CONTENTS
Monday, February 27, 1995
Bill C-258. Motion for second reading 10045
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10048
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 10053
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10053
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 10060
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10066
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10068
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 10069
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 10070
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 10070
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10071
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10072
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10072
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10072
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10073
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10073
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10075
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10076
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10076
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10077
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10077
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10077
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10077
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 10078
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10078
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 10079
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10080
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10081
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10081
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10081
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10081
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10081
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10081
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10082
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10082
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10082
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 10084
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10084
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10093
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.27 p.m.) 10094
(The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.) 10094
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10094
Bill C-73. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10103
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10103
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr. Loubier 10104
10045
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 27, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment and award of a
Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for United Nations
peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United Nations
peacekeeping force, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians take great pride in the
Canadian forces record of peacekeeping throughout the world, a
record which has brought praise from many quarters and has
established Canada at the forefront of nations doing their part to
foster a peaceful world; a world in which human values and
needs are not only respected but also supported.
Bill C-258 is an act respecting the establishment and award of
a Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping to
Canadian peacekeepers having served with a United Nations
peacekeeping force. It also incorporates a clasp to be attached to
the medal ribbon if the individual qualifies for the Nobel peace
prize won by Canadian peacekeepers in 1988.
Recognition would not be limited to Canadian forces
personnel but would also include Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and other Canadian citizens who qualify.
At the moment there is no means to provide distinctive
Canadian recognition for the risks they have taken and the
contribution they have made. Thus, there is a deficiency in our
honours and award system.
Peacekeepers do receive United Nations medals for such
service. The United Nations medal awarded to Canadian
peacekeepers is proclaimed by His Excellency the Governor
General in Council on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister as a Canadian medal and therefore in the order of
precedence in the Canadian honours system.
Canada does not have its own peacekeeping medal. According
to our honours and awards committee, the United Nations medal
adequately fulfils Canada's obligation to recognize our
peacekeepers' contribution to our country.
However, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
does not agree, and after substantial consultation with many
other interested individuals and organizations, nor do I.
Indicative of this feeling, a request for distinctive Canadian
recognition submitted to the Canadian honours and awards
committee by the president of the Canadian Peacekeeping
Veterans Association was endorsed by many members of this
house, a goodly number of whom now sit on government
benches. However, the committee denied the submission,
deeming the United Nations medals to be sufficient recognition.
The honours and awards directive reads: ``In Canada today
granting honours is a gracious, tangible, and lasting way to pay
tribute to people whose achievements are exceptional, who have
performed outstanding acts of bravery or who have benefited
Canada or humanity in general''. To be completely up front, it
also states: ``Not more than one honour should be given for any
specific achievement, act or service''.
I assure you that I have no wish to dilute the justification,
meaning or stature of a Canadian medal, but there is a Canadian
precedent. In addition to the 1939-45 war medal, and the
1939-45 star, if they served in any area of conflict, those who
served outside Canada during the second world war were
awarded the Canadian volunteer service medal as well as any
campaign medals for which they qualified.
Also, in June 1991, some 40 years after the fact, a Canadian
volunteer service medal for Korea was approved by the Queen's
Privy Council for presentation to Canadian military personnel
who participated in the Korean war in addition to the United
Nations medal won by veterans of that conflict.
It is this same recognition I now seek for our peacekeepers.
Other countries like Belgium, Ghana, Ireland, the Netherlands,
and the United States already have distinctive national medal
awards for their UN peacekeepers.
10046
In introducing Bill C-258, I acknowledge that similar private
members' bills have been submitted in previous Parliaments
but unfortunately were not drawn for debate.
During the last Parliament the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommended that a
Canadian volunteer service medal for UN peacekeeping be
established to recognize the service of Canadian military and
non-military personnel who have served on peacekeeping
missions. Parliament was dissolved before the government was
able to respond to that recommendation.
There are Canadian awards for bravery and valour at home in
peacetime, awards for bravery, valour and service in time of
war, but despite the discomfort, dislocation, family disruption,
danger and sacrifices made by our peacekeepers, we have no
Canadian medal for peacekeeping. Regarding sacrifice,
according to records maintained by the Canadian Peacekeeping
Veterans Association 147 Canadian peacekeepers have made the
supreme sacrifice for our country.
(1110)
On June 11, 1984 a special service medal was authorized to
recognize service under abnormally difficult conditions for an
extended period. The medal is always awarded with one of four
bars on which is engraved the nature of the special service. One
of these bars is designated peacepaix and humanitas. The other
bars approved and awarded with the special service medal are
for service in Pakistan, 1989 to 1990; service with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization since 1951; and Canadian forces
station Alert in the Northwest Territories.
What the special service medal does in the case of the peace
bar is recognize those who participated in peacekeeping or
humanitarian activities which for a number of reasons, but
normally for length of service, did not qualify for a United
Nations medal. According to award criteria this medal may not
be awarded along with another medal recognizing the same
service such as the United Nations medal.
While the special service medal properly fills one gap in our
recognition of service, it does not provide that distinctive
Canadian recognition for our peacekeepers who have been
awarded United Nations service medals. Thus, their
contributions around the world with the attendant honour and
stature they have brought to our country remain
unacknowledged by Canada.
Yet as I said at the beginning, Canada and Canadians take
great pride in the contributions that we as a country have made
to peacekeeping operations throughout the world.
Unquestionably most Canadians know and are proud that these
efforts have added to our stature in the world community.
In September 1988 Canadians took pride in their
peacekeepers' having been awarded the Nobel peace prize. The
clasp proposed in addition to the peacekeeping Canadian
volunteer service medal would recognize those people who won
that honour for Canada.
A peacekeeping memorial monument has been erected here in
Ottawa to honour our peacekeepers and that is important, but a
monument does not provide individual recognition.
We Canadians should take more pride in ourselves, in our
institutions, our history and our heroes. In this vein there is
widespread support for unique Canadian recognition of our
peacekeeping forces. We ask them to leave their friends and
families to face harsh conditions, difficult situations and are
consistently rewarded by their excellent responses to these
challenges.
We tend to be slow to recognize our deserving citizens. It
seems to be a Canadian trait: 40 years to recognize Korean
veterans, 50 years to recognize Dieppe veterans, 55 years and
still counting for Hong Kong veterans. A peacekeeping
Canadian volunteer service medal and the clasp for the Nobel
peace prize can be one of our unifying symbols. Its recipients
would come from all walks of life, from every province, from
Canadian citizens who represent most if not all our broad variety
of ethnic backgrounds, the common denominator being their
shared loyalty to and willingness to serve our country.
I want to quote from a 1943 directive issued by General Guy
Simonds to his commanders in the First Canadian Division. In it
he said:
The final criterion of a good or bad award is the reaction of the troops. If the
troops feel it is a good award, it is a good award. If awards are criticized by the
troops, they are bad awards. Before forwarding any recommendation, at each
level the commander should ask himself the question: ``Would the front line
soldier, if he knew the facts, consider this well deserved?''.
Bill C-258 is supported by the Canadian Peacekeeping
Veterans Association, by the Canadian Association of Veterans
in United Nations Peacekeeping, by serving and retired
members of the Canadian forces, by many members of this
House and by many Canadian citizens who have written or
called my office.
We need only think back to the comments made by His
Excellency the Right Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, Governor General
of Canada, at his installation on the eighth of this month.
(1115 )
Addressing the media in his remarks he said: ``There is
wonderful news out there and some of it you have covered
magnificently. I recall the story you told us of Canadian
peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia who put down their
weapons to pick up and comfort orphan children, abandoned by
their terrorized caregivers. This is Canadian compassion in
uniform and we have seen it many times and in many places,
from Gaza to Cyprus to Rwanda''.
10047
Going on, he said: ``It is for this reason that I requested that
former Canadian peacekeepers be among today's guard of
honour, the first guard of honour I shall inspect as Governor
General and as Commander in Chief.''
Thus it would seem that despite the reluctance of our honours
and awards committee to agree, if we use General Simonds'
criteria as a measure, a Canadian volunteer service medal for
peacekeeping would qualify as a good award. It would seem
obvious from what our Governor General has said, that he too
supports the need for Canadians to recognize our peacekeepers.
As a Reform member of Parliament it would be inappropriate
for me to recommend an award without considering the cost it
will entail. It is estimated that the medal will cost between $5
and $7 a copy and added to that will be the cost of administration
and postal charges. As of January 31, 40,594 Canadian forces
personnel have served or are serving as peacekeepers. They have
fulfilled a total of 52,577 tours of duty.
Additionally, since this recognition would also be extended to
members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian
civilians who qualify, their numbers must also be considered. I
am unable at this time to determine how many they might be, but
I believe it would be reasonable to project that the total qualified
recipients, including the Canadian forces, are unlikely to exceed
50,000 in number.
If we double the maximum estimated price for the medal, to
account for administrative and postal charges, we come to a
maximum probable expenditure of $700,000; a lot of money, but
it seems a small price for Canadians to pay to properly recognize
those of our citizens who have brought lifesaving intervention,
compassion and assistance to so many, and such great honour
and credit to Canada.
I understand that when the private members' bill committee
was considering the status of this bill, it might have received
some erroneous information which, in turn, may have
influenced its decision not to make this bill votable.
We have an obligation to conserve that which is most noble in
our past, to respect the wishes of those veterans who have
sacrificed so much, to maintain an honour system that both
reflects our Commonwealth traditions and establishes uniquely
Canadian symbols.
I want to repeat the honours award directive I quoted earlier:
``In Canada today granting honours is a gracious, tangible and
lasting way to pay tribute to people whose achievements are
exceptional, who have performed outstanding acts of bravery or
who have benefited Canada or humanity in general.''
Too often in today's society we are slow or fail to give
recognition which is due. If we, as parliamentarians, are to take
action to afford appropriate Canadian recognition to our
peacekeepers, it is important that we give this bill a status which
will enable us to exert the maximum influence to achieve that
aim. Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
designate Bill C-258 as a votable item.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might seek
some clarification from the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands who brought this motion to the House.
In his closing remarks he asked for the unanimous consent of
the House. I want to be certain that, in fact, that request was
being made by the hon. member.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to enter that
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands is asking for unanimous consent to make this motion
votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1120 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
offer my comments on Bill C-258, an act which would establish
a Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping.
We on this side must sincerely congratulate the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands for his diligence in bringing this
important matter before the House. We share with him a strong
desire to give fitting recognition to Canadians who serve in
these vital and often dangerous operations.
[Translation]
However, I regretfully cannot support this initiative and I
want to use the time allocated to me today to explain my position
to my hon. colleagues.
[English]
The first and most fundamental reason is that to create a
decoration in this manner would run counter to the customs,
traditions and procedures by which honours are granted in
Canada.
As hon. members know, the powers of the crown in this
country fall into two classes. The first are the powers that the
crown exercises under statute law subject to the approval of
Parliament. The second class of powers are those that are
encompassed in what is called the royal prerogative.
These powers, which have their ancient roots in history, are
not exercised with reference to Parliament. This is not to say
that they are applied arbitrarily. Normally they are exercised by
10048
the crown acting on the recommendation of the governor general
in council. That is the way it is done in this country.
There are problems of substance and application with respect
to this bill, not with respect to the spirit. The bill proposes a
volunteer service medal. This terminology echoes the second
world war. A special medal was created then to recognize those
who had volunteered as opposed to those who were conscripted
for service. Today all Canadian military personnel are
volunteers.
The bill is also retroactive to the first UN mission in 1947.
This means that more than 150,000 persons would be eligible.
But there is a more basic difficulty. This approach to the creation
of honours would confine us to a narrow, tunnel vision view of
needs and options. This is a serious practical drawback.
In order for medals, decorations and other honours to be
meaningful, decisions about their creation and criteria must be
made in context. For that reason many nations have established
carefully crafted systems for the creation and award of honours.
Canada has done that.
We have a Canadian honours system. That system was put in
place in 1967. It includes a committee which advises the
government on how the system should work. The honours policy
committee has a broad mandate. It looks at the whole roster of
occasions for honours and decoration, peacekeeping operations
included.
It surveys the total population of potential recipients of
honours. The committee makes its recommendations on the
basis of certain clear principles. One is the requirement that
people be honoured equally in relation to their contribution and
that no one be overlooked. Another function of the honours
system is to avoid debasing the coinage of honours by
duplication or by the indiscriminate authorization of awards.
The honours policy committee can live up to these principles
because it is able to see the whole picture. It is a proactive body.
It seeks to search out and eliminate any inequities in the system.
Periodically it surveys the honours scene in Canada to make sure
that all Canadians who contribute to peacekeeping are treated
equally and recognized publicly.
The committee makes it its business to consult with veterans
and other groups. It looks at these matters in an international
context. It is important, as we consider these matters, to
remember that peacekeepers, ours and everyone else's, are
honoured not only by their nations but by the international
community.
The obvious example, but not the only one, is the United
Nations which has created 28 medals to recognize the service of
women and men from many lands who take part in various UN
actions. Medals have also been struck by organizations other
than the UN and many Canadians wear them proudly as their
own.
[Translation]
I think that, in a way, these decorations are the most eloquent.
Sooner or later, after serving side by side in peacekeeping
operations, these men and women return to their units in their
respective countries.
By wearing these decorations on their uniforms, they
celebrate a comradeship in arms that transcends the differences
among nations. These decorations proclaim that we are all
serving the common cause of peace.
No award system, whether national or international, is
perfect.
(1125)
It is therefore quite possible that, for technical reasons, some
Canadian peacekeepers would not meet established criteria,
thus missing out on awards recognizing their contribution.
[English]
One common example is air crew who quite often fly missions
related to UN peacekeeping operations without becoming
officially attached to those operations. The Canadian honours
system recognizes these anomalies exist and precisely for that
reason we have the Canadian special service medal with
peacekeeping bar.
To sum up, this bill, worthy though it is in objective, would
not in my opinion succeed in the goal of honouring equitably the
contribution of Canadians. Indeed it would work counter to that
goal. For that reason, with great regret and with very great
respect for the spirit in which it has been brought forward by the
hon. member, I am unable to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-258 put forth by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
respecting the establishment of a Canadian Volunteer Service
Medal and Clasp for United Nations Peacekeeping is a way to
recognize our military volunteers for their contribution to
peacekeeping missions around the world.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute the courage and
dignity with which our servicemen and women carry out their
difficult task on peacekeeping missions abroad. They deserve
our admiration and full support. I also have a thought for their
families who also go through difficult times worrying about
them.
Our forces are not new to this kind of operations. A leader in
peacekeeping, Canada has gained in this area experience and
expertise that has earned it respect worldwide. It should be
noted that since the end of the cold war, regional conflicts and
thus the need for restoring and maintaining peace have been
increasing.
10049
While a general war is highly unlikely in the present
circumstances, we must recognize however that a high level
conflict could erupt from any given regional confrontation,
should it escalate.
The end of the cold war brought about a new world order
characterized by a degree of uncertainty, instability as well as
some new tensions. The democratization process under way in
Eastern Europe is a good example of the ongoing changes. The
instability caused by this transition is rekindling national
vitality because of newly rediscovered collective identities.
So, in the context of a security policy, we must help countries
such as those of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
that choose to become democratic. It must be pointed out that
the emergence of new States did not result in chaos everywhere.
National emancipation movements carried out though
legitimate institutions materialized peacefully.
For example, the Czech and Slovak republics peacefully
severed their federative ties. Similarly, Slovenia and the Baltic
States achieved independence in an orderly and democratic
fashion. That is how they were able to have their sovereignty
readily recognized by the international community.
Another case in point is the Ukraine, the independence of
which Ottawa was the first capital to recognize after the
referendum won by the sovereignists.
We have no intention of burying our heads in the sand and
ignore the constraints and challenges that come with the new
world order.
(1130)
Thus, Canada, as well as an eventual sovereign Quebec, must
continue to actively promote democracy. It should be pointed
out that, before being perceived as a thorn in our diplomatic
efforts and commitments abroad-I am referring of course to
the unfortunate events which occurred in Somalia-the
contribution of our military personnel to peacekeeping missions
made Canadians and Quebecers very proud of their forces.
The situation in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, in Rwanda
and in Somalia was unprecedented and here is why. The apparent
futility of our efforts, the risks involved for our soldiers, the
astronomical figures which circulated regarding the costs of
these operations, as well as the complexity of the political and
military situations in these countries undermined the public
support which, until then, was enjoyed by such operations.
While in line with previous similar commitments, our
peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia quickly took on
a very different nature.
The operation in Slovenia and in Croatia was truly a
peacekeeping mission. In that sense, our troops had the
responsibility to ensure compliance with already concluded
peace agreements. However, their role in Bosnia, Rwanda and
Somalia had very little to do with traditional types of
intervention. Canadian troops found themselves in a theatre of
war, caught between belligerent factions. How can you maintain
peace in a country where peace does not exist in the first place,
where a political settlement has yet to be reached, and where
every ceasefire is violated? That is when things started to
deteriorate, particularly after the whole world was able to see on
television unbearable atrocities which we thought no longer
existed, but which are indeed very real.
There are lessons to be drawn from these operations. Canada's
future interventions will have to meet more specific criteria. For
example, the costs and complexities of modern-day
interventions require the emergence of a new culture on the part
of the strategists and the troops which will participate in future
peacekeeping missions. Moreover, the recent events in Haiti
reminded us of the need to base our interventions on democratic
legitimacy and careful planning.
It is important to clearly define, with the United Nations,
specific objectives and tasking orders. The Bloc Quebecois feels
that one of the primary duties of Canadian forces on the
international scene must be to support, through participation,
peacekeeping operations. In the future, our troops will have to
be disciplined, trained to face the rigours of armed conflicts,
adequately equipped, professional in their approach, and under
good command.
I will support Bill C-258, but I want to point out that the
candidates who served with a UN peacekeeping force and are
eligible to receive the medal and clasp must meet criteria which
are still not known and which will have to be clearly defined.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in speaking in support of Bill C-258 I have to ask the
basic question of why a medal, or for that matter, why a
Canadian medal. I would like to cover the ground here by trying
to describe what is happening to our country in relation to this
medal as an example.
(1135)
Medals generally are a reflection and a record of our history
as a country, of our independence and of our associations. The
key word is independence. Looking at our history as a country
over the last 100 years we find we have ties to the United
Kingdom. In times of war these ties have been rather firm and
very loyal. That does not necessarily change over the years but it
does in another sense. The loyalties are still there but other
loyalties are built up.
We can look at the issue of wartime service in World War II,
the creation of a Canadian army, the creation of the third largest
navy in the world, and the expansion of the Royal Canadian Air
Force. This gives us a good measure of the emergence of Canada
10050
as a nation on its own without defaulting what has happened and
what the ties are to the United Kingdom.
In looking at our history we have to look at our loyalties. We
certainly have had a loyalty to Great Britain. We have had a
loyalty to our other allies, be it the United States or France. We
have developed over the years new and greater loyalties to the
United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
However, among all of these loyalties, associations and services
we have a greater basic loyalty which is to Canada. We must
allow our basic loyalty to ourselves to emerge.
The proposer has mentioned, and I would like to bring it out
again, that this bill in no way attempts to usurp the royal
prerogative of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada or the
Prime Minister or the honours policy committee to establish
honours and awards. Rather, it gives the government the
opportunity to respond to the report of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
which recommended that such a medal be established to
recognize the service of the Canadian military in peacekeeping.
That is the nub of it all.
A committee of this House is saying that we are Canadians
and that we must do something to recognize what Canadians are
doing. I did hear the words from the hon. member for Halifax
explaining that there are entanglements and we should not
remove this royal prerogative. I agree with this to a degree, but
our greatest loyalty once again must be to ourselves.
We are moving in the direction of being our own authority in
this country. From the Statute of Westminster back in 1933 and
over the years we are continuing to move in that same direction.
When it comes to the issue of medals we have already heard
that we are coming up with belated recognition for things such
as Korea. When I came back from Korea in 1952 I was awarded a
United Nations medal and a British Commonwealth medal for
service in that country.
(1140 )
Forty years after the fact Canada belatedly decided it should
issue its own medal for this service. Several years ago it came up
with the Canadian volunteer service medal for Korea. It has now
also come up with other awards in recognition of Canadian
service which include: the 1983 special service medal; the
Dieppe clasp, Dieppe occurred over 55 years ago and we have
only come to provide belated recognition of it; and for the
merchant marines. Service by the merchant navy took us 50
years to recognize.
We have received belated and sometimes no recognition at all.
Hong Kong has been mentioned. This country has not yet
recognized the service of our people in Hong Kong 55 years ago.
There is no recognition of what I believe was called the ferry
command. Civilians and military alike were ferrying aircraft
from Canada and the United States over to the war zone in the
U.K.
We are moving in that direction but we are dragging our feet.
To give another illustration of moving somewhat in the same
direction, I participated in a non-United Nations peacekeeping
effort in 1973. We went to Vietnam to replace the old, almost
useless international commission for supervision and control. I
should not say useless; it was hamstrung. Its hands were tied as
to what it could do.
In any event in 1973, Canada along with Indonesia as another
representative of the western world and Poland and Hungary
sent a non-UN commission, a quadripartite commission to
Vietnam to oversee whatever peace we could muster out of that
sad country. As a result of that I was asked to head up a
committee to strike a medal. It was a very interesting
experience.
A committee of four got together, one representing each of the
four countries. We designed a medal. We designed a ribbon
incorporating the colours of the four countries involved:
red-white, red-white, red-white, and red-white-green. We
came up with a unique medal. It was certainly unique in its
execution because it was hand forged in a back alley of Saigon.
Nevertheless we came up with a medal of our own for issue to
the 1,000-plus members of that specific commission.
The illustration of this is that you can do things on your own
or in concert with others. We did it quickly. We did it
inexpensively. We came up with a unique medal in observation
of that specific enterprise.
I see that other countries have issued their own medals.
Ghana, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, and Ireland
are issuing their own UN medals. Canada is first among equals
in United Nations service. Surely if there is any country in the
world that must have its own UN service medal, it is Canada.
In conclusion, since my colleague was unable to get
unanimous approval to designate Bill C-258 as a votable item, I
would ask that we unanimously vote to refer the bill to the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Let us get together and at least refer the bill to that committee so
that it can assess the merits of the bill in proper time. Therefore I
move:
That Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian
Volunteer Service Medal and Clasp for United Nations Peacekeeping to
Canadians serving with a United Nations peacekeeping force, be not now read a
second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject
matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.
(1145)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
10051
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to speak today in favour of the bill put forward
by my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands.
We hear everyone praising our peacekeepers. We talk about
our peacekeepers everywhere we go. It is a Canadian tradition.
Every high school student in Canada is taught that the Right
Hon. Lester B. Pearson invented peacekeeping in the 1950s to
defuse the Suez Canal crisis. Yet it seems to me at times that we
certainly as governments over the last number of years have
been ashamed of that fact. We have never seen fit to give a medal
to our own Canadian peacekeepers, as was mentioned so
eloquently a moment ago by the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
I have listened to the debate over the last five years in the
House and when we brought the matter before the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. There has
to be a better way of recognizing our military people. Canadians
have served in practically every peacekeeping effort since the
Suez crisis from Cyprus to Cambodia and from Pakistan to the
Israeli withdrawal from Egypt.
Our peacekeepers have served Canada and the United Nations
well. They have brought honour to our country and they should
be appropriately recognized. For a country with our tradition it
is only fitting that a government strike a volunteer service medal
for those Canadians who served in peacekeeping operations.
We are not talking about special treatment of privileges. We
are talking about honour. Right now, as has been mentioned
many times here, our peacekeepers receive a medal from the
United Nations for their service. However they do not receive a
medal from their own country. That is a shame.
Some people have suggested that such a move is
unprecedented. That is not so. As has been said today, the
volunteers in Korea have received a Canadian medal to
commemorate their service to peace. Granted, they waited 40
years and probably would never have received it except that we
committed troops at the time of the gulf war in 1991. At that
time it was deemed to be a special area and a medal would be
struck for that. It was pretty hard for the government not to come
through with a medal for the Canadian people who served in
Korea.
We tend to play down this business of giving medals to our
troops who serve in various areas. Maybe that has some merit at
times. There are countries that some people think give too many
medals. I have come to know a lot of the people who participated
in peacekeeping efforts around the world in the last number of
years. We have come into our own as a country. We have served
in every conflict in this century. I believe the time has come to
change the rules if that is what we have to do.
(1150)
No one has said anything about the royal prerogative, but
maybe it is time that we took a look at the way things are done.
We are great people in the House of all political parties for
saying it is time for change. I found last summer as we travelled
the country looking at our defence policy that sometimes it was
hard to change things. Sometimes it is hard to change minds,
even though we all go in with grandiose plans for making things
work differently.
It would be a shame if we fail to provide recognition of our
peacekeeping veterans, the same recognition we gave to people
who served in the Korean war and the first and second world
wars. I do not think these people should have to wait 40 and 50
years for the government to give them credit where credit is due.
Canada is a country that is called on. We have more missions
going now than we have had for many years. We are always
ready to do our part even with dwindling resources and not the
best equipment that our people should have out there. We do not
hear them complain about it. We see letters from organizations
across the country urging us to support the bill that we bring
forward a peacekeeping medal and clasp for our peacekeepers.
We have not gone far enough in this age. We talked about it, as
I said, in 1990 in the Standing Committee on National Defence
and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it should
lie with this committee to bring forth a way of doing it without
having the wrath of the government against us or the wrath of
those in Parliament who do not believe these things are noble or
necessary.
We should be ashamed of ourselves as governments and as
parliaments for not having done something sooner. The gulf war
had to come along before the Korean veterans were recognized
with their own distinctive Canadian medal. I see nothing wrong
with the soldiers getting the United Nations medal and one from
our own country.
At the end of the day I hope there is some resolve that we can
send the matter to committee and have some recommendations
come forward. I do not believe for a moment we are doing
anything wrong by recommending that we give this medal to our
peacekeepers. It would be a great day in our country if we could
do that. We can sit here and talk about all the rules to stop this
legislation. They are there, but I do not see why we cannot come
up with some way to change them and make this medal a reality.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the bill
presented by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
10052
The bill which I strongly support has as its main purpose the
establishment of a volunteer service medal for members of the
Canadian Armed Forces who have served in peacekeeping
missions under United Nations command. In my view and that
of many others this is a long overdue idea that deserves to be
considered very seriously by the House and by the Canadian
government.
As we all know Canada has been involved in UN sponsored
operations since the 1940s. Canada has also been the most
constant and faithful contributor of troops to peacekeeping
missions. In return our involvement in areas like Lebanon,
Cyprus, El Salvador and Cambodia has truly been a source of
pride for all Canadians.
(1155 )
While we have taken pride in this heritage of service abroad,
we have failed to adequately recognize the efforts and the
courage of thousands of servicemen and women who have
answered without question the call of the Canadian government
whenever it has sounded.
Under present guidelines Canadian peacekeepers do not
receive a distinctively Canadian medal. Ever since 1949, the
year of the first UN sponsored military observation mission in
India-Pakistan, Canadian service men and women have not been
formally honoured by the Government of Canada by the
awarding of a Canadian medal. The medals awarded to date have
been issued by the United Nations thereby making them foreign
awards. This oversight, which hopefully cannot be interpreted
as a lack of gratitude, must be remedied.
In the words of a former peacekeeper, now a member of the
Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, the adoption of
Bill C-258 is ``an opportunity to help right the wrong''.
Canada's reputation as a country concerned with peace around
the world is in large part attributed to the professional ability
and courage of past and present peacekeepers. The role that
Canadians have taken in UN peacekeeping is recognized
throughout the world. It is now time for the Canadian
government to do the same.
Today I will try to explain why in my personal view this is
such a timely initiative. The idea of establishing a Canadian
volunteer service medal for United Nations peacekeeping has a
great deal of merit, not the least of which is to bring Canada up
to par with other peacekeeping contributing nations such as
Belgium, the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom and the
Republic of Ireland which already award their own
peacekeeping medals in addition to those awarded by the United
Nations.
The new medal would also give visual recognition of the great
honour that was bestowed upon Canada by our peacekeepers
when the United Nations peacekeeping operations won the
Nobel prize in September 1988. Indeed the idea has a great deal
of merit. However it appears all the more relevant in light of a
certain number of developments both on international and
national levels that in recent years have demonstrated the need
to seriously question ourselves on what peacekeeping
represents to us and, in that light, what level of commitment we
are prepared to live up to.
In the course of the debate that has been going on in Canada
over the past few years on these issues it has appeared quite clear
that Canada's involvement in peacekeeping operations is a
reflection of its internationalist approach to world affairs.
The recent defence white paper concluded:
Multilateral security co-operation is not merely a Canadian tradition; it is an
expression of Canadian values in the international sphere. We care about the
course of events abroad and we are willing to work together with other countries
to improve the lot of all manner of peoples.
The Reform Party has repeatedly echoed this international
commitment. We believe that Canada's ability to play a role on
the international scene rests to a large extent on our continued
dedication to the principles of international co-operation and
collective security.
Furthermore Canada is not blind to the lessons of history. Our
historical experience has underscored the need to develop and
maintain effective multilateral institutions that can confront as
effectively as possible any challenge to international security
and stability and, if all other means fail, respond to aggression
with determination and leadership.
In so reflecting Canada's global values the Canadian forces
have contributed incessantly to international security. Over the
past few years the sheer number of UN sponsored interventions
requiring Canadian participation has dramatically increased.
The result has been to stretch Canada's peacekeeping resources
to their extreme limit.
The nature of multilateral operations has also changed
enormously. The range of activities these operations involve has
expanded to encompass the complete set of military activities
from preventive deployment and observation to enforcement
and reconstruction.
This has spurred a debate at the international level about the
need to more clearly determine the nature of any multilateral
operation, whether peacekeeping, peacemaking or
humanitarian, before deployment actually takes place.
(1200 )
In Canada we have become more sensitive to the need to
define the conditions under which our forces will be deployed in
areas of conflict.
From the perspective of those Canadian men and women who
serve or who have served under UN command, and on whose
behalf I speak today, these developments have meant more
intensive training, increased stress and wider responsibilities.
Although most of us do not have an immediate knowledge of
what a soldier's job entails, it must be clear to all of us that the
10053
political and military trends in the nineties have made the
soldier's job considerably more difficult than in any other era.
Not since the Korean war have Canadian servicemen and
women been burdened with such a wide array of responsibilities
at home and abroad. Increasingly these people are asked to move
beyond their traditional role of seeing to the nation's defence
into non-traditional areas such as the delivery of humanitarian
aid and the reconstruction of war-ravaged societies.
The physical and psychological strains associated with
immersing oneself in an alien culture and with meeting stringent
performance criteria are necessary so that both the individual
and the group can withstand the ultimate test of combat. While
they must be ready to endure the most difficult and unfriendly
working conditions, the soldiers of the nineties must also be
flexible. They are asked to be diplomats, aid workers, law
enforcement officers as well as warriors. They are expected to
exercise an unprecedented level of self-discipline by constantly
adapting to fit the prevailing situation.
In wartime, roles and objectives are clearly defined. In
operations other than war, the soldier is often forced to change
roles from day to day, even moment to moment. The
peacekeeper must draw on his combat infantry skills if a fire
fight breaks out, and then revert to his diplomatic or
humanitarian self. The soldier of the nineties must be more
educated than ever before. He must be acquainted with political,
military and sociocultural dynamics of the crisis area in which
he has been deployed. That is not an easy feat, if we consider the
intractable nature of some of the conflicts which Canada has
helped to monitor.
The complex security problems which confront the
international community today defy easy solutions. Often those
solutions, for which a multilateral response has been deemed the
most appropriate, are also the most complicated. Some
conflicts, such as the ones in the former Yugoslavia and
Somalia, are ones for which it is very difficult to define
objectives that reflect a clear sense of perspective.
Moreover, soldiers are asked to perform to the best of their
ability, even in the most ambiguous and uncertain situations.
They are expected to be sensitive to political, social and cultural
realities on which even their superiors are unable to provide
information and leadership.
It is also important for the Canadian government to recognize
this state of affairs. Peacekeepers have served Canada's
interests well since the end of the second world war. This
contribution from our servicemen and women has become more
and more costly in terms of personal commitment and loss of
life.
A Canadian volunteer service medal would not compensate
for the sacrifice and deprivation, whether physical or emotional,
nor can it constitute a form of restitution for the families of
those who have given their lives in the search for peace. The
Canadian volunteer service medal must be seen as a token of our
collective appreciation, as a formal recognition by the people
and the Government of Canada of the increasingly perilous and
arduous role demanded of peacekeepers and, as my colleague
said, of ``their continued display of courage and dedication to
their assignments, which have been the hallmark of Canadian
peacekeepers''.
I certainly support this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10053
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act
and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to speak on third reading of this bill. I begin by
reviewing the highlights of the bill and after that I would like to
put special emphasis and focus on that part of the bill which has
to do with rehabilitation.
(1205)
For those who have come to the debate recently, the minister
announced, when tabling the bill on June 2, the highlights would
include sentences for teenagers convicted of first and second
degree murder in youth court to 10 and 7 years respectively.
Sixteen and 17-year olds charged with serious personal injury
offences would be dealt with in adult court unless they can show
a judge that public protection and rehabilitation can both be
achieved through the youth court. It includes extending the time
that 16 and 17-year old young offenders who have been
convicted of murder in an adult court must serve before they can
be considered for parole.
It also includes improved measures for information sharing
between professionals like school officials and police, and with
selected members of the public when public safety is at risk, as
well as retaining the records of serious young offenders longer.
Finally, it includes provisions to encourage rehabilitation and
treatment of young offenders in the community when this is
appropriate.
10054
I want to focus on the last point. I am happy to see that the
very first clause of the bill deals with the whole point of
underlying causes and rehabilitation. I would like to read
directly into the record clause 1(1):
(a) Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and
requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and
developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively
responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending
behaviour in the future;
(a.1) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the
same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults,
young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for
their contraventions;
Clause 1(2) says:
The protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law
applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young
persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing
the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young
person's offending behaviour;
I would like to talk about this part of the bill because I believe
it is an area where we in the community are not putting enough
emphasis today.
I go back to a book that I had a chance to review this morning
before I came to the House. It is Father Flanagan at Boys Town.
Boys Town is situated about 10 miles outside of Omaha,
Nebraska.
I can remember one night flying in from Toronto with a
colleague from Saskatchewan. We were talking about Notre
Dame in Saskatchewan, but the subject of Boys Town came up.
What has been going on for many years now at Father
Flanagan's Boys Town in the United States of America is
something that we as legislators should take time to revisit.
For those who do not know, Father Flanagan started this
environment many years ago when he took in homeless boys,
young boys without parents. However he also took about 20 per
cent of the number, young offenders.
(1210 )
The rehabilitation record of Boys Town has been described by
some of the best psychiatrists and doctors as to being almost a
totally mysterious phenomena. Father Flanagan worked with
these young men in developing their character. He exposed them
to apprenticeship and athletics. It did not matter what their
religious background was. The boys could be Jewish, Protestant
or Catholic, but he made sure that a portion of their life each
week had some sort of religious training.
I tell this story because the track record of the Boys Town
situation applies just as much today. It is just as relevant as it
was many years ago when this institution started. There are just
as many young people today who are involved in situations
where their family life is under great stress and strain. I believe
that many of these homes that we have in our communities do
not have the same sophistication as that institution has.
As we go through the process of putting more emphasis on
rehabilitation, we should also be reviewing the types of
institutions we have to make sure they are relevant and that we
are getting the maximum impact.
So often today a young offender is put into an institution
where some of the values that a Boys Town has are just not
present; the values of caring and sharing with one another and
being a little bit more sensitive to character building. The
institutions are just not sensitive. I am not saying that our
institutions should be totally ignored but that they should be
re-examined.
The Minister of Justice made the following statement in his
press release, which I want to emphasize: ``That legislation is
only one part of the answer to violence among young people.
Poverty, alcoholism, family violence, racism, illiteracy and
many other factors may lead to criminal acts by young people
and adults alike and must be tackled as a whole''. The minister
said this when he issued his press release. Those words are very
important.
When we go through this bill I am hoping that the whole area
of rehabilitation can be given very special review and emphasis.
We should look at some of the rehabilitation systems and centres
that exist all over North America. I would like to refer very
specifically, as I said, to the Boys Town example in the United
States where the track record of rehabilitation is apparently
second to none anywhere in the world. If a Boys Town
environment can happen in the United States why can we not
have similar institutions in Canada?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member who just spoke could also have looked at the
system we have in Quebec, a system that was put in place a
number of years ago and that, as far as we are concerned, has
proved its worth. Unlike the bill to which the hon. member was
referring, our system is not based on the premise that young
people can be rehabilitated through repression.
Unfortunately, this bill leans towards repression. It gives the
public the impression it will be better protected because young
offenders who are 16 or 17 years of age and are tried in adult
court will get longer sentences.
(1215)
The public is being deluded. It has yet to be established in the
literature that increasing sentences acts as a deterrent in such
cases. I do agree wholeheartedly with a number of points the
hon. member made. We must look at what causes crime, and
even more important, we must ensure that when young people
have committed a crime, they are given, considering their age,
10055
every opportunity,-this is important for society as well-to get
out of the kind of life that they have chosen or into which they
have been led, not perhaps altogether voluntarily, considering
the problems many of them have had.
This bill is even more offensive in the case of Quebec, where
we have set up a system I would urge the hon. member to come
and see, and not just in the large urban centres. We really had to
put a lot of work into this system; we had to call on
multidisciplinary resources and take a more
community-oriented approach based more on compensation for
damages or on the actual rehabilitation of the young person.
The federal legislation, which will have to be administered by
Quebec, will have a very disruptive impact on this system. This
is true in other provinces and it is also true in Quebec. The
government ignores existing systems that work well and
imposes or adds a system based on repression, a system that
does not connect with systems that already exist and have
proved to be effective.
This is outrageous, and does not bode well for the future. I
think this is just one more reason to say that as far as guidance,
social justice and equity are concerned, we are perfectly capable
of doing the job ourselves.
The Quebec Bar Association submitted an extensive brief to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in which it
accurately summed up the situation in Quebec. It said that young
offenders in Quebec are eligible for alternative treatment of
their case, which involves a referral to the Youth Protection
Branch, proposals for an arrangement and the use of alternative
sentencing such as reimbursing the victim or doing community
work. In fact, almost 47 per cent of the cases are handled this
way. Where alternative sentencing is not a possibility, all such
cases in Quebec will be tried by a special youth court. Once the
court has handed down a sentence, it will be up to the health care
and social services network to see that it is carried out.
The choice that Quebec has made to entrust young offenders
to institutions that come under the department of health and
social services illustrates its philosophy in this matter. The
ultimate aim is rehabilitation in the medium and long terms
rather than a panacea of repression, which at best offers society
only short term protection.
The crime rate among adolescents in Quebec is one of the
lowest in the country, in fact, the second lowest. The adoption of
Bill C-37 will upset all of our institutions whose role so far has
been to promote rehabilitation.
(1220)
I might add that imprisonment, by itself, while appearing to
protect society, and which, even in the bill, is of limited
duration, often ends up making criminals out of those who were
initially only unfortunate or unlucky young individuals. If you
want to be sure to turn 16 and 17 year olds into criminals, send
them to prison. The longer the sentence, the better your chances
of achieving that effect.
We are strongly opposed to this bill. We believe that the
minister, who, in any case, had said he wanted to review all the
legislation to do with young people, should have examined the
overall situation before tabling this bill. Having done so, he
could have offered Canadians and Quebecers, not a comforting
short term system, but a medium and long term one, which
would prove less costly and permit the building of a society
where people would really feel safe, because young people
would have the opportunity to reintegrate into society rather
than risk being handed another prison term.
We will oppose this bill vigorously. We hope Canadians will
appreciate our arguments. During our tour on social program
reform, I heard it said everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec,
that people were looking to Ottawa for an answer and for social
justice through strong national standards.
It seems to me that the adoption of a bill like this one casts
doubt on Ottawa's ability to show the way to social justice,
fairness and hope for all Canadians and Quebecers, and
particularly for young people.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is one statement that is factual about the justice minister's
attempt at dealing with young offenders: He is blindly following
a political policy that became extinct the last time his party was
in power.
The justice minister is trying to convince Canadians that his
proposed legislation, Bill C-37, is dealing with justice. This
legislation is another attempt by this government at social
manipulation and social engineering. It is not legislation to deal
with justice.
The justice minister should be concerned in dealing with
those who have ignored and broken the established laws. The
minister should be concerned in dealing with legislation that
forces youth law breakers to understand that law-abiding
members of society will not tolerate, condone nor accept the fact
that criminal behaviour will go unpunished.
I know punishment is a foul word to the opposite side, but it is
a concept that is expected by the citizens of Canada. What we
have here is legislation that outlines more reasons why
offending youths should not expect punishment for crimes
committed on law-abiding members of society. This legislation
offers youth even more reasons to believe that the justice system
will find reasons to excuse their criminal behaviour.
This justice minister's first idea of justice is crime
prevention. As good as that sounds, this legislation was
supposed to deal with crimes already committed by young
offenders. Instead, this minister wants to bypass his ministry
and put the blame for violent antisocial youth on provincial
social service
10056
agencies that are not fulfilling their mandate to provide youth
with an alternative to criminal action.
Canadians desired and demanded that this minister address
the problem of increasing violence by youth. There is an
epidemic of youth who commit crimes and laugh at the justice
system's inability to show them that crime does not pay. Instead
of putting teeth into the criminal justice system, this minister is
continuing on a path designed by his government to present high
sounding words that do not change anything.
(1225)
Canadians want change. Canadians want their concerns
addressed. And once again, this government offers excuses as to
why change is impossible.
The existing Young Offenders Act has the proper first
priority. The first declaration of principle in the existing act
states: ``While young persons should not in all instances be held
accountable in the same manner or suffer the same
consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who
commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their
contraventions''.
What does this minister offer? An excuse that because
offending youth have committed crimes, that it is a failure of
crime prevention policies administered by provincial agencies.
The minister just does not get it. He does not understand that
until his ministry becomes interested in justice and not
downloading the responsibility for his failure to do his job to the
provincial agencies, violent youth will not bear the
responsibility for their antisocial actions.
Canadians are not asking for excuses from the justice
minister; they are asking for justice that condemns violent
behaviour by antisocial youth. Canadians demand that the
justice minister remove the loopholes in the Young Offenders
Act which allow violent youth to kill or maim Canadians with no
consequence of justice affecting the violent criminal. Instead,
what do we get? Legislation that says crime prevention methods
failed so we must blame crime prevention.
May I remind this minister that the consequences of death or
maiming cannot be changed. Canadians expect that justice must
make the accountability for violent crimes swift and sure.
Instead, Canadians are offered excuses why this justice minister
would rather find causes for violent crimes than offer justice for
victims of violent crime.
Before this minister gets on his high horse and states that we
on this side of the House are only interested in locking up all
who break the law, let me remind him that I am talking about
violent youth. This side of the House fully supports alternative
measures for non-violent first offenders.
Another question is, where does the funding for these
facilities come from? It is very noble of the minister to talk
about crime prevention. His party has been doing so since the
last time they were the majority in the House. Rather than
putting tax dollars into preventing crime, the Liberals preferred
then just as they do now, to waste tax dollars on dubious
expenditures benefiting friendly special interests such as,
blueberry jelly, a study of Christmas lights, or the effects of
lullabies on babies.
The recommendations for social service expenditures by the
provinces that this minister disguises as justice will cost his
government nothing. However the citizens of the provinces that
this minister will coerce into buying this bill of false goods may
not be so lucky.
The justice minister has seen the studies that state provincial
social services now in place to assist youth at risk of crime are
under-resourced and understaffed. This justice minister knows
that provincial social workers trying to prevent crime by youth
are and have depended on the Young Offenders Act to provide
the services they cannot afford. This justice minister knows that
provincial crime prevention will not receive federal funding
because his government foolishly squanders tax dollars on
programs of limited benefit to all Canadians rather than crime
prevention for youth.
Unfortunately, this minister and government are again using
window dressing to try and convince Canadians that what is in
the store is worth buying. As we all know, not only is the store
empty, but the management of the store is empty of new ideas as
well. Canadians will not buy this government's line that it
knows best and Canadians know nothing.
The chair of the justice committee asked in the House why we
on this side of the House oppose spending money on social
programs that will reduce crime. May I remind those opposite
that this legislation was intended to address justice. This side of
the House believes that crime prevention is cost effective and
beneficial to both the future criminal and victim. However, this
bill is supposed to address how the justice system must deal with
those who have already committed violent crimes against
society, not outline the failings of provincial social services.
It is obvious we have reached the crux of this government's
ability to govern. Seeing through all the flowery words and
smoke and mirrors, Canadians will realize this government does
not even understand the role the justice department must play in
making justice mean something to violent youth.
(1230)
Instead of justice this government offers a social service
review. As we know, this government has already stated that
reforming social services, just like changes that bring justice for
victims of youth crime, is impossible.
10057
In his last report the Auditor General took a bold step. The
Auditor General said that it is time this government took a look
at the legislation that was passed to see if the tax dollars are
achieving the purpose of the legislation.
We have social programs that hurt society, family programs
that destroy families, aboriginal programs that keep Canada's
aboriginals from ever gaining self-sufficiency and expenditure
control legislation that allows government spending to spiral
out of control as it has. Every time one of these programs fails
we spend more money. These changes to the Young Offenders
Act will not deter one violent youth from crime but will cost
more money.
This justice minister has neglected to answer several
questions important to this legislation: What is the Young
Offenders Act supposed to do? Will this legislation do it? How
can we tell the difference? No one in this House will disagree
that the Young Offenders Act is intended to separate hardened
adult violent criminals from youth. It is further intended to
separate hardened violent youth from the non-violent kid who
got in with the wrong crowd and made a foolish mistake.
No one will disagree that the youth making a non-violent
mistake deserves a second chance. The problem with this
legislation is the same as what is rampant in the adult justice
system. No one is held accountable for their violent crimes. A
day hardly goes by without discovering that a violent adult or
youth who should have been separated from society is back on
the street and has taken another victim.
This government did not take justice seriously in the past.
This legislation clearly shows the Liberals still do not take
justice seriously today. Canadian society wants violent youths
separated from potential victims, not reasons from this
government why crime prevention fails.
Let me serve notice here and now. If the Prime Minister and
his justice minister ignore public demand that violent crime by
youth be addressed, the good old days for the Liberal Party will
end anytime before the next election. This Liberal government
must apply the auditor general's recommendation to the Young
Offenders Act. It must give value for tax dollar by protecting
society from violent youth, not spending more tax dollars on a
failed policy of social engineering. This government must hold
violent youth accountable for their violent crimes.
In conclusion, I would like to say how disappointing it is to
see that after much input from Canadian citizens and many other
organizations throughout the country what we have come up
with is Bill C-37. In the long run it will change nothing. It is
change that Canadians are looking for. It will not come through a
legislation that does not get serious about violent crime.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise again in the House to share my views on Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
We in the Bloc Quebecois agree that youth crime is a very
serious problem. The media regularly inform us of specific
crimes that are so violent that no one can remain indifferent.
Examples abound and remind us constantly that violence
pervades all levels and all aspects of our society. Our task is to
ensure that our laws put a stop to such heinous crimes while
clearly demonstrating that we have no tolerance for crime.
Unfortunately, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act
tabled by the justice minister will in my opinion worsen the
present situation by virtue of the repressive approach taken.
Bill C-37 proposes three fundamental amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. Firstly, the bill proposes longer
sentences. Secondly, it would send to adult court young 16 and
17 year olds accused of offences involving serious bodily harm.
(1235)
Thirdly, the bill would improve the methods of sharing
information between the police, the judiciary and certain
members of the public. These three amendments to the act are
fundamental and alter certain basic principles of the present
legislation. To begin, then, longer sentences clearly demonstrate
that the principles of prevention and rehabilitation, although
mentioned in the first paragraph of the new bill, are no longer
government objectives.
The proposal regarding greater accessibility of information is
somewhat similar. What the minister is proposing is to make the
offender realize that he is a criminal. As a constant reminder,
authorities will inform the offender's community, classmates
and teachers, as well as his neighbours. Instead of encouraging
rehabilitation to any degree, this approach will, on the contrary,
etch in the young person's mind that, from that point on, he is
considered a criminal, a public enemy. This approach is like
branding young offenders and dangerously compromises their
chances of rehabilition.
Also, transferring 16 and 17 year olds who have committed
``violent'' crimes to adult court raises many concerns. Firstly,
this amendment is futile since most violent cases are already
being transferred to adult court at the request of crown
prosecutors. In addition, these amendments go against the grain
of Quebec's system.
Over the years, Quebec has developed a structure that strikes
a real balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating
delinquents. This structure also ensures that young people are
taken in hand from the moment that they begin to exhibit
behavioral problems or to compromise their health or safety.
Also, under the Quebec system, young people are referred to
10058
establishments run by the Department of Health and Social
Services, not by the Department of Justice. This shows that
Quebec focuses its efforts on rehabilitation. In this sense, Bill
C-37 undermines the very spirit of Quebec's current system.
This bill is repressive. As I pointed out at the bill's first
reading, there are two competing schools of thought regarding
juvenile delinquency: one that centres on the young criminal,
emphasizing arrest, referral to a court, sentencing and
punishment, and one that centres on reintegration, focusing on
the causes behind delinquency and attempting to put juvenile
delinquents back on track, without increasing the likelihood of
their becoming repeat offenders.
It seems obvious to me that the second, which fosters
prevention and rehabilitation, is the better school of thought.
Criminologists recognize that criminal behaviour stems from
more than one cause. It is most likely that crime results from a
combination of related factors such as education, family
situation, poverty, drug abuse, promotion of violence,
unemployment or injustices. When this bill was tabled, the
Minister of Justice told us that reintegration, prevention and
rehabilitation would be integrated into his reforms.
Yet, after reading this bill several times, I do not see a single
measure reflecting this concern. Of course, there is the policy
statement in section 1 of the bill, but not a word about it in the
substantive sections. Section 1 is a smokescreen that tones down
the repressive aspect of this bill. It becomes obvious that the
federal government must review its approach to youth crime.
We need a more realistic review, which would first address the
social and economic realities behind crime and implement
social development programs and initiatives focused on
rehabilitation and prevention.
(1240)
This bill raised serious concerns in Quebec, not only among
social and correctional authorities but also among politicians
and academics. After Bill C-37 was tabled, Quebec's National
Assembly gave almost unanimous support to a motion sending a
very clear message to the federal Minister of Justice: ``Let us
continue to address our problems in our own way''. There was
also a general outcry from experts such as psychoeducators,
criminologists, specialized lawyers and social workers.
Quebec has often been a leader in the treatment of young
offenders. As early as 1942, Quebec brought to 18 years the
minimum age for assuming responsibility, a move that some
other provinces followed only in 1982. Over the years, Quebec
developed a whole structure, a system to maintain the right
balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating young
offenders, which is just as commendable a goal.
It must be recognized that Quebec gave itself an innovative
penal and social system to treat juvenile delinquency. For
almost 15 years, Quebec has emphasized rehabilitation over
mere repression. Our system strives to go beyond the surface to
identify the underlying causes of delinquency and rejects the
idea that life imprisonment is the only solution for delinquents
with serious family and social problems.
The young offender is quickly placed under the care of the
Ministry of Health and Social Services and the youth protection
directorate, with surprising results. According to several serious
studies, society recoups its financial investment in the
rehabilitation of a young murderer in less than five years
through the young adult's productivity, through his work, his
taxes and his purchasing power.
In conclusion, we in the Bloc Quebecois strongly believe that
rehabilitation and prevention are the only acceptable way to
address youth crime. That is why we do not support Bill C-37.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak again on this bill to amend the Young Offenders
Act, enacted in 1984 to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act,
and the existing federal legislation governing matters related to
juvenile crime and justice in Canada.
This bill sets a new legal framework to guide society's
response to young people who contravene criminal law,
basically. Many of its provisions are based on a legalistic
approach with an emphasis on fair application of the law and the
necessity for young persons to assume responsibility for their
actions. However, because of their age and degree of maturity,
young offenders obviously have special needs that require a
level of assistance that just does not exist in the adult system.
But the bill does not reinforce this aspect of assistance to young
offenders.
In this bill, a young person is no longer a person between the
ages of 12 and 18 but one between the ages of 10 and 15, which
means that anyone over sixteen will now be tried in adult court,
while it will still be possible to transfer a young offender under
sixteen to adult court.
Essentially, this bill is driven by an arbitrary and unjustified
wave of repression, promoting more heavy-handed judicial
measures against young offenders, rather than effective
preventive and rehabilitation measures.
On this subject, like my colleagues, I will quote from the
conclusions set out in the brief presented to the standing
committee on justice by the Quebec Bar Association. In essence,
it said: ``It is very clear that Bill C-37 was introduced in
response to pressures by citizens demanding to be better
protected through a more effective fight against serious crimes
but repression did not appear to be the solution, and for good
10059
reasons we might add. Quebec found its own way of dealing with
the problem and wants to continue using the successful approach
of rehabilitation, or reorientation. All we are asking for is to be
able to maintain the good results we have achieved so far with
respect to juvenile crime''.
(1245)
Since 1984, the Young Offenders Act was amended twice, that
is in 1986 and in 1992.
In 1986, amendments were made to allow public disclosure of
the identity of a young person accused or found guilty of a
crime, when that person is a threat to the public, and when such
disclosure is necessary to facilitate the arrest of that person.
In 1992, the act was amended to increase the maximum
sentence for murder from three to five years, that is three years
in detention and two under mandatory supervision. However, if
the young offender is considered to be a threat to public safety,
he can be kept in custody for a period longer than three years.
Also in 1992, the provisions regarding referrals to an adult
court, in the case of serious crimes, were clarified. A young
offender aged 14 or more must be referred to an adult court when
the penalty that can be imposed by the youth court no longer
ensures public safety, nor the rehabilitation of the offender.
Consequently, since 1984, the provisions of the act have
become stiffer.
However, since the increase in crime rate for the year 1992
only went up two per cent, compared to an average of five per
cent in previous years, does this not confirm that the current act
is sufficiently harsh and that there is no need to make it more
repressive?
Why not wait to see the results of the amendments made in
1992? Since these amendments are relatively recent and also
because of the statistical lag, it is difficult to evaluate their
impact.
In its brief, the Quebec Bar Association deplored this decision
to proceed, first with the amendments and only then with a
thorough review of the legislation and a study of the youth crime
rate. Reversing the procedure would have made it possible, in
addition to what Quebec has been able to bring to this area, to
identify the mechanisms needed to make the system efficient
and effective. Furthermore, a preliminary study of the youth
crime rate would have made it possible to establish the impact of
the amendments adopted in 1992 and find out whether their
objective had been achieved, as would seem to be the case
according to the latest judgments of the Appeal Court.
The bar association concluded that Bill C-37 should be
withdrawn. It goes on to say that if this is not politically
feasible, the minister should at least postpone his review until he
has examined the youth crime rate.
Bill C-37 does nothing to deal with the problem of youth
crime, and I think that is the crux of this debate. Until effective
measures are put in place to prevent crime, we will go on
amending our laws to make them more severe and repressive.
We must look at the whole picture. Of course, penal laws are
necessary, but they cannot deal with the factors that lie at the
root of crimes against persons and property.
Dealing with crime is not just a matter of sanctions but above
all a matter of prevention and effective social reintegration.
In a study for the Research Branch of the Library of
Parliament, Patricia Bégin writes that it is becoming
increasingly obvious that the methods traditionally used to keep
crime in check do not suffice to eliminate crime and the fear it
inspires. There is growing support for the concept that considers
the social and economic environment that leads to criminal
behaviour and for implementing programs and social
development measures aimed at eliminating situations that are
conducive to crime.
In fact, the problem lies with the administration of justice and
the application of the provisions of the Act. It seems that most
violent crimes covered by the Young Offenders Act can be dealt
with effectively under the existing legislation.
Everything is in place: the provisions and the means to apply
them. But the persons in charge either refuse to use them or get
bogged down in unacceptable backlogs.
In a story run by La Presse on June 8, 1994, Normand Bastien
of the youth section at the Montreal community legal centre said
that the long wait until sentencing is what really causes the
problems. In Valleyfield, the average is 266 days, in Montreal,
180, in Joliette, 163. Another major contributor to the problem
is that only 29 per cent of the cases are resolved.
Mr. Doob from the University of Toronto published a report
called ``Beyond the Red Book'' following a workshop to
identify amendments which should be made to the Young
Offenders Act. In it he stated that there is no crisis among youth
that would warrant fundamental or immediate changes to the
Young Offenders Act. Amending the Young Offenders Act
would probably have no significant effect on crime, he said.
(1250)
Furthermore, he implied that if the federal and provincial
governments really were serious about protecting the public,
they would invest more in crime prevention and in public
awareness of juvenile delinquency. According to him it is
cheaper and more effective to prevent crime than to keep young
offenders in custody.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the part of the bill on
divulging information on young offenders. One of the underly-
10060
ing principles of the Young Offenders Act is that any
information connecting a young offender to a crime is not to be
divulged.
This reflects a desire to prevent an individual from being
labelled as a habitual offender at an age when he does not
possess adult judgement. Repeated breaches in confidentiality
in respect of a young offender's record will make it more
difficult for him to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
In closing, I would like to point out that the former Quebec
justice minister would have preferred the status quo and
expressed concern and disappointment over Bill C-37. This
reaction clearly shows that overlaps in the area of justice carry a
high price, both administratively and in respect of the system's
efficiency.
In fact, Ottawa is venturing into a dead end for Quebec, but
Quebec will be responsible for administering the system. Once
again, the recommendations made by Quebec and by the bar
association have been wholly forgotten.
Recent statistics concerning average daily incarceration
records for young offenders in 1992 appearing in the Statistics
Canada publication Juristat indicate a rate of incarceration of
10.4 per 10,000 young persons in Quebec. This is much lower
than the average Canadian rate of 21.3. At 32 per 10,000 young
persons, Saskatchewan has the highest rate of incarceration.
What do these disparities mean?
Similarly, in regard to cases heard before youth court ending
in convictions, broken down by type of custody for 1992-93, the
March 1994 issue of Juristat reports a total of 10,259 cases in
Quebec with its population of nearly seven million, and 19,882
in Alberta with a population one sixth the size. What can
account for such a great difference, almost twice as many as in
Quebec?
As for cases before youth courts with guilty verdicts, broken
down by province and territory, the January 1994 issue of
Juristat reports a rate of 83.1 per cent in Quebec. In Yukon, the
rate is 53 per cent, in Manitoba, 54 per cent and in Ontario, 61.2
per cent. Are these provinces too eager to go to trial? I think this
issue merits further reflection before new amendments to the act
are passed into law. We will vote against this bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m. at which time the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
(1255)
[Translation]
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-68. If only the people in the
west could understand a little more French, they would hear the
words of a Bloc member on a subject of considerable concern to
them: the registration of firearms and other measures. This bill
is extremely complex and has a lot of parts to it.
My first reaction, in examining the bill, was to say that I never
want Quebec to become a Florida or a Texas. I am not talking
about the weather, but rather the matter of carrying arms. I do
not want us to do what they do in Florida or Texas, where people
head out on a Saturday evening with a gun in their pocket and
often end up having the misfortune of settling accounts with a
gun or some other firearm.
This situation promotes violence. There is a good reason why
statistics indicate a much higher rate of homicides and violent
crime in the States than in Canada, even with the difference in
population size. This, I feel, is one cultural difference that
should be promoted in Quebec, perhaps in Canada as well. In my
ideal society, with a sovereign Quebec, there will be fewer
reasons for and causes of violence. I dream of a tolerant country,
one that respects human values. I dream of a country where
people can talk freely and democratically and where they will
not need to use firearms to settle accounts.
For me, the point of supporting a sovereign Quebec, is to keep
the difference, for various reasons. This is just one of many
reasons, because there is a very big difference between the
position taken by most Canadians and that taken by most
Americans when it comes to firearms. But a similarity now
seems to be arising between the two countries when we listen to
the Reform Party. In their push for no restrictions on the right to
10061
carry firearms, they have advanced certain American
arguments, such as the one whereby mandatory registration of
firearms or limited access to them would be an attack on
personal freedom. This is utter nonsense.
It is not at all difficult to understand the Americans' point of
view. The right to carry firearms is part of their culture, as it
were. The West was won with guns. Far more Americans carry
guns than do Canadians and, if I am not mistaken, the use of
firearms is a right in the States. In fact, I wonder if it is not
enshrined in the American Constitution and if Americans will
therefore be obliged to live with much wider access to firearms
than is permitted here in Canada.
When the statistics on homicides and violence are compared
for Canada and the United States, they are, not surprisingly,
much higher for the United States.
(1300)
In 1991, there were 753 homicides in Canada, compared with
24,000 in the United States. These statistics are mind-boggling.
They moved the judicial committee of the American Senate to
declare that the United States was the most violent and
self-destructive nation in the world.
Being a reasonable person, I cannot rule out the fact that the
very large number of firearms in the United States contributes,
in some degree, to this difference, to this very high level of
violence and murders in that country. When we see, for example,
in Florida or elsewhere, people using rifles to shoot at drivers on
the freeway, I would rather do everything in my power to build a
country where people do not have to experience such extreme,
absurd violence. I would rather encourage the development of a
country where violence is being reduced. I know that it is no
easy task. The bottom line is that we must create an environment
where people feel safe and comfortable.
People who support the free movement of or access to
weapons argue that pistols or rifles provide better protection
against violence. This is a frequently used argument in the U.S.,
where the murder rate is extremely high. There are
proportionally three times as many murders in the U.S. as in
Canada. Again, I do not think that getting a weapon is a good
way to protect oneself. On the contrary, I think that arming
oneself is an incitement to violence. All human wisdom since
the beginning of western civilization demonstrates that violence
begets violence. All the evidence shows that those who arm
themselves are getting ready for violence.
To reduce violence in society, it would be quite reasonable to
try to restrict access to firearms. After all, what are firearms for,
if not for killing? Firearms are designed to shoot and kill.
Firearms are extremely dangerous weapons and their access
should be restricted. It is normal and reasonable for a
self-respecting country to want to reduce violence in society.
Of course, sportsmen who use weapons for hunting, farmers
who use them to put down sick animals or for other reasons, all
those with specific reasons to use firearms should have access to
them. I am not arguing with that. But, in general, firearms
should be abolished or access to them should be restricted at
least. Handguns have no place in the cities. No one should have
access to firearms without sound reasons.
(1305)
The problem is that Bill C-68 does very little in that regard. It
may be a step in the right direction, but it does not do what the
public wanted it to do.
Surveys have been conducted on the registration and
possession of firearms. They show clearly that more than 80 per
cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Quebecers wish that access
to firearms were made more difficult, that it not be so easy to
acquire firearms. They also wish that military assault weapons
and handguns be banned and that stricter controls be imposed on
the sale of firearms. That is what one public opinion poll after
another has shown.
The vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers are against
unrestricted access to firearms in Canada. Apparently, the
government failed to represent this view in Bill C-68. We know
that many interests are involved.
Besides the public at large, there are manufacturers,
associations promoting the use of firearms, a number of
individuals who are particularly fond of firearms, which they
think are symbols of strength and power. These people seem to
have a rather major influence on the government. While being in
the minority, they have pressured the government into making
this bill not as stringent as it could have been.
If the intent had been to come up with a serious, progressive,
forward-looking bill aimed at looking after the interests of the
majority, the bill would have had more teeth. I should add that
Bill C-68 is not a bad piece of legislation. It contains some good
provisions, while others are definitely bad.
However, it is an improvement over the current act. The intent
of the bill is good. If it is felt that registering firearms will limit
access to such weapons, assuming that is the underlying
principle of the legislation, then it is a good thing. However, it
remains to be seen whether this will indeed be the case.
This is an improvement over the old system which was
absurd. In the past, anyone could buy a firearm. The buyer had to
register the firearm, along with his name and address, in an
inventory which was checked by the Quebec and Ontario
provincial police, or by the RCMP elsewhere in the country.
That was a summary verification to see if the names, addresses
and serial
10062
numbers were properly indicated. However, if the register got
lost or was destroyed by fire, that was it. No trace of its contents
was left.
(1310)
That registration process was really a joke. It was a mere
formality which had little impact and which was useless in terms
of monitoring who had access to firearms.
I should point out that, along with this very limited control
over the sales of firearms, the current legislation also provides
for the delivery of permits to carry and store guns. However, the
existing law is essentially inadequate.
Bill C-68 contains some good and some not so good
provisions. If I have time to do so, I would like to make a few
suggestions to improve its content.
First of all, Bill C-68 proposes to establish a licensing system
for persons wishing to possess firearms. In other words, it
establishes a system for the registration of all firearms. Controls
in this bill include a check to confirm the absence of public
safety concerns before the transfer, transport, import or export
of a firearm. It imposes restrictions on other dangerous articles
such as cross-bows, certain knives and silencers. It revises the
Criminal Code to impose stricter sentencing, and it includes a
scheme for prohibiting, as a result of criminal conduct, a person
from future possession of firearms.
I think we can say that this last restriction, which would
prohibit access to firearms by criminals, is entirely acceptable
and desirable.
I think that any legislation that prohibits a criminal from
having access to a firearm is a boon to the general public.
As far as stricter sentencing is concerned, there might be a
little more to say. There are certainly some positive aspects. I
will not have enough time to discuss the firearms registration
mechanism as such. I would have quite a few questions about the
system for the registration and storage of information and
whether the proposed system is better than what we have now.
There would be a lot to say about this, but unfortunately my time
is limited.
There are some very good points, and I am thinking, for
instance, of the obligation to register all firearms. At least the
police would have a way to enforce a court order prohibiting an
aggressor from possessing firearms. In addition to criminals,
this would also apply to the guy who beats his wife every
Saturday night. He may not have a criminal record as a bank
robber or murderer, but it seems to me he should not have a
weapon, at least not a firearm, in his home. He should seek
treatment if he beats his wife, of course, and at least, he should
not have access to a firearm. So this bill would allow the police
to prohibit certain people from possessing firearms-
Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time is almost
up. I thought I had twenty minutes. Are you sure I have only one
minute left? I thought I had five or ten minutes left.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I may be of assistance,
the hon. member started his speech at 12.55 p.m., almost twenty
minutes ago.
(1315)
Mr. Marchand: Thank you for that information, Mr. Speaker.
I shall therefore conclude very quickly by saying that this bill
contains both good and bad. In my opinion, this system will be
expensive. Once again, registering weapons is not a bad thing,
but in looking at this bill the following questions come to mind.
Will it prevent someone from registering his weapon? Will it
prevent someone from killing his neighbour if he so wishes?
Will it prevent a young person from committing suicide with a
gun? Will registration be truly beneficial for society in the long
term? Will it reduce crime rates? I rather have my doubts, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the speech and I have heard remarks like violence
begets violence, firearms are meant to kill, and access should be
limited.
I do not know how much of the hon. member's speech related
to the issue we are wrestling with in Bill C-68, that is bringing
forward a bill that enhances the safety of our communities,
homes and society.
If the member honestly believes the registration of rifles and
shotguns will reduce the criminal use of these firearms, would
he tell the House how that will do it?
Mr. Marchand: How will registering arms reduce the level of
criminality? I do not believe it will necessarily. Bill C-68 has a
great number of flaws. I really do not believe it will necessarily
reduce criminality.
On the other hand registration is not such a bad thing. We
register practically everything. Our cars are registered. We are
registered when we are born. We are registered when we get
married. Every important element and tool of one's life is
registered. It is a normal fact of life. The problem is that not
registering arms is abnormal. There is a certain abnormality in
not registering arms particularly because arms are very
dangerous tools. They are weapons.
Normally they are used to harm or kill people. I am not talking
about sportsmen who hunt or farmers who use arms to protect
themselves from predators. Those are very special cases. How-
10063
ever there are other uses. I am talking about the Saturday night
special, the AK-47 and other arms that are ascribed within the
atmosphere of violence, protection, rights, liberty and so on.
They should certainly be limited.
If registering arms could help reduce the number of arms
circulating in Canada, that would be a positive step. I do not
think it is harmful to anyone, even collectors who have arms or
who love arms, to suggest that their arms should be registered.
As I say there are a lot of flaws in the bill, but there are
positive points in the sense that the government is trying to go in
the right direction.
(1320 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member commented that he was not sure whether or not
registration would reduce crime in Canada. I would like to pose
a proposition to him and possibly he might consider whether or
not crime would be affected.
Statistics have shown that since 1974 some 16,000 firearms
have been reported lost, missing or stolen. We can imagine how
many guns are lost, missing or stolen that have not been
reported. These guns are out of the control of the legal owner.
They are now out there most probably in the hands of the
criminal element in society.
Certainly we can imagine that the registration of firearms
brings to bear a greater responsibility on the careful gun owner
and should do something to ensure that gun owners take a
greater level of care.
The member may also wish to know gun clubs are now
reporting that many gun owners are getting rid of their guns.
Many of them report that something like 60 per cent of gun
owners have not fired a gun in the last year and some 40 per cent
have not fired their firearms in the last five years.
In that regard, because fewer guns would be available to the
criminal element, would the member not agree that registration
of firearms would reduce crime in Canada?
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the
legitimate use of firearms for those people who have good
reason such as sportsmen and farmers, to use two examples.
However I have questions about whether registration would do
anything to help reduce criminality.
I have a hypothetical example. If the system worked perfectly,
in other words there was a control system somewhere in Ottawa
where all firearms would be listed in a little computer and we
would have a complete list of all firearms everywhere in the
country, does the member think those people who have illegal
projects in mind might be able to get their hands on that list and
determine that Joe Schmoe living on such and such a street has
an awful good collection of firearms? It would incite a certain
number of people to go to Joe Schmoe's house and steal all his
firearms. It is a way of possibly encouraging the illegal use of
firearms. Registering the firearms does not necessarily have an
effect on criminality.
There is another flaw in this law. If we register firearms it will
not prevent Joe Schmoe from shooting his neighbour on a
Saturday night. It is not because his firearm is registered that he
will not kill his neighbour. It being a registered firearm will not
prevent his son or daughter from killing himself or herself. It
does not prevent anything at all.
However, if the minister had been conscientious and had gone
the limit, he would have demanded from the moment a firearm
was sold in Canada that it had a control mechanism, in other
words one needed a key to be able to use it. It can be done.
Technically we can control the use of firearms in the sense that a
key would be needed to open it and use it. As long as it is locked,
whether it is sitting on the back seat of the car or in the living
room, it could not be used as readily. One would need the key to
use the firearm. At least that measure would limit the misuse of
firearms.
Many other suggestions could be made, but I do not believe
registering firearms would necessarily have an effect on the
reduction of criminality in Canada in spite of the fact that I think
this measure is a step in the right direction. Despite the fact that
the Bloc will suggest improvements for the proposed law we
will probably support it.
(1325 )
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to
debate Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.
The debate before us is a complicated and highly emotional one
for all those involved and implicated in the bill.
Aboriginal people, for instance, are worried about the
potential infringement on their treaty rights. Shooters are
concerned with the restrictions placed on their sport and
outfitters are worried about the impact the legislation will have
on their business. These are all serious concerns which if not
addressed could pose some serious hardships in the north and of
course in other parts of Canada.
The potential infringement the legislation could have on
treaty rights and its impact on traditional aboriginal way of life
are threats that aboriginal people have sought to prevent since
the signing of their treaties. Treaties were signed to ensure the
protection of aboriginal rights that were then entrenched in the
Constitution under section 35 of the charter.
As treaty rights go or as rights go in aboriginal country, rights
are considered and treated as absolute but in the reality of the
political world and in the name of concessions, compromise and
goodwill we are looking at some half-measures.
10064
According to the Sparrow decision of 1990 hunting and
fishing rights have been recognized by the Canadian
government. It would appear to be damaging to the fragile
relationship being forged between the aboriginal people and the
Government of Canada if the bill infringed on these rights.
This is the concern being expressed. However I have
assurances that the legislation will not infringe on these rights.
Special considerations have been given to sustenance hunters
and in particular aboriginal hunters who make up a large portion
of all sustenance hunters.
Let me, for instance, express the concern brought forward by
Mr. Sam Gargan, member of the Legislative Assembly for the
Northwest Territories for Deh Cho, who said:
I have an uncle who cannot read or write. He cannot tell you what muzzle
velocity means. He cannot tell you how calibres are determined. He can
however tell you that you need a .303 to shoot a moose, that it is best to use a
shotgun to shoot ducks, that a .22 is the best for rabbits and upland birds. He can
tell you not to carry a loaded gun with a live round in the chamber. He can tell
you how to safely transport a gun in a truck or a boat.
The same would apply to a skidoo. He continued:
Gun ownership is not rocket science. It is a matter of common sense. In the
NWT the vast majority of gun owners have been taught gun safety at a very
young age and I sincerely believe that any program on gun safety to be offered
in the NWT has to be changed to fit the realities of the situation both fiscally and
morally.
Mr. Gargan went on to say:
I also believe that the legislation, as it now stands, violates treaty rights as
guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and may well be in contradiction of the
Sparrow decision-To this end I can virtually assure you that should this
legislation proceed as written, there would be a court challenge from Canada's
aboriginal community.
These are the words of a member of the Legislative Assembly
of the Northwest Territories, the majority of whose constituents
are aboriginal.
In the north the aboriginal people hunt to eat, not to harm
other people. Many northern people living in isolated or remote
communities cannot afford the inflated northern prices of meat.
We cannot just go out and order half a side of beef at southern
prices. The cost of living is 40 per cent higher.
Today in southern stores such as Loeb a kilogram of ground
beef costs $3.95.
(1330)
The same kilogram of beef in Deline in a community is $6.80.
This makes hunting and owning a rifle not only a right but an
economic reality. Hunting in an aboriginal community is also a
community event. Food that is caught or that is hunted is shared
with everyone. Hunters donate food to those who are unable to
hunt for themselves such as elders and widowers and people who
are disabled. Without firearms many in the north could not
afford to eat.
My experience with firearms has been since I was a child,
since as long as I can remember. In my family we learned gun
safety. It was absolutely paramount. The camp where my parents
go on an annual basis is in grizzly bear country. In grizzly bear
country you do not just have a .22 rifle. You must have a high
powered rifle. I must say if you are going to have a key
mechanism to use, please do not do it when you are in grizzly
bear country if you want to live to see another day.
The realities are very different around this country and I
understand the intent of this bill. I understand the complexity. I
understand the difficulty the minister has had to deal with this
bill across the country.
I cannot imagine having the fortitude to go out there to meet
the masses on such a complicated and emotional bill. I would
like to say that I admire this man for having done that. However,
the debate rolls on and the bill has gone to committee. The bill is
being debated today. There are a number of special things that
will happen.
My hon. colleague across the way from the Bloc Quebecois
indicated that most times the use of firearms is intended to hurt
or kill another person. That has not been my experience. It has
allowed us to live. It has allowed us to overcome difficulties.
During the war, during the depression and during recessions
in Canada our people were able to survive because we have
instruments that allow us to exercise the right to be able to fend
for and feed our people. Those instruments in most cases in
modern terms are not bow and arrows. They are firearms. That is
one of the instruments we use to exercise that right.
The Minister of Justice in his commitment not to impact
treaty rights has struck a team of officials who will travel and
meet with aboriginal groups across Canada to discuss how this
bill can be implemented without negatively impacting treaty
rights and the traditional way of life.
These consultations have been directly mandated in this
legislation. Section 110 allows for the governor in council to
make regulations on aboriginal people and to adapt the
regulations for the purposes of that application.
Michell Adkins, a Haida lawyer, was recently hired by the
Department of Justice to consult with aboriginal people. Along
with other departmental officials, she will be travelling to
communities to explain the legislation, to listen to their
concerns and make recommendations to the minister on how to
amend this legislation with respect to treaties and traditional
life.
There are many issues that need to be addressed in the
consultations. The Minister of Justice has suggested the
necessity of finding a better definition of sustenance hunter to
reflect the aboriginal way of life.
10065
He is also committed from what I am being informed by
departmental officials to decentralize the role of the firearms
officer and provide community control of the implementation
of this new firearm strategy, ensuring aboriginal participation.
I would like to encourage all of the First Nations, Metis and
Inuit people to take full advantage of these consultations to
ensure that the registration of firearms can be done in full
consideration of their treaty rights, especially with respect to
Sparrow and section 35 of the charter.
Some of the issues which have already been brought to the
minister's attention will be addressed and among the
consultations is the cost of registration. Currently under Bill
C-68 there will not be a charge for sustenance hunters to obtain
a firearms licence. However, there are no clear guidelines on
how fees will be applied in registering firearms and the
transferring of ownership of guns.
(1335 )
Through consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit, it
is my hope that an amendment can be made to eliminate the cost
of transferring and registration of firearms by sustenance
hunters, as these costs would be an economic hardship on people
who cannot afford to buy their food and use their firearms as a
tool to feed themselves and their communities.
It is felt that it would be an additional economic hardship in a
community that already has quite a large group of unemployed
people who rely on other sources to continue living and
surviving.
Borrowing and lending firearms is another very important
issue for the northern and aboriginal communities across this
country. Under Bill C-68 there is the provision for lending a
firearm as long as the person involved lends the borrower the
registration certificate for the firearm. Through consultations it
is hoped that alternatives to this option can be sought. In many
communities firearms are seen as a collective instrument for
hunting passed on to those who need them.
Hunting rifles are commonly loaned to relatives and friends in
aboriginal communities on a regular basis. Through
consultation I hope that the registration program will be flexible
enough to allow this practice to continue without undue and
unnecessary hardship.
We understand that in the context of harvesting and hunting it
is very difficult in isolated and remote communities to acquire
registration and firearms acquisition certificates. When you are
in a boat and you see a caribou it is very difficult to resist the
opportunity to get the kill for the community or for the family,
relatives or the elders. There is a general lending of firearms. It
is a very big issue in the communities in terms of their
traditional harvesting and hunting rights.
The transfer of ownership is another area which is of much
concern. The gift of a firearm is very common in the north.
Under Bill C-68 a gift of firearms can only be given once all the
necessary papers are filled out and both the recipient and the
donor have licences and neither one is a safety risk. Again,
through detailed consultations provisions should be made to
reflect the culture of First Nations, Metis and Inuit where the
gift of a firearm is considered a great honour, especially when
given to a youth for his or her first hunt. It is an honour and it is
something that is protected, keeping in mind all the issues about
safety that go along with the responsibility of owning that gun. It
also entails using it safely and bearing in mind the safety of
others.
On penal sanctions for people who accidentally find
themselves on the other side of the law, through consultation I
hope that alternatives can also be found to some of the penal
sanctions for offenders who have committed an offence out of
ignorance. Summary convictions are available in Bill C-68 to
first time offenders which would not require that a person
develop a criminal record on a first time offence.
I am also encouraged by the partial prohibition provision in
this legislation. A sustenance hunter who has been charged with
an offence involving a firearm may apply to a competent
authority to allow for the hunter to use his or her firearms for
sustenance as long as the hunter returned it to the authority,
which could be the chief on returning from hunting. A great deal
of trust and a great deal of respect would have to be in place and
a great sense of responsibility under those conditions.
Another aspect is the purchase of ammunition. I am amazed
that I have not run out of time yet because this a very emotional,
very complicated and a very important matter. I do not think I
can undersell the importance of this legislation to people across
this country, not just in my own riding but in other parts of the
provinces and territories.
(1340 )
In many communities those who cannot hunt will provide
ammunition to hunters as a gift in hope of meat and other kinds
of game when the hunters return. That is a common occurrence. I
hope through consultation with aboriginal groups an
amendment can be entertained allowing aboriginal people to
purchase ammunition when they do not have a licence to give as
a gift.
It is not uncommon for a senior citizen on pension who cannot
go hunting, who does not have a skidoo, who does not have the
physical stamina to go on the hunt anymore, to give to a younger
person the gift of ammunition for the sake of a hunt. It is very
reasonable and it is good economics for the people in the
community.
These are only some of the concerns about how Bill C-68
would impact the aboriginal way of life. I am encouraged by the
10066
minister that these and other concerns will be dealt with through
consultations with aboriginal people.
Northerners have also brought several questions to my
attention which have either been addressed in Bill C-68 or the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has been
mandated to review. I would also like to outline their concerns
here.
First of all, there is always the question about why the
government is attacking law-abiding gun owners. Many legal
owners feel that the government is attacking law-abiding gun
owners with this new legislation. However, Bill C-68 creates a
new act for firearms. This new statute, the Firearms Act,
removes legal gun owners from the Criminal Code. This
consideration to gun owners demonstrates the government's
intention not to treat legal gun owners as criminals. This new act
will create a licensing system for the ownership and use of
firearms and a national registration system for all firearms. As I
mentioned before, special provisions have been made for first
time offenders who have not used a non-registered firearm in a
criminal offence.
The next concern is equipment outlawed from the Canadian
Olympic shooting team. Others have asked why equipment used
by the Canadian Olympic shooting team has been prohibited.
The minister has acknowledged that amendments or exceptions
should be made for certain handguns in the prohibited class
which are used and recognized in target shooting competitions.
The minister has specifically requested that the standing
committee on justice deliberate on possible solutions to this
current problem.
Restriction to non-residents is another major one. There are
many hunting, outfitting and tourist businesses in the north and
other parts of Canada that depend on hunters from other
countries for their business. They have voiced several concerns
that Bill C-68 will impose further restrictions on the entry of
those foreign hunters and are concerned that they will choose to
go to another country to hunt where the laws are not so
restricting.
I have reviewed the requirements of the entry of any foreign
hunter into Canada and I do not see a problem as such. A person
coming from another country must declare their firearm at
customs. They will be required to complete a temporary
firearms licence and a registration certificate to bring the
firearm into Canada.
A customs firearm declaration will act as a 60-day licence
and certificate and will be validated at the border. The Minister
of Justice and his departmental officials assure me that these
forms will be as simple as possible. These declarations will be
readily available to visitors through Canadian tourism offices
abroad, outfitters, shooting clubs and hunting organizations.
There will be opportunities for non-residents to apply in
advance to speed up the process at the border.
In the case of sporting clubs, as has always been the case the
requirements can be met before crossing the border through
Canadian clubs and associations. An authorization to transport
will be issued at the same time. Should a hunter lose his
ammunition he will be able to present his customs firearms
declaration which will act as a temporary license, enabling the
hunter to purchase ammunition.
I suppose I could go on but I must be close to being out of
time. Within two minutes I will attempt to deal with this really
important issue.
I am going to deal with people's concern about prohibited
antique gun collection. A common question is how to pass on or
sell an antique gun collection. Individuals who now have a
grandfathered firearm which falls into a specific prohibited
category will be able to buy from and sell to individuals with
firearms in the same category.
(1345)
Also, the minister has asked the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs to deliberate on the special
significance possession of firearms as relics or heirlooms may
have on a family and what opportunities there will be for owners
to leave such firearms to their children as part of their estate.
In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the
numerous members of shooting clubs, such as Barry Taylor from
my riding, who have devoted thousands of hours to teaching
firearms safety. Their work in the north ensures the safe
handling of many guns.
I would also like to thank all of those people who have brought
their concerns on gun control to my attention. We have the
minister's assurance that there will be special efforts to look at
these concerns. I encourage all aboriginal people and northern
people to participate in the consultations to ensure the
protection of their rights. It is my hope that through these
consultations a mutual respect and understanding can be forged
between the consultation team and aboriginal people.
I also encourage all northerners to participate in the
deliberation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs and to write to the chair of the committee, the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, or myself with their
opinions on how to improve the current piece of legislation.
I would like to thank the House and you, Mr. Speaker, for
giving me an opportunity to speak to the very special, emotional
and complicated matter of Bill C-68.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech on
Bill C-68. I share some of her concerns about northerners, how
they will react to increased regulation, universal registration,
10067
and in particular her comments on how aboriginal hunters will
view the added regulations and restrictions being placed upon
them.
My question for the hon. member deals with Bill C-34, the
Yukon self-government bill, which was passed in this House
last June. It was my understanding that Bill C-34 gave control
and prohibition over firearms and explosive devices to the new
levels of native governments in the Yukon.
Has the hon. member researched that at all? If so, does it mean
they are in effect exempt from the new regulations in Bill C-68
once it is passed? If they are exempt because of the clauses in
Bill C-34 which give control over firearms to the native
governments, does she feel it right that some Canadian citizens
should be exempt from Canada's laws based strictly on race?
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the unique legal and
constitutional rights of aboriginal people have nothing to do
with race. They have to do with a legally and constitutionally
binding arrangement between the Government of Canada and
those said peoples.
As for the Yukon legislation, I am not a lawyer nor am I a
self-government specialist. I have raised a number of issues
today regarding rights and I do not think they have anything to
do with any kind of racial overtones. They have to do very
specifically with the traditional way of life which has been
exercised and practised for hundreds of years. Perhaps the
instruments to exercise those rights have changed. In
contemporary terms we are talking about firearms.
I resent what the hon. member across the way is alleging. He
is insinuating that aboriginal people have something which is
exempt, unique and special and which nobody else can have.
That is not the case. It is unique to aboriginal populations.
I am aware of the position the Council of Yukon Indians has
taken and it can speak best for itself. I cannot speak for the
aboriginal people of the Yukon, except that I know they have a
grave concern. They will have the opportunity to speak to
Michell Adkins and also present their concerns to the standing
committee. They can adequately speak to that. I would probably
under-represent their views.
(1350)
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many of the concerns
expressed by the hon. member apply not only to aboriginal
people but to rural people in general.
For example, she spoke of that first rifle. One of the proudest
days of my life was my 11th birthday when I received my first
firearm. Like the hon. member I was a sustenance hunter for a
period of time. We were hard up. We ate the meat we killed.
These laws that are going to come in will be just as restrictive,
just as oppressive on non-native rural people as they will be on
the people who live for example in the Northwest Territories. I
would hope that rather than taking up the cudgels against the rest
of us who oppose this bill that she would join with us on behalf
of the people of the north, on behalf of aboriginal people and
realize that we are all in this together. We are all facing
unreasonable restrictions in legislation here. It is not just the
natives.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the
same offer to the members of the Reform Party. Instead of just
beating their breasts about their own rights and how hard done
by they are, perhaps they would take up the issue of aboriginal
rights and for a change support aboriginal people on the question
of their rights which they know are legitimate and legally and
constitutionally binding.
I make this offer because since I have been in this House I
have never on any occasion, not on land claims, on services for
aboriginal people, on programs for aboriginal people and never
on self-government have I heard an expression of support for
aboriginal people by that group. I am making them the offer to
come and support the aboriginal people as well.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to compliment the hon. secretary of state on her
eloquent representation of her people. I have two native reserves
in my riding of Bruce-Grey, the Saugeen and Cape Croker. The
member quite eloquently represented the position they find
themselves in.
As a rural member I must also speak on behalf of the hunters,
trappers, farmers and other rural people whose lives are
different from most people. They have needs. In this case they
are a minority. If we took a poll perhaps the majority of people
would be against guns, but rural people have a different
orientation, a different history, a real need. This bill in its
current state could constitute some hardships for them.
I must compliment the minister on the smuggling penalties
and the penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a
crime. I hope that somehow the concerns of rural people can be
accommodated in this bill.
Does the hon. member not feel that rural people do have
similar needs to aboriginal people, particularly in ridings such
as Bruce-Grey?
10068
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I never disallowed the
fact that members opposite or my hon. colleague here have
legitimate concerns on behalf of their rural constituents or
those people who hunt for sustenance and are non-aboriginal.
I never disallowed that fact.
When I speak, the perspective I am speaking from is one I am
very familiar and intimate with. It is one that I know inside out. I
know the living situation, the personal experiences and human
struggles of these people. I want to speak from that experience. I
cannot speak as well for other groups. I can go out there to
represent them if they ask me.
These are very specific issues, specific to a number of
northern constituents. It could be northern provinces. It could be
aboriginal people across the country. I can speak most expertly
about what I know. That is the perspective I am speaking from,
not to the prejudice of other groups.
(1355 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
spoke quite eloquently about hope for change in this legislation.
I too hope for change in this legislation, but I listened to the
justice minister make a very specific comment when he
presented this legislation. That comment was that the
consultation was literally over.
Does the member know something that I do not about the
consultation process? Is it wide open? Are we in fact subject to
significant change in this legislation? I would be very interested
in knowing that.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member
would not be so suspicious and so cynical. It does not help the
whole issue of national unity or anything else for that matter.
The hon. member knows, as all members know, that there is a
standing committee. The chairman is sitting in this House today
as he well can see. Also, Michell Adkins and a group of officials
are travelling across the country. Perhaps the members of the
Reform Party will take it upon themselves to ensure that the
groups in their ridings have access to both the standing
committee as well as to the special group of officials travelling
across the country.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
has raised a couple of interesting points that I would like to
address very briefly.
First, there are two groups of aboriginal people in my
constituency and I work very closely with them. My most recent
meeting with the chief was on Thursday night. I object to the
innuendo that we are not working with these people and that we
do not treat them as equals. I take exception to that.
In terms of consultations, I do have a letter from the minister
in response to my request to come to my riding for further
consultation. Thousands of people would have attended. Of
course I was turned down because the consultations are over.
Also you mention in your speech about rights-
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. member was referring to me
but I did not make the speech. He must refer to the Chair. My
colleagues, I am going to give the hon. member for Red Deer the
floor right after question period. However, it being 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
10068
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
scientists have predicted that global temperatures could
increase 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius over the next century. The
cause is greenhouse gases from human activities and in
particular, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gases produce shifts in climate, in forest growth and
agricultural patterns.
Led by Alberta, Canada is among the highest per capita
producer of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet ignoring the large
problems coastal provinces would face because of rising sea
levels and the further disruption of fisheries, the province of
Alberta is adamantly opposed to comprehensive carbon dioxide
reductions.
The federal government repeatedly asked the provinces to
co-operate and introduce mandatory carbon dioxide reductions.
So far however, Alberta's inflexible position makes any
meaningful reduction impossible and weakens our international
reputation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, instead of announcing the creation of
homogeneous French-language school boards in Ontario, the
provincial education minister once again chose to put off that
decision. In fact, he created a committee mandated to rationalize
the governance of education in Ontario. This committee is to
deliver its report next December, that is after the Ontario
provincial elections. Moreover, this committee with a majority
of anglophones has been made responsible for the future of
French-language school boards.
Instead of taking action, Ontario goes on violating the
Canadian Charter, which it signed of course, a charter which
grants francophones the right to manage their schools.
Instead of taking action, Ontario is letting the situation
deteriorate; consider the 31 per cent illiteracy rate and 38 per
cent rate of assimilation among Franco-Ontarians.
10069
During the next referendum, Quebecers will remember that
those who speak about a renewed federalism are merely playing
with smoke and mirrors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, government officials, whether municipal, provincial or
federal, are elected to represent their constituents. Both the Parti
Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois do not seem to agree with this.
Their idea of a referendum is not to find out what the people of
Quebec want but rather how to force them into accepting
separation.
Now the PQ and BQ want to water down the question so the
issue remains unsettled. This presents a problem for all
Canadians, including those in Quebec. Uncertainty is causing
interest rates to rise, the dollar to fall and international credit to
be re-examined. It is also likely to be partly responsible for the
Liberal's failure to properly deal with the deficit for fear of
upsetting Quebec.
If the Parti Quebecois does not call the referendum with a
clear question on separation within its own 1995 timetable, I call
on the Prime Minister to hold a federal referendum in Quebec to
settle this issue by year's end. This uncertainty must not
continue.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to commend the Minister of Justice for his speed in
tabling a bill on the subject of intoxication as a defence.
All Canadians were outraged last autumn when a man
convicted of rape had his conviction overturned by the Supreme
Court on the grounds of extreme drunkenness. Many residents of
my riding were concerned that this decision would be seen by
some as a licence to commit offences while under the influence
of drugs or alcohol.
Allowing individuals to justify their acts of violence by
blaming intoxication will hamper efforts to end violence in our
society and cause further victimization.
I am sure that all members of the House will join me in
supporting the efforts of the Minister of Justice to eliminate this
loophole in the criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 31, 1993, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
declared in
La Presse that all those who live in Quebec are
Quebecers.
The fine words of the leader of the official opposition do not
seem to have been heard by his peers, since, in recent weeks,
racist remarks by Quebec separatists have been on the increase.
This weekend, Pierre Bourgault accused anglophones in
Quebec of wanting to exercise a blatantly racist vote, while the
Bloc Quebecois member for Louis-Hébert wanted ethnocultural
communities to withdraw from the referendum debate and let
old stock Quebecers decide the province's future.
These statements are unacceptable in a democratic society
such as ours, and we invite all Quebecers to refuse to participate
in a sovereignty debate that is based on intolerance and racism.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as many
know, Northern Ireland is moving forward in pursuit of peace.
In the past few months, Irish and British officials have been
negotiating a framework that will ultimately make the tyranny
of violence in Ulster a thing of the past. Many Canadians,
particularly those of Irish descent, wish the people of Northern
Ireland well in this crucial transition period.
Years ago when my ancestors left that beautiful country, like
all immigrants to Canada they also left behind the ancestral
feuds for a more peaceful new world.
We all hope that we can soon see an emerald isle where the
peace and tranquillity of the people reflect the beauty of the
landscape.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Clearly, Mr. Speaker,
there are two Michel Bélangers.
There is one Michel Bélanger, a true statesman, a man of
imposing presence and influence, who can inspire in Quebecers
a healthy confidence in themselves.
At the time he co-chaired the commission on the political and
constitutional future of Quebec he was impervious to the
exaggerations and arguments of fear still being brandished by a
few federalists who lacked the fine words of terror that were the
specialty of the Prime Minister of Canada.
10070
Then there is the other Michel Bélanger. A man who heads
the NO camp, whose imposing presence is withering away
inside the ideological straitjacket put on him by the federalists.
These days, Michel Bélanger has become the bogeyman.
This man, who had raised the debate on the national issue to
the level of pragmatism and a people's belief in itself, has been
reduced to visiting homes for the aged and telling the people
there that a sovereign Quebec could no longer afford to pay their
pensions.
This shows how little argument the man has left.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has just introduced amendments to the
MPs' pension plan but in reality has just changed troughs and
given it a new look.
(1405 )
This new plan is still much more lucrative than what a person
in the private sector would receive. Basically it is nothing more
than smoke and mirrors.
The new package is still fully indexed to inflation, something
78 per cent of the public does not enjoy. The accrual rate is twice
the amount allowed for under the Income Tax Act and is
therefore illegal.
How can the government in good conscience ask overtaxed
Canadians to tighten their belts while doing exactly the opposite
itself?
I ask every MP in the House to join hands with the rest of
Canada and make a sacrifice by opting out of this hideous MP
pension plan which still says to Canadians: ``We will line our
pockets and tough luck to you''. I also applaud every MP who is
opting out, especially my colleagues in the Reform Party.
When the budget is tabled later today, Canadians will not
forget that less than a week ago it was the government that chose
above all else to take care of its own.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent that this Liberal
government is trying hard to stifle discussion of its gun control
legislation.
The interest in, and demand for, copies of Bill C-68 is
overwhelming. Initially the Minister of Justice limited MPs to
just 15 copies. If that was not bad enough, we now find that the
chief government whip has further ordered the House
distribution centre to limit that number to five copies per
member. Five copies among 75,000 or 100,000 citizens is hardly
the open and honest government of the Liberal red book.
Canadians are being denied their most basic democratic right;
the right to understand and discuss the laws of the land.
The last time such anti-democratic action was taken by a
federal government was by the Conservative government of
Brian Mulroney. The legislation-you guessed it-was gun
control, Bill C-17.
I want to congratulate the Saskatchewan Association of
Responsible Firearms Owners that has been making copies of
this legislation available for $5 each. Surely important issues
deserve open and informed debate. Surely Canadians are
entitled to access proposed legislation that affects them. Why
does the Liberal government want to deprive Canadians?
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this last
weekend Kitchener-Waterloo hosted the 1995 winter games, the
Ontario Special Olympics.
The Ontario Special Olympics are part of a worldwide
charitable organization that helps meet the need for sport
training and competition among 300,000 children and adults
who are developmentally challenged. Two hundred and
ninety-five athletes competed and they were true to their
Special Olympic oath: ``Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me
be brave in the attempt''.
Generous donations in excess of $156,000 and the efforts of
over 700 volunteers helped to make this year's winter games a
great success.
This spirit of compassion, caring and sharing was
demonstrated by my community and exemplified by the 107
members of the Westvale Public School choir that sang: ``Keep
the Spirit Alive''. This song was written especially for the
opening ceremonies by their teacher Lorna Beam.
The very special athletes of the Ontario Special Olympics
rose to the challenge and exemplified to all Canadians how to
keep the spirit alive.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently
attended an anti-tax rally in my riding where 2,000 people told
the government they do not want tax increases in the budget.
Canadians have a right to be heard and the Minister of Finance
has made it possible through an open and full budgetary process.
It is wrong however when the Reform Party, in concert with
top officials in organizations such as the Canadian Taxpayers'
Federation, tries to pass itself off as leading the anti-tax
message in Canada.
10071
The CTF and provincial counterparts such as the Ontario and
Alberta Taxpayers' Federations are staging anti-tax rallies
across the country. Unfortunately that is not the only thing they
are staging.
The CTF states it is independent of all political affiliation, yet
Mr. Andrew Crooks, member of the CTF board of directors and
head of the Alberta Tax Federation ran for the Reform Party
nomination in Calgary and contributed $3,000 to the Reform
Party in 1993. Mr. Paul Pagnuelo, executive director of the
Ontario Taxpayers' Federation also sought the Reform Party
nomination in the riding of Durham.
Canadians have legitimate concerns about the budget and they
want to see these concerns taken into consideration. However,
they do not want to be taken in by these people who are trying to
further their political ambitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all of the linguistic and cultural communities in
Quebec, I would like to condemn the racist and intolerant
comments made by the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert. He
believes that ethnic communities should keep their noses out of
the referendum debate and let Quebecers of old stock make the
decision on our future.
He admitted to journalists that he deliberately used the
expression ``Quebecers of old stock'' because he believes that
anglophones and allophones have always systematically voted
for the Liberal Party and that it is a given that they will vote
against sovereignty.
(1410)
If the only ones in this House allowed to vote were the hon.
members of old stock, then the hon. member for Louis-Hébert
would have to refuse this right to many among us, including the
Bloc member for Bourassa, who is from one of Quebec's
cultural communities.
The Bloc member's comments are a real embarrassment, and I
invite all members of this House to openly condemn such words
of hate.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a study
published by an employee of the Department of National
Defence found that Quebec is getting literally gypped out of
$650 million per year in regional allotment of defence spending.
It is simply scandalous to see that, over the past 15 years,
Quebec has received 27 per cent less than its fair share of
defence spending. To add insult to injury, the study confirmed
that francophones are under-represented in the higher ranks of
the army. For example, there is only one francophone
lieutenant-general out of nine and three majors-general out of
31. There has been no change on this front for at least 10 years.
This sheds some light on the government's decision to close
the only francophone military college. We are tired of seeing
that, year in, year out, Quebecers have remained so poorly
served by the federal system in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister has said repeatedly that he will
make the taxation system fairer by increasing taxes on the rich.
Here is a Canadian tale that contradicts him.
Two students did equally well in high school. One went to
work at age 18. He had a good time, attended the rallies of the
peace generation and spent all he earned. The other went to
university and graduate school, worked during the summer,
lived frugally and invested wisely. He held his first full time job
as a professional at age 28.
Both men are now 50. The first makes $30,000 and pays 14 per
cent of it as income tax. The second makes over $51,000. He
belongs to the top 10 per cent of Canadians who pay 50 per cent
of all income taxes.
This so-called rich person insists that fairness requires he pay
less income taxes, not more as the minister suggests. I agree.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past Saturday a tragic accident occurred over the Margaree
River in Nova Scotia when a coast guard helicopter carrying
four people crashed. The helicopter was returning home after
completing a fisheries patrol along the river.
Transport Canada pilot Stephen Hemphill of Dartmouth was
killed in that crash. His daughter Lindsay was injured, as were
Wes Barrington and Adrian Tousenard, observers with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Hemphill was an experienced pilot and was one of the
first North Americans to fly over the north pole during the 1994
Louis St. Laurent mission. In addition to his outstanding service
to Canada, he devoted much of his time to helping others. He
received a Medal of Bravery from the Queen in 1979 after he
rescued three young boys at sea. He was very active in the
10072
community for many years with the Dartmouth Crusaders swim
team and coaching minor baseball.
I would ask that the House join with me in offering our
deepest sympathies to Mr. Hemphill's wife and two children and
our best wishes for a speedy recovery to those others injured in
the crash.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
Canadian woman has a one in nine chance of getting breast
cancer in her lifetime.
In fact, Canada has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in
the world. Each year 16,000 women are diagnosed with breast
cancer and tragically over 5,000 die each year from this disease.
In November 1993 Health Canada, in conjunction with a
number of organizations, hosted a national forum on breast
cancer. One of the principal recommendations was that we must
develop a new sense of urgency to deal with this disease.
Specifically they recommended the need for improved
research funding, coupled with a need to provide women with
better access to information, effective screening and treatment
programs.
We can and must do more to address this urgent and pressing
need. Breast cancer can and must be beaten for the benefit of all
Canadians.
* * *
(1415 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to extend my regards to the Canadian
Association of Optometrists on the occasion of Vision
Awareness Week, March 5 to 11.
For the second year in a row the CAO is focusing on its theme
of vision connection to literacy. Although good vision is an
essential building block for acquiring good reading skills, the
linkage has not as yet been made prominent. For example, one in
six children has a vision problem which makes it difficult to
learn and read.
Through the events organized this week through the CAO
Canadians will come to see that the attainment of full literacy
skills depends not only on proper instruction but on good
eyesight as well. A study has shown that 75 per cent of adults
with low literacy skills also have vision problems.
On behalf of the residents of Lambton-Middlesex, I wish the
Canadian Association of Optometrists every success.
10072
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to a spokesperson for the White House,
President Clinton plans to send American soldiers to Croatia and
Bosnia to protect UN peacekeepers during their withdrawal, if
they are to withdraw, now that the president of Croatia has
refused to extend the peacekeeping mission after March 31.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether, when the U.S.
president was in Ottawa, he discussed with the president the
plan to send massive numbers of American troops to allow the
withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from Bosnia and Croatia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is yes, we did discuss this problem, because
I think NATO has an obligation to ensure that troops now on duty
as peacekeepers in Croatia and Bosnia are able to return safe and
sound. The Americans have already made a commitment to
ensure secure withdrawal, and we hope they will, if Croatia asks
UNPROFOR troops to withdraw from Croatian territory and
such measures are necessary.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Prime Minister
intends to put pressure on the Croatian president and persuade
him to reconsider his present position which, as the Prime
Minister himself indicated, is to demand the withdrawal of UN
peacekeepers from Croatia, once the deadline has expired?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is the option Canada has chosen, and we said so
two weeks ago when a delegation of parliamentarians from
Croatia came to Canada. I had the pleasure of meeting them, and
I told them clearly I thought it was a mistake to ask the troops to
withdraw at this point, because the risk of war was imminent
once UN soldiers had left.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for clarifying
his position on continuing the peace mission in Croatia.
As far as Bosnia is concerned, I would like to ask him whether
he would agree that in this case as well, the mission of Canadian
peacekeepers should be extended as well beyond March 31,
since a withdrawal of UN peacekeepers at this time will merely
allow the conflict to escalate, while the civilian population and
refugees will be totally deprived of humanitarian aid?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a decision made about the continuation of
the presence of our troops in Bosnia and Croatia. We have to
10073
make a decision this month and we will make it known to the
House of Commons very soon.
We are of the view that it would be an error for the Croats to
ask for the withdrawl of UN troops to get out of that situation but
they have explained to us that they are afraid the presence of UN
soldiers will create a de facto division of Croatia. They are
afraid it might be another Cyprus. That seems to be their
political reason to move. The danger is that if troops are out of
Croatia by the end of the month there will be a direct
confrontation with the Serbs which we think will cause a lot of
deaths.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a study
conducted by a National Defence researcher shows that Quebec
and Western Canada are largely disadvantaged in the
distribution of defence expenditures. In Quebec in particular,
the shortfall is at least $650 million per year.
How can the minister of defence explain that, with only 3 per
cent of the population of Canada, Nova Scotia alone has more
military personnel and as many civilian employees as Quebec,
which is eight times bigger?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, military
installations were not built as part of some kind of infrastructure
program to benefit various regions of the country. They were
built to serve the real needs of the Canadian Armed Forces in
two world wars. Since we fought two wars in Europe and since
most of the troops left by ship it is natural that there would be a
big military presence by virtue of the navy headquarters being in
Halifax.
With respect to Quebec, obviously if the port closest to
Europe is Halifax troops would not be dispatched from Montreal
or somewhere else farther inland.
However, I should point out that later this year we will be
opening the naval reserve headquarters in Quebec City. We have
been opening a number of small naval operations along the St.
Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence so that Quebec
does have a naval presence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all
excuses are good to justify inequity. The strategic position of
Ontario, for example, is completely different from that of Nova
Scotia; yet, Ontario receives its fair share of military
investments.
Does the minister of defence not think that it would have been
wise to go along with the proposal made by the official
opposition last year and keep the military college in Saint-Jean
open, in order to help correct the unfair treatment of Quebec
with respect to the Canadian Forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
been through this argument a number of times before.
We felt that with the declining numbers of the armed forces
we only needed one military college in Canada, located at
Kingston.
This government is very eager that Royal Roads in B.C. and
St-Jean in Quebec, those military colleges, have their facilities
used for the ongoing betterment of the citizens in the region. It is
for that reason that my colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, negotiated a very successful
agreement with the local people in the St-Jean region over the
objections of the Bloc Quebecois and the government in Quebec
City.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today, budget day, represents a test of character for the
government. Today we would like to find out if this government
has the courage to reduce spending and the courage to hold the
line on tax increases. More important, we will find out whether
it has the courage to lead by example.
If the budget contains significant spending cuts it is obvious
to Canadians that the first of these must be made at the top with
respect to MPs' pensions.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Which
members of the cabinet will be setting the example of spending
cuts at the top by opting out of the obscene MPs' pension plan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been made quite clear that when the pension bill
is approved by this Parliament there will be 60 days that
members will have to consider that, including hon. colleagues in
the third party.
When it comes to showing leadership we have cut taxpayer
contribution to this pension plan by fully one-third, $3.3
million, and we are showing leadership in expenditure
reduction.
10074
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the test of the courage of these remarks is not whether
they make sense in this House but whether they will make sense
in the constituencies.
The Canada pension plan, according to the government's own
report, will be wiped out in 20 years unless there are significant
increases in contributions. While Canadians' pensions are being
put at risk the financial security of senior ministers and MPs is
assured by this pension plan-business as usual at the MP
pension trough.
How can the minister stand here today knowing that many
ordinary Canadians are in danger of getting no Canada pension
at all and still defend pension provisions for senior ministers
like the Deputy Prime Minister who will be collecting millions
in retirement?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I think was pointed out in the consultant's report that
was tabled last year at the Lapointe commission, when it comes
to compensation levels overall, and it must be looked at in this
context, members of Parliament are lower than the equivalent in
the private sector.
(1425 )
This particular reduction in MP pensions will make them even
further down the scale in terms of that comparison. On top of
that, members of Parliament contribute twice as much to the
pension plan in many cases as private sector plans.
The hon. member still has his RRSPs and his clothing
allowance, all of which he can-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to date at least 48 of the 52 Reform MPs in this House
have confirmed they will opt out of the MP pension plan.
If the minister cannot tell the House which ministers will be
opting out can he at least give us an idea of the number of
members of the Liberal caucus who will be opting out of this
pension plan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a personal choice and one that members will have
an opportunity to make over a 60-day period once the bill has
passed through Parliament.
I want to reiterate that there is a reduction in this plan. There
is no retroactivity to the plan but I noticed that the head of the
National Citizen's Coalition does not think that is a good idea. It
is fair that members should continue to earn what they have
earned up to the point where the pension bill is passed.
Overall, every member of this House, cabinet or non-cabinet,
faces a reduction in the pension benefit, an overall reduction in
the compensation package. I think that is showing the leadership
that we need going into this budget today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
According to a study done for the Department of National
Defence, francophones are grossly underrepresented among
senior officers in the armed forces. The study shows that
French-speaking officers are concentrated in nursing and
chaplain services.
How can the minister explain that, in the top military ranks,
francophones account for only one out of nine
lieutenant-generals and three out of 31 major-generals, when
his government has closed the only French-language military
college in Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I must point out that the Canadian Forces better reflect the
Canadian reality of two official languages.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the armed forces is probably the one institution
in this country that reflects the duality of Canada's linguistic
constitutional reality more than anything else. Thirty per cent of
the armed forces personnel are francophones, about 25 per cent
at the officer level. There is room for improvement and that is
why when the postings and promotions for general officer level
are made public shortly we will see francophones in very
significant positions within the hierarchy of the armed forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the minister has just confirmed that francophones are
overrepresented in the junior ranks and underrepresented in the
senior ranks.
How can the minister of defence justify such
underrepresentation of francophones in the Canadian Forces,
where there are almost no French-speaking officers in personnel
selection, security and intelligence?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member really should take a stroll over to national defence
headquarters one day. I think he will be amazed at the degree of
bilingual discussion and personnel there. Twenty-five per cent
of all the senior officers in the armed forces are francophone.
10075
This will be improved upon, as I said, when the postings are
announced shortly.
* * *
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal two-tier pension reform is inadequate, unfair and in fact
illegal in the private sector. The MP accrual rate of 4 per cent is
double the legal limit allowed for the rest of Canadians under the
Income Tax Act.
How can the President of the Treasury Board justify this
blatant double standard in light of the job losses that will have to
be announced this afternoon in the budget?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the basic pension plan in accordance with the Income
Tax Act is 2 per cent. As in the case in the private sector, there
are many supplementary plans where additional moneys are put
aside. It is quite common for that to happen in our community.
Let me also point out that what is not common is that in this
case members of Parliament pay double what is normal in the
private sector in terms of their own contributions. In spite of all
that, we are reducing the amount of the taxpayers' contribution
to the MP pension fund by a third, by 33 per cent.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solution to a fair and proper pension plan is simple: Pass a bill in
the House that would make MPs subject to the same laws as all
other Canadians. That way an MP pension plan would be no
better than that of any other Canadian or as good as any plan that
is out there in the real world.
Why will the minister not consider abolishing his ill fated,
inadequate, still gold plated, two-tier pension plan and make it
the same as those in the private sector?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand that members of the Reform Party are
taking aim at the cheapest thing they can find. Members of
Parliament are terribly underpaid in this nation. At this time
they are trying to undermine the institution.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): When a member of
Parliament is making less money than the worst hockey player
in the NHL, half of what a hockey player makes, I think I
understand the problem of Reform Party members. They know
they are not very good and they know they will not benefit from
the plan because they will be defeated in the next election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last Friday, the minister told the media that she still had not
read in detail the interim report of the Krever commission,
which was submitted to cabinet ten days before.
How can the Minister of Health, who said on several
occasions in this House that she was anxiously waiting for the
Krever report to take action regarding the tainted blood issue,
justify that on Friday, ten days after the tabling of that report,
she still had not read it in detail, considering that the health and
lives of thousands of people are at stake?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that we were thoroughly reviewing judge
Krever's interim report and that we would provide a detailed
answer as possible.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister at least tell us that she made the necessary
representations to the Minister of Finance, so that he does not
cut into the funds allocated to the federal agencies responsible
for the safety of our blood supply, since these agencies already
lack the financial resources necessary to fulfil their mandate?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have taken my position as Minister of Health very
seriously. We at Health Canada and I as Minister of Health have
not waited for the recommendations of Justice Krever. We have
doubled the resources of the Bureau of Biologics within the past
year.
We will continue to ensure that there are adequate resources to
enforce the regulatory powers of Health Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon in his budget speech the finance minister is sure to
ask that we all make sacrifices for the good of the country. He
will lecture Canadians on the need to make tough choices. Yet
Liberals are providing themselves with pensions twice as rich as
the best in the private sector. They will get their pensions at age
55 even though they want to raise the age limit to receive the
Canada pension plan from 65 to 67.
10076
(1435)
Is the Prime Minister telling Canadians to do as I say and not
as I do?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody knows in Canada that to be a member of
Parliament is a very unusual occupation. We do not come to
Parliament to be here for 50 years. That is very rare. There are
only two of us who have been here pretty long: the Solicitor
General and myself. The average stay in the House is less than
six years. That is a reality people understand.
We have said to the Canadian people very clearly in the red
book what we were to do. We went even further than that and we
campaigned on that.
I understand members of the Reform Party tried to present a
budget last week and it was a complete flop because they were
not competent enough to prepare a competent budget. Being so
incompetent they know their value is not very good and they do
not want to be overcompensated.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we hear a lot of rhetoric from the competent members opposite
about fairness and equity.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why there is one
standard of fairness for Liberal members of Parliament and
another for the rest of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think members of Parliament who were elected
previously have acquired some rights. There is a rule in
democracy that we do not pass retroactive legislation. When
people have acquired some rights we respect the rights that have
been acquired.
I know that members of the Reform Party are desperate. Since
they have no policy except the same rhetoric all the time, they
now choose to go for the cheap shot. You know the people who
have no generosity, but the Canadian people understand that we
have good members of Parliament who work very hard, are
underpaid and deserve every penny we are paying for them as
taxpayers of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 21, the Quebec court of appeal declared the federal
regulations on PCBs unconstitutional. This decision puts an
abrupt end to double regulation of PCBs and leaves the field
open for Quebec, whose standards are much stricter than
Ottawa's.
Does the minister agree that this recognition by the courts of
provincial jurisdiction in the area of toxic products invalidates a
significant part of federal environmental legislation on the
control of toxic products?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the court
of appeal dismissed the interim order issued by the Minister of
the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
The court decided that the interim order he issued following
the incident in Saint-Basile-le-Grand was improper. The court
decided not to rule on specific sections of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. The interim order issued by the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was declared unconstitutional.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even
though the decision ends double regulation of toxic products,
will the minister confirm the statement by her parliamentary
secretary for the environment that the federal government will
study the possibility of appealing this decision to the Supreme
Court?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the Court of
Appeal ruled that the interim order put in place by the then
Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, was unconstitutional.
It ruled on the PCB interim order that has subsequently been
replaced by chlorobiphenyl regulations. It specifically did not
rule on the constitutionality of the application of CEPA. It
protected the integrity of CEPA.
(1440)
I think the majority of Canadians would support the notion
that the federal government has a very specific role to play in the
cross-border transportation of toxic materials. It did, however,
rule that the interim order put in place by the then Minister of the
Environment was unconstitutional.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, global warming is a problem that threatens the survival
of the earth-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur
has the floor.
Mr. Arseneault: I guess I have a fan club in the Reform Party.
They may not take global warming seriously but we do on this
side of the House. We know that it threatens the environment
and that inefficient use of energy is a contributing factor.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House
about the federal buildings initiative and what it is doing to
reduce expenditures and at the same time get our house in order
environmentally?
10077
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the
federal government has initiated a very important program
called the federal buildings initiative, or otherwise known as
the FBI program, that operates throughout the federal
government in all departments. It is fully operational now. It
speaks to increased energy efficiency through the retrofitting
of all federal government buildings and installations.
Let me update the House on the success of the program to
date.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. McLellan: As the hon. member for
Restigouche-Chaleur has indicated, while the hon members of
the third party may not be interested in energy efficiency and
climate change we on the government side are.
Let me say very briefly that we have initiated 80 projects
involving over 2,400 federal government buildings.
The Speaker: I am always reluctant to intervene either in a
question or an answer, but probably two kicks at the can is as far
as we go.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you are doing a good job. The Superintendent of
Financial Institutions reported that the Canada pension plan
fund would be broke in 20 years and the projected premiums
paid by workers and employers would have to more than double
to keep the fund afloat. The contingent liability in the plan is
estimated at $500 billion, about as big as our whole government
debt.
I did not give you a compliment, Mr. Speaker, just so that I
could ask a long one. Could the Minister of Human Resources
Development-
The Speaker: I am always flattered by these comments and I
know the hon. member will want to do as good a job as I do by
putting his question.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I was
asking my question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): My apologies. Could
the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us why his
review of social security programs did not deal with this
looming crisis?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon.
member got to put his question, but it is a question that does not
make an awful lot of sense or have relevance.
He should know that the Canada pension plan is subject to the
five-year annual review of federal-provincial finance ministers
as part of the statutes or the legislation itself. That review will
take place this fall.
One thing we have to look at, because it is a matter of some
concern, is that over the past year or two there has been a
substantial rise not in the income security portion but in the
disability portion of the Canada pension plan, which is one of
the fundamental causes for the increased outflow during the past
year and a half.
(1445 )
We have to look at this matter. It is a consequence of other
jurisdictions taking decisions on things like workers'
compensation that as a result people become part of the CPP
regime. We will be looking at this. It will be part of the review. I
can assure the minister that once again, the government is in
good hands.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not a minister yet.
The Liberal Party looks after its own pensions. I wish it would
do this with as much enthusiasm for the rest of Canadians. Not
only will this rate increase force an increase in payroll taxes that
will kill jobs, but younger Canadians will also question whether
CPP is even a good investment.
MPs will be given a choice to opt out of the MPs pension plan.
Will younger Canadians be given the same opportunity to opt
out of this bankrupt pension plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very strange and
curious question. It comes from a member of a party which just a
week ago tabled its own so-called budget proposal.
That proposal recommended the total abolition of all parental
or maternity benefits. This would have totally denied any kind
of fiscal support for close to 200,000 mothers in this country. It
would have denied and abolished disability benefits for close to
200,000 Canadians. It would have taken over $3 million out of
the OAS.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday the Quebec minister of municipal affairs and housing
rejected the federal government's proposal to increase the
amount individuals must pay for social housing from 25 to 30
per cent of their income.
My question is for the minister of public works. Since the
Quebec government has decided not to increase the amount to be
paid for social housing, can the minister tell us whether he
10078
intends to reverse his position and maintain at the current level
the amount to be paid for social housing?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the
hon. member be somewhat patient. The Minister of Finance has
the representations and has had them for quite some time.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would have expected a better answer from the minister who has
nevertheless found $600,000 to build a brick wall in his honour
in his riding.
Are we to understand that, by virtue of this measure which
serves to increase requirements made of individuals in social
housing, the federal government would once again download the
burden of its deficit onto the backs of the most destitute and that
the 110,000 affected households in Quebec can expect nothing
further from this federal government?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the
premise of the hon. member's question, I disagree totally.
Perhaps he could be a little more patient. His answer will come
later this afternoon.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever
inquiry has just tabled its interim report. It has some very
specific recommendations on how to decrease the amount of
AIDS in our country. Since lives could be saved, will the health
minister move quickly to implement those recommendations?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member will understand that we have made the
report public. We are funding the Krever commission. We are
very interested in taking whatever actions are necessary. The
member must remember that there are other players in the blood
supply system, including the provincial governments, the
Canadian Red Cross, and other partners. They are also taking
this very seriously.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is some
degree of inconsistency in this minister's response. On the issue
of testing for AIDS for immigrants, the minister said no. Since
this particular issue will save lives, I simply ask: Will the
minister take haste to look after these recommendations?
(1450)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have taken haste and we have not waited for the
recommendations to take action. Many of the recommendations
have already been acted on. We will take action on any others
that are within our responsibilities.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
In Pakistan, Salam Masih, 14, and his uncle Rehmat were
convicted to die for writing anti-Islamic slogans on a mosque
wall. I am pleased to hear that the conviction was overturned by
the high court.
What action has the secretary of state taken on behalf of the
Government of Canada to ensure that human rights of minorities
are protected in Pakistan?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is
very pleased, as is my colleague, that the appeal court
overturned the conviction and execution of Salam Masih and his
uncle in Pakistan. We believe it was in part due to our
government's representations to the Government of Pakistan,
along with representations by other members of the
international community.
We remain very concerned about the human rights abuses
particularly as they are brought against religious minorities in
Pakistan. We will continue to work with the Government of
Pakistan along with the NGO community to correct this.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
As part of the Prime Minister's promise on February 14 to this
House, would the Prime Minister please inform Parliament as to
the outcome of his discussions with President Clinton regarding
the American restrictions on Canadian sugar and products
containing sugar?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was asked by many members on this side to raise that
question with the President of the United States. I mentioned it
to him and made it very clear that in our view there was no
problem at all. It is an area where there is a perfect balance of
trade. There is no surplus on either side. Therefore, we do not
understand why the United States would like to undo what is
working very well at this moment.
10079
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the parliamentary secretary for northern affairs.
Today, budget day, we are expecting to see cuts for every
Canadian. I would like to suggest that the government is
overlooking a source of revenue because of its inability to act on
stumpage fees in the Yukon. It would be environmentally
sustainable and would in fact generate revenue.
Right now stumpage fees are 20 cents as compared to $60 in
northern B.C. That is one-third of 1 per cent of what the
northern B.C. stumpage fees are. The federal government could
raise $19 million a year on stumpage fees. Why is the
government not acting now?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the minister is personally interested in this. The
department has put aside some time to study this area. As the
hon. member mentioned, stumpage fees in the Yukon are only 20
cents per cubic metre and $30 per cubic metre elsewhere. Indian
affairs is now looking at the whole issue in order to ensure that
the Yukon people benefit from the stumpage fees as well as to
make sure environmental measures are put in place so that the
Yukon forest is not decimated.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The European Union does not accept NAFO's decision
regarding turbot quota allocation between NAFO member
countries. If no agreement is reached, turbot stocks could be
decimated, like other overfished species in the past.
(1455)
Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans see that urgent
measures are needed to protect fishery resources in the Atlantic
and does he intend to do all in his power to have the Minister of
Foreign Affairs convince the European Community that
protecting this resource makes good sense? What does he intend
to do?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member here today and thank
him for his excellent question. I know he has been busy with the
hearings in the province of Quebec. Obviously he has been
listening and that is why he is having trouble speaking. He has
come to the conclusion that the future is here in a united
federation and it is where we solve our problems. We are
delighted to have him back.
We had a very good decision.
[Translation]
At the NAFO conference in Brussels, we made good decisions
for the fishermen of Quebec and Canada. We gave Quebec
fishermen new opportunities.
[English]
I assure the member that we are not going to throw away that
opportunity. We are going to preserve the stock because we have
the united will of all of the fishermen, tous les pêcheurs du
Canada, behind the government to solve this problem.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the youngest minister eligible for the full,
unreduced pension.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, usually when we put questions
we address the minister by his or her correct title. I know the
hon. member will want to do that as he puts his question now.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, late Friday a press release was
circulated which announced officially that the minister for
immigration intended to sign a treaty with the United States that
would allow Canada to share responsibilities for refugee
claimants with the U.S.
I ask the minister of immigration, what exactly will the terms
of this treaty be and why did he refuse to sign the treaty one year
ago?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): I did not know he was addressing it to me,
Mr. Speaker.
We should look at what the Prime Minister of Canada and the
President of the United States did over the two days. Much was
accomplished. There was a good mood among Americans and
Canadians in the type of relationship we have.
The President and the Prime Minister have mandated their
respective ministers to report back in six months with respect to
negotiating a memorandum of understanding on asylum seekers.
It will not only be on the basis of the integrity of the system so
that refugee claimants can take one good kick at the can either in
the United States or in Canada, but also with the view to better
protecting those refugee claimants.
10080
It is a positive undertaking. The Americans were not ready
one year ago. I am confident that after six months of discussions
we will be able to have an agreement that not only protects the
North American context but leads the way for good agreements
based on integrity and protection.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Recently the government announced that the war crimes unit
in the justice department would be cut from 24 to 11 employees.
In January the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the
Minister of Justice announced a strategy to deport war criminals
currently in Canada. The minister stated that Canada would not
become a safe haven for such criminals.
Would the minister say how the government can maintain
these policy goals when the war crimes unit will be so
drastically reduced?
(1500 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can achieve those
goals by taking action. That is exactly what we have done in the
case of suspected war criminals.
Working closely with my colleague, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, we have identified a number of
cases involving persons from the second world war in respect of
whom we have instituted or will institute civil proceedings for
their denaturalization and deportation.
Second, in relation to more modern wars and conflicts, we
have already instituted a proceeding in respect of a suspect from
the conflict in Rwanda.
We are committed to the principle that Canada will not
become a haven for those suspected of war crimes abroad. We
are keeping resources, both in justice and in immigration and
citizenship, sufficient to allow us to achieve that objective.
_____________________________________________
10080
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public Service
Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
without amendment.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before the House once again to present the 16th petition in
this course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who
wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making the
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present a petition
on behalf of 30 individuals, nine of whom are from the
constituency of Wild Rose. The 21 remaining individuals come
from throughout Alberta.
The petition states: ``Your petitioners call upon Parliament to
act quickly 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 fully equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.''
I present this today on their behalf. I am opposed to this idea.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have several petitions to
present today, two of which relate to tax increases and the
opposition of my constituents to any move by the government to
increase taxes.
Altogether I have 48 sheets of names opposing tax increases. I
heartily concur.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents who
are opposed to the extension of same-sex benefits. I am pleased
to offer the petition with my complete support.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a first petition on behalf of 262 residents of my
10081
riding of Bourassa and the greater Montreal area who object to
retirement age being moved from 65 to 67.
This petition was signed by many seniors from
Montréal-Nord and a large number of FTQ workers. These
petitioners argue that every Canadian citizen contributes to
superannuation and therefore has a legitimate claim to a pension
upon reaching 65 years of age, which is already a lot.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to present a second petition. It concerns registered
retirement savings plans. The 126 petitioners object to the
proposed new tax on RRSPs, as such plans are the only way for
Canadians to secure a comfortable retirement. Just hours before
the Minister of Finance tables his budget, this proposed tax
could jeopardize the financial security of thousands of
Canadians and Quebecers. Needless to say I strongly support
both petitions.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting several
petitions today on behalf of my constituents of Prince
George-Peace River.
The first petition requests that Parliament oppose any
legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine family,
including the provision of marriage and family benefits to those
who are not family as defined in the petition.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament provide a
remedy, to intervene and bring forward a national public
registry of past and present sexual offenders to better protect the
children of our communities.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition prays that Parliament amend the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next petition requests that current laws regarding
assisted suicide be enforced and no changes be made to the law
which would sanction or allow suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition I have to present today asks Parliament
not to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two petitions signed by
the constituents of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The petitioners call on the government to declare 1995 as a tax
freeze year to show leadership to all Canadians, not to increase
the tax burden on middle and low income working Canadians
and to reduce the deficit by cutting wastage and by reducing the
overall expenses of every government department by at least 5
per cent.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions. Two are on the same topic, asking that the
privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples not be
extended to same sex relationships.
I personally am pleased to support those petitioners.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
next petition may be a little redundant, but perhaps the minister
can accept it as encouragement to move on. Its petitioners
express concern at the recent court decision allowing extreme
drunkenness as a defence against serious crime.
I also support that petition and support the minister in his
efforts to look after that major problem in our legal system.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of 50 constituents of Saanich-Gulf
Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions that are identical. The petitioners
ask that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all
violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a
crime.
Second, the petitioners support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.
Last, the petitioners support legislation which will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws which have not improved
public safety or have not proven to be cost effective or have
10082
proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or
unenforceable.
(1510 )
I concur with and support these petitioners.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. A total of 436
petitioners from the riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt call on Parliament to reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from my
constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby.
The petitioners wish to inform the government that they are
already overburdened with taxation due to high government
spending. They feel that the government will increases taxes in
this afternoon's budget.
Therefore they pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I also present two other petitions on behalf of those
in my riding and in the general area.
These petitioners request that Parliament amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a basis for
protection against discrimination and to fully recognize
relationships based on financial and emotional dependency and
same sex relationships.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions today.
The first one is signed by over 2,500 people. The citizens
express concern that they are overburdened with taxation due to
high government spending and that the federal government is
considering tax increases in the next federal budget.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and request that
Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing
taxes.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is signed by 4,888 people from my riding.
The petitioners say that the control of law-abiding citizens
and responsible gun owners is more than enough to ensure
public safety, and the current and proposed laws criminalizing
certain firearm activities are not necessary.
The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament
support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who
use weapons in the commission of a crime, that Parliament
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own
and use recreational firearms.
Finally, they request that Parliament support legislation that
will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not
improved public safety or have not proven to be cost effective.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. On February 20, 1995 I brought a point
of order pursuant to Standing Order 39 regarding a question that
I placed on the Order Paper on September 30, 1994.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was gracious
enough to respond to my request. He indicated that I would have
the answer to my question by the end of last week. It is 150 days
now since I have placed my question on the order paper with no
result.
Also, with all due respect to the member for Kingston and the
Islands who chastised me for not going to the Library of
Parliament for the information, may I tell the hon. member that
the annual reports to which he referred me are bordering on
useless they are so vague.
Once again I would like to place these questions on the Order
Paper for 1992 and 1993: What was the total amount of funds
received by individuals and groups from the Canada Council?
Who were these individuals? For what specific projects did they
receive funding? How much did they receive?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have a serious problem. I also placed a question on the Order
Paper on October 19, 130 days ago. This question had two parts:
a) and b). Finally, last Friday, after a little more than a hundred
days, I received an answer to the first half of my question. You
can see my problem.
I wonder if there is any hope of getting the second part of my
question answered. I find this somewhat unfortunate because,
frankly, the information requested in that part is simpler,
shorter, yet more important to me. Can I appeal to someone to
ask for some justice and get this answer?
10083
(1515)
Would the hon. member be so kind as to answer the question
regarding federal government properties in Quebec?
The Deputy Speaker: I will recognize the hon. parliamentary
secretary first on the two points of order just raised, and then to
answer questions on the Order Paper.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the first point of order that was raised
by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, I indicated last week
that I hoped I would have an answer by the end of the week and I
am still optimistic. It obviously was not last week, but as soon as
an answer is available I will provide the hon. member with an
answer.
As to her allegation that reports to the Canada Council are
vague, I have had occasion to look at the reports and have read
them from time to time. My recollection is that there are
substantial lists and no vagueness about them. They simply say
who got grants. Perhaps the hon. member regards that as vague.
Her question does ask who received grants. I would have
thought that there was a pretty good source in those annual
reports. I urge her to have a second look.
In any event, I will do my best to provide an answer for her at
an early date.
With respect to the hon. member for Québec-Est, my
recommendation is that he go through that box of materials I
tabled in the House on Friday in response to his question.
I cannot say that I looked at all 1,200 pages before I tabled the
documents, but I think he will find the answer in there. If he does
not, I will take his representation as one I am prepared to raise
with the minister involved. I will see if the additional
information can be provided to the hon. member with dispatch.
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary
might also make the usual observation that he does on these
occasions.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was so put off by all these points
of order that I forgot that I do have a question to answer today.
Question No. 115 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 115-Mr. Hermanson:
With respect to the $4.8 million grant to build a museum of industry in the
riding of Saint-Maurice, (a) under what program was this grant awarded, (b)
what guidelines were followed to the awarding of such a grant, (c) how many
permanent and part time jobs were created and (d) how many contracts have
been awarded and to what companies and/or individuals?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed
by the department of human Resources and the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec, FORD-Q, as follows:
In so far as Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC,
is concerned:
a) b) and c) The Centre de l'interprétation de l'industrie de
Shawinigan Inc., CII, is administered by a council of
community workers, comprised of a variety of citizens. The
building it is operating in at the moment is owned by
Hydro-Quebec. Presently funding for this building is provided
by five groups: ALCAN, Stone Console-Division Belgo, pulp
and paper mill, Hydro-Quebec, the city of Shawinigan and the
city of Shawinigan-South.
In the last four years HRDC has been providing the centre
with local employment development projects, indirect funding.
The centre acts as the sponsor for these training programs.
To date Human Resources Development Canada has
committed a total of $1,212,359 toward the Centre de
l'interprétation de l'industrie de Shawinigan Inc.
![](/web/20061117183340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1605x01_r0.gif)
*The program is just beginning and at this time it is too early to
estimate the number of people who will be employed during the
next three operating years.
The guidelines followed can be found in the ED component of
the employment manual, which inculdes several volumes.
However, all Canada employment centres are equipped with
these manuals.
In so far as the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, (FORD-Q), is concerned:
a) b) and c) FORD-Q has awarded a contribution of $3.5
million to the Centre de l'interprétation de l'industrie de
Shawinigan Inc., CII, under the regional development program,
RDP. This CII project is eligible for assistance as a facility that
will foster regional economic development and should create
300 jobs during the construction phase.
In addition, the centre will generate 40 direct jobs for its
operations and 200 indirect jobs among concession holders,
subcontractors and other firms in the region once it is up and
running.
10084
In the short term the centre will stimulate a variety of other
tourism investments, particularly in the accommodation sector,
in addition to helping to consolidate regional economic
infrastructure. As well, it will contribute to preserving regional
industrial heritage.
d) The responsibility for the different contracts lies with CII.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10084
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought they were going to continue with questions
from before question period. Is that correct?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I missed the question
because I was speaking with the clerk.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I was
referring to the procedure in which we were going to complete
the questions that occurred before question period, before
debate ceased. Are we going to continue with debate?
The Deputy Speaker: This is continuing with debate because
the secretary of state has not returned to the Chamber.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, a little
over a year ago the Minister of Justice was quoted in a number of
newspapers as saying that he believed that only the police and
military should have guns.
We have been through Bill C-68 and it is clear to me and will
soon be clear to all Canadians that the minister has taken the
first step toward achieving this personal objective.
After reading this legislation it is also clear that the Minister
of Justice and his cabinet colleagues have confused gun control
with crime control. Anyone who studies this issue for more than
a couple of hours will realize that there is no connection between
controlling the legal use of guns by law-abiding gun owners and
reducing crime.
The Minister of Justice cannot tell us specifically how
controlling guns and registering guns will reduce crime, and the
Bloc has made that similar observation.
The minister keeps saying that chiefs of police have asked for
it. The minister cannot hide behind that answer forever. Sooner
or later he has to be responsible for answering his own
questions. He has to defend his legislation with reasoned
arguments and not expect others outside this House to come to
his rescue.
(1520 )
If I start to sound angry during my remarks it is because not
only am I expressing my own dissatisfaction, disappointment
and disgust with the Liberal government's costly, intrusive,
bureaucratic and ineffective legislation, but I am also
expressing the outrage I read in the more than 1,000 letters I
have received and the outrage that I hear in the hundreds of
phone calls we receive, and the outrage I hear when I walk the
streets of the communities in my constituency, and the absolute
outrage I hear when I attend rally after rally of responsible,
law-abiding citizens, whether in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland,
Alberta or Nova Scotia. The outrage that these people express to
me wherever I go is something this government must consider.
I support some of the provisions in the government's
proposals calling for tougher sanctions for violent criminals and
its proposed attempts to control the smuggling of firearms. I
support some of these measures because they will really help
control crime. Laws do not make people good but they do help to
restrain evil.
On the other hand, because there is no evidence or convincing
argument to show that public safety will be improved I will
oppose ineffective proposals to register rifles and shotguns and
the banning of firearms or any measures which would further
restrict the ownership of handguns, scary looking guns,
semi-automatic rifles, crossbows, and the banning of firearms
or any measures which would further restrict the ownership of
these, even replica toy guns.
If the Liberal Party can demonstrate how registration of all
firearms is the most cost effective way of improving public
safety, reducing violent crime and saving the most lives I and
most Canadians will support the minister's proposals if he can
show that they are the most cost effective method. This he has
not done. He fails to answer this challenge and therefore we
must oppose this legislation.
I repeat my personal position. I support cost effective gun
controls which improve public safety and reduce the criminal
use of firearms and if elected I will work to repeal ineffective
gun controls which do not meet these objectives.
Another Reform principle from our party constitution says
that it is the duty of all members of Parliament to their
constituents that should supersede their obligation to their
political parties. Reform MPs are duty bound to represent their
constituents' wishes on this issue. I only hope that the Liberal
government has the courage to let their members of Parliament
do the same.
10085
If the Liberal Party would allow a free vote on this bill I think
we would really see whether there is broad public support for
this. We would see whether that is true, as the minister claims.
I think it would prove that the Liberal Party believes in true
democracy between elections as well as during them. I wish it
would come clean on this issue and allow that free vote to take
place.
Whether a Canadian is a gun owner or not here are some
principles on which this legislation should be judged. I
encourage every voter to inform themselves, to judge this
legislation against their own personal beliefs, not what the
government, not what the media, not what the politicians are
telling them. This is one nasty piece of legislation. It will affect
not only our lives but also the lives of our children and our
grandchildren.
The Minister of Justice is right, the legislation is about the
kind of country we want to live in. Canadians owe it to
themselves and the next generation to get it right. Their safety,
the safety of their families, their friends, their homes and their
properties is at stake.
If Canadians believe in less government and less bureaucracy
then they will not support this gun control bill. If Canadians
believe in less government spending then they will not support
this bill. If Canadians believe in lower taxes, they will not
support this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in personal
freedom and personal responsibility, then they will not support
this gun control legislation. If Canadians believe in every
citizen's right to private property, then they will definitely not
support this gun control legislation.
(1525 )
If Canadians believe in true equality and that the law should
be applied equally regardless of their race or where they live,
then they will not like what they read in this gun control bill. If
Canadians believe in every citizen's constitutional right to life,
liberty and security of the person, then they will oppose this gun
control bill with every ounce of energy they have.
If Canadians believe in everyone's right and responsibility to
defend themselves, their family, their property and their home,
as described in the Criminal Code of Canada, then they will not
like what they read in this gun control bill. If Canadians believe
the federal government should not interfere in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, then they will not support this gun
control bill.
A recent survey conducted by Simon Fraser University
learned that support for the Liberal Party's firearm registration
system drops significantly as the respondents' knowledge of
existing gun control laws increases and the full cost of the
measures is understood.
In his attempts to confuse the issue of gun control with the
issue of crime control, the minister has included some things in
his legislation which I support. I maintain that if the Minister of
Justice is really interested in public safety he will divide this bill
into two parts. Part one would be crime control and part two
would be gun control. Even though there are some monumental
flaws with the crime control provisions of the bill, I think we
could fix those and ensure easy passage through the House so
that the police could use these tools to put real criminals behind
bars where they should be.
Here is a list of measures in the bill which I think could be
modified and amended and which I could support because they
truly concern crime. I would support the four-year mandatory
minimum sentence for the 10 violent offences committed with a
firearm as long as the word firearm was replaced with the word
weapon. More people are murdered with knives and other
weapons than with guns. I think any criminal who uses a weapon
in the commission of a crime should be subject to the same
mandatory jail term.
I support using section 85 of the Criminal Code effectively,
but again this mandatory sentencing provision should be
extended to any weapon used in a crime, not just firearms.
I support the lifetime prohibition from possessing a restricted
weapon for the conviction of violent crimes. I also support the
inclusion of replica or imitation firearms under section 85 of the
Criminal Code. I support the new offences for large scale
smuggling and trafficking of firearms. I support the new
offences for possessing stolen or smuggled firearms of a
one-year minimum jail sentence. I support adding firearms
trafficking to the list of enterprise crime offences.
I oppose the banning of 553,000 handguns. I oppose the
banning of 19,000 restricted firearms. However, I support the
proposed firearms possession certificate, in principle anyway. I
support the offence for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. I
support the 10-year prohibition on possession of firearms to
those convicted of serious firearms offences. I support the
prohibition on possession of firearms for those convicted of
stalking and drug offences. I support the tighter border controls,
the inspection procedures by Canada customs. Also, I support
the forfeiture of vehicles used in smuggling contraband and the
proceeds of smuggling activities. I support the requirement for
import-export permits for firearms moving across the border for
commercial use.
I also support the requirement to record the entry or exit of
firearms to or from Canada by tourists and outfitters. I add that
these people bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our
country, creating thousands of jobs and tourists should not be
needlessly harassed at our borders.
I support the provision of minor's permits for persons
between 12 and 18 to acquire firearms. I support the extension of
authority to approve firearm safety courses to the provinces.
10086
I also support the creation of a separate safety course for
handgun users and I support the use of valuable police time and
scarce tax revenues on cost effective crime control.
(1530 )
This is a list of the things I support. Because gun control
measures will do next to nothing to deter real criminals from
obtaining or using firearms, and because these measures are not
a cost effective way of improving public safety, I will vote
against the bill unless they are changed.
Here is a list of reasons why I am opposed to the gun control
legislation. I oppose the mandatory registration of all rifles and
shotguns and the provision that would make failing to register
them a criminal offence. This will do nothing but make
criminals out of law-abiding people.
Here are a few reasons why I oppose mandatory registration
of all rifles and shotguns. It will cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. It is not a cost effective way of improving public safety
or saving lives. It will not help police investigate and prosecute
violent criminals. It will not alter police procedures for dealing
with domestic disputes. It will not reduce the use of firearms in
violent crime.
It will keep the police off the street and in the office, not
where they should be. It will require more government
bureaucracy, not less. It will require an increase in taxes in the
form of registration fees. It will also require other members of
society to pay those taxes because the initial registration fees
will be waived. It will target law-abiding responsible gun
owners, not real criminals. It will help trace firearms but tracing
will serve no real useful purpose.
Gun smugglers can already be identified without a
registration system. Handgun registration has been in effect
since 1934 and has not reduced handgun crime. Registration has
been tried and failed in Australia and New Zealand. Hundreds of
millions could save more lives if spent elsewhere.
It will have a negative effect on a billion dollar economy. It
will undermine respect for the law. I cannot emphasize this
more. There are jokes going around. There are ads in the
newspapers in my province showing people how to hide their
guns. They openly advocate that this law will not be complied
with.
We have a huge problem when we put in place a law that
everyone regards as being useless. It undermines respect for the
law, and we must take that into consideration. We need to
maintain that respect. People know this will do nothing to make
society safer. In fact it will do the exact opposite. I do not have
time today to go into them but there are very valid reasons for
opposing the legislation because it will actually increase the risk
for most people.
I am particularly opposed to the extreme penalties for persons
failing to register their rifles and shotguns: a one-year
mandatory jail term and up to 10 years in jail if one fails to fill
out that little card the minister says is so easy. Denis Lortie
killed three people and only spent 10 years in jail. Where is the
justice in this legislation? It defies common sense.
I also oppose the added tax burden on law-abiding citizens,
the responsible gun owners, through registration fees, permit
fees, and renewal fees. Like I said before, I oppose the banning
of legally owned handguns, scary looking semi-automatic rifles
and so on, and the banning of all replica toy guns. I oppose those
kinds of measures.
I oppose the restrictions on crossbows, the banning of
one-hand crossbows and the additional restrictions on air guns.
I oppose the prohibition and confiscation of guns without fair,
just and timely compensation. I oppose the confiscation of
thousands of firearms without compensation when the owner
dies.
I oppose the use it or lose it provision which requires
law-abiding handgun owners to re-establish their reason for
owning a handgun every five years. I oppose the proposed controls
on the purchase of ammunition and the additional and unnecessary
controls on legitimate gun collectors. I oppose the prohibition of
entire households from having firearms because of the actions
of a single resident.
(1535 )
I oppose the exemption of certain Canadian citizens from
firearms prohibition orders. All Canadians should be treated
equally under the law and in this case under this law. I oppose
the requirement of an import-export permit for bringing a
personal use firearm into Canada.
I oppose the expanded use of orders in council to restrict or
prohibit firearms. I oppose the different application of the
firearms laws for remote and aboriginal communities.
Canadians should be treated equally regardless of where they
live, regardless of their race, and regardless of their occupation.
I oppose the waste of valuable police time and scarce tax
revenue on useless, ineffective gun controls.
I have 28 amendments here. At this time I will not read them
all out. I have gone through a lot of things already. I think we
need to have a debate because there are many things that need to
be addressed. I will hold this up at a later date.
In closing, I make five recommendations to the government. I
recommend holding separate votes for crime control provisions
and gun control provisions. We should separate those.
I recommend early passage of crime control provisions with
consideration of Reform amendments to really get tough on
violent criminals.
10087
I recommend a free vote on all gun control provisions in the
bill, especially the sections relating to implementation of the
universal registration system.
I recommend a delay in implementation of universal
registration systems to see if increased sanctions and new
criminal offences, that is the crime controls proposed by the
Liberal government and Reform, are effective in reducing
violent crime.
I recommend the inclusion of a sunset clause amendment that
would automatically repeal any gun control provision that is not
effective in reducing violent crime or approving public safety.
Finally, I have a message for seven million gun owners in
Canada. They should not give up. The fight for the kind of
Canada we all want to live in has begun in earnest. I encourage
them to write letters to both federal and provincial politicians.
They should send petitions to their MPs, write letters to the
editor, phone in to hotline radio and television shows, get
involved in a political party that best represents their views and
help to organize and attend rallies. Whatever you do-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member may have
forgotten that all his remarks are supposed to go to whoever is in
the Chair. I would invite him to do so for the remainder of his
talk.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, my
apologies. I get involved and forget.
My advice is not to break the law of the land but to work to
change it by all legal means possible. Bad laws can be repealed
if a truly democratic party is in power. If we have the support of
the majority of Canadians we can do it.
I fear a government that will not listen to the people a lot more
than I fear a law-abiding citizen with a gun. In conclusion I
would like to move the following motion:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for
licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety
of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.
I submit this motion to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will reserve on the motion
while it is being brought forward. We will deal with questions
and comments while the motion is being looked at.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I have a few comments before asking a question of the
member opposite who just spoke. He made some reference to
aboriginal people being treated exactly the same as the rest of
Canadians, with which I agree on certain issues. However the
hon. member will understand that the aboriginal people in the
country are the only people who hunt as a way of life. They have
always hunted.
(1540)
I would like to quote Voltaire who said: ``Prejudice is what
fools will choose for reason''. That is basically what the hon.
member is saying in refusing to recognize the fact that we have
always been here, longer than anybody else, and we have always
hunted. We still hunt to this day. When people arrived after us
we helped them to settle in.
As an aboriginal person I have some very strong feelings
about the issue of hunting and about the issue of gun control. I
think by and large Canadian people as a whole support some
form of gun control. I believe, unlike the hon. member, that the
majority of Canadians support the gun control measures being
put forward by the Minister of Justice.
As an aboriginal person I view guns and rifles as having one
use other than military and law enforcement, that is hunting. I
have absolutely no use for handguns. Nobody can convince me
that we need handguns. Basically they are used to kill people.
Nobody can convince me that there is a useful reason for
automatics. We are not going to hunt with automatics. Some
semi-automatics may be used for hunting, but by and large most
semi-automatics should not be used for hunting. If persons are
using semi-automatics for hunting it means they do not have
enough confidence in themselves to use a bolt action rifle which
shoots one bullet at a time and then they have to reload.
It has been proven through various polls that most Canadians
support some form of gun control. I read in the paper some time
ago that a member of the Reform Party conducted a poll and
found that 67 per cent of his constituents supported the gun
control measures being put forward today. However that hon.
member would still vote against gun control.
Reform members have been shouting from the rooftops that
theirs is a grassroots organization. They find that the grassroots
support gun control but they will not listen to the grassroots;
they will vote their conscience even against the grassroots
people. That seems to be hypocrisy if we are talking about
democracy and grassroots. The majority of the grassroots
people say they want gun control measures put in place but
Reform members do not think that way.
Reform Party members should come clean and decide whether
they will vote in favour of what the majority of Canadians want
10088
or vote for their individual interests rather than the collective
interests of the people of Canada.
(1545 )
As an aboriginal person I have some concerns. As a member
representing per capita probably the largest number of gun
owners, I have some concerns. I will convey them to the
Minister of Justice to ensure that they are heard.
I think the people in my riding of Nunatsiaq are ready to
support the Minister of Justice to ensure that Canada is a safer
place to live. Canada can be made a safer place to live.
I suggest that hon. members listen to their constituents. If the
majority say to support the gun control measures then they
should listen to them.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
strongly object to the allegations made by the hon. member with
regard to prejudice. I would ask that he withdraw them. Because
we say all Canadians should be treated equally, I do not think
that is prejudice. I would ask him to withdraw that.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is welcome to say that as a
response.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member was
prejudiced. I said that the attitude put out by some members is
prejudicial. When I quoted Voltaire that prejudice is what fools
use for reason, an awful lot of things can be hidden under some
words. I did not say that the member was prejudiced. If I did not
say that the member was prejudiced, then I have no reason to
withdraw my comments.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I really
do not want to pursue this any further.
Is the hon. member going to vote for or against this
legislation? Has he consulted his constituents as we have? We
have done surveys. We found that initially, over 80 per cent of
the people surveyed knew virtually nothing about this
legislation. As they became more informed, opposition to this
bill rose to as high as 90 per cent.
They realized how this was going to put society more at risk.
They realized how this was going to give criminals access to
firearms that they did not previously have. They realized how
this was going to tie up the police in some useless paperwork.
They realized how this was going to be a tax imposition upon
them, how it would destroy more jobs and would put more young
people out on the streets who probably would get into more
trouble and put us more at risk.
They began to see that this was a useless bureaucratic political
manoeuvre to try to put something across on the Canadian
people. It would make them think the government was doing
something to make society safer when in fact it is not.
As the member quotes these polls, he had better go back and
find out exactly what he is doing. A very narrow view is being
expressed here.
The hon. member just said that only some people of certain
race subsistence hunt. That is not true. It is absolutely false.
Many people in this country appreciate nature. They use
handguns in many ways besides killing people. The allegation
he made that guns are only for killing people is absolutely
ridiculous. I do not know where this member is coming from.
There are many other uses for guns. I do not accept that
argument.
The member made many other statements that were not true. I
ask the Canadian public to really look at this question in depth.
Examine what this government has put forward. It is a
convoluted complex bill and cannot be supported in its present
form.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and answers has
expired. The member has not had a ruling on the validity of his
motion. It will be provided as quickly as it can. It is being
studied very carefully.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris.
(1550 )
I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, legislation which addresses
the fundamental right of all Canadians to a safe, non-violent,
non-threatening society. I am speaking in support of legislative
reforms carefully crafted and presented by the Minister of
Justice involving amendments to the Criminal Code and the
creation of a new firearms act.
For many years Canadians have watched in horror the
increasing use of handguns, assault weapons and rifles in the
commission of crimes. In recent years our North American
society has become increasingly immune to daily doses of
violence, death and injury. Television newscasts and videos feed
Canadian viewers a steady stream of carnage. Some of us are
shocked; many have become numb as we grow accustomed to
the daily onslaught.
In the United States thousands of people are killed each year
by handguns. Hundreds of thousands are injured and many are
permanently disabled. Yet Americans strangely cling to the
notion of a frontier mentality and the right to settle arguments
with a gun. A new handgun is produced every 20 seconds in the
United States to feed a voracious demand.
Our society is awash in American imagery and attitudes. The
U.S. media has slowly changed our long established tradition of
law, order and peaceful tolerance. The locked doors and barred
windows of the United States have crept north as has the
American fascination with handguns.
10089
Thirty years ago a domestic dispute in the city of Toronto
would rarely if ever involve a handgun. Now police approach
every situation as potentially lethal. Thirty years ago police
officers did not need SWAT teams, bullet-proof vests or
increasingly powerful service revolvers against suspects who
are routinely better equipped with the latest weaponry. Just this
past week metro Toronto police received permission to carry
shotguns inside their cruisers instead of in the trunks of their
cars.
There is no doubt whatsoever that our society is becoming
more violent than Canadians will tolerate. But how are we
different from our friends to the south? What makes us want to
take charge of this situation and return order to Canadian
streets?
Fortunately, the vast majority of Canadians continue to abhor
violence in all its forms. We are still shockable. We can still be
touched. We are still willing to fight back. We are not ready to
install metal detectors in our schools or huddle behind locked
gates and barred windows after dark. From across Canada, this
government and every member of this House has heard the
message: Get the guns off the streets.
Ninety-six per cent of Canadians support increased penalties
for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. This bill
addresses those Canadians. Ninety per cent favour the
registration of all firearms. This bill addresses those Canadians.
Fully 70 per cent want tighter gun control laws, restricted access
to ammunition and a complete ban on civilian ownership of
handguns. This legislation addresses those Canadians.
The issue of violence affects each of us in a profound way. My
late father, Ed Janozeski, was a sharpshooter, a gun instructor
and a dedicated metro Toronto police officer for 37 years. He
watched the use of firearms increase, especially in his last years
on the force. He grew increasingly frustrated as legislators
seemed unwilling to do anything about it.
Each member of this House knows of an instance where
friends, family or acquaintances have been devastated by the
misuse of firearms. Every year 1,400 Canadians die as a result of
gunshot wounds and another 1,200 are injured. Sadly, the
majority are suicides, impulsive acts committed by those who
have easy access to guns. Fifty women are killed each year, shot
in their own homes by a family member.
Surprisingly, homicide rates from firearms are 50 per cent
higher in rural Canada. One hundred persons die accidentally
each year while hunting or otherwise handling a firearm. Some
of these people are children.
Three million Canadians own seven million firearms, 1.2
million in the restricted category. Vast numbers of illegal,
smuggled and unregistered guns add to this arsenal. Between
1974 and 1993, 65,000 firearms were reported missing, lost or
stolen and have never been recovered.
Even with all legal weapons registered, criminals will still
find handguns. Accidents and suicides will still occur. Are these
sensible, rational arguments for doing nothing?
Acceptance of the status quo is acceptance of defeat. The
enormity of the task cannot freeze us into inaction. If we start
today the net result over time will be significantly fewer
handguns in private hands. Those handguns will be in the safer
hands of legitimate sport shooters, hunters and collectors.
(1555 )
A highly efficient computerized system will distinguish legal
from illegal firearms and will track them. Police officers when
approaching a reported domestic dispute will know if there are
weapons in the house. Responsible safe storage by registered
gun owners will become a necessity.
Will violent crime cease immediately? No one is foolish
enough to believe that. Criminals will not register their firearms
or produce a licence to purchase ammunition. But the
underground market fed to a great extent by smuggled and stolen
firearms will begin to dry up. Registration will permit tracking
of imported guns and seizure of unregistered ones. Registration
will also encourage safe storage and the availability of fewer
stolen firearms.
Through a series of new hard hitting penalties this
government is also saying loudly and clearly: Use a weapon and
you will face the stiffest penalties in the western world, a
minimum of four years in jail for the use of a firearm in any of 10
specific offences.
Police will have a law with teeth enabling them to lock up
criminals in possession of stolen firearms before a crime occurs.
Those attempting to use replicas to intimidate and terrorize will
face a minimum one year sentence.
Our border, the longest unprotected border in the world, will
no longer be an easy entry for those trafficking in firearms. Now
you will face 10 years in jail and forfeit all vehicles used in the
commission of this crime.
The new legislation will outlaw 60 per cent of all handguns
currently available for purchase in Canada, all assault-type
military and paramilitary weapons, many of which are designed
for concealment and terrorist activities. They have absolutely no
place in Canadian society.
To acquire and keep handguns, owners will have to provide
one of only two valid reasons for doing so: to add to a legitimate
collection, or to use in sport or target shooting. This would have
to be justified every five years. The single most objectionable
requirement in the eyes of the gun lobby is simple: all firearms
and all owners of firearms will have to be registered. Contrary to
popular myth, the registration of weapons is not new to Canada.
10090
The first nationwide permit system was introduced in 1892, the
registration of handguns in 1932.
Of 1.2 million handguns registered to 560,000 Canadians,
only 10 per cent have applied for a permit which allows for
transportation of a handgun to and from a shooting club.
Canadians are apparently more interested in owning than in
using these firearms.
The registration of 5.8 million firearms will be phased in over
seven years. Frankly, the tired old argument that registration
failed in New Zealand does not hold. Modern computer
technology will make this task efficient, simple and cost
effective. We routinely register automobiles, mortgages,
driver's licences, building permits and dogs. To argue that a
national registration system would be onerous is to ignore the
electronic advancement of our generation.
Registration should not pose any threat to legitimate,
responsible gun owners. In fact, they should welcome it. Only
the most paranoid of individuals have expressed the fear that big
brother is watching.
In reality, orderly registration will deter theft and smuggling
and will assist police. Ultimately, registration will bring the
responsible gun owner into a partnership with the enforcement
agencies. It will be a partnership based on trust, competence,
access to information and accountability.
I know much has been said of the opposition to this
legislation. Change is not always easy to accept. We live in an
increasingly hostile and violent society. We cannot abandon it to
the spiral of violence that will fundamentally change Canada for
generations to come. We must take the strongest and most
effective measures possible to respond to those of us who want a
peaceful, safe and tolerant society.
My colleague from across the floor, the hon. member for
Calgary Centre recently said in the House that if you identify
your problem correctly, 60 per cent of your solution is before
you. I believe Canadians have identified the problem. This
legislation is an effective and necessary beginning, moving us
well on the way to a 100 per cent solution.
It is a great honour for me to speak today. I have had a rather
motley political career because I have always been labelled an
idealist. Sometimes things happen in politics because it is
doable rather than because it is right. I am very proud of our
minister and to be part of this Liberal government because I
believe today we are doing what is right.
(1600 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, some moments ago the House received a motion
asking that the bill not be read the second time.
I want to submit very briefly that it is my feeling, and I am
sure that of many hon. members, that this motion is out of order
because it does not state that it is against the principle of the bill,
nor that the principle of the bill is defective. It does not address
that issue.
It merely addresses the fact that because the bill deals with
two separate issues we should not deal with it at that time. If the
bill were dealing with two separate issues, the argument would
be that the bill is omnibus or omnibus like, if you will, and that
the Chair has consistently dealt with that issue in the past by
agreeing that such legislation was in order. In any case, this bill
would not be omnibus even if that argument were made.
The argument here has to do with two conflicting principles
being in the bill and that being a justification for the substantive
motion brought to the attention of the Chair. Those are not, in
my submission, grounds that would enable a member to make
the kind of motion which was brought to the floor of the House
this afternoon.
Therefore I would ask the Chair to rule at the earliest
opportunity that this particular motion is out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair would appreciate hearing all
representations on the validity of the motion and therefore I
would call on the Reform Party to make submissions on the
issue.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of thought and
consideration and also with a great deal of consultation with the
legal counsel of the House that we did present this amendment to
the motion being debated before us today. Very simply the
wording is:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for
licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety
of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.
This is a reasoned amendment and we have been informed that
according to the legislative counsel of this House it is in order. It
is a reasoned amendment and therefore I would put to you, Mr.
Speaker, that the amendment be allowed to stand.
10091
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does a member of the official
opposition wish to be heard. I have been given indications that
no one wishes to do so. Therefore, this concludes the debate on
this issue.
[English]
The Chair will reserve on that matter and will bring back a
decision as quickly as a reasoned conclusion can be brought
back to the House.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am interested in some of the comments by the member for
Mississauga West. Certainly having been raised in a family in
which the father was a police officer would give her some
insight into the concerns police officers express when it comes
to criminal activity. Seeing if nothing else the breakdown in our
laws and the effectiveness of what a police officer can or cannot
do any more is a story in itself.
I am also interested in the comments relating to the smuggled
weapons and the use of illegal weapons, that the illegal gun
market would literally dry up once we have a good registration
system in place and some supposed criminal sections that would
deal with that.
I do not believe the member has ever been over to the Fort Erie
border crossing to look at the extent of what we have as security
at the border crossing. There is a joke among the customs
officers and the people who live in that area. If a boat comes
across from the American side and it rides low in the water, it is
full of alcohol. If it rides halfway down in the water, then it is
full of guns. If it rides high in the water, then there are drugs in
that particular boat. When it gets over to the other side to the
Canadian shore there is no one there to stop it to see what really
is in the boat because our border security is at a minimum.
(1605 )
Resources at the front line have been cut back to the nth
degree. Police departments right across the country are
suffering now because of a lack of being able to hire the
adequate number of police officers to look at it.
How will the illegal gun market dry up through a registration
system when the front line cannot even stop the smuggling
problem in this country, which is way out of hand and our police
departments do not even have a finger on it? Even if they did
they could not do anything about it.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member opposite and I am sorry that customs officers joke about
such serious things as gun smuggling, drug smuggling and
alcohol smuggling.
I do not think smuggling is a joking matter and I do not wish to
correct the hon. member opposite but I did not say it would dry it
up literally and immediately. I think it is a step in the right
direction.
I think if we do not begin somewhere we might as well all
throw our hands up and say open the borders and let everybody
bring whatever they want in.
The President of the United States visited here on Thursday
and congratulated us on an amazing start in the direction of
cleaning up illegal guns. I am very proud to be part of a team that
is doing this.
My father on his deathbed talked about guns. He talked about
the danger. He came home one night very sad because a rookie
cop had gone up the stairs ahead of him to a domestic dispute
and a shotgun blast had come through the door. It did not kill
him. It knocked his eye right out. My father has always believed
that if you register guns you can at least make the people who
have lost them or have allowed them to be stolen out of their
homes responsible for that loss.
Again, I believe this is a beginning. No one has the perfect
solution. I will reiterate what I said. We cannot be frozen into
inactivity by the overwhelming concern of the problem.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
impressed by what the member had to say and the concerns she
expressed for a safer society. I think that is what we are all
looking for. I wonder if the member would address the
possibility of changing existing laws that allow violent
offenders to enter society after serving only two-thirds of their
penalty. That is something we could do right now.
Melanie Carpenter, for all intents and purposes, was murdered
by someone who was released because of a mandatory
requirement included within the statute and the laws that this
Parliament has created. We can change that.
I wonder if the member would be willing to support that kind
of legal initiative in this house that would prevent violent
offenders from being automatically released into society before
they expend their full sentence within prison to at least protect
society to that extent.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I always find it amusing that
Reform members opposite tend to turn the conversation away
from what we are trying to deal with and into their favourite
locations.
I believe that violent criminals in this society will be dealt
with in a reasoned and planned fashion by the minister, as he has
done with the gun legislation. I think you cannot look at one
incident or one piece of legislation and keep it separate from
others.
I have absolute faith in the Minister of Justice that in the
course of his term he will address all of your concerns and all of
my concerns.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you and for that warm applause across the way.
My friend and colleague from Crowfoot was a police officer at
the time of my younger years, still living in the area where he
was serving. I respect him very much since those days and even
today.
10092
It is an honour to make the point that I am speaking on this bill
with the desire to pursue a fair and equitable bill that permits
reasonable and equitable use of firearms in our society.
(1610 )
Having said that, I do feel that the bill the minister has
presented goes a long way in achieving those types of social
goals. Therefore, I deem it an honour to rise to speak on this bill
respecting the use of firearms and other weapons.
The extended discussions and debates have waxed and waned
throughout this country. Western Canada is certainly no
exception. The first meeting I attended was with the minister
and the executives of most of Manitoba's firearm associations
coming together in Winnipeg in July, 1994.
In a short time thereafter I had what I cannot say was
necessarily a pleasure. I have never been yelled at by 2,000
people at the same time before, so it was a unique experience.
There was a rally in the Keystone centre in Brandon at which
time the organizations in favour of not producing any more
firearm controls brought together a number of people and we
heard their concerns. Fundamentally they were persons who
were trap shooters, recreational pistol shooters, but in the main
they were ordinary hunting members of the public just like some
members in this House.
After attending these forums I visited several clubs and
ranges. I continued to meet with concerned individuals on an
individual basis as well as in small groups. Any new regulations
concerning firearms have deep cultural implications, gender
bias and some rural-urban division of support. As well, many
citizens did not wish to see our nation reach a situation where
they feel we must have access to a firearm in order to feel safe.
We have had some information coming forward. I will quote a
couple of excerpts. One is from the Western Producer, January
26. It was entitled ``Most women for gun control: pollster''.
The Saskatchewan Women's Agricultural Network had an
annual meeting on January 21 and debated a resolution to
oppose gun control. The resolution was not passed. The director,
Elaine Kacsmar, said they were not totally against the
registration of guns but that they were against having to pay an
enormous amount of money to register guns.
The second point I would like to raise is that the now famous
Alberta poll done by the present Government of Alberta is
registered in opposition to gun control. It in turn did not believe
the federal polling that was done in that province. I am sure the
member for Yorkton-Melville was possibly thinking of these
results when he made his remarks earlier.
On February 2 the data seemed to indicate in Alberta that
there were different pockets and regions but rural Alberta was in
some regions as high as 72 per cent in favour of registry. Central
Alberta was about 50 per cent; we will even drop a couple to 48
per cent. Northern Alberta was 56 per cent. Overall the data
would indicate at that snapshot of time that over 65 per cent
were in favour.
I have enjoyed many open and frank discussions with the
Minister of Justice and my caucus colleagues as well on the
entire issue of the firearms proposals. Throughout these caucus
discussions, some formal, some not so formal, at no point was I
ordered, threatened or instructed to vote in favour of or against
this bill.
Unquestionably I will be voting in favour because I sense it
does show some movement to allow for a middle of the road
position for all members of society.
(1615 )
I believe that our caucuses, regional and national, provided
every member on our side of the House every opportunity to
contribute and develop those components that were of concern
to them.
Bill C-68 reflects the November 30 action plan but has been
changed to accommodate some legitimate handgun owners'
concerns. Like all other owners of prohibited firearms,
individuals who possessed handguns on or before February 14,
1995 will be able to buy and sell in the same class those firearms
which are now listed as prohibited.
Owners will be able to use the handguns for the purpose of
which they were originally obtained whether target shooting or
collecting. Might I comment that to the very avid target shooters
in my riding that is the same as golf is to me. They fire off 300
rounds in a very controlled, safe environment. They tell me that
they feel great. I wish them well and I hope it continues. I am
sure it will.
The bill is the outcome of consultations with many
individuals, groups, organizations across Canada. It is intensive
work involving the justice department, Revenue Canada and the
Department of the Solicitor General, among others.
Owning a firearm is a privilege. It is not a right. As such, it is
subject to regulation by government because firearms can be
dangerous and it is only sensible to have some degree of
regulation. People can lose a privilege. In fact I am informed
that 40,000 Canadians for sundry reasons have lost the right to
own firearms, about 700 in Manitoba and about the same
number in Saskatchewan. Of course, it will vary with the level of
population from coast to coast.
It has been my desire to see that reasonable guidelines are put
in place where hunters will continue to hunt, recreational and
competitive programming will continue to produce world class
10093
competitors and collectors will be able to trade, buy or sell with
reasonable guidelines in place.
In the end the thrust of this bill is to achieve a safer Canadian
society. I hope that my hon. colleagues will bear with me while I
explain the background from which I speak today.
My twin brother and I, who I am sure my colleague across the
way will remember, grew up on a farm in central Manitoba. For
whatever the reasons my parents saw no need to own firearms.
However rummaging in the attic one day-of course it is my
twin brother who did all these nasty things-we located two old
firearms. One was a shotgun with absolutely no trigger action
left and the other one was an old Snider rifle which was used in
one of the wars, the first world war or earlier.
We played with those for a number of years. I do not know
what has become of them but obviously they were relics. If we
had the same rules then that we are going to have, we would be in
some legal difficulty.
I do recall however that my friends purchased .22 calibre
firearms for their use when they ``came of age''. I would go
hunting with them. The admonition from my parents at that time
was to be careful.
The point that I make is that for most cases, that was enough.
Most of us were. In the 1940s and 1950s, one could acquire
firearms by mail order, could use them without training, could
will them without any inhibiting regulation.
Those of us who survived without regulatory interference feel
that we have somehow lost some freedoms and privileges in the
intervening years, as we have moved into an era where because
of societal difficulties we have developed a system of regulation
for the training, acquisition, sale and storage of firearms.
In conclusion, I would have to say that my age group can look
back to a very idyllic time where responsibility was a given, care
and caution was expected. It is these memories that tend to anger
the firearm owners of today.
(1620 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. member to a number of
reasons for which there is such growing opposition across the
country to more regulations for law-abiding gun owners.
One reason is that it is costly. The minister indicated that it
would cost $85 million to implement this legislation. Other
estimates reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. People
on this side of the House, certainly at this time of budgetary
constraint, would question why we are spending this money on
the registration of firearms. The money would be better spent on
health care or other social programs.
The second reason is that it is a non-secure system. If a hacker
can break into the Pentagon's computer list, it will certainly
make a shopping list for criminals once the information is out.
The third reason-and members opposite will say that only
those who are paranoid will say this-is that this is another step
toward confiscation. The minister has repeatedly said that he
believes only law enforcement officers and armed forces
personnel should have firearms. When he makes those
statements is it any wonder that Canadians are paranoid that this
is another step toward confiscation of their legally acquired
firearms?
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question,
so I will comment on his comments.
At the present time we do have a registration system. A
firearm can be tracked: where it was manufactured, through the
distributor, wholesaler, retailer, to the end purchaser. However,
to do that requires hundreds of hours to go through the ledgers of
various organizations.
The kind of system that I envision would be almost like a
charge card. All the rifles would be shown in black print. We
would instantly be able to locate a rifle by running it through the
network, which would reduce the cost and time which is now
required.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have always
found the hon. member to be very reasonable.
Has he done a poll in his constituency? If he has not, will he,
and will he follow his constituents' advice on this issue?
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not. Yes, I am
reasonable. I will pursue the same privileges as the hon. member
from Edmonton; I will follow my conscience.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-68 respecting firearms. I am
somewhat surprised with what I heard in this debate, which I
have been following from the beginning. I noticed antagonistic
positions. I noticed, coming perhaps a little more often from our
colleagues from the Reform Party, arguments that seem
disproportionate and highly questionable to me. I will get back
to this in my remarks.
Let me tell you right away that I agree with the principle of the
bill introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will start with a brief
outline of the bill, and then move to the basis for my supporting
it.
Bill C-68 establishes a licensing system for the carrying and
use of firearms.
This bill also establishes a Canada-wide firearms registration
system. I raise these two points immediately because, from what
10094
I could see in the debate so far, these are two aspects of the bill
that prompt people to oppose it, often fiercely.
Moreover, the bill calls for stricter controls on the import,
trafficking and smuggling of firearms in Canada. It provides for
stiffer sentences of imprisonment for individuals who commit
serious crimes with firearms. The current minimum sentence of
one year, under section 85 of the Criminal Code, would be
increased to four years with this bill.
At last, certain types of handguns would now be prohibited in
Canada. The bill prohibits the import or sale of handguns using
.25 or .32 cartridges as well as handguns with a barrel equal or
less than four inches in length. This provision applies to
approximately 85 per cent of handguns in Canada.
Finally, the bill makes any violation of the provisions
regarding licensing and registration a criminal offence.
There are perhaps seven million firearms in Canada today.
This is an estimate, as any round figure, because no one knows
for sure. Some people have had firearms for many, many years
in their closets or basements. I personally have two: a small .22
calibre rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun. They are in a closet. I have
not used either of these firearms in over ten years, but I think I
have owned them for 20 years. No one knew that I owned
firearms. Like many other Canadians, I fall in that statistical
category.
It is also a fact that Canadians are in favour of firearms
control. I will continue next time, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: You will have a lot of time to do so then, dear
colleague.
The Speaker: We will suspend the sitting of the House for a
few minutes.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.27 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
The Speaker: Order. It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 83(2), the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Ways and Means Motion No. 20 for the budget statement.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents,
including the notices of ways and means motions. The details of
the measures are included in the documents.
(1635 )
Pursuant to an order of this House, I will introduce today a bill
seeking borrowing authority for the 1995-96 fiscal year. I am
asking that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
these motions.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, a lot of people
think I should sit down now.
Mr. Speaker, there are times in the progress of a people when
fundamental challenges must be faced, when fundamental
choices must be made, and a new course charted. For Canada,
this is one of those times. Our resolve, our values, our very way
of life as Canadians are being tested.
The choice is clear. We can take the path, too well trodden, of
minimal change, of least resistance, of leadership lost. Or we
can set out on a new road of fundamental reform, of renewal, of
hope restored. Today we have made our choice. Today we take
action.
[Translation]
This is a window of extraordinary opportunity. Thanks to the
hard work of millions upon millions of Canadians, our economy
is now stronger than it has been for years.
Last year, economic growth in Canada was the highest of any
G-7 country. We are projected to lead again this year. In the past
year, 433,000 jobs have been created, and Canada's exports have
never been higher. As a result, our balance of payments has
improved dramatically.
Productivity has surged. Our cost competitiveness is at its
highest level in more than 40 years. Canada remains one of the
lowest inflation countries in the world.
Canadians want to keep it that way, and so does this
government. The targets that we set with the Bank of Canada
will make sure that happens.
These statistics tell a story of an economy in bloom; an
economy of growth and new jobs. However, there are two clouds
that loom over our country's horizon.
The first is the uncertainty that some would create over the
future of Quebec. Let there be no doubt-that challenge will be
met. Quebecers do not want Canada, their country, torn apart.
The second cloud is the debt and deficit. Dealing with that
challenge is our purpose today.
10095
[English]
This government came into office because it believes that the
nation's priority must be jobs and growth. And it is because of
that, not in spite of that, that we must act now to restore the
nation's finances to health.
As the Prime Minister has said: ``The time to reduce deficits
is when the economy is growing. So now is the time''. Not to act
now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the
purposes for which our party exists and this government stands:
competence, compassion, reform and hope.
(1640 )
The debt and the deficit are not inventions of ideology. They
are facts of arithmetic. The quicksand of compound interest is
real. The last thing Canadians need is another lecture on the
dangers of the deficit. The only thing Canadians want is clear
action. Therefore let me go directly to the bottom line.
Last year, in our first budget, we laid out a firm course of
action. We said that we would reduce the deficit in this fiscal
year, 1994-95 to no more than $39.7 billion. We now estimate
that the underlying deficit for the current fiscal year will be
about $35.3 billion, or $4.4 billion below our target.
[Translation]
We will still be well under the target, even after booking
certain one-time charges related to some of the major reforms
contained in this budget.
Looking ahead, we pledged in our last budget that the deficit
in 1995-96 would not exceed $32.7 billion and would be
reduced to 3 per cent of GDP-now estimated to be $24.3
billion-by 1996-97. It is now evident that unless we take
further direct action, those deficit targets will not be met.
[English]
This is because interest rates are higher today than anyone
thought they would be. Therefore based on prudent economic
assumptions and with very sizeable contingency reserves in
place, we could face shortfalls of $5 billion from our deficit
target in 1995-96 and $10.6 billion the year after. Those gaps
must be closed. With this budget, we are closing them.
We will hit our deficit target for 1995-96. We will hit our
target for 1996-97. And of equal importance, the downward
track established by the actions taken in this budget will
continue in the years thereafter.
Taking the next two fiscal years together, this budget delivers
cumulative savings of $15.6 billion, with spending cuts for
$13.4 billion. Going beyond to 1997-98, the reforms we are
introducing today will continue to pay off with further savings
totalling $13.3 billion.
Over the next three years, the actions in this budget deliver
almost seven dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of
new tax revenue. This budget will deliver cumulative savings of
$29 billion over the next three years, of which $25.3 billion are
expenditure cuts. This is by far the largest set of actions in any
Canadian budget since demobilization after World War II.
These measures will have a very significant impact on the
level of government spending in the future.
By 1996-97 we will have reduced program spending from
$120 billion in 1993-94 to under $108 billion. Relative to the
size of our economy, program spending will be lower in
1996-97 than at any time since 1951. The impact of these
measures on the fiscal health of this country will be significant
and substantial.
By 1996-97, our financial requirements, that is, what we
actually have to borrow from the markets, will be down from
$30 billion last year to $13.7 billion, or 1.7 per cent of GDP.
That percentage is lower than what is projected for the United
States, for Germany, for Japan. In fact, it is lower than what is
projected for all of the national governments of every country of
the G-7.
(1645)
Perhaps most importantly, in that same year the debt will no
longer be growing faster than the economy. The debt to GDP
ratio will have begun to decline and we are committed to
keeping this ratio on a permanent downward track.
We face a historic challenge in this country and this is a
historic response. We have always said that meeting our targets
was the least we could do, not the best we would do. That is why
it is so important that this year we will have beaten our deficit
target by a substantial amount. And looking ahead, building on
the advice of the finance committee of this House, for which I
am very grateful, we have deliberately chosen economic
assumptions that are once again more cautious than those of
most private sector forecasters. Once again, we are backing up
our assumptions with substantial contingency reserves of $2.5
billion in 1995-96 and $3 billion the year after.
This means that even if interest rates go up next year by
almost one and one-half percentage points, more than our
already cautious assumption, our fiscal position will be fully
protected. But it means something else which is very important.
If we do not need our contingency reserve, it will not be spent. It
will go to reducing the deficit further. This is what happened in
1994-95. And because of our prudent economic assumptions,
one should not be surprised if it happens in 1995-96 and
1996-97 as well.
If interest rates and income growth conform to the average
private sector forecast, the deficit in 1996-97 could be brought
down below $19 billion, in fact some $5.5 billion less than this
budget projects.
10096
We have always said that our 3 per cent interim target was
a station on the way, not our ultimate destination. Interim
means interim. Canadians want more than temporary fiscal
remission. They want full fiscal health. It is absolutely essential
that once we meet our interim target we do not stall. We will
continue to set firm, short term deficit goals, rolling two-year
targets until the deficit is erased.
The Prime Minister said two days ago that balancing the
books is our goal. In government short term targets are the surest
way to zero. They are the most effective spending control
anyone could impose on a government. They keep our feet to the
fire. They make it impossible to postpone needed action and
they prevent fanciful, foolish forecasts.
The government wants Canadians to be able to judge it not on
its rhetoric but on its results.
[Translation]
The targets we set are crucial. But how we get to our targets is
every bit as important. Because the fact is that if we are to ensure
durable fiscal progress, building towards budget balance-that
can only happen if we redesign the very role and structure of
government itself.
If we secure that reform, it will continue to pay off in 1997-98
and every year thereafter. Indeed, as far as we are concerned, it
is this reform in the structure of government spending-in the
very redefinition of government itself-that is the main
achievement of this budget.
(1650)
[English]
After extensive review this budget overhauls not only how
government works but what government does. We are acting on
a new vision of the role of government in the economy. In many
cases this means smaller government; in all cases it means
smarter government.
We are dramatically reducing subsidies to business. We are
changing our support systems for agriculture. We will be putting
government activities on a commercial basis wherever that is
practical and productive.
[Translation]
We will be overhauling the unemployment insurance system
as part of our social security reform, and reforming the system
of transfers to the provinces-putting it on a basis that is more in
line with the actual responsibilities of the two levels of
government.
[English]
It is essential that our effort be guided by clear principles and
values. First, we believe it is crucial that the government get its
own house in order. Our budget must focus on cutting spending,
not raising taxes.
Second, government must define its role in a way that mirrors
our priorities as a people. Blind cuts are bad cuts. Canadians
need a budget designed to promote growth and jobs.
The third principle is frugality. Governments do not have
money. They are given money, money from the pockets of
Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and so government must
behave as if every dollar counts because every dollar does.
Finally, we must never, ever lose sight of the need to be fair,
fair among our regions and fair among individual Canadians.
[Translation]
If our purpose is to get the economy right, we need to redesign
the role of the government in the economy to fit the size of our
pocketbook and the priorities of our people. What is that role? It
is to provide a framework for the private sector to create jobs, to
see an aggressive trade strategy as central to Canada's industrial
strategy. And it is initiatives such as the Prime Minister's, in
Asia and Latin America, that will create opportunity for
thousands of Canadians here at home.
[English]
What is the role of government in the economy? It is to ensure
that the nation's finances are healthy. It is to do what only
government can do best and leave the rest for those who can do
better, whether they are in business, labour or in the voluntary
sector.
This budget puts our priorities into action. It does so after a
top to bottom review of all departments of government led by
the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. As a result
we will be able to reduce departmental spending dramatically
over the next three years while maintaining the services that are
truly needed by Canadians.
[Translation]
For example, between this fiscal year and 1997-98, annual
spending will go down by $1.6 billion at Defence, $550 million
for international assistance, $1.4 billion at Transport.
[English]
Over the next three years spending will be cut by more than
$600 million at natural resources, almost $900 million at HRD,
over $200 million at fisheries, almost $900 million in the
industry portfolio, more than $550 million in the regional
agencies, nearly $450 million at agriculture. In short, overall
departmental spending will be cut by almost 19 per cent in just
three years.
Let me emphasize, this is not a slowdown in the increase of
spending max as cuts. These are not the cuts of yesteryear. These
are real cuts in real dollars.
10097
(1655)
In the last recession every household, every business, every
volunteer group in this country was forced to face up to hard
choices and real change, but the Government of Canada did not.
In this budget we are bringing government size and its structure
into line with what we can afford.
[Translation]
As a result of the cut-back and reform of programs, the
President of the Treasury Board has announced that the public
service will be reduced by some 45,000 positions over three
years, with 20,000 being eliminated by the summer of next year.
Because so many of those affected have given so many years
of valuable services to Canadians, we are committed to
downsizing the public service as fairly as possible.
In some departments the scope for savings has been less than
in others. For example, we are responding to Canadians'
concern about public safety in their communities by
strengthening gun control and largely maintaining existing
levels of support for law enforcement, the justice system and
correctional services.
[English]
As a second example, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration has made clear our commitment to a fair,
affordable and well-enforced immigration policy. Therefore, a
form of financial guarantee will ensure that sponsors of
immigrants meet their obligations.
In addition, a $975 fee will be charged all adults immigrating
to Canada to offset the costs of immigrant services.
[Translation]
The measures in this budget share a common foundation and
philosophy. For example, across government, we are taking
major action in this budget to substantially reduce subsidies to
business. These subsidies do not create long-lasting jobs.
Nobody has made that case more strongly than business itself. In
this budget, total spending on business subsidies will decline
from $3.8 billion in this fiscal year to $1.5 billion by 1997-98.
That is a reduction of 60 per cent in three years. Remaining
industrial assistance will be targeted on the key engines of
economic growth-trade development, science and technology
and small and medium size business.
[English]
Transportation and direct agricultural production subsidies
are being eliminated or substantially reduced. This is historic
change. Decades ago, even into the last century, those subsidies
were put in place to respond to Canada's transportation and
agricultural needs then existing. As time has passed, those needs
have evolved but the subsidy structure has not. For years
governments have known about the need for change but they
have hesitated to act. But we cannot postpone action any longer.
To that end, subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation
Act are eliminated effective 1995-96, resulting in savings of
$2.6 billion over the next five years. This subsidy evolved from
the Crow rate established in 1897. It has played a pivotal role in
the development of the prairie economy, but in more recent
years it has come to restrict the ability of prairie farmers and
their industry to adapt and to compete.
(1700 )
To facilitate this change we will make a one time payment of
$1.6 billion to prairie farm land owners to be provided for in this
fiscal year 1994-95.
We will invest a further $300 million over several years to
facilitate a more efficient grain handling and transportation
system. We will provide new credit guarantees to help Canadian
farmers sell to non-sovereign buyers abroad.
Next, the Atlantic freight subsidies are also being eliminated,
effective in the upcoming fiscal year. This will result in savings
of $500 million over the next five years alone.
The elimination of this subsidy will contribute to a better
transportation system. To help ensure this, the government will
set up a five-year, $326 million transportation adjustment
program that among other things will help modernize the
highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.
[Translation]
Consistent with the recent decision of federal and provincial
ministers of agriculture, a core national ``whole farm''
stabilization program will be developed, together with crop
insurance and province-specific programs.
The costs of these initiatives will be shared between the
federal government, the provinces and farmers themselves. This
will replace current programs based on individual agricultural
commodities. It will therefore encourage innovation and
diversification, as well as resulting in a 30-per-cent reduction
in federal contributions to agricultural safety nets. Next, the
subsidy paid to industrial milk producers will be reduced by 15
per cent in 1995-96 and by a further 15 per cent the following
year. The future of this program will be reviewed, in
consultation with industry.
10098
Finally, the feed-freight assistance subsidies are being
discontinued and the Livestock Feed Bureau will be wound up.
A portion of the resulting savings will be redirected on a
transitional basis to help adjustment in the livestock industry.
[English]
Financial support to business should only be provided if there
is no alternative and a valid national need clearly exists. That is
why we have made a clear public commitment that new funding
for mega projects will not take place.
In the last year I have had numerous requests for the funding
of such projects cross my desk and every one of these has been
turned down.
In addition, with this budget we are eliminating the Public
Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. It can no longer be justified
in today's fiscal circumstances.
Small businesses are the primary creators of new jobs in this
country. Removing barriers to their success is a core priority for
the government and for Canadians, as is providing practical
assistance for them to survive and to grow.
Last year we announced that we would review the $500,000
lifetime capital gains tax exemption for small business and for
farmers. As a result of that review, we are announcing that no
changes to it will be made.
We see our regional agencies as playing an important role in
the creation of opportunity and long lasting jobs. However, we
do not believe that handouts are the way to do it. Therefore,
consistent with our new policy to sharply reduce business
subsidies, assistance to firms will be provided primarily through
repayable loans on terms tailored to foster genuine opportunity.
(1705 )
This government is determined that small businesses will
have access to the financing they need to continue being our
number one creator of jobs. While some progress has been made
there continue to be very large gaps in the system. We believe
that Canada's banks have a special obligation to help close those
gaps. That is why between now and the fall we have told the
banks that we will be working with them to hammer out
meaningful performance benchmarks for small business
financing. Progress during the following year will be monitored
against those benchmarks.
[Translation]
It is ideas today that will generate the products and the jobs of
tomorrow. That is why science and technology will become a
predominant focus for our business support. In the future, our
science and technology efforts will be concentrated more
strategically on activities that foster innovation, rapid
commercialization and value-added production.
As only one example, the Medical Research Council has
mounted a promising initiative to bring together private sector
capital and leading academic research efforts. That is the kind
of imagination we will encourage as a government in order to
stretch government's science dollars further and more
effectively, so that Canada's new economy may prosper.
[English]
The government is committed to privatizing and
commercializing government operations wherever feasible and
appropriate. Our view is straightforward. If government does
not need to run something it should not, and in the future it will
not.
Today we are announcing that the Minister of Transport will
initiate steps this year to sell CN. He will also commercialize the
air navigation system. When market conditions are favourable
the Minister of Natural Resources will sell our remaining 70 per
cent interest in Petro-Canada. The Minister of Public Works and
Government Services will examine divesting all or parts of the
Canada Communications Group.
Let me be clear. This is not a one shot exercise. Our effort to
identify other candidates for privatization will continue. This is
not ideology, it is simple common sense.
Let me say one thing before leaving program review. We have
accomplished a great deal over the last year. We have also
confirmed something. Getting government right does not end
with this budget or any other, for the essence of good
government is in fact permanent ongoing program review, and
we are going to provide good government.
[Translation]
Canadians make ends meet by watching their dollars every
day. It is time government did the same. Last month, the
government introduced a new and much tighter system to
manage its spending. Departments will have to find the money
for their new initiatives from existing budgets.
[English]
As another example of new and better management, in the
future for the first time government departments will have to
prepare three-year business plans. These plans will be subject to
parliamentary and therefore public scrutiny.
Our approach to interest group funding will change as well.
Some groups will continue to be funded as is. For others in a
position to secure financial support from outside government,
we will move toward a system based on the provision of
matching funds. For still other groups, continued funding will
not be possible due to our financial situation.
(1710)
[Translation]
There is no more important task than to do everything we can
to help Canadians get jobs, keep jobs or find better jobs. But the
fact is that the existing structure of programs does not do that
nearly well enough. That is why the Minister of Human
Resources Development will be announcing the details of a new
human resources investment fund. Many of the department's
existing programs that foster employability will be combined
under the umbrella of that new fund. A sharper focus on
10099
priorities, together with more efficient, streamlined services
will yield substantial permanent savings.
[English]
We must also continue to improve the unemployment
insurance program, building on the substantial reforms that
were introduced in last year's budget.
As has been emphasized so often by the minister of HRD, we
need to move away from passive support, away from
dependence, toward active assistance, toward independence. In
essence, a key job for UI in the future must be to help Canadians
stay off UI.
Later this year the minister intends to table legislation that
will build on the best elements of unemployment insurance to
create a fundamentally reformed program that addresses the
needs of our population. It is Canada's workers and Canada's
businesses that pay for UI. The program of the future must be
one they can afford.
Canada's strong economic performance and the UI reform
which the government intends to have in place no later than July
1, 1996 will reduce the overall size of the UI program by a
minimum of 10 per cent.
This overall reform combined with improvements in the
administration of the UI program will secure savings for
taxpayers of $700 million in 1996-97.
[Translation]
Improved employment conditions are rapidly eliminating the
deficit in the unemployment insurance account which had
reached almost $6 billion in 1993. With no increase in premium
rates, the surplus in the account will be allowed to rise above $5
billion through to the end of 1996. This surplus will be
maintained and used as a buffer to mitigate unemployment
insurance premium rate increases during periods of slow
economic growth. The result of these measures will be an
unemployment insurance program that does much better at
investing in people, and will lead to lower, more stable
unemployment insurance premium rates that will encourage the
creation of jobs.
[English]
We will never secure the kind of structural change that we
need without reforming the system of transfers to the provinces.
This budget sets out some key parameters. Let me be very
clear. As we go forward, we are unequivocally committed to a
co-operative approach. That is why, to provide predictability,
we said in last year's budget that we would not change the
system of major transfers before 1996-97. That is a
commitment this budget maintains.
It is also why in March of last year, as one of the first acts of
this government, we renewed the equalization program for five
years. We are not changing it now.
(1715)
However, some changes in other transfers are needed,
changes that will address two fundamental requirements. The
first is a system of transfers that is more effective in meeting
contemporary needs. The second is a system that is financially
sustainable.
[Translation]
Concerning the first requirement, we believe that the
restrictions attached by the federal government to transfer
payments in areas of clear provincial responsibility should be
minimized.
At present, transfers under the Canada assistance plan come
with a lot of unnecessary strings attached. The provinces are
clearly responsible for designing and delivering social
assistance programs. The current cost sharing method no longer
helps us to implement these programs as effectively as possible
and in tune with local needs.
So we are prepared to address those issues by funding CAP in
a similar way as we fund the existing EPF transfers for health
and post-secondary education.
As a result, the core rationale for the present segregation of
the three transfers into separate categories disappears.
Therefore, we are combining all three into a single consolidated
block transfer, called the Canadian social transfer, beginning in
1996-97.
Provinces will now be able to design more innovative social
programs-programs that respond to the needs of people today
rather than to inflexible rules.
[English]
However, flexibility does not mean a free for all.
There are national goals and principles we believe must still
apply and which the vast majority of Canadians support. Our
goal must be to combine greater flexibility with continued
fidelity to these principles.
The conditions of the Canada Health Act will be maintained:
universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and
public administration. For this government, those are
fundamental.
In addition, we will maintain the existing principle that
provinces must provide social assistance to applicants without
minimum residency requirements.
Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources Development
will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on
developing, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles
and objectives that could underlie the Canada social transfer.
10100
This reform deals with the requirement for a better
functioning system of transfers. But equally we need a system
that can be financially sustained.
Our major transfers to the provinces currently amount to $37
billion in cash and tax points. The cash portion alone represents
about 21 per cent of our total program spending.
Addressing our fiscal challenge simply does not allow us to
leave that spending untouched. We must establish the fiscal
parameters of a new system. However, as a matter of fairness
and balance, we believe that the provinces should not be
expected to bear more of the fiscal burden than we are prepared
to impose on ourselves. This budget meets that test.
As we have said, no changes in major transfers are being made
for next year, 1995-96, even though we are taking substantial
action that year to reduce our own spending.
(1720 )
For the following year the new Canada social transfer will be
$26.9 billion, cash and tax points combined. This will be about
$2.5 billion less than the projected transfer would be under the
present system.
This means that the total of all major federal transfers to the
provinces in 1996-97 will be 4.4 per cent lower than they are
today. That compares favourably with the reduction in spending
in our own backyard, that is to say, everything except transfers
to the provinces which will be down 7.3 per cent by that same
year.
In 1997-98 the Canada social transfer will be $25.1 billion or
about $4.5 billion less than what would have been transferred
under the existing system. To keep that in perspective, such a
reduction in transfers would equal about 3 per cent of aggregate
provincial revenues.
To ensure that everyone shares in fiscal restraint it will also be
necessary to subject territorial financing to reduced limits.
[Translation]
We believe these measures respond to the need for a more
affordable and effective system of transfers. But our challenge
and our commitment do not end here. With this budget, we are
saying yes to the provinces' desire to sit down for a bottom-up
review of the financing of both levels of government. If there are
ideas to make the fiscal side of federalism more efficient, let's
hear them. And if there are ways to make this federation
function better, then by all means let's do it.
One of the greatest reforms ever introduced by a Canadian
government has been the provision of decent support for elderly
Canadians-who have given, and continue to give-so much to
their families and to their country.
In recent weeks and months, there is probably no member of
this House who has not received letters or had conversations
with elderly Canadians who are worried that the protection their
country has provided them will be eaten away.
Because of that, this government is absolutely committed to
providing a fair and sustainable system of protection for
Canada's seniors.
[English]
There are two pillars of the public pension system. One is the
Canada and Quebec pension plans. The other is the old age
security and the guaranteed income supplement.
Canadian seniors deserve to know that those public pensions
will be there for them. That in turn requires reform to ensure that
the pension system is sustainable in the long term.
Concerning the CPP the most recent actuarial report was
released last week and it leaves no doubt that we will have to
take steps to ensure that the plan continues to be sustainable.
This we will do when we sit down this fall with the provinces to
review the CPP.
Let me now turn to the second pillar, the OAS and the GIS.
Clearly it is necessary to make these pensions sustainable as
well.
To ensure that our approach to the public pension system is
comprehensive, the Minister of Human Resources Development
and I will be releasing later this year a paper on the changes
required in both pillars of the public pension system to ensure its
affordability. The focus will be on fairness and sustainability.
Consultations will take place once the paper is released. It is our
intention that the reforms be legislated to take effect in 1997.
(1725 )
In the meantime, we are announcing today a change in the
method of payment of the OAS to high income seniors who are
subject to the so-called clawback rules.
Beginning July 1996, monthly OAS payments will be
calculated and paid with the clawback amount subtracted, based
on the prior year's tax return. This will yield one-time savings
of about $300 million.
Finally, to ensure fairness, we will be requiring Canadians
who are non-residents of this country to file a statement of their
worldwide income in order to continue to receive OAS benefits.
Let me turn now to the question of revenues. There is not one
solitary Canadian who likes taxes. As we speak millions of
Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and do so on time.
However there are those who do not.
10101
[Translation]
On a priority basis, the Minister of National Revenue will be
taking the following measures to step up his department's
efforts with regard to taxes that are owed. For example, the
interest rate charged on over-due taxes will be increased by 2
percentage points.
[English]
Next, we are announcing steps to make the tax system more
fair.
The tax deferral advantages for investment income earned by
private holding companies will be taken away.
The current film incentive will be changed. Rather than being
a tax shelter for high income investors, a new refundable credit
will be provided directly to producers of Canadian films.
Those who earn business or professional income have a tax
advantage over many other Canadians. Because of special rules
that allow them to select their own year end for tax purposes,
those individuals are given an ongoing tax deferral. That
advantage is being eliminated subject to a 10-year transition
period.
We are concerned that the rules regarding the resource
allowance for the mining and petroleum industries are not
working as originally intended. We will be meeting with the
provinces and both industries on possible improvements to or
replacement of this allowance.
We will be evaluating the entire R and D tax inventive
program to ensure its effectiveness.
While this review is under way no bank or other financial
institution will be eligible for these incentives related to
information technology.
[Translation]
Concern has been expressed about tax advantages that may
exist as a result of the establishment of trusts, trusts which
largely benefit high-income Canadians.
Therefore, for foreign trusts-and indeed for taxpayers who
invest in foreign holdings generally-we are introducing more
stringent reporting requirements.
Second, this budget eliminates all tax advantages that flow
from the establishment of family trusts. That involves
eliminating the potentially unfair income spliting advantages
that exist. And we are repealing the previous government's
amendment that allowed deferral of the 21-year rule.
[English]
Providing tax assistance to encourage Canadians to save is an
essential part of our retirement income security system. We are
not prepared to compromise the integrity or the purpose of that
system. But equally, we must ensure that the benefits of tax
assistance are shared fairly in these times of restraint, while also
adhering to the key principles and purposes of pension reform.
(1730)
One of those principles is that tax assistance should be
provided for contributions to registered saving plans based on
earnings up to two and one-half times the average wage and no
more. Therefore, we will be reducing the upper limit on
deductible RRSP contributions to $13,500 for 1996 and 1997.
That limit will then be allowed to progressively increase to
$15,500 by 1999. The maximum pension limit for registered
defined benefit plans will be frozen at its current level through
1998.
We are also introducing measures to improve the overall
fairness of this system by tightening some existing provisions.
For example, beginning in 1996, the over contribution
allowance for RRSPs will be reduced from its current $8,000 to
$2,000.
[Translation]
Our effort to ensure an effective and fair system of taxation
does not begin-or end-with this budget.
We want to make absolutely clear our ongoing commitment to
tax-reform.
If we must constantly scrutinize government spending-as we
must-then let it be clear we must also constantly scrutinize the
fairness and effectiveness of the tax system.
[English]
Despite the size of the savings we must secure, this budget
focuses almost entirely on reducing the spending of
government, not increasing taxes for Canadians. That being
said, spending cuts themselves get us very near to our targets,
but there is a small gap we must close. Therefore, we have found
it necessary to do four things.
First, the existing large corporations tax will be increased by
12.5 per cent effective immediately in order that big companies
contribute more to help bring the deficit down.
Second, we are raising the existing corporate surtax from 3
per cent to 4 per cent.
Third, effective midnight tonight, the federal excise tax on
gasoline will be increased by 1.5 cents per litre, raising $500
million annually. This will restore total revenue from all federal
excise taxes to approximately the level they were in 1993-94.
Finally, we are announcing today a temporary tax on the
capital of large, deposit-taking institutions, including the
banks. That tax will be in effect until October 31, 1996 and will
raise about $100 million.
Taken together, the revenue measures in this budget are far
overshadowed by the size of the spending cuts we have made.
For every $1 raised in new tax revenue over the next three years,
there are almost $7 in spending cuts. Furthermore, in this
budget, like last year's, we are not increasing personal income
tax rates one iota.
10102
(1735 )
This budget sets this country on a sure course of fiscal
responsibility and government renewal. Our task is not over and
our efforts will not cease. Those who believe that the
government will inevitably let up in its effort to cut costs as the
next election approaches simply do not understand the
conviction of the Canadian people that a deteriorating national
balance sheet is no longer acceptable.
[Translation]
Constant renewal is what this country is all about. Indeed, it is
the essential ingredient of a dynamic federalism.
There are those who would argue that this country, this
federation, cannot change-that Canada is about the status quo.
That is nonsense.
None of us is here to defend the status quo. We are here to
change it. And with this budget we are.
Providing new fiscal leadership. Reducing overlap and
duplication. Giving the provinces greater freedom to design and
deliver services. These changes respond to positive pressures
for change from across the country.
They mark a recognition on the part of us all that in this tough,
competitive world, despite the differences we have, we all have
so much to gain by working together-productively, rather than
standing apart-destructively.
This budget faces difficult choices for all Canadians. But this
year, in Quebec, some of us are also being asked to choose a
country. To choose to remain proud partners in a large,
reforming country. Or to become something else-smaller and
alone. To embrace real change and improvement, or to join those
who pretend that the road to a better future lies through fracture.
The separatist view has always been the same-its own status
quo. Ignoring reform that has happened. Denying reform when it
is occurring. Refusing reform when it is offered.
That is not our position. By definition, Canadian federalism is
change-always improving, always progressing and today, with
this budget, reaching ahead to a new phase of renewal.
[English]
It is customary at this time, when closing the presentation of a
government's budget, to claim that the measures being taken
have solved every problem, responded to every expectation and
addressed every need. That is something we will not say today.
The fact is there is so much more that we would like to be able
to do for the millions of Canadians who care little about the
world of dividends and derivatives and simply worry about
making ends meet. That being said, if we believed that dealing
with the deficit would do nothing to protect what we value, if we
believed that it would do nothing to offer hope to ordinary
Canadians, we would not be acting now because it is they who
suffer when government must focus its precious resources on
satisfying lenders abroad rather than real needs at home.
(1740 )
For all of us who care for the social fabric of this country, who
seek a better future for our children, who are committed to the
protection of our seniors and to the independence of our country,
the state of the nation's finances simply has to be addressed.
[Translation]
The choice is ours. We can either dwell on our
imperfections-or work together towards real improvement.
We can leave the field to those who have given up on
Canada-or we can demonstrate trust in ourselves.
[English]
We believe this is the year we can turn the corner and turn the
page. It may seem like a long struggle, but the light at the end of
this tunnel is much nearer than any of us might think.
Canadians can have confidence now in a government that has
put the era of band-aid budgets behind it.
Canadians can have confidence now that their social
programs will be there for those who need them.
Canadians can have confidence now in their country being
one of the most attractive places in the world to invest, creating
jobs.
For too long, governments have known the need for reform
and renewal; known the need, but not the will. That has been the
problem with the governments of this country. This government
has made its choice and it is against the status quo and in favour
of a stronger country.
Let me close by quoting from another Canadian in an earlier
time, a member of a previous government who, as I remember,
did not particularly like finance ministers:
Government must not live in the past-Every day there are new needs to be
met. If inflation is to be fought, unemployment countered and something done,
and soon, to get Canadian prosperity back into its stride, the government must
begin to plan ahead-not timidly, not tentatively-but boldly, imaginatively
and courageously.
Mr. Speaker, those words were spoken by my father in
1957-for his time. That is what I believe we have done today,
for ours.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
10103
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 1995.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
(1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing the finance minister is decentralizing to
the provinces in this budget is the deficit, and nothing else.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: He is decentralizing the deficit while making
cuts, as we have been seeing since last year, at the expense of the
most destitute, that is to social programs, unemployment
insurance and everywhere except where cuts should be made.
After the finance minister's usual generalized downloading
since bringing down his budget in February 1994, we are now to
witness a major downloading of the deficit and of his
responsibilities onto the provinces.
The cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces,
specifically transfers for postsecondary education, health and
the Canada assistance plan will not be made right away this year.
That would be far too much courage to expect from this
government during this referendum year. But they will be made,
the axe will fall in 1996-97, eliminating $2.5 billion in federal
transfers for postsecondary education, health and the Canada
assistance plan.
Not satisfied with axing social programs and transfers to the
provinces, in 1997-98 the federal government will cut a further
$4.5 billion from transfers to the provinces, all of this under the
guise of alleged decentralization, a masquerade of
decentralization which is really just the finance minister
downloading his responsibilities.
These cuts of $4.5 billion to social programs in 1997-98 will
of course have to be negotiated after the referendum. That shows
how much the government cares about clarity, honesty and being
compassionate about education, health and poverty. Not only
does this government show a lack of courage by downloading its
problems onto the provinces, it has been so hateful as to do it on
the backs of the most destitute.
As for the unemployment insurance fund, already drastically
cut by $300 million last year, the minister is proposing $2.4
billion in cuts this year and another $2.4 billion next year while
at the same time considering a 10 per cent cut in contributions to
the UI fund. The finance minister is hateful and arrogant enough
to present these deficit objectives, these deficit results for
1994-95, saying that he has reduced his objective from $41
billion to $39 billion. But he has pulled this off by taking the $2
billion surplus from the unemployment insurance plan and
deducting it from his forecasts. That explains his outstanding
accomplishment; he did not in any sense reduce the deficit for
this year, he simply took the surplus from the unemployment
insurance program to make himself look good as a public sector
manager.
This is unacceptable. While $7.5 billion were already to have
been cut from social programs and unemployment insurance
over the next two or three years, the finance minister presents in
this budget a 60 per cent cut in business subsidies over the next
three years. Sixty per cent over three years, although the Bloc
Quebecois and even the Conseil du patronat du Québec had
suggested eliminating these business subsidies over the coming
years, subsidies which most often give rise to patronage,
inefficiency and unfair competition. Not only does the finance
minister tell us that the $3.8 billion in subsidies will be reduced
by only 60 per cent over three years-there will still be $1.5
billion in business subsidies in 1997-he is cutting more than
$300 million from CMHC for social housing. That is this
government's concept of social justice.
(1750)
Where is the reform of the tax system? Where is this so
long-awaited reform? Where? The minister has been heralding
it with great pomp since he assumed the position. He did not
deliver. He never had any intention of reforming the tax system.
What did he do about the taxation of businesses? What did he
do to prevent a reocurrence of the recent fact that over 70,000
profitable Canadian businesses did not pay a cent of tax to
Ottawa? With what has he plugged this tax loophole? Nothing.
He took no steps to collect this money that profitable businesses
owe to federal coffers. He has slightly raised corporate taxes,
about 1.5 per cent over three years.
What did he do about those tax agreements signed with
countries considered to be tax havens? Nothing. The Auditor
General said himself that hundreds of millions of dollars are
being transferred through bogus Canadian subsidiaries to
foreign tax havens. What did he do about this? Once again,
nothing.
What did the Minister of Finance do in this budget to cut the
tax breaks offered to extremely rich Canadian families through
family trusts? By the way, I do thank the minister for getting rid
of these tax breaks, but he should have cut them immediately,
not in 1999, as is provided for in the budget. Doing it in 1999,
what a sham.
By then, extremely rich Canadian families will have had the
time to dismantle their family trusts and to transfer their
hundreds of millions of dollars to other tax shelters to avoid
paying tax on capital gains year after year. And they dare say
10104
that they met the demands of the official opposition. The
Minister of Finance must be joking.
What did the Minister of Finance do in this budget to reduce
duplication and waste? As the champion of restructuration, of
flexible federalism, of the progressive backward status quo, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, said himself, the federal
government will continue to be active in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. He made this comment while referring to forestry
and health services.
The budget itself tends to download deficit problems while
keeping a firm central rein on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Be they known as Canada-wide standards, guiding principles or
by any other name, the budget's bottom line is that over the next
few years, there will be no decrease in overlap, duplication and
waste in the management of public funds. We are certain that
this overlap and wastage will persist because the federal
government will not withdraw from areas falling under
provincial jurisdiction.
This budget talks of an increase in taxes on gasoline but pays
only lip service to the issue of collecting the some $6.6 billion in
unpaid taxes payable to the federal government.
If we compare last year's budget to this year's, we see it
contains no concrete measure regarding the collection of these
unpaid federal revenues. Instead of recovering these $6.6 billion
in unpaid taxes, the minister has created new taxes, new needs
and imposed cuts on the most needy.
Earlier, I heard the minister talk about agriculture. It is
disgusting what is happening with agriculture. To compensate
the prairie provinces for the loss of the famous Crow's nest rate
and of subsidies for the transportation of grain and for the drop
in land values, this new budget will give western producers $1.6
billion to start. They will also receive $1 billion in loan
guarantees.
To that, we can add $300 million for the transition. Close to $3
billion will be invested in Western Canada following the
elimination of the Crow's Nest subsidy, while there is nothing in
the budget for Quebec. On the contrary, the budget cuts the dairy
subsidy by 30 per cent, which will have a major impact in
Quebec since 50 per cent of dairy production comes from that
province.
While giving $3 billion to Western Canada, they are cutting
by 30 per cent the dairy subsidy to Quebec farmers, which
amounts to between $30 million and $40 million, in addition to
reducing their income security. That is a disgrace! They are
perpetuating all that has been denounced for 30 years about a
system that does not treat Western and Eastern Canada equally
in various regards, particularly in the agricultural sector.
I could have mentioned the blind cuts affecting cultural
institutions, like the CBC, and regional development, but I will
not go any further since we will have the opportunity in the
coming days to discuss in more detail this budget, this crock
supposedly aimed at restoring some confidence among
Canadian taxpayers.
Today's budget does not tackle the real problems. In fact, the
Minister of Finance is not credible when he expresses his
intention to eliminate the deficit, because he does not address
our serious structural unemployment problem nor acknowledge
the fact that there are too many levels of government in this
country. Finally, he says he wants to eliminate the deficit
without explaining when or how; in particular, he did not outline
budgetary appropriations for 1997-98. We do not know where
we are going after 1997-98. We do not know where this
disgraceful reform to be achieved at the expense of the most
disadvantaged and the provinces is leading us.
To deal with both duplication and unemployment, the federal
government should have included in its budget a proposal to
withdraw immediately from all areas of provincial jurisdiction
in return for the corresponding share of our federal taxes. That
would be a real reform. That was what we were expecting. As far
as restructuring is concerned, that is what we were expecting on
this side of the House.
In conclusion, the minister said at the beginning of his budget
speech that there were two clouds looming over the horizon.
Quebec nationalists are crying out that they want more power,
particularly the sovereignists. The second cloud is the debt and
deficit. The minister is deliberately looking for a scapegoat for
his laxness. He has been lax for the past year, and all Canadians
paid for it barely one month after his first budget in the form of
increased mortgage or other interest rates.
We are paying for this laxness. If a cloud is looming over the
horizon, the minister should have added two more to replace the
constitutional cloud. His government is the looming cloud. His
government has had a year and a half, but has not made the right
decisions, leaving us facing huge cuts this year. And they will
carry over into the coming years as well. Because the
government is lax, we have this enormous problem of the federal
debt before us. Another cloud looming over the Canadian
horizon is unemployment.
There should have been talk of tackling unemployment, but
no mention was made, because it is not a priority for the
minister. It is not a cloud looming over this government, despite
the fact that 1.2 million people are out of work in Canada, and
people are waiting for training, who have not had it because of
the government's inertia.
I therefore move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
10105
The Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 83(2), the
motion is deemed adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 83(2).
(The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.)