and set a model for
those who are not law-abiding citizens. I am asking all who
oppose the bill to act as good citizens and accept their
responsibility and do what the bill asks.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is a question in the
member's comments. If the member for St. John's West wishes
to reply briefly she may.
Mrs. Payne: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to participate in what will really be the closing
debate on the government's controversial gun control Bill C-68.
13740
My colleagues, under the able direction of the hon. member
for Crowfoot, have put forward a host of arguments concerning
the defects of the bill and over 200 amendments to endeavour to
correct the worst of those defects. I wish to commend each and
every one of our Reform members for the quality of their
contributions and the conscientiousness with which they have
made them.
Although these seeds of gun control reform may have fallen
on barren ground in this Chamber, I can assure the government
that those seeds are falling on fertile ground in the country at
large. Within a year they will bring a crop of public discontent
which will cause the minister and the government to rue the day
they rammed this ill conceived legislation through their own
caucus and through Parliament.
As the debate winds up, I do not want to dwell any longer on
the details of the bill but instead on the bigger picture. What are
the characteristics of a good law and does this bill possess them?
(1640)
The short answer is that a good law must have at least three
characteristics. It must be within the constitutional competence
of the government. It must be effective in achieving the
objective for which it is introduced. Above all it must be capable
of carrying the judgment of the people who will pay the bills and
for whose benefit it has been introduced. In other words, a good
law must pass the test of constitutionality, effectiveness and
democratic consent.
Let us look at the big picture. Will Bill C-68 if enacted be a
good law or a bad law?
First is the test of constitutionality. This bill will be
challenged constitutionally. It will be subject to constitutional
challenges to which it would not be subject if the minister had
carried out more genuine consultations, listened to the advice he
had received and given greater care to the issue of civil liberties
when he first conceived and drafted the bill.
With respect to potentially damaging constitutional
challenges, I refer to the following. There is the contention of
the James Bay Cree and Yukon First Nations that the minister
did not comply with the provisions of constitutional agreements
with themselves in framing the legislation. I refer further to the
fact that several of the provinces consider the onerous
regulatory aspects of the act an imposition and an intrusion into
their provincial jurisdictions. They may very well challenge the
constitutionality of the act once the regulations are proclaimed.
Finally, I refer to the concerns of the civil libertarians that
certain clauses, such as those pertaining to inspection, may very
well contravene the charter of rights and freedoms, in particular,
the rights of Canadians to privacy and security of the person.
It is with some bitterness I note that when these concerns with
respect to the intrusion of the bill on civil liberties were first
raised by ordinary citizens with their MPs, they were completely
ignored by the government. When they were pointed out again
by Reform MPs in this House and in committee, they were
ignored by the government and the media.
It was only when more elite groups like the Canadian Bar
Association or politically correct groups like the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association also made the same points months later
that the civil liberties issue was even recognized as a potential
flaw in the bill by the justice department. I say it is a sad day
when the civil liberties of a people are taken for granted by the
government and only judged to be at risk when the elites or
special interest groups deign to acknowledge the risk.
I would also ask how the justice minister in introducing his
first major complete legislative initiative to this House could
have managed to get himself on to such shaky constitutional
ground including potential violations of the charter of rights and
freedoms. Bill C-68 fails the test of being on sound, and
unquestionably sound, constitutional ground.
A second major test which any government legislative
measure must pass regardless of whether or not it has sufficient
support to pass in this Chamber is the test of effectiveness. Will
it achieve the object, in this case an increase in public safety,
which is its purported intent?
My colleagues have made the argument very effectively that
Bill C-68 will not achieve the goal of increased public safety
because it focuses less than 20 per cent on the regulation of the
criminal use of firearms and over 80 per cent on the regulation of
the non-criminal use of firearms. To be effective the emphasis
of the bill should have been exactly the opposite.
There is another front on which this bill fails the effectiveness
test. As all members know, the Criminal Code and a national gun
registry is a federal responsibility but its administration is a
provincial responsibility. To be effective a bill of this nature
must have the full and positive co-operation of the provinces. It
is becoming increasingly apparent that this is not the case. At
least five provinces and two territories have indicated their
profound unhappiness with the bill and the administrative
obligations it imposes upon them.
The Government of Saskatchewan has gone so far as to
introduce a motion in the Saskatchewan assembly urging the
federal government to introduce amendments to Bill C-68, to
allow provinces and territories to opt out of the provisions
respecting registration and licensing. The attorney general in
Saskatchewan has called on the federal minister to place higher
penalties on criminals who use firearms in the commission of an
offence and to withdraw all the remaining sections of the gun
13741
control package. He has indicated his willingness to continue to
oppose this federal legislation.
(1645)
The minister has made it clear that he will proceed delicately
with respect to imposing the administration of this gun control
legislation on Indian reserves, many of whom are unalterably
opposed to the provisions. This holds out the unseemly prospect
of one approach for non-aboriginals, and another for
aboriginals, in violation of the basic concept of equality of all
citizens before the law.
From a political standpoint, no one in his right mind believes
that the federal government, in association with the separatist
government of Quebec, is going to vigorously and actively
proceed to register every firearm in that province, including
those on aboriginal reserves, during a period of constitutional
uncertainty.
In other words, even a cursory examination of the practical
aspects of administering the bill across the country by
provincial governments, half of whom profoundly disagree with
it, and on aboriginal reserves, the majority of which disagree
with it, reveals profound weaknesses in the potential
administration of the bill, profound weaknesses which will
render it ineffective in achieving its purpose.
The third test of a good law is that it must be capable of
carrying the judgment of the people who pay the bills and for
whose benefit it has been introduced. In other words, it must
pass the test of democratic consent and support.
Since the bill was first introduced, the government has
maintained that it has vast public support, citing various public
opinion polls in that regard. However, governments, especially
elitist ones that boast of their ability to spin doctor the issues,
have a habit of deceiving themselves on the subject of
democratic support and their reading of the polls, as was
profoundly illustrated in the country and in the House with
respect to the Charlottetown accord.
Various polls have been conducted which ask the public
whether they are in favour of gun control, and of course the
majority answered in agreement. These polls usually fail to
follow up that question with the more pertinent question: Should
the focus of gun legislation be on punishing the criminal use of
firearms or regulating the non-criminal use of firearms? If and
when that question is put to the Canadian public, I submit that
the majority favour coming down like a ton of bricks on the
criminal's use of firearms which is precisely the Reform
position.
Other polls ask whether the public supports the federal
government's proposed gun control legislation, but fail to ask
whether the respondents are in any way, shape or form, familiar
with the federal government's gun control legislation. They
completely miss the point that as the public gains more and more
knowledge about this bill, its support for it declines rather than
increases no matter what the initial level. This was precisely the
same pattern of declining support which ultimately sank the
Charlottetown accord.
Made in Ottawa solutions to national problems, if promoted
and promulgated by governments with vast dollars to spend on
public relations, initially receive a high rating-in the vicinity
of 60 per cent to 65 per cent-with the public. However, as the
public gets to know more and more about the legislation, as they
examine it for themselves, as they discuss it, as they hear the
perspective of the provincial and municipal politicians, the
interest groups, the academics and their friends and neighbours,
the track record is that public support declines in direct relation
to increased knowledge about the legislation.
Any piece of public legislation is subject to declining public
support, a trajectory which in the case of this bill will mean that
less than 50 per cent of the public will support its provisions by
late this fall. That is the sign of a bad law, a law which cannot be
properly enforced and will not achieve the intent of Parliament
because it does not carry the judgment of the people who pay the
bills and whom it supposedly benefits.
I therefore submit in conclusion that Bill C-68, if passed into
law, will not be a good law. It will be a bad law, a blight on the
legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three
great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of the
democratic consent of the governed.
(1650)
What should be the fate of a bad law? It should be repealed,
which is precisely what a Reform government will do when it
eventually replaces this government.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. If you would seek
it I believe you would find unanimous consent that the vote
initially scheduled to take place at 5.30 p.m. this day be
rescheduled to 6.30 p.m., immediately after private members'
hour.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: So ordered.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested to hear the remarks of my hon. colleague, the
leader of the third party in the House.
I listened with interest because I want to tell him that I would
also listen with interest if I heard those loud cries from the civil
libertarians in this country. I, for one, would listen to those and I
am sure members on my side of the House would also listen with
me and react.
13742
The loud voices have not been heard by civil libertarians.
They have been heard by a very vocal gun lobby very much
supported by the Reform Party, the members opposite.
I want to come back to a statement that concerned me in my
hon. colleague's speech about constitutional law which is
something that we should be very concerned about.
The charter of rights and freedoms is something of which we
must be very cognizant in every piece of legislation. When a
minister brings forward legislation he has to sign on that he has
taken into consideration constitutional and charter arguments.
The charter, I often hear, is something that gets in the way. Our
protection in search and seizure provisions comes from the
charter provisions. That is why Canadians should not be afraid
of the gun control bill.
I also want to talk about constitutionality because my
colleague opposite raised it. The Supreme Court of Canada has
already ruled that gun control is a matter of criminal law. It does
not matter that all the provisions of the Criminal Code offence
be in the Criminal Code.
That the Criminal Code is for crime prevention has been very
clearly ruled in the appellate court in Alberta and in the Supreme
Court of Canada. It has been stated by Professor Hogg, who is
the expert in Canada on constitutional law, that gun control law
is a criminal control provision, a crime prevention provision,
and is totally intra vires the Parliament of Canada.
What is the hon. member going to say to the Supreme Court
justices?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
learned legal opinion but she did not address the constitutional
problems that I raised.
I did not argue that the federal Parliament does not have the
constitutional right to pass gun control legislation. I did raise
the point that it was aboriginal people who were the first to raise
the constitutional question about the bill. Their argument was
nowhere close to what the member was trying to defend.
They argued that the constitutional documents which
constitute the arrangements between the James Bay Cree and the
federal government and the Yukon First Nations and the federal
government contained a clause that required a type of
consultation which was not provided or honoured by the
minister. This was raised by some citizens, a completely
different lot.
The other arguments that have been raised with respect to
constitutionality are with respect to specific provisions. As the
member well knows, the provinces are concerned about the
clauses that mention ending the right to remain silent, the
requirement to co-operate with the police, the presumption of
guilt until proven innocent, the assignment of guilt by
association, allowing confiscation of property without
compensation, the provision of search and seizure without a
warrant. The suspicion is they violate sections 7 and 8 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(1655 )
I suggest it is in these specific areas the bill gets on to shaky
ground. The minister would have been well advised to accept
amendments and changes in these areas if his interest was in
getting a bill that would not be on shaky constitutional ground if
enacted.
The Deputy Speaker: With the understanding the hon. leader
was sharing his time with another member, the time for
questions and comments has expired.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us today concerns gun control. When the debate is
finished, members on both sides of the House will be asked to
say yea or nay. Should I vote in favour of the bill as some polls
have suggested, or if on examining the content of the bill I find
that on balance it has serious shortcomings not addressed by the
pollsters' questions, do I then cast my vote against the bill? If I
do vote against the bill, am I then voting against the wishes of
my constituents?
I do not need to tell the House one of the most fundamental
principles of my party is that Reform members of Parliament
vote according to the wishes of their constituents regardless of
their personal convictions.
The question of how a member should vote is worth
examining in the context of the bill. It is a question that is
fundamental to the public's perception of our role as members of
Parliament. It is a question whose time has come because with
today's technology, members of this place and the public at large
could vote on any matter before the House without having to
leave home.
What do Canadians expect of their elected officials? Do they
simply want us to look at the polls or look at the bill? Do they
want us to vote according to the polls or according to the bill?
Certainly many polls would suggest Canadians support gun
registration. However this bill is about more than gun
registration. It raises important questions about fundamental
legal rights, about fairness and even handedness in sentencing,
important questions about the spending of limited government
resources and basic questions about whether the bill meets its
stated objectives of making our streets and homes safer.
Asking Canadians if they support gun registration and asking
them if they support Bill C-68 are two distinct questions. No
poll has adequately addressed the difference between the two.
That is why Canadians have sent us to this place: to examine
bills and make the distinctions the pollsters cannot or will not, to
challenge the self-serving press releases of the government and
to advance the real concerns of our constituents.
13743
Canadians expect us to vote on the merits of the bill. I want to
emphasize I do not have any reservations about gun registration
as a policy. However I cannot support the bill because I believe
it is fundamentally flawed. It does not advance the cause of
justice or the safety of the citizens one iota.
I cannot support the bill because it diverts scarce public
resources and energies to policies which will not truly enhance
personal and community safety. Members cannot transfer
support for gun registration to Bill C-68.
There is another side of the issue I would also like to address.
Why has the government not devoted its energies and resources
to measures that will truly lead to safer communities? Consider
the tragic case of Christopher Stevenson. Members may recall
Christopher was an 11-year old Ontario boy who was raped and
murdered by a psychopathic pedophile and a nine-time child
rapist, Joseph Fredericks.
Recently Dr. Jim Cairns who headed the inquest into
Christopher's death warned that our children remain targets of
dangerous sexual predators because governments are not
moving in a meaningful way to protect them. The evidence
presented at the inquest was that these offenders cannot be
treated and the only way to protect society is through indefinite
detention. Yet the principal recommendation of the Stevenson
inquiry that repeat child sex offenders be jailed indefinitely has
not been implemented.
(1700 )
Why has the government not enacted sexual predator
legislation which puts the rights of the victim and the protection
of society above all else? Why has the government diverted
energies and resources of the Department of Justice and the
House from addressing real solutions to the problem of violence
in our homes and neighbourhoods?
These are the real questions. These are the questions members
opposite must answer. These are the questions to which
Canadians want answers.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Waterloo-National Defence.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not claim to be an expert on hunting and guns but I
know the hon. member for Delta may be of some assistance.
How can his party justify not supporting the bill?
I will put it in terms of what I understand from hunting. I have
seen a hunting expedition. I saw the hunters arrive in their
vehicles in northern Canada, in the Northwest Territories. They
were in licensed vehicles. Presumably they had stopped at
licensed gas stations along the way to pick up gas. They got on a
licensed aircraft on a licensed airfield and flew to some remote
lake where they hunted. They had to have a hunting licence in
order to hunt. I presume the licence was specific as to the species
of animal they were able to hunt.
They got the animal. They then applied for a licence to export
the horns from the Northwest Territories because they could not
not export from the Northwest Territories without a licence.
They got back in their licensed vehicle, having travelled with a
licensed guide on their hunting trip.
If everything else about the sport is licensed except the most
dangerous part of it, that is the gun, why is there objection to
proceeding with the licensing of guns? There is no objection to
licensing game wardens. There is no problem with getting a
licence to hunt. There is no problem with licensing the guides,
the aircraft, the cars, the gas station and everything else. Yet
Reform members have a mental block with respect to licensing
guns. Could the hon. member enlighten me? I cannot understand
this attitude.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the issue of licensing put quite
simply is that if I have a car that is not used on the highway I do
not need to register it. If I am not using the vehicle registration is
not required. That applies to many elements in society.
The issue is not about licensing. The issue is about public
safety. The gun handler is licensed. The legislation requires a
very stringent test and personal interventions by police
authorities to ensure that the person can adequately operate the
weapon and so on. We have given very careful consideration to
dealing with the issue of licensing.
However the issue is not licensing; the issue is public safety.
We are opposed to the bill because licensing will not advance the
cause of public safety one iota.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened intently to the hon. member's speech when he talked
about licensing. Yesterday I talked about the importance of
representing one's constituents here. As I did so members of the
Reform Party kept yelling at me and telling me that somehow I
was not representing my constituents by making a decision to
vote in favour of the bill.
An hon. member: We all know that you will do what you are
told.
Mr. Speller: Do what I am told? Look at the hon. members
who are falling in line with their leader.
Their leader lives in an urban area that is in favour of the
legislation. All the polls that have been taken across the country
have clearly shown that. How can the hon. member and members
of his caucus stand here to say that those of us in Ontario, for
instance, who are trying to best represent our constituents, who
have taken polls and have spoken to many constituents, are not
representing our constituents? His own leader comes from an
area of the country where polls have shown that the majority of
the people are in favour of the legislation. His leader is going to
vote against it, against the wishes of his constituents. That
party's key point during the election campaign was to represent
13744
its constituents and have free votes. How does that align with
party policy?
(1705)
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the issue is whether the question
the poll has asked can be equated to Bill C-68. In my view
asking the question ``are you in favour of registering firearms''
does not equate to Bill C-68 because Bill C-68 goes far beyond
that. That is the point. The question that gets answered is the one
asked.
In this instance the pollsters are not asking the right question.
At best a series of questions would have to be asked regarding
Bill C-68. Then we as members of the House would have to
balance it off and ask what would carry the most weight, the
registration of guns or the violation of the human rights or legal
rights that we believe are inherent in it.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
London West.
I express my support of Bill C-68 that has been before the
House for several months now. The Minister of Justice has
travelled the country in consultation and the bill has been
scrutinized by the media. It has been studied by the standing
committee of which I am a member. Over 70 groups and
approximately 35 members appeared before the committee. The
time has arrived for the House to act on the legislation.
Certain colleagues in the House frequently look to the United
States to cite examples of public policy which in their view
should be adopted in this country. I often question whether
certain members opposite are more familiar with the American
constitution as opposed to the Canadian Constitution.
Canadians have looked to the United States and at its
pervasive gun culture. One need only watch the nightly news on
any American station to realize the tragic consequences of the
pro gun movement, a movement that shares the common beliefs
of many people and parties in the House.
My own riding of Sarnia-Lambton borders on the
community of Port Huron in the state of Michigan. Last
September just as children were going back to school two
individuals who were repairing a roof at a school got into an
argument. One went out to his truck, got a gun and shot his
co-worker in full view of the children.
In the same city, which is a relatively prosperous community
of 100,000, there were seven shootings in schools last year.
Children as young as 12 were bringing guns to school in their
gym bags so they could settle a school yard dispute. This was all
happening in a very middle class prosperous community 400
yards away from my riding. This is terribly anecdotal material
but I suggest it draws a distinction between our two countries.
Bill C-68 is an opportunity to define and shape the type of
attitudes we as Canadians have toward the flow of guns, the
possession of guns and the usage of guns in the country. It is a
step toward recognition of the type of society based on our
history and our values, one of which is to let other people speak
without being interrupted. It distinguishes us absolutely from
our neighbours to the south. It recognizes that there are
legitimate uses for firearms and that there are concurrent
obligations in such ownership.
As someone who sat on the committee I can quite safely say
that the quality of the testimony and the evidence was of great
concern to me. It was readily apparent that there were doctors
appearing before the committee who were quite willing to give
legal opinions and there were lawyers appearing before the
committee who were quite willing to give medical opinions.
Many individuals who appeared as members of responsible
firearms groups or gun owners groups offered advice on
accounting principles even though they had no background in it.
They would offer advice on certain belief systems that bordered
on religions.
(1710)
As a result I suggest to those here and those watching that it is
necessary to weigh the probative value of the evidence of an
expert, for example in business administration, who because he
has a doctorate in business administration transfers his advice to
the National Rifle Association and the Fraser Institute, all the
time posing as a criminologist.
Similarly one would question the opinion of a medical doctor
who appeared before the committee and formed conclusions
regarding suicide that fly in the face of empirical research on the
subject, as well as the evidence of a group representative who
purports to speak for veterans buried in Europe, victims of the
second world war.
It is safe and true to say that there was a continuum of opinion
before the committee on the bill, some of which quite frankly
bordered on the absurd and some of which resembled
reasonable, objective and logical suggestions.
Those who belong-and I would suggest there are some in the
House-to the show me school, that is those who demand
mathematical equations empirically setting out reductions in
murder, accident and suicide rates, are demanding a burden of
proof that from a logical perspective is false and perverse. We
are hearing a lot of it tonight. I am referring to those who
demand no registration but implicitly know that locking up one
13745
spouse in jail for shooting the other spouse will somehow deter
others from the same behaviour.
If we take the punishment versus prevention logic and follow
it through to its conclusion, surely punishment would be a
sufficient deterrent to allow banks to transport money without
armoured cars. Surely the threat of a sentence for holding up a
bank employee transporting cash would be sufficient to prevent
such a criminal act and banks could cut the cost of doing
business by not spending money on such preventive safety
measures as armoured cars.
We know there are still robberies of armoured cars. The fact
that banks have taken reasonable measures to prevent acts that
are reasonably foreseeable is accepted by society as the prudent
course of action.
Similarly we have in the country workplace safety laws that
require certain steps to be taken to minimize accidents in the
workplace. Such laws are accepted even though there is a cost in
implementing safety devices and inspection procedures because
certain tragedies are preventable, although by no means can
such legislation eliminate unfortunate accidents and
occurrences.
If the same burden of proof were placed on the
implementation of workplace safety laws or seatbelt laws such
as was suggested by members across the way, and if the same
quantitative mathematical proof were applied to the laws before
passage, obviously none of the statutory provisions would ever
exist. We would live in a country without workplace safety laws.
I commend to all opponents of the bill who would prefer to
talk rather than listen the testimony of public health experts who
appeared before the committee. They recognized that laws such
as this one create a change not only in the flow of guns, the
possession of guns and the usage of guns, but more important in
the attitudes of society toward guns.
Many witnesses who appeared before the committee stated
the tired old maxim that we have heard many times: people kill,
guns do not. Such simple statements deny the fact that guns are
inherently dangerous objects and that in possessing these
weapons certain obligations should be imposed.
Is it unreasonable to know who owns the weapons or where
they are moving in society? Is it in some way an imposition on
someone's inherent right to have some central registry system
when the same exists for dogs, cars, houses and securities?
Mr. Stinson: It stops the dogs that bite and the drunks who
drive.
Mr. Gallaway: Nothwithstanding all the talk across the way,
is it reasonable to conclude from the evidence of the police,
public health experts, suicide prevention groups and public
safety experts that the cornerstone of the bill, the registry
system, will cut the rate of crime and suicides in Canada? The
unequivocal response is yes, I must acknowledge that there were
many witnesses who sincerely denied this to be the case. There
are those who cling to the beliefs of the business administrator
turned criminologist. Perhaps these people will turn to their
accountant the next time they have a medical problem.
(1715)
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Questions or comments, the hon. member for Prince
George-Peace River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the government had not chosen to enact time
allocation I am sure all of us would have enjoyed hearing the
remainder of the hon. member's speech on this issue. He can
thank his own party for cutting him off in that sense.
We are talking about effectiveness of this impending
legislation. Every time we try to raise concerns about it in this
House we are accused of trafficking in fiction. The government
says that the people of Canada have to trust it. It will draft these
regulations. We have not seen what they are yet. We have to trust
the government that once it gets the regulations in place it will
effectively address the issues.
I want to briefly read into the record the following:
Registration pertains to things-guns in this case-not people. It records the
description, serial number and ownership of each item or weapon. For
extremely lethal and easily hidden weapons such as handguns-which in
Canada are restricted and of which there are relatively few-it is a workable
and relatively effective system that screens owners and weapons alike and
inhibits casual purchase. However, for the ten million long guns in Canada I
believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in
comparison with its potential benefits.
This quote was from the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
Hansard, Commons debates, page
12627, April 8, 1976, the hon. member who currently sits as the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice. This is the very
hypocrisy Canadians are concerned about, where members seem
to change their opinion. They are concerned that this legislation
will be simply one more step in the ongoing erosion of the rights
of law-abiding firearms owners. I would like to hear the hon.
members address that concern from Canadians.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a hallmark of the
member opposite that he is locked in time and that new evidence
will not persuade him to change his mind. His mind is made up
and that is the way it is going to be.
The member would like to ask the question and continue to
talk. I know that the hon. member on occasion appeared at
committee. I once again commend to him the evidence of the
public health experts. I would also commend to him the change
13746
in technology since the hon. member made that statement in
1976.
Would he only deal with a doctor who used technology that
was locked in time at 1976? I think not. I would suggest to him
that with the change in information systems today, in 1995, 19
years after 1976, he might want to re-examine the statement
made by the hon. member in 1976.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton has been belabouring the Americans again. I
do not know what that has to do with our gun debate.
Since he has raised it, I would like to mention the situation
where I live in western Canada on the prairie, very close to the
U.S. border. We have great cultural similarities and great
economic similarities with the people on the other side. We walk
back and forth. As a matter of fact, we have more in common
with each other than they have with drug dealers in New York or
I have with silver spoon lawyers from Toronto.
Is it not interesting that over the last 15 years the homicide
rate in the four northern states adjacent to the prairie provinces
has been 16 per cent lower than on the Canadian side? It is 3.1
per hundred thousand per year on the Canadian side and 2.7 on
the American side. Is that not interesting? Of all the states in the
union, these are the four that have the most wide-open gun laws.
You can carry anything short of a bazooka down there. But it is
not a great big shooting gallery where they run around shooting
one another. There is a cultural factor, which this government
never takes into consideration, and it should.
(1720)
I believe the hon. member has a few seconds to respond.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the hon.
member opposite thought I was only talking about the
Americans. I was trying to draw a distinction. However, having
regard to his seatmate, I understand why he could not hear me.
It is very easy to take a very localized area and say that the
statistics are different. We are not talking about a registry
system that applies in the city of Ottawa or in the city of
Calgary; we are talking about a national system. It is very easy
to distort reality with these numbers. For example, in the city of
Washington, where they have very stringent gun controls, they
have an extremely high murder rate but a much lower suicide
rate. How would they explain that? It is because you cannot take
a localized area-
An hon. member: They don't live long enough to
contemplate suicide.
Mr. Grubel: Can you explain that?
Mr. Gallaway: I really appreciate the question and I would
appreciate an attempt to answer it.
They have a localized area and they are trying to extend that to
a national number. The member opposite knows that is false and
misleading.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-68 has one simple objective: to reduce death and injuries by
firearms. Despite the views of a small and strident gun lobby,
which I wish to emphasize does not speak for the majority of
Canadians, this bill does not in any way support a hidden agenda
on the part of this government to confiscate legally owned
firearms or to sanction police state actions against the private
dwelling houses of Canadians.
What this act does is limit in some measure access to firearms
to people who are qualified, responsible, and knowledgeable
about their proper use and storage. The numbers speak for
themselves. Nearly 40 per cent of domestic homicides involve
firearms. Most of the victims are women and children. Where
firearms are used in homicides, 85 per cent were committed with
long guns, the vast majority being legally owned.
The risk of death from a firearm discharge in Canada is almost
equal to the risk of death from a motor vehicle crash: 2.37 deaths
per 10,000 firearms possessed, versus 2.4 per 10,000 registered
motor vehicles in 1990.
The opposition to this bill has been intense. They say that
guns do not kill, people do. Simply put, people with guns kill,
and they do so with frightening efficiency. Let us look at the
suicide stats. Suicide attempts involving guns have a 7 per cent
survival rate. Where guns are not involved the survival rate rises
to 65 per cent.
The opponents of gun control say that if someone really wants
to commit suicide they will find a way. However, experts on
suicide prevention appearing before the committee testified to
the contrary. Suicide is an impulsive act. Even a short delay will
often give the person the chance to reconsider, and they often do.
Therefore, limiting or delaying access to firearms can and will
save lives.
It will come as no surprise that those areas of Canada where
firearm ownership is highest also displayed the highest rates of
firearm death and injury. Remarkably, these are the same groups
that came before committee seeking an exemption from this bill,
saying that their traditional way of life was threatened. But I
note that the member for Nunatsiaq said that this bill will not
result in one less caribou death.
It has been argued that firearm homicide is strictly a big city
phenomenon. In Canada this is simply not true. For instance, a
study by the Northeastern Ontario Trauma Centre found higher
rates of gun homicides in rural northern Ontario than throughout
Ontario as a whole.
13747
What about the notion of arming for self-defence? The idea
has been discredited. In fact, studies show that people with guns
in their homes are 43 times more likely to kill themselves or
someone close to them than to kill an intruder. An alarming
study by Dr. Scott of George Washington University shows that
for every woman who buys a handgun for self-protection, 239
women are murdered by such weapons, many with their own
weapon.
(1725 )
There was a very instructive study by the Swiss professor
Martin Killias in a May 1993 article in the Canadian Medical
Journal. Dr. Killias is very clear on one point: gun ownership
directly correlates with gun deaths and gun injury. Noting that
27 per cent of Swiss households have guns, about the same
incidence as in Canada, he writes: ``Contrary to what gun
organizations claim, Switzerland pays a high price for this. In
suicide, Switzerland ranks third, just behind Hungary and
Finland, but far higher than other countries.'' The reason for this
is ``the unusually high percentage of suicides committed with
firearms''.
Dr. Killias' conclusions are confirmed in a similar 1993 study
of 18 countries for the United Nations Inter-regional Crime and
Justice Institute. Countries such as Great Britain and Germany,
which strictly control access to firearms, have much lower death
rates by firearms than Canada or the United States.
Gun registration is the rule throughout Europe: in Belgium,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy,
Holland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Canada and the
United States are the exceptions.
What about public support for this bill? I have over 7,000
pieces of mail supporting this bill forwarded to me as an Ontario
member by Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen of the Coalition for
Gun Control. I especially wish to commend these two
remarkable women for so effectively giving voice to the
concerns of such a broad cross-section of groups, including
police organizations, medical associations, churches, women's
shelters and transition houses, teachers federations, municipal
councils, including my own, universities, boards of education,
labour groups, provincial bars and legal associations and, most
important, the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people.
One of my constituents, Dr. Henry Barnett, the most
prominent neurologist in Canada, spoke to me about his
colleagues south of the border, about their hopes for effective
gun control and about their discouragement and their complete
inability to effect legislative change in the face of the opposition
of the National Rifle Association, America's largest and most
influential lobby group.
Let us make no mistake, the American ultra-right are
watching this debate very closely. This debate involves more
than guns. It is about our way of life, our freedom. It is about the
right of Canadians to say no to guns. It is about our right to
decide how we want to live.
Opposing the bill we have primarily gun clubs, gun sellers,
gun collectors, hunters and outfitters, native peoples, and the
Reform Party. To further their own agenda or to protect their
own economic interest, some groups capitalize on the fears of
their honest and law-abiding members. These self-styled
advocacy groups, these so-called responsible firearms groups,
have engaged in a deliberate campaign of misinformation.
Every time the government proposes gun control, these same
groups come out. The same accusations are made: police state,
confiscation. But the confiscations do not occur. The police do
not come out in the middle of the night.
``Punish the criminal'', they say, ``not the responsible
law-abiding gun owner''. ``It is just another tax grab''. Let us
not ignore the real cost of guns. When law-abiding, responsible
gun owners kill and injure themselves and others, aside from the
lost lives of 1,400 Canadians there is a very real dollar figure,
$70 million a year in primary health costs and related public
services in this country paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
They complain at the inconvenience of having to register, of
having to fill out forms. I remember one witness who came
before the committee whose daughter had been shot dead by a
long gun recalling her response to a provincial attorney general
on the subject of inconvenience: ``Let me tell you about
inconvenience. The death of your child at the hands of a man
wielding a gun is an inconvenience. Do you know how many
forms I have had to fill out?'' I will always remember that
woman's voice.
The cost to the gun owner is nominal. It is $10 to register up to
10 guns, no cost whatsoever to subsistence hunters. Is this an
oppressive or punitive tax? Does this in any way impede the gun
owner's right to use and enjoy his weapon? Not in the least.
Every time gun controls are brought forward, the same
argument is heard: ``You will destroy hunting. You will cripple
our outfitting industry, on which our remote communities
depend.'' The argument is a red herring. Gun control has no
effect whatsoever on a hunter's decision to obtain a hunting
licence.
This is Parliament's fourth gun control bill, and our hunting
and sports shooting community is in fine shape. In fact, it is
stronger, safer, and more responsible than its American
counterpart.
(1730)
We do have gun clubs but we do not have civilian militias.
Canadians understand gun ownership is a privilege and not a
right. The government is prepared to safeguard that privilege
but only if it is clearly understood privilege demands
responsibility.
13748
Let us be clear the bill falls squarely within the federal
government's criminal law jurisdiction. It does not admit to any
exceptions in the application. The government in the interests of
all Canadians must ensure coast to coast compliance.
In fairness, many witnesses did draw attention to provisions
which if misinterpreted might result in anomalies. In response
the minister again appeared before the committee to suggest
amendments regarding among other things bona fide
inadvertent failure to register, inspection powers and relic
firearms. These amendments are fully detailed in the committee
report.
I add my voice to the people in my riding and across the
country who support the principle embodied by the legislation.
It is my pleasure to give Bill C-68 my unequivocal support and I
recommend to all members of this House to do likewise.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Thursday,
June 8, in accordance with provisions in Standing Order 78(2), it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, voting on all matters
required to dispose of third reading of Bill C-68 will take place
at 6.30 p.m.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13748
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian
peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the
National Defence Act in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in
second reading of Bill C-295. As members are well aware, the
government has already stated its opposition to this bill in no
uncertain terms. Today I will restate the government's main
objections and explain why the bill must not become law.
Canada's support for peacekeeping is a reflection of our
strong commitment to international peace and security. Our
impressive record in this field is recognized worldwide. We
have long argued our experience and skills are unmatched. As
proof of our expertise Canada is currently at the forefront of
efforts to improve the conduct of the United Nations'
peacekeeping operations. We take pride in our peacekeeping
reputation and we work hard to preserve it.
Unfortunately Bill C-295 if it were to pass into law would do
irreparable damage to this reputation. This is a flawed,
contradictory piece of legislation that would seriously
undermine Canadian efforts to contribute effectively to
peacekeeping operations.
The bill goes beyond consultation and seeks explicit control
by Parliament of all peacekeeping activities. This would set a
very dangerous precedent, for Bill C-295 would restrict the
prerogative and discretion of the governor in council to
determine Canada's contribution to UN or regional operations.
Under section 4 of the National Defence Act the Minister of
National Defence has responsibility for the management and
direction of the Canadian forces and of all matters relating to
national defence including peacekeeping. The bill would
remove this responsibility not only from the minister but from
the government as a whole respecting military operations.
Perhaps the most serious repercussion of giving Parliament
direct control over peacekeeping operations relates to the speed
with which events unfold in the post-cold war world. The bill
which calls for a five-hour debate prior to any mission
involving more than 100 Canadian forces members would add
another layer to the decision making process. As a result it
would limit Canada's ability to respond quickly to UN
peacekeeping requests or to changes in the actual peacekeeping
mandate.
(1735)
The need for quick deployment in peacekeeping operations
cannot be overstated. We have heard again and again how a more
rapid response by the international community might have
saved tens of thousands of lives in Rwanda.
Bill C-295 if anything would increase reaction time, making
it even more difficult to respond to such crisis. The bill would
also hamper current efforts by the ministers of national defence
and foreign affairs to improve the UN's rapid reaction capability
and to find ways Canada might contribute to such a capability.
In short, the bill sends the wrong message to our partners at a
time when we are leading the way in promoting new methods to
enhance the UN's ability to prevent and resolve conflict.
If Canada is to remain an effective peacekeeper the authority
to deploy and operate peacekeeping forces must stay in the
hands of the governor in council. The government has the
expertise and experience to decide, sometimes on a moment's
notice, whether troops should be deployed and how they should
operate. Although it welcomes the advice of Parliament, the
13749
government must have the flexibility and some measure of
independence to make these decisions.
In effect while Bill C-295 would like to see Canada define its
own objectives for specific peacekeeping missions and decide
when those objectives are met, it is willing to place Canadian
commanding officers under UN or other international
command. This is unacceptable. Currently Canadian forces
personnel serving on peacekeeping operations are always
commanded by a Canadian. While they can be placed under
operational control of multinational commanders for specific
tasks they are never put under command of the UN or other
international organizations. If they were, their assigned tasks
would be changed. Their units could be split up and they could
be deployed to new areas of operations, all without consent of
the Canadian government. This would be unacceptable.
At present all Canadian contingent commanders are directly
responsible to the chief of the defence staff for the Canadian
contribution to the overall mission and tasks of a peacekeeping
force. Bill C-295 would end this practice which would
ultimately mean less, not more national control. This does not
seem to fit the general intent of the bill which suggests many of
these concepts have not been fairly thought out.
Such muddled thinking carries over to the sections of the bill
dealing with rules of engagement and the use of force.
Subsection 5(3) authorizes the use of deadly force only in
self-defence and in defence of civilians threatened with deadly
force or else to stop serious human rights abuses.
However, it is important to understand peacekeepers may use
force to protect civilians only if it is specifically authorized by a
United Nations security council resolution. At the same time,
the UN mandate may also require the use of force for reasons
other than those specified in subsection 5(3).
In other words, rules of engagement must take into account
the specifics of the mandate. They cannot be restricted by
legislation that turns a blind eye to such details.
(1740 )
The bill is murky and confusing in other areas. It would
amend the National Defence Act so that all members of the
Canadian forces assigned to a peacekeeping mission would be
on active service for all purposes. However, this proposal is
unnecessary because pursuant to Order in Council 1989-583,
April 6, 1989, all regular force members anywhere in or beyond
Canada and all reserve force members beyond Canada are
currently on active service.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. A couple of the government speakers
have pointed out to me an error I made in the drafting of the bill.
At line 31 of page 3, I used the words ``command of the United
Nations'' when I meant to use ``operational control''. I wonder
if there would be unanimous consent for the following. I move:
That, in line 31 of subclause 6(2) of Bill C-295, the Peacekeeping Act, the
word ``command'' be struck out and replaced by ``operational control''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
that change in the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to participate in the debate on Bill C-295, an act to
provide for the control of Canadian peacekeeping activities by
Parliament and to amend the National Defence Act in
consequence thereof.
I would remind you that the Bloc Quebecois has already
expressed its support, with a few reservations, for this bill by
our colleague for Fraser Valley East.
I would like to recall the exceptional participation by
Canadians, and particularly francophones, in UN peacekeeping
operations since they started in 1956 at the initiative of Lester B.
Pearson.
I would also take the opportunity afforded me to salute the
courage of the Canadian military who, over the years and in the
course of various missions, have taken part in UN peacekeeping
operations. I salute in particular the members of the Royal 22nd
Regiment from Valcartier. Their presence in the former
Yugoslavia reminds me that the horrors of this Bosnian conflict
are felt right here at home. I want to offer all my moral support
to the men and women who are over there and to their families
here, who are feeling doubt and uncertainty but also pride.
These peacekeeping missions are not what they were 40 years
ago. They are constantly changing. They are increasingly costly
in human and material terms, and their objectives are ever more
in doubt. The role of peacekeepers is also being questioned.
Should the deployment of international troops be faster and
easier or, on the contrary, should UN peacekeeping operations
be limited? Should UN peacekeepers have broader mandates?
Recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and
Rwanda have made the international public more aware of
peacekeeping activities, but they mainly brought to light the
flawed rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers, and perhaps
also the Canadian government's lack of responsibility in
refusing to set clear peacekeeping objectives.
Yet, these operations were once quite simple. The
peacekeepers' job was to come between the warring factions in
order to keep the peace and foster the resolution of conflicts. But
peacekeeping operations have changed a great deal since the
13750
1956 Suez crisis, while humanitarian efforts have become much
more important in recent years.
The rise in ethnic conflicts since the tensions between East
and West have disappeared have turned peacekeeping missions
into dangerous operations in which peacekeepers are caught in
the middle of heavy fighting. Of course, the collapse of the
Soviet bloc and the end of the cold war have given us an
opportunity to contribute to the advancement of democracy and
human rights. But this should not be done blindly.
Unfortunately, the new complexity of peacekeeping mandates
did not go hand in hand with public acceptance. The Canadian
Forces' traditional role on the international stage has always
been to support peacekeeping missions by contributing troops.
However, the time for unconditional participation in every UN
operation may be over.
(1745)
As some say, Canada is not the 9-1-1 of the planet. It is our
view, in the Bloc Quebecois, that Canada should make any
future commitment subject to more definite conditions. It is also
our view that the Canadian Armed Forces should be configured
around a clearly defined role. The credibility of our actions
depends on it.
In addition, we think that Canada should have a
comprehensive review of its involvement in international
security and peacekeeping. It should therefore review its
contribution to existing military alliances, such as NATO and
NORAD, as well as promote within these organizations a
broadening of their role and mandate according to the needs of
the UN.
While reviewing its contribution to global peace and security,
Canada should support the setting up of a standby contingent
that could be deployed with UN peacekeeping forces abroad.
These organizations need to see their skills updated both with
respect to preserving security and resolving conflicts.
The problem is that the Canadian government has no
peacekeeping policy. As the hon. Leader of the Official
Opposition asked last March, on what basis do we agree to take
part in peacekeeping missions? No one can answer.
The Bloc Quebecois refuses to give the defence minister a
free hand and allow troops from Quebec and Canada to continue
to be sent on missions which are frustrating because there is no
clear and definite mandate, and in which they are totally
powerless to do anything about the horrors suffered by civilian
populations.
Today, at a time when peacekeeping missions are becoming
increasingly complex and their costs astronomical, while more
and more lives are lost, clear conditions of participation are
essential. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the government will
undertake to set out the conditions under which our troops will
participate and their mandate can be renewed.
It is essential that conditions be harmonized with the UN. UN
missions are hard, particularly psychologically, because their
purpose is not clear. The government and the Minister of
National Defence should provide more information to this
House, they should encourage a debate on the issue, so that we
can work together to find a solution to the impasse in which
Canadian troops find themselves.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. It is
essential that Parliament be informed of Canadian military
activities abroad. As you know, the Bloc said on a number of
occasions that Canadian participation in peacekeeping missions
ought to be voted on in the House of Commons, following a
short debate, time permitting.
However, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Bill C-295 goes way
too far in terms of parliamentary control and is much too rigid.
Clause 4 does not include any provision dealing with the
situation where Canadian troops might have to get involved in
peacekeeping operations at a time when Parliament is not
sitting, such as in the summer for example.
Consequently, the legislation proposed by the Reform Party
precludes the government from taking quick action in case of a
crisis. There must be a happy medium between the position of
the Reform Party and that of the Liberal government, which tries
to restrict the role of parliamentarians to making speeches
which carry no weight.
We also have some reservations about the role of the UN in
defining peacekeeping operations. Clause 4 of Bill C-295
provides that a motion must be debated in the House of
Commons to authorize the participation of Canadians in a
peacekeeping mission, to specify the objectives and role of the
mission, to define the state or the area in which the mission is to
operate, to specify the date on which the authority is to expire,
and to specify a maximum planned expenditure for the mission.
I remind Reform members that the mandate, the objectives,
the area and the duration of each UN mission would not be an
issue if a permanent peacekeeping force were established, since
the parameters would be defined by the United Nations.
The problem exists today because the government sends,
more or less automatically and without giving it much
consideration, Canadian troops to every UN peacekeeping
mission. So, the lack of parameters regarding the mandate of
Canadian troops participating in peacekeeping missions clearly
illustrates this problem, since the Canadian government seems
unable to define the mandate and the objectives of Canadian
participation in peacekeeping missions. Obviously, Parliament
should look after that issue.
13751
(1750)
Do not forget that Canada's policy on peacekeeping missions
must include a mechanism by which the peacekeepers'
mandates can be adapted to the circumstances of the conflict.
Unfortunately, the Reform Party is silent on this issue.
The fact remains, nevertheless, that Parliament should be in a
position to periodically review the situation and the context of
peacekeeping missions, in order to make decisions on whether
or not to commit Canadian troops, or whether to extend or
shorten their mandates. This is why we will throw our support
behind Bill C-295, despite the reservations that I have already
expressed.
In this month celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United
Nations, it is clear that the international community and the
government have to seriously review the UN's peacekeeping
operations.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government in its
election platform made a commitment to better involve
parliamentarians in the decision making process on foreign
policy and defence issues. To that effect, House and Senate
members have had the opportunity to participate extensively in
the review of Canada's foreign and defence policies.
A number of debates have been held in the House over the last
16 months on several aspects of our international relations.
These debates have allowed members to express their views
specifically on Canada's peacekeeping policy and operations.
This is why I thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for
bringing in Bill C-295. It gives us another opportunity to give
our views on our peacekeeping forces abroad.
The concerns raised in Bill C-295 are in part similar to those
expressed in previous debates. They show that a more open and
accessible decision making process in the field of defence and
foreign policy is necessary. The government subscribes to the
intentions which have motivated the tabling of Bill C-295. It is
after all the responsibility of this government to ensure that
Canada's contributions to peacekeeping operations remain
efficient and useful and that they respect the financial situation
of the country.
Bill C-295 generally calls for rigid procedures which would
run counter to the need for the case by case flexible approach
that has made Canadians successful peacekeepers in the past.
Moreover the adoption of Bill C-295 which in its general
outline borrows heavily from the American approach to
peacekeeping would send a very negative signal to our partners
and to the international community at a time when Canada is
promoting new ways of improving the efficiency and the
relevance of the UN in the field of conflict prevention and
resolution.
The end of the cold war has seen a return to violent ethnic and
nationalistic conflicts in many parts of the world. This reality
coupled with the new co-operation among the members of the
security council have changed the peacekeeping equation.
Missions have increased in number and grown in size and scope
putting severe pressure on the financial capability of the UN and
member states.
Ten years ago Canada's share of the total UN cost of
peacekeeping was $8 million. In 1995 Canadian assessment
alone will be in excess of $150 million, not including the
incremental costs of the Department of National Defence. This
is admittedly a burden but it is also an investment in peace at
costs far lower than were we to allow conflicts to continue
unabated and uncontained.
Canada remains one of the strongest advocates of reinforcing
the UN's conflict prevention and conflict resolution capability.
We have been working with like minded countries at the UN to
bring about reforms that will provide the organization with the
political, financial and military tools it needs to fulfil its
growing responsibilities.
Canada is conducting a study on a UN rapid reaction
capability which will provide recommendations on how to make
the UN more efficient and more timely in case of conflicts. We
are also organizing with our partners peacekeeping seminars in
the context of the ASEAN regional forum and the OAS. We are
working with the OAU to improve the capability of African
countries to better contribute to peacekeeping operations and
preventive diplomacy.
(1755 )
On April 24 the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre officially
opened providing the international community with a world
class training facility in this vital field. Canada's credibility and
efficiency in the field of peacekeeping came from its
commitments to the UN and its reliability in time of crisis.
Canada has contributed with distinction in most operations in
the history of peacekeeping because of the foresight of its
leaders, the flexibility of its policies and the courage and skills
of its troops.
Bill C-295, despite the well founded intentions of its author,
would prevent the government from meeting these conditions.
More specifically, Bill C-295 calls for a five hour debate prior
to any mission that involves 100 or more members of the
Canadian forces. Given the complexity of the situation on the
ground and the sensitive nature of the negotiations that take
place between the UN, the parties to the conflict and the troop
contributors, a public debate on a given operation would take
place in the shadow of diplomatic activities. It would likely lead
to general reflection on peacekeeping without addressing the
13752
specifics of the mission being debated. In other words, it would
not respond to the problem for which this is allegedly a solution.
Other avenues are already available to parliamentarians to
express their views on the subject. The government will
continue to ensure those views are taken into account when
cabinet decides on Canada's contribution to peacekeeping.
Given the nature of conflicts in the current international
environment and the speed at which crisis situations degenerate
into open confrontations, debating each mission might also
hinder the government's ability to rapidly reply to a UN request
and deploy Canadian troops in a timely fashion. This is precisely
the opposite of what the government is currently promoting and
urging the UN, to be more timely and more effective in
responding to crises. Both the defence review and the foreign
affairs review drew attention to this issue.
Bill C-295, if implemented, would ask the Minister of
National Defence to specify the objectives, duties and role of the
mission as well as to define its area of operation. These aspects
are currently defined by the UN Security Council after careful
consideration and discussions with troop contributors. This is
the sole competence of the UN.
Should individual countries decide to redefine missions,
objectives and operational requirements this situation would
lead to constant stalemate in UN planning and deploying. When
an operation does not meet Canadian approval, Canada does not
contribute. This was the case for instance in the latest UN
verification mission in Angola.
Canada and other like minded countries have invested
personnel and financial resources in order to ensure the UN
fulfils its task in an efficient manner, observing the criteria and
conditions which are necessary for countries contributing troops
to participate in peacekeeping missions.
We continue to play a leading role in the establishment of a
better decision making process in the UN. Recently we have
succeeded among other things in obtaining a better consultation
mechanism between the security council and the contributing
countries at the early stage in the process of mission planning.
We intend to continue to press the UN and the security council
on this issue.
The bill also stipulates that the Canadian forces in
peacekeeping operations shall be under direct command of a
Canadian officer. This has always been the case. We do not need
further legislation to ensure that provision.
The bill further allows for this Canadian officer to be placed
under United Nations command. The government strongly
opposes this suggestion. Currently, Canadian soldiers are under
UN control, but the ultimate command of the troops remains
with Canadian authorities. Such a practice prevents the UN field
commander from using Canadian troops for tasks that have not
been agreed to by the government.
Such a far reaching commitment appears to contradict the
intent of the rest of Bill C-295 and demonstrates this proposal is
not clearly thought out. I respect the author of the bill just tried
to correct that with unanimous consent, but I think it shows how
ill thought out the bill was.
Let me underline again the commitment of this government to
open debate on peacekeeping issues, especially in times of
scarce resources. It is important to reach a broad consensus
about where and how Canada should contribute to the needs of
the international community. The foreign and defence policy
reviews and the debates in the House are tangible proof of the
seriousness of the government about the issue.
(1800)
However, Bill C-295 is a step in the wrong direction. The idea
of providing greater parliamentary control over the Canadian
contribution to UN peacekeeping is exerted at the wrong end of
the decision making process.
The adoption of this bill would not shake the overall Canadian
attitude toward peacekeeping operations. It would rather have
the effect of confusing the decision making processes and
limiting Canada's ability to respond in a timely fashion to UN
requests.
Canadians remain supportive of our contribution to
peacekeeping, as was demonstrated during the foreign and
defence policy reviews and in several polls taken over the years.
Canada should build on this past experience rather than move in
the direction of this bill.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-295, an act to
provide for the control of Canadian peacekeeping activities by
Parliament and to amend the National Defence Act in
consequence thereof. Bill C-295 is the peacekeeping act.
In commencing my remarks, I would like to address some of
the concerns expressed by the member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke as well as those of the
parliamentary secretary.
Careful examination of the bill reveals that their concern of
the ability of the governor in council to react rapidly is ill
founded, in fact, specious. If we read the bill, it says that less
than 100 people can be deployed for an indeterminate amount of
time. More than 100 people can be deployed immediately
without reference to Parliament for up to 30 days.
If Parliament does not agree that Canadians should have a say
in whether or not their people are committed to peacekeeping
operations and 30 days is inadequate, then Parliament, in my
estimation, is not doing its job.
13753
Bill C-295 should not be necessary at this time. We should
have established long since an ability for Parliament to become
involved in the deployment of Canadian forces personnel to life
threatening situations.
I would like to go on record as commending the government.
It is far superior to its predecessors in that it has had four debates
to date dealing with peacekeeping. The first one was on January
25, 1994 and at that time there was all party support for Canada's
continuing peacekeeping commitments. Following that, on
February 17, 1994 there was a debate by the special joint
committee on Canada's defence policy which also touched on
peacekeeping and again received all party support.
The third debate on peacekeeping was in September 1994.
Notice was given on September 19, with the debate on
September 21, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare and
debate an issue, particularly when the mandate was to be
renewed on September 30. In other words, it was just over a
week from the time the debate commenced until the
commitment was signed.
In December 1994 Reform laid down four stipulations which
should be met if Canadian troops were to be left in the former
Yugoslavia. These were that the airport at Sarajevo should be
kept open; convoys should be able to proceed unimpeded;
peacekeepers should not be interfered with and that a ceasefire
should be in place and respected. As we all know, subsequent to
that time these four parameters were all violated.
Using an opposition supply day, Reform forced a discussion
on severe problems in the defence department. The Minister of
National Defence, having belatedly realized his failure to
schedule a debate on renewal of the Balkan commitment, tried to
convey that the opposition initiated debate would constitute a
debate on renewing our peacekeeping commitment. When that
was not satisfactory to us, the minister called for a debate on
March 29, 1995 with the commitment expiring on March 31,
1995.
While I commend the government for having held debates, I
question the validity of their timing. If we are really serious
about Parliament and Canadians having input in whether
Canadian troops should be committed to life threatening
situations, surely it deserves more attention than it has been
given by the government.
I would like to quote from the red book where it says: ``A
Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to
debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives, such as the
deployment of peacekeeping forces and the rights of Canadian
to regular and serious consultation on foreign policy issues''.
From that statement it is quite obvious the government is not
keeping its promise so we have another broken red book
promise.
(1805)
If one wants to look at a newly emerging democratic country,
my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan recently returned from
a North Atlantic Council meeting in Hungary at Budapest. He
found that although it is relatively newly into the business,
civilian control of the military in Hungary is vitally important.
More important, the Hungarian Parliament has far more control
than does the Canadian Parliament. No Hungarian soldier may
be sent on operations beyond Hungary's borders without the
approval of Parliament. This ensures that the pros and cons of
any deployment are debated and that the people are aware of the
factors bearing on the involvement of their country in foreign
ventures.
I ask the question: Had there been a full parliamentary debate
prior to committing forces to the former Yugoslavia, would we
now be in Bosnia and Hercegovina? I suggest that probably there
would be at least 250 members of the House who would disagree
with that initial commitment having been taken, going on the
mandate that was not there and the fact that the achievement of
peace was not a real desire on the part of the people involved.
There was no peace to keep and no desire for peace on the part
of the combatants. That would have been brought out in debate.
It would have become obvious there could be no appropriate
mandate for the Canadian peacekeepers to become involved.
We need real debate, not a facade or smoke and mirrors. This
is even more vitally important when one considers that
peacekeeping is becoming more dangerous with every day.
Canada, as the House will well remember, was once involved in
all peacekeeping operations. With the reduction in the size of
our forces, the financial constraints and the realization that
Canada can no longer contribute to all, we must selectively
involve ourselves in those missions that we know we can
accomplish well.
UN peacekeeping has grown astronomically. In January of
1993 the UN had 12,000 peacekeepers in the field. Eighteen
months later, in July of 1994, there were 80,000 peacekeepers in
the field. In early 1993, Canada had 4,700 peacekeepers
deployed. The number now has shrunk to between 3,000 and
3,500, but that number seems likely to continue. Canada is now
providing 3.6 per cent of the UN peacekeepers.
With regard to command and control, I would like to return to
the comments made by both the Bloc and the parliamentary
secretary with regard to a UN standing force. They object to the
unfortunate mistake of my colleague when he put command
rather than operational control, but they seem willing to
consider the assignment of operational command or control to
the UN. I do not think Canadians are willing to see Canadian
soldiers committed to a shooting situation or to a life
threatening
13754
situation based on a decision by the United Nations without
reference to Parliament. Certainly I would not agree with that.
Canadians are the best or at least among the very best in the
world of peacekeeping. Our peacekeepers are well trained, well
disciplined. They are innovative. They are trustworthy. They are
dependable. They are compassionate and proficient in
establishing and maintaining good relations with all factions in
the area of conflict. This is painfully evident when one visits
Bosnia or Croatia. Our peacekeepers are trusted because they
are known to be unbiased. They show no favouritism to one side
or the other. This means that all sides trust their judgment and
rely on them to be fair and impartial.
Someone said that more interpersonal relations training is
required for our peacekeepers. There are very few, if any, of us
who would not benefit from more training in this aspect but
personal observation in the field has shown me that our
peacekeepers not only do well but excel in their relationships
with all factions in their area of responsibility. Possibly, because
of Canadian qualifications, we should consider a different
aspect of peacekeeping for Canada. Perhaps it should be our
mandate or our best purpose to deploy quickly. We have the
ability to resolve a situation over a short period of time and then
withdraw, turning that job over to other peacekeepers: a first in,
stabilize, establish a good situation and withdraw scenario.
(1810 )
Withdrawing seems to be Canada's primary peacekeeping
problem. We can involve ourselves but we cannot get out.
Canada had troops in Cyprus for more than 29 years. As a matter
of fact we still have two people there. We have been in Croatia
and Bosnia-Hercegovina for more than three years.
Bill C-295 would not hamstring government's ability to react
quickly to pop-up crises because it applies only to the
commitment of 100 or more personnel and to time periods
exceeding one month. Furthermore, considering the seriousness
of deploying Canadian personnel on peacekeeping operations, a
parliamentary debate would seem to be the minimum acceptable
approval required.
Should Parliament be in recess at the time of a crisis surely
such a commitment deserves and would justify the recall of
Parliament for such a debate.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-295 on behalf of the
people of Guelph-Wellington today.
I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for his concern
for Canadian peacekeepers. I know he is very sincere in this bill.
I believe the bill has been introduced because of his concern and
for the well-being of Canadian forces, a concern that is shared
by the residents of Guelph-Wellington.
Canadians invented the concept of peace making. Former
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in the 1950s. Our peacekeepers shared that same prize in
the 1980s. We have always acted in the interest of maintaining
international peace and security.
Many of my constituents have participated in peacekeeping
operations across the world and have distinguished themselves
in service to their country. For example, recently Petty Officer
Second Class Martin Mollison received a mention in dispatch
from the Governor General for his act of bravery while serving
in Cambodia.
I cannot support this legislation for several reasons I wish to
make clear to the House. As the hon. member knows,
peacekeeping is carried out pursuant to the authority of the
Minister of National Defence under section 4 of the National
Defence Act. The minister has the authority with respect to the
management and direction of the Canadian forces and of all
matters relating to national defence.
The legislation changes the decision making with respect to
peacekeeping deployment and therefore restricts the
prerogative, speed and discretion of the crown to determine
Canada's contribution to United Nations or regional peace
operations.
The legislation would also remove the responsibility and
discretion of the minister respecting military operations. This
would therefore affect the speed with which we can respond to
requests for assistance from the United Nations.
The legislation would also ensure it would take longer for
Canada to provide assistance because it would add another layer
in decision making processes which is a strange suggestion from
a member whose party stands for reduced government and easier
decision making.
The Reform Party's blue sheet states it supports a national
defence policy that would provide a fast response to national or
international conflict. By providing for a process that would
subject the involvement of Canadian forces in international
peacekeeping missions to parliamentary control the hon.
member appears to be contradicting the support of a quick
response which is central to the promises he made during the last
election.
Chapter VII of the United Nations charter provides for action
by the security council with respect to the peace, breaches of
peace and acts of aggression. Under articles 25 and 48 of the
charter, member states of the United Nations are required to
carry out the decisions of the security council for the
maintenance of international peace and security.
The procedures proposed by Bill C-295 would restrict
government from carrying out its obligations under the United
Nations charter. All Canadians share the pride of knowing that
we have contributed to world peace. While the armed forces
remain small and the population is modest compared to other
13755
nations, we were the first in peacekeeping and we remain
respected because of what we do.
(1815 )
Peacekeeping is what we do well. We are asked to participate
in missions around the world because other nations look to us for
the expertise and skill required to perform the job of
peacekeeping. Regrettably, we are often targeted by those who
do not respect freedom and peace because we are, quite simply,
the very best.
One hundred thousand Canadians have served in over 30
missions during the past 45 years. We have been asked because
Canada has earned the respect and has acquired the skill to
function as peacekeepers wherever we are required.
I find it troublesome to read that Bill C-295 would give up
Canadian sovereign command of Canadian forces. As the
parliamentary secretary said earlier, Canadian personnel
serving on peace operations are always commanded by a
Canadian. Our commanders are directly responsible to the Chief
of Defence Staff for the Canadian contribution to the overall
mission and tasks of any given operation abroad. The hon.
member at this point has said that he has changed that. I am
pleased to see that, because it was a real flaw in the bill.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are justifiably proud of
our contribution to the history of peacekeeping. We support the
concept of our troops promoting good relations and preventing
genocide, acts of terrorism, and civil war. The Canadian flag has
for many in the world been seen first on the shoulders of a
peacekeeper in Somalia, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, and Central
America. Our peacekeepers have served as care-givers, have
rebuilt and maintained orphanages, and their families have
organized food, clothing, and toy collections in order not only to
keep the peace but to provide some comfort to innocent men,
women, and children who suffer from acts of violence and war.
Many of those peacekeepers were born in
Guelph-Wellington and have family in my community or they
have studied at the University of Guelph. My constituents
remind me that every peacekeeper is a hero.
The people of Guelph-Wellington want the overall control
of our troops to be in the hands of the Canadian command.
Never before has a government so often sought the
consultation of members of Parliament on issues of
peacekeeping. We have on this issue, as we have on so many
others, demonstrated our commitment to seek the views of all
parliamentarians and their constituents.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence
have listened and they will continue to do so. Actions have
followed their seeking our advice on peacekeeping missions.
There are times, however, when the government needs to act
without delay. In our rapidly changing world, when nationalism
and religious fervour have risen to increasingly dangerous
terms, the need for flexibility is paramount.
My constituents will continue to support the government in
promoting world peace and development. We understand the
complexities of this commitment. We know that peacekeeping is
not without risk. We also know that as the makers of the concept
of peacekeeping its success will continue as long as we play a
vital role in its future. The current system works well. It allows
the government maximum flexibility.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation. I thank the
House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-295.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to speak on this private member's bill. It is
certainly timely. I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East for bringing it forward at this time.
The current crisis in Bosnia has brought into sharp focus the
need for Canadians to have clear criteria for the future of
peacekeeping missions. That is exactly what Bill C-295 does.
Certainly we have heard in the House many times that we
cannot go everywhere. We have heard that we have to be more
accountable, we have to be more transparent, and of course we
always have to be aware of the cost of such measures.
Let me review what has occurred in Bosnia to illustrate why
we need a bill such as this.
Canadian troops first went to this war-torn country over two
and a half years ago in the honest hope that they could provide
assistance and humanitarian relief to the people of Bosnia. They
also hoped to keep combatants apart and facilitate a negotiated
peace for the region.
(1820 )
Unfortunately, these laudable goals were not backed up by a
United Nations mandate that could get the job done. With no
leadership from Ottawa, our peacekeepers have been left
twisting in the wind.
Our peacekeepers are the best in the world and their service in
Bosnia has been above and beyond the call of duty. They deserve
to have modern equipment, a coherent government policy,
decisive leadership from Ottawa, and a UN mandate that allows
them to do their job properly. Unfortunately, the government has
let them down in almost all these respects.
We have received most recently mixed messages. We have a
defence minister who says we should consolidate, we should
fight back, and he even condones air strikes. We have a foreign
affairs minister who says let us leave it the way it is and hope we
can return to the mandate, as long as they do not keep taking us
13756
hostage and humiliating us. We have a Prime Minister who in
effect simply tries to ride the middle and more or less agrees one
day to go one way and another day to go the other.
We do not have leadership in this area, and we certainly are
letting our peacekeepers down because of it. Meeting with
people as recently as today, that has been reconfirmed by people
who have been there as recently as two days ago. To begin with,
the government has overextended our commitments to
peacekeeping while simultaneously cutting back on the defence
budget. The results have been most unfortunate. For example,
we have troops who go out on peacekeeping missions with
equipment that would be considered antiques by many nations.
Compounding this, we have Liberal defence cuts that have
very much limited the availability of trained personnel. This
means that for missions such as the one in Bosnia we have to
keep sending the same people over time and again. How do
members think our soldiers feel as they are posted back to
Bosnia for the third or fourth time? What about their families?
What do members think their reaction is when they see Canadian
peacekeepers being targeted by all sides in that conflict? What
do they feel, knowing that Canadian troops are regularly taken
hostage at gunpoint by the very people they were sent to help?
We must decide what we are going to do, and this bill helps us
to do that. We must specialize. We must pick our areas. We
cannot be everything to all people. And of course we must make
sure we have a clear mandate and the equipment to deliver on
that mandate.
There is no peace to keep in Bosnia. There is also no
humanitarian mission to speak of. The only thing the UN is
successful at is being used as a pawn by the warring factions.
The government should have recognized this long ago. Canada
should never have renewed our commitment to Bosnia in March,
considering the ridiculous situation our peacekeepers are in.
The Reform Party warned the government and we asked for this
withdrawal since before last Christmas, but the government did
not listen.
Our proud peacekeepers were not sent to Bosnia to be
hostages. They were not sent there to be forced to helplessly
watch murder and torture, since their mandate does not allow
them to stop it. They were not sent there to be shot at by the very
people they are supposed to be helping to find peace.
The Bosnian mission has disintegrated beyond repair. While
the government buries its head in the sand and wrings its hands
in indecision, it is up to private members such as my hon.
colleague from Fraser Valley East to speak for the people of
Canada and to stand up for the interests of our peacekeepers.
Bill C-295 does what the government should have done long
ago. Instead of trusting the safety and lives of our peacekeepers
to the twist of fate, this Parliament must set down criteria to
condition our involvement for future missions. These criteria
should outline what is acceptable and what is not. This is what
Bill C-295 does. Most important among these criteria is that
Parliament have the right to choose what peacekeeping missions
Canada will participate in.
It is not up to the Prime Minister to snap his fingers and expect
that everyone will do what he wants. We supposedly live in a
democracy, not a dictatorship, although the recent tactics of the
Liberal Party on Bill C-68, Bill C-85, and Bill C-41 really have
me wondering if that is true.
It is amazing that we are told, ``If you do not agree with us,
backbenchers, stay home. Forget about the people at home. The
party knows best. We will take the message from Ottawa to the
constituency.''
(1825)
We waste time talking about $2 coins and three most
important bills like this are left for us to talk about in six hours'
time on third reading. We keep all of these people in line by
giving them travel perks, by constituency spending, and by
committee activity.
Beyond the basic idea of parliamentary approval, members of
Parliament will need specific information upon which to base
their decision. Without knowing the specific objectives and
duties of the peacekeepers, how can members know how to
vote? Without knowing the duration and the maximum cost of
the mission, how would Parliament decide on the best course of
action? These questions will be answered if Bill C-295 is
passed.
Another key aspect of this bill is that it clearly spells out that
Canadian peacekeepers shall be neutral and not engage in
combat. This may seem obvious, but from watching the crisis in
Bosnia it seems like the UN has taken sides. This is
unacceptable. You cannot join the war you are intending to stop.
This is why we have concerns about the strike force, about the
whole concept of that strike force and what it is going to do. I
guess we would have to applaud the government on the go slow
action of recommending our involvement in this whole strike
force idea. To escalate the war is certainly moving further and
further away from the mandate, which we do not believe exists
there any longer.
Another vitally important criterion for the good of our
peacekeepers involves the reasonable use of force. Again
referring to the ridiculous situation in Bosnia, we see how this
has been a major failing in the past. We have had troops that
have not been able to defend themselves properly. We also have
troops who have been forced to watch helplessly as civilians
were massacred because their mandate did not allow them to do
anything
13757
to stop it. Bill C-295 deals with this problem and spells out
some very-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, the hon. member's
time has expired.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has brought
forward legislation in the area of what under our constitutional
system is left to good judgment and good sense. It takes us a step
toward the American constitution, constitutionalizing these
areas of discretionary judgment. Yet of course the experience
with the American constitution is that when it comes to issues
like the Vietnam War it does not prevent the United States
sliding into that, in spite of the constitutional provisions.
Reference has been made to eastern European experience. I
was interested myself in the Russian constitution and the careful
separation of powers now provided and the control by
parliament over the military. Of course in Russia the newly
written constitution has not stopped it from being embroiled in
the conflict in the Caucasus.
It is a mistake to imagine that legislation can cover these
issues of prerogative power. In those constitutions that have
done it, alternative glosses are simply developed.
I thought we had a valuable debate here in the last few months.
I do remember the undertaking given on the government side to
consult with Parliament. When I went to the committee on
defence this afternoon I had the privilege of sitting in and
speaking there. I was reminded of our extraordinary good sense
and that we have profited by experience. The failure in Somalia
was a failure of judgment by the previous government. It did not
study the geography; it did not study the military logistical base
for support, and it paid the error of that misjudgment.
These are matters about which I think we can say that we in
Canada are better informed today. I think several successive
debates in this House have brought an understanding on both
sides that it is something to go into seriously, that we understand
the limits of peacekeeping, that we will not creep into
peacemaking type political actions under the guise that it is
classical peacekeeping as Canada has conceived and that where
we send our people in we will make sure their mission is
adjusted to the realities of the military logistical support we can
provide.
What I am saying is I basically believe the system as it now
exists will involve a proper and full consultation with
Parliament from now on. We are anxious for advice. We are all
committed to no more Somalias but to continuing in the Pearson
tradition where we can be useful. Somebody cited Cyprus. We
can be proud of Cyprus. We have kept the peace there and that is
the model we will all be following in the future.
(1830)
I commend the member opposite for his initiative. However, I
do believe it is covered under the powers of the constitutional
customs which we have developed and which have been very
much evident in the past few months by the experience of the
debate and the lessons we have learned in Bosnia.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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.
_____________________________________________
13757
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the
third time and passed; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier
today, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of third reading of Bill C-68, an Act respecting firearms
and other weapons.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 276)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
13758
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-57
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-198
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Calder
Canuel
Cauchon
Copps
Crawford
Deshaies
Dupuy
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Laurin
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Proud
(1900)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
13759
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 277)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (North Vancouver)
Zed-192
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Collins
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Ur
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood-63
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Calder
Canuel
Cauchon
Copps
Crawford
Deshaies
Dupuy
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Laurin
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Proud
13760
(1910)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, an act
to to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: We are now at report stage of Bill C-41, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof.
[Translation]
There are 25 motions in amendment in the Order Paper at the
report stage of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are substantially similar to an
amendment previously moved and defeated in committee.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5) they have not
been selected. The other motions will be grouped for debate as
follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 3 and 4.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5 to 17 inclusive.
[Translation]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 18 and 20.
Group No. 4, Motion No. 19.
Group No. 5, Motion No. 21.
[English]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 22, 23 and 25.
Group No. 7, Motion No. 24.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table in case members want to check them. The
Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of
voting.
I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 1.
(1915 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 42, on page 4,
lines 1 to 45, on page 5, lines 1 to 45, on page 6 and lines 1 to 40, on page 7.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): moved
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 42, on page 5, with the following:
``de la personne peut être conservé par le corps de''.
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present the first amendment of my caucus to Bill C-41.
However, before I do so, I wish to point out that my colleagues
and I listened very intently to all the witnesses who appeared
before the Standing Committee on Justice. We made every
attempt to reflect the opinions of these people in the
amendments we introduced during clause by clause
consideration of the bill. The amendments put forward today are
based on the sentiments expressed to us from both the
committee testimony and the thousands of letters we have
received from all across Canada.
Reform members of the Standing Committee on Justice paid
particular attention to the view of the Canadian Police
Association on Bill C-41, an authority the justice minister often
cites as one of the major supporters of his gun control
legislation. In its brief to the committee the Canadian Police
Association stated:
Bill C-41 with few exceptions is unwieldy, complicated, internally
self-contradictory, duplicitous and, what is worse in almost all of it, completely
unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law
heritage of Canada.
It went on to say:
While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles eliminating this
most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new
discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system. The
common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender
in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.
Where sentencing reform calls for protection this bill offers platitudes.
Where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will
almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to
expand further still.
That is what the Canadian Police Association had to say about
the bill. I could not have better summarized Bill C-41. We have
to wonder why the Minister of Justice so readily embraced the
support of the Canadian Police Association for Bill C-68 and
totally ignored its opposition to Bill C-41.
Our first amendment is to delete section 717 of Bill C-41.
Through this section the government has introduced a program
of alternative measures to incarceration. This is the Liberal
government's response to overcrowding in Canada's prisons.
Rather than deal with the cause of crime, something Reform has
been urging the government to do for some time, the Liberals
choose to provide alternatives to putting criminals in prison.
13761
We would not have objected so vehemently to this section of
Bill C-41 if the government had specified which offences may
be subject to alternative measures. We could support the use of
alternative measures for specific non-violent offences to reduce
expensive court procedures and incarceration. However no such
specifications appear in Bill C-41.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Victims of
Violence recommended section 717 be amended to ``restrict the
availability of the program to persons who have committed less
serious offences and first time offenders''. Specifically
reflecting the opinions expressed by these witnesses, Reform
introduced an amendment during clause by clause consideration
to limit the use of alternative measures. Our amendment was
defeated.
(1920)
The government failed to describe in the bill what may or may
not constitute an alternate measure but rather has left this
discretion up to the provinces. This has effectively granted
broad discretionary powers to an unnamed source that is to be
variable from province to province. This will create an
inconsistency in the justice system of the country, something we
can ill afford.
Reform introduced an amendment proposing that a set of
federal standards be established for the implementation of
alternative measures programs by provinces to ensure justice is
consistent in Canada. Our amendment was defeated.
The discretion given in the bill to the provinces responsible
for the administration of justice is not reflected in Bill C-68.
When Reform introduced amendments during clause by clause
consideration of the bill to return to the provinces the authority
to regulate gun clubs and gun shows our amendment was
defeated.
The parliamentary secretary said there should be federal
standards for the regulation of these businesses. The
inconsistency in the government's justice legislation clearly
demonstrates that the objective of justice to reduce crime is not
the motivating factor behind Bill C-37, Bill C-68 or Bill C-41.
Under Bill C-41 alternative measures can only be used if the
offender fully and freely consents to participate, with no
consideration being given to the victim. Reform proposed the
use of alternative measures only after due consideration has
been given to any views expressed by the victim against whom
the offence has been committed. The rights of victims should
always come before those of the offender.
We also introduced an amendment stipulating that these
measures could only be used for a person who has not been dealt
with by alternative measures before or has been previously
convicted of an offence. Both amendments were defeated.
As stipulated in Bill C-41 it is not mandatory for records
concerning alternative measures to be retained. Nor do the
records have to be transferred to a central repository. This means
when someone commits another offence that a previous offence
which was dealt with by an alternative measure will not be
available for sentencing in the second case.
One has to wonder how serious the government is about doing
background checks on applicants for a firearms licence as
outlined in Bill C-68. Because of this provision in Bill C-41
pertinent information regarding an admission of guilt may not
be discovered by chief firearms officers unless they conduct
lengthy and expensive checks into the records of all local police
forces. Again Reform introduced an amendment making it
mandatory for the police to retain records and for those records
to be placed in a central registry. Again that amendment was
defeated.
We therefore today move to delete the section dealing with
alternative measures from Bill C-41. We have also introduced
an amendment to delete section 718.2 from the bill which gives
the courts the authority to increase or reduce a sentence for
relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the
offence or the offender.
Reform believes this section of the bill is totally unnecessary.
The courts already take aggravating and mitigating
circumstances into consideration when determining the length
of a sentence to impose on an offender.
We do not believe this section serves any purpose except to
advance the justice minister's position that sexual orientation
should be a protected category in the charter. We object to the
minister's back door attempt through the bill to keep his word to
provide added protection for certain groups of people and
thereby create a semblance of special status for those groups.
Rather than amend the charter and thus draw widespread public
opposition, he is appeasing this group of Canadians by including
the term in the Criminal Code.
Reform believes all Canadians are equal before the law. We do
not accept that anyone should be granted special protection or
status before or under the law and therefore move to strike this
section from the bill.
I am appalled the government has chosen to limit debate on
this contentious bill. It had ample opportunity to bring the bill
back to Parliament months ago when the committee reported it
back to the House. The government obviously delayed report
and third reading stages of the bill in anticipation of it being lost
in the bottleneck of legislation the government is scrambling to
pass before the summer recess.
It is quite obvious the government is afraid to allow Bill C-41
and Bill C-68 to sit over the summer, providing Liberal MPs an
opportunity to discover how their constituents really feel about
these bills. I have to question the confidence of the government
with regard to these pieces of legislation. I therefore implore
13762
members of the House to listen to Canadians and remove these
sections from the bill.
(1925)
Canada is faced with rising crime rates, escalating costs to
administer justice and growing debt. The task of the federal
justice minister is to deal with these problems in unison. That
would be difficult but not insurmountable.
I place these considerations before the House.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
looking to your guidance on a question with respect to the voting
patterns you have just issued on the various motions.
Is it appropriate for me to mention this point of order now or
would you prefer that I see you privately? I am somewhat
confused as to item (k) in Group No. 2. I am in your hands as to
how you would like to handle it.
The Speaker: If the hon. member would come to the Chair
perhaps I could at least give him an opinion on how I believe it
will be worked out.
In the meantime I would propose to continue debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 4 is on the French language. You may think that this
is a little different, but I did not think either that I would one day
make a speech on the French language in this House. However,
that was my only reason for putting forward this motion, as you
will see.
The motion deals with the French version of Section 717.2(1),
which, in my opinion, is not drafted in everyday, understandable
French. Understandable it may be, but certainly not for the
average person.
Since it is a very short paragraph, I will read it for you:
717.2(1) Le dossier relatif à une infraction imputée à une personne et
comportant, notamment, l'original ou une reproduction des empreintes
digitales ou de toute photographie de la personne peut être tenu par le corps de
police qui a mené l'enquête à ce sujet ou qui a participé à cette enquête.
The French ``qui a tenu'' is obviously a literal translation of
``hold''. In French, ``obtenu une photographie'' means holding
it in one's hands, although in this context it means keeping or
holding it. That is why I moved my amendment aimed at
substituting the word ``conservé'' for the word ``tenu''. A
photograph or document may be kept but, as I understand it, it is
held in one's hands. It is in that sense that, as I said, I was very
surprised to realize that I now had to put forward a motion on the
French language.
I should tell you that a number of my other motions are also
related to the French language, as you will see a little later. I will
not list them all at this time, but the French used here is often
peculiar, as the Bar Association noted. In several appearances
before the justice committee, the Barreau du Québec observed
that the French used in the Criminal Code did not match reality.
I will now quote an excerpt from the Barreau's brief on
another bill, but it could also apply to this one. The Barreau du
Québec says that no one is deemed ignorant of the law. That, as
we know, is true. They go on to say, ``The law must, however, be
intelligible. The genius of the language, although it has its own
rules, does not rule out the Cartesian, concise approach that is
essential to the proper understanding of statutory law''.
(1930)
As for Michel Sparer and Wallace Schwab, they recognize the
fact that the implementation of these principles requires strong
intellectual skills, for the writer must be able to move away from
specifics and sometimes partisan views to take a broader, more
global approach while at the same time being extremely
succinct.
They add that the simpler subject-verb-complement
structure which is preferred in French shows that this language
emphasizes what English usually relegates to a position of
secondary importance, hence the need to be careful not to
translate literally and to rearrange in a logical sequence, as
required, sentences that sound English.
Understandably, in view of how complex regulatory activity
is, legal instruments cannot always be drafted in accordance
with these guidelines nowadays. According to the Barreau du
Québec, clarity must nevertheless remain one of the primary
goals of the legislator, hence the value of drafting the French and
English texts separately, a rule that the Barreau suspects was
broken in this case.
That is a common complaint from the association. That is why
I moved several amendments to Bill C-41 designed to make the
French version truly consistent with what we call the genius of
the French language. I hope that our linguists are listening in
this evening, so that someday we can have French instruments
that are understandable and intelligible.
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motions brought
forward in this first grouping.
Motion No. 4 was brought forward by the member for
Saint-Hubert. I realize what the member is intending and has the
suggested wording that would reduce the scope of the terms of
the bill. The Department of Justice looked at this and felt the
recommendation would be inconsistent with the use of the verb
tenir elsewhere in the text. Therefore if we changed it here we
would run the risk of putting other parts of the legislation in a
tenuous position.
13763
With respect to Motion No. 3, I am very surprised when the
member for Crowfoot talks about cost cutting in conjunction
with the Canadian Police Association and wanting to save
money by doing away with alternate measures. The inmate
population is exploding. The years between 1989-90 and
1993-94, four years, the federal inmate population increased by
17 per cent, with total expenditures in 1993-94 at $880 million
for federal corrections and $990 million for provincial
corrections.
The annual cost of holding an inmate on average in medium
and maximum security was $39,000 per inmate per year for
federal institutions and $35,000 per inmate per year for
provincial institutions.
(1935)
That indicates the dramatic increase in the actual cost of
incarceration. The member for Crowfoot says we should not
have alternative measures. If we do not start working toward
alternative measures what we will have is people in
incarceration costing an extremely large sum of money.
Many are in incarceration. One-third of the people in
incarceration are there for non-payment of debt. We want to get
away from that. Who is being punished in a case like that when
we have people in incarceration for non-payment of debt?
In many cases they cannot afford to pay. It is of no purpose to
put them in incarceration. The alternate measures have been in
federal legislation for many years in the Young Offenders Act.
The experience of the provinces in administering alternative
measures programs has been sufficiently positive that they have
asked us in the Department of Justice, the Minister of Justice in
particular, to include similar measures within the Criminal Code
for adults.
Deleting those provisions would go against a perfectly
reasonable request being made by the provinces. The
availability of alternative measures exercised under the
programs authorized by the provincial attorney general within
enabling federal legislation respects the division of powers
between the Government of Canada and the provincial
government and recognizes provinces are in the best position to
develop and administer programs related to the offenders
targeted by those measures.
The availability of alternative measures will better enable
provinces to manage their costs in respect to court time and the
use of correctional facilities and resources. It seems
inconsistent that the Reform Party, which has focused much of
its attention on bringing costs under control, would deny
provinces the tool to better manage cases appearing before their
courts.
Deterring and deleting alternative measures would reduce the
scope of action available to the courts and to the provinces as
they administer criminal justice and would not strengthen either
this bill or the criminal justice system in general.
The member for Crowfoot, on behalf of the Reform Party, said
he put forward federal standards. We want to have some kind of
standards but alternative measures are looked at in different
ways in different provinces.
The problem with the program is some areas do not have the
facilities to provide the alternative measures. That is a severe
problem and it means in some areas of the country alternative
measures provisions or possibilities are either non-existent or
severely curtailed.
We could say because of that we will scrap alternative
measures altogether so they are not put in place anywhere in the
country but that really does not achieve anything. It denies the
people in the areas that have the alternative measures
possibilities from utilizing these possibilities.
Also, we could say if one has created a certain seriousness of
offence that person is not eligible. When we are dealing with
cases, with human concerns and with human considerations,
who is to say that where somebody who has been flaunted and
taunted in incarceration would be better put back in
incarceration than into a program where he would have to spend
some time working in the community or for the benefit of the
victims?
(1940 )
Also we want to be able to offer the program in a positive
nature and to improve on it. We heard in committee that one
problem with the alternative measures was that when young
people were involved in this they were not being supervised.
That is the case in some instances. We have to strengthen these
programs. I think there are various ways of doing that.
It has also been stated by the Reform Party that we should
have a central registry because there is no record of those who
are put on alternate measures and we do not know if they have
been before the courts before or if they have been on alternative
measures. If there is no record the next time they appear it would
be considered a first offence and they would be on alternative
measures again.
That is not the case. It is not CPIC, it is not on a national
computer but it is in local court files. There is a general record
on alternate measures programs.
Alternate measures programs work in different ways in
various provinces. It is used as a diversion program in Nova
Scotia. Offenders are put on the diversion program before they
come to court and a record of this is kept in the police files. In
other provinces they appear before the court and instead of being
sentenced after the case is heard they are put on the alternative
measures program. The programs are working. Young people
have been rehabilitated to prove it.
We are not saying we will have the same success rate with
adults because the older a person becomes the less the
possibility of rehabilitation, but we do feel there will be success.
Quite often incarcerating these people costs the Canadian public
up to
13764
$100,000 per person in some instances, which is the case in
some young offenders facilities.
The average cost of keeping someone incarcerated in a federal
institution for one year is $39,000. If we can get better results or
even if we can get the same results in alternative measures we
should examine them.
We should leave the possibility with the provinces that want
these programs for adults. We should give the learned judges
and justices the ability to place people on these programs if it is
deemed the best course to take.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as the official opposition critic on correctional issues, I take a
particular interest in this bill. In spite of all the controversy
surrounding this issue, the time has come to update and adapt
our criminal justice system to the modern reality.
The efforts made to reform the sentencing process in Canada
span a number of years and have required enormous human and
financial resources. For the first time, we have an opportunity to
give concrete expression to these efforts and to implement
recommendations made by numerous commissions in their
reports. Such a reform requires an objective review of the
current situation, as well as the development of an original
model for the future.
Several recent studies come to conclusions which confirm the
need to reform Canada's criminal justice system. Let me
mention a few. First, it is fairly safe to say that Canada puts too
many people in jail for periods which are too long. Second,
contrary to popular belief and to what some may claim, the
crime rate, particularly for violent crimes, has not increased in
Canada. Studies covering the period between 1988 and 1993
show that these rates remained essentially the same throughout
that period. In fact, the rate for violent crimes has dropped
slightly since 1991.
(1945)
Bill C-41 is a true reform of the sentencing process, and only
such a reform will solve some of the crucial problems which
have been surfacing in recent years. Instinctively, and also
because of fear, society has always been in favour of imposing
long terms of imprisonment on criminals. Yet, it is established
that such long periods of incarceration increase the risk of
recidivism.
Consequently, public safety is not at all increased, quite the
contrary. If we put offenders in jail for long periods of time, the
problem will not be solved once they get back on the street.
Almost sixty years later, we finally have a chance to make
amends and act responsibly, fifty years after the famousArchambault report, published in 1938, stated that we had a
collective responsibility, and we have that chance in the form of
Bill C-41 and, more specifically, the new section 717 of the
Criminal Code.
Of course we could save a lot of public money by using
probation instead of incarceration as part of the rehabilitation
process. In Great Britain, where alternative measures have been
used for years and are used frequently, this did not lead to an
increase in the crime rate, on the contrary, since Great Britain
has one of the lowest repeater rates in the world.
The government has spent millions of dollars in recent years
on the construction and maintenance of prisons that in the end do
not do what they are supposed to do. Incarceration has failed to
meet its two main objectives: to punish the offender and to
protect society on a permanent basis.
Overcrowding and double occupancy of cells have reached a
critical level in federal penitentiaries, as the hon. member from
Kingston pointed out a few minutes ago. If Canada were to build
new prisons, they would fill up immediately. However, if we
could find alternatives to incarceration, in the case of offenders
who are not dangerous-the majority of the prison
population-we would solve the problem of overcrowding in
prison institutions. We are talking about more than 80 per cent
of the prison population, in this case.
So before getting into construction programs that will cost
many more millions, we should develop alternatives that are
less costly, more cost effective and therefore more effective
overall.
The average annual cost of community supervision for all
provinces is about $1,500 per person on probation or parole,
while it costs $80,000 annually to keep an inmate in prison.
Quite frankly, using prison sentences as the principal
punishment for all kinds of offences is no longer a defensible
option nowadays. Most offenders are neither violent nor
dangerous. It is unlikely their behaviour will improve as a result
of going to prison. Consequently, alternatives to incarceration
and alternate forms of punishment are increasingly considered a
necessary option.
Alternatives to incarceration are not a recent development.
The principle has been discussed for half a century. And for half
a century we have been marking time. I think it time we tuned
into today's reality and for once took a step forward by adopting
provisions that would enable us to develop alternatives to
incarceration, as clause 6 of Bill C-41 proposes.
We are forever hearing that imprisonment is expensive and
that the courts are too slow. Well, by adopting alternative
measures we also resolve the problem of congestion in the
courts. With these measures, minor offences may be handled by
means other than formal and costly legal proceedings. There are
two main objectives: to prevent subsequent criminal behaviour
13765
and to attenuate any prejudice minor offenders may suffer in
legal proceedings.
These measures also get the community involved and put
greater focus on reconciliation between victim and offender.
Alternative measures are already used successfully in certain
provinces for young offenders. They may now be used for
adults. There are many alternative solutions.
(1950)
They do not involve just victim compensation, for example,
the number of day-fines, compensatory work for non-payment
of fines, and so on. There is a whole list of them, if you want to
be more specific.
There are many examples of sentences aimed at the social
reintegration of offenders. Therefore, first offenders or minor
offenders will be taken out of the legal system. These measures
will ensure public protection by reducing the negative effects of
incarceration. The courts will have more time for more
important matters.
It should be pointed out that this diversion process is only for
those who admit liability for their acts of commission or
omission when it is considered that alternative measures do not
interfere with public safety and the interests of the victim, while
at the same time meeting the needs of the offender.
Such alternative measures must be part of a program approved
by the attorney general, his deputy or a person designated by the
lieutenant governor in council. The Crown must be satisfied that
there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and the person charged
must be informed of his or her right to counsel, on top of having
fully agreed to participate in this program.
Imprisonment and detention should only be a last resort, when
everything else has failed. Alternative penalties are a good
example of a different approach to conflict resolution in that
they attempt to minimize the negative impact on individuals,
judicial red tape and the economic and human cost to society of
many needless incarcerations.
To conclude, I will therefore support this bill, which makes it
possible to take a step forward, and I am pleased that by passing
these provisions on alternative measures we can show that we
are able to be innovative in devising sentences which are more
sensible and therefore more in line with what is needed at
present in the correctional service.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to speak to Bill C-41.
Once again we have a piece of legislation that simply does not
do anything in terms of justice, punishment or dealing with the
problems facing the country. When I look at the last two years,
there have not been any bills passed in the House as far as I am
concerned that do anything in terms of making the country safer,
better for those individuals called victims who need the
protection of our system. It just is not happening.
I am thinking of certain bills such as the one the member
across the way put forth to eliminate section 745 which died and
we do not bring it back. I could mention a dozen others. I am
really upset that we are not getting good legislation that will
give the effect the famous red ink book says it would do.
There is no measure in this legislation that causes me more
grief than the government's attempt to deal with violent young
offenders. We passed Bill C-37 which says that 16 and 17-year
olds will go to adult court. Then we come out with a bill that is
going to make the sentencing the same as if they were in youth
court. It does not make sense.
(1955)
Picture the family of a young mother standing by her
graveside hearing words from the minister telling all who
gathered how much this woman will be missed. Picture the tears
sliding down the many cheeks of Canadians present and listen to
their voices repeat over and over again: ``Why did this happen?''
This picture is happening far too often to too many Canadians
to be passed over by the government's attempt at social
engineering which does little to prevent violent youth from
believing that to kill someone they will be punished by this
government. This government is using crybaby tactics to soothe
the intellectuals who continually state that 16 and 17-year old
murderers are too young, too poor and too abused to know the
difference between right and wrong.
What does this government say the penalty should be for such
sadness, hurt and brutality to victims, families and friends?
According to the justice minister, if the murderer is a 16 or
17-year old, a slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again is
penalty enough. Remember, this is the same government that
publicly stated it was going to get tough with ultraviolent young
offenders. Remember, this is the justice minister who told
Canadians that his government would not tolerate those youth
who carry knives and hold no regard for human life or the
feelings of those who care.
What did this minister and the government do to punish and
deter 16 and 17-year old hooligans with no regard for others? In
Bill C-41 the government proposed to punish 16 and 17-year
old murderers by transferring them to adult court with a five
year jail sentence. Maybe if the youthful killer was particularly
violent and gruesome, he possibly could be removed from
society for 10 years.
This sentence is ironically considered just as serious to the
justice minister as his original punishment for law-abiding
citizens whose only crime is hiding a firearm from the
minister's scrutiny. The fact that this minister and this
government
13766
equated taking a human life with the heinous crime of refusing
to file the proper paperwork with the bureaucracy is ridiculous.
This minister made fine grandstanding speeches on how
violent, killing youth would be held accountable for their
actions. This same minister and his government told heart
wrenching stories of poverty, dysfunctional families and their
effect on juvenile crime. Whatever the reason, there is no excuse
for coldly and cruelly taking another life.
Let me remind those opposite that not all youth raised in
poverty turn to crime, deciding a human life is a worthless
commodity that can be snuffed out at a whim. Let me remind
those opposite that many youth are not raised in ideal conditions
but go on to work hard day after day, save their money, meet
someone, marry, have children and do all the normal things. Yet
this bill makes folly of those hard working youth who do
understand they have a role in society and that they can achieve a
better life by following the minimum expectations of society.
What does this tell the people of Canada who have day in and
day out raised their voices in loud cries that they have had
enough of 16 and 17-year old butchers being treated like victims
of some social order-
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like some
clarification from the Chair. It is my understanding that at this
stage we are debating report stage Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I have
been listening with care to the remarks of the member for Wild
Rose and have yet to understand what relationship they bear to
Motions Nos. 3 and 4. It may be that there is some confusion as
to the stage of the debate. I wonder if the Speaker might provide
some guidance.
The Speaker: Yes, the hon. member is correct. We are
debating Motions Nos. 3 and 4. Many times members use a few
minutes to set up their argument. I would presume that is what
the hon. member for Wild Rose is doing.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I sum this all up at
the end.
There are several things I know this government would like to
do in regard to alternative measures, even with the violent
people it is talking about and it certainly applies to the youth just
as much as anyone else. I am talking about those alternative
measures that may be applied to youth where we were going to
get tough in Bill C-37. We were going to take 16 and 17-year
olds to adult court, yet the sentencing and alternative measures
the government is trying to propose in this bill do not seem to
fall into line with what was proposed in Bill C-37.
(2000 )
Why should 16 and 17 year olds be excused for the most
serious of crimes? If they are only one or two years older, what
difference does it make when it gets that serious? Canadians are
saying this is enough of this namby-pamby justice spouted by a
bleeding heart government. Canadians say that the quality of
mercy must be chosen when the right circumstances prevail, and
murder is not one of those circumstances.
How dare we suggest alternative measures for a killer? How
dare we even think that might be a good solution? Canadians are
saying that if a 16 or 17 year old chooses to kill, he or she must
also know that society will choose not to show mercy, that
society will demand a grievous penalty to match the heinous
crime.
Canadians are growing weary of a government that says one
thing to a majority but follows the directions dictated by a small
minority of ivory tower individuals who barricade themselves
behind security systems and isolate themselves from the real
world and reality and then say that young murderers cannot be
blamed for their crimes and should be put on alternative
measures.
I have had enough of this say everything but do nothing
government. This has been going on for far too long. We see
other clauses that come up in this particular bill and we have
been trying to figure out exactly what we are trying to prove in
our society. Consider 718.2. We would like to get rid of this
section. We have made a list of people who are going to be
treated differently than others because of their race, colour,
creed, and now we want to add sexual orientation.
Mr. Speaker, while we are at it let us add fat people. I will tell
you what happened in this House just a month ago. Someone
sitting right over there said ``Come on, fatso, let's go outside
and fight''. Rather than speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, about that
kind of language, I decided I would meet him face to face and
see if I could tell him not to do that. I am sure he will not do it
again. It is a shame that I as a fat person would be left off this
list. If we check, there are lawsuits throughout the country of
people who did not get jobs because they were not built right or
maybe because their IQ was a little too low. Why would that
affect anything? Maybe some do not look right.
So let us take the section and get rid of it. For heaven's sake,
do not add sexual orientation. That is the last thing we need in
this country.
[Translation]
The Speaker: We are still debating Motions Nos. 3 and 4, and
I give the floor to the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to be brief and will probably succeed in this endeavour.
13767
In response to the motion introduced earlier by my colleague,
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, the hon. member for Cape
Breton-The Sydneys did not appear convinced of the need to
amend section 717. Therefore, I took the liberty of consulting a
dictionary while I was waiting for my turn to speak.
In fact, subsection 717.2(1) of the French version says the
following:
717.2(1) Le dossier relatif à une infraction imputée à une personne et
comportant, notamment, l'original ou une reproduction des empreintes
digitales ou de toute photographie de la personne peut être tenu par le corps de
police qui a mené l'enquête à ce sujet ou qui a participé à cette enquête.
The controversy centres on the meaning of the word ``tenu''.
On page 849 of the general Larousse English-French dictionary,
the verb ``to hold'' is translated by ``contrôler et avoir la
responsabilité de''. The hon. member for Saint-Hubert in fact
proposes translating the English word ``hold'' by the most
correct French equivalent. I can very well hold the bill in my
hands; but that does not necessarily mean that I will keep it for
10 years.
The aim of clause 717.2 is to enable police officials to keep
records on offences. If they are to be kept, there must be some
control. So, if I take the bill and put it in my desk, I am
controlling it. It is archived, and I control it. I do not have it in
my hands.
I understand that the English verb ``hold'' can include a
number of things, but there is a specific term, which does not
have a negative effect on other legislation. In using the French
verb ``tenir'' in its strictest sense, we talk about holding
something in our hands and having immediate and brief control,
but we will hold on to it.
(2005)
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys may very
well hold his wife in his arms, but that does not mean he controls
her. There is a difference between the two.
An hon. member: He wants to keep her.
Mr. Langlois: He would do well to hold her from time to
time, if I may be permitted a little humour. I am sure the hon.
parliamentary secretary will agree that the magic of the French
language and one of its beauties as well would enable us to bring
the English and the French closer together. This is why I invite
the hon. parliamentary secretary to see if this error cannot
simply be corrected.
Excuse me for having taken my seat before I had finished
speaking.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, is there
still an opportunity to speak to Motions 3 and 4, which I
understand are grouped together?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Yes, there is. The hon.
member for York South-Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was not in the House because I was trying to seek
some clarification with respect to this concept of alternative
measures. I would like to address my comments for the moment
to this particular provision in Bill C-41.
As I understand it, a person can commit a murder, a person can
commit a rape, a person can commit an aggravated assault, and
under this provision that person may never in fact be prosecuted
in a court of law.
The section reads: ``Alternative measures may be used to deal
with a person alleged to have committed an offence only if it is
not inconsistent with the protection of society and the following
conditions are met: (a) the measures are part of a program of
alternative measures authorized by the Attorney General or the
Attorney General's delegate''.
That means that we in this Parliament dealing with federal law
are saying that there are crimes, any crime in the Criminal Code,
if the attorney general for any of the provinces in Canada
decides that for example we are not going to prosecute rapists
any longer-you may say this is far-fetched and it will never
happen, but the fact is that this amendment would allow that to
happen. A provincial government somewhere in this country
might decide for whatever reason they are not going to prosecute
rapes any more and instead rapists will heretofore be subject to
alternative measures.
What are those alternative measures? We do not in this
legislation describe what those alternative measures are, what
crimes will be subject to those alternative measures. In fact it
says any crime. We do not know. Does that mean that a rapist,
someone who is alleged to have committed a rape, can for
example be diverted out of the criminal justice system and into
some alternative measures? What can those alternative
measures be? We do not know. This bill does not define what
alternative measures are. This bill leaves it up to the attorneys
general of the provinces.
I am sorry, but I do not have faith in attorneys general in this
province to prosecute or to deal with serious offenders. They
could very well say, using my scenario, that alleged rapists will
have to do some community work, will have to cut grass instead
of serving time in prison, or they might have to work at a day
care centre. That might sound outrageous, but this section is
outrageous. It is inconsistent with the desire of Canadians from
one coast to the other to have strict laws to deal with violent
offenders.
(2010 )
I can understand if we used alternative measures for
non-violent offences such as fraud, robbery, someone who
steals food, milk or bread, someone who is not a threat to my
children or to
13768
my neighbour's children. However this is totally openended.
Any offence is eligible for alternative measures.
In effect what this bill would do is have a checkerboard
system of criminal law in this country. If the attorney general for
the province of Alberta decides no to alternative measures, there
are no alternative measures in the province of Alberta. Everyone
will be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. If the province of
Quebec decides yes, we love alternative measures, we are going
to divert everyone to the alternative measures scenario, then all
of a sudden someone who commits a serious crime in Alberta
will serve time in a penitentiary but if someone commits a
serious crime in the province of Quebec he will be cutting grass
somewhere and sleeping at the local Howard Johnson.
Members might laugh, but let me tell them that under section
745 of the Criminal Code there there is some discretion to the
various provinces. In the province of Quebec, almost all those
applicants, all those convicted killers who were convicted of
first degree murder and applied for their parole ineligibility to
be reduced, almost all of them have been successful. The going
rate for murder in the province of Quebec is closer to 15 years.
In the province of Alberta, where the attorney general takes a
different view of these matters, the going rate for first degree
murder is 25 years.
Criminal law should be applicable and evenly applied across
the country. Section 745 is a clear example of what happens
when one allows provincial attorneys general discretion in
prosecuting in a particular fashion. There is no doubt in my mind
that if this section is passed without amendment there will be a
checkerboard system of criminal law.
If the government is serious about alternative measures they
will restrict it to non-indictable offences. The hon.
parliamentary secretary laughs and shrugs it off. I can
understand-
Mr. Milliken: That is utter nonsense.
Mr. Nunziata: I can understand that there are a lot of prisons
in the member's riding and he might be somewhat sympathetic
to that element in society.
There is a danger in this section passing an inconsistent
system of criminal law. At the very least, the government should
agree that any violent offence cannot be diverted out of the
criminal justice system. That is discretion that this Parliament
should not give to anybody. If one is alleged to have committed a
violent offence, whether it is murder, rape, aggravated assault,
that person should be prosecuted in a criminal court.
I do not want someone who assaults my children or rapes my
neighbour's wife to be given the opportunity not to be
prosecuted. That is unconstitutional. Every Canadian under the
Constitution is entitled to the equal benefit and equal protection
of the law.
I would submit that this section is unconstitutional. It is not in
keeping with what I have been hearing for 11 years as a member
of Parliament. We need effective laws in this country. What this
does is further tip the balance in favour of those who choose a
criminal lifestyle. That is wrong.
(2015 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I should like to put one observation on the record about
Group No. 1 that has to do with sentencing circles for aboriginal
Canadians.
I do not really have a problem with the whole notion of
sentencing circles, but there seems to be a grave anomaly
between how we handle and treat young offenders in the system
in an aboriginal sentencing circle and young Canadians who are
not aboriginal in a similar circumstance.
As the House well knows, in a sentencing circle one of the
primary motivators to change behaviour is identification of the
perpetrator by his or her peers, aunts, uncles and other people
who live in the community. In a sentencing circle the perpetrator
is expected to make good to the community at large because he
or she may have broken trust with the community. It is his or her
obligation to make good to the community.
Why is it an important part of rehabilitation in the aboriginal
community to identify young offenders to the community when
in the non-aboriginal community anonymity is the very
foundation of the Young Offenders Act? It just does not make
sense to me that in the aboriginal community identification is a
large part of the rehabilitation process and on the other side of
the same coin in non-aboriginal communities which do not have
the benefit of sentencing circles anonymity is a large part of it.
In my estimation it makes no sense whatsoever to have
anonymity as a part of the Young Offenders Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
13769
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There were two motions in that grouping.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Motions Nos. 3 and 4
are in Group No. 1. We have deferred the division and Motions
Nos. 3 and 4 will be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you might find
unanimous consent of the House to consider that Motions Nos. 5
to 17 have been put to the House without you having to read
them.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 39, on page 8
and lines 1 to 15, on page 9.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 39, on page
8, with the following:
``limiting the generality of the foregoing, evidence that the offender, in
committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to
the victim shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance;''.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on page
8, with the following:
``vated by prejudice, or''.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on page
8, with the following:
``vated by bias, prejudice or hate, or''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the English version, by replacing
line 30, on page 8, with the following:
``vated by prejudice or hate based on''.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 8, with
the following:
``the actual or perceived race, national or ethnic origin, lan-''.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34, on
page 8, with the following:
``or physical disability, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality of the
victim, or''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 33 and 34, on page 8, with the following:
``or physical disability, sexuality of the victim, or''; and
(b) by adding after line 15, at page 9, the following:
``(2) For the purposes of this section, ``sexuality'' means, only,
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality and, for greater certainty, does
not include a preference towards any sexual act or activity that would
constitute an offence under this Act.''
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 8, with
the following:
``or physical disability''.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the English version, by replacing
line 33, on page 8, with the following:
``or physical disability, sexual orientation,''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 40, on page 33, with the following:
``garde d'enfant auxquels s'expose une''.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 8, the
following:
``(i.1) evidence that the offender committed an indictable offence that
consisted of a physical or sexual assault on or harm to the person of the
offender's spouse or common law spouse or an attempt or threat to carry out
such an offence; or''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20, on
page 55, with the following:
``of a legislature.''
13770
(2020)
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
privilege this evening to speak to Motions Nos. 7 and 8. We are
dealing with a very controversial bill. It is controversial because
many Canadians have expressed concern about the intent of the
bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Pardon me, Madam Speaker, but let me explain
before the hon. member goes any further with his remarks. I do
not know if I should discuss this with you right now, but I have a
problem. As I understand it, based on the Speaker's decision, my
Motion No. 4 will be voted on at the same time as Motion No. 3,
which deals with a completely different subject. Mine is about
the French language, and the hon. member's about alternative
measures. There really is no connection.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Speaker has
decided in this case that, if Motion No. 3 is adopted, it will not
be necessary to vote on Motion No. 4. In fact, both votes have
been deferred. As a result of the vote on Motion No. 3 being
deferred, the vote on Motion No. 4 was automatically deferred.
Does this answer your question? The vote on Motion No. 4 has
been deferred along with that on Motion No. 3.
Mrs. Venne: Very well.
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, on a further point of
clarification, just to be perfectly clear, before the hon. member
for Ontario resumes his speech, which I will listen to with great
interest.
My understanding was that the vote on the motion put forward
by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert was deferred till the end. I
can understand that. But if the motion put forward by our
colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot, is defeated, we will
have to vote on Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert in any case, will we not?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You could approach the
table. The Speaker's decision is clear. If Motion No. 3 is
defeated, Motion No. 4 will be voted on. It was included in
Group No. 1 only for the purpose of debate.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Speaker, I know that I have only 10
minutes to address two issues. I hope that I will be able to do so
in so little time, and if I am, that will be quite an
accomplishment.
[English]
I believe generally in the principle of equality. I believe that
Bill C-41 is a good bill in general. It deals with substantive
matters of sentencing and matters that we treated openly in the
campaign.
However, the most troubling part of the bill deals with section
718.2(a)(i). I find it troubling because this section of the bill,
which is a very small paragraph in an omnibus bill, attempts to
treat the whole matter of hatred in a very superficial way.
This section has been presented as a means toward combating
hate crimes by toughening sentences where it was not the case in
the past. It gives members the impression that hate crimes are
somehow going unaddressed in terms of our legal ability to
respond effectively to the rise in crime and the incidence of hate
crime.
The Canadian Bar Association before the justice committee
made it extremely clear that without exception there were no
examples where one could prove that people who committed
hate crimes, whether against an individual or a person belonging
to a group of individuals, did not have the book not thrown at
them. It is with regret that I suggest the piece of legislation in
section 718.2 is nothing less than redundant.
The level of support for the concern about the bill falls into
two areas. My fellow colleagues from the government side will
be able to speak about their concerns with reference to sexual
orientation. My concern is of a much grander nature. It deals
with the fact that we are saying in the country and in the bill that
hatred is only significant when the characteristic of the
individual is taken into account. I would submit that misses the
very point on which hate crimes ought to be based.
(2025 )
Hatred is hatred. It is no more or less significant given who it
is directed against. It should be a principle not only of
Parliament but a fundamental principle of Canadians in general
that hatred is something we should repudiate at every turn.
I thought I would at some point be able to bring forward
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 to the justice committee. One of the
motions would delete the clause after the words hate, biased and
prejudiced. Those words make it so that hatred is more
significant if it is only based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. I do not
know what any other similar factor is. Perhaps I could have an
appropriate explanation of exactly what that means, but I say
with some certainty that a judge reading any other similar factor
would have difficulty trying to understand just what is meant.
I have looked to various applications of the legislation and
where it will have its greatest impact. If we are serious about
changing hate crimes, particularly as our red book suggested in
terms of hate propaganda, ought we not to be correcting sections
318 to 320 of the Criminal Code rather than treating hatred in a
rather cavalier fashion, in a rather superfluous or superficial
fashion under an omnibus bill on sentencing?
13771
If I had been given the opportunity to speak or provide some
amendments based on good advice to the government during the
committee period, I would have put forward the concern some
hon. colleagues have expressed that other forms of hatred
manifested against certain individuals would not be covered
under the legislation.
I presented to the hon. member for Portneuf the prospect of
hate based on language. I am pleased to see that it is here.
Unfortunately I had to do that indirectly.
[Translation]
One of the things I noticed is that my position and
reservations on this bill were expressed and reinforced by the
Barreau du Québec. According to the Barreau, Canadians do not
want a restrictive two-tier justice system that protects only
some segments of our society.
On the other hand, some people have argued that there is no
indication that the courts have been lenient with offenders
motivated by hatred for these segments, groups or individuals in
our society. In their opinion, as judges already have
considerable latitude in the sentencing process, they often use
this latitude to impose tough sentences for crimes they deem
detrimental to society.
According to the amendment proposed by the Barreau, if the
evidence submitted to the court shows that the offence was
motivated by prejudice, the judge may feel that the aggravating
circumstances surrounding the crime call for a tougher
sentence.
Although I respect the Barreau's position, I am quoting these
comments for the hon. members opposite, especially those from
the Bloc Quebecois, because the Barreau du Québec, which
represents all lawyers in the province, said that what was needed
was a general rather than specific principle.
[English]
I am extremely concerned that the legislation, in its attempt to
address hate crimes, will leave people out. I am not sure what
motivates one to write legislation such as this, particularly
section 718. However, if it has anything to do with political
correctness, might I suggest that in exchange for political
correctness we respond to actual legal need? Hatred is a very
serious problem that ought to be treated more seriously in more
appropriate legislation.
How serious can we be about nibbling around the edges? I am
concerned about ensuring that we have a fair system of justice
for all. The legislation almost ensures that in Canada we no
longer can claim to have a justice system for all.
(2030)
We are saying that it is more important for some hatreds to be
treated more significantly if the person who happens to be the
unfortunate victim of hatred is part of the listed group. I have
cited language. I could also cite the physical appearance of
people. The hon. member for Wild Rose referred to fat people.
This is a very political environment. Perhaps we could talk
about hatred based on political considerations, people who hold
political views that are different from others and who have been
the subject of hate. How in this bill, how in this amendment, are
those people going to find equal protection before and under the
law?
The charter says that we are supposed to provide equality for
all individuals. My reading of this section suggests that only
some people, those who happen to constitute a part of this list,
will be protected.
Many other concerns have been raised in the past about
whether the legislation will be able to in some way thwart or
deter someone from committing a hate crime. Those who are
filled with hatred do not read omnibus bills on sentencing to find
out what their punishment will be.
What they will know is that in every single instance without
exception the justices and the good people of this nation who
prosecute these issues have been able to find without exception
that when someone commits a crime based on hate it is always
treated as an aggravating circumstance. If this list forms the
basis under which the law would find an aggravating
circumstance, those left out could be considered crimes
committed for which the judge would find at the point of
sentencing to be of a mitigating factor.
We need equality of treatment when it comes to hatred. We
need to make sure that we use the proper instruments to protect it
and to protect those who have been its victims in the past and its
victims in the future.
Not much more can be made more true than the fact that
individuals from coast to coast expect from Parliament fairness
and equality before the law. Bill C-41 is a long bill. It is an
exhaustive bill. We must treat hatred in its proper perspective.
I urge all members to support my motions, justice for all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the motions on clause 718.2 of Bill C-41 represent the majority
of the motions to amend tabled at report stage. Most deal with
the question of whether or not the expression ``sexual
orientation'' should be included in the provisions which relate to
the aggravating circumstances to be considered when a sentence
is imposed.
Motion No. 5, tabled by the hon. member for Crowfoot, is the
most drastic one, since it proposes to completely eliminate
13772
clause 718.2 in the bill. In so doing, the Reform Party would
render the legislation meaningless, since it would abolish the
basic principles and objectives of sentencing.
The principles stated in clause 718, which underlie the bill,
are a step in the right direction. Indeed, we can only support a
measure which seeks to contribute, along with crime prevention
initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society by imposing appropriate sanctions.
Moreover, the alternative measures provided in clause 717
regarding some offenders, that is the penalties other than
incarceration and probation, are innovative measures which will
result in fewer offenders being sent to jail, while also putting the
emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
(2035)
Some motions, including those of the hon. member for
Scarborough West, seek to introduce a comprehensive
definition of the expression ``sexual orientation'' in clause
718.2 of the bill. The member actually managed to table several
motions to amend which are essentially variations on the same
theme, in the hope that one of them will somehow get through.
The debate on the real issues of Bill C-41 was sidetracked
from the very beginning. Indeed, since the legislation was
tabled, the debate has focused on the sensitive issue of
homosexual rights. Under aggravating circumstances, the bill
provides a list of prejudices motivating hate crimes, including
the sexual orientation of the victim.
The judge must consider a hate motivated crime as an
aggravating circumstance at the time of sentencing. The debate
has been sidetracked both by the defenders of homosexuals'
right to protection and by the extreme right that wants the bill's
provision regarding aggravating circumstances to be dropped. I
have received thousands of letters asking me to vote against Bill
C-41 because it contains the phrase ``sexual orientation''. Our
offices were flooded with these form letters. They merely
reflected the opinion of a ill-informed minority.
Those who signed these letters actually wanted us to scrap a
75 page bill, containing a hundred clauses and representing a
complete reform of that part of the Criminal Code that deals
with sentencing, because it contained two words too many. Let
us keep in mind that Bill C-41 does not create new rights. It is a
sentencing bill, and therefore sets out parameters by which
judges must be guided in arriving at sentences. Clause 718.2 in
particular concerns only an accused found guilty and the criteria
that apply to his sentence.
It is not the purpose of this clause to create rights for the
groups listed therein. The rights of individuals are protected
under the Constitution and other legislation on the protection of
human rights. Bill C-41 is not a new charter of rights and
freedoms, as several interested groups would have us believe.
When a bill contains the term ``sexual orientation'', the meaning
of the term raises many questions. What does it really mean?
How should its meaning be interpreted?
In the Egan case, the federal court seems to indicate that a
sexual tendency or orientation can be heterosexual, homosexual
or bisexual. This case made a challenge under section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court concluded
that, although the Supreme Court has never issued an opinion on
the issue, the fact that sexual tendencies can be invoked as
motives constituting discrimination such as those prohibited
under subsection 15(1) had become a matter of settled law.
On June 30, 1993, a little while after the Egan decision, the
Supreme Court stated in the Ward decision that sexual
orientation is an innate or unchangeable characteristic. This
case involved discrimination against refugees and the protection
of refugees. The Supreme Court accepted as a category persons
who fear persecution because of gender, linguistic backgrounds
and sexual orientation.
I would like to mention in passing that the Bloc Quebecois
proposed an amendment regarding the linguistic traits of
victims in committee, which was accepted. This amendment is
in line with the position taken by the Supreme Court in the Ward
case. But, you might ask, should we not clearly define the term
``sexual orientation''? Since political correctness has come into
style, the names of several minority groups have changed
considerably.
(2040)
The blind have become the visually impaired; the deaf, the
hearing impaired; the mentally ill are now mentally
handicapped.
Since language changes constantly, the designation of
homosexuals has changed as well. In the 19th century, this
phenomenon was referred to as sexual inversion. In the 20th
century, this term was replaced by the word homosexuality.
Subsequently, we had the terms gay and lesbian. Not so long
ago, people talked about sexual preference. Of course, the gay
community soon dropped this term because it indicated a choice
or characteristic acquired by the individual and not an innate
characteristic.
Scientists are now trying to determine whether homosexuality
is not only innate but genetically determined. In a scenario that
may not be that far down the road, we may have individuals with
male or female genetic characteristics, plus homosexual genetic
characteristics that would influence the individual's behaviour
and thus determine his or her future sexual orientation.
Some people maintain this is a nightmare scenario, especially
those who flooded the fax machines on Parliament Hill with
strong protests against Bill C-41. The mere term sexual
orientation caused a wave of panic. Opponents of this legislation
13773
simply want to throw out an entire bill on sentencing because it
supposedly gives more rights to homosexuals, which is patently
untrue. Crimes motivated by hate or prejudice have a profound
impact on the victim. They differ from any other kind of crime.
The victim, attacked because of the colour of his or her skin,
because of his or her religion or because she is a woman, suffers
far more than someone whose wallet is stolen. That is what
clause 718.2 of the bill is all about.
I will not support Motions Nos. 5 to 17, inclusive, except, of
course, for Motions Nos. 9 and 15.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise in the House to speak at report stage on Motions Nos. 6 and
13 proposing amendments to Bill C-41.
Bill C-41, and in particular section 718.2, has been
vigorously promoted by the government and the media as the
hate crime legislation.
Let me remind this honourable House that section 718.2 is not
the operative hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code.
Rather it is the purposes and principles of sentencing which
must at all times reflect the fundamental values, principles and
morals on which this great nation, Canada, has been founded.
Section 718.2, as drafted, is unacceptable. It does not reflect
the principles and values of the majority of Canadians. The
specific inclusion of the words sexual orientation gives legal
recognition and legal status to a faction in society which is
undermining and destroying Canadian values and
Judeo-Christian morality.
Such a special recognition of sexual orientation in the
Criminal Code is an overt condonation of the practices of
homosexuality which is being imposed on all Canadians. Bill
C-41 has the effect of legislating a morality that is not supported
by Canadian and Judeo-Christian morals, values and principles.
To endorse or to include the words sexual orientation in any
federal legislation would confer on homosexuals the ability to
obtain special legal status, allow them to redefine the family, to
enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage, to adopt
children, to infiltrate the curriculum of schools and to impose an
alternative lifestyle on youth. All these demands are
encroaching on and undermining the inherent and inviolable
rights of family and the rights of the church.
The family unit is the basic institution of life and the solid
foundation on which our forefathers have built this great nation.
The protection of families, family life and family values must be
a priority with this government. Families have inherent and
inviolable rights. Families have existed before the church and
families have existed before the state. The rights of the family
must be preserved, safeguarded and protected by Parliament.
(2045)
Why do I as a legislator continue to make reference to
principles, values and morals when debating Bill C-41? It is
because section 718.2 refers specifically to principles. In the
words of the hon. justice minister before the justice committee
on Bill C-41 on November 17, 1994-
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point
of order pursuant to Standing Order 18, which reads in part as
follows:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the
Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the
Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or
against any member thereof.
As a gay man, the words spoken by the hon. member for
Central Nova are deeply offensive, not just to me as an
individual but to all gay men and lesbians in this country. To be
accused of immorality-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I did not hear the hon.
member refer to you as an individual. I stand corrected if she
did.
Ms. Skoke: In the justice committee on November 17, 1994
the justice minister stated:
But the second and I believe the more important reason for legislating is that
one of the legitimate purposes of Parliament and of legislation is to allow the
legislators to identify themselves with a principle, to take the lead and to show
what the values are that guide us as a nation.
We may have different views on what those values are, but this bill reflects
the values and views of this government in relation to this matter.
I beg to differ with our justice minister on this issue. With
confidence I say that section 718.2 does not reflect the
principles and values of the Canadian majority. As of June 6,
1995 this honourable House had received over 83,000 signatures
on petitions directly related to the wording of sexual orientation.
Since September 20, 1994 I have received in my office alone
over 10,000 letters, faxes and telephone calls confirming the
views, values, principles and morality of Canadian people.
The media can attest to the interest shown in Bill C-41 on the
issues of principles, values and morals. Talk show hosts, radio,
television, newspapers, magazines and all Canadians are talking
about Bill C-41 and its serious implications. No more.
Canadians are not prepared to silently acquiesce in legislative
change which will affect their right to speech, right to
expression, opinion and belief, the right to freedom of religion
and most important, the right to practise all those freedoms
openly without fear of intimidation, coercion or criminal
sanction.
Section 718.2 is incorporated in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Whether the question of the purpose of the criminal law is
approached from a retributive or a utilitarian direction, it is
important to understand that the fundamental nature of criminal
13774
law sanctions is punitive. The criminal law and the criminal
justice system constitute the end point on a continuum of
informal and formal customs, beliefs and institutions of social
control, the end point in terms of the ultimately coercive
intervention of the state in the lives of its citizens.
Simply put, the criminal sanction of section 718.2 will
ultimately operate to elevate the existing Canadian legal test of
tolerance to a higher legal standard whereby Canadians are
required not only to be tolerant of homosexuals and their chosen
lifestyles, but they must condone, accept and endorse
homosexuality as being natural and moral.
Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being
natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural; it is immoral.
Homosexuality must not and should not be condoned.
(2050)
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Up to
now, I have kept from interrupting my colleague for Central
Nova. However-and I would like some guidance from the
Chair-I contend that associating homosexuality with
immorality strikes a blow at a large sector of society and is
therefore unparliamentary. I would ask the member for Central
Nova-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but that is a
matter of debate.
Mr. Ménard: Is the word immoral acceptable, Madam
Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): These words are not
directed at anyone in particular.
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Madam Speaker, justice, law and morality are
inseparable. In our country Canada, we cannot have laws unless
our laws are just and moral.
The preamble to the Canadian Constitution set forth in the
Constitution Act recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule
of law. The recognition of the supremacy of God entrenches into
the Constitution natural law. Therefore the laws of our country
must not contravene natural law for to do so the laws would be
ultra vires or unconstitutional.
A strict legal approach to section 718.2 will disclose that this
section is seriously flawed and unconstitutional. There are many
unanswered legal questions regarding section 718.2. The words
hate, prejudice and bias are undefined. Hate is an emotion; bias
and prejudice are beliefs. The charter guarantees freedom of
conscience, expression, opinion, belief and religion.
In practicality, when the court employs section 718.2 in
determining whether motivation is on the basis of hate,
prejudice or bias as an aggravating factor, I ask this honourable
House what legal test shall be applied? Is it an objective test or a
subjective test? If it is subjective, whose subjectivity is applied,
the subjectivity of the victim or the subjectivity of the accused?
If sexual orientation is included in the list of section 718.2,
what is the operative legal definition of sexual orientation and
how can one identify the sexual orientation of another? What
legal test will be applied by the judge and will such a test be
based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of the
victim? Where in Canadian law can an accused person be
sentenced for a crime without having first been charged, tried
and convicted of the said crime?
Section 718.2 is a double jeopardy provision of Bill C-41
which is unconstitutional. Its effect clearly sentences an
individual for hate motivation without the individual having
been charged under the hate crime provisions of the Criminal
Code. This is unacceptable in Canada. It contravenes the charter
guarantees of the right to be charged with an offence known in
Canadian law and the right to be tried in accordance with the
fundamental principles of justice.
Section 718.2 violates the equity sections of the charter, in
particular section 15, which states that every Canadian is equal
before and under the law. The list of factors provided for in
section 718.2 creates an inequity in law which must not be
tolerated. Since every Canadian is equal before and under the
law, then a list of categories is unnecessary and restrictive.
The hon. member for Ontario has proposed an amendment to
delete the list. I support Motions Nos. 7 and 8. I do not support
the inclusion of the words sexual orientation in Bill C-41 or in
any federal legislation. I ask this honourable House to support
my position by voting in support of my specific amendment,
Motion No. 13, which will specifically exclude the words sexual
orientation from section 718.2.
I further challenge this honourable House to carefully
consider section 718.2 and to examine its constitutional validity
and its effect upon the charter guarantees afforded to all
Canadians. Before this House is Motion No. 6, a general
amendment to Bill C-41 which will delete section 718.2 in part
and I ask for support from this honourable House.
In conclusion I cannot support any federal legislation that
includes the words sexual orientation particularly in the
Criminal Code of Canada. To do so would be to utilize a criminal
sanction to afford special legal status to homosexuals and to
give legal recognition to a faction in our society which is
undermining and destroying our Canadian values, principles
and morals.
13775
(2055 )
Over the past 25 years Parliament has been encroaching upon
and undermining the inherent and inviolable rights of the
family, the right to life and the rights of the church. Section
718.2 is just another example of this.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to know where to begin in
response to the comments of the last speaker. As one who is
among those she has accused of seeking to undermine and
destroy the Canadian society, as one she has described as
immoral and unnatural, and as a member of a community of gay
men and lesbians whom she has similarly slandered with her
hatred-
Mr. Wappel: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I refer you
to Standing Order 18 where it states that no member may use
offensive words against any member. The hon. member has
accused the hon. member for Central Nova of slander. That is a
direct accusation against a member of this House. I ask you to
call the member to order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will ask the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway to withdraw his comments.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker was
clearly making reference to a community. In responding-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I believe the standing
order as read is quite specific. Would you please withdraw your
words. They were directed at a member.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw any personal
references to the hon. member but certainly with respect to the
point-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Fine. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. When you
take part in a debate you are responsible for the words you utter.
I know that, like all the members of this House, you are
particularly sensitive to the words reported.
I would just like to understand your decision and draw to your
attention that the remarks our colleague made in her opening
words to her debate are what she actually said. If I may, I-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I have already
made a decision on the point of order. The member referred
directly to a member of this House, which is not done, while the
other member referred to a group in society.
[English]
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, obviously what we are
seeing here is that if one hon. member in the course of debate
were to refer to black people hypothetically as a group as being
immoral, unnatural and attacking the family and an assault on
Canadian values, that black people were in that category, of
course in those circumstances a member of this House who
happened to be a black person could not respond. That is what
the Speaker is saying. The Speaker is saying that if a member of
this House got up-
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway purports to be opposed to
hate yet he seems to want to propagate it. I would simply
indicate that he is challenging the authority of the Chair. You
have made your ruling and he persists in challenging your
authority. I would ask that if he is not prepared to play by the
rules-
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear on the
motion I am proposing to the House. Before doing so, I want to
say that I strongly support the principles underlying section
718.2 of this legislation. I find it particularly disturbing that a
member of this House in arguing against this provision could so
distort the reality that underlies the section.
For example, it was suggested that this section would take
effect even if there were no convictions. That is what the hon.
member for Central Nova said. Section 718.2 takes effect only at
sentencing. The hon. member is a lawyer. I assume she is aware
that sentencing takes place only after conviction. Let us be very
clear.
(2100)
Ms. Skoke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is
important that if the hon. member is to quote what I say he
quotes directly and does not paraphrase. He has obviously
misunderstood the context of my speech and I think that is
important.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's words
speak for themselves and the distortions in those words speak
for themselves as well.
No one in supporting this legislation is seeking any kind of
special rights or privileges any more than those who support
legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation are seeking any kind
of special rights or privileges.
There are certain communities in which people are attacked
on the basis of certain identifiable characteristics. The gay
community is one of those communities.
The justice committee on Bill C-41 heard very moving
testimony from two gay men who were walking peacefully down
13776
the street in Toronto near the corner of Church and Welsley when
they were attacked by thugs with broken beer bottles and beaten
up. They were not attacked because they were fat. They were
attacked because they were gay. That is what this legislation is
attempting to respond to.
The hon. member for Scarborough West asks how they knew
that. That is a very good question. That is precisely the purpose
of the amendment in Motion No. 10. They assumed these were
two gay men. They perceived them as being gay men because
they were walking in an area which has a significant number of
gays and lesbians.
That is why it is essential this legislation respond to the
question of sexual orientation. If an individual attacks another
individual because they believe that person to be Jewish or gay
or lesbian the impact of that is just as serious. As a number of
witnesses who appeared before the committee made very clear,
it is essential that the perception of the victim be included in this
legislation. That is the purpose of my amendment.
As one of the briefs from the Ottawa-Carleton regional police
bias crime unit pointed out, Alain Brosseau, a waiter working
one night at the Chateau Laurier, walked toward his home
through Majors Hill park and was attacked by a group of people
who thought he was a gay man. They threw him off the bridge
and killed him. That was just as serious and this legislation
should reflect that seriousness as well. That was the point made
by B'nai Brith, the point made by the Centre de recerche-action
sur les relations raciales and by many others.
It is important we understand this legislation is not conferring
privileges. I wish it were not the case that Jews are singled out
for anti-semitic attacks. I wish it were not the case that gay men
and lesbians were victims of gay bashing, as the Minister of
Justice said.
On Saturday night in Vancouver at the Edge restaurant some
friends of mine were sitting peacefully having coffee when
suddenly through the door came a number of thugs who started
to attack them, calling them faggots, beating them up and
breaking their arms. This crime does not just affect the
individuals involved but by its very nature it has a chilling effect
on a community. That is why it is so important that we amend the
criminal law as has been proposed here.
(2105)
This legislation is very important. It is also important that we
understand the kind of attitudes we have heard from the member
for Central Nova. The member for New Westminster-Burnaby
said that gay bashing was not much of a problem because it was
only one marginalized group, skinheads as he said, attacking
another marginalized group, or it was gay people beating up
other gay people. Those are the attitudes we have to confront.
We need this legislation. I commend those moving it forward.
I commend the Ottawa police department for its leadership in
this area. I hope the House will reject the voices of those not
prepared to accept equality and move toward legislation that
ensures hate crimes are punished to the fullest in society.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to join in debate on Bill C-41.
I want to comment as objectively as I can on section 718.2.
This section has attracted more attention than any other aspect
of the bill. There is a backlash of sorts that has conjured up a
great deal of concern among a number of Canadians. The bill is
referred to often as a hate crimes bill. It is a sentencing bill with
some 60 or 70 pages and has a wide range of important
amendments to guide our sentencing.
Section 718.2 as has been indicated by a number of prior
speakers has attracted attention. Section 718.2 states:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the
following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant
aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the
offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on
race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour religion, sex, age, mental or
physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor, or
(ii) evidence that the offender, in the committing offence, abused a position of
trust or authority in relation to the victim shall be deemed to be a aggravating
circumstances;
To put that in English, section 718.2 basically says that when
someone has been charged and convicted of a crime, prior to
sentencing that person the courts must make an assessment and
that assessment must be whether there is an aggravating
circumstance.
Presently in the bill there are two different categories of
aggravating circumstances. The first refers to bias, prejudice
and hate. That goes on to be elaborated on by adding to it the
so-called list for greater certainty. In other words that a bias,
prejudice or hate was based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability or sexual orientation would require a stiffer sentence.
The second aggravating circumstance has to do with abuse of
positions of trust or authority. A position of trust would be in the
character of a doctor over a patient, a teacher over a student, a
babysitter over a child. Positions of authority might include
such things as an elderly person in the care of a child or a child in
the care of the parents.
One of the reasons the bill and this section have attracted so
much attention is this list on which bias, prejudice and hate
might be motivated is identical to the list in our charter of rights
and freedoms. The only addition to the list are the words sexual
orientation which have brought tremendous focus to this
section. It has been the one reason the bill has been used as a
proxy for the discussion of all sides of the story and the
arguments with regard to sexual orientation.
13777
(2110)
I do not want to use much of my time to deal with this. The
extent of concern within my community, and I have received
many letters, indicates that basically we are all equal under our
laws and that if there is any list it tends to indicate that someone
has been left off the list. If our charter is to hold true the words
bias, prejudice and hate should be sufficient. On that basis I will
be supporting the report stage motion to eliminate the list.
I will now move on very briefly to my motion which is to add
an aggravating circumstance to bias, prejudice and hate and the
abuse of trust in authority positions.
According to the 1993 violence against women survey and
Statistics Canada 29 per cent of women or 2.7 million who have
ever been married or lived in a common law relationship have
been physically or sexually assaulted by their partner at some
point during the relationship. We are all painfully aware of the
serious problems and the negative consequences not only to
those involved but to society as a whole. We have been so
overwhelmed by the tragic statistics and the pleas for help over
so many years, I fear we have become desensitized to the
severity of the problem.
As a result of those facts I have presented a report stage
Motion No. 16 which asks the House to consider making spousal
abuse a situation which would require stiffer sentences. It did
take some time. The motion was submitted in April. It took a
great deal of time to work through justice, to work with
colleagues from all sides of the House.
I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the motion
and as a result of the support I received from all sides of the
House the Minister of Justice has agreed to accept the situation
of spousal abuse as an aggravating circumstance requiring a
stiffer penalty. This is a very momentous situation for the House
to stop giving merely moral support to the plight of abused
women and children and to start giving tangible, legislative
backbone to deal with the issue of spousal abuse.
Motion No. 17 presented by the minister will be addressed in
the House in advance of my Motion No. 16. I will be supporting
Motion No. 17. I believe it incorporates the intent of the motion
I put forward.
I thank the minister and the justice officials and members of
the House. I am sure all women in Canada thank all members for
their support for abused women.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have only 10 minutes to offer my comments on 13
very interesting amendments which obviously, as we have seen
from the debate so far, evoke very strong feelings.
Unfortunately with only 10 minutes I am forced to concentrate
on my amendments.
I do support Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon.
member for Central Nova for the legal, moral and ethical
reasons she stated in her speech. If the House is not supportive
of Motion No. 6 then I am certainly in support of Motions Nos. 7
and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ontario for
the reasons he gave in his excellent address.
(2115 )
If it should transpire that none of those motions have passed
with the approval of this House, then we have section 718.2 with
the phrase sexual orientation as part of that section. In those
circumstances, only one of two things will happen. Either the
phrase sexual orientation will remain undefined, or it can be
defined by this House pursuant to one of the amendments that I
have put forward.
So one might wonder why we need a definition, which is what
I want to talk about in the remaining time. Let us examine some
actual facts, not rhetoric and various other things, but let us talk
about some facts.
Fact one: This is the first time the phrase sexual orientation is
going to be used in any federal Canadian statute.
Fact two: This phrase is undefined in any legal or standard
dictionary.
Fact three: This phrase is undefined by any court in Canada.
There have been passing references to the phrase, a footnote
here or there by one or two or three judges, but it has not been
judiciously interpreted in this country.
We asked the minister what sexual orientation means. When
he appeared before the justice committee on November 17,
1994, he said: ``Sexual orientation encompasses homosexuality,
heterosexuality, and bisexuality''. If that is in fact the case, then
that is exactly what my Motion No. 11 proposes. It proposes to
state that sexual orientation means exactly what the Minister of
Justice said it meant in the committee; namely, homosexuality,
heterosexuality, and bisexuality. The important point is that it
would mean nothing else but those three things the minister
said.
It is interesting to note that virtually every jurisdiction in the
world that I have found that uses the phrase sexual orientation or
similar words actually defines the phrase. We are meeting so
much resistance here in Canada to defining a legal phrase that
has never been used in this country in a statute. Yet in other
countries there does not seem to be this problem.
Let us take a look, for example, at California, which has a
population greater than our entire country. They say sexual
orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or
bisexuality, period. This is exactly what the Minister of Justice
said and exactly what my Motion No. 11 states.
What about our own regulations, not statutes, under the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission? Even they go some way to defining sexual
orientation by saying: ``Sexual orientation does not include the
orientation
13778
toward any sexual act or activity that would constitute an
offence under the Criminal Code''. Who could disagree with
that? That is in fact a definition because it is a definition of
exclusion. Motion No. 11 is a definition of inclusion.
Let us take, for example, the District of Columbia. Sexual
orientation means male or female homosexuality,
heterosexuality, and bisexuality-and I note for the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway-by preference or practice.
But it is defined. That is the point: it is defined in statute.
Finally, let us talk about Australia. We talked about the United
States, so we will now talk about South Australia and its equal
opportunity act. The act states: ``It is unlawful to discriminate
on the grounds of sexuality. Sexuality is defined as meaning
heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or
trans-sexuality''. Well my other motion deals with that, with the
exception of trans-sexuality.
All of these jurisdictions define the phrase. So what I am
saying is we should define the phrase. What if we do not? Does
the undefined phrase sexual orientation mean something other
than what the minister has said it means?
(2120 )
Let us look at the evidence that was called at the committee.
Dr. Greenberg, who is a member of the policy review committee
from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and who is also
a psychiatrist at one of the Ottawa hospitals, in response to a
question by me, said: ``Sexual orientation is a descriptive term.
It basically defines what attracts a person to a stimulus. In other
words, just like a compass, what is it that orients a person toward
a particular stimulus? It is what stimulus arouses a person
sexually.'' I asked, ``Yes, so necrophilia would be a sexual
orientation to you?'' Dr. Greenberg answers, ``A deviant sexual
orientation, yes.''
It goes on. The Canadian Psychological Association said: ``It
is not for us to say whether in the courts it would be,''-that is to
say, interpreted-``but certainly sexual orientation is a key and
fundamental component of pedophilia''. That is not the member
for Scarborough West talking, that is Dr. Stephen J. Wormith,
chairperson of the criminal justice psychology section of the
Canadian Psychological Association. That is what he says. This
is if it is undefined.
We have many other quotations, which I have sent around to
all hon. members in this House.
If those witnesses do not agree that sexual orientation does
not mean what the minister said, what are the courts going to do?
The courts are not responsible to the people of Canada. I do not
want to take that chance. It is for this House to define phrases,
not for the courts.
Interestingly enough, every other characteristic listed in
718.2 is defined. Race has been defined. National or ethnic
origin has been defined. Language has been defined. Colour has
been defined. Religion has been defined. Sex has been defined.
Age has been defined. Mental or physical disability has been
defined. Here are the definitions, judicial and otherwise.
The only identifiable characteristic that has not been given a
definition in this country is sexual orientation. Why is that?
According to the minister, he says that it would be offensive to
provide a definition. I quote: ``It would be offensive for us to
define that term''. That is the reason he gives for not defining a
term that the witnesses said includes necrophilia, pedophilia,
scopophilia, or whatever other kind of philias you want to talk
about. That is not just some hon. member talking; those are
actual expert witnesses before the justice committee who made
these points.
Who would it offend? It is not offensive to the people of
Scarborough West. I conducted a poll. Seventy-two per cent of
my constituents want sexual orientation defined before it is put
in any federal statute. It is not offensive to anybody I know.
If we draft statutes on the basis of offence, we have given a lot
of offence to a lot of gun owners and we just passed Bill C-68.
That gives offence. We cannot draft statutes on the basis of who
they might or might not offend. We draft statutes on the basis of
what is right and what is wrong. Wedraft according to the proper
rules of drafting and give definitions.
I ask the House, if sexual orientation is going to remain,
please define it.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting debate. I have been
listening to it very carefully.
I am really very mystified about how this whole question of
sexual orientation has managed to take off as such a
pre-eminent feature of Bill C-41. As was said earlier, we are
talking about a bill that has 70 pages dealing largely and most
importantly with the question of sentencing, which we have
wanted for some time. There are some very good provisions in
this bill that are much needed in our society, particularly with
respect to our criminal justice system.
(2125 )
What we seem to gravitate to is one little section. It is not even
a whole section; it is just a little itsy-bitsy part of a section. It is
in section 718.2 that we refer to the words ``sexual orientation''.
The hon. member for Scarborough West has done a lot of
research on this, and I commend him. He says that sexual
orientation should be defined. He mentions that the other
aspects-race, colour, sex, and gender-are defined. However
13779
they are not defined in the bill. They may be defined, but they
are not defined in the bill because these are incidental terms.
What we are dealing with is the fact of sentencing. That is why
it is called a sentencing bill. There are no rights given under this
bill to anyone, regardless of race, religion, language, or sexual
orientation. We are not saying that anybody in those categories
has any rights.
What we are saying is that if somebody is attacked and it can
be proven that they were attacked because of their sex, religion,
language, or sexual orientation, such as the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway has said about some people going into a
restaurant and saying ``Let's go and get those faggots'', then
there is objective evidence that they are being attacked for that
reason. Because they are being attacked for that reason, it is a
question of bias, prejudice, or hate based on those principles. If
the people then go to court and are found guilty, they will be
sentenced. In the sentencing it will be determined that the reason
they committed the crime was because of bias, prejudice, and
hate on their part in relation to language, religion, or sexual
orientation. If that is the case, then their sentence is greater than
if that was not the case.
A member says that is already being done in the courts across
the country. Why then, one may ask, do we have it in the
legislation? Because it is not being applied equally across the
country. It is being applied differently in each province and we
want to have it applied equally. Members have said, hate, bias
and prejudice are onerous terms, principles, and sicknesses,
which creep into adverse and unpleasant actions in our society.
We want to apply it equally across the country.
Why, if we want to put it in the act, do we have to use these
terms? The reason we have to use terms like religion, language,
sex and sexual orientation is because the Supreme Court of
Canada stated in the Zundel and Keegstra cases that they have to
know what we mean by hate. What is it we are talking about
when we talk about hate? Are we talking about hate based on
sexual orientation, religion, or language, or are we talking about
hate based on someone beating somebody else up because they
do not like the Vancouver Canucks or the Toronto Maple Leafs?
Is that the sort of hate? Hate can be used in so many ways.
We want to define what kind of hate we mean and what we are
talking about when we go to court on this principle. So we put in
examples, but we also say that is not the last of it. We also say
``national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other
similar factor''. We are not saying that anything can be hate; we
refer to a similar factor that relates to the terms we have
previously set forth in that list.
(2130 )
We are not giving any rights at all under this. The bill does not
define sexual orientation because it is not a principle of the bill.
The worst that can happen by not defining sexual orientation is
that someone may make a mistake about what sexual orientation
is in the sentencing process.
If some people want a definition of sexual orientation it
should be put in the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is where
such a definition would apply, not in a sentencing bill.
In Motion No. 10, brought forward by the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, he mentions changing the bill. Instead of
saying race, national or ethnic origin, religion, language or
sexual orientation, he wants it to say ``the actual or perceived
race'' and so on.
We do not need that because perceived is not a factor either. If
someone is attacked because of language or sexual orientation
or race it does not matter in the sentencing process if that person
actually spoke that language, was of that sexual orientation, was
of that race or not. The fact they were actually attacked based on
bias, prejudice or hate and whether the victim was correctly
identified in that hate, bias or prejudice does not matter. It is the
reason for the assault that the sentence is given.
If the person is convicted on the basis of that attack, based on
that bias, prejudice or hate on questions of language, sexual
orientation or religion, whether the victim was or was not, if the
attacker thought the victim was, there is still the hate and there is
still going to be the enhanced sentence. It does not matter if it
was perceived or not perceived but what the objectively stated
intention of the person committing the offence was.
This is a good bill. We are getting carried away, led astray by
various factors. Everything in the bill is important but what is
most important is what the bill wants to do and can do.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I wish to state from the outset that it will be
impossible for me to support the amendments proposed by the
hon. members for Scarborough West and for Central Nova,
which, of course, should not surprise us. I want to start by
repeating what we were told by a psychology professor, who had
a great influence on me. He started from the basic premise that
sexuality has many facets. This sexology professor reminded us
that those who feel comfortable with their own sexuality do not
feel the need to denigrate others with a different sexual
orientation.
13780
Tonight, I am sorry that some of my colleagues, whose views I
as a parliamentarian must respect, may have made comments
which, in my opinion, showed, to say the least, very little respect
for a kind of sexual pluralism that must be acknowledged. What
I find most regrettable, and the reason why I do not understand
the purpose of the amendments tabled by some of my
colleagues, can be summed up as follows: Is it too much to ask
some parliamentarians to recognize, to understand that, in 1995,
some members of society are still being molested, beaten or
ill-treated for the sole reason that they are or appear to be
homosexual?
(2135)
That is what the bill before the House wants to deal with. I fail
to understand why parliamentarians who have a voice in
government, who have a public voice, will not admit that this is
so, although all the hard scientific evidence is there.
In fact, two years ago, the Government of Quebec, the first
government in Canada to speak out against discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation, instructed the Quebec Human
Rights Commission, a public body with credibility, to
investigate violence against gays. That was the specific mandate
of this commission. We can assume that, if a government takes
the trouble to instruct a commission to investigate, acts of
violence are being committed in our society.
The commission, which made several recommendations,
examined fifty statements by gays, young and not so young, who
were attacked-I think it is important to emphasize this-who
were attacked simply because they were gay. I think you would
have to be extremely obtuse, bigoted and empty headed not to
realize, as a parliamentarian, that this is a situation that must be
dealt with.
What do the opponents to this bill find so disturbing? Of
course we could wonder about their fantasies, but we will
refrain. We will remain strictly on topic. What disturbs them in
the legal sense?
With all due respect for the hon. member for Scarborough
West and the hon. member for Central Nova-I must admit that
when she talks about homosexuality, she does not mince her
words, which is putting it mildly-I have not heard either
member give examples that would hold water in the legal sense.
I would have had more respect, although I still have some,
through you Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member for Central Nova
or the hon. member for Scarborough West, if they had risen in
their seats and argued on a legal basis to make a connection
between agreeing that gays should not be attacked and
pedophilia.
That is what disturbs them. That is what frightens them. I had
a chance to discuss this with the hon. member during an
exchange in committee. However, none of them were able to
make a connection between what is proposed in clause 718.2 and
what they themselves as parliamentarians anticipated would
happen.
Quite frankly, when people are disturbed by a difference that
is as legitimate as it is ancient, by the expression of a difference
in sexual experience, one wonders, and whether they are
parliamentarians is irrelevant, whether they have a healthy and
balanced life.
What is disturbing, and I think the Minister of Justice is to be
commended for his courage in this respect, is that, as
parliamentarians, we have no obligation to support a certain set
of moral values. You know, when the only argument is a moral
argument, when as a member, all they can do is get up and talk
about prayers, religion and family, it is because they do not have
much in the way of legal arguments.
I have great respect for people who are deeply religious. I
have great respect for parliamentarians in this House who, in
some way or another, want to perpetuate the family, be it in its
traditional form.
But please, do not tell us that because we want to protect a
specific group of people who are confronted with violence every
day, because the legislator wants to make attacking gays
because of their sexual orientation a factor in determining
sentencing, please do not tell us we are challenging family
values.
(2140)
I come from a traditional family. My father, Claude, is 55
years old, my mother, Thérèse, is 60 years old. I have a twin
brother who has the exact same genetic base as me, another
brother who is a police officer-nobody is perfect-and an older
brother. I come from a traditional family. It is quite traditional,
with my father supporting the family and my mother raising five
children at home, who all shared similar influence.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.):
And one son who is a comedian.
Mr. Ménard: The hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is paying me a
compliment that I cannot ignore. My point is that it is certainly
not as a challenge to the traditional or alternative family that we,
as legislators, want to put a stop to violence. I cannot accept this
kind of argument.
I suspect that the hon. member for Scarborough West made an
honest mistake when he told us that there is no mention of sexual
orientation in any Canadian legislation. As a good, honest
lawyer, he knows full well that for a number of years now, the
Canadian Human Rights Act is to be construed as explicitly
including sexual orientation. Finally, it took all the
determination, the energy and the drive of a group like EGALE
to remind everyone, including MPs, this in a manner that
deserves to be praised, that in 18 years of existing case law, no
comparison can be made between what the legislator is about to
do and any form
13781
of perversion mentioned by some members of this House who,
in so doing, showed an unacceptable lack of consideration.
After all, why, as parliamentarians, do we want the courts to
take sexual orientation into account, among other factors, when
sentencing an offender? The hon. member for Scarborough West
knows full well that none of the other aggravating factors is
defined in clause 718.2. Why be so obsessed about stating facts
which do not withstand close scrutiny?
I will conclude with this: When parliamentarians from every
party, as well as the courts, understand that we play an educating
role every time we make a decision, then we will live in a society
which I long for, a society where it will possible for a person,
whether a public figure or not, to be gay, to live his or her
difference and feel good about it, and to not be exposed to
physical abuse, as is unfortunately often the case for members of
the gay community.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to compliment my colleagues from Scarborough
West and Hochelaga who have been speaking in this debate for
the tenor, the tone and the wisdom of their speeches and the way
they have conducted themselves. It is interesting that two people
coming from such polar opposites in this debate can both put
their points well, succinctly and make their arguments.
Madam Speaker, I am absolutely fed up with being
discriminated against. It is really starting to get to me. After
studying the legislation, I see no mention of white, middle aged,
sort of Catholic males.
If I am lying in a ditch somewhere with my head kicked in,
why is it any less of an offence, albeit I am a member of the
Reform Party? Why is it any less of an offence for me to be lying
in a ditch with my head kicked in than someone else who may be
black, may be gay or some other human characteristic? That is
the reason I have a problem with the legislation. The whole
notion of sexual orientation in the bill is a red herring.
(2145 )
If the government had the guts and courage of its convictions
on sexual orientation it would come in the front door and amend
the human rights act upfront instead of trying to slide this
amendment in through the back door. As the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice so aptly put it, why does this
one teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy two-word phrase in a 30-page bill
have people up in arms?
It has people up in arms because it does not come to this
question honestly. We have to be very careful to address the
whole notion of sexual orientation honestly. Most Canadians,
myself included, are absolutely 100 per cent against the notion
of discrimination against anybody for any reason, including
people who are gay. We are equally opposed to affirmative
action based on any human characteristic.
The whole notion of rights came up in the 16th century and
has come up through western Liberal democracies. It is a big
part of the American Declaration of Independence. Now that we
have sort of been messing around with the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms the whole notion of rights has become
confused.
As human beings we have two rights that are inalienable: the
right to life and the right to liberty. Beyond those every other
so-called right is a privilege given to us by other members of
society for one reason or another.
When people came together under an apple tree and decided
on some sort of governance, they were willing to give up some
of our individual freedoms and liberties for the greater good, so
that those that remained would be enhanced. We gave the
responsibility to government to provide for these freedoms,
security of the person and policing. We did so voluntarily but we
did so as human beings.
We did not come together under a tree as white males, gay
males, lesbian females, black females, males and females. We
came together under a tree and said that for the common good we
would have rules and order in society. We did not vest any one of
us with rights or privileges superior to anyone else. When we
came together and decided to have governance we said we
wanted it for the common good.
Down the road things do not always work out the way they
should. We know there are certain people in society who have
been discriminated against. We know intuitively it is right to
prevent discrimination. We have enacted laws over the years to
prevent it. If we have to enact laws in the future to prevent
discrimination against people because they are gay,
homosexual, bisexual or lesbian, we should do so. However let
us not be afraid of addressing it head on.
As my hon. colleague from Scarborough West said, statute
laws that are ambiguous in nature in not defining the term sexual
orientation do not bring credit to the law making process.
I wish to conclude my comments with a plea to all hon.
members and to Canadians in general. We must make a clear
distinction between the prevention of discrimination, which is
laudable and which we all want, and affirmative action or giving
benefit by reason of specific characteristics including sexual
orientation. These are two very different ideas which have been
combined and mixed up in the bill to the discredit of the bill.
13782
(2150)
If it is the government's intention to have sexual orientation
as a defined part of the human rights act, the government should
bring forth legislation as it promised to do in the election
campaign and in its red book. It should show the courage of its
convictions and do it through the front door honestly and
honourably, not try to slide it in the back door through this
legislation.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make further
submissions on the legislation. Earlier I spoke about the
alternative measures section in the code. I indicated then that I
disagreed with the provision that would allow attorneys general
across the country to use their discretion and not prosecute
serious crimes. It is somewhat inconsistent now that the bill
purports to deal more harshly with those who commit crimes
motivated by hate, knowing that a court could very well divert
an offender who commits an offence out of the criminal justice
system and invoke the alternative measures.
The bill is not about sexual orientation. The bill is not about
homosexuality. Frankly what the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway and the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve do in the confines of their bedrooms
is their business. That is not what the bill purports to deal with.
The question of whether or not homosexuality is immoral is
not the issue with the legislation. As the hon. member indicated,
that debate is the real debate and that debate will only take place
when a bill is put before the House dealing with amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-41 is an omnibus bill. It
is referred to as an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing)
and other acts in consequence thereof.
If we look at the index we see it deals with alternative
measures, purpose and principles of sentencing, punishment
generally, procedure and evidence, restitution, conditional
sentence of imprisonment, fines and forfeitures. The bill is not
about sexual orientation or homosexuality. It is often referred to
in the media as the hate crime bill. One section deals with hate
crime and that is section 718.2. The section purports to deal with
hate motivated crimes. The bill is not about homosexuality; it is
about political correctness.
The first question I ask as a lawyer and as a Canadian is
whether we need this section in the Criminal Code. The answer
is very simply no. This section is here not because there is a void
that has to be filled in criminal law. It is not here because there is
a groundswell of support for this change in the country. It is
because specific groups in society have effectively lobbied the
Government of Canada to inject into the criminal law an
unnecessary section.
I quote from a reputable newspaper that has never been
accused of being homophobic, anti-homosexual or anything of
the sort. The Globe and Mail, wrote an editorial entitled
``Unnecessary Laws'' which takes the position that the section is
unnecessary. My views happen to coincide completely with the
arguments made in the editorial. I quote:
The new sentencing guidelines are redundant and ill considered, injecting
politics once again into the making of criminal law.
D (2155)
It goes on to say:
If Parliament wants to protect threatened groups from hate crimes, it cannot
exclude certain groups that some of its members happen not to like. The real
problem with section 718.2 is not that it refers to homosexuals but that it is
proposed at all.
And this is the key:
Judges already have wide discretion in sentencing. They often use this
discretion to hand out particularly harsh sentences for crimes they consider
particularly harmful to society. As far as we can determine the government has
presented no evidence that judges are being unduly lenient with criminals
motivated by hate. So why pass a law that in effect asks them to be tougher?
What evidence does the Minister of Justice have or what
evidence did he present to the justice committee to warrant this
new section in the Criminal Code of Canada? As far as I know,
and I have asked several members of the committee, there was
no study presented to the committee and there was no evidence
other than anecdotal evidence.
The member for Burnaby-Kingsway and others can talk
about a particular hate motivated crime that happened in
Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax. We know these crimes take
place. But how often do they take place? Does the government
have that evidence? Does the minister have a study that
indicates that 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 or 10,000 so-called hate
motivated crimes are taking place? We keep statistics on all
kinds of matters related to the criminal law. If so, is there
evidence to suggest that judges have been unduly lenient in
dealing with offenders who commit a crime motivated by hate? I
would submit there is no evidence to suggest that judges are too
lenient. Then why present the law?
The criminal law is not a piece of legislation to be amended
and changed in order to be ``politically correct'' because certain
groups in society have pressured effectively for an inclusion of
something in the law. The criminal law deals with many matters.
It is a serious law, not to be used by politicians to curry votes and
support from groups within society.
The Globe and Mail goes on to say:
The Criminal Code is not a toy. Nor is it a showcase for the government's
good intentions. It is the law of the land. Before the government makes any
changes to the code it should show that there is a problem in the first place, and
what is more, a problem that can be addressed by the law. Governments should
make law only out of demonstrated need. First demonstrate, then legislate.
13783
The Globe and Mail makes a very persuasive argument on
why we do not need this section in the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Financial Post is not a homophobic newspaper. I do not
believe it can be accused of being anti-homosexual or anti-gay.
It carried an editorial dated May 27 entitled ``Cluttering up the
Code'' from which I would like to quote:
So much for the punishment fitting the crime. According to C-41 it is not
enough that a person is assaulted or robbed or killed. Now any relevant
aggravating circumstances are to be considered when meting out the
punishment. If you happen to be beaten up or murdered because you were in
the wrong place at the wrong time, or because someone wanted to rob you, the
court is told to give the offender a lighter sentence than it would to someone
who assaulted or murdered because they hated the victim's religion.
(2200 )
In other words in an attempt to attack discrimination the law
itself would discriminate. Furthermore, since the government
has not produced evidence that the courts have been especially
lenient on those who commit crimes motivated by hate, where is
the need for such a provision? The bill says the fundamental
purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for the law.
The section on sentencing does the opposite. It is motivated by
politics, not by the principle of impartial justice.
For these reasons alone, I urge members of Parliament to
reject this section of the bill. It is unnecessary. It is politically
motivated. We are not debating here the issue of whether
homosexuality is moral or immoral. That debate is yet to come.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was interested in the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister's comment about how good Bill C-41 is and how much
more it included other than section 718.2.
If the parliamentary secretary was listening carefully to the
member for York South-Weston, he clearly pointed out two
areas of this bill that are very questionable. One of them deals
with alternative measures. Several clauses and subclauses are
very questionable. Another one is section 718.2.
A third one I have found which is absolutely reflective of a
government that really does not pay attention to the wishes of
the people but writes legislation contrary to it is section 745.1.
This section deals with early release for first and second degree
murderers if they are under 18 years of age.
Very little has been debated on this bill. It was incumbent
upon members in this House to do a thorough debate of this bill
because of its implications.
Returning to 745.1 it reads:
The sentence to be pronounced against a person who was under the age of 18 at the
time of the commission of the offence for which the person was convicted of first
degree murder or second degree murder and who is to be sentenced to imprisonment
for life shall be that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility
for parole until a person has served such period between five and 10 years of the
sentence as is specified by the judge presiding at the trial.
In other words, what is the difference between this piece of
legislation when dealing with first and second degree murderers
who are under 18 years old and those provisions under the Young
Offenders Act? There is no difference whatsoever. Just like
section 745, the attempt to repeal that section of the Criminal
Code by the member for York South-Weston was brought about
by him through a private member's bill.
Here is another section that almost replaces it which would be
extremely irritating if the people in this country knew about its
existence yet they know little about what is happening here. Bill
C-41 is a very questionable document.
If I have learned anything since coming to Ottawa it is the
wishes of the Canadian people are seldom reflected in
legislation. More often than not legislation is passed either in
spite of the desires of Canadians or by pulling the wool over
their eyes, which is what Bill C-41 does.
I have also learned that political philosophy can influence
legislation in one of two ways. The ideology of the political
party that sponsors the piece of legislation can influence the
means by which a commonly desired Canadian goal can be
achieved, or it can set the goals. Bill C-41 is little more than
ideology dressed up.
(2205 )
Canadians are realizing more and more that our current
justice minister, the architect of this piece of legislation, is a
man of the left, if not the far left. The justice minister knows
exactly what he is doing. Just as he has hidden the true intent and
true result of Bill C-68, the firearms registration bill, in a soft,
fuzzy cloud of crime control, so he has disguised the real intent
of Bill C-41 behind a veil of real justice reform. It is pure
trickery, but it is also very transparent.
Bill C-41 is a bad bill and it will do bad things for Canada.
Bill C-41 is an entirely predictable expression of what the
current minister wants for Canada and what sort of impact he
wants to leave on the political landscape. With Bill C-41 Canada
sits atop the crest of a hill. If we in the House pass the bill we
will propel ourselves down the slippery slope of governmental
redefinition of the family, of governmental sanction of
unhealthy relationships.
Mark my words, this in turn will lead to a further alienation of
the Canadian people from their legislators. People are already
disillusioned with politicians. They do not trust politicians.
Why should they? Politicians craft bills like Bill C-41 and
disguise it behind the veil of justice reform. It is only later when
the legislative rubber hits the road and the courts take action that
13784
Canadians find out what really is the true impact of the bill. That
is what will happen with Bill C-41.
The world will not end if this bill passes. In fact, it will not
change overnight. However, it will change and it will change for
the worst. If this bill passes, the courts will be given full licence
to redefine what marriage is, what discrimination means, what
the limits of freedom of association are and just how free free
speech is. We have seen examples of that in the House with the
attempts to shut down debate. That will happen.
Bill C-41 with the inclusion of sexual orientation, whatever
that means, as a protected category will inevitably lead to a
change of discourse in the courts and eventually on the streets. It
will lead to expanded special rights for one very small group of
people. It will set new limits for the majority of people who do
nothing more in life than go to work, go to church, pay their
taxes, raise their kids and ask nothing more than to be left
untouched as much as possible by the long arm of the Liberal
state apparatus.
My years on the police force were invaluable in understanding
what the real long term impact of legislation such as this will do.
It has provided me with an education like no other with respect
to the importance of the fine points of legislation and the
massive ripple effect it will have on the street. The devil is in the
details, as they say.
The Bail Reform Act for example is an act which was filled
with good intentions but led Canada down a slippery slope
which ended in the weakening of the criminal justice system in
protecting society. That was a Liberal act. It was intended to
allow the early release of non-violent offenders but was
interpreted by jurists to include violent offenders. Broad
intentions were transformed into bizarre reality as the
legislative rubber hit the judicial road.
We have all seen the direction the Supreme Court has taken on
the charter. The charter has to be so exploited by narrow
political causes that constituents regularly call my office saying
to scrap the thing altogether. Our esteemed court of highest
appeal has ruled that drunks cannot commit crimes.
For those on the other side of the House who accuse me of fear
mongering for suggesting that Bill C-41 with its addition of
sexual orientation to the list of protected groups will not create
waves which will wash dangerously over Canadian families, I
say let us look at the record and let us get rid of the long list of
those protected areas. For those who say that this bill is only
about protecting people I say, just wait. A few years away, a few
court decisions hence, this protection will turn into promotion.
While all of us in this House support protection of any person
from discrimination or violence, let us think very carefully
about what we want to end up promoting.
(2210)
Let us be honest with ourselves on this bill. We all know what
it is going to lead to. I along with my constituents do not like that
one bit.
The Reform Party does not like opposing legislation just for
the sake of opposing it. No party should oppose legislation for
that reason but we oppose this bill in its present form for good
reasons. Those reasons are very much related to the problems I
spoke of above.
What will happen when the open endedness of section 717 of
the bill dealing with alternative measures for non-violent
offences hits the streets and is subject to administration and
interpretation? Nobody knows. The justice minister does not
know.
I for one did not seek election in this House in order to leave
the fate of legislation up to the law of unexpected consequence.
This section, one of the more important sections of the bill,
opens the door to the sort of judicial expansion that I witnessed
while I was on the police force, the sort of expansion I know
Canadians do not want.
Since we could not have this section tightened up in
committee, we have no choice but to vote to scrap it. In my
experience it is far better to return to the drawing board than to
paint a dangerously obscure picture, especially when we are
talking about criminal justice legislation.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I
came into this House tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister said to me: ``It is a sad day''. I said that it was not
a sad day, but that it was a great day for a number of reasons. If I
may refer to another piece of legislation, a battle was won
tonight in the House, the battle to see the gun control bill passed.
That made it not a sad day.
I know that my colleague and my other colleague, the member
from Mississauga who also thought it was a sad day were
referring to attitudes that are expressed not just in this House,
not just in this city or this province but right across the country. I
want to talk a little about that in my very brief time. I am
paraphrasing but I believe and my colleague from Toronto
agrees with me that it was St. Thomas More, the great chancellor
of England who said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good people to do nothing.
I have listened to some of the nonsensical reactions. I am not
talking about members in this House but the letters I have
received and responses from people who clearly have not read
the bill, who do not understand what the bill is about, or who
perhaps do understand what the bill is about and still evince an
attitude of frightening intolerance. I know what my two
colleagues mean when they say it is a sad day.
13785
The reason I know it is not a sad day is that this bill will
become law. It will pass because it is the right thing to do. What I
am struggling with is the fact that colleagues in this House,
some colleagues within our own party, members of the church to
which I belong and to which I pay great homage and great love
hurt me very much by their illogical and irrational response to
this legislation. This legislation says in effect that if x goes out
and hits y because he just does not like y's face and injures him
and he is convicted of let us call it assault causing bodily harm,
so we do not have to worry about private prosecutions here, the
provisions in this legislation would not kick in. It does not call
for it. It is not one of the things that falls under these provisions
against hate.
(2215)
What if someone does not like you, Mr. Speaker, because you
may be a Presbyterian and decides to assault you because he
does not like Presbyterians and you are a member of that group?
Should this exacerbate the situation? I think so. The Minister of
Justice thinks so, the Prime Minister thinks so, the
parliamentary secretary thinks so. The vast number of
Canadians think so. The vast number of Canadians are tolerant
and believe that to attack someone because of a belief,
ethnocultural background, skin colour or sexual orientation
exacerbates the assault.
The questions as to whether that is right or wrong are distinct
questions of policy and divisions between the Reform Party and
the Liberal Party to take one example. What we are talking about
is something that goes much deeper. It goes back to what I said
when I started my speech that the member for Mississauga and
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister were
disheartened when I came in here tonight because of the feelings
of intolerance that have flown around this bill from its
inception.
I went home today to do two things. I was opening a special
centre for technology in my riding, a wonderful thing for the
G-7, and also because my mother is very ill. She is dying in the
hospital after a very long life. I thought about bringing up this
allusion tonight in my speech.
In a sense I want to pay tribute to her because I am here and I
hold the opinions I hold because of the way she, a single mother,
brought me up. She was a school teacher who desperately
wanted to be a lawyer but coming to her maturity in the
depression in Cape Breton, the oldest of nine children, it was not
possible. She taught school. She was involved in politics. She
was involved in the teachers' union. She was a feminist. She was
a single mother because my father died when I was very young.
She believed passionately in tolerance.
I remember when I was four years old a man came to our
house selling baskets. He was a Micmac. As was the Cape
Breton tradition, my mother gave him a meal before he left. She
bought some baskets from him as well. As he walked away from
our house my mother said: ``That poor man. It is a very difficult
thing to be an Indian in this society''.
I remember the discussion that resulted from that. It went on
between us for the next 40 years as she talked to me about
questions of tolerance. She talked to me about taking people at
face value. She talked to me about tolerance based on fear and
ignorance and how we must always fight to root it out.
Whether that intolerance is against aboriginal people, people
of colour, people who hold a different sexual orientation from
someone else's it is shocking that we allow the vilification that
has gone on around this debate to go on, that we allow the
ignorance and fear to go on, and that we do not collectively as
parliamentarians stand up and say enough.
(2220 )
We are changing the sentencing law because it is the right
thing to do. We are changing the sentencing law because people
deserve to be protected from people who hate them. If someone
assaults someone else because they hate what he or she stands
for, thinks, believes in or because of something endemic to that
person which includes sexual orientation, they are wrong and it
deserves to be brought out after their conviction in a court of law
and added to their sentence.
I stand here tonight to say this from my mother, Reenie
Clancy, who will not be with us for very much longer. I am very
proud that she taught me to believe this way. I am also very
proud that I am here to vote for this bill.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-41, the sentencing bill, starts out with good intentions but
fails to carry them out. I like the part that mentions reparation to
victims and the promotion of a sense of responsibility to
offenders. It is about time victims were mentioned in
legislation. I would even like to see that portion of this bill
strengthened.
However, the bill goes down hill from there. The alternative
measures section allows authorities to choose individual
offenders for special sentencing deals. Already sentences for
similar crimes vary from place to place within Canada and they
even vary from the city to the country. If one is to kill someone
in this country, as the hon. member for York South-Weston
pointed out earlier, statistically one should probably do it in
Quebec because one gets far less time in jail than in other parts
of the country. I find that incredible.
The alternative measures section will make it easier on some
criminals, which is the trend in our justice system, to blame all
wrongdoing on society and remove the need for punishment.
People do not want more leniency. They want the opposite.
Imagine the return of the lash that was suggested 10 years ago as
a legitimate element in our justice system. Now we hear calls for
it in some parts of the country nearly every day. I am not
convinced that is the answer but it shows me people are crying
13786
out for action from the government. They demand action and
justice but they are not seeing it in this bill.
Tomorrow I hope to meet with the justice minister to talk
about a case in my constituency in which a woman was stalked
for five years and finally when she was caught by her estranged
husband and stabbed repeatedly her husband received two years
less a day in jail. That is a shame. I am sick and tired of
sentencing bills that allow this kind of discrepancy. That person
should have been put away for a long time and this woman
protected. Instead they are allowed to come back into society in
a few short months. It is disgusting.
When we get to the hate crime section of the bill we see some
more inequalities. It allows a stiffer sentence if a crime is
motivated by hatred against certain groups. If aggravated
assault is perpetrated on me because somebody wants my
money, it hurts just as much to get punched in the eye no matter
what group I am from. The whole concept of identifying
Canadians by groups instead of as individuals is a disturbing
trend in Canadian society.
Too often the government wants to label people by ethnicity,
colour, race, gender and now by sexual orientation. People
should be labelled in one way, Canadians. They should be
entitled to all the privileges, responsibilities and protection
every single Canadian deserves.
This section also marks a basic shift in our legal system by
starting to criminalize thought. We have always punished people
for the wrong things they do, not for the wrong things they think.
I have zero tolerance for hatred and I think we should
continuously speak out against hatred whenever we see it. We
cannot stamp it out by pretending to read people's minds and
then sending them to jail for it. It sets a bad precedent for the
future because hatred is so hard to define and to know what goes
on in someone's head is almost impossible.
(2225 )
In a previous debate some months ago when the member for
Central Nova stated in her opinion that homosexuality is
immoral, her words were characterized by the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway as hateful, bigoted comments that have
absolutely no place in the Chamber and certainly not in the
Liberal Party of Canada.
One member's moral opinion, granted, is seen by a leading
homosexual in the country as an expression of hatred and
bigotry. It is a dangerous trend to label people like that. Where
could this take us?
Maybe members are not familiar with this but British
Columbia right now is contemplating a law called the bubble
law that will make it illegal to even voice protest against
abortion within a certain distance of an abortion clinic. Every
day an elderly priest stands in front of the House and wears or
puts up a sign that says abortion is wrong. That is his opinion. If
the law in British Columbia passes it would be illegal to do that.
Someone could sit on a park bench within 100 feet of an
abortion clinic with a sign around their neck saying they are
against abortion and they would be totally in contravention of
the law.
That is the trouble because it starts to infiltrate and impugn
motives on people. They could not even stand on the corner with
a simple sign hung around their neck saying they are against
abortion. One day if this trend continues legitimate opinions
that express the morality of homosexuality on either side may be
viewed as illegal or hateful. I think that is a very dangerous
trend.
The hate crimes section does not yet entrench this but it takes
a step in that direction. By establishing a principle in Bill C-41
we are paving the way that it is all right to punish thoughts with
jail terms.
I would like to remove the entire hate crimes section. The
second best option would be to remove all the enumerated
groups. My third preference would be to remove the phrase
sexual orientation from the bill. If this amendment also failed in
this group I would at least think the terms should be defined.
Why would I remove the phrase sexual orientation? Other
speakers have elaborated that it is simply not necessary.
Homosexuals or people of whatever sexual orientation are
already protected against violence, as they should be, like all
other Canadians because they are protected by the Criminal
Code.
The Canadian Bar Association said to the committee that
when someone can show they have been assaulted or somehow
abused in all cases prosecutions followed, and so they should.
That is why it is unnecessary to include phrases like this.
Why should sexual orientation be defined? When the Prime
Minister was the Minister of Justice he said in committee in
1981:
I am not here to determine what sexual orientation means. It is because of the
problem of the definition of those words that we do not think they should even
be in the Constitution.
On July 14, 1993 the Canadian Human Rights Commission
said:
We should be wary of coming to a complete definition. I propose to analyze
this case from the point of view of what I believe to be a minimal definition of
sexual orientation, namely, the capacity, or perceived capacity, to be sexually
attracted to persons of one's own gender.
Homosexuality is a minimal definition. The commission left
it open ended. Let me read some very recent quotes from the
standing committee on justice. John Conroy of the Canadian Bar
Association said on November 24 last year:
13787
That has certainly been the definition I've always understood: homosexual,
heterosexual or some other sexual orientation. It could be any kind of sexual
orientation, and it could be something that, as you say, is illegal.
Listen to Dr. Stephen Wormith, chair of the criminal justice
psychology section of the Canadian Psychological Association
last November:
Sexual orientation is a crucial factor of paedophilia; a fundamental
component of a true paedophile is his or her sexual orientation. Certainly
sexual orientation is a key and fundamental component of paedophilia.
(2230 )
On February 9 of this year, Robert Wakefield, the director of
the Ottawa region of the Criminal Lawyers Association, said
this about sexual orientation:
Psychiatrists use it. They will say somebody is heterosexual, or gay, or
lesbian, or a paedophile. There are other sorts of deviant sexual behaviours that
they regard as an individual's sexual orientation.
Finally, Dr. Greenberg, assistant professor of psychiatry at the
University of Ottawa and staff forensic psychiatrist at the Royal
Ottawa Hospital, said in February of this year:
Sexual orientation is a descriptive term. It basically defines what attracts a
person to a stimulus. In other words, just like a compass-
A member asked him: ``So necrophilia would be a sexual
orientation to you?'' ``A deviant sexual orientation, yes,'' he
answered.
I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice wants to open this
can of worms. He is not listening to the experts. I am ashamed to
have to stand here in Parliament and tell the Canadian people
what the government is doing. If people are concerned about
what this bill could mean, then they should get on the phone or
the fax and get in touch of their member of Parliament or the
Liberal government and tell them that of your concern about
what this could open up if this bill goes ahead as it is written.
I regret that with time allocation there are only a few hours
left before this bill will become law if the government pushes
ahead. I ask the government to reconsider, to listen carefully to
the amendments that will be proposed later and do the right
thing to eliminate this section altogether.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on Bill C-41.
Let me first pay homage to the hon. member for Halifax. Her
comment about the influence her mother had on her definitely
indicates a life well spent and she can be very proud of it. I am
proud of it as a Canadian.
A lot of misinformation is floating around about Bill C-41. It
is quite a comprehensive bill. It is a major bill. One hon.
member mentioned some misgivings about the issue of
alternative measures. Alternative measures refer to cases where
jail is not appropriate and community service can be utilized.
Rehabilitation is first and foremost and saves society money, as
well as being more humane.
My seatmate from Mississauga South had a part to play in the
bill, including special considerations for family members. I
applaud him for that initiative.
The controversial section of the bill is section 718.2. It deals
with hate motivation. One of the things I heard most often is that
we are conferring special status on homosexuals. We are giving
them special treatment. Let me just say that the law applies
equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
If a group of gay people or homosexuals were to attack a
heterosexual, the law would have the same application.
Everybody is equal before the law. That is an important point to
make because a lot of people would propagate misinformation
on this bill.
When I listen to arguments in the House about hate crime I
really am amazed. This is the year we celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the end of the second world war. We are all proud
of the contributions that Canadian soldiers made.
Let us think back to what happened during the second world
war. Everybody seems to forget. Let us talk about some of the
hate crimes that occurred during that war. The horrors that the
Jews suffered are well known. First they lost their property, their
jobs, their civil rights. Then they were taken to the gas
chambers. When the war came to an end six million Jews had
died in the holocaust.
(2235)
I cannot for the life of me understand how this year when we
are celebrating the 50th anniversary of victory in the second
world war we could have such flippant attitudes in the House
about hate crimes. It is just amazing.
We have all heard about the Spirit of St. Louis that went from
port to port looking for refuge for Jews. They were turned away
at port after port and were sent back to their deaths. Nobody
wanted to know or to believe this was happening.
A few short months ago we remembered the 80th anniversary
of the massacre of the Armenians when 2.5 million people died.
They died because of hate. Finally we seem to have some good
news coming our way. Members of the IRA are putting down
their arms. What is the basis of that conflict? It is a religious
conflict-hatred.
Take a look at the present situation in Yugoslavia. What do we
have there? It is not some minor disagreement. A holocaust is
13788
occurring right now and it is based on hate. There are also the
Hutus and the Tutsi in Rwanda. It goes on and on.
Recently I attended a NATO conference in Budapest in eastern
Europe. The major problem discussed in the civilian affairs
committee related to the treatment of minorities and avoiding
the examples of history. How do you do that? It is done by
recognizing that hatred for others because they are different
from us can have a very drastic impact.
Let me express a bit of a disappointment. When this new
Parliament started a new party came into the House that
promised to treat politics differently and not heckle other people
while they were trying to speak. I am referring to members of the
Reform Party. They have been a major disappointment on this
issue to me personally.
I come from the community of Kitchener-Waterloo where
neo-Nazis have made their presence felt. They have marched in
front of European Sound. They have spewed forward their hate
propaganda. One of the Jewish activists in my community,
Mona Zetner, had her house burned down. She had to go into
hiding.
As a person who came to this country as a refugee having
grown up in war torn Europe, I can appreciate what hatred has
done. I would suggest to members of the House that perhaps they
might think about that, look around at the problems in this
world. Many of them come from hatred.
I heard many people talking about how this bill has had no
support. The United Church of Canada supports this bill. The
Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations has urged
members of Parliament to support it. The Urban Alliance on
Race Relations support the bill.
(2240 )
I say this to my colleagues in the Reform Party because they
often ask for the police officers' stance. The chief of police for
Ottawa says: ``As chief of police, I strongly support this
legislative change that will allow my officers to effectively
work to counter hate crimes in our community. I urge the quick
passage of Bill C-41''.
The Canadian Jewish Congress, a community so much more
than many others knows the effect of hate and hate crimes,
supports the bill. The list goes on and on.
Let me end with the support that comes from the Canadian
Federation of Municipalities. At its March meeting held in
Ottawa, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' national
board of directors endorsed a resolution concerning violence
arising from hatred over race, religion, gender and sexual
orientation. FCM supports the position taken in Bill C-41 which
would provide sentencing guidelines to enable judges to impose
tougher sentences on those who commit crimes of hate based on
race, religion, gender and sexual orientation.
These people represent the grassroots of the country and are at
the level of enforcement of the law. I stand with them and I stand
with my colleagues in the Liberal Party who are going to pass
this bill. I am going to do it proudly.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad tonight that the Liberals have resolved all the problems
of Canadians so now they can create some more with Bill C-41.
I was talking to a fellow today about Bill C-41. He said that
the solicitor general will probably have a little bit of a new job as
a result of this. He will have to get new signs outside of the
prisons now. We will not call them prisons. We will call them
institutes for the morally challenged. That is where this kind of
legislation is heading.
One of the Liberal members talked about incidental terms,
minor terms. Why are we talking about section 718.2? There are
so many other good things in this bill. Why are we concentrating
on it?
It is truly sad that the Liberal government does not get it. We
need a sentencing bill. What we have is a sentencing bill mixed
into an omnibus bill that has every other agenda that Canadians
do not want. How do we deal with a debate when we want
improvements to sentencing but all these other side issues of the
Liberal government are involved in it? We vote against it even
though there are some provisions that might be good. We have to
vote against it because it has some things that are ridiculous.
I note in the bill on page 3 there is an attempt to define things.
For instance, there are definitions of accused, alternatives, what
a court means. There are all kinds of definitions in the bill. It
escapes me as to why the definition of sexual orientation is not
in the bill.
If it is undefined, who gets to define it? All of the lawyers in
the country who are going to spend an inordinate amount of our
money at the cost of victims, once again will define sexual
orientation. They are also going to be defining other issues in the
bill, issues based on bias, prejudice and hate.
This will come about at the cost of the victim once again
running through court case after court case trying to get
definitions. I might try to help the Liberal government because I
am going to define it tonight. I am going to define sexual
orientation.
I get my definition from a number of authors produced in a
book by Victims of Violence with which I have had some
association in the past. They say that the term sexual preference
and sexual orientation are essentially the same thing. In fact, in
the index of the recent Sex in America study under ``sexual
orientation'' the reader is directed to see ``Attitudes About
Sex'', which includes sexual preference. Both refer to the type
13789
of individual a person is sexually attracted to. If pedophiles are
ever to hope to be protected by the law, they must first show that
pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
(2245)
I would like to read a couple of quotes in an attempt to define
it, because they do not have the courage to do it.
Dr. David Greenberg, a psychiatrist at the sexual behaviour
clinic at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, said: ``Heterosexuality,
homosexuality, pedophilia-they are all just different
orientations and an individual may have a number of them''.
The first lawyer who comes up on the first case of pedophilia
will attempt to define it. Perhaps the lawyer for Alan Winter, a
pedophile from my area, will attempt to define it, because the
government has not the courage to define it.
Kim Tate, author of Child Pornography, 1990, defined a
pedophile as ``an individual above the age of consent who
prefers to have sex with children and who fantasizes about
them''. That is found at page 104.
Dr. Fred Berlin of the John Hopkins Medical School, in the
Focus on the Family newsletter, number 11, November 1992,
said that pedophilia is a value judgment and it may be a different
kind of sexual orientation.
Do they understand where these folks are coming from? If this
government does not define sexual orientation then other people
will in the courts. If the government has not the courage of its
convictions, why is it leaving it to the courts?
The comment I hear from a Liberal member is that statutes are
normally interpreted by the courts. That tells us everything
about the reason the Liberal government will not define sexual
orientation. It will leave it to the lawyers to do it at the cost of
young kids in this country.
Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute in
Washington said: ``Sexual orientation is as ambiguous as
political orientation''.
Why will the government not define it?
Let us go to a quote from the Right Hon. Prime Minister when
he was the justice minister. He was asked in the House of
Commons on January 21, 1981, what sexual orientation meant.
He stated:
It is because of the problem of the definition of those words that we do not
think they should be in the Constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it
is, because those concepts are difficult to interpret, to define and that is why we
do not want them in the Constitution. I am not going to venture to tell you what
is sexual orientation. I am not interested; and I will not fall into that trap,
because we do not want them for the very reason that it is socially and in terms
of law it is a very difficult area.
In 1981, before he was Prime Minister, he did not want it. And
here we are in 1995 and he does not have the courage to define it.
He is going to leave it to the courts.
One only has to have some experience with a pedophile to
understand what is going on. In my community, Alan Winter had
a foster home. He had over 80 children sent to him by one of the
governments in the country. Thirty-one of those people, of
whom I have met a number, were all molested by Alan Winter.
He got sentenced to 16 years in prison as a dangerous offender
but of course the parole board let him out in a little over five
years. That is a different story, which will hit the House one day
soon.
An hon. member said that has nothing to do with this bill but it
has everything to do with this bill. This government does not
have the courage to define sexual orientation in section 718.2 of
Bill C-41. It is going to get defined, and the very people who are
committing unlawful acts of pedophilia are going to use sexual
orientation as an excuse. That is what is wrong with it.
(2250)
Some say this is fear mongering; some say this is
homophobic. This is reality. This is what the lawyers out there
are sitting on. In fact I have a video of a lawyer in this country
saying exactly that: that will be his defence.
Since we have over 80,000 signatures from petitioners from
every province and territory in this country saying do not
proceed with this area of the act, why is it that the government
chooses to ignore those people? Why is it that this government
chooses to ignore people by restricting debate and calling
closure on this particular bill, on MPs' pensions, on Bill C-68?
Why is it?
There is one word this government should remember. It is
``retroactive''. When we get on that side of the fence, the tables
will be turned.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not really prepared to speak this evening.
Actually I do not even have House duty, and I have been sitting
here since early this afternoon listening.
When we listen to things like this we really firm up our own
beliefs and become very aware of how nasty human beings can
get, how obtuse human beings can get, how they can purposely
change things to suit themselves, and how they have obviously
lived a life not subject to prejudice.
When I was a little girl my mom took me to kindergarten and
registered me. I am a Polish kid. We went up to the desk and
people said to her: ``What is the name of the child you are
registering?'' She said ``Carolyn''. She looked at me for a
minute. My maiden name was Janozeski. Because she had been
beaten up and told she was a smelly polack from the time she
was a small child, she changed instantly my last name to Janis.
For many years I was functioning under a pseudonym.
The profound effect of being told she was a smelly polack and
there was nothing she could do to defend herself against that
accusation except scrub herself, change her clothing, make sure
13790
she was always clean, was that when she took me to school when
I was five years old she changed my name.
The thing that really bothers me is people who fit into this
category that everyone is objecting to so strongly. They cannot
scrub themselves, they cannot change their clothing, they
cannot change the colour of their skin. But we can protect them
against people who do not understand what goes on inside that
skin.
It is very important that we keep very clear that this is a
sentencing bill. It is not condoning any acts that seem so
offensive to the people on the other side of the floor. It is saying
to them that if you do not like the colour of someone's skin or if
they happen to have the outward appearance of a different sexual
orientation from yours, you cannot walk up to them on the street
and punch their head in. There is nothing they can do to protect
themselves against those types of accusations. Therein lies the
frustration.
In a country like Canada we protect those people. We protect
each other. In fact, if anybody you are protecting hits anybody
for any reason, why are you protecting them? You do not need
the categories.
(2255 )
Anybody who attacks somebody else in this country should
feel the full force of the law. Anybody who gets into a bar room
brawl and chooses to get into an argument with a neighbour is
walking into it with their eyes wide open. The cases we have
heard described are of people walking along the street and
simply because of the way they walk, the way they wear their
hair or the fact that they may be different from us, you are
condoning people leaping out of a car and beating them to a
pulp.
Some hon. members: Oh, no.
Mrs. Parrish: I am sorry, I have been sitting here all evening
listening to you stretch a bill-
The Speaker: Order. Forgive me for interrupting, but I want
the hon. member to please address the Chair.
Mrs. Parrish: I have been listening to a stretching of the truth
all evening. I have been listening to them talk about a simple
two-word expression, about opening a Pandora's box to the
world, that in Canada we will be condoning all kinds of
perversions.
I am a Roman Catholic. I come from a Polish Catholic
Church, and one cannot get much stricter than that. The priest in
my church said to me one day, ``What about this C-41?'' I said
``I'm going to send you a copy of the bill, and you call me if you
have any problems with it''. I have never received a phone call.
There are over 10,000 families in that church who listen to that
priest and who form opinions based on his learned judgment.
I have had church groups in my area send me profoundly
disgusting pieces of literature because members of Parliament
have sent them letters stirring them all up with false
information.
I am standing here in the House and am very proud to be
supporting C-41. I am remembering the prejudice my mother
went through and the prejudice I have experienced on very
minor occasions. I am hoping that everything we do in this
House will protect all children and adults from that same sort of
prejudice.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great patience to the
debate unfold this evening. I have my speaking points here. As a
matter of fact I even have the Liberal speaking points for Bill
C-41, their strategy to try to win the debate and to out-talk the
opposition. I have heard the arguments of all the lawyers on both
sides of the House and on both sides of the issue. If anything, it
has given me more of a prejudice or a bias against lawyers,
perhaps because I am a bit troubled with this bill.
I see in the Liberal speaking points that it states: ``Bill C-41
will not be the subject of a free vote''. It concerns me that the
Liberal powers had to send a note to all of their members
suggesting that they dare not suggest a free vote on this issue.
That is very disconcerting.
I probably have had just about as much mail on this issue as I
have had on gun control. They have been running neck and neck.
I think actually the gun control issue won the day, but hundreds
of letters have poured into my office expressing concern. Most
of the letters were handwritten or typed. Very few letters were
duplicated, photocopied or photostatted. A lot of the letters
expressed serious concerns about C-41. Unfortunately, it all
bore down on this particular portion that deals with the hate
section. This bill is rather large and I am sure there are a lot more
weaknesses in this bill than just the area we are discussing in this
section of report stage.
I want to talk a little bit about the whole process of hate, bias,
and prejudice. Raised out in the prairies, I was taught that we
were to love our enemies. I was taught that hate was wrong. I
believe with all my heart that hate is wrong. It is very difficult to
know when you are loved or hated. You cannot always tell. Mr.
Speaker, when you look at me I do not sense that you hate me. I
expect you do not, and I assure you I do not hate you. Perhaps I
would and I was hiding it. This bill attempts to play god by
looking into people's heads and deciding whether or not they
hate and whether or not the crime they committed was based on
their hate, prejudice or bias. The words prejudice and bias
concern me even more than the word hate in this legislation.
13791
(2300)
A crime is a crime. If someone commits an assault against me
it is a criminal action and the Criminal Code allows the justice
system to deal with that action. Whether that person hates me or
not, it is a crime and needs to be dealt with.
What is morality and what is immorality? That is very
difficult to determine. What if somebody knocks me on the head
because they want to see if I have some money in my wallet?
That is a crime, an assault. It is immoral because that person
wants the money in my wallet. That is just as immoral as if the
person hated me because I am white or because I am a
heterosexual.
It is wrong. There are laws in place to deal with that offence,
whether the person is committing an immoral act of knocking
me over the head to commit a theft of my money or whether he is
knocking me over the head because he hates me for some reason.
Put forward in the bill is my gender, my sexual preference, my
physical disability if I should have any. It is a crime and our
Criminal Code has to deal with crimes because they are crimes,
not because of who committed them or why they were
committed. If it is wrong, it is wrong.
The bill is causing great division and great concern that our
justice system will begin to look into people's heads and convict
them based on playing the role of god in determining whether or
not they hate, are prejudiced or biased. That is wrong. That is
why the legislation is wrong and it should be defeated.
The Holocaust was a hateful, terrible blight on human history.
It was wrong and all the perpetrators should have been brought
to justice for that terrible atrocity against humanity. It was
wrong. It was criminal. It was hateful.
If someone kicks, beats or attacks a person because they are
not white, that is wrong. There are provisions in the Criminal
Code already to deal with that hateful, wrong crime and I
applaud that. If a person is attacked for some other reason other
than those on the short list in Bill C-41, it is just as wrong and
needs to be punished just as severely.
This follows along the lines of the Charlottetown accord
where winners and losers were picked. One group is especially
set aside and included in the legislation. Somehow it is given
more pre-eminence by the judicial system. Those who are not on
the list are nobodys. They are not nearly as important. The
justice system needs to deal fairly with criminal acts. So what if
it was theft? Let us just give a light sentence; it was not a hate
crime. That thinking is wrong. This legislation is wrong and
should be defeated. It does not need to be passed in this form.
I have biases and prejudices and I do not make apologies for
those. Some are positive biases and some may be considered to
be negative biases. I have a negative bias toward the Liberal
Party because of the legislation it put forward. I do not hate
Liberals but I have a bias against them and that is why I did not
run as a Liberal. That is fair and just. There is nothing wrong
with that. I have a bias in favour of my wife. That is why I
married her. I thought she was wonderful. I see other people I
would never want to be married to. I may have a bias against
them but I do not hate them. That is not a criminal action.
If this bill were passed, who knows how the courts might
interpret the legislation? It is rather frightening because the bill
is not just talking about assaults. It is talking about all criminal
actions.
I could talk about a lot of issues but before my time runs out, I
want to talk about whether laws like this create solutions or
whether they exacerbate the problem.
(2305 )
There is another category of people who are not looked upon
very highly. I happen to be one of them. That is the category we
all fit into on these benches, the category of politicians.
Politicians are not included in this legislation. I know all of us
have heard people say that they should take all politicians, put
them in a boat, take them to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and
sink the thing.
That is terrible. I would be one of them. I would be sunk. That
could be considered hateful and wrong. So what should we do?
Should we include politicians in this legislation as well? Is that
going to solve the problem? Will people suddenly think we are
wonderful because we put a law in place that says you must not
say that politicians should be put in a boat, sailed out to the
middle of the ocean and sunk? That would exacerbate the
problem. People would say: ``Aha, we were right. They should
be put in a boat, taken to the middle of the ocean and sunk''. This
is creating a worse problem because it is bringing these groups
into prominence.
In summation, let me give an example. This House wants to
pass a bill that will give MPs a special pension. Is that not
wonderful, a special law just for MPs. That is going to endear us
to the public, is it not? It is far richer than any pension in the
private sector. Is that going to make people love us more? No, it
will do the opposite. People are going to say: ``Those
politicians, they have to have a special pension plan just for
them. They have to have special laws just for them. They want to
be above the common people. They need special
consideration''. People then begin to have negative feelings.
They have biases and prejudices, perhaps even hatred against
politicians. That is wrong.
The philosophy behind this bill is wrong. It needs to be
defeated and I will be voting against it.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not going to participate tonight. However, having
listened to the very provocative comments, I thought it was time
to once again attempt to set the record straight for the members
13792
of the Reform Party who seem to have trouble reading very plain
English.
Reform Party members in the course of their remarks tonight
have totally misrepresented the effect of the proposed
amendments to section 718.2 on page 8 of this bill.
Mr. Hanger: Is the member the only one who can interpret it?
Mr. Milliken: I am going to interpret it. I am going to tell the
hon. member what it means with the hope I can get it through his
head. This seems to have been a real problem tonight.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster said people
would be convicted because of their hatred which is totally
false. There is nothing in this bill dealing with hatred that
changes the rules in respect of hatred. It does in respect of
sentence, not in respect of the commission of an offence. There
is a significant difference in law between those two.
A person will be convicted on the basis of the law as it stands.
There is no change in the provisions in this act respecting hatred
and conviction. A person is convicted of an offence against the
law as it stands. This bill makes the sentence different from what
it would otherwise be.
There is quite a difference between conviction and sentence.
Sentence follows conviction; it does not precede it. A person
does not get sentenced until he or she is convicted. A person
must be convicted and will not be convicted under this law in
any way which is different from that under the existing law. The
new law will provide for a different sentence after conviction
based on hate, if that is judged to be the basis of the crime.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West went further in his
remarks. He suggested this was going to change things and give
all kinds of protection to pedophiles and other serious offenders.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to find that in this section of the act or
indeed in this whole bill. Where is there any protection for
anyone? This increases the severity of the sentence. That is not
protection but increased offence and increased penalty. There is
no change here that lets people off. It increases penalties for
offences.
It says if you discriminate against someone based on sexual
orientation you will get a harsher penalty. It does not say that
persons who commit sexual offences get lighter penalties. That
is what the hon. member for Fraser Valley West said in his
speech. I have never heard such rubbish in my life. It is totally
false, misleading and wrong. He should be ashamed to have
made such a stupid comment.
(2310)
We have heard dozens of them tonight, gross
misrepresentations of this bill. I hear them in here and I get them
in letters from constituents, particularly from British Columbia.
They come floating into my office obviously stirred up by
members of the Reform Party going out there and spouting this
nonsense to their electors. Nothing could be further from the
truth. This just is not right.
This bill does not do anything like what is being suggested in
this House. All it deals with is sentencing. A person is convicted
under the current law and then is sentenced. This provides a
slightly heavier penalty for those who commit hate offences.
That is all this does. This is not a case of revamping the law in
relation to any minority groups. It provides for a stiffer penalty.
What is wrong with that?
Mr. Hanger: It is already in place.
Mr. Milliken: If it is already in place, why are these minority
groups crying out for this protection? They are saying people are
beating them up with impunity. That is why. They are getting
away with it or they get light sentences. This is exactly what
they say.
Minority groups came to the committee. The hon. member
was on the committee as far as I know. I was not, but I heard
about it in the media. They cried out for help saying that judges
do not believe they are being beaten up just because they are
members of these minority groups. Judges give a light sentence
as though it were a normal case of assault that just happened on
the street. In fact minority groups are of the view, and this view
is widely shared by members of this party, that gangs are going
around looking for members of minority groups to beat them up.
Mr. Hanger: Deal with the gangs.
Mr. Milliken: That is what this bill is for. It will put them in
prison. They will get a longer sentence if they have committed
this kind of offence.
Why would members opposite take such exception to this?
Who are they trying to protect by fighting this bill? The thugs
who go about beating up these people. That is who they are
trying to protect. Why do they have any interest in protecting
those people? Surely they should be ashamed of protecting those
kinds of people.
A little while ago I had reference to the fact that I represented
a lot of people in prison in Kingston. I do and I am proud to
represent them, but I do not expect that they would get lighter
sentences because they go beating people up. I expect that they
get punished for it.
This bill only asks that in taking into account what sentence is
appropriate a judge consider certain aggravating circumstances.
One of those aggravating circumstances is stated to be evidence
that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based
on a number of factors. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I can understand an argument that says we should have
equality of treatment. An assault is an assault is an assault. If
somebody gets bumped on the head whether it is because the
person is out to beat him up because he is black, gay, Catholic,
13793
Jewish, or whatever, okay, maybe that should not be treated
differently. I understand that argument and that appears to be the
argument Reform Party members are advancing although they
are doing it in the most cumbersome fashion imaginable. They
are putting all kinds of other things in the bill.
If that is the only argument, surely it is not unreasonable to
have passed a bill that does not specify a minimum offence, that
does not specify that the penalty must be heavier but does
provide that in considering the sentence to be given, the judge
must take that factor into account.
This has nothing to do with juries. This is a matter of
sentencing which is in the exclusive purview of a judge under
our system. Juries will not be deciding sentences for criminals
based on this section. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West
in his remarks implicated juries in the whole thing, which again
is a gross distortion of the facts.
I am really having trouble understanding how it is that
members of this House could possibly misconstrue this bill.
This is an extremely minor change in the law. It has nothing to
do with the commission of offences. It only has to do with
penalties.
One of my colleagues got a call from a constituent about this
one night asking why he was supporting this bill. He made it
very clear by saying: ``Why would I not? Unless you are raising
a bunch of gay bashers in your house you will not have any
worry about this bill either. It will not have anything to do with
you''. He was absolutely right. The only people who will be
affected by the bill are the thugs who are running around
communities beating up people. If those are the people Reform
Party members are defending, I say to them that they should be
ashamed of themselves.
(2315)
I am not surprised and I think it appropriate to read something
more from the little book of reform. One can derive some basis
for the thoughts of members of the Reform Party on this issue
when one hears their views on certain social issues. I would like
to read some now.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville had better be
careful; he is in this book too. I want to read a quote from the
hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, that enlightened
patriarch of Canada's social system who said: ``Old age security
is welfare for the aged''. Those are words of wisdom. That is
what he said. Imagine.
We have the hon. member for Beaver River who is frequently
quoted as an authority on this kind of subject. She said: ``We feel
that medicare is for the sick and not for the poor''.
Then of course we have the hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound, also well known as the father and architect of Canada's
social programs, who said: ``Having programs in support of
single mothers causes mothers to be single and need support''.
My goodness. De profundis, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: I have more. I can see, Mr. Speaker, that they
are a little overwrought.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, despite the very late hour I will try to return a little
sanity to the debate.
Bill C-41, the sentencing bill before us, has some
fundamental flaws. It seems the drafters could not decide what
is the real purpose of sentencing. Should we base the prison term
on the seriousness of the crime or the identity of the victim? Are
alternative measures desirable because our jails are full or
because it is more likely that criminals in community service
programs are less likely to reoffend?
Certainly a structured program in open custody may be a
preferable alternative to incarceration for a first time offender,
especially if it is more for a minor property offence and genuine
remorse is shown.
Is it appropriate for repeat offenders whether against property
or people? Section 717 leaves alternative measures wide open.
There are no limitations on which types of crime should be
excluded. If it is primarily intended to empty our jails of the
people who fail to pay their fines then say so. If it is supposed to
provide an alternative for first time offenders who do not belong
with hardened criminals then say so, but do not leave it wide
open.
Who gets to decide which self-admitted criminal will benefit
from alternative measures? In section 717(b) the bill only says a
person. This means someone other than a judge may decide
which criminals avoid court and a criminal conviction.
Why is the government reluctant to exclude habitual or
violent offenders from alternative measures? Is it afraid of a
charter challenge by murderers who would claim that their
rights are being violated? If they are denied alternative
measures, will lawyers try to tie up the courts with appeals and
challenges to any decision to proceed in the courts?
If the government does not have the courage to restrict
eligibility for alternative measures perhaps we must reconsider
whether alternative measures should be available at all. As
legislators we have a responsibility to society to make the tough
decisions about which types of crime or offenders should be
eligible.
A condition of people's eligibility under section 717 is
admitting to their crime. However, after admitting to an offence,
they are henceforth referred to as persons alleged to have
committed an offence. There is no trial. They are never
convicted of a crime. They are not called an offender and
therefore have no criminal record. Furthermore their admission
of guilt cannot be used against them in any future court
proceedings. Alternative measures represent the ultimate plea
bargaining dream for lawyers. Now they can admit to a crime,
there is no conviction, and the records are buried after two years.
13794
(2320 )
I quote from section 717.1:
-regardless of the degree of their compliance with the terms and conditions
of the alternative measures.
Something is very wrong with the sentencing bill. Section 717
needs to be fixed or struck.
Another seriously flawed section is 718 which outlines the
purposes and principles of sentencing. Noticeably absent from
the list is the concept of punishment. For example, under section
718(a) one objective is: ``to denounce unlawful conduct''. What
is that supposed to mean? Breaking the law is not nice? Why do
we not say that one objective is to punish unlawful conduct?
Under section 718(b) the objective is: ``to deter the offender
and other persons from committing offences''. I find it
encouraging that the government considers alternative measures
such as raking leaves at the local park deterrents. At the same
time it totally denies the deterrent value of capital punishment in
the case of first degree murder. Which would give a person
greater pause: the prospect of three square meals a day, leisure
time and the opportunity to pursue a university degree behind
bars, or the death penalty?
The objective of section 718(d) is: ``to assist in rehabilitating
offenders'', which represents a clear indictment of our
rehabilitation record. Why not simply say to rehabilitate
offenders? Why qualify it? If we admit that they are not
rehabilitated, that incarceration alone is not working and that we
know they are going to reoffend, why are we letting them out? Is
that consistent with public safety?
The drafters of the bill failed to realize that incarceration by
itself does not punish or rehabilitate people. Likewise
acknowledgement of one's actions is not the same thing as guilt
or remorse. Let us face it, the real reason we are trying
alternative measures is that the government is finally willing to
admit the current prison system is not working. If the
government can prove recidivism rates are lower with
community service and open custody, why are the same
principles of work and restitution to society not being applied
during incarceration? What is wrong with making able bodied
prisoners work?
The new Ontario government is contemplating workfare for
welfare recipients. The bill advocates labour in the community,
but the government is afraid it will be denying the rights of
hardened criminals if they have to work to help compensate for
their room and board in prison. Perfecting their golf swing or
learning new safe cracking techniques from fellow inmates is
hardly constructive or liable to contribute to rehabilitation or
reintegration.
Why can we advocate labour for people in open custody but
not for those in closed custody? Society should not fear the
concept of punishment. Instead we seem to extend more rights to
criminals than to victims. At last count Clifford Olsen had
launched 32 frivolous lawsuits at taxpayers' expense. Instead of
helping to support the cost of their upkeep and learning the habit
of working every day, other felons like him go on strike over the
quality of their food.
In section 718.2 the government completely departs from the
previous implicit admission that our jails are crowded and
incarceration as now practised is not working. Suddenly the
government advocates putting people behind bars for longer
periods, not based on the seriousness of the crime but on the
physical attributes or the sexual preferences of the victim.
I find it ironic that in section 717 the government refuses to
list which crimes are eligible for alternative measures, leaving it
open to anything from car theft to murder. However when we
turn to section 718.2 suddenly the government feels the need to
create a list. If the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
apply to everyone equally why is there a list of special
considerations?
After letters opposing the new gun control legislation, the
second highest number of letters I have received from my
constituents concern the inclusion of the undefined phrase
sexual orientation in the list of aggravating circumstances found
in the bill. They do not want special rights extended to
Canadians based on their sexual preferences, and that is what
section 718.2 appears to do.
If the government caves in to special interest groups and
political correctness then it should call a spade a spade.
(2325 )
By including the phrase sexual orientation the government is
trying to deter gay bashing by heterosexuals. By leaving it
undefined it can also include other sexual orientations such as
pedophilia and necrophilia.
Liberal colleagues across the way will say that pedophilia is a
crime in Canada. Yes, it is. A recent court decision said that
sodomy with a 14-year-old was legal, but under section 718.2 if
someone punches a pedophile he could receive a harsher
sentence even though pedophilia is illegal under Canada's laws.
Canadians want equality. Sexual orientation has been the
lightning rod for Bill C-41. Even if it were defined or removed,
the fundamental premise of section 718.2 is flawed. Canadians
13795
should be equal before the law and section 718.2 must be deleted
in its entirety.
If we change a basic sentence in principle and emphasize the
identity of the victim more than the severity of the crime, we
will truly be on that slippery slope. The rule of law requires
proof, not conjecture. Regrettably prejudice exists in Canada,
but creating false inequalities through arbitrary criminal
sentencing will hardly address the problem. If anything, it will
increase intolerance by creating the justifiable perception that
some groups are getting preferential treatment under the law.
In conclusion, justice is supposed to be blind. We all grew up
with the image of the blindfolded woman holding the scales.
Why do criminals not receive the same sentence for the same
crime based on the seriousness of the offence, no matter what
group the victim belongs to? Are some Canadian lives worth
more or less than others? Prejudice, bias and hatred must be
addressed through other mechanisms. It is not the role of the
courts to implement the government's social engineering
agenda.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West will have
the floor next. I would point out that it is 11:26 p.m. and the hon.
member will probably not be concluding today. He will have the
floor tomorrow.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Reform Party made statements about lawyers
and how terrible it is that so many lawyers in the country will get
involved in the issue in various ways. Sometimes in this job it
helps to have some understanding of the law and some training
in law because we are dealing with interpretations. Reform
members are telling us how laws will or will not be interpreted
while at the same time they are claiming they have no
understanding of legal matters.
The law is all about making distinctions. The penalties differ
according to different elements of a crime. If there are
additional elements in an offence then the penalties are
different. For example, common assault is not considered in the
same way. The penalty is not the same as an assault causing
bodily harm because there are additional elements that require a
stiffer or more serious response.
The reason the Criminal Code has so many sections is that we
are making distinctions and there are many different elements
and different kinds of crimes. When we are talking about an
attack on a group there is a distinction. An attack of any kind is
an important crime. It is important that there be strong sentences
against attacks of whatever kind. When people are attacked
because they belong to a group, whether it is a religious group or
whatever, it is a kind of terrorism against the group. It is an
additional element that requires an additional response. It is a
little more serious. Both are serious but this is a little more so. It
is an additional element and that distinction must be made.
I recently read the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the
Egan and Nesbitt case which deals with the issue of sexual
orientation. There are quite a number of different opinions but
they all used the phrase sexual orientation. I do not know what
members here or what lawyers in the country claim to be better
lawyers and to know more about the law than the Supreme Court
of Canada. However they are comfortable using that phrase and
express no concern or no hesitation in doing so. That is the first
point I wanted to make.
(2330 )
The second point is this section does not condone any kind of
activity. However, the government has introduced an
amendment which provides that nothing in the bill will change
or make something not a crime or condone any activity that is a
crime at present. Therefore if pedophilia is a crime now it will
still be a crime. If necrophilia is a crime it will still be a crime.
Those things will not change. I cannot see why they are so
concerned about this provision.
Too often these kind of offences have received lighter
sentences than they should and there are no bases in these cases
for appeal. There must be a basis for an appeal and this provision
provides for that. They must be treated seriously and the bill
provides that. I recommend support.
_____________________________________________