CONTENTS
Monday, March 13, 1995
Bill C-232. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 10355
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 10363
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10363
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10365
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10368
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10380
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10380
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10381
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10382
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10383
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10384
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10385
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10385
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10385
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10385
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10389
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10389
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10390
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10390
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10390
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10390
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 10390
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 10392
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10392
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10392
(Motion agreed to.) 10393
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and of the amendment 10397
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10400
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 10405
10355
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 13, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from Friday, November 25, consideration
of the motion that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the matter was previously before
the House, the hon. member for Elk Island had the floor. He has
seven minutes left in his intervention.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to continue my speech. It is the first time that I have had 108
days to contemplate the next sentence in the middle of a speech.
I shall carry on. I am not going to waste my time.
We are dealing with a very important matter. It is very
important to recognize we are dealing with the lives of real
people. Quite often in this place we can sink into a way of
thinking and we forget the people behind the rules and laws we
are passing.
It is the same when we deal with a budget. The budget affects
real people. This is another bill that does the same. It is a bill
that deeply affects the lives of people, grandparents in particular
but also grandchildren. It also affects the parents.
(1105 )
When I was contemplating what to say next, I decided I would
try to put a human face on my remarks. I want to share the
importance of the legislation before us concerning the rights of
grandparents to have input into the lives of their children's
children. Nothing is more precious than this.
I would like to share correspondence I received on this
subject. I received a very moving letter after I had participated
in the debate last November 25. This letter came from people in
Ontario who told a story of how they have been separated from
their grandchildren. They simply asked for a measure that will
safeguard the vital connection and relationship between
grandchildren and grandparents.
We live in a age in which many people are disconnected.
Many young people, many children have had their roots ripped
away from them for one reason or another. The connection to
grandparents is a very important connective root for these
people.
This lady said: ``For us it is over three years since we have
heard from our only grandchildren''. I read this letter several
days after receiving it. Just as many MPs do, I work on
correspondence in the evening and I answered this letter quite
late at night. This is what I said: ``I am sitting here at 10.25 p.m.
miles away from my wife and son in Alberta, my daughter,
son-in-law and only grandson in Saskatchewan and half way
around the world from another son and daughter-in-law in
Rwanda. When I read your letter I detected the pain you must
feel. I cannot imagine the hurt you feel when you cannot talk to,
cannot touch, cannot hug and spoil your own grandchildren. My
family is so precious to me and I am sure that you feel the same
about yours''. I really felt the pain that evening because the
story so touched my heart.
When we contemplate legislation that will grant grandparents
reasonable and fair access to their grandchildren, there can be no
reasonable doubt in the minds of parents or of the courts, if they
are involved, that there is anything detrimental to the children,
but only favourable to the children, we then proceed to provide
this.
Many people across the country are watching this on
television right now. Certainly here in the House we have
observers that have been touched by this issue. It is incumbent
on us as legislators to do all we can.
I received another letter from this lady after Christmas. She
said: ``Nothing new has happened regarding news from or about
our grandchildren. It was our fourth Christmas of not hearing,
despite our sending cards and letters, even by registered mail.
We feel so helpless in all this''. This is the crux of the matter.
There is a helplessness and nowhere to turn for assistance.
We are not asking for anything in this legislation that will be a
great hardship on anyone. We are asking for legislation that will
grant a point of connection between children and grandparents.
10356
I cannot help but relate this to my own situation. I really
cannot tell members how much I really love my little grandson.
I might as well tell the whole world that he will soon be having
a little brother or sister. It is such a tremendously touching
experience for us. We are so privileged to have a wonderful,
loving relationship between our children, our son-in-law and
our grandchild.
(1110)
I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone would put a barrier
between children and their grandparents. Therefore we are not
dealing here with people who have a normal relationship. That is
true for probably 95 per cent of people whose relationships are
not torn. As in almost all legislation, we are trying to introduce
measures that will accommodate those people where a
relationship is broken and there has to be some kind of
intervention.
We are asking all members of the House to support the bill. In
this way people who cannot reach out and touch and hug their
grandchildren will be given at least occasionally the privilege of
doing so. We are asking that those parents who would stand
between their children and the grandparents to carefully think
about what they are doing when they introduce these barriers.
Barring a response from parents we need legislation that
would require them to give to some disinterested party, like a
court if necessary, their reasons. If there is a valid reason for
maintaining the barrier I am sure that the courts would
understand. If there is not a valid reason then we believe it is in
the best interests of children and grandparents to be able to see
each other, to talk to each other, to send and receive letters, to
send and receive phone calls in order for them to be able to
communicate and to build on their relationship.
In conclusion, we have so many young people in our society
who are anchorless. They have had so many disruptions in their
lives. Nothing is more solid than a familial relationship between
children and parents, between children and grandparents that
will give them, on an ongoing basis, a sense of security and
belonging.
I urge all members to support the bill. Let us do what is right
for the children of our country.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
1994 was declared the International Year of the Family. The
theme as defined by the United Nations is Family, Resources
and Responsibilities in a Changing World.
In making this proclamation, the United Nations outlined
some basic principles. The first of these principles is that the
family is the basic unit of society and therefore deserves special
attention.
The widest possible protection and assistance should be given
to families so that they can assume their responsibilities in the
community. Another principle is that families take different
forms and serve different functions from one country to another
and within each country.
This is very important. Changing social and economic
conditions are bringing to the fore new issues affecting families,
particularly children. One of the realities that cannot be ignored
is that many marriages in Canada now end in divorce. A related
fact is that many children are directly affected by these divorces
although it is difficult to determine the exact number because
there is no official information about out of court custody
decisions. We know, for example, that in 1990 approximately
34,000 children were involved in divorce cases in which the
courts made custody decisions.
From a social policy perspective, this means that Canada's
laws, policies and programs should take into account the many
diverse needs of families today. More specifically, our laws
restricting divorce should reflect our society's changing needs
and continue to ensure that the best interests of the children are
met. That is why I am pleased to be given the opportunity to
comment on Bill C-232 which proposes amending the Divorce
Act to promote grandparent access.
(1115)
I want to start off by saying very clearly that I believe the
relationship between grandparent and grandchild is something
very special, especially after the parents divorce. Grandparents
can be an important resource to children. They can offer care and
support and buffer children from the many changes and stresses
associated with family breakdown. I therefore agree
wholeheartedly with the basic principle that a child's continued
contact with grandparents, indeed with all members of the
child's extended family, is something that very often is in the
best interests of the child.
I emphasize that the best interests of the child test is a
standard that has come to be accepted both in Canada and
internationally as the appropriate standard to apply with respect
to matters relating to children. It means that laws directly
affecting children should focus on the needs and best interests of
the child rather than on the rights of adults.
In applying this standard it is important to acknowledge the
writings of sociologists and psychiatrists on the subject of the
effect of divorce on children. Researchers generally agree that
the breakdown of the parents' marriage brings about a major
crisis in the lives of most children and adolescents. It is an
acutely stressful event for a child. Equally important is the fact
that researchers also highlight the detrimental effects on
children of ongoing conflict and litigation.
There is widespread agreement that the most tragic and
clinically vulnerable children are those who become the object
of continued acrimonious custody or access battles. It is not
difficult to imagine how upsetting such a court battle would be
to a child with the stress, uncertainty and loyalty conflicts that
10357
would accompany the litigation and with the child right in the
centre. I bring this up because Bill C-232 seeks amendments to
the Divorce Act which effectively would provide grandparents
with independent standing to apply to the court for access to, or
custody of their grandchildren at the same time the
grandchildren's parents are getting a divorce.
This bill proposes that grandparents be allowed to make a
custody and/or access application under the Divorce Act without
being required to obtain leave of the court. Currently under the
Divorce Act third parties, including grandparents, must have
leave of the court to make an application for custody of or access
to any or all children of the marriage. The requirement that
grandparents obtain leave of the court to make application
ensures that only where the truly serious disputes exist will
recourse be made to the courts. In other words, it discourages the
use of litigation.
I am concerned that despite its good intentions this bill, which
would allow grandparents to make a custody or access
application under the Divorce Act as a right, could have the
effect of encouraging grandparents to formally apply for court
imposed access orders. I realize this is not its primary goal;
rather it is an attempt to formally recognize a grandparent's
legal right to access. It may however have the unintentional
effect of increasing custody and access disputes and promoting
litigation. I do not believe that would be in the best interests of
children because, as I mentioned earlier, the best interests
standard means focusing on the needs of children rather than on
the rights of adults.
I want to emphasize that I do appreciate the grandparents'
overwhelming desire to ensure that they continue to see their
grandchildren. We have to remember however that formal court
intervention is not always required and should not be
encouraged.
Surely it is preferable to encourage that arrangements for
grandparent access be worked out on the basis of trust and
co-operation. I believe that in many cases, indeed in the
overwhelming majority of cases, regular contact between
grandparents and children of a broken marriage can continue
without the need for court intervention.
In my view, marriage breakdown is a traumatic personal
experience for the parents and children. Children who are
already experiencing the distress of a parental divorce do not
need to be additionally upset by a courtroom dispute between
the parents and grandparents concerning grandparent access
rights.
(1120 )
Another important point which should be made is that it
should be recognized there are limitations as to what a court
order can accomplish and what the law can do to enforce it. It
would be ideal if a court order awarding grandparent access
could ensure that meaningful access would occur without
further problems. Unfortunately this is not the case.
A court cannot order people to change their attitudes, feelings
or manner of relating to one another. In reality, attempts to
enforce an access order often lead to more conflict and often
even more litigation.
As I said earlier, I support wholeheartedly the idea that
children should have continued and ongoing contact with their
grandparents. However, I fear that Bill C-232 could have the
effect of encouraging grandparents to formally apply for court
imposed access orders. I do not think that would be in the best
interests of a child. I truly believe there are more efficient and
less stressful ways to work out post-divorce access
arrangements without the need for court intervention.
The law is a blunt instrument. A court imposed judicially
enforced order for grandparent access cannot take the place of a
relationship that is allowed to occur and develop naturally.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
here we are in the second hour of debate on the bill tabled by my
colleague from the Reform Party. The aim of this bill is to
amend the Divorce Act, by simplifying the procedure for
grandparents to obtain legal custody of their grandchildren.
At the moment, grandparents wishing to obtain custody of
their grandchildren must submit an initial application to the
courts for leave to debate the legal custody of their
grandchildren.
Grandparents are currently treated like any other interested
person. All persons other than a spouse must first obtain leave
from the court to apply for a custody order. Grandparents have
no special status in divorce proceedings, and the aim of a
preliminary application is to verify the claims by the
grandparents and to decide if it is in the best interest of the child
for them to intervene.
Bill C-232 would eliminate the need for grandparents to make
this preliminary application and would enable them to become a
party to the dispute in the same way as the spouse.
I would first like to say to this House that I am deeply
saddened by the number of cases in which grandchildren lose
contact with their grandparents following a divorce. Divorce
proceedings are extremely stressful, and the break up of the
nuclear family is traumatic for children. It can have the effect of
altering their personality or behaviour. Children losing contact
with their grandparents, in addition, face further hardships.
Children kept from their grandparents by mean parents, who
use them to take revenge on one another, become the innocent
victims in a form of hostage taking. They become the bargaining
10358
chip of parents whose meanness is matched only by their
self-centredness. Nobody wins in this sort of game.
In this light it is therefore easy to understand why my
colleague's bill elicits such sympathy. At first glance, it seems
to resolve the problem of the additional trauma children must
face when their parents divorce. However, despite appearances
and its commendable objectives, it creates more problems than
it solves.
Let us take a good look at Bill C-232. The proposed
amendments aim to make it simpler for grandparents to request
custody when parents divorce. In fact, grandparents would no
longer be required to obtain leave of the court to present a
request for custody of their grandchildren. Bill C-232 amends
section 16 of the Divorce Act and places parents and
grandparents on the same footing when it comes to custody
requests. Six people will be involved from the outset instead of
two.
This six-way struggle could become an eight-way or
sixteen-way struggle, since the Divorce Act does not define
``grandparents''.
(1125)
What about de jure grandparents? Does the term
``grandparents'' include both biological grandparents and
grandparents by right? What about a single mother who marries
the father of a child, which she later adopts, and therefore gains
a share of parental control? Can the single mother's parents be
considered the child's grandparents under the Divorce Act?
What about remarriage after a divorce where custody is shared?
Take the example of the parents of Julien and Laurence. These
children have four biological grandparents. Their parents
divorce. The two parents remarry spouses who each have a
child, Isabelle and Christine respectively. Isabelle and Christine
each have four biological grandparents. If joint legal custody is
given to Julien and Laurence's parents, these children will
become part of two reconstituted families.
If one of the new couples divorced, no less than eight
grandparents would be able to obtain custody of the children. If
both couples divorced, twelve grandparents could be involved, I
kid you not. Julien and Laurence's four grandparents could each
demand custody of their grandchildren by way of two distinct
divorce proceedings. Just imagine the legal wrangling.
If its main goal is to foster relationships between
grandparents and their grandchildren, Bill C-232 is ineffective.
It simplifies the procedure for grandparents but complicates the
issue when both parents retain custody and there is no reason to
take it away from them. In fact, with respect to their access to
information regarding the education and welfare of the child,
grandparents are given more rights at the time of the divorce
than during the marriage. It is as though they have acquired
parental authority, without the spouses being deprived of it.
The children will be subjected to a more complex dispute
involving a greater number of parties. Everyone will make their
pitch, claiming to act in the best interests of the child, but it is
still the child who suffers.
With respect to parental authority, this is an exclusive power
of the provinces under section 92 (13) of the Constitution Act of
1867. This concept of civil law is the prerogative of Quebec.
In granting more rights to grandparents, in interfering with
the concept of parental authority at the time of a divorce
proceeding, this bill represents an out and out encroachment on
the jurisdiction of the provinces. It looks like Bill C-232 is
trying to accomplish indirectly what direct action has failed to
accomplish.
The common law provinces have no legislation explicitly
protecting personal relations between grandchildren and their
grandparents. The other provinces have been concerned with
protecting the relations between a child and his parents. This is a
laudable goal, but it is not enough.
Quebec, on the other hand, has enacted legislation promoting
harmonious relations between grandparents and grandchildren.
Article 611 of the Civil Code of Quebec allows grandparents
who are denied such relations to make an application to the court
for a decision on the terms and conditions of their relations with
their grandchildren. Such an application can be made at any
time. The spouses can be engaged in divorce proceedings or not.
The application can be made even if the parents have never been
married.
Article 611 of the Civil Code is the real solution to the
problems created when there is interference in the personal
relations between grandchildren and their grandparents. In
Quebec, the recourse of grandparents is clear if the dispute is
about a deterioration in harmonious relations attributable to the
parents. Notwithstanding its honourable intentions, Bill C-232
is no more than a stopgap solution to the failure of certain
provinces to bring in legislation in the area of civil law.
There is another aspect of Bill C-232 that concerns me.
Clause 1(2) gives grandparents the right to make inquiries, and
to be given information, as to the health, education and welfare
of the child.
(1130)
If this amendment was made to the Divorce Act, the
grandparents of children of divorced parents would have the
right to be given information that the grandparents of children of
non-divorced parents cannot obtain.
Furthermore-and we think this is very serious-section 1(2)
of the bill directly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction over the
protection of medical and school information. Quebec already
has its own Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public
Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information.
10359
Following her consultations with legal experts, my Reform
colleague admitted in this House on November 25, 1994 that
this provision of the bill, and I quote: ``-may also contravene
privacy acts or rights of the child-''
She went on to say: ``Therefore while procedurally it cannot
be removed at this time, I trust when the bill gets to committee
this clause can be deleted''.
I must congratulate my colleague on her honesty. She admits
she was wrong about the impact of her bill and tries to
compensate by hoping that the Standing Committee on Justice
can improve it. Unfortunately, it is not Bill C-232's only
shortcoming. I cannot support a flawed bill.
In closing, I wish to reiterate my position on the fate of
children whose parents are divorcing. I find it appalling to see
some parents relentlessly prolonging the suffering of the young
victims of such circumstances.
The governments of common law provinces should make laws
facilitating relations between grandchildren and their
grandparents, as was done in Quebec, which is a pioneer in
family rights.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill today. I would first like
to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of many
grandparents. I welcome them here. These are people interested
in this issue and I encourage them to listen and to work with us
as we look to this legislation.
I also recognize their contribution, especially as seniors or
grandparents in our society, to the past, the present and
hopefully the future of this country.
Bill C-232 addresses the issue of granting access and custody
to grandparents. This is a very real issue in our society. There are
a growing number of grandparents and a growing complexity of
marriage breakdowns and blended families within society.
As chair of the family task force of our party, we have done a
fair amount of work looking at families and the importance of
families in society. In that process we have determined a
definition of family that we are using as a benchmark, those
individuals related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption, where
marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognised by the
state. It very much includes relations of blood, which means that
grandparents are an important part of family and should remain
so.
I will illustrate something that happened this week within my
riding. We have a unique French community, one of the original
French communities in British Columbia. It was established
with the logging industry on the banks of the Fraser River at the
turn of the century.
It was a thriving community, a mill town, called
Maillardville. Every year we have the festival du bois which
recognizes the importance of that in our community. This year
there was a rededication of the original Millside school. It has
been renovated and changed with the changing neighbourhood.
I talked with seniors, many of them watching with pride as
being part of this community. In that crowd there were also
second and third generation people, seniors who had attended
that school in the 1920s. It was a French community of people
who had shared in that community throughout their lives and
watched their children and grandchildren raised there.
(1135 )
Through them and through their activity within their families,
they have managed to maintain the language, the culture, the
knowledge and the pride of their heritage, the sense of belonging
in and around their community, the sense of history, the values
they share and a sense of permanence within their families in
this changing world.
There was an understanding between those generations. It was
not an externally imposed understanding but an internally
shared understanding between the members of families.
Is that typical in our society? Unfortunately it probably is not.
We have had changes because of the tremendous new pressures
in this society. Seventy-five per cent of mothers of school aged
children now have full or part time work which keeps them out
of the home. The average number of working hours in the 1950s
was 48 in order to earn an average family income.
Today an average family income requires two people on
average working 65 to 75 hours every week. The stress on
families is tremendous. Therefore, as we have heard today, there
is a high incidence of divorce and separation within families.
With that comes the stress, the uncertainty, the conflicting
loyalties, et cetera, that we have heard.
It is interesting that we have the same number of
husband-wife households now as we had in the 1940s.
Eighty-seven per cent of households are husband, wife and
children. However, many of those households are second and
third marriages or blended family units.
We do have single parent families in our communities which
are very much a reality. The term single parent family denies
that a family had two parents at one point and four parents at
some point related by blood. Single parents should not be
deemed as alone and isolated in our society. There are relations
and support within society for them.
There are the factors of immigration and the mobility of
families across the country. These put further stresses on ties of
10360
blood but these separations are not as complicated by the
tensions that we find in family break-up situations.
Death, separation and divorce are three real factors of our
society and they all lead very much to the breakdown of
fundamental family ties. What we are asking today is what we
can do about it.
In this Chamber we should be asking about the government's
role in doing something about this very real problem in our
society. This Chamber recognizes in many ways that one of its
primary responsibilities in society is to recognize the
importance of heritage.
We hear in eloquent speeches the importance of heritage for
our native peoples. We hear the importance of heritage for our
visible minorities and our many cultures. However, I would like
to see what the importance of heritage is in our laws for
Canadians generally.
In family law there is an overlap between provincial and
federal jurisdictions. Provincial law dictates what happens
within relationships when a parent dies or when there is abuse
within the family or when parents separate.
In B.C. when those situations come into the legal process,
grandparents may be granted access by application to the courts
on the same basis as anyone else. Within that province, as in
most provinces, there is no recognition or privilege of any kind
by the state given to a blood relationship outside of parenthood.
There is a presumption that perhaps the court will make this
decision but in law there is no recognition of that blood tie.
What we are looking at today is part of the Divorce Act. Forty
per cent of grandparents who have access problems fall under
the Divorce Act legislation. Anyone, blood or otherwise, can
apply for access, and all non-parents must be given permission
by the court to have that access. A parent comes into that
situation with same status or same right of access as a bus driver
or a neighbour. Their status in law is the same.
(1140)
We have just come through the International Year of the
Family. There are a couple of publications from that period, ``A
Focus on Canada: Families in Canada'' and a look at the
statistics in our society, ``The State of the Family in Canada''.
These were extensive studies that looked at Canadian families.
They made reference to care of the elderly, reference to relative
care, divorces and marriage. There was no mention made of
grandparents in Canadian families.
This is in contrast to the fact that within those studies it was
pointed out that the most common choice of child care in
Canadian homes was by a relative in the relative's home or a
relative in the child's home. Grandparents probably made up a
large proportion of that. They are a very important part of what
is happening in our society and yet they are not recognized as
such.
In aboriginal communities blood ties are recognized for many
generations, not only one or two. It is only within the last few
years that our immigration laws have been changed to not
include grandparents.
As a legislative body we have recognized the importance of
blood connections through multigenerations in other cultures.
What have we done in the Canadian population? We have
recognized child care by grandparents in unspecified statistics.
They are disguised in a general statistic.
The recognition of rights of access in the laws both federally
and provincially is no different than those for any non-parent or
any person in society other than the parents.
I have discovered that within tax laws and support in foster
care in the provincial jurisdiction, strangers have more support
than grandparents when the state mandates the care of a child.
Grandparents have been marginalized in our society.
This morning I heard about the rights of the child and the
rights of the parent and even the rights the grandparent. What do
we do when these things conflict? It is time the government
recognizes the importance of family, not multiculturalism or
state run day care or even government programs, but looking at
what creates a strong society. Strong families create a strong
society. Strong families create strong cultural ties. Strong
families create a just society. Strong families create a strong
economy. A child's best interests are society's best interests
because that child is going to grow up in that society.
One step is to recognize the rights of access by grandparents
in law and the right of inquiry as to the well-being of their
grandchildren and their right to know about their health,
education and general welfare. Bill C-232 is the right step in the
direction to empower families and underline their importance in
our challenging and increasingly difficult role.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill
C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act proposed by the hon.
member for Mission-Coquitlam.
This bill attempts to address the needs of many concerned,
frustrated and in many cases emotionally distraught
grandparents who wish to have, according to their perceptions, a
more sustainable and meaningful relationship with their
grandchildren.
This bill contains two main amendments to the Divorce Act of
1986. The first aim is to eliminate the need for grandparents to
obtain leave of the court when making a formal application for
access or custody of their grandchildren. The second area of
emphasis is within the granting of rights to grandparents to
10361
make inquiries and to be given information on the health,
education and welfare of the child or children.
(1145)
Many people feel that these two amendments to the Divorce
Act are long overdue and that many problems would be
resolved. The problems to which I refer are those created by
divorces, separations, the early death of one of the spouses or
any other cause that results in grandparents being denied access
to their grandchildren. In any one of these stressful situations
the suffering of the child may be more devastating over a
lengthy period of time than that endured by any given adult
involved.
In many cases the grandparents, provided they are loving,
nurturing types, can provide a sense of stability, security and
comfort for the bewildered children. This is exactly what
happens in many cases.
However, as the number of failed marriages increases, so do
the number of court custody cases. My colleague from Hamilton
Mountain has already informed us that in 1990 approximately
34,000 children were involved in divorce cases in which the
courts made custody decisions. Many more go through varying
degrees of distress as custodial care is decided mutually outside
the courts.
In my community I have anxious grandparents who have no
confirmed knowledge of the whereabouts of their
grandchildren. This happens when a spouse passes away and the
remaining nurturing parent moves to another community. It is
also a common occurrence in separation cases in which the
custodial parent moves away from grandparents. Such situations
should not exist.
In most cases the court may order the custodial person to
notify any person granted access to the child of a change of
address at least 30 days before the change. There may be many
reasons for strained relationships between parent and
grandparent that are child centred. Often a dominant
grandparent may incessantly try to impose his or her value
system, customs, behavioural codes, et cetera, on the
grandchild. This results in a pattern of ongoing confrontation
between the adults with the suffering child squeezed between
them.
In all such cases the child is the victim no matter how
honourable the adult intentions may be. Although there are
many factors causing the aforementioned disturbing situation,
and even though we are aware of the potential harm to the
children concerned, we must not endorse knee-jerk legislation
that fails to address the issue in a rational and thoughtful
manner.
It is important to note that presently grandparents are not by
any means prevented from obtaining court orders that give them
access to their grandchildren. Existing legislation pertaining to
the access of grandparents contained in the Divorce Act, 1986,
states in subsection 16(1):
A court of competent jurisdiction may on application by either or both spouses
or by any other person make an order respecting the custody of or the access to
any or all children of the marriage.
Subsection (3) states:
A person other than a spouse may not make an application under section 1 or 2
without leave of the court.
The intention of the amendments is an attempt to formally
recognize a grandparent's legal right to access. Such a right
without some screening process would result in a flood of
custody and access disputes and wealthier lawyers.
Supporters of the amendments should be aware of the
limitations on what a court order can accomplish and what the
law can do to enforce it. It has already been stated that a court
order cannot order people to change their attitudes, feelings, or
how they relate to one another. Certain personality types will
always be in conflict with each other because of certain
personality traits and characteristics. In reality attempts to
enforce an access order often lead to more conflict and
litigation.
It is paramount to keep in mind that all legitimate and credible
claims for access or custody have and will continue to have
access to the courts, providing they are credible in nature. In this
context a credible or legitimate case refers to claims wherein a
close relationship between the kids and the grandparents existed
for a significant period of time and a truly serious dispute exists
between the grandparents and the spouse in custody of the
children.
(1150)
Presently every claim must undergo a screening process to
ensure its legitimacy prior to gaining admission to the courts.
The provision ensures that unnecessary and unwarranted
litigation is avoided, thus saving Canadians vast amounts of
money.
We also need the check to ensure that grandparents who are
overly intrusive and controlling do not interfere unduly with the
parental responsibility of the parents in question. Opening the
door for harassment of parents will not benefit children in any
way, shape or form.
Another important caveat pertains to the second major
proposal in Bill C-232 whereby private information regarding
the children is granted to those who have been awarded access.
If it becomes a reality, we would have created a very unfair
scenario, one in which grandparents from within divorced
families would have access to confidential information while
grandparents of intact families would not be granted the
privilege.
When grandparents strongly believe the child is being
neglected or abused there are other avenues of proper and
acceptable action available in Canada. For example, family
service centres, the Children Aid Society or the police can be
asked to assist in a process of protecting the child's welfare.
10362
As a grandparent I am truly blessed for my wife and I have
unconditional access to the loving relationship of four
wonderful grandchildren. We can only imagine the pain that
some grandparents must endure who have been denied access
to their grandchildren.
In our case our oldest daughter is divorced. With open arms,
we welcomed her and her three children to live with us. The joy
of witnessing each unfolding stage of development is
indescribable. The meaning of family continually evolves as
three generations share the solving of problems, resources and
time and do our best in respecting and honouring each other's
needs.
The amendments presented in Bill C-232 are directionally
correct. I bring to the attention of colleagues the case of the
death of a parent or parents, parental abuses, and even
personality conflict between parents and grandparents. The
rights of grandparents are governed by provincial laws that can
vary widely.
In British Columbia grandparents can apply for access under
the family relations act. Alberta has no legal recourse for
excluded grandparents. Quebec and only Quebec has enshrined
the rights of grandparents in family law since 1981.
The use of courts is a lengthy and very costly process. It is
obvious that provincial and federal governments must
co-operatively harmonize family laws and the Divorce Act to
bring grandparents into a loving relationship with their
grandchildren.
For the sake of all those concerned, may co-operative effort
result in positive directives as quickly as possible thus avoiding
unnecessary costly litigation and unwarranted intrusion into the
lives of parents, grandparents and grandchildren.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a piece
of legislation that I look upon as an opportunity for the House of
Commons to co-operate.
I listened to members opposite say that the bill is directionally
correct. I have also listened to the bill being called knee-jerk
legislation. Somehow, when I heard that term, my heart fell a
little because it did not sound to me like a bill that was likely to
get a co-operative view from all parties.
I would like to talk about the family in a general sense. Is the
family in Canada under siege? We are treating families poorly.
There are popular myths about Canada and the family today.
Popular myths say that most people prefer looser family
arrangements than the old-time family ones. There are popular
myths that say divorce does not really have that big an effect on
children and that alternative lifestyles compete very nicely with
the traditional family.
(1155 )
Another myth is that the one parent working and one parent at
home model of family is old fashioned, out of date and
somewhat demeaning to the partner who is left at home.
Another says that day care is a really good or almost better
substitute than care in the home.
I would like to explore the myths in very straightforward
terms. First, 70 per cent of Canadians feel the traditional family
is the best way to raise children. A very recent poll says that the
popular myth that other forms of family recognition are as good
is just not true.
The second myth is that divorce has minimal effect on
children. As a counsellor I have seen the effect divorce has on
children. Children are far more likely to blame themselves in the
event of divorce. There is almost universally increased poverty
after a family splits up. Interestingly enough children from
divorced families are more commonly involved in divorce when
they become adults.
Are alternate lifestyles as good as the traditional family?
Alternate lifestyles are neither happy nor healthy. They often
recruit youth to that end. Who could possibly recruit youth to an
unhappy, unhealthy lifestyle? I could not. The traditional family
produces the most stable, well adjusted, law-abiding citizens
from all socioeconomic groups.
On the myth that day care is as good as normal family care, a
meta-analysis of the issue was done. How does day care fare
under the age of five? This meta-analysis compared different
areas of childhood development: cognitive or in other words
how smart kids were, social, emotional, behavioural and
attachment to other individuals. This is summation of the
results. It found that infants and young children who received
substantial non-maternal care, that is care greater than 25 hours
per week, were affected socially, emotionally, behaviourally
and in terms of attachment to the mom. On all four counts the
children were affected negatively.
New data coming to light indicates that day care outside the
home is not as good as care in the home. The data is not coming
from wackos. It is coming from individuals looking at data from
the U.S., Canada, Sweden; all over the world.
As legislators how do we treat the family? As I sit in the
Chamber a novice politician I try to look at how we treat the
family. Divorce is pretty easy in Canada. We have poor
maintenance agreements so a dad can disappear and not look
after children he has sired.
We make welfare very easy for single moms to access. Our
attitude as legislators seems to be that the state can provide
whatever might be missing if the family breaks down. However,
if the extended family is willing, able and capable to take up the
slack, if grandparents are available, willing and able to take up
the slack, we say line up. Line up behind whom? Line up behind
social workers, line up behind family counsellors, line up
10363
behind lawyers and line up behind judges. The significant bond
that exists must line up. As a legislator I think that is wrong.
I looked at the bill and said that it could well push a veritable
army of bureaucrats and people who are not concerned about the
child into the background and bring grandparents to where they
rightfully belong in the foreground for the best wishes of the
child.
(1200 )
This is the opportunity in my view. A non-partisan private
member's bill is available for an open, free vote in the House of
Commons. It is not a good enough bill, I have heard a couple of
people say it could be improved. Let us go to committee with
this bill. Let us improve it, let us pass it and let us bring the
grandparents to where they belong, in line with their
grandchildren.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod will
have three minutes if he wishes the next time the matter comes
up for debate.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the
item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10363
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, on February 27 the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville sought to move an amendment
to the motion for second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons.
A question was raised regarding the procedural acceptability
of the proposed amendment. The Chair heard arguments from
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is the
government whip, and the hon. House leader for the Reform
Party before reserving his decision. The Chair wishes to thank
those hon. members for their helpful comments.
[Translation]
The proposed amendment, is asking the House not to proceed
with the second reading of Bill C-68 on the grounds that its
provisions link the licensing and registration of firearms with
the creation of offences relating to firearms. This kind of
amendment is known as a reasoned amendment.
The honourable Chief Government Whip argued that this
motion was out of order as a reasoned amendment because it was
not opposed to the principles of the Bill. However, Speaker
Lamoureux, in a ruling on August 30, 1966, noted that
opposition to the principles of a bill is, and I quote:
only one of the several possible forms of a reasoned amendment.
[
English]
Speaker Lamoureux pointed out that several forms of
reasoned amendment were listed in May's Parliamentary
Practice, 17th edition, at page 527 and that May indicated only
that a reasoned amendment ``may be declaratory of some
principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or
provisions of a bill''.
Indeed, one of the other forms of reasoned amendment listed
is that it ``may express opinions as to any circumstances
connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or
otherwise opposed to its progress''.
Finally, Speaker Lamoureux cited Abraham and Hawtrey's
Parliamentary Dictionary, which states in very clear terms what
a reasoned amendment is. It reads at page 162 as follows:
This form of amendment seeks-either to give reasons why the house
declines to give a second or third reading to the bill, or to express an opinion
with regard to its subject matter or to the policy which the bill is intended to
fulfil.
The Chair finds, after careful consideration, that the proposed
amendment respects the definition offered in Abraham and
Hawtrey and one of the forms listed in May, and further that it
follows a long line of similar amendments presented in this
House which have expressed an opinion regarding the policy or
the provisions contained in a bill. Consequently, the Chair rules
the amendment in order.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for
licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety
of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When Bill C-68 was
last before the House the hon. member for Jonquière had 17
minutes remaining.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to continue my remarks on Bill C-68.
(1205)
When I spoke on this bill previously, I said straight away that I
agree with the principle of gun control and that, on the whole, I
support the justice minister's bill. Later, I will raise specific
10364
concerns I feel my party should address in a parliamentary
committee.
I was somewhat surprised with the type of debate that took
place in this House around the gun control issue. I heard some
speakers mention individual freedoms. Some spoke of the right
for every Canadian citizen to own firearms. Others perceived
the proposed measures as unjustified government interference
in people's private lives.
To some extent, we are having a societal debate here. Many
representations were made and many letters were sent to my
office by Canadian citizens who oppose this legislation. I read
almost all of them to have a good idea of what the problem is.
I think that this debate is about looking at society differently.
It is a matter of individual freedom against public interest. No
one in Canada, I think, opposes the right of the government to
control firearms, to ensure that anyone who owns weapons,
handguns in particular, be identified and be required to justify
requesting permission to own such weapons. The problem right
now is with the registration of firearms which are hunting
weapons.
Some say: ``I am an honest citizen and I am not going to cause
problems for others with my firearms. Consequently, I do not
see why the government wants to know if I own such firearms
and determine whether I am allowed to do so''. Those who use
that argument forget something important, namely that our
society-we are not talking here about American society in the
19th century, but about society in Canada and Quebec in
1995-has changed. Customs have changed, as well as the
concept of community life, and I believe that one of the main
thrusts right now is that society is opposed to violence.
Society is opposed to violence against women and children.
Actions which were condoned 25 or 30 years ago are now being
denounced and can trigger criminal proceedings. Society tells
us, legislators, to control violence. If violence can sometimes
show itself in such brutal and damaging ways, it is because some
people are armed. It goes without saying that the vast majority,
maybe 99 per cent, of those who own firearms will not commit
violent crimes. This control which we want to implement over
firearms may deter only a small number of people from
misusing their firearms, or from using them with bad intentions.
But I want to make it clear that, in my opinion, this bill is a
message. It is a message which society is sending to itself. It is
society which no longer wants to live in a climate of violence,
which wants peace and safe streets, and which wants to make
sure that, if a neighbour, a person across the street or those
people whom one meets in one's daily activities are armed, they
will have had to state that they own firearms.
(1210)
Owning a gun does not necessarily mean a person is violent,
but society tells us that it wants to know who has guns, so that
the message is clear. To own a gun is, in a way, a right, but there
is also a duty involved. Guns must be used carefully, so that no
one is ever at risk.
That being said, I think it is important to adopt the kind of bill
before us today, even if it means curtailing certain individual
freedoms. I think that, to a certain extent, society is ready for
this bill.
Some aspects of the bill are not entirely satisfactory, however.
Before my time expires, I would like to comment on these
aspects. There is the matter of prison sentences. The bill
provides for a minimum prison sentence of four years for
serious crimes committed with firearms. The bill also contains
several provisions that would increase prison sentences for
individuals convicted of contravening this legislation, once it is
passed.
I question the use of prison sentences and their effectiveness.
The other day, I read in the paper that Canada ranks third among
a number of western countries for the number of persons
incarcerated per population of 100,000. Countries like
Germany, France or the Netherlands have incarceration rates
that are lower than Canada's. There is no indication, however, in
the newspapers or in reports on the subject, that in these
countries violence has greater impact or that people are not as
safe as in other countries where incarceration is the measure of
choice to control crime.
Incidentally, the two countries where incarceration is used
most often are Russia and the United States. The United States
has opted for incarceration as a way of exercising social control,
as a way of controlling crime. If we look at what is happening in
the United States, we do not get the impression that American
society is less violent or less dangerous than German or French
society.
I think that incarceration is not the right way to deal with the
crime rate, and that is why I question some provisions of the bill
that seem to reflect this emphasis on the deterrent effect of more
severe prison sentences. There may be other ways to approach
this problem. This is a very complex issue, and I think my party
should raise it in committee.
There is also the matter of sentencing. It is said that judges do
not have enough leeway. The minimum sentence is too high to
allow sufficiently for the circumstances involved. I think judges
should be allowed greater flexibility in setting the minimum
sentence. Obviously, when a crime is committed with a firearm,
this is an aggravating circumstance. However, there are
situations where a judge may have to penalize individuals
because under the law, he must determine a minimum period of
incarceration. This does not mean justice will necessarily be
served in every case.
10365
(1215)
There is also the time frame. This is important in connection
with the requirement to register a weapon and license it. If we
add up all the possible time periods, and take into account the
number of people currently owning firearms, we are talking
about a period of almost seven years.
Obviously, enough time must be allowed for the appropriate
administrative measures to be taken to ensure an effective
registration and licensing system is in place. However, I think
seven years is a lot. This is a very long time, in view of the
urgency of the situation and the value of the firearms control
measure of registration. It would be preferable to shorten the
time period so that people with firearms could take note of their
responsibilities and register their weapons as quickly as
possible.
There is also the whole matter of costs. There are fairly low
fees for registration and there are fees for licensing, which is
renewable every five years. I think many people who opposed
mandatory registration of firearms mentioned that significant
amounts would be involved. Of course, if we add everything up,
we arrive at a figure of perhaps several tens of millions of
dollars. Not a mind boggling figure, but a reasonable amount, to
some extent.
Clearly, if we could lower the administrative costs of
licensing and registration, it would be easier on people who have
to keep an eye on their spending. But I do not think that the $50
or $60 fee currently provided for under the proposed regulation
is high enough to prevent people who would like to own guns
from assuming their responsibilities and from registering them,
a measure designed to let society know who is armed.
There is another aspect. Some categories of guns-for
example the infamous AK-47-will remain in the hands of their
present owners. In my opinion, these kinds of weapons have no
place in a democratic and free country. They have a history in
several countries. They have served all sorts of purposes, not
always noble. I think it would have been appropriate for the
minister to immediately recall these weapons.
Those are the main points I wanted to make about this bill,
which is legitimate in a free and democratic society. In a society
favouring non-violent values, it is important to know who owns
firearms, because they increase carnage when violence breaks
out. As well they are a symbol of violence.
These days, no one can walk the streets with a gun without
alarming citizens. This was not the case 30 years ago. In my own
town, which was closer to a medium size town than a small
town, I recall that, at 17 or 18 years of age, we went through
town carrying our .22 calibre rifles to go target shooting in the
fields. People did not make a fuss because most of them knew
each other and knew who was who. They did not think we were
violent. Nobody worried about it. But now, no one can walk the
streets of my town, Jonquière, with a .22 rifle without the police
hearing about it.
(1220)
In my opinion, this indicates a shift in society's values and I
believe that the time has come for us in Quebec and in Canada to
know who is armed, who owns guns, and why, so that people
become fully aware of their responsibilities as gun owners.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech on Bill C-68
with great interest, recognizing that the great thing about this
Chamber is that we hold a wide divergence of opinion on
controversial subjects such as gun control. I do respect his
opinions.
However, I want to raise a couple of issues brought out in his
presentation. He said we will not solve the problems of crime
through imprisonment and that he is therefore opposed or has
some difficulty with the more stringent and tougher measures in
Bill C-68 on the criminal misuse and abuse of firearms.
He is opposed to deterrence through longer prison sentences.
He mentioned there are better ways to deal with this than prison
sentences. As is so typical when we debate bills, the Bloc fails to
mention better ways. It consistently criticizes but does not bring
forward any constructive criticism in the form of viable options.
For years we have tried to rehabilitate some of these violent
offenders but basically there are those in society for which
rehabilitation simply does not work. That is proven time and
time again by the high incidence of repeat offenders. Some of
our most violent and horrendous crimes are committed by
people who have already served prison sentences and have been
let out on early parole only to recommit.
Since the member raised the issue that there are better ways
than longer prison sentences to combat crime and the criminal
misuse of firearms, what are those better ways?
We are now debating the motion put forward by my hon.
colleague from the Reform Party to split the bill in two. It was
unclear from the member's presentation whether he is in favour
of splitting the bill in two.
Reform feels there are two separate issues in the bill. One is
more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners with the minister's
firearms act and the second is more amendments to section 3 of
the Criminal Code which deals with the criminal misuse of
firearms which we feel are two separate issues.
I wonder if the member could enlighten the Chamber as to
what his feelings are on splitting the bill.
10366
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. With respect to the matter of imprisonment, I, of
course, am not advocating that prisons be abolished or shut
down. I do think, however, that the bill puts a little too much
emphasis on imprisonment as a solution.
We may, for example, wonder why there are 49 inmates per
100,000 people in the Netherlands, compared to 116 in Canada
and 519 in the U.S. I do not think that violence is commonplace
in the Netherlands. I think that some societies do not see jail
terms as a deterrent in the same way as we do in Canada and the
U.S.
The question I ask myself about this bill is whether the
proposed solution of systematically increasing jail terms for
crimes committed with firearms is effective.
(1225)
My colleague's second question deals with Reform's
amendment to split the bill in two and make a distinction
between hunting rifles owned by ordinary, law-abiding citizens,
as my colleague would say, and handguns more often used in
committing crimes.
I think there is no reason to make such a distinction because,
in my opinion, a firearm is a firearm. A misused firearm can
cause definite, serious harm to people. It does not matter
whether one gets shot with a 12 gauge shotgun, a hunting rifle or
a pistol. I think that, in our society, it is important that all those
who have the power to harm others with their firearms be aware
of this responsibility and let society know that they have this
potential power.
Although these people will not, of course, misuse their
firearms, that is still a possibility. There is no reason to make a
distinction between presumably law-abiding citizens-and I
agree that they are-and less respectable people who own
handguns or other types of firearms. I do not think that a
distinction should be made.
In my opinion, some handguns should be completely banned
or recalled, even if they are collector's items, because they are
potentially dangerous.
I do not see how it would be prejudicial to a citizen to register
his hunting rifles. Many things are registered. Many of our
possessions are registered and I do not think this violates
anyone's rights.
I will not vote for the amendment put forward by my Reform
colleague because I do not think it should be adopted. In my
opinion, all weapons are potentially dangerous and their owners
should be aware of this. One way to make them aware of this is
to require them to let society know that they own firearms and
will live up to their responsibility to use them properly.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
there are laws that presently exist for people who are negligent
in the use of firearms. There are laws on the books that should be
enforced and in some cases are.
After 61 years of registration of handguns, today one can get a
handgun in the right bars across the whole country; there are
even rent-a-guns. It is running rampant and the registration has
failed to do anything.
Can the member please explain to me how spending another
million or billion dollars, whatever it takes to register shotguns
and rifles, is going to make one iota of difference when it has not
made any difference in the past.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Let there be no misunderstanding, Madam
Speaker. I believe that this bill is a message that society is
sending to itself. It is citizens saying to each other that they want
to live in a non-violent environment, in a less violent
environment. They are saying that it is not good, that it is not
acceptable in our society to possess firearms, to be able, as my
colleague pointed out, to go to a bar and buy a handgun,
something that I personally have never done, but that it seems is
possible.
In addition to its practical effectiveness in controlling
firearms, the bill that we are examining is symbolic, it is a
message that society is sending to itself. It is not insignificant
that hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions
calling for better control of firearms in Canada. There is a
problem, contrary to what my colleague is implying in his
question.
(1230 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will resume debate.
We are now at 10-minute speeches only, no questions and
comments.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak at second reading of Bill C-68, the
Firearms Act.
My preparations for this began earlier last year but most
seriously last fall with the tabling of the initial proposals in late
November. Quite frankly I was really surprised at the degree and
depth of response from my constituency. I represent the riding
of Algoma in northern Ontario where we have a long tradition of
hunting, target shooting, recreational uses of firearms and other
reasons for having firearms.
I was surprised at how deep and emotional the response was to
the issue. I have had a chance to meet with over 1,000 legitimate
gun owners over the last few months and have received letters
and phone calls from over 1,000 gun owners and have met many
10367
of them in groups and in private. I must emphasize that
legitimate owners and users of firearms are law-abiding citizens
who respect the law, who want the same kind of country that
people in the cities want, a country that is safe for everybody.
I have to admit they make a good point when they say to me:
``How do these new laws help the country become safer? How do
these new laws not become a punishment for us?'' We owe it to
the legitimate gun-owning community to explain to them
clearly, to provide them with details which indicate that they are
not the victims in the situation but are partners with all
Canadians in trying to make our country safer.
We have a way to go yet in providing full explanations. I am
very hopeful that through the committee process, through this
debate and future debates that many of these concerns will be
addressed.
I have told the gun-owning community over and over again
that I believe in parliamentary process. I believe that
appropriate measures with respect to firearms control can be
taken that respect the needs of rural and urban Canadians.
The balance between rural and urban Canada is difficult to
find at the best of times but this is an instance where we must
work together to find the balance. The primary purpose of my
job with respect to Bill C-68 is to help my urban colleagues,
urban members to understand better the needs of rural
Canadians with respect to firearms legislation.
The issue is not really a partisan issue because it seems to cut
urban-rural in all parties. At the same time, I do not want it to
become a split between urban and rural Canada. It is an
opportunity through the parliamentary process for both rural
and urban Canadians to understand better the needs of the other.
It is incumbent on us to listen carefully to rural Canadians,
those who legitimately use firearms, that they not become the
target of this legislation. They must become partners. I look
forward through this process to bringing forward ideas,
amendments, proposals that will hopefully address these
concerns. I will be seeking the co-operation of urban members
in this regard.
I believe deeply that the minister has been listening to rural
members, as he listens today. I believe we can, with good
judgment, find solutions to this matter that will be helpful to all,
including myself, a member representing a rural area. That is
not to say all of my constituents are in favour of not doing
something about gun control. I have constituents that are in
favour of these measures. It cuts both ways. In my efforts to
represent my constituents, I must remember that both sides are
represented in my communities.
(1235)
I have some serious concerns with Bill C-68 that I will raise
through the committee process and at third reading. I have
invited my constituents, to the extent that they can, to
participate in the process with me. I have guaranteed them my
commitment to carry forward their concerns.
To start with, I would like to specifically talk about gun
registration. My constituents have many concerns and worries
when they have before them a plan to register their firearms.
They worry that this will lead to the eventual confiscation of
their firearms, particularly their long guns. They worry that the
registration system will be an insecure information system to
which criminals and others will have access, information
concerning the firearms they possess.
They worry about the cost, to themselves as individuals and
the cost to the country. They worry that the system will be
cumbersome and that they will have to jump through hoops.
They worry about privacy. The fact that they own firearms is a
matter private to them and their families.
They wonder what impact registration will have on family
violence and what impact it will have on the criminal element in
our society.
We owe it to the legal gun-owning community to explain their
concerns item by item. I do not believe we have adequately done
that. We have an opportunity in the weeks and months ahead to
do it. As I have in the past I will call on my colleague, the
Attorney General, to help with those explanations.
Rather than go into the details of some of the things that I
would like to see changed here, I will communicate with my
constituents item by item as these matters come up. In view of
the limitation of time, I wish to say that I have faith in the
parliamentary process. I owe it to my constituents, not only on
this issue but all issues to bring forward a balanced point of
view.
I have tried to convince my constituents, the gun-owning
community in my riding, that we have an opportunity with Bill
C-68. I know many of them are upset. Much misinformation is
out there but we have an opportunity here to correct some of the
problems with existing legislation and to develop a system that
hopefully will mean this is the last time we have to debate gun
control in Parliament.
If we do a good job now as parliamentarians, if we do a good
job listening to our constituents, and if the committee is
prepared to listen and respond, as I am sure it will, then we can
finally put this to rest.
As we have seen with the leadership in our budget, by the
leadership of the government on the east coast and in many
others areas, including measures that the Attorney General is
10368
dealing with in terms of high risk offenders, we too can respond
to Canadians and come up with a solution that will be
satisfactory. It may not be to everybody but it will to most.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge that at this very
moment one of my constituents, John Rochon from Elliot Lake,
is now in Argentina at the Pan American games. He is one of our
shooters. He is a past medalist for our country and I wish him
well. His wife, Donna, is at home waiting for news of progress in
Argentina. It is people like John Rochon that are exemplary.
Lionel Houle is an elderly gentleman in Massey, Ontario who
came to me with concerns about passing on his guns to his
children. It is people like that who have convinced me that the
gun-owning community in Canada deserves our respect,
deserves to know that we care about their point of view. They are
prepared to partner with urban Canadians to put this issue to rest
once and for all and to obtain a solution that is effective for the
entire country.
(1240)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it my
pleasure to speak on the motion my colleague for
Yorkton-Melville has put forward.
The motion recognizes the problems with Bill C-68 and the
fact that the bill deals with two distinct areas: crime control,
which everyone supports; and a repressive gun control scheme
which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, will not reduce
crime and will turn thousands of Canadians into criminals for
simply not registering their guns properly.
It is vitally important that the House legislates clearly and
supports only those bills which deal effectively and efficiently
with the problems of the country. The justice minister could
have brought forward this kind of bill, but he put the two issues
together. He knew that Canadians were sick and tired of violent
criminals who use firearms. Therefore, Bill C-68 has tougher
penalties, including minimum sentences of four years for
certain crimes.
The bill also penalizes gun smugglers and provides a deterrent
against smuggling crimes. Under the proposed legislation
profits from smuggling and smugglers' vehicles can be seized.
In addition gun smugglers can expect tough jail sentences when
they are convicted. These are the types of measures that
Canadians are calling for and I fully support those elements of
the bill. In fact, I would like to see many of these penalties
extended even further.
Unfortunately the legitimate desire of Canadians for crime
control are exploited by Bill C-68 in order to forward the
personal agenda of the justice minister. He has stated very
clearly that he believes the army and police are the only ones in
Canada that should be able to own guns. It is on the public
record. Obviously the minister is using Bill C-68 to promote his
own wish list and crack down on legitimate gun owners.
When the justice minister speaks about Bill C-68 he suggests
there is wide support in the Canadian public for all elements of
the bill. He cites polls and claims they support his views. What
questions were asked? If you ask Canadians if they support
legislation to reduce crime, of course they will say they support
it. What are the facts?
This weekend I listened to a presentation by Brian Evans in
Alberta and he made it very clear how the questions that are
asked can determine the answers. He was quite open about
showing the fallacies of the polling system. Again I remind the
minister that John Diefenbaker probably stated best what polls
are for.
What would Canadians say if we asked some of the following
questions: First, do you believe that Canadians who do not
register their guns should be subject to up to 10 years in prison,
according to section 92 of the legislation? This means that a
hunter who does not register his guns could be locked away for
as long as multiple murderer, Denis Lortie, 10 years. How can
this sort of extreme be justified?
Second, do you believe it is fair that under new rules allowing
police to search for unregistered guns, all persons who do not
``give the police officer all reasonable assistance'' can be found
guilty of an indictable offence and liable for a prison term of up
to two years? This means that a farmer's wife who does not help
the police to convict her husband by co-operating in a search for
unregistered guns could be locked away for two years. Again
this absolutely unbelievable.
Third, do you believe that the government should spend at
least $85 million to institute universal firearms registration? Of
course the estimates go up into the hundreds of millions,
depending on who you talk to. There is no evidence that this will
reduce crime. When similar systems were tried in other
countries they failed miserably.
The devil is in the details. When Bill C-68 is viewed in the
light of these types of questions, we see how flawed this
legislation is. In the justice minister's attempt to crack down on
legitimate gun owners he is doing a fundamental disservice to
all Canadians. Parliament cannot allow this to happen.
(1245)
The motion proposed by the member for Yorkton-Melville
gives us an invaluable opportunity to get back on the right track
and refocus our efforts on crime control which is the real issue in
the eyes of Canadians. If we do this, then I am certain we will
have all-party support for those measures that increase
penalties for criminals. On the other hand, when it comes to
universal firearms registration, splitting the bill will allow us to
approach this debate in a direct way. If members of the House
support the proposed motion, then maybe we will really see
what the level of support for the minister's universal firearms
registration plan is.
10369
In my own riding of Red Deer, the minister has told me by
letter that 67 per cent of constituents support his universal gun
registration program. Unfortunately though, when I invited the
minister to test his theory by participating in an open town hall
meeting in Red Deer, he would not come to my riding. Why
not? If the minister believes his own claims then he should
receive overwhelming support. I will tell you why not. The
minister will not come to Red Deer because he knows my
constituents do not support his registration process. He will not
come because he knows his claims are ridiculous.
How do I know my constituents do not support universal
registration? I have had over 5,461 constituents sign petitions
against this legislation; I have had over 1,200 letters in the last
two months; I have had hundreds of phone calls and contacts out
on the street; all of this against universal firearms registration.
Some might ask whether I have had any from the other side.
Yes, I have. My office has received fewer than 20 letters and I
have received fewer than 10 phone calls supporting this bill.
That is over 230 constituents to one against this bill. I ask: What
clearer indication can I have as an MP? It seems astonishing to
me that the justice minister could make such an outlandish claim
that the people of Red Deer support this legislation by a margin
of 2:1.
I travelled my entire constituency this past 10 days from early
morning until late at night. I had six town hall meetings and
many other meetings. I met many people. All of them are
opposed to this legislation. Not one person has told me he is in
favour of it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bill C-68 will cause many
problems if passed in its current form. Even with major
amendments in committee this bill will still turn thousands of
Canadians into criminals.
It has been made very clear that a number of justice ministers,
including those from Alberta and Saskatchewan, will oppose
this legislation and the enforcement of it. It will cost hundreds
of millions of dollars if we count the enforcement costs. It will
impose a tax on legal gun owners through registration fees and
will threaten the private property of approximately seven
million Canadians.
This legislation is unacceptable. Therefore I urge the House to
act responsibly and adopt the motion of the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville. Let us split the bill into two portions.
The first part will contain those parts of the bill dealing with
crime control. We will send out a tough and unified message that
violent criminals and smugglers will be punished severely for
their crimes. That is what the Canadian people are saying. I have
heard that message in Montreal and Toronto, and I have
certainly heard it in the west. It is the same message. They are
against crime and are demanding crime control.
The second part of the bill will deal with the government's
very unfair universal firearms registration system. In the
interests of Canadians we will strike down that proposed
legislation. I believe that will be right across the board as well.
We have an opportunity to clarify what the minister has mixed
up. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to do this. I
request the support of all members for the proposed motion.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. Bill C-68 is 124 pages
long and contains 186 legislative provisions which include
amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada and creates a new
separate statute, the firearms act.
(1250 )
Moreover this bill would completely reorganize the gun
control system putting provisions of a regulatory type in the
proposed new firearms act while leaving the Criminal Code
penalties in part III of the Criminal Code. It would also
reorganize the classification of firearms and other weapons and
the means by which controls are imposed on their acquisition,
possession, use and transportation.
The three pillars of the existing system, controls on access,
controls on particular kinds of firearms, and criminal penalties,
would continue to exist but their forms would change. In
particular much of the balance of the system would shift to
controls focusing directly on persons rather than on kinds of
firearms.
The Minister of Justice in opening the debate at second
reading stage urged this hon. House to adopt the legislation in
principle before sending it to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs for detailed consideration clause by clause.
The justice minister outlined three principles that motivated this
government to introduce Bill C-68.
The first principle is that Canadians do not want to live in a
country wherein the people feel they want or need to possess a
firearm for protection.
The second principle is that if we are to retain our safe and
peaceful character as a country, those who use a firearm in the
commission of a crime will be severely punished. For example,
those who smuggle illegal firearms, those who traffic in illegal
firearms and those who profit by putting guns into the hands of
criminals must know that penalties for such conduct must be
certain and significant.
The third principle is that as a government we must
acknowledge and respect the legitimate use of firearms by
law-abiding Canadian citizens.
It would include but would not be limited to the respect for
our Canadian heritage and culture regarding the traditions of
hunting not only as a favourite pastime but as a very important
economic activity contributing directly to the prosperity of
many regions in Canada, and those whose livelihoods are solely
10370
dependent upon firearms. Government must acknowledge and
respect the use of firearms for farming, ranching and hunting.
We must not interfere with this. Also to be acknowledged are
those who collect firearms and those who enjoy shooting sports
and so on.
The third principle in summary recognizes and respects the
rights and interests of law-abiding Canadian citizens. However
while these legitimate interests are acknowledged and
respected, Bill C-68 requires that they be carried on in a context
that is consistent with public safety.
The three principles as outlined by the justice minister are
fundamentally sound. They are consistent with the objectives of
good government, a peaceful and safe society and an effective
response to the criminal misuse of firearms and enhanced public
safety.
It must be understood that the universal registration of
firearms is a fundamental strategy, a fundamental support
system that the government intends to use to achieve the
principles and objectives previously outlined. It is at this point
that controversy and a divergence of opinion ensue in debate.
There is popular public opinion calling for more stringent gun
control measures principally in reaction to recent violent
crimes. On the other hand, there is also public opinion that
certain restrictive gun control measures are inappropriate and
will not adequately solve the problems of violent crimes.
Specifically my constituents of Central Nova have expressed
to me concerns and interests regarding the effect and impact Bill
C-68 and universal registration will have upon them as
law-abiding gun owners. By letters, by petitions and by 800
constituents attending two separate public forums they
expressed their concerns, fears and apprehensions regarding the
federal government's firearms control program which was
announced on November 30, 1994.
Constituents of Central Nova raised issues regarding the
fundamental strategy of the universal firearms registration. The
concerns raised were: first, that registration would potentially
lead to confiscation of their guns; second, that registration
would interfere with the property rights and charter of rights,
specifically to the right to security of person and property; third,
that the ownership of a gun is a right and not a privilege; fourth,
they failed to see the positive effects of gun registration in
deterring and reducing crime in Canada.
I trust that to satisfy my constituents' concerns the
constitutional validity of universal firearms registration and
prohibition will be examined and considered in the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
(1255 )
Some Central Nova constituents also raised a concern
regarding the cost of registration both to taxpayers and gun
owners. There appears to be much public misinformation in this
regard. The Minister of Justice was quite clear on debate that the
cost to gun owners in the first year of the five-year
implementation period is expected to be zero. If for some reason
it is not zero, it will be a nominal amount in the range of $10.
The estimated cost of implementing the universal registration
system over the next five years will be $85 million. This
estimated cost will be reviewed in detail by the standing
committee.
Potential non-compliance with Bill C-68 has been raised as
an issue and how such non-compliance will be enforced. In my
riding in discussing the issue of future non-compliance
reference was made to past non-compliance. Reference was
specifically made to the failure of police and crown prosecutors
to enforce existing provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
regarding the usage of a weapon in the commission of an
offence. Concern was expressed that crown prosecutors were
irresponsible and failed to uphold public trust by plea
bargaining and failing to enforce the existing provisions.
It should be noted that this concern is addressed by Bill C-68.
Bill C-68 will toughen the penalties of the criminal misuse of
firearms. With the restructuring of the Criminal Code there will
no longer be plea bargaining of charges relating to the use of
firearms because the penalties will be woven directly into the
sections which provide for the offences themselves.
The firearms owners of Central Nova raised the concern that
they were offended by having to consult the Criminal Code to
determine the manner in which their private ownership of
firearms was to be regulated. This concern has been addressed
by Bill C-68 by the government changing the Criminal Code to
toughen sanctions and by contemplating a separate statute, the
firearms act, to deal with the regulatory aspects in relation to
firearms acquisition, use and ownership.
Further concerns were raised in my constituency from the gun
clubs and target shooters. These are highly skilled people, very
law abiding and conscientious in their sport. These Canadians
want to continue in those sports.
The justice minister has assured this honourable House that
when Bill C-68 goes to the justice committee following second
reading debate he will ask the committee to look at specific
changes in the law. This is unprecedented and should be
commended for being open to change and scrutiny of a
government bill. The Minister of Justice stated in Hansard:
First of all, to ensure that we are accommodating all of those sporting
competitions with handguns, we have already made it clear that the .22-.32 calibre
Walther used by Linda Thom at the 1984 Olympics will not be covered by the ban.
10371
We want the committee to take the advice of the International Shooting Union to
determine whether there are other handguns that should be exempted so that
legitimate sporting activities will not be threatened.
Second, I will ask the committee to examine the question of whether there are
black powder shooting events that might be affected by this legislation. It is not
our intention in any way to limit historical re-enactments with the use of
reproductions. We do not believe we have done that but we will ask the committee
to look specifically at that question and to let us know whether additional
technical amendments are required to make the meaning clear.
Third, we will ask the committee to look at the question of relics and heirlooms,
recognizing that there are families and individuals who want to pass on to the next
generation firearms that they have acquired and that have a specific sentimental
or historical value to the family. That should be respected. We will ask the
committee to fashion a way to allow it to happen consistently with the imperatives
of public safety.
These three items were of concern to my constituents of
Central Nova. I am satisfied that the justice minister will see
that they are properly addressed.
The Minister of Justice stressed that Canadians will have the
opportunity to make their views known when the legislation is
reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs. I trust that the concerns of my
constituents will be addressed. I urge all my constituents to
partake in the legislative process by making their views known
to the House of Commons committee.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
February 14, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada tabled in this House his firearms bill to strengthen
control over such weapons. It was high time. I support this bill,
although my feeling is that it does not go far enough. I consider
it is about time a country such as ours enacts legislation to
protect all citizens.
We all know that gun-related crime has increased
dramatically. We all remember the tragedy that occurred in the
Quebec National Assembly, ten years or so ago, and the dreadful
massacre at l'École Polytechnique, just a few years ago. Every
day that goes by we hear about firearms being used to assault,
threaten, intimidate and kill. Possessing a firearm gives
criminals a great illusion of power, authority and strength.
In November, the president of the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police commented that the issue of legal possession of
firearms was not a game. The public, including hunters,
competitive shooters, collectors and shooters, all people for
whom I have great respect and law-abiding citizens, should
consider these controls as reaffirming their rights and
responsibilities. It is up to them to act on reaffirming their rights
and responsibilities.
There is no doubt that a more structured control system,
providing among other things for the registration of all firearms,
will help make this country a safer and more peaceful place to be
for all of us. Indeed, weapons are dangerous and there is a need
to legislate in this respect. The Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada is on the right track with Bill C-68. However,
I firmly believe, as stated previously, that this bill does not go
far enough and that the minister should use coroner Anne-Marie
David's report, released on January 26, as a model.
As Ms. David suggested, has the time not come to revise the
wording of regulations concerning the safe storage, display and
transportation of firearms so as to make it more easily
accessible to all? While ignorance of the law is no excuse, is it
not the justice minister's role to make it easier to understand?
Time has come to review regulations and require businesses to
lock up, and even render inoperative, any firearm for sale.
Also, restricted firearms should only be stored in a vault.
These regulations should not authorize weapons without a safety
locking mechanism to be delivered to anyone. I would even add
that the Minister of Justice should amend the Criminal Code to
provide that firearms will systematically be confiscated if
regulations are not complied with.
(1305)
Instead of spending millions of dollars on useless bodies such
as the one on Canadian unity, should the government not invest
these moneys in education and information programs for the
public at large and for specific groups such as hunters, gun
collectors, members of shooting clubs and others?
Several provisions in this bill need to be clarified. By
spreading over an eight-year period the registration process for
gun owners and firearms, did the Minister of Justice simply give
in to the gun lobby, or did he want to please some members of his
caucus? I am sceptical as to the deterring effect of such a reform.
The gun lobby encourages people to buy arms to protect
themselves. Yet, it is proven that people are safer when they are
not armed. A firearm kept in a house is 43 times more likely to
kill a member of that household than an intruder. Why wait eight
years, considering that a homicide is three times more likely to
be committed in a home where a firearm is kept, while a suicide
is five times more likely to occur?
Canadians, health specialists and particularly crime
prevention experts all ask, and rightly so, for greater control
over firearms. In Canada, 42 per cent of women killed by their
spouse are shot, four times out of five with a gun or a rifle.
Moreover, 78 per cent of these firearms are legally owned.
Again, I ask the
10372
question: Why spread the whole registration process over an
eight-year period? I am convinced that, as elected
representatives of the public, we could help save human lives
simply by reducing as much as possible that registration period.
Is it really reasonable to allow 13,000 military-type
automatic weapons in the country, considering that such
firearms are designed for rapid fire in a combat situation?
More than 560,000 Quebecers and Canadians signed a
petition asking that military-type weapons be banned. Yet, the
new legislation allows gun collectors to own such firearms.
Why? Why this fixation about firearms?
According to a recent survey, 84 per cent of Canadians,
including 71 per cent of gun owners, support a ban on military
weapons. Again, I find it unacceptable to make it perfectly legal
for the owners of these 13,000 firearms to keep such weapons.
We need a more rigid form of gun control.
(1310)
In my opinion, current legislation is inadequate, and Bill
C-68 still does not go far enough, both in terms of its
restrictions, as well as its deterring and punitive effects. It is our
role to protect members of the public, often against their wishes.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, not only is it an honour for me
to speak to the bill, I am enthusiastic and I would like to applaud
something that is long overdue. The bill addresses the health and
safety of Canadians. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Health, health and safety are extremely important to me.
Guns threaten, guns injure, and guns kill. I understand that
guns are an important component of life in many parts of
Canada: for hunters who live in isolated parts of the country and
for people who play some competitive sports. Guns are also very
important to the tourism industry.
The bill is not intended to harm that group of people or to stop
any sport or tourism or person who wants to hunt in any sporting
way. The bill is something most responsible gun owners would
support. The firearms act seeks to bring into line those people
who by their irresponsible use of firearms create a bad name for
law-abiding gun owners, which is why the bill is supported by
68 per cent of gun owners. Those who operate within the law and
act responsibly in storing and using their guns see nothing to
fear in the bill.
The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and the Department
of Justice have compiled a lot of startling data on the issue of
guns. I bring them to the attention of the House today because
they are what frightens me about the whole issue. Firearms
cause suicide. Some 1,100 suicides a year are committed with
guns, which means that 78 per cent of firearm deaths are
suicides. In 1990, 300 of the suicides were committed by 15 to
25-year-old youths. People who commit suicide with a gun
have a 92 per cent success rate, compared with only 35 per cent
if other means are used.
As a physician and a mother this is totally unacceptable to me.
It is alarming and it is sad. I know as many health and social
workers know that suicide attempts by young people are often
only a cry for help by very desperate and frightened youth. As a
physician I have treated many of those desperate and frightened
youth who would not be alive today if they had access to guns.
Firearms not only decimate our youth but firearms create
other household tragedies. Firearms victimize women. Over 40
per cent of women killed by their husbands each year are shot.
Every six days a woman is shot to death in Canada in her own
home by a legally owned gun.
In March 1992 the Department of Justice showed that 78.3 per
cent of domestic homicides in Canada involving the use of
firearms were by legally owned guns. I stress that they were
legally owned guns. We know that domestic violence is endemic
in society but firearms transform violence into murder. One fit
of anger, one violent rage combined with access to a gun, can
result in a dead woman.
These are not the only disturbing statistics about violence
with firearms against women. In 1993, 75 per cent of female
victims were killed in a private residence; 85 per cent of the
guns used to kill women were specifically rifles and shotguns;
and 82 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned at
the time of the shooting.
Is this the type of society we want to maintain, where women
and children are not safe in their own homes? Is this the freedom
espoused by those who oppose the bill? Is there any freedom at
the end of a gun? I would argue that there is not.
Deaths by firearms are preventable deaths. Injuries by
firearms cost our public health care system millions of dollars a
year. Over 1,000 firearm related deaths and injuries are treated
in Canadian hospitals each year. The cost of this is estimated
between $15 million to $30 million per year. Therefore in my
book firearms present a major health hazard; in the book of
anyone interested in public health and safety. Even if the value
of human life lost is not very important to the members of the
third party, I am sure that the cost to the health care system
might make them think twice because it is enormous. I believe
$30 million a year is enormous. They did not factor into their
recent budget the cost of firearms related injuries to the health
care system.
10373
(1315)
One of the things that alarms me about firearms is that at the
moment we do not have any data on the number of firearms in
this country. Anyone who knows anything about public health
will know data gathering is extremely important in preventive
measures in health. The epidemiology of any disease or any
health hazard, whether it be a virus, a bacteria, a poor sewage
system or a gun depends on the amount of data we have.
There are very limited data right now on guns. We do not
know exactly how many guns are in Canada. The gun lobby says
there are 22 million. The Department of Justices says there are
six million. It profoundly disturbs me that we have no real
figures to answer this question. We know how many bicycles,
how many cars and how many dogs there are but we do not know
how many firearms there are. This is completely unacceptable.
This act will give us the database we need to take the
preventive health measures we need to make this a safe and
healthy society. By mandatory registration we will take the guns
out of the closets and put them where we can find out exactly
how many there are.
When police are called to an incident in a home they will
know if they are walking into a risk or not. When police try to go
to homes where there is domestic violence they will know
whether they have to remove a gun because the woman in that
house is in danger. Guns are lethal weapons and so it makes
sense to have them registered, traceable and retrievable by our
police forces in the case of use or abuse.
Some of my constituents have questioned the potential costs
of this registration. I can understand that in a time of fiscal
control we do not want to incur costs to the government.
However, the justice minister tells us it will cost $85 million
over seven years to register these guns.
To the members of the third party, I do not believe $85 million
over seven years is too much money to spend on saving lives and
decreasing disability, especially when balanced against the
savings to the health care system. I hope even the members of
the third party can figure out the mathematics of that simple
equation.
Another concern raised by my constituents was they would be
restricted from using firearms in the film industry, a major
industry in British Columbia. I am pleased to say they can rest
assured this new bill will not prohibit that.
Some other members of my community are concerned
because they will not be able to export their replica firearms or
that the investment value of their antique firearms will be
decreased. Article 22 of this bill provides for the transfer, that is
the sale, barter or donation of firearms, to persons who hold
licences to acquire and possess that particular class of firearm.
Their collections will not be devalued or frozen because they
can continue to trade and sell their firearms with people who
have the same type of firearms.
More important, in a democracy we must follow the will of
the people. The majority of Canadians, 86 per cent of all
respondents to a recent Angus Reid poll, said they support
strong gun control measures, 68 per cent of whom are firearm
owners. Eighty-four per cent of respondents support a total ban
on military weapons, 71 per cent of whom are gun owners.
Seventy-one per cent of Canadians support a ban on handguns,
54 per cent of whom are gun owners. It is clear Canadians
everywhere think gun control is very important.
People talk a lot about the right to bear firearms. Nowhere is
this in the Canadian Constitution. The responsibility to store,
register and use firearms reasonably and safely is incumbent
upon anyone who feels it is their right to own a gun.
(1320)
Peace, order and good government are what the Canadian
Constitution is all about and what Canada stands for. With this
bill we will ensure that we continue to have peace, order and
good government and that a cause of death and disability will be
removed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his amendment to this bill.
It is too bad the other members of the House are not
knowledgeable enough about what we are talking about to
address the splitting of this bill. I have not heard anything in that
direction since it was announced over an hour ago that this is
what we were supposed to be speaking about.
There comes a time during every government when those
creating the legislation must face up to the reality of an issue and
not the politics of an issue. This is one of those times.
The justice minister has tabled what he terms a firearm
control measure, Bill C-68. Unfortunately this bill goes far
beyond control and borders on the unreal. Realism in any bill
means that the goals and the attentions of the proposed
legislation are within guidelines established by and for the
people governed by democratic values.
This bill allows neither governing by nor for the people. It
certainly is not democratic in values or purpose. This bill seeks
to be all things desired by a select group of individuals and
special interests and removes democratic choice and ultimately
democracy from law-abiding citizens who choose to hold
private property deemed by the few and select to be tainted
goods.
Instead of attacking the problems of criminal intent, this bill
attacks the rights of peace loving and law-abiding citizens who
safely use and own property without concern for due process and
democratic values.
That is why this bill must be split. There are two paths in this
bill. One addresses the need for safety and security of the
person. It binds the law-abiding people of this land together, a
path that mandates the state to protect its citizens from the
10374
ravages of those who believe power is purchased with violent,
threatening and immoral means. No Canadian will have a
problem travelling this roadway.
However, this bill also has another path, one of control
demanded by the anointed few who have hoodwinked this
government. They have blinded it with dreams of power by
demanding it place them above the freedom of Canadians to
choose.
This second path gives the power of right and wrong, good and
evil to the few who believe those not accepting their mandate or
their way are the criminals. To the select few, those who are
law-abiding, hard working, family oriented, loving and caring
but who choose to purchase and own a rifle or shotgun cannot be
trusted, say the few, and will turn into immoral and radical
outlaws.
This bill offers strict, swift and sure punishment for those who
break our laws or who threaten to intimidate our citizens. This
bill also offers dictatorial powers to the few individuals who
believe theirs is the only understanding and the only truth.
This bill must be split along those thoughts so that Canadians
can decide whether criminals must pay for their crimes and
whether Canadians will allow the decree of the few to dictate to
the many.
This can be easily done. All that is required is for this
government to stand up for the principles of democracy
cherished by the citizens of this land and make the decision to
put the wishes of the many ahead of the demands of the few
elites and special interests.
Perhaps this decision may not be as easy as stated, for all
Canadians know this government only listens to the chosen
social engineers and elites who continually confirm they know
best.
Perhaps this government was controlled and dominated for so
long by the politically correct who live and breathe and function
in their ivory towers and have no inkling what really exists
below their utopian vision of never-never land that it cannot
choose of its own free will to place the people of Canada ahead
of its favourite few chosen friends.
(1325 )
In either case, whether the government has the political will to
really consult Canadians or not, Canadians will know of the lack
of vision and understanding the government possesses. The
justice minister saw nothing wrong with the extraordinary order
in council powers this bill would give his cronies.
The members of this party are so blinded by false polls and
false idols of power promised by special interests that they are
overlooking the clauses and language in this bill that create an
all powerful super structure of select dictatorship within their
own government.
The members of this government who publicly state they
support this bill are telling their constituents in private they will
not vote for this bill. That is another reason why this bill must be
split.
This bill is causing constituents to lose faith in politicians.
Canadians want accountability from their members and this bill
will only weaken further the faith of constituents. Constituents
have had enough the two tailed explanations offered by Liberal
members.
Splitting this bill will allow those deserving the wrath of
taxpaying Canadians-criminals who believe power does come
from the barrel of a gun-to be quickly shown that power comes
from the will of the people.
At the same time it will give those members opposite the
opportunity to fully explain the other portions of this bill which
the members opposite have no doubt been instructed not to
mention to voters.
Why is it every time we on this side of the House mention
rifles and shotguns those on that side of the House speak of
handguns? My guess is that many voters do not know that
Canada currently has the toughest regulations regarding
registration, ownership and purchase of handguns of any
country.
The government knows many Canadians accept the
ponderings that handguns are on the same scale as rifles and
shotguns from their members when those same Liberals know
that current regulations concerning handguns require police
investigation, mental fitness exams and questioning associates
in the community to determine whether an applicant deserves
handgun ownership.
These same members opposite do not state the current
requirements in this House for fear Canadians will fully
understand that handgun ownership is already extremely
difficult. Instead they say handgun ownership in the same breath
with rifles and shotguns to further dilute the truth.
Splitting this bill will allow law enforcement agencies to
immediately demonstrate to violent criminals that society will
not and cannot tolerate crime. Splitting this bill will allow
immediate passage of the crime control clauses.
Splitting this bill will allow the removal of those sections that
declare law-abiding, chosen private property owning Canadians
villains. It will allow Canadians to no longer fear being
classified as criminals because social engineering elites have
decided that law-abiding Canadians cannot choose what is right
and decent and honourable for them.
We will no doubt continue to hear words such as murder,
abuse and mayhem from the members opposite in the same
breath as crime control. That is acceptable as long as those
words are aimed at the proper target, those who truly are
10375
criminals, those who believe that power and control from the
barrel of an illegally obtained handgun is the end all and be all to
their existence.
Members opposite will try to convince Canadians that family
oriented, loving and caring Canadians who choose target
shooting, hunting or competitive shooting as a sport are the
same as hardened criminals who place Canadians in grave or
mortal danger.
We all know those words are further attempts at giving the
elite the means to control our society through the portions of Bill
C-68 never mentioned by members of this government
We all know those members opposite are being extorted to
hide the true facts about the order in council clauses of this bill.
They give absolute authority to the few elite and the few among
the Liberals who still believe that total control from the top is
the end all and be all of their mandate and that true democracy
by way of frank and open debate with those who have opposing
views is and must be opposed at all costs. That might convince
Canadians they have a choice, intelligence and an opinion.
(1330)
In conclusion, there has been a wake-up call to politicians
from all Canadians indicating to each and every one of us that
they will have a voice from this day forward in what comes out
of the House, and so they should. I encourage them to continue
to be involved in this very contentious issue.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. As is the case in many
rural ridings, the legislation has elicited a great deal of interest
among my constituents.
Everyone participating in the discussion should do so with the
following three points in mind. First, the government promised
to toughen firearms legislation during the last election
campaign and was elected with a strong mandate. Second,
opinion research indicates a very high level of support among
Canadians for the legislative initiative. Third, firearms owners
have legitimate concerns about the proposed law. If we do not
work with these axioms in mind, we will not have the
constructive and open debate this important issue merits.
The Minister of Justice introduced a broad set of measures
intended to increase public security in Canada. While I have
difficulty fully appreciating all the benefits of registering rifles
and shotguns, I nonetheless support most of the provisions in the
bill.
Most Canadians, even the most sceptical, would admit there is
some good in the legislation.
[Translation]
However, this debate is about how we can improve this bill
even more, to make it acceptable to a larger number of
Canadians. As we saw with the GST, for instance, if a new bill is
not widely accepted, it will fail to do what it is supposed to do.
During the past few months I have received hundreds of cards
and many telephone calls, faxes and letters representing the two
poles of this debate. I met a number of constituents personally
and also attended regularly the meetings of a special firearms
owners advisory committee.
Of the approximately 500 residents of Simcoe North who
communicated with me on this bill, about 10 per cent supported
the bill and 90 per cent were opposed. The majority of the latter
group expressed their views through a mail-in campaign.
[English]
Despite the opinion research showing strong support in every
region of Canada for the measures contained in Bill C-68, it is
clear that large numbers of hunters, target shooters and gun
collectors are very dissatisfied. As legislators I feel we should
do our utmost to balance these concerns with the will of the
majority of Canadians. If we can eliminate the dogmatic
rhetoric emanating from those with entrenched positions on
either side of the issue and debate the matter with a rational
approach and an open mind, we can make important progress
toward this balance.
An example of a compromise that would not water down the
bill in any way but would certainly render it fair in practice and
in perception is the following: Bill C-68 could be significantly
improved by removing from the Criminal Code the penalties in
section 91 for non-registration in cases where the contravention
is not wilful, for example where there has been an oversight.
This type of non-registration would be more justly dealt with
under the newly created firearms act.
Penalties for wilful non-registration in section 92 could
remain in the Criminal Code. This simple amendment would
take nothing away from the strength of the bill but would ensure
that law-abiding Canadians are not recorded as having criminal
records due to an omission, oversight or ignorance of the law. In
my opinion the amendment would dispel much of the concern
felt by many firearm owners.
(1335)
I have received a legal opinion that not only would the
amendment be constitutional but it would actually improve the
constitutionality of the bill. I have requested an opportunity to
appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs to seek its support for the amendment. Barring a chance
10376
to appear before the standing committee, I propose to move a
motion in the House during report stage debate.
[Translation]
We have all witnessed the atmosphere of suspicion and
misinformation around discussions on gun control. Quite
frankly, much of the problem is due to a lack of information
about the repercussions of the bill. We should not be surprised
that gun owners get upset when their members of Parliament are
unable to answer very basic questions like: how much will it
cost?
The question is a legitimate one, and I would like to be able to
give a clear and precise. In the absence of detailed information,
individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in
giving Canadians the worst case scenario have been quick to
provide their own answers to these questions, sometimes
drawing alarmist conclusions that have been greatly
exaggerated.
For instance, in my riding people say it will cost between $86
and $102 to register a firearm. However, the Minister of Justice
figures that it will cost only $10 for up to ten firearms. If we
cannot prove they are wrong, many people will think these
agents of the gun lobby have absolute credibility.
[English]
The firearm debate has had a very polarizing dynamic. We
have very determined firearm owners on one side and equally
determined people on the other side who would rather not see
guns in society. Both have legitimate and compelling concerns.
It is for this reason we as parliamentarians must try to take the
middle road. Although the middle of the road approach may not
satisfy extremists at either end of the spectrum, it will be
satisfactory to the majority of Canadians. Canadians pride
themselves as a fair and just people, but we must not forget our
heritage and that even today firearms activities such as hunting,
targeting shooting and collecting are important components of
the Canadian identity particularly in rural areas.
The proposals embodied in the bill were introduced last
November. In response to input from individual firearm owners
and organizations that represent them, the legislation we are
debating today contains important improvements to the original
proposals. For example, owners of firearms in the restricted
category will now be able to buy and sell to others in the same
category. In addition to other provisions for divesting of
restricted firearms, this will ensure that owners of restricted
firearms will have a reasonable choice of options if they choose
to retrieve their investment.
These substantial amendments to the original proposal
demonstrate there is still room for compromise without
undermining the basic principles of the bill. That is why I am
proposing an amendment to remove from the Criminal Code the
penalties in section 91 for non-registration in cases where the
contravention is not wilful. The amendment will make the
legislation more just and will increase the degree of compliance
without reducing its impact.
In addition to universal registration, Bill C-68 contains many
excellent provisions that will undoubtedly improve public
safety. I cannot say that I support every aspect of the legislation
without reservation, but if I had to give it a grade it would be a b
plus, and that is a decent pass.
I intend to vote in favour of Bill C-68, but in respect of the
legitimate concerns expressed to me by firearms owners in
Simcoe North and in view of my personal reservations I am
seeking remedial action in the form of the amendment I
described.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam
Speaker, our concerns with regard to the legislation on gun
control are shared by many of my fellow Canadians. We cannot,
however, remain insensitive to the statistics on the number of
shooting deaths.
(1340)
Firearms are involved in over one third of the homicides in
Canada. Most of the homicides in the past six years were
committed with shotguns or hunting rifles. In three cases out of
four, a murdered wife was slain with a hunting shotgun or rifle.
Closer to home, in Quebec, between 1990 and 1992, there
were 1,293 deaths attributable to shootings-an average of 425
deaths annually. Three deaths by shooting out of four, in Quebec
as well, were suicides, for a total of approximately 300 suicides
annually. These sombre statistics are very eloquent. They
cannot therefore be ignored. It was essential to ensure a strict
application of the provisions of the Criminal Code on the use of
firearms. Moreover the regulations in force under the old
legislation governing the acquisition, storage and transportation
of firearms were incoherent and difficult to apply.
The Minister of Justice had to make them understandable and
accessible to everyone. But, did he do so? Let us take the time to
consider a few paragraphs.
The Bloc Quebecois favours gun control without
discriminating against those who use firearms reasonably and
responsibly. I gave some statistics earlier. Here are some more.
A descriptive study on suicides, homicides and accidental
deaths by shooting was done on a data base available in the files
of the coroner. For example, a number of files were examined by
the Quebec coroner. The tally of deaths caused by firearms:
from 1990 to 1992, 38 accidental deaths; from 1992 to 1993, 572
suicides; from 1991 to 1993, 227 homicides.
10377
The goal of this study was to obtain information on the
firearm used, its owner and the situation leading to the incident,
in addition to the characteristics of the victims and the
circumstances of the incident.
Thus we can see that guns are the preferred means used by
people who want to end it all. Let us look at the specific aspects
of this kind of death. Between 1990 and 1992, a gun was used in
26 per cent of all suicides. This percentage varies by age group.
Thirty-seven per cent of all people under 20 years of age use a
gun to commit suicide. In the 20 to 29 age bracket, this
percentage drops to 27 per cent, and bottoms out at 25 per cent
for people 30 years of age and older.
What is the age of the victim? The rate at which people 10
years of age or older use a gun to commit suicide is 5.2 per
100,000. However, we find the highest rate in the 15 to 24 age
bracket, which is 7 per 100,000. Men, in a proportion of 92.7 per
cent, use guns to commit suicide, compared to women who,
naturally, make up the difference of 7.3 per cent.
I would like to continue by citing an interesting statistic
which, unfortunately, concerns my region. The average annual
suicide rate varies from 1.9 to 16.5 per 100,000 depending on
the region. The rate is highest in the north of Quebec and in
Abitibi.
As you can see, guns are not always put to good use in my
riding. The riding of Manicouagan has a very high
unemployment rate, which exceeds the average in other ridings.
Geography has somewhat isolated us from big centres, and
this is an added stress weighing on residents and is also one of
the contributing factors to the high suicide rate. The isolation
factor should be considered in the analysis. However, this region
is graced with all of nature's splendours, and, like the North
Shore region, offers its residents so much untouched nature and
free access to the oldest sports on earth: hunting and fishing.
As you guessed, residents of the North Shore need their guns
to hunt. They can put them to a full and healthy use and they
have proved this for many years.
(1345)
With or without regulations, these people are able to make
proper use of their weapons-for recreational purposes,
needless to say.
Although it is important that Bill C-68 meet one of the goals
established, namely gun control-no one in the Bloc Quebecois
is against this-, we must be very careful not to dig too deeply
into taxpayers' pockets under the pretext of exercising some
control.
We must ensure, among other things, that the registration fees
collected by the department are not a kind of hidden tax. The
Bloc Quebecois is very wary of this.
Although we certainly agree with the principle that firearms
must be better controlled and monitored, we should also be
honest enough to admit that since a large number of firearms are
used by suicidal people, gun control and registration will not
solve the problem of suicide. Let us not forget that those who try
to kill themselves with firearms may do so because they already
have them in their possession; if not, the vast majority of them
will simply use something else.
In closing, yes, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of better gun
control. We must, however, avoid imposing extra costs on
people like those in my riding who do not need them. These
people are fed up with having to pay more and more all the time.
With all its facilities designed to control the system, the
department is certainly in a position to control travel costs, so
that Quebec taxpayers, including those in Manicouagan, do not
have to pay excessive costs.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when the
Minister of Justice announced his firearms control program in
November 1994 he did so after extensive consultation with
individuals, groups, organizations and various government
departments.
The overwhelming support of the Canadian people for the
program shows that the minister listened well and responded to
the concerns expressed during that consultative period.
Headlines, editorials and columns in newspapers across the
country almost unanimously repeat the theme ``Gun control law
on target''.
When we look at our neighbours to the south we see a society
that has enshrined in its constitution the right to bear arms. This
emphasis on rugged individualism is characterized in part by the
fascination with guns in the United States. Its citizens have
embraced an all-pervasive, gun-toting culture.
Canadians do not share the American fascination with guns.
Our society is essentially different from theirs and in an
overwhelming fashion this has been communicated to the
Minister of Justice. The minister has proposed legislation which
is a reasonable response to the desire of Canadians to maintain a
different social and cultural attitude toward guns. Canada must
not slip into the gun mentality of the United States. As the
minister said: ``Canadians do not want to live in a society where
they feel they need to own a gun for protection''.
I do not believe it is possible to devise gun control legislation
that will satisfy all Canadians. However, I do believe that with
this legislation the minister has taken a colossal step in the right
direction. He has used a two-pronged, balanced approach in
attacking the public safety problem on the one side and the use
of weapons in criminal activity on the other. The law will not
resolve all our problems, but as a Montreal Gazette editorial
10378
stated: ``It is a superb and courageous proposal for gun control.
It is almost everything that anti-crime advocates could ask for''.
The legislation is also a reflection of the wishes and even the
demands of the Canadian people, that we toughen our laws and
our positions, that we make things tougher for criminals and that
we improve the level of safety in the streets and homes of our
nation.
The government was given a mandate in the last election to
strengthen gun control laws. The Liberal program made that
promise. It is most appropriate that the Minister of Justice, with
the support of Parliament, move to fulfil it.
(1350 )
Debate on this legislation will provide opponents with the
opportunity to seek changes in the areas to which they object.
However at the end of the day the will of the majority must
prevail. It is most distressing to have Reform Party members
indicate that they are not content to seek change but that they
will flaunt the will of the majority and put themselves above the
law.
It is distressing to hear statements that reflect a kind of wild
frontier mentality. ``I do not like the law, therefore I will break
it''. At this point, it is not simply a question of guns or gun
control but rather a question of democracy.
The legislative proposals have been dealt with in detail by
members who have spoken previously but I feel I should
mention some of them again in brief. On the get tough on
criminals side of the ledger, there will be a mandatory minimum
sentence of four years in prison for the use of a firearm in the
commission of any of 10 specific violent offences. This is not
only a suitable penalty for such crimes but should also serve as a
deterrent to the use of a firearm in the commission of crime.
There will be increased penalties for illegal importing and
trafficking of firearms. These will be accomplished by increased
border controls and surveillance measures.
On the other side of the ledger-the enhancement of public
safety-there are two main items: a law applying to certain
types of handguns, the restricted buying and selling of others
and a national registration system for all firearms.
This registration will be administered by the RCMP in
co-operation with the provinces and territories. Virtually no one
has a problem with the get tough on criminals part of the
legislation. If there is a criticism, it is that the mandatory
sentences are not severe enough.
However when we get to the area of handguns, opposition
grows. I believe that the treatment of handguns is eminently
defensible. Target shooting and collecting are both legitimate
exercises and adequate provisions are made for both of them in
the bill. These handguns and certain other prohibited firearms
are also able to be bought and sold among existing owners. On
the issue of handguns, I want to include a quote from Ontario
Judge Hugh Locke.
When delivering a decision involving possession of a
restricted weapon, Justice Locke said: ``Handguns are the
scourge of the human race and their unlawful possession must be
totally discouraged. Such weapons are useful for one purpose
and one purpose only. They are employed to kill and maim
human beings. Our society is plagued with those who feel
handguns are a normal part of one's equipment. They are not''.
On the subject of registration, nowhere in the legislation does
it say that Canadians have to give up their guns. However it does
say that Canadians must register all of their guns. Granted,
registration is an inconvenience and will have a cost attached
but the whole registration process allows for seven years before
it is fully mandatory and the cost is minimal.
The minister recognized that the proposed legislation may not
yet be in its best or final form. There are concerns about cost,
about the treatment of relics and heirlooms and the legitimacy of
certain types of guns. The House of Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will hold hearings so
that concerns such as these may be addressed.
Opposition on the basis of slogans such as ``registration
today, confiscation tomorrow'', promoting the idea that a
tyrannical government is disarming its citizens to make it easier
to suppress and oppose them is nonsense. It is fanatical nonsense
and seriously diminishes the credibility of those who espouse
such beliefs. When we discuss legislation of this nature, I
believe it is important that we talk to the people on the front
lines, the ones who live it on a daily basis.
P.E.I. is considered to be quite a peaceful society even by
Canadian standards. I would like to put the following letter on
the record. This letter is from Transition House and was written
by Joanne Ings, executive director:
As you are aware, the P.E.I. Transition House Association operates Anderson
House, the Island's only emergency shelter for women and children seeking
refuge from family violence. Since Anderson House opened in 1981, we have
sheltered 1,800 women and over 2,000 children.
The impetus for gun control legislation came from the shocking murders of
women engineering students in Montreal in 1989. The P.E.I. Transition House
Association has been a strong supporter of the legislation since its inception. We
believe that stricter controls will save lives, particularly lives of women and
children who live in violent family situations where unregistered firearms are
present.
Many of the women and children who stay at Anderson House are from rural
P.E.I. and we have learned from these families that the threat of the use of
firearms is a real fear. We understand that the registration of shotguns and other
firearms will not stop family violence but statistics prove that registration is a
deterrent and does result in fewer deaths by firearms.
10379
If one life will be saved by the passing and proclamation of Minister Rock's
legislation it will be worth it. We ask that you support this bill for the safety of women
and children in violent family situations and in memory of the women of Montreal.
(1355)
I believe that the sentiments expressed in this letter are those
of the vast majority of Canadians. I believe that the legislation
being debated is a compromise which advances the cause of
public safety in the community without imposing unreasonable
constraints on anyone's personal freedom.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to be speaking to
this motion to sever Bill C-68 because I think most members
enjoy speaking to legislation that makes sense.
A very sensible approach would be to separate Bill C-68 so
the House can thoroughly examine the two distinct segments.
The section of Bill C-68 that deals with the criminal use of
firearms is the only part of the bill that could have a significant
effect on improving public safety.
However, this section of the bill, part III, will likely be
ignored in public debate. Like many pieces of Liberal
legislation there are aspects that are a step in the right direction.
However like most government legislation, most of part III does
not go far enough and some sections are actually regressive.
Because part III has the pretence of being a step in the right
direction it will be ignored as critics and supporters of the bill
debate the merits of universal registration. I believe it is
extremely important that the House thoroughly review part III
and that is why this part and the other relevant sections of the
bill must be reviewed separately from the registration section.
My Reform colleagues and I wholeheartedly agree with any
legislation that would get tough with criminals who use
firearms. Unfortunately this bill does not make the grade.
Last June I introduced a private member's bill C-260 that
dealt with the criminal use of firearms. In that bill I called for
the inclusion of replica firearms in section 85 of the Criminal
Code. I did this because crown counsels had informed me that
one of the reasons that so few section 85 charges went forward
was because it is so difficult to prove that the object that was
used in a crime was actually a firearm. The way the legislation
has been written the crown had to prove that the object that
looked like a firearm was actually a firearm.
Unless the firearm was fired during the commission of the
offence or unless the criminal was arrested at the scene of a
crime or immediately after in possession of a firearm it was
unlikely that a conviction could be won. There was no other way
the crown could prove that the object that looked like a firearm
actually met the legal definitions of a firearm. Since the crown
could not prove that it met the legal definition of a firearm a
charge under section 85 could not be laid.
The inclusion of a replica in section 85 would fill that void.
My private member's bill treated a replica the same as an actual
firearm. There would be no need for the crown to prove that the
object was a real firearm.
When robbery victims have what looks like a handgun shoved
in their faces they are not in a position to determine if the gun
was real or just a replica. The terror they felt at that moment is
not mitigated if they learn later that it was just a replica. Does
the inclusion of replica in Bill C-68 solve this problem?
Unfortunately it does not. It is that ever so typical Liberal small
step in the right direction. Someone who uses a replica firearm
during-
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor when we
get back after question period. It being 2 p.m., we will now hear
statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
10379
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to
draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to the importance of
Commonwealth Day. The theme of Commonwealth Day 1995 is
tolerance.
The Commonwealth stands as a symbol of international
co-operation and as a model for all nations of the globe to work
in friendship promoting diversity and harmony through
tolerance.
Our nation has benefited greatly from its membership in the
Commonwealth and in turn Canada has lent its strong support to
this venerable institution.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to extend our
sympathies to the families affected by the tragedy that struck
Blanc-Sablon, in my riding of Manicouagan, on Friday.
At two o'clock Friday morning, tonnes of snow came
tumbling down the mountain to devastate the tiny North Shore
village of Blanc-Sablon. A father and his son were killed. It is a
miracle that the mother, who was buried under the snow for
hours, survived. Had it not been for the outstanding courage of
local residents, who defied extreme cold and winds of over 100
kilometres per hour, the toll could have been even worse.
10380
Again, this goes to show that, in Quebec, there are
exceptional people prepared to face exceptional circumstances,
and the Bloc Quebecois salutes the extraordinary solidarity
displayed on this occasion.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to congratulate Elvis Stojko on winning his
second world figure skating championship.
Elvis displayed unbelievable athletic ability, the grace of a
true champion and the humility of a real sportsman. Residents of
Barrie in my riding are especially proud as Elvis trains at the
Mariposa Figure Skating School under coach Doug Lee. We all
have something to be proud of in this young man as he
demonstrates the spirit and rich culture of Canada, something
our Secretary of State for Multiculturalism would do well to
note.
Elvis Stojko, Brian Orser and Kirk Browning, all Canadian
and all world champions have placed Canada number one in the
world, seven in the last nine years and the tradition continues.
I am sure all members will join with me in paying tribute to
this outstanding young Canadian.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
express my grave concerns on President Clinton's budget
proposals to charge a $3 per vehicle and $1.50 per pedestrian
border crossing fee to enter the United States. The proposal has
not been withdrawn as we were led to believe but has been
altered to put undue pressure on U.S. border communities to
encourage implementation.
These proposed fees violate the spirit and intent of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. These
proposed fees would stifle economic development and
economic integration of communities and regions on both sides
of the border to the detriment of us all.
These proposed fees would seriously discourage tourism and
open travel between our respective countries. They would
hamper visitation between families who in a literal sense
straddle the border.
These fees are questionable economics and questionable
diplomacy in an era of increased trade and goodwill with our
friendly neighbour to the south.
I strongly urge the Prime Minister to advise the President of
our strongest objection to this unwise, counterproductive and
unacceptable tax.
Retaliation is not an answer. Friends do not treat each other
this way. Withdrawal of the proposed fees is the only solution.
The constituents of Erie riding, of the Niagara peninsula and
indeed of the whole country deserve and demand nothing less.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform the House of my private member's initiative
which I have called the taxpayers bill of rights and is currently
being drafted.
Summaries of this legislation have been submitted to
professional bodies and interest groups across Canada. I would
like to thank them for their comments and suggestions. People
from British Columbia all the way to Newfoundland have
written to me and expressed their support for this initiative.
Greater financial accountability for existing and future
programs, the protection of taxpayers from the onerous powers
of collection authorities and the establishment of a taxpayers'
ombudsman are part of this bill.
Finally and most important, it establishes a cap on the amount
of taxation an individual can be subjected to and it provides for
refunds over this threshold amount. A gradual reduction of
thresholds by 1 per cent per year over the next 15 years will give
taxpayers the assurance that we have put limits on the tax grab
on disposable incomes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
March 8 was a perfect opportunity to remember that, over the
years, Quebec and Canadian women have made great progress in
their efforts to reach equality. All women should be pleased with
the progress made, and we should take the means available to us.
I want to salute every woman who quietly goes about her task
but whose contribution is essential to our common well-being. I
also thank the pioneers and those who played, and continue to
play, an active role in women's organizations, so as to ensure
better conditions for their fellow women.
Finally, I want to express my solidarity and my admiration to
all the women, in many countries, who fight to have their most
fundamental rights respected. To those women, I wish to send a
message of courage and hope.
10381
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been asked by a British member of Parliament to raise the
Alan Winter case in this House.
Alan Winter was a school trustee in British Columbia who ran
a government funded foster home. He was declared a dangerous
offender and sentenced to 16 years, yet was released only five
and one-half years later on agreement that he leave Canada.
British MP John Denham was outraged to learn recently that
this child molester who faced 28 sexual assault charges in 1987
was now living in his riding of Southampton. Mr. Denham
writes:
People in Southampton were appalled to learn that he has served only a small
part of a lengthy sentence for appalling acts against children. They were equally
concerned to learn those agencies responsible for child protection had no
knowledge of his presence in the city.
I would be grateful if you could make every effort to raise my concerns and
those of my constituents in the Canadian Parliament. I believe that if Mr. Winter
was not fit to be released into Canadian society he was not fit for release into my
country either.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Atlantic Canada's chicken industry is in a period of
transition. Close to 90 per cent of the province's chicken
production comes from my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
In Nova Scotia we have an active and resilient industry that
has chosen not to sit still. For example, in my riding much work
is being done to capitalize on opportunities in the value-added
sector. However, we are grappling with a number of important
and potentially divisive issues.
We need to determine how to maintain fair prices for
producers and processors. We need to resolve trade concerns
with the U.S. relating to the GATT and NAFTA. All provinces
must pull together and work in co-operation in order to enhance
our national position.
I urge all affected participants, including the federal
government, to strive toward achieving a stronger domestic
chicken industry. At the end of the day we will all benefit from
an industry that works in co-operation and is solid in all regions.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the
accomplishments of Peggy McKercher and Dr. Louis Horlick of
Saskatoon who received the Order of Canada on Wednesday,
March 1.
Peggy McKercher was made a member of the Order of Canada
for her voluntary service to the residents of Saskatoon. She has
spent many hours volunteering for many organizations,
including the Meewasin Valley Authority of which she has been
chair since its inception. Under her leadership Meewasin has
created one of the most beautiful riverfront areas in Canada and
has established Wanuskewin Heritage Park which is world
recognized for its historical and archaeological importance.
Dr. Louis Horlick was promoted to officer of the Order of
Canada. Dr. Horlick, a cardiologist at Royal University Hospital
and Professor Emeritus of Medicine at the University of
Saskatchewan, is well known for his advocacy in the area of
community health and cardiac care. He is respected by students
and colleagues alike as an inspiring teacher. As a researcher he
has made many contributions to the science of cardiac care.
Let us all take the example of Dr. Horlick and Mrs.
McKercher to heart. Their dedication to the community, the
fellow citizens of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and to raising the
standard of quality of life that we as-
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
day is a wonderful day to be from Manitoba and today is no
exception. Yesterday, Manitoba completed a clean sweep of all
national curling championships.
Our junior rinks skipped by Chris Galbraith and Kelly
MacKenzie are men's and women's junior champions. Connie
Laliberte from my home club won the Scott Tournament of
Hearts. Yesterday, the team of Kerry Burtnyk, Jeff Ryan, Rob
Meakin, Keith Fenton and Denis Fillion won the Labatt Brier.
I know that all members of this House wish they were from
Manitoba. I know they will all join me in wishing Kerry's team
the very best of luck in the World Curling Championships to be
held in Brandon, Manitoba.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week, I celebrated International Women's Day with a
breakfast for representatives of local organizations working
with women in my riding.
10382
(1410)
The riding of Saint-Denis is very lucky to be able to count on
such high quality services from these organizations. Women in
poverty, dealing with violence in the home or recently arrived in
Canada are some of those they serve.
I take this opportunity to draw attention to the fine work done
by these organizations and encourage them to continue their
efforts.
[English]
Canadians only stand to benefit from the full contribution of
women in our society. This struggle for equality does not seek to
condemn men but to work with them in creating, as our slogan
for this year says, a world of equality.
[Translation]
There is still a way to go before equality is achieved, but
women's voices are being heard; we cannot ignore them any
longer. One day, equality will become reality.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year,
Quebec will experience a shortfall of $118 million in
unemployment insurance.
In the past, federalists sang the praises of Canadian
federalism saying that Quebec was a net beneficiary of the
unemployment insurance program. The fact is that Quebec's
rate of unemployment under the federal scheme is
systematically higher than Canada's. This is what we get out of
federalism.
The government in Ottawa is hindering job creation in
Quebec, in particular, by putting only 15.9 per cent of its
investments there, although 23 per cent of its revenues come
from there.
Not only did the latest budget hinder job creation by
precluding the transfer to Quebec of full powers in manpower
training, but it proposed no active job creation measures.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning Canadians read about a woman who came to
Canada from the United States and then claimed refugee status.
She was turned down and removed back to the U.S. until she
could get a taxpayer funded legal aid assisted appeal.
The initial hearing stage took so long that the claimant now
has a two and one-half year old daughter born in Canada who is
a Canadian citizen. This child will have to remain in Canada
while her mother is removed to the U.S.
The Reform Party would never have allowed this travesty to
occur. We would not accept refugee claimants from the United
States. We would not allow claims to go on and on for two and
one-half years. We would not allow children born of illegal
immigrants to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship.
The minister calls our proposals hard hearted. In fact, these
measures would have prevented this latest immigration outrage
and would have saved taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. If
this government had the interests of genuine refugees and
taxpayers at heart, it would adopt our proposals and stop a
system that encourages abuse.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of my
constituents, Mr. Harold Sher. Mr. Sher has been a precision
skating coach in my riding for the past 15 years. His most recent
competition epitomizes the success he has enjoyed.
Sher's four teams from the Bracebridge figure skating club
made a clean sweep of first-place finishes at the northern
Ontario sectional and invitational competition held last month.
The four teams came away with eight gold medals. This
outstanding success qualifies the teams for the Canadian
championships to be held in Calgary later this spring. Last year
his adult team, the Muskoka Blades, won silver at this
championship, while his junior blades won gold in the
consolation round.
I wish Harold and all of the skaters the best of luck as they go
for gold in Calgary next month.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
August 10 of this year will be the first day of the sixth annual
Havelock Country Jamboree. It kicks off country music week in
Peterborough city and county.
The jamboree is a success story in our region. It is a
showplace for musical talent. It is a boost for local businesses. It
attracts thousands of tourists to and generates publicity for the
Peterborough area.
Last year the jamboree helped Havelock minor hockey, St.
John Ambulance, the scouts, the Terry Fox run, the March of
Dimes and the local food bank.
It is great that grassroots ventures like the Havelock Country
Jamboree can generate so many benefits simply by bringing
pleasure to thousands of people. Our thanks to Jack Blakely and
all his helpers.
10383
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, less than two weeks ago, on Tuesday, February 28 the
Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly unanimously passed the
following resolution:
That this Assembly transcend party lines and join together in demanding the
federal government immediately withdraw Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, which
will effectively impose a costly and unnecessary national firearms registry that
will have no effect on controlling violent crimes in Canada, and that this
Assembly send an all-party delegation to make representation to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs outlining this Assembly's intense
opposition to the proposed firearms registry; and further, following adoption of
this motion, that Mr. Speaker forward to the federal Minister of Justice a copy of
this resolution with the relevant transcripts from today's proceedings.
(1415)
My constituents and I also want to register our intense
opposition. I concur with the unanimous vote of the
Saskatchewan legislature calling for the immediate withdrawal
of Bill C-68 respecting the Firearms Act.
_____________________________________________
10383
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, turbot is the last remaining species which can be
fished off the coast of Newfoundland in the wake of the scourge
of overfishing on cod, ocean perch and plaice. For this reason, it
is imperative that we protect turbot stocks. The official
opposition, therefore, supports the government's decision to put
an end to the overfishing of turbot, which led it to board the
Spanish vessel
Estai.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans. Drawing on information gathered by inspectors
who have boarded the Spanish vessel Estai, will the fisheries
minister tell us whether officials from the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans have found any irregularities which could
be used to support Canada's position?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the
Opposition for raising this question and for the considerable
support that the Bloc Quebecois has given to the government
regarding this issue.
Concerning the catches found aboard the Estai, we found that
up to 70 per cent of all of the fish caught were small and
immature. This is an important issue for the fishermen of Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince
Edward Island. This is clear. Atlantic fishermen have
unanimously called on the government to take effective action.
[English]
As the Leader of the Opposition has asked, we have
commenced inspection aboard the vessel. Based on the
preliminary estimates, not the completed and full inspection,
more than 70 per cent of all stock found aboard the vessel is very
small, sexually immature fish not capable of reproduction.
Some 30 per cent were less than 14 inches, 21 per cent less than
12 inches, and 22 per cent less than 9 inches. A good chunk of
the fish are smaller than this pen.
The Speaker: I am going to let the hon. member conclude, but
I beg him not to use any props even though it is only a fish pen.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, knowing the House has a good
imagination, I can say that a healthy fishery is conducted on
animals, living resources of the sea that are between 24 and 28
inches. Many of the fish being caught are smaller than the palm
of my hand. That is no prop; that is my hand. This has to stop.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420 )
Mr. Speaker: I will take that as a wave.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate the seriousness and the firmness of
Canada's position, will the minister confirm that his
government will not free the seized vessel before the European
Union resumes negotiations with Canada, which is the condition
the Union would impose on us?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is proceeding today to do all
things required in a very normal and appropriate way in
Canadian law. That is the action we are taking today and that is
the action we shall continue without fail over the hours and days
ahead.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my next question is directed to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Could the minister tell us whether or not Canada has taken
diplomatic steps to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict
with the European Union that will respect the pressing goal of
protecting and conserving current stocks of turbot threatened by
overfishing on the part of European ships?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the Government of
Canada wishes to continue on the path of diplomacy and to
explore all diplomatic avenues at our disposal, for example
10384
discussions with representatives of the European Union and, in
particular, with Spain.
It is clear that our ambassador to Spain, our ambassador to the
European Union and officials of my department here in Ottawa
have contacted the ambassadors of the countries in the European
Union to explain our position, to state quite clearly that it is our
goal to conserve fish stocks and to reach an amicable agreement
as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when he tabled his budget, the Minister of Finance
announced that he would release later this year an old age
pension reform proposal. In fact, if we follow the minister's
logic, his goal of a sustainable old age pension system can only
lead to a reduction in the benefits paid under the current system.
Does the Minister of Finance admit that his old age pension
reform proposal, under the pretext of putting in place a
sustainable system, is aimed at depriving thousands of seniors
of benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Finance admit that his old age
pension reform proposal is aimed at making seniors poorer and
replacing the current pension system with a social assistance
program for seniors? Will he tell us the truth?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The
reason why the Minister of Human Resources Development and
I intend to release these documents is precisely to avoid the
catastrophe the hon. member has just described.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the issue of pensions because
last year the Liberal government promised that a white paper on
aging would be presented to the House before last month's
budget. However, like so many of the government's policy
initiatives, Canadians are still waiting for the white paper. The
promise has been broken.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When can Canadians
expect to see this long awaited paper on aging? Will it be tabled
before the government embarks on any changes to the CPP or to
OAS?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a paper on aging. The Minister of Human
Resources Development is working on it. It is very much in line
with the reform of social programs.
We said that we have to enter into negotiations with the
provinces. There will be discussions with members of the
House. There will be committees and eventually resolution of
the problem by the House.
I can assure everybody that our goal is to make sure we
maintain a very good social security system for retired people in
Canada.
(1425 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is really no secret that the current Canada
pension plan is in big trouble. The Minister of Finance stated
that unless premiums are radically increased public pensions
will not survive to the 21st century.
It is also no secret that when the government wants to act it
can. Look how the Liberals acted to protect their own lavish
pensions, for example.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. What
changes does the government have planned for CPP? Is it higher
premiums, increasing the retirement age, or both? Canadians
deserve an answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual Canadian people will have their answers after
we have had public discussions with them and with members of
the House.
I hope members of the Reform Party will have good ideas
about it, but I do not think they will get them from Mr. Gingrich
in Washington.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the delays are disconcerting. We were promised
studies but nothing is happening. Canadians do not think the
government will be able to provide adequately for their future.
They want the government to give them the tools to care for
themselves.
Before the ink was even dry on the last budget the government
is again floating the idea of taxing RRSPs. Canadians are
worried and confused about how they should provide for their
retirement security.
Simply, will the government consider replacing CPP with an
RRSP style program that gives Canadians more control over
their economic future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see the problem of the Reform Party. It is trying to
build up some straw bonhomme, as we say in English, toshoot at.
Our social programs will be reviewed thoroughly with the
participation of all members of the House of Commons. Unfor-
10385
tunately members of the Reform Party will not do a lot to make
sure the poorest in society are protected. They will make sure
the rich do very well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Now that the federal government has announced its decisions
concerning social program reform, the Quebec government is
requesting that a federal-provincial conference of ministers
responsible for manpower be held as soon as possible to discuss
the consequences of the federal measures announced, in
particular the reduction in transfer payments.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend
to call as soon as possible this spring a conference on the impact
of his social program reform, as requested by Quebec?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very
pleased to see that the Quebec government has finally decided to
participate in federal-provincial discussions on social security.
I think that it is a step towards resolving several problems with
the social safety net. I hope that the hon. members of the Bloc
Quebecois will now follow the lead of their Quebec colleagues
and show the same spirit of co-operation as the Quebec
government.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to point out to the minister that the last federal-provincial
conference on this issue was scheduled for April 18 and that the
previous government was in power at the time.
Here is my supplementary. Will the minister finally agree to
comply with the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous
resolution, made on April 14, 1994, to abide by the unanimous
consensus among all stakeholders that Quebec has to have
exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times
in the House, we have already put forward an offer to all
provinces for a new rationalization of our manpower training
programs. Several provinces have indicated an interest in
responding. We have already signed an agreement with the
province of Saskatchewan. We are well into negotiations with
several other provinces.
With the new found interest of the Government of Quebec in
working with us on social security reform, I would hope we
could have serious discussions. I would be more than happy to
sit down today with Madam Harel and the Government of
Quebec to discuss exactly that.
* * *
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
world summit on social development in Copenhagen last
Thursday the minister of human resources spoke about his
government slapping a tax on automatic teller machine use and
an electronic information tax. Is the minister prepared to pop
this trial balloon right now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this very important
conference of 190 countries both government officials and
NGOs were discussing how we could come to grips with the
questions of unemployment and poverty. One of the most
serious issues was how to deal with the rapid rise of currency
speculation where a trillion dollars passes boundaries every
single day; 80 per cent of it is pure speculation.
One of the areas discussed was how we could provide
deterrence to that kind of large scale disruption of financial
markets, disruption of investment and certainly disruption of
people's lives. It is very strange when it appears the Reform
Party is trying to defend currency speculators.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
comment is really something else. The average person who goes
to an automatic teller machine in Canada is not exactly a
currency speculator.
The minister of human resources has stated on a number of
occasions that the answer to our unemployment problem lies in
information technologies. What does he think he is doing with
comments like this? He is discouraging people who are looking
at new information technology when he is talking about putting
a toll gate on the information highway.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question new
technology provides enormous potential for growth,
productivity and development. It is also equally important that
as any new technology is introduced, whether it is the
automobile, the steel plough or today's new technology, people
are affected by it.
The question that was being examined at the Copenhagen
conference was whether there can be fair distribution of the
benefits, the growth and the wealth being created to ensure all
people have equal opportunity for jobs, equal opportunity for a
good life and equal opportunity for their children's security.
10386
It is simply a matter of how we ensure proper distribution
of benefits, something totally beyond the understanding of
Reform Party members.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in its foreign policy statement, the government pledged
to get closer to the objective of allocating 0.7 per cent of the
GNP to foreign aid. Yet, the recent budget provides for cuts of
$1.3 billion over a three-year period. The net result is that
Canada will spend less than 0.29 per cent of its GNP on
humanitarian assistance, thus reducing its aid to levels unseen
since the sixties.
How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs justify his
government's decision to reduce food aid to the poorest nations
of the world, to a degree well beyond the average level of
reduction announced in the last budget, while at the same time
forgiving debts of $800 millions incurred by less needy
countries?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right as regards the need
to temporarily reduce the budget allocated to international
development assistance.
However, the hon. member is absolutely wrong when he
concludes that food aid will be cut. Indeed, he is referring to a
document which only gives a partial idea of the moneys which
will be allocated to food aid, whether through the efforts of the
government within multilateral organizations, or through
bilateral assistance programs. I can assure the hon. member that
our food aid efforts will remain very significant.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I read the budget tabled by the minister's colleague, the
Minister of Finance. Are we to understand that the scope of the
budget cuts affecting Canada's aid to the poorest nations of the
world is the direct result of the government's new foreign
policy, which gives priority to trade, at the expense of these
countries?
(1435)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. It is obvious that even the hon.
member does not think it is the case, since he is choking while
asking the question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The current labour situation in the railways could easily lead
to a national strike or railway lockout. This would have
immediate and devastating effects on the Canadian economy.
When will the minister take action and introduce back to work
legislation?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, the railway sector is experiencing some
difficulties with labour relations. But I was delighted to learn
that Canadian Pacific has reached an agreement in principle
with three of its unions, which represent nearly 3,000
employees, on a wage increase, a change respecting job security
and social benefits. This agreement is to be submitted to the
members for ratification.
I hope that for management and labour, this will be a first step
towards reaching an agreement. At this stage it is definitely
premature to talk about back-to-work legislation.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian farmers took a tremendous hit in the budget and they
are willing to do that if they know the government will back
them up when it comes to getting their product to market.
What they would like to know is whether this government is
willing to introduce back to work legislation as soon as possible
to help them a little after the government has knocked the pins
out from underneath them.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we abide by the Canada Labour Code, and we are
urging the parties to negotiate and reach an agreement, which
does not mean we are not monitoring the situation very closely.
We hope that the parties will negotiate and reach an agreement.
That is the position of this government.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health.
Since she was appointed, the minister has answered all our
questions about the blood system in Canada by saying we have
the best system in the world. However, the facts keep
challenging the minister's position on the actual quality of the
system.
How can the minister claim we have the best blood supply
system in the world when, in an unprecedented move, the Red
Cross suspended the director of the Quebec City centre after it
failed a Health Canada inspection?
10387
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, Justice Krever has conducted a thorough
study of our blood system. In his interim report, he said it was
as safe as any system in the world.
Of course we intend to make it the safest system in the world.
We did not wait for Justice Krever's report to take our
responsibilities very seriously. For instance, we inspect blood
centres annually, and as you can see, this suspension came as a
result of one of our inspections, and the Red Cross took certain
steps in this instance.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister claim she is doing a good job, when 15 months
after she was appointed, we are still finding irregularities in
Canada's blood system of such proportions that they justified
suspending the director of the Quebec City centre?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not Health Canada that asked for the suspension of
the director of the Canadian Red Cross in Quebec City. That was
a decision of the Canadian Red Cross in Quebec City.
Health Canada has been doing its job in inspecting all
facilities once a year. Every time it inspects a facility, it reports
on any irregularities it may find and insists the Red Cross take
action to correct them.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Recently on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the
Access to Information Act, the information commissioner
identified serious problems with the act, recommended a full
review and made recommendations for amendment. In 1987 the
justice committee recommended 87 amendments to the act
which were never acted upon by the previous government.
(1440)
I want to ask the minister if he agrees with the commissioner's
recommendation and will he order a full review and update of
the act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon.
member's longstanding interest in the field of information and
privacy law. I assure him I am very much aware that the
modernization of that law is long overdue.
The Department of Justice is already at work identifying areas
where reform can be made. We are reviewing the
recommendations from the ``Open and Shut'' report of 1987, as
well as recommendations from the commissioner's most recent
annual report in which he made some very good suggestions.
We are examining ways modern information technology can
render more effective and less expensive the release of
government information. We are also looking at ways to involve
the public in consultations.
The agenda before justice is busy. I assure the hon. member
and the House we will be coming forward with reforms.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bonjan Inthavon, a Laotian gang member with a violent
criminal history, has been released into the Fraser Valley area in
B.C. This thug had been ordered deported. Since the minister's
department unbelievably granted him convention refugee
status, it is now left to the minister to follow his own legislation
to protect Canadian citizens.
Will the minister show some leadership and act immediately
under section 19 of the existing legislation to have this criminal
removed from the country, as his own officials have already
recommended?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department did not grant
refugee status to that individual or to anybody else. That is
adjudicated by the IRB.
The recommendation by our officials to remove this
individual according to this section of the act has not yet arrived
on my desk. The moment it does I will have no problems acting
on it whatsoever.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian people are looking for assurances in this matter. On
March 1 the IRB appeal division turned down Inthavong's
appeal of his deportation order and declared his removal order
valid in law, citing the importance of safety and good order of
Canadian society. The individual can appeal even further.
Why does the minister not follow the law that gives him the
obligation to remove people who, there are reasonable grounds
to believe, will engage in acts of violence or are likely to
participate in organized criminal activities?
Give the Canadian people the assurance that you will act when
it falls on your desk-
The Speaker: Hon. members will always remember to
address the Chair.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member was too busy
trying to figure out how to ask a question because I gave him the
answer he was looking for in the first round.
I said very clearly that the file has yet to come from
Vancouver to my desk. Over the weekend I asked for that file. I
have
10388
considered the details and I have no problem with respect to
moving on this according to that course of action.
Furthermore, I find it highly ironic that this member
continues to get up on individual cases and says get tougher with
some of the individuals who abuse the system and yet did not
have the courage or the guts to support Bill-
The Speaker: I am sure no hon. member would want to have
their courage questioned, especially in this House. Our courage
is well known.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Following the
Copenhagen summit for social development, the Croatian
President agreed to the European and U.S. proposal to allow
peacekeepers to stay beyond March 31, although their number
will be reduced from some 15,000 to 5,000. Meanwhile, the
situation in the former Yugoslavia continues to deteriorate
seriously.
Given the Croatian President's agreement, does Canada
intend to keep Canadian peacekeepers in the reduced contingent
in Croatia after March 31?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which
allows me to express the Canadian government's satisfaction
with President Tudjman's decision.
Certainly, we have always felt that, in order to keep the peace
in that part of the former Yugoslavia, it was important to
maintain a UN contingent to act as an intermediary between the
Croats and the Serbs.
A decision as to whether or not we will continue participating
in this peacekeeping operation will be made in the next few
weeks. As we have done historically, we intend to consult with
the opposition parties before referring the issue to cabinet.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to Bosnia, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs let us
know the government's position on Bosnia, where the ceasefire
is increasingly being ignored by the belligerents, some of whom
have deliberately fired at the UN special envoy's plane?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned by the evolution of the
situation in Bosnia. Canada supports the Contact Group peace
plan. We hope that the parties will accept this peace plan
because we believe it is the only one that could lead to a peaceful
solution in the former Yugoslavia.
Obviously some parties still believe that through attack and
war they could enhance their position on the ground. We think
this is folly. We believe that the only solution is a peaceful one,
by accepting the Contact Group proposal.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during this past week in Alberta three more women, one of
whom happens to be a former student of mine, were sexually
assaulted at knife point, physically beaten and totally
traumatized. Two of their attackers were identified by the
victims, yet the same brutal, violent perpetrators were released
within hours of their arrest.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. When will the
minister enact legislation necessary to prevent fully identified
brutal rapists from being let back on to the streets?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on
the facts of the specific cases to which the hon. member has
referred. I will assure him that the Criminal Code and its
provisions in respect of bail, imprisonment, and parole entirely
takes into account the need to protect society.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is about as comforting as nothing. I have never in my life
believed for a moment that a person could rape and hold a victim
at knife point, be arrested at breakfast and be let out by lunch.
What kind of justice is that?
When will the minister at least instruct his department to not
allow bail for violent rapists?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
would allow fact and analysis to overcome emotion and politics,
then perhaps he would focus on the responsibility for
prosecution in the province of Alberta.
Mr. Thompson: Have a knife held at your throat and see what
emotion you have.
Mr. Rock: It rests with the provincial Attorney General.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday the Solicitor General announced the launch of a
national flagging system to deal more effectively with high risk
offenders. This announcement has been described as a
significant move in the right direction.
(1450)
Can the Solicitor General tell us who will use this system and
how will it help protect our communities?
10389
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we look forward to this system being used by crown
attorneys across the country. It will enable them to have all
relevant information about potential high risk dangerous
offenders at the time of prosecution.
Therefore it will help them to develop appropriate strategy for
charging and prosecution, particularly for bringing dangerous
offender applications at the time of prosecution. If the court
accepts such an application the offender will be incarcerated
indefinitely.
I believe this will certainly add to the protection of our
communities.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is about international money speculators and the newly
emerging group of global gamblers.
My question refers to comments made by the Minister of
Human Resources Development. We were encouraged when he
said that in an effort to raise funds to help laid off workers,
single parents and young people to find work, the government is
contemplating a tax on financial transfers.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will he
release the details that he plans to take to the summit in Halifax
on this new tax proposal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
knows, the Tobin tax, named after the person who originally
formulated it, has been around for quite some time. It is an idea
that has been widely debated. It is one that would require some
support from all of the industrialized countries to make sure that
it is put into effect.
As to the agenda for the upcoming meeting, the Prime
Minister will be making that information available in due
course.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we hope to
hear whether the government intends to put it on the agenda.
My supplementary question also refers to comments made by
the Minister of Human Resources Development. He indicated at
the UN summit on social development that the problems of
Canadian child poverty are a direct result of a lack of a national
child care program, similar to that found in Sweden.
The child care program was not mentioned in the budget.
Could the Minister of Finance give us some indication what the
government plans to do now to initiate and develop this promise
that was made in the red book.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for
Kamloops would look carefully at the budget papers, he would
see that we have put together what we call the human resources
investment fund. It is a way of replacing many of the old
programs of the previous government and includes a
commitment to child care.
I can report to the hon. member that we have already started
discussions with the aboriginal community to begin dealing
with development of child care spaces on reserves. We have
made an open offer to the provinces to have a similar discussion
with them when they are ready to talk with us about it.
We still plan to continue to meet our red book commitment on
child care.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
It will be remembered that Ottawa had agreed to approve the
recovery plan of the last shipyard in Quebec on the condition
that MIL Davie workers sign a new work agreement. Well, this
condition has now been met, since a new work agreement was
approved yesterday.
Now that the workers have signed a new work agreement with
MIL Davie, does the federal government intend to live up to its
part of the deal concerning the shipyard's recovery plan and help
to modernize its infrastructure?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision made by MIL Davie workers certainly was
a positive first step towards accomplishing what needs to be
done, which we are all concerned about. We have indicated on
several occasions that we are not prepared to grant massive
assistance to any company.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, am I to
understand that the Minister of Industry admits that he must now
take his responsibilities and confirm that the federal
government will participate in MIL Davie's recovery plan by
putting the company in charge, as a transitional measure, of
developing a multipurpose Smart Ship?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the formulation of this
question. I am sure the member knows that the shareholder of
MIL Davie is the government of the province of Quebec.
10390
(1455 )
I find it difficult to understand why the responsibility of the
shareholders should not be recognized in what is essentially a
commercial problem.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the budget is
eliminating 45,000 public service jobs, with thousands from
most departments.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why CIDA is
being cut by $300 million but is only losing a ridiculously low
11 positions out of 1,241?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the cuts in
personnel will be around 15 per cent.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government said it would be cutting executives from the top of
the ministries, not from the bottom.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why the number
of senior executives who earn over $80,000 a year will be cut
from 92 positions to 90 positions according to this year's
estimates? Is eliminating only two positions the minister's idea
of cutting from the top?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has looked at the document that
has been published. I do not quarrel with him. I think the
document is incomplete.
We are looking at a substantial reduction over a three-year
period. As this is completed, taking into account the human
element, he will see that the reductions will be by 15 per cent
and will apply to senior officials in CIDA.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
There are concerns with the current TAGS appeal process. This
has been acknowledged by the minister who committed a few
weeks ago to quickly address the concerns of thousands of
fishermen with the appeal process.
Can the minister report to the House on what concrete action
he has taken to ensure that the appeals process is fair to all TAGS
applicants?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member both for the question and for the interest he has
shown in this very important program to help the fish workers
and fisher people in Atlantic region.
As a consequence of his representations and those of the
member for Burin-St. George's a few weeks ago, the minister
of fisheries and I last week established an independent review
panel to provide a full, impartial, arm's length review of all
TAGS applications for those that feel the program has not met
their needs exactly.
As announced last week, the program will be up and running
by the end of the month.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to again pursue the case of Bojan Inthavong with the
minister of immigration. This young thug from my community
participated in the murder of a 17-year old youth. He was
ordered deported and two years later had an appeal. It was
dismissed. During the interim he was given refugee status.
Now I understand that a judicial review may be forthcoming. I
would like the minister to explain what is the value of a judicial
review after a deportation appeal has been dismissed?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the judicial review has
nothing to do with my department but it indicates there are
certain individuals who flagrantly break the law and abuse the
regulations.
It is precisely for that reason that we have Bill C-44. It is not
the be-all-and-end-all but is one piece of legislation that tries
to come to grips with individuals that abuse the refugee stream.
It would allow the government to pull the individual from the
refugee stream and move that individual into an immigration
inquiry with subsequent deportation.
This side of the House not only wants to protect legitimate
refugee claimants but also wants to rid the system of those who
fraudulently abuse the system, making it worse for those who
are legitimate.
Why does the Reform Party not support Bill C-44?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last week, we learned that Charles Scott, an individual who
openly admits to being a white supremacist, teaches hand to
hand combat to soldiers of the Canadian Forces.
10391
(1500)
How can the minister of defence justify that an acknowledged
racist trains Canadian soldiers on a voluntary basis, and does the
minister endorse the comments made by Major Doug Martin,
who does not see any problem since that individual is not paid
for his work?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
occurred in 1992 at CFB Chilliwack and involved the reserve
forces.
A former British commando was brought in for instruction.
He happened to bring someone else along. Neither was paid by
the Department of National Defence and the kind of instruction
that was given to those young men was not in conformity with
the normal training of the armed forces.
I have asked our officials to look into why the commanding
officer at the time did not report what was obviously some
behaviour that was not ordered by the military and not paid for
by the armed forces.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of
members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Chalermphol
Sanitwongchai, First Deputy Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Kingdom of Thailand and three of his
fellow parliamentarians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: On Friday before we broke, the hon. member
for Sherbrooke brought up a question of privilege.
At that time the Chair said we would wait to make a decision
until we heard from the member who had allegedly made certain
comments.
I have received notice in writing that the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington would like to speak to this question of
privilege.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to a question of privilege
raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke on March 3, 1995.
On March 2, I was contacted by the chief government whip.
He informed me that a possible question of privilege could be
raised in the House. Following the conversation, I prepared a
written statement for the chief government whip and for all
members of the House of Commons.
This statement was put on the record by the government whip
on March 3 and I thank him. The Hill Times column discussed at
length by the hon. member for Sherbrooke on March 3, 1995
contains a quote by me regarding the budget.
In my comments to the Hill Times I was referring to the
measures announced by the President of the Treasury Board on
February 21, 1995. These measures were presented publicly
prior to the budget and resulted from concerns as expressed by
members of all parties, including the Liberal caucus, for the
future downsizing of the public service.
The number of public servant reductions was not known until
the budget, although measures such as the early retirement
incentive and the early departure incentive were announced
earlier.
While never informed of the details, we were told the budget
would be tough but fair. I was not privy to any confidential
information, nor am I aware of any other member's having
knowledge of the contents of the budget before it was presented
to all Canadians.
We know the importance of budget secrecy. It is a tradition,
respected and practised by the Minister of Finance. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide my response to the question of
privilege raised the previous sitting day.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be valuable for the entire House to have
clarified in the question of privilege whether the article as
reported in the Hill Times is inaccurate. The heading says: ``Is
there too much secrecy surrounding the budget?'' The member
did respond to that.
The quotation talks about major cuts to programs rather than a
downsizing of the civil service which was announced prior to the
budget in a general way.
There are some specifics quoted in this paper that were not
responded to by the member. This House deserves a more clear
response. Either this is wrong or else the member is not clear in
her response.
(1505 )
The Speaker: I have had the opportunity to reread Hansard of
Friday, March 3. I will be seeing the television recordings later
this afternoon.
I will reserve my decision now that the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington has explained what she said. I will come
back to the House with a decision at the earliest possible time if
necessary.
10392
10392
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day,
observed every year on the second Monday in March by all its
member countries to celebrate the Commonwealth, its value and
principles.
Built on common traditions, the Commonwealth successfully
demonstrates the continuing importance of multilateral
co-operation. Its strength is unity with diversity.
The Commonwealth now consists of 51 countries and 1.5
billion people of different languages, races, faiths and
traditions. It serves as a forum for both governmental and
non-governmental dialogue on a vast array of subjects from
health and justice to youth, education and development.
Last year Canada hosted the very successful Commonwealth
Games in Victoria, celebrating sport, art, culture and friendship.
Canada has been part of the Commonwealth since its
inception in 1931 and takes pride in its many accomplishments.
The first secretary general, Arnold Smith, a Canadian, helped
strengthen the foundations on which the Commonwealth
continues to stand.
Last year was a momentous year for the Commonwealth with
the return of South Africa following its first free elections. The
Commonwealth had pushed hard for an end to apartheid and
Canada believes it should continue to act as an instrument to
promote democracy and human rights.
Later this year the Commonwealth heads of government will
meet in New Zealand, giving the leaders an opportunity to
discuss world issues in an informal, unstructured manner. We
value this opportunity to renew our relationship with other
Commonwealth nations and to elaborate on Canadian foreign
policy objectives.
I urge all members to join me today in saluting the
Commonwealth.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of all the Bloc Quebecois members, I am pleased to note that
today is Commonwealth Day. Last year, my colleague for
Laurier-Ste-Marie had the opportunity to express, on this
commemorative occasion, the importance of Canada's
membership in the Commonwealth and to note that a sovereign
Quebec would wish to remain a member of this organization in
order to maintain and strengthen its relations with the 51
member countries.
The Secretary of State rightly noted South Africa's return to
the Commonwealth. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada applied
enormous pressure to bring about the end of apartheid.
This is therefore the time to remind the government today
how regrettable it is that it decided to turn its back on the
promotion of human rights and democracy, despite what the
Secretary of State would have us believe, by setting a course
according to its commercial interests alone, with South Africa
just now having had its first free elections.
It is this same mercantilistic logic that prompted the
government to cut more than $1.3 billion over three years in
international aid, thus dropping its assistance to the planet's
poorest people and countries to nearly 0.29 per cent of its GNP.
This action confirms the government's change in course.
(1510)
How can this government, which committed itself, in its
statement of foreign policy, to moving closer to objectives of 0.7
per cent, justify that, within the international budget, programs
intended for the most disadvantaged that are being cut more than
those with a mercantilistic focus?
Are we to assume that the international aid program, which
has earned Canada the profound respect of the international
community, will also be based on the new Liberal policy of
promoting business first and foremost? The government will
definitely have some accounting to do when it participates in the
next Commonwealth meetings in New Zealand. Canada must
give meaning to its membership in the Commonwealth.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy today to have the opportunity to speak on Commonwealth
Day, celebrated in 51 countries around the world.
As the secretary of state mentioned, Canada has been a proud
member of the Commonwealth since 1931. Over the years
Canada has established a leadership role in the Commonwealth
10393
and provided an example for other countries to follow. It must
therefore appear strange to our friends and partners in the
Commonwealth that there are still separatists in Quebec who
want to break up this great country.
I think everyone will see in the referendum this year, though,
that the vast majority of Quebecers would rather stay to build a
nation of prosperity and harmony than pursue their own narrow
interests. With the referendum behind us a united Canada will
continue to be a model for the Commonwealth ideal of unity
with diversity.
Since this is Commonwealth Day it is only fair that we
consider the renewal of this partnership and its institutions. As
all parliamentarians now admit, Canada must do more with less.
Therefore it is essential that the Commonwealth review its goals
and practices to make sure that all member countries are
receiving the greatest possible benefits. I trust that the minister
will carry this to the meeting in New Zealand.
The Commonwealth has proven over the years the value of
international co-operation through multilateral organizations.
All member states can benefit through such a process. It is
therefore fitting that Canada should set aside one day a year to
remember Commonwealth Day.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, notwithstanding the resolution of this House adopted on March 2, 1995
to refer vote 30d of the estimates of the Department of Finance to the Standing
Committee on Finance, the said vote 30d of the said estimates is hereby
withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Finance and referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions on a similar topic. In the first petition, with 200
signatures, the undersigned draw to the attention of the House
that at the time of Leonard Peltier's extradition from Canada to
the U.S. the information provided to the Canadian government
regarding Mr. Peltier's case was fabricated by U.S. authorities.
Since that time new information has emerged that indicates
Leonard Peltier was framed for a crime he did not commit and
has spent the last 18 years in prison for. Clear evidence was
suppressed, as found out under the freedom of information act.
Perjury was rampant throughout the trial. Key witness Myrtle
Poor Bear recanted publicly.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby the
U.S. government for Mr. Peltier's return to Canada.
The second petition is similar. It has over 400 signatures. The
petitioners request that Parliament hold an external review of
the 1976 extradition hearings and that he be brought back to
Canada for asylum.
(1515 )
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting
today a petition from Heidi Peterson of Quyon, Quebec, in my
riding and 40 other petitioners requesting that Parliament
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provide for
the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to
present.
In the first one the undersigned petitioners of Canada draw the
attention of the House to the fact that the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges. These
special rights and privileges will be granted solely on the basis
of sexual behaviour. Inclusion would infringe on the historic
rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience,
expression and association.
Therefore they petition Parliament to oppose any amendment
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
The second petition is more or less in the same tone. It calls on
Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to table in this House today three petitions signed by 96
residents of the riding of Charlevoix. The petitioners are
opposed to the plan to use voice mail for seniors services. I
would
10394
like to inform the House that I share the opinion of the
petitioners.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege today to present two petitions.
The first petition has a total of 125 signatures from Calgary
area constituents calling on Parliament to reduce government
spending and implement a taxpayers protection act to limit
federal spending.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has a total of 32 signatures from Calgarians who
ask Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual
orientation, sending a clear message of equality for everyone.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present eight petitions signed by
over 2,000 constituents from my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The petitioners are of the opinion that existing gun controls on
law-abiding responsible firearms owners are more than enough
to ensure public safety.
Therefore they call upon Parliament, first, to support laws
that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons
in the commission of a crime; second, to support new Criminal
Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the
right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms; and, third, to support legislation that will repeal or
modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public
safety, or have proven not to be cost effective, or have proven to
be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable. I
concur with the petitioners.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also present a petition signed by over 700 constituents
from the city of Quesnel.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayers protection act to limit federal spending. The petition
is presented with my concurrence.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also present a petition signed by 25 people from
Quesnel.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provide for the inclusion of
the phrase sexual orientation. The petition is presented with my
concurrence.
I also present a petition from constituents in Williams Lake.
The constituents request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718.2 as presently written and in any event not include
the undefined phrase sexual orientation. The petition is
presented with my concurrence.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition containing over 100 signatures
mainly from Quesnel in my constituency of
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings. The petition is presented with
my concurrence.
(1520 )
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by
over 250 constituents from Williams Lake, Quesnel, Horsefly,
100-Mile House, 150-Mile House and Alexis Creek.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayers protection act to limit federal spending. The petition
is presented with my concurrence.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners recognize that the majority of Canadians respect the
sanctity of life. They want the government to prohibit assisted
suicide. They do not want the law to be amended in any way to
make suicide legal.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present another petition in which the petitioners point out that
unnecessary violence and abuse of all forms, be it verbal,
physical or other, in society in general, on radio or on television
has become a serious problem. They point out that it is neither
necessary to inform nor to entertain.
The petitioners want government to ensure the CRTC controls
these kinds of abuse and violence. They applaud some of the
initiatives taken recently to modify and reduce abuse and
violence on radio and television.
10395
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of
over 70 senior citizens from the Fort Erie area of my riding.
The petitioners ask Parliament to consider that many senior
citizens have difficulty living on their current incomes. They
ask that their voices and concerns be taken into account when we
initiate federal policy.
The seniors ask that we as parliamentarians prevent cuts to the
social benefits of senior citizens.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by some 144
constituents of Carleton-Charlotte from the Nackawic,
Temperancevale, Millville, Prince William and Dumffries
areas.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to request that the
government disallow the defence of extreme intoxication as
used recently in the courts and amend the Criminal Code
accordingly.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to table a petition signed by 520 people mostly from
Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne counties in my riding of
South Shore.
The petitioners are opposed to the implementation of further
gun controls, specifically registration; further restrictions on
the sale of ammunition; and the restriction or prohibition of
certain handguns.
They feel the legislation unfairly targets gun owners and will
do little to deter the criminal use of firearms.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have only one
petition to table pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by
115 constituents mainly from the town of Assiniboia.
The petitioners pray that the government not consider further
tax increases. They pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending and implement a taxpayers protection act
to limit federal spending.
Unfortunately the petition is moot, the budget disaster having
already happened.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present today. The first one is in
opposition to any move by the government to include the term
sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It is from petitioners ranging from Moncton, New Brunswick,
to Dover, New Brunswick, to Ottawa, Ontario, and right into
British Columbia. I am very proud to say that I support the
petition.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also proud to present today a petition from the people of New
Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and area who are very opposed to Bill
C-68.
They wish the government to pursue other means of enforcing
current firearms legislation and not to introduce new legislation
that would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are so many
members waiting that perhaps the member could present the
others at another time in order to be fair to everybody.
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 25 constituents of Galiano Island.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
(1525 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present petitions from constituents of mine, people from Ottawa
and all across the country.
They contain hundreds of names and 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 full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from constituents of Thunder
Bay-Atikokan and Thunder Bay-Nipigon requesting that
Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament reinstate
the VIA Rail passenger train service in Thunder Bay with
appropriate connecting service throughout the country.
10396
The petitioners pray that Parliament will view the
reinstatement of VIA Rail as a positive step for the
environment, economic development in the community, and the
comfort and safety of its citizens. I strongly support the latter
petition.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present
a petition on behalf of a number of residents of P.E.I.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
desist from passing additional restrictive legislation with
respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to
the apprehension and adequate punishment of those who
criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present today. The first one is from Banff
and area. It requests that sexual orientation not be included in
section 718.2 of Bill C-41.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from petitioners from the Strathmore area.
They ask that Parliament support laws that punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of crime and
support code firearm provisions that protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to own recreational firearms.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but there are too many
people waiting.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present. I will lump them together.
The first petition with 474 signatures is on sexual orientation.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sexual relationships.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition on euthanasia with 309 signatures. The
petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241
of the Criminal Code in any way and uphold the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada on September 30, 1993 to disallow
assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I present even more petitions on behalf of Canadian
grandchildren to be able to see, talk with and visit their
grandparents.
The petitioners ask that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision to help recognize children's access to their
grandparents.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate
your trying to arrange for the maximum number of members to
present petitions.
Since the 15-minute rule is an arbitrary rule and we regularly
alter the standing orders to meet the needs of members, could I
suggest that today we do not see the clock to allow people who
have been away for the past week ample opportunity to present
petitions on behalf of their constituents?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent not to see
the clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have five
petitions to present today. I will be brief. Two of them reflect on
sexual orientation, saying that Parliament shall not include
sexual orientation.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also have
two petitions asking for limitation of federal spending.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a final
petition to present that talks about deterring young people from
committing crimes by changing the Young Offenders Act.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have 20 petitions containing the same subject matter. They
contain 3,300 signatures from my riding of Central Nova.
The petitioners support the ownership and responsible use of
firearms. They believe that there are already adequate existing
laws governing the ownership, sale, use, transportation and
storage of firearms. They oppose any new firearm registry or
registration fees, new costs, or any further restrictions on
firearms.
They ask Parliament not to enact any new firearm registration
fees, costs or any further restrictions on the ownership, sale, use,
transportation or storage of firearms.
I have already placed the concerns of my constituents on
record today at second reading debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately the time to present
petitions has expired.
10397
(1530 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Question No. 131 could be made an Order for Return,
the return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Question No. 131 be deemed to have been made an Order for
Return?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10397
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will continue my comments on Bill C-68
concerning the inclusion of replica firearms in this bill and
whether it will solve the problem. Unfortunately it does not. It is
just a small step in the right direction.
Someone who uses a replica firearm during the commission of
an offence will now be subject to the minimum one-year
consecutive sentence. In reality, this will generally be the
maximum sentence as well. It is a good first move but
unfortunately that is as far as this bill goes in addressing the
situation.
For serious violent offences where a firearm is likely to be
used such as robbery, hostage taking or sexual assault with a
weapon, to get the new minimum sentence of four years the
crown will still have to prove that the object used was a firearm.
In the case of a robbery there will be a witness who saw the
criminal waving an object that looked like a firearm. Security
cameras will show the criminal waving an object that looks like
a firearm. However, unless the firearm is fired or the offender is
immediately arrested, there will not be any convictions under
this section. In the majority of instances the crown will still be
faced with the impossible task of proving that the object met the
legal definition of a firearm.
In reality, C-68 will mean that criminals who pull off
robberies with real firearms will likely only get an additional
one-year sentence for possession of a replica firearm during the
commission of an offence as the criminal will claim the object
he used was only a replica and the crown will not be able to
prove otherwise. This is simply not good enough.
A second aspect of this bill that the Liberals are giving a great
deal of acclaim to is the new minimum sentence of four years for
any of 10 specific violent offences with a firearm.
My private member's bill called for a minimum sentence for
using a firearm during the commission of an offence to be raised
to five years. This sentence was to run consecutively to the
sentence for the actual crime. Therefore, I suppose those of us
calling for a greater minimum sentence should be happy with the
minimum of four years.
In all honesty I would be satisfied if the government had
introduced a minimum four-year sentence for using a firearm
during the commission of an offence if this sentence had been
consecutive to any sentence for the actual offence. However,
this is not what the government has done. Instead it has created a
combined minimum sentence of four years for both the crime
and the use of a firearm.
What difference is this going to make? Not much. What about
repeat offenders? Unlike section 85 which calls for an increased
minimum sentence for repeat offences, there is no such increase
for those criminals who repeat their violent crimes with
firearms.
The amendments I would suggest are a joke. The minister's
press release makes it sound like the government is getting
tough on criminals who use firearms but in reality these changes
will not result in increased sentences for those who use firearms.
At best it will maintain the status quo. In some cases, the length
of the sentence will likely decrease.
A four-year minimum sentence for manslaughter with a
firearm is a joke, pure and simple. The average sentence for
manslaughter is already four years. How is this minimum going
to have any deterrent effect? It is not.
10398
My private member's bill called for a minimum five-year
sentence for the use of a firearm during the commission of an
offence to be served consecutively to any sentence for the
offence itself in a first offence and a minimum of 10 years for
a second offence. The difference is very simple. Under Bill
C-68 a first time armed robber will more likely serve a
four-year sentence which is a decrease from the current going
rate of five years. Under my bill a first time robber using a
firearm would likely serve a four-year sentence for the robbery
and an additional five years for using a firearm for a total of
nine years.
(1535 )
Which one sends a greater message of condemnation of using
firearms during the commission of an offence? Which one is
likely to deter criminals from using firearms during the
commission of an offence?
The concern I have in separating these two parts under C-68 is
that part III will be left out of the discussion. It is very important
to Canadians that part III, the criminal use of firearms, be dealt
with separately from the national registration.
In dealing with C-41 there have been two words that have
taken over the debate: sexual orientation. I would suggest that
national registration is going to take over the debate of this gun
control legislation and the criminal use of firearms is going to
get lost in the discussion.
It is very important that we separate those two and allow for
Canadians, the committee and all parliamentarians to take a
close look at what this government is suggesting for maximizing
the deterrence to the criminal use of firearms.
I feel it does not go far enough. We should have ample
opportunity to deal with that and not just talk about the national
registration program.
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our standard of living, our social and economic standing make
us the envy of the whole world. The elevated status Canada
enjoys is not a coincidence: it is the result of women and men of
strong will who imprinted principles and values on our country
as it grew.
[English]
If one principle has guided this House since the beginning, it
is an unwavering commitment to preserve a peaceful nature in
our society. At times this commitment has meant taking a stand
on some very controversial issues. It has also meant introducing
groundbreaking legislation such as this bill on firearms control,
Bill C-68.
Controversy has never kept us from protecting the values and
the ideals Canadians so rightly deserve and consider their own.
These values include the rights to liberty and personal safety
which are now enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms.
In this respect, the firearms control legislation introduced by
my colleague the Minister of Justice will undoubtedly make
history. Every effort has been made to ensure that Canadians
who use guns responsibly will be able to continue to do so.
For example, the Minister of Justice has asked the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider whether or
not some handguns, for example those used in target shooting
competitions, should be exempted from the proposed ban. This
kind of careful consideration given by the minister will help
ensure that the legitimate use of firearms is permitted.
However, we all know that firearms are often used
irresponsibly. This bill addresses the use of weapons and the
violence they inflict on our society. It not only deals with
firearms but also with the shadow of fear they cast upon all of us.
In fear and in violence there are no rights and no freedoms, just
victims.
Some disregard violence due to firearms because they claim it
does not reflect the Canadian spirit. Indeed, Canada does not
have a tradition of individuals carrying firearms for
self-protection. Hopefully what one might call the gun culture
that prevails in the United States will never cross our borders.
Nevertheless, violence is real. Statistics can only begin to
describe the pain and suffering firearms inflict on their victims.
Over the last 10 years firearms were responsible for 32 per
cent of all homicides committed in Canada. Every year on
average, 1,400 Canadians lose their lives to them. Of those
deaths, 1,100 are suicides. Many of those lives could have been
saved if firearms were not so readily available to individuals in
distress.
Since 1970, 470 children have died in Canada as a result of
mishandled firearms. Those figures are shocking to most
Canadians. Those children deserved a future. Those children
deserved the right to dream. Those children should never have
been exposed to this kind of danger.
(1540)
That is why firearms control and registration are so important
to Canadians. Denial will shelter no one from a stray bullet.
Every Canadian will benefit from this legislation.
Statistics show that Canadian women support this legislation
wholeheartedly. From statistics we know that in this country
every six days a woman loses her life to a bullet, most often at
the hands of someone she knows. Almost always it is in her own
home.
In the years between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of women
murdered in domestic incidents were shot by their husbands.
Eighty-five per cent of domestic murders with firearms are
committed with either a rifle or a shotgun. Eighty-two per cent
10399
of the guns that are used to kill women are legally owned at the
time of the shooting.
An hon. member: Registering them will not help.
Mrs. Finestone: If this sickening truth cannot impact on your
attitudes across this floor-
The Deputy Speaker: The member is an experienced member
and I would ask her to please address all of her remarks to the
Chair.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is the sickening truth that
firearms are the weapon of choice for men who murder their
wives. I was trying to point out that my colleagues across the
floor need not laugh at this moment. It is a serious moment in
this debate.
In 1987 the English writer Martin Amis wrote: ``Bullets
cannot be recalled. They cannot be uninvented. But they can be
taken out of the gun''. I would add that the safest way is to take
the guns away.
As a government we must introduce strong legislation to
maintain the peaceful nature of our communities. This
responsibility begins with the implementation of tighter
firearms control laws. I unconditionally support the legislation
presented by my colleague the Minister of Justice.
[Translation]
This bill reflects the wishes of the majority of Canadians.
According to surveys, up to 70 per cent of all Canadians want
stricter gun controls.
Several large national groups, such as the association of
chiefs of police, have endorsed this initiative. Teachers'
federations have stated that measures, like the Minister of
Justice's bill, were needed to counter violence in our schools.
[English]
Nationally, women have spoken out on this issue for years.
Women's organizations from across the country and from a wide
variety of societal and cultural backgrounds have been calling
for tougher gun control laws for a long time. They have asked for
tighter restrictions and I am proud to say that we are now
responding.
Perhaps the most eloquent support for this initiative and for
the Minister of Justice came from Suzanne Laplante Edward
who said: ``I think this guy is going to go down in Canadian
history. This man just wants Canada to be safer''. Mr. Justice
Minister, we all agree with that statement. She knows what she
is fighting for. Her daughter was killed at l'École polytechnique
five years ago. Since then Mrs. Laplante Edward has worked
relentlessly for firearms control.
Indeed this legislation is an achievement. It is the kind of
initiative that brings about positive social change and preserves
our quality of life.
It takes decisive action against automatic firearms. As of
January 1, 1995, 21 types of assault guns will have been
prohibited. Handguns with no legitimate purpose will be
prohibited.
The firearms control legislation recognizes the need for
increased and more effective sanctions for the misuse of
firearms.
Contrary to an observation made just a few moments ago, four
years is the beginning and not the end of the term. It introduces
stiff minimum penalties that will serve as true deterrents. For
the first time, mandatory minimum sentences of four years in
prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition from possessing a
restricted weapon are introduced for a series of violent offences
including sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual
assault.
Anybody charged with criminal harassment, better known as
stalking can be temporarily prohibited from owning a firearm.
That will save women's lives.
(1545)
Third, the package sets tougher regulations on lawfully
acquired firearms. It creates a national registration system for
all firearms. Let us not forget that it is often a legally acquired
firearm that is used in domestic violence. The shotgun over the
mantelpiece is even more threatening to women than the illegal
firearms across our border. Keeping track of property for the
purpose of information and regulation is commonplace in our
society.
I am going to finish with a quotation from an editorial in La
Presse:
[Translation]
The editorial asked whether we could imagine a citizen
owning a car without being licensed to drive, without a licence
plate, without insurance, without driving within the speed
limits, parking the car any which way and anywhere and leaving
the key in the ignition? Of course not. So, why must we accept
that a gun owner be entirely free to purchase, own, hide, store
and use the gun of his or her choice.
There are six million-
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Unless there is unanimous consent for the member to continue I
have to go to the next speaker.
[Translation]
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial
statement, Government Orders will be extended six minutes,
pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).
10400
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
start by analyzing briefly the arguments in favour of the bill
and then I will address the problem of violence against women
within this debate.
First, I wish to remind this House that this bill is supported by
a great many social groups and professionals in the police, legal,
health and social communities. I will name only a few, which
come under the umbrella of the Coalition for Arms Control.
They are the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Bar
Association, the Canada Safety Council, many churches, the
Quebec public health network, the Quebec hospital association,
many universities and school boards, many unions, the AFEAS
and other women's groups and community organizations. Such
agreement on an issue that may seem controversial has rarely
been seen in Canada and Quebec.
The intense lobbying campaign now under way would suggest
that the population is very divided on arms control, but such is
not the case. The polls clearly show that the reality has always
been otherwise.
Allow me to quote a few of these polls. In December 1989,
better arms control was supported by 72 per cent of Canadians
and 87 per cent of Quebecers. By January 1991, this support had
climbed to 80 per cent of Canadians and 90 per cent of
Quebecers. Two years later, in September 1993, universal
weapon registration was favoured by 86 per cent of Canadians
and 91 per cent of Quebecers. Regarding the sale of firearms, 77
per cent of Canadians and 87 per cent of Quebecers were of the
opinion it should be governed by stricter legislation.
As for those directly concerned, i.e. firearm owners, in
September 1993, sixty-eight per cent of them supported the idea
that all weapons should be registered. This goes to show that the
public fears firearms and wants firearms to be better regulated.
Several reasons militate in favour of stricter gun control. The
Coalition for Gun Control listed a few. Here are some of the
reasons stated: people are safer in a gun-free environment;
firearms facilitate suicide; there is much more violence
involving firearms in Canada than in most European countries.
The current legislation is inadequate in many respects,
including accessibility to military assault weapons, absence of a
registry of all firearms in circulation, lack of a ceiling on the
number of firearms that one can buy and lack of control over the
sale of ammunition.
All these reasons justify much closer monitoring of the
possession and use of firearms.
Now, moving to a more specific concern of mine: violence
against women. There is a direct link between the violence
women are subjected to and firearms. I will start by addressing
spousal abuse.
It will be recalled that Statistics Canada published the results
of a comprehensive survey in October 1993.
(1550)
It showed that one Canadian woman in every four had been
abused by her current spouse or a previous spouse and that 45
per cent of abused women were abused by men they knew. A
study conducted by two researchers from the Canadian Center
for Justice Statistics and published in March 1994 dealt with the
most extreme form of spousal abuse: homicide. Among their
findings, the most striking are the following:
For each man killed by his wife, there are on average 3.2
women killed by their husbands. From 1974 to 1992, married
women were nine times more likely to be killed by their own
spouse than by a stranger. The number of women killed by their
spouses after separating is high. During the 18-year period
covered by the study, from 1974 to 1992, 1,435 women and 451
men were killed by their spouses. The 1,435 women killed
accounted for 38 per cent of all adult women who were
murdered, while the 451 men killed by their wives represented 6
per cent of murdered adult men.
Let us now see the link between violence against women and
gun control. Another study conducted by Statistics Canada and
entitled ``Family Violence in Canada'' shows that, between
1974 and 1992, forty-two per cent of women murdered by their
spouses were killed by a firearm. These eloquent figures are
supported by the findings of Mr. Maurice Cusson, director of the
École de criminologie at the Université de Montréal, and his
research assistant, Mrs. Raymonde Boisvert. In a study entitled
``L'homicide conjugal à Montréal: ses raisons, ses conditions et
son déroulement'', the authors examined the reasons behind,
and the circumstances surrounding every spousal homicide
committed on Montreal Island between 1954 and 1962, and also
between 1985 and 1989.
The authors first found, as women's support groups have been
saying for a long time, that control by men is the dominant factor
in spousal homicides. This is true for both periods, that is before
and after the quiet revolution. The authors also note that
homicides triggered by this need to control are always
committed by men and that the victims are almost always
women, the only exception being homosexual couples.
Out of the five elements identified by the authors as being
intrinsic to homicides based on a power relationship, there is the
vulnerability of the victim, and this is where firearms come into
play. The authors concluded that ``the victim must be deprived
of adequate defence mechanisms to protect herself from the
attacks of her spouse. This raises the issue of power, which
usually rests with the man, who is physically stronger than the
woman. More often than not, that power is increased by getting a
firearm''.
10401
The authors of the study see the acquisition of a firearm by
the spouse as a danger signal which should not be overlooked.
Another study, conducted by the Canadian Advisory Council
on the Status of Women, showed that, between 1980 and 1989,
72 per cent of women killed by their spouses were shot with
a rifle or a gun. These figures are much higher than the
percentage of murders committed with this type of weapon.
The new legislation provides that these weapons will be
subject to registration and thus to much stricter controls. We
must now consider the following: would these women have died
if our firearms legislation had been similar to the legislation
before the House today?
Let us draw an analogy here. What spousal suicide and
spousal homicide have in common are the location-the
home-and the means used. The Quebec suicide prevention
centre has concluded, from experience, that the suicide rate is
higher in homes where guns are available.
A press release issued last October says that 92 per cent of
suicide attempts where a gun was used are fatal, while suicide
attempts using other means are fatal in only one-third of the
cases. We have established a link between access to a weapon
and spousal homicide. If we can save just one life by restricting
access to firearms, we will have accomplished something.
I support Bill C-68 because I want to eliminate the means
used most frequently to kill women. The measures the bill
contains will restrict access to guns through compulsory
registration and licence renewal for responsible individuals
only. Persons previously convicted of violent crimes and
stalking will no longer have access to guns and ammunition.
Furthermore, I think the minimum four year prison sentence will
act as a deterrent to using guns in domestic situations. This is a
win-win situation, for women, first of all, and for society in
general.
(1555 )
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity to comment on Bill
C-68, the firearms act, on behalf of my constituents in
Carleton-Charlotte.
Carleton-Charlotte, located in New Brunswick, is over 200
miles long. A good portion of it lies along the 49th parallel
bordering on the state of Maine. It consists of all of Carleton
county, all of Charlotte county, a sizeable portion of York county
and a portion of Sunbury county. The economy of these regions
is extremely diverse. It is based on agriculture and food
processing, forestry and pulp and paper mills, the traditional
fishery, aquaculture and fish packaging, manufacturing, tourism
and the service industries.
As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are not large urban
centres but rather rural areas built around service to the citizens.
The towns and the villages have developed over the centuries to
provide these services to surrounding rural areas. Hunting and
pleasure fishing have been a way of life for the citizens of
Carleton-Charlotte since the area was settled in the mid to late
1700s.
Hunting still plays a very important economic role in the
region for outfitters, service industries and guides. Almost
every farmer and many rural residents own firearms, not only
for hunting or sport but also for the protection of their livestock
from predators.
Over the past few months I have held several meetings, some
large and some small, regarding the firearms proposals which
are now in Bill C-68. There has been complete support
throughout Carleton-Charlotte for stiffer penalties for the use
of firearms in the commission of a crime, including the
minister's proposal for a four-year mandatory prison sentence
for the use of a firearm in 10 specific violent crimes. Also the
initiative for stiffer penalties for illegally importing and
trafficking in firearms as well as stricter border controls on
firearms is most commendable.
The section dealing with the prohibition of various types of
assault weapons is also fully supported. However the 105
millimetre or 4.14 inch or under barrel length handgun ban has
been questioned. It has been suggested that the full length of the
handgun could have been emphasized instead of the barrel
length only.
My constituents appreciate the fact that the minister has
requested the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
to determine which handguns in the prohibited class could be
exempted due to their use in recognized shooting competitions.
To say that they have major concerns with the universal
registration system for legal hunting rifles and shotguns would
be stating it mildly. Those who have commented to me on this
subject rejected this section vehemently. As indicated, I have
hosted meetings which were well attended and smaller meetings
where I was able to speak candidly with individuals. In all cases
the registration system is the portion of Bill C-68 which elicits
the most serious concern and the strongest objection.
The general consensus indicates that the proposed universal
registration system, which will include the owner's legal
hunting rifles and shotguns, will be hard to administer and
extremely difficult and expensive to enforce.
Many of my constituents believe that this system will make
criminals out of innocent, law-abiding citizens who either do
not register their legal rifles or shotguns or those who are
unaware of the necessity to do so. These citizens are responsi-
10402
ble, respectable people who enjoy hunting as a sport. They value
their rifles and shotguns and take great care to secure them.
However these responsible people could, through no fault of
their own, be charged with a criminal act; for example, a person
who is unaware that a rifle or shotgun is stored in an attic and
does not know that they are required to register it. For many
years now handguns have required registration. This is not new
for handgun owners.
(1600)
Currently an FAC, or a firearms acquisition certificate, must
be obtained prior to purchasing any new firearm. It has been
suggested that the FAC system be upgraded to include full
registration for new firearms, instead of trying to initiate a
universal registration system for all firearms. As I understand it,
a thorough check is required and the name of the applicant, the
description and the serial number of the firearm is kept on
record at the retail outlet but not forwarded on to a central
registration centre. I believe that it would be very useful for the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to review this
possibility in an attempt to streamline the registration system.
Other alternatives were also suggested, including a program
which would include issuing an owner's certificate only to
ensure that the holder is a qualified and legitimate owner.
Another point was that although one person may own all of the
legal hunting rifles and shotguns in a family, the individual's
spouse, sons and daughters, who would use the firearms for
hunting purposes, would have to purchase individual firearms
licences at $60 every five years. This happens in many cases
where the entire family enjoys hunting. I would suggest that the
standing committee review the possibility of a family package
for these cases.
Finally, hunting plays a very important role in the economy of
my constituency and throughout New Brunswick. Many
outfitters have benefited from and created employment for
others through this tradition. We must ensure that the system
adopted is fair and equitable for the responsible firearm owner.
We must protect this important aspect of our economy. These
assurances can only be provided by the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs, through its review of Bill C-68, by
bringing forwarded the appropriate changes.
I would be pleased to assist the committee in any way possible
to ensure that we have fair legislation which will be supported
and will achieve the goals for which it was intended, to make our
communities and our streets safe for my family, for your family
and for all Canadians.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin today by expressing my
appreciation for the presence of the Minister of Justice who is
listening to the debate. I find it commendable that he would be
here to listen to the speakers.
I rise in the House today in support of the Reform Party's
motion proposing amendments to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons.
For several months now the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin
have been campaigning non-stop against a bill they have seen as
not only intrusive, but an invasion of their rights and their
privileges as Canadian citizens.
I received over 800 letters and 70 petitions since the Minister
of Justice tabled his firearms legislation late last year. They all
had the same message: get tough on the criminal, not on the
legal, law-abiding gun owner. These are impassioned letters and
the message being given is a simple message. It is a message that
has been sent to Reformers, Liberals and Bloc members alike. It
is a message which has not been heeded in Bill C-68 and it is a
message to which the Reform Party is trying to respond with this
amendment.
Bill C-68, as it now stands, is, as my colleague from Prince
George-Peace River noted, really two bills combined into one.
On the one hand it gets tough on criminals that commit crimes
using firearms and replica firearms by increasing minimum
sentences to four years in prison. This is a measure for which the
Reform Party has been calling. As the Reform blue book clearly
states: ``If elected a Reform government will introduce
legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms will be
severely punished''. Reform has called for minimum mandatory
jail terms for firearms related crimes. I am encouraged that
these concerns have been at least partially included in Bill C-68.
This truly is getting tough on the criminal.
(1605)
If these measures are brought into law independently, the
government can count on the support of Reform Party MPs and
our party membership across the country. On the other hand, Bill
C-68 places what many Reformers and even some Liberals
agree are excessive and unnecessary restrictions on the legal,
law-abiding gun owner.
I refer particularly to the proposed firearms registry, along
with the many accompanying provisions that could make
criminals out of gun owners. It could make criminals out of them
simply because they do nothing. This provision, as I noted
earlier, has raised a great deal of concern within my riding and
many others.
The current handgun registry has had little if any effect on
crime. The proposed firearms registry will only follow in its
footsteps, adding more rules but doing nothing to solve the
problem. However, this is an issue to which I will speak at
another time.
10403
As for the amendment, the Reform Party has given the
Minister of Justice and the House an historic opportunity. It
gives all members of Parliament the choice to stand together
and to show Canadians our common commitment to fighting
crime. Despite our political differences we share a desire to get
tough on criminals. Together we can quickly pass strong
anti-crime legislation.
The amendment will also provide us all with the chance to
focus at a later date on the one issue that divides us and threatens
this entire package. That issue is the firearms registry. The use
of a registry in firearm ownership is a radical departure from
Canadian tradition and one which should be carefully examined.
In light of the experiences of countries such as England,
Australia and New Zealand we are very much afraid this is a lost
cause before it even gets started. Two years ago the Auditor
General made this statement on the topic of Canada's gun
control policy. He said: ``Evaluation of the [gun control]
program is essential to give the Canadian public and members of
Parliament the assurance that its objectives are being met''.
Clearly the gun registry has not undergone the sort of
significant, non-partisan evaluation needed to contribute to the
debate. Until this happens there will be ongoing divisions within
the House over the registry, slowing up the positive aspects of
Bill C-68 in the process. If this is the only issue that seriously
divides us as parliamentarians, let us deal with it separately. Let
us deal with it in the best interests of all Canadians.
In closing, as members of Parliament we have long hoped for
the day when we can come together in a spirit of co-operation
and common direction in the interests of our constituents. By
adopting the Reform amendment the House can, even on this one
issue, work in unison for the betterment of all Canadians. Let us
not let what divides us hold back what unites us.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the gun control issue heated up last year after a
string of gun-related crimes, culminating in the fatal shooting at
the Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto, emotion ran so high that
it was very difficult in the confusion to properly dissociate the
weapon of the crime from the underlying and growing issue of
violence in our society.
Responsibility for these crimes was quickly linked to the
availability of firearms and to every firearms owner. Under the
proposed gun and crime control bill a very high number of my
constituents understand the fact that responsibility for crimes
involving firearms is being unfairly attributed to the
law-abiding gun owner on the same basis as the criminals.
(1610)
[Translation]
The government is right to introduce legislation containing
tougher sanctions against individuals convicted of murder and
to step up efforts to deal with the smuggling of firearms. Such
measures are necessary if we want to control crime and prevent
an increase in the crime rate. We must ensure compliance with
existing legislation on the wrongful use of firearms and their
proliferation in our society. However, I have serious
reservations about some of the points proposed in the bill.
[English]
In my riding, being a rural one, almost everyone owns a rifle
or a shotgun, yet the incidence of violent crimes involving
firearms is practically non-existent. They are responsible and
law-abiding citizens including natives, trappers, sustenance and
sports hunters, gun club members and gun collectors that have
all proven their ability to own and use a firearm. Stricter gun
control will not necessarily result in a decrease in the number of
crimes involving firearms in this rural part of Canada. These
law-abiding firearm owners should not be burdened or
inconvenienced with additional gun control measures that will
not reduce crime or improve public safety.
[Translation]
Self-respecting firearms owners will not willingly accept a
further erosion of their right to privacy. They are afraid that
when the data base is complete, it may provide, on request,
information on their financial situation, marital status, mental
health and mobility, all because of regulations that may
profoundly intrude on their privacy, and at their own expense.
[English]
My constituents have been asking all along that the bill be
divided into two parts: legislation that directly affects
law-abiding gun owners and legislation that affects the criminal
use of firearms. They have, as I have, also requested a free vote
on the issue. We know that this will not be the case and therein
lies my dilemma. I am wrenched between the loyalty to my party
and representation of the views of my constituents. It will not be
an easy call.
Eighty-five million dollars was forecast by the government to
implement the national firearms registration system. The
federal government has pegged the number of guns in
circulation to be registered at 7.5 million. This number differs
by a wide margin with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters calculations of 15 million as well as with those of the
National Firearms Association. That is why the projection is
unrealistic while I find the cost still prohibitive.
10404
The National Rifle Association in the United States has
already expressed concern that American hunters who will be
required to register at the border will not come to Canada if
they have to register their guns.
If we implement tough proposals do we not risk creating a
new kind of relationship between the government and
law-abiding gun owners, a climate of non-compliance or civil
disobedience? We must keep in mind that the legislation is
counting on all gun owners to voluntarily register themselves
with police and to register all of their firearms by the year 2003.
Anti-gun control proponents could use any illegal avenue to
stay out of what has already been dubbed the registration
swamp. We must avoid red tape and restrictions on law-abiding
gun owners if we cannot yield any evidence that stricter controls
would make our communities safer.
[Translation]
The adoption of pro-active prohibition orders has also raised
objections from many firearms owners. The penalty would
apply to all members of the household if one member is affected
by such an order. Should we impose prohibition orders on
law-abiding firearms owners because a close relative
committed a crime using a firearm? Many people think this is
very unfair.
[English]
From another perspective on the issue, I hesitate to endorse
new gun control legislation before the provisions of the
Criminal Code can first be fully applied and enforced. We know
that Bill C-17 is still in the early stages. Insufficient time has
passed since its adoption to assess the effectiveness of its
measures.
Law making, to be meaningful, must go beyond the legislative
process and must be enforced. Every gun control or enforcement
measure requires resources for its implementation. This will be
an extra burden on the RCMP, the QPP and the OPP. If the threat
of massive non-compliance is carried out, our federal court
system will become so clogged that it will take years to process
each individual case.
(1615)
[Translation]
A number of inquiries conducted in various countries have
shown there is no connection between the percentage of crimes
involving firearms and the degree of regulation of firearms in
that country. In countries with a very low rate of violent crimes
or homicide, like Japan and Switzerland, the presence or
absence of firearms is irrelevant. However, making young
people socially responsible, giving them a good education and
warning them against criminal behaviour is a major factor in
producing low crime rates.
Countries that have tough firearms legislation have shown an
increase in the rate of violent crimes. Countries whose citizens
have a healthy cultural life and have very close family ties have
the lowest rate of violent crimes committed with firearms,
whether such arms are available or not. There is no evidence that
more regulations have reduced the number of violent crimes.
[English]
Such findings are important. Homicide is a societal problem
unrelated or at least marginally related to public access to
firearms. The government should therefore concentrate its
efforts toward identifying the real causes of crime in our society.
Bill C-68 is not only a registration bill but also a crime
control bill. Imposing minimum mandatory sentences of four
years for serious crimes committed with a firearm will go a lot
further in deterring violent crime. Judges will be given strict
instructions to no longer be lenient with the criminal element of
our society and not to accept plea bargaining from defence
attorneys. Measures such as these will make potential criminals
think twice before they commit a reprehensible act.
The anti-tobacco and alcohol smuggling campaign of 1994
has proven to be very successful and the same methods of
controls should be applied. The one-year minimum sentence
will also send a very strong message that the illegal importation
of firearms will be severely punished.
A huge majority of Canadians also agree that military and
paramilitary weapons should be prohibited as their usefulness is
totally unjustifiable in our society.
In essence, Bill C-68 responds extensively and quite
adequately to Canadians' wishes to strengthen the Criminal
Code for crimes involving firearms. I totally share this feeling
with my urban colleagues. There are legitimate concerns since
crimes committed with firearms are in effect concentrated in
urban areas.
However I feel that this bill does not heed the concerns of
rural Canada. A law-abiding citizen could end up with the same
black mark on his or her record as a criminal found guilty of a
real crime involving a firearm.
In addition, one must really question the constitutionality of
the information that will be stored on the magnetic strip of the
credit card style of permit. Canada is a country that prides itself
in respecting the privacy of its citizens. Is the federal
government not probing too deeply into people's lives?
Furthermore, if this bill is adopted as is, it will be most
interesting to see how the Supreme Court of Canada will react to
this point as this law no doubt will be challenged.
I am reserving final judgment on this bill until I am given an
opportunity to study the forthcoming amendments. I owe it to
the 6,000 constituents who have taken the time to write, to sign
petitions, or to verbally express their views on this controversial
10405
issue. Hopefully the speeches heard in this House will serve to
enlighten the members on their final vote.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating on second reading Bill C-68,
an act respecting firearms and other weapons. The current
Liberal government is making it a key piece of its legislation.
The famous red book to which our colleagues across the floor
so often refer promised tough legislation in the area of gun
control. The Bloc Quebecois, like most Quebecers, has always
been in favour of tighter gun control.
(1620)
A number of recent tragic events have made all of Quebec
aware of the inescapable reality that firearms are dangerous and
kill readily.
Murderous rampages are a fact in our society: 1984,
Assemblée nationale, three killed; 1989, Ecole Polytechnique,
thirteen women killed; 1992, Concordia University, three
professors killed. These events are etched in our collective
memory.
Bill C-68 is therefore a step in the right direction. It proposes
measures to ensure better control over the purchase, possession
and storage of firearms.
It provides for more severe punishment for the possession of a
prohibited or restricted weapon. It also introduces new offences
and denunciatory sentences for the illegal importing and the
trafficking of arms. It will now be prohibited to import or sell
.25 or .32 calibre handguns and handguns with a barrel length of
105 millimetres or less.
Finally, the bill establishes a national registration system for
all firearms, to be administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police in co-operation with provincial and municipal forces.
This system will help police forces to combat the criminal use
of guns: first, orders of prohibition for certain weapons will be
enforced; second, the fight against smuggling will be stepped up
by controlling the kind and the quantity of firearms entering the
country; third, compliance with the rules for the safe storage of
firearms will be ensured; fourth, it will be easier for police
forces to track stolen weapons or those used to commit crimes.
Setting up the gun registry is a positive move. We
nevertheless deplore that this system will not pay for itself, as
was initially promised by the government and demanded by the
official opposition. In fact, the Liberal government estimates
that, over a period of seven years, it will cost $85 million to
implement the system.
The Bloc Quebecois has no problem recognizing that this
system will help fight against the illegal sale, possession or use
of firearms. However, the official opposition believes that the
period for registering firearms must be shortened. In spreading
the deadline over an eight-year period, the government has
chosen to compromise the attainment of the goals of police
forces.
The Bloc Quebecois has no doubt that the Minister of Justice
and his government caved in to the repeated attacks of several
pro-gun lobby groups. Does the power of money compare to the
power of AK-47s?
How else could we explain that over 13,000 military type
automatic weapons, including over 4,000 AK-47 machine guns,
will remain uncontrolled?
What kind of moral of logical justification could there be for
owning such a firearm? Partridge hunting? We could lose a lot of
feathers if that were the case. Personal protection then? In that
case, we have powerful enemies. The desire to own collector's
weapons? Is an AK-47 a work of art? Unless, of course, we want
to turn it into a symbol of our civilization.
The government did not have the courage to do its homework.
It evaded its responsibilities by asking the Standing Committee
on Justice to find solutions to problems the government itself
created.
For example, the government has asked this committee to find
an acceptable solution in the case of firearms that have special
significance for some people as family heirlooms, so that
owners can bequeath their firearms to their children as part of
their inheritance. That may be a legacy of love.
(1625)
Given the situation, the Bloc Quebecois can only support
wholeheartedly the recommendations made by coroner
Anne-Marie David. The Liberal government should do the
same.
Coroner David suggests that the Minister of Justice should
amend the wording of the regulations on the safe storage,
display and transportation of firearms to make it more
consistent and easier to understand for the whole population.
She feels that the current regulations are confusing and that not
distinguishing between unrestricted and restricted weapons
contributes to the confusion.
What Boileau said in the 17th century is more valid than ever:
``A well-formed thought can be conveyed clearly, and the words
to express it come easily''.
Coroner David also notes that the current regulations allow
weapons to be displayed. Is it unreasonable to believe that such a
display can be an incentive to steal weapons or arouse the
curiosity of some people who may be tempted to handle them?
10406
The regulations contain another flaw: How can we approve
regulations that authorize the transportation of unloaded
unrestricted weapons on the back seat of a vehicle, as long as
they are under the supervision of an adult?
According to Anne-Marie David, such leniency is an
incentive to steal and contravenes in some cases the provisions
of the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of
Wildlife.
The government must therefore launch an extensive
information campaign to clearly explain the amendments to the
regulations. It is aimed at the public at large, but should target
certain groups in particular, such as hunters, collectors and
sharpshooters.
According to coroner David, it is imperative that this
publicity campaign be conducted under the aegis of a provincial
committee and, sadly, that the federal government contribute
the financial resources necessary to the success of such
endeavour.
As we can see, this bill has no teeth, but its flaws have to be
remedied, if the federal government really wants this legislation
to have not just teeth, but good sharp ones.
The official opposition remains committed to producing
legislation that will ensure tighter gun control. Support
expressed by individuals, organizations and community social
action groups fighting against violence, is extensive.
A large coalition originating from Quebec has taken a stand
for closer monitoring of the sale, possession and use of firearms.
Both public and parapublic organizations have come forward;
the vast majority of police forces and police associations are in
favour of increased gun control.
As the member for Laval Centre, I am particularly proud of
the level of awareness displayed by the residents of my riding
and my city, as evidenced by the resolution passed by the Laval
town council on November 9, 1994, in support-unequivocal
support-of stricter gun control measures.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to stand and make my contribution to the debate on the
question of the adoption of the new legislation on gun control in
this country. I say to anyone in this House who is in question as
to where I stand on this issue, I stand most strongly and most
passionately in favour of the adoption of this bill. I do so for a
whole variety of reasons. Many of them are emotional because it
is an emotional debate.
I think that all of us, wherever we stand on the gun control
debate, were horrified just before Christmas when a young girl
in the United States went for a sleepover with her friends
because her parents were going to be away overnight. At some
point in the evening she found out that her parents were going to
be able to come home. She and her friend went back to the house.
When she heard her parents coming in she hid in the closet.
When her father came in the front door she jumped out of the
closet and yelled ``boo'' and her father shot her to death. What a
terrible tragedy. It would not have taken place if there had not
been a gun in that house.
(1630)
I think many of us remember the case in Michigan several
years ago of a 9-year old paperboy who went to collect paper
money, something he did every week. Most of us pay our
paperboys or girls every week. The owner of the house, not
realizing who it was, thinking it was an intruder, shot him to
death.
We remember the Japanese exchange student in the United
States who was out with some friends on Halloween,
experiencing a long and treasured tradition in the culture of the
United States and Canada, going door to door, trick or treating.
He too was shot and killed by a homeowner who thought he was
an intruder.
All of these examples take place tragically in the United
States. I believe most passionately they take place there because
there is a gun culture in that country that does not exist in this
one. I intend to fight most passionately to see that kind of culture
never takes hold in this country. That is not the culture that
belongs to bona fide hunters, farmers or sport shooters.
I am going to quote someone I saw on CTV not too long ago.
The man's name is Dan Matheson. Any who watch Canada AM
will have seen him. He does sports, the weather and shares the
anchor desk. One day not too long ago he said he had taken his
little boy fishing. I cannot remember if I have the exact cost, but
it somewhere between $30 and $50 to get a fishing licence to go
fishing with his son. He said: ``I just do not get it. I pay this to go
fishing with my son. What is the complaint to register a gun?
That is a whole lot more dangerous than a fishing rod''.
The whole question of gun mentality in this country is
misunderstood. There are members in this House who have
misused the statement that there is a right to bear arms. There is
not now any right in any Canadian constitution to bear arms. Not
in this country. Not now and please, God, not ever. We have
already seen the results of violence.
The hon. member opposite spoke most eloquently of some of
the examples in Montreal; the example that haunts all Canadians
over the age of reason on that December night, the École
Polytechnique.
Violent actions are not only occurring in the streets at the
hands of criminals, they are occurring in the homes of our
neighbours. Death and injury by guns in the home are now a
greater problem than the criminal misuse of firearms on the
street. This relates directly to the questions of violence against
women.
10407
The greatest threat of homicide is not at the hands of a
stranger. The majority of gun homicides, 86 per cent, are caused
by family members, friends or acquaintances. One woman in
Canada is killed with by gun every six days, most often in the
home by someone she knows. We have evidence that a
significant number of offenders act impulsively, suggesting that
the simple availability of a gun can determine whether a
homicide will occur.
(1635 )
I have tremendous respect and affection for the Minister of
Justice but he does not go as far as I would. It is probably
because I am an urban member. It is probably because I am a
woman. It is probably because I do not have a cool head when it
comes to the question of guns and gun control.
Last session I saw a bill brought forward that had many good
points. I sat on the legislative committee that dealt with that bill.
I saw it watered down until it effectively meant very little. That
is why I am so proud to stand on this side of the House with this
minister, with this government, to support this bill. It is tough
and it is also fair.
I have been to gun clubs where I have walked in and said:
``Gentlemen, I am your worst nightmare''. No one in the House
is more strongly opposed to guns than I am. There are many who
are equally strongly opposed, but none more strongly opposed.
I have left those gun clubs with those people perhaps not
agreeing with me but understanding my point of view and
understanding the point of view that is the most important, that
70 per cent of the people of this country agree with the Minister
of Justice. They agree with the Prime Minister. They agree with
members on this side of the House because they apply a little
intelligence to the equation and they understand the situation.
If we want to talk about legitimate polls, as the member from
Calgary appears to be, he could speak to his own minister of
justice in Alberta who commissioned a poll. Those of us who
know a fair bit about polling know that we can commission polls
so that questions will turn up the response we want. That
minister was not a particular proponent of this government's law
and yet even that poll showed that 62 per cent of the people in
Alberta favoured gun control.
Mr. Thompson: Out of 300.
Ms. Clancy: To hon. members opposite, if they want to get
their poll done right maybe they should re-educate their
attorney general. In Alberta 62 per cent said yes.
Mr. Silye: He is not here to defend himself.
Ms. Clancy: I can only pick on people who are not here. It is
too easy to pick on those opposite. If hon. member's opposite
would like to calm down and listen, I would be happy to
conclude.
This is a very serious issue. This is a very important issue to
the women of this country and to the children of this country. It
is very interesting that we talk about guns and their different
categories. We talk about automatic weapons, semi-automatic
weapons and some of the particularly horrible instruments of
mayhem I saw when I travelled with the Toronto police force
some months ago.
The hon. member opposite says they defended this country in
the second world war. Our guns were turned on an enemy in the
second world war that was trying to subjugate an entire culture
and an entire belief in democracy. I do not think we should be
turning those same weapons on our fellow citizens, which we
have been.
Let me get back to my original point, guns, automatic
weapons, semi-automatic weapons, those awful instruments of
mayhem. Many are going to be banned. Let no one
misunderstand that for women in this country an ordinary
shotgun in a gun case or hanging over the mantelpiece is an
object to be feared. It is an object to worry about for oneself or
for one's children, given the circumstances in far too many
families.
(1640 )
Again, I am very proud to stand with this government and this
minister on the whole issue of gun control. I stand here knowing
this is a promise made to the people of Canada, important to the
people of Canada. First and foremost, this is a promise that will
be kept to the people of Canada.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue
of gun control has become one of the more emotionally charged
debates to be addressed in this House.
As the member for Calgary Centre, I cannot believe how
quickly such an important subject has digressed into the realm
of us against them, between interest groups, spin doctors, media
pundits, urban and rural ridings, men and women. We have lost
sight of who we are trying to protect.
Not one person in the House enjoys picking up a newspaper
and reading about a man, woman or child being shot by another
person. No one enjoys walking the streets at night with a feeling
of fear in their stomach. Emotionally we are all on the same
wave length and so it is time to start thinking and acting
rationally, not just emotionally and politically, as the justice
minister said today in question period.
The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to split
Bill C-68 in two. One bill would cover the Criminal Code
amendments dealing with the use of firearms during the
commission of a crime while the second bill would deal with the
issue of a national firearms registration system. The rationale is
10408
simple. The Minister of Justice has lumped these two separate
issues together under the banner of crime control.
I do not believe criminals will register their guns and I believe
the current firearms acquisition certificate system is adequate in
the control of legitimate firearms owners. Therefore we should
separate this bill. Even some members of the Liberal caucus
support our motion.
At a town hall meeting on March 5 the hon. member for
Lanark-Carleton stated he would like to see Bill C-68 split
wherein the anti-crime and anti-smuggling components of the
legislation would be dealt with separately from the issue of gun
registration. They are two separate issues. I fully expect the
Liberal member will vote in favour of our amendment.
I am prepared to support measures that genuinely reduce
crime, but the burden of proof is on the Minister of Justice to
prove gun registration will work. Therefore, before debate on
this bill concludes I would simply ask some Liberal members to
answer a few questions.
How will a firearms registration system truly protect society
in light of the fact that other systems around the world have
shown that it does not really make a difference? How will the
government gauge the success of the program? How will the
high costs be reconciled with making criminals out of innocent
people?
I have some serious, common sense questions regarding who
benefits from this program. The Minister of Justice has said
registration will reduce crime and better equip the police to deal
with crime in Canadian society by providing them with more
information they often need to do their jobs.
Criminals will not register their weapons. I find it rather
unlikely that policemen on the streets will approach a suspect's
house any differently if the computer says the suspect does not
own a gun. Caution will still be the rule.
I would like to take a moment to read part of a letter from two
Calgary policemen:
On Saturday, November 26, 1994 my partner and I were dispatched to a noisy
stereo complaint in northwest Calgary. After knocking on the door for an
extended period of time, my partner and I were confronted by a man at the door
with a loaded, sawed-off shotgun which he pointed at my partner's chest. The
man was subdued, arrested and charged with four weapons related offences.
During our investigation we determined that the man was prohibited from
owning or possessing any firearms until 1998 because of a weapons offence in
1992. The weapon he had in his possession was also a prohibited weapon.
Of all the four offences the man was charged with, only one, assault with a
weapon, is an offence where police can take the criminal to jail. Pointing a
weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon and pointing a prohibited weapon
are minor offences in the Criminal Code, the criminal version of a speeding
ticket.
How will registration possibly change what happened to us?
The man was legally prohibited from having a gun but he had
one. Does a police officer have to get shot to make us realize that
we have to get tough on these sorts of offenders?
According to the Department of Justice, in over half the cases
in which possession charges are laid by police they are dropped
once they get to court. That is the reality outside of planet
Ottawa.
Addressing the inherent weaknesses of the Criminal Code and
the charter of rights and freedoms should be our number one
priority.
(1645 )
Handguns have been registered in Canada for 60 years. In
spite of this, using the minister's own statistics, handgun crimes
have been on the increase. There is no evidence to indicate that
universal registration of shotguns and rifles will be any more
effective.
Are we really worried about hunters, target shooters and
collectors? Maybe the Liberals are but I cannot accept that these
people are responsible for the violence on our streets. It is the
criminals using illegally obtained weapons who are responsible
for gun related crimes. They should be the target.
The Liberals like to use the logic that if you have to register
your car you should register your gun. If you register your gun
you will become more responsible, less inclined to have an
accident and less likely to have your weapon fall into the hands
of criminals.
When we look at vehicle registration, what effect does it have
on preventing theft, promoting responsible use and reducing
accidents? Does vehicle registration prevent drunk driving?
In Calgary a teenager was recently sentenced to six years for
running down and killing a police officer with a registered
stolen car. Is the owner of the stolen car responsible for the death
of Constable Sonnenberg? Should car owners have to take more
responsibility ensuring that their vehicles are stored safely?
Should we apply the same legal impediments to car ownership
that the minister wants to apply to gun ownership? Would this
have saved Constable Sonnenberg? Of course not.
No matter what steps we take to prevent our property from
being stolen, criminals find a way to get at it. No matter how
much registration we have the simple truth is that people will
continue to break the law. Let us start focusing our legislation on
discouraging those who might and punishing those do.
Let us send a collective message to potential criminals that
this country does not tolerate violence and violent offenders.
From now on the punishment will match the crime.
Becoming a legal firearms owner in Canada today is by no
means a cakewalk. Applicants must obtain a firearms
acquisition certificate which is an extremely probing form
containing questions about personal matters such as drug and
alcohol abuse, job loss and divorce, to name a few. Applicants
must then furnish the names of two people from the prescribed
list of occupations and relationships who can verify the
information in
10409
the application. This is followed by a 28-day mandatory waiting
period during which a firearms officer can conduct an
investigation on applicants. Upon completion the applicants
must then pass a course or test on the safe handling and use of
firearms and the laws relating to them. The applicant is then
photographed and his or her certificate is processed centrally by
the chief provincial or territorial firearms officer. What more
can you do?
In the time it takes one legal gun owner to go through this
process, thousands of stolen or smuggled guns will change
hands in the streets. That is the problem. If this government
would take more time to identify the right problem, it would find
60 per cent of the solution.
The national debt is the problem. The deficit is a contributing
factor. That is why we have to get to a zero deficit, not just 3 per
cent of GDP. The lack of deterrence for the criminal misuse of
firearms is the problem. Registration is not even a contributing
factor.
The Liberals are identifying the wrong problem. The Minister
of Justice stated in the House that last year an estimated 375,000
weapons were smuggled into Canada. In the same breath he went
on to say last year approximately 3,800 firearms were lost or
stolen by those who lawfully own them in Canada. In the years
since 1974 a cumulative total of 65,000 firearms have been
stolen or lost, not recovered.
There were 3,800 stolen or lost weapons as opposed to
375,000 smuggled guns, yet the main emphasis of our new gun
control laws will be registration for legal gun owners. I believe
that instead of throwing millions of dollars toward registration
we should look at all possible ways to beef up our security at
borders.
Let us do everything in our power to stop the 375,000 guns
from finding their way into hands of criminals. Let us send a
clear message to the people who bring them across the border
that if they get caught, they will not just get a slap on the wrist or
a fine, but a guarantee of time behind bars.
Currently we have mandatory sentences for firearms offences
that are not enforced because they are plea bargained away.
Therefore a mandatory sentence is utterly meaningless and
useless. I can see the need for a crown prosecutor to have some
latitude in handling a case. The flexibility that plea bargaining
offers is intended to lead to a conviction. I realize it is necessary,
but not the outright elimination of a mandatory sentence. It
should be a reduced sentence.
(1650)
A national firearms registry flies directly in the face of
today's reality which is that the vast majority of people want less
government regulation and intrusion in their lives, not more. A
10-year jail term for failure to register and the right to register a
firearm and the right to search and seizure without a warrant are
incomprehensible.
Are we headed for a police state if this bill passes in its
present form? Is the minister not willing to separate the bill and
debate the two separate issues? He knows full well that they are
two separate issues. He knows that this party would support the
amendments to the Criminal Code to make it tougher on crime.
He knows he would get our support.
Why bother with this national registration issue with the same
bill? Separate the two. Have the courage and conviction to have
a true and honest debate. People are sick and tired of hearing
about the rights of criminals. They want them caught. They want
them off the streets. They want them punished and, above all,
they want laws that will make people think twice about
becoming criminals in the first place.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 128 years ago our founding fathers came together, gave
this House power to enact laws, to ensure peace, order and good
government in Canada.
Even President Clinton on his visit to this country on February
23 said Canada has shown to the world how to balance freedom
with compassion and tradition with innovation. Canada set the
example for the rest of the world on many occasions. This
certainly is one of those occasions when we can say to the world
that we set the standards and we make the examples for the rest
to follow.
On October 25, 1993 the people of Canada voted for the
Liberal Party. In the red book we made a promise to make our
streets safe and offload the guns. Bill C-68 goes in that
direction.
Public support for this bill has been enormous, 80 per cent to
85 per cent. Even in Alberta we are told 62 per cent of the
population supports the bill. In my riding of Don Valley North,
which I am proud to represent, 90 per cent of the population
supports this bill.
In my riding I received only seven or eight representations
opposing the bill. Out of those, one of them was a U.S. citizen
complaining about the bill. When I asked him why he does not
complain to U.S. senators, he said he lives here and has to
complain to me.
Many of us receive many letters from various organizations
and individuals regarding Bill C-68. I received maybe 200
letters from various parts of the country. One said in part: ``It
has come to my attention that someone has sent a number of
misleading letters to various members of Parliament and some
Reformers, including yourself''.
These letters are on the subject of government policy
proposals and gun controls. One says in part: ``Many of these
letters bear my name and address and are signed but were not
written, signed or sent by me. My signature is false. I believe
you have
10410
received one of these letters as I have received correspondence
from you on this topic. I hereby request that you remove me
from your mailing list''.
I am not saying that all the letters are forged but I am sure that
15 members received letters that are the same. They have not
sent a letter to anybody but somehow someone took the liberty
to send letters to members of Parliament so they can say they
received 200, 300, 1,000 letters, and that is how they can make
public opinion saying people oppose it. The fact is that people
support this bill.
I want to raise the issue of rural and urban communities. In the
last byelection in a riding in Quebec 62 per cent of the riding was
rural and 38 per cent was urban. In that byelection nobody ever
raised the issue of gun control. It is obvious that rural Canadians
support the bill. They are happy with it and they want to go
forward with it so we can build a new Canada, safe and sound for
everybody.
(1655 )
On September 17, I invited members of Parliament in metro
Toronto to attend meetings with the constable in charge of the
gun depot in metro Toronto. He showed us 13,000 handguns,
machine guns, AK-47s or M-16s, whatever the case may be.
Some of them were legally owned, stolen from their owners so
they could be used in crimes. They showed me replicas so
similar it was hard to say which one was which.
Don Valley North is one of the few ridings in the country that
has no gun shop. We would like to keep it that way.
Most people complain about the registration section of this
bill. When this bill was presented last year I phoned the city of
North York and asked how many dogs are registered there. The
answer is 18,710. We asked the minister and members of this
Parliament how many guns we have in the country. They tell us
anywhere from 4 million to 15 million.
Four million to 15 million guns can do more harm to the
country and its citizens than 18,000 dogs in North York. If we
can register the dogs, the cats, the cars, why not the guns? I
cannot understand. No one has been able to explain it to me. I am
a reasonable person, more than the hon. member on the other
side who shouts meaningless sentences. He should answer to
Canadians why he opposes legislation when 80 per cent to 85 per
cent of Canadians support it and want to go ahead with this bill.
Many guns used in a crime these days are stolen from rightful
owners; as I said before, 3,800 guns. If legislation goes through
the way it is, we will know exactly where the guns come from so
we can follow up, trace them and hold the owner of a gun
responsible.
It is my pleasure to support this bill to the best of my ability. I
can assure the House, even my colleagues in the Reform Party,
that the Don Valley North population supports this bill 100 per
cent. We will make sure that by passing this bill Canada will be a
safe place.
In the last two years Canada was rated the best country by the
United Nations and we will make sure it continues to be one of
the best and safest countries in the world.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Bourassa-The budget; the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Low level flights; the hon.
member for Kamloops-Royal Bank of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this debate has
taken on quite a bit of emotion. I would like to approach it from
the standpoint of the gun control advocates who I believe are
intelligent, compassionate people, who truly believe that
stricter control of firearms will make our streets safer. I believe
also that the justice minister truly has those thoughts in mind. I
do not think he has any nefarious reasons to be doing what he is
doing.
We desire to split the bill into two components. One
component Reformers would very quickly support. The other I
do not think we would.
On the issue of registration I have looked beyond the borders
of Canada to find out what registration did in countries where it
was tried. This is the only mechanism I have to compare Canada
with other countries. By the justice minister's own recollection
there is no statistical basis for doing what we are doing. I looked
beyond our shores. I am really addressing this to those who
honestly believe registration will work.
New Zealand registered all firearms. Over quite a complex
process it registered its firearms.
(1700 )
I went through the history of it. Back in World War I it had
reason to be concerned about firearms coming into the country
and it registered them. After registering firearms for many years
it looked at registration and asked whether it achieved the
purpose for which it was undertaken. I have heard the justice
minister say that the reason its registration system failed was
that it had a poor computer system.
That may be the reason but New Zealand said the registration
was of limited value because compliance was poor. Moving
from spot to spot was not reported so that even if a person had
10411
registered the registration went astray. It was also found that it
was only useful if the serial number were registered. Many
weapons were not registered by serial number but by model
number. Even if the law-abiding citizen took the time to do that
it was a failure. It was found that many people never registered,
did not comply. As well it was found that the cost was
unjustified. It was much more expensive than expected. That is a
very important issue in these days of financial restraint.
New Zealand abandoned its registration system and went to a
system of licensing much like a pilot's licence. An individual
who wanted a weapon had to be registered. It depended on the
level of use whether or not the individual went for the high or
lower level. There is a lesson to be learned by Canada from the
experiences in New Zealand.
Second is the overall registration of firearms. I made a
comment on national radio that Australia had tried registration
of firearms. I got a blast from the consul's office saying that I
said the wrong thing. It was wrong. It was not tried overall in
Australia. It was only tried in various Australian states.
The state that closely resembles Canada is the state of
Victoria. In 1984 Victoria decided that all firearms had to be
registered. There were some massacres, some murders in
Australia. Public opinion was inflamed just like it is in Canada
today. Registration was to be the answer, according to
Australian politicians.
In 1984 registration was to be phased in over a three-year
period. The Australian police resolved that the spread of
firearms should be contained. They actually had a very specific
way to contain firearms. The initial statement made by the
Australian police was that no home should have more than three
firearms. Computerized registration would be the mechanism to
justify that. If a home had just cause it could contain more than
three firearms.
The resulting legislation did not include the three-firearm
position. It was only registration of firearms. They moved off
the three-firearm position into registration. The police still said
they thought it would help.
Registration took place. Interestingly enough they found that
it was very much more expensive than they had thought. Now we
are getting into the more modern computer age which is very
expensive. They found in terms of compliance that 58.9 per cent
of the population complied but 41.1 per cent did not comply.
Worse and most condemnatory of the process was that there was
no effect whatever on criminal misuse of firearms. They had
good statistics to follow it through. For the same three reasons
New Zealand abandoned its firearm registration. Australia did
the same.
I obtained the conclusions of the firearm registration officer
through access to information. Generally they are not publicly
available. The officer charged with the responsibility was asked
whether he had done a good job. In summary he said: ``I do not
believe registration is the answer to the problem. I would
therefore recommend that firearms registration be forthwith
abolished and together with the firearms consultation
committee a far-reaching, effective and proper system of
education be introduced as a prerequisite to obtaining a
shooter's licence''. He went on to describe a system very much
like that of New Zealand.
(1705)
That country is not strange and foreign to Canada. It is a
country that is parallel to Canada. It tried it and it flopped. What
happened to the firearms officer when he presented the report?
He was fired. The report was buried and the political masters
carried on with registration and registration persists today.
I have a political message for members across the way. In
New South Wales, Australia, a Labour government tried to put
through very similar, draconian firearms legislation as we have
in Canada today. This is the part that should change their minds.
National opinion polls are 70 per cent for the government. They
fought an election on the basis of the issue and the Labour
government was ousted from New South Wales. Prime Minister
Unsworth announced that he would not be standing for
leadership of the parliamentary Labour party. ``Guns cost me'',
he said. ``Clearly as leader I must accept the major proportion of
the blame for this defeat, particularly in terms of my decision on
the gun issue''.
What happens if a Canadian's lifestyle is taken away and
turned into political activism? Members of the Liberal Party
have no idea what it is doing when it does this to the lifestyle of
Canadians. They may get individuals in urban areas to give them
all kinds of support. However, when they find out that
registration will be expensive, will affect only law-abiding
individuals and will have no impact on criminal misuse, they
will do what they did in New South Wales.
It is not necessary. It is absolutely incredibly stupid. I would
simply say that we should split the bill. Let us have crime
control but let us not have registration, or it is gonzo to the
Liberals.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents to give
my full support to Bill C-68. It is a bill to restrict the availability
of guns and thereby reduce the number of crimes with guns.
It is an undeniable fact that where guns and ammunition are
less available there are less crimes with guns. Where guns and
ammunition are more difficult to obtain, there are less crimes
with guns. It is not no crimes with guns but less crime with guns.
10412
Nobody on this side has made the suggestion that strict gun
control will eliminate all crime with guns. It is true that
professional criminals and gangsters will always get their guns,
but the overwhelming majority of crime with guns is not
committed by professional gangsters. It is committed by
ordinary people who under stress or with some other problem
strike out at another person. If a gun is available they use it.
Mark Lepine, before he killed 13 young women at École
polytechnique had no criminal record. He was not a criminal.
However, because the gun laws were loose he was able to get a
semi-automatic military assault rifle and kill 13 women. He was
not a criminal.
Valery Fabrikant, who killed four professors at Concordia
University in Montreal, had no criminal record before he
committed that crime. However, because he was able through
looseness in the gun laws to get a gun he killed four other people.
In the context of family violence, quarrels, tensions, abuse of
liquor and drugs, some mentally unbalanced people who lose
control will strike out and, if guns are easily available, they will
use them. In the legislation we are trying to make sure they are
not easily available and to make it much more strict in being
sold to the public.
(1710)
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Allmand: The level of debate from the Reform Party is
the kind of thing we are listening to now. I listened to the hon.
member make his speech. I would appreciate the opportunity of
having the same chance.
When we make it more difficult to obtain guns crimes by these
people are reduced because of strict gun laws. They do not have
strict gun laws in most states in the U.S. They have a much
higher rate of crime with guns. Some cases are completely
ridiculous to read about.
I remember reading recently about a case in a certain
American city where two automobiles collided at an
intersection. The drivers involved in the collision lost their cool
and became angry. Both of them pulled guns from their glove
compartments, got out of their cars and shot each other.
In Canada we would be just as angry and lose our cool just as
quickly, but because we would not have guns in our glove
compartments we would probably get out and punch each other
out or hit each other in the nose. The same excessive damage
would not be done because guns would not be as easily available
to people in that state of mind.
Contrary to what many have said in opposition to the bill, it
will not stop legitimate hunting by responsible hunters. Nor will
it stop competitive shooting by responsible sportsmen. These
allegations are scare tactics. Whenever we have a bill to
strengthen our gun laws we hear the same old rhetoric by the gun
lobby and those who blindly follow the gun lobby.
I have been through four gun bills in the House during my
period in Parliament. Each time we have set about to make the
gun laws more restrictive to protect the public by preventing
crimes with guns, we have heard the same old myths put forward
by the gun lobby.
It can be demonstrated that despite the rhetoric after each gun
law has passed there has been an increase in hunting licences
available to responsible hunters. This gun law will not stop
responsible sportsmen, hunters and shooters who belong to gun
clubs and are competitive shooters from practising their sports.
I ask my colleagues in the House not to be freaked out by
members of the gun lobby. They are not as important as they
believes they are. They are not as numerous as they believe they
are. They do not have the power they think they have.
They have threatened many members in the House before
against voting for the strengthening of gun laws. They have
threatened them during election time and have failed. I have
been threatened, as I say, four times by members of that lobby.
They have had no effect on me whatsoever. They have also
threatened colleagues of mine from rural areas and have no
effect on them whatsoever. They should be disregarded. They
talk nonsense for the most part.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Tell that to the
Tories.
Mr. Allmand: The Tories were defeated for many other
reasons and not for their gun laws, let's face it. If you think they
were defeated for their gun laws you are really dreaming in
Technicolor.
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the member to address his
remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Allmand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Among the myths of
the gun lobby is that when we attempt to ban or restrict guns only
criminals will have guns. There is no class of persons born
criminal and there is no class of persons born non-criminal.
People do not have an identifying mark as criminal or
non-criminal.
As I just said a few minutes ago, ordinary individuals in
situations of stress, alcohol, drugs or whatever often strike out at
other people and if guns are available they use them. It is not
because they are professional criminals. As I say, the
overwhelming number of murders in Canada committed with
guns are not committed by professional criminals and gangsters
but by ordinary people like Fabrikant and Lepine who did not
commit any crime before in their past lives.
Another myth we hear over and over is that guns do not kill
but people kill. Of course a gun is the most lethal type of means
by which to kill another person. Yes, it is possible to kill
someone with a baseball bat, but frankly I do not know anybody
in this House who would rather have somebody chasing them
10413
with a lethal weapon instead of a baseball bat. Of course it is
possible to kill people with poison, a knife or a baseball bat, but
a gun is manufactured to kill, to kill animals or to kill people.
Guns should be controlled and this bill will give better control.
(1715)
With respect to registration, previous speakers, especially
those from the Reform Party, asked how it will protect society
and why we are doing it. We have had registration in this country
for many years. Restricted weapons, especially handguns, have
been registered for a long period of time and it has been
successful. The rate of crime with handguns in Canada has, for
the most part, been much lower than the rate of crime with long
guns because handguns have been much more strictly
controlled.
With the registration of all weapons, including handguns and
long guns, it will be easier to conduct criminal investigations.
The police will know who have guns and who do not. It will be
easier to trace weapons used in crime and the criminals who had
access to those guns. It will be easier to take preventive
measures against violence with guns. For example, in a family
that has a history of family violence, the police will know
whether the husband or another family member has a gun
registered in their name and that gun could be taken away.
It is true as some who oppose this bill will say that not
everyone will register their gun. However, a large number will.
Such a measure will help the police to remove guns from
dangerous situations, especially situations where there has been
a record of family violence.
With respect to the ban on most handguns, that is, handguns
that are not used for competitive shooting, handguns such as the
Saturday night specials, the very small and very easy to conceal
handguns, these have no purpose except for use in crime. If
someone is actually taking part in competitive shooting, then the
gun is registered; the person belongs to a gun club and that is
permissible. The other types of handguns which are very small
and are not used in competitive shooting will be banned under
the legislation and they should be banned.
The bill provides for an increase in the penalties for the
misuse of guns, for the smuggling of guns and for the illegal sale
of guns and ammunition. I support that but I do not believe that
increased penalties are the answer. Increased penalties deal with
the situation after it has taken place. The crime has been
committed. Someone is dead. They have found the criminal and
they will give them a stiffer penalty.
What we are trying to do with this legislation is to prevent the
crime from taking place in the first place. We are trying to make
guns more difficult to obtain and to screen the applicants who
want to own guns. Doing that will prevent the crimes from
taking place. It is a preventive measure.
To rely simply on long, tough, hard penalties as is done in
most of the United States does not work. They have absolutely
no effect whatsoever. The crime rates with guns are much higher
there than they are in Canada, especially in Louisiana, Texas,
Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.
In conclusion, I assure the House that as chair of the standing
committee on justice, despite my strong views in favour of this
bill, I intend to be absolutely fair with all sides who take part in
the discussion before the committee. I want to assure those who
oppose the bill that they will be fairly treated. Those who wish to
amend the bill will be fairly treated. Those who support the bill
will be fairly treated.
When I act as chair of the committee the most important
aspect is the tradition of Parliament of the rights of minorities to
have their say. I want to assure all members of this House and the
general public that as chair of the justice committee everyone
will be given their full right to be heard.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-68. I
hope the Minister of Justice is listening to the constructive
suggestions which have been advanced in this debate. My
colleagues on this side of the House have put forward ideas and
suggestions which would make parts of this bill much better.
However, we strongly oppose one part of the bill.
(1720 )
Today I want to address mainly the part on a national firearms
registration system. I hope when we get into final debate on it
that those on the government side who oppose the clauses that
establish the regime of gun registration will stand with us to
defeat those sections. If this were to happen it would be a great
day for freedom in this Parliament and a great day for individual
freedom in all parts of Canada.
I have spent most of my adult life in the teaching profession.
One thing about teaching is that in order to explain something to
others, it is essential to understand it yourself. For me, that
means getting back to basics.
Therefore when I analyse legislation I ask myself: What is the
problem the legislation is attempting to address or to cure? Once
I am able to discern what the problem is, then I can go through
the legislation clause by clause to see if the problem is being
addressed correctly. This methodology seems to work most of
the time. When it does not work, it usually is because I see the
problem as advanced by the government in different terms than
the government does and then can address it quite differently.
10414
In splitting the bill, crime control I agree is what we need.
When I look at Bill C-68 I am puzzled as to what exactly it
is that the minister is trying to get at. What harm is he trying
to cure? If we take the legislation as a whole there are stiffer
penalties for those who commit crimes, anti-gun smuggling
deterrents and then a gun registration system for rifles and
shotguns. This for me is the meat of the bill.
If the harm or the problem is too many offences being
committed with guns, then the first two parts of the legislation,
stiffer penalties and anti-smuggling, make sense. I can see some
room to make them better but I basically agree. But what about
the registration system which this legislation imposes? What is
that aimed at? Here again I must support splitting the bill.
Every time I review the remarks of the justice minister when
he is trying to justify the system I wonder how he can relate one
to the other. He tells us there are pretty scary statistics out there
dealing with the use of guns. Every six days a woman is
murdered by someone using a gun. Over 1,000 suicides per year
are the result of gun usage.
After reciting these statistics we are always told these are the
reasons we need gun control. but we are never told two things.
First, how will the registration of rifles and shotguns reduce
these numbers? Second, what percentage of these acts take place
with guns that through this legislation would be required to be
registered? Again, I must stress crime control and a national gun
registration do not relate.
The justice minister knows very well that the registration
system will not reduce the number of murders or suicides by
firearms one bit. What he should know is that Canada is a large
and diverse country, a country which in many ways starts at the
borders of metropolitan Toronto. This country is not
metropolitan Toronto.
The justice minister should read the legislation that is
presently in place in relation to gun control. He will find that
present laws in Canada are among the toughest in the world with
respect to firearms. Here is what you have to do if you want to
own a firearm in Canada:
Take an optional federal course and mandatory test to qualify
for a firearms acquisition certificate. Submit to a thorough
police examination of your social history, employment and
psychological history when you apply for your FAC. Go through
an interview process with police and provide solid references.
Wait a mandatory 28 days before your FAC is approved and
issued with a photograph.
If you want to hunt you must take a separate mandatory
hunting course which also covers firearms handling and safety.
Submit to another provincial written and practical test on
firearms handling. Abide by strict federal laws that govern
dozens of firearms handling and safety situations. They include:
storing firearms and ammunition separately and under lock and
key; rigid transportation standards; and tough guidelines for
using firearms.
These rules are important but their effect has not yet ever been
analysed. This was pointed out in the Auditor General's report
of 1993. I believe the minister should wait to see how effective
the controls put in place as recently as 1991 have been before he
embarks on increased controls.
This registration system has many drawbacks and it is
important that they be set out and discussed. It is expensive. The
lowest estimate for its development and implementation is in
the range of $80 million to $90 million. Oh yes, we are told that
this money will be recovered from the gun owners who are
required to register and we are also told the cost of registration
will be quite reasonable to encourage those with guns to register.
Which is it, Mr. Minister?
We are told one of the great pluses for this legislation is that it
helps police. When they are answering a call at a dwelling place
they will know whether there are firearms on site. We are told
this will aid police and make it safer. Are we to conclude from
this that the police will now enter homes where guns have been
registered with their own guns drawn anticipating a gun battle?
This will make our lives safer or the homes of our law-abiding
citizens safer? I do not think so.
(1725)
However, all these criticisms of the registration system pale
into insignificance when one considers the potential for
computer crime as it relates to the registry. This area is so
serious, of proportions of such magnitude that we must look at
it.
Weekly we are informed of some computer whiz-kid who has
broken the code to allow access to highly classified material,
government controlled or otherwise. Just a few weeks ago the
police in Toronto uncovered a fake credit card ring. One reason
given for the success of the criminal venture until it was closed
down was the access to corporate computers which the alleged
criminals had acquired.
We were told in the summer that authorities in the western
world could not stop or prevent computers from being accessed
by the criminal element. We are told that the police around the
world sometimes do not even have the information as fast as the
criminals do. We are very foolish if we think they will not access
this information. Now we are going to establish a computer
based program which will show the location of every firearm
registered in Canada. What a gold mine for criminals and
organized crime.
Break the code for this registration system and this will be the
home shopping channel for criminals. Imagine establishing a
system whereby the location of virtually every gun in Canada is
10415
shown. Is there anything else we can do to make it easier for
those who wish to steal guns?
What of the innocent people who register their guns? Are they
sitting ducks-no pun intended-for criminals who break the
code and enter the gun registration system? Why would we
create such a monster if it is not going to do any good, if it is not
going to reduce the number of crimes of violence, murders,
attempted murders or suicides?
Create the shop at home channel for guns, rifles and shotguns.
I do not think so. However, I am certain there is a part of our
population that would not object if Rogers Cablevision carried
this channel.
There are good parts in this bill which should be studied in
committee and perhaps even made stronger. This is a very good
reason to split Bill C-68.
First, I agree there should be a separate criminal offence for
committing or attempting to commit a crime with a gun. The
problem with it is as proposed is that it may very well be
bargained away as part of a plea bargain for a guilty plea for
some other charge.
Members of the justice committee should take a hard look at
this. They should try to determine whether they can legislate
that the offence not be subject to a plea bargain or find some
other solution. A clear message must be sent to the criminal
community in Canada that if criminals carry guns and commit
crimes, they will be punished for the crime and for carrying the
weapon.
I am also supportive of those parts of the bill which would
attack the problem of gun smuggling in Canada. We live next to,
arguably, one of the most violent nations on the face of the earth.
It is vitally important that those who patrol our borders be given
real powers to deal with those who would import guns illegally
into Canada.
Again, this is something the justice committee should look at
in detail. Should the people who patrol our borders be given
powers to be more than revenue collectors? Should the
provincial police or RCMP in particular provinces be required to
maintain a presence at the borders? A true police presence at our
borders would, to my way of thinking, reduce smuggling. I am
not saying we should arm our customs agents, but they should be
backed up by trained police.
There are other matters which must be looked at in this
legislation, for example the position of those who wish to will
their gun collections as part of their estate. I believe we should
facilitate this. The requirement for those entering Canada to
take part in marksmanship contests to obtain a temporary
certificate should be looked at to see if it is realistic and
workable.
Most of all, I urge members opposite, members from outside
metropolitan Toronto as well as inside, to look at Canada and see
it for what it is, a vast country where hunting and other outdoor
activities are both a way of life to some and a recreation to
others.
The registration system proposed in this bill as it sits will not
accomplish the goal set for it. Therefore, when it comes time to
vote for this bill, or that part on gun registration during clause by
clause analysis, vote down those clauses that pertain to the
registration system.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons.
(1730 )
The riding of Durham has both a rural and an urban
component. Being neither a gun owner or user myself, I have
gone to the shooting clubs and have listened to the concerns of
legal gun owners. I have taken both gun owners and those abused
by guns to meet with the Minister of Justice.
I have studied the crime statistics of both the justice
department and the gun lobby. I have spoken with our police
chief, the local firearms registration officer, judges, police in
the field, homicide detectives and finally, I visited Millhaven
penitentiary and spoke with murderers in their cells who
actually used guns in the commission of crime.
Tougher penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of
a crime, tougher controls of cross-border smuggling and
trafficking of firearms are all supported by the people of
Durham, including legal gun owners.
Rather than looking at the strengths of the legislation I would
like to focus on what I see as some weaknesses. Hopefully these
matters will be addressed at the committee stage of the bill. I
would like to address the matter of the registration of all
firearms. As you know, Mr. Speaker, handguns in Canada have
had to be registered since the 1940s. I note this has contributed
little to the reduction of the use of handguns in the commission
of crime.
Primarily the issue for me is one of cost benefit analysis.
What are the costs? Who is going to pay? What are the benefits
of the system? This revisits the very foundations of our
democracy which is that government has entered into a contract
with the people. This is Locke's Two Treaties on Government. In
the 15th century Locke determined that a fundamental
democracy was one where people consented to be governed
based on an unwritten contract with their government, a contract
that implied a basic consent of the people not only to be
governed but also, most importantly, to be taxed.
People want to revisit their contract with government. They
want to know how taxes are consensual. They want to be part of
the process. They want to be included with regard to the taxes
they pay and the programs they finance. Across the nation
people are demanding more accountability from governments.
10416
Taxpayers want to know how much programs are costing and
specifically who is paying for them.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce a private
member's bill early this spring, the subject of which will be a
taxpayers' bill of rights. I note that if this legislation was in
place, the current bill would have some additional and much
needed information attached to it. Specifically the program
would be costed fully during its implementation stage. It would
detail the specific costs and would allocate them to the years
during implementation. It would also show the anticipated
revenues from registration charges to gun owners. Finally, the
Auditor General would have certified the costing methods used
as being reasonable.
The taxpayer is tired of discovering years after the
implementation period of the waste of their money. I would like
to quote from the Auditor General's report of 1993 concerning
the previous gun registration system that is only a couple of
years old: ``We found several weaknesses in the methodology,
which significantly reduce the extent to which the government,
members of Parliament and the Canadian public can rely on the
evaluation to be assured that the gun control program is
effective''.
I am afraid we are about to repeat the errors of the past. I note
it has been stated that the proposed new registration system may
cost $85 million. However, there is great confusion. The current
registration system for handguns costs $60 million per year and
includes only 560,000 handguns. There are a minimum of five to
six million long guns in Canada.
I have a study here by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser
University that states it could cost $82 per firearm, $496
million, or half a billion dollars. It has been suggested the first
year be free to encourage registration. However the taxpayer
knows that nothing is free. In studying budget projections, I can
see no allocation of funding in the Department of Justice's
budget for this program. We need a better fix on how much this
program is going to cost.
(1735 )
The taxpayer has the right to know this now. Clearly we can no
longer afford the luxury of introducing programs for which we
do not know the cost. The taxpayer wants to see better fiscal
responsibility and in some ways we have done that in the recent
budget.
This leads me to the second part of my analysis, which is the
study of the benefits of the system. Benefits would have to be
clear and obvious. They would have to promote the common
good. They would have to demonstrate that there was clear
correlation between registration and the intended results.
At this point I found gun owners generally reasoned people.
They have tried to understand why the registration system is
thought to be needed and so important today. I would further like
to point out that a democratic society is judged not on how it
treats its majorities but rather how it treats its minorities.
It is clear to me that the opinions of the majority who do not
know the facts are of questionable validity. Most surveys would
indicate that the average person is more concerned about crime
control than gun registration.
I further note that both gun owners and taxpayers generally
are a minority in this debate. It is clear to me that without
convincing a sizeable portion of their numbers of the
effectiveness and affordability, the registration system will fail.
Here are the stated goals as I understand them of the
registration system: that it will allow firearms removal from
domestic violence situations; that it will afford law enforcement
agents better information when approaching a household for
investigation purposes; that it will lead to safer storage
practices.
My time today will not let me deal with these issues at length,
however the result is that it is totally unclear whether some of
these objectives are not already available in the current law and
are not being enforced or whether the objectives can be met at all
with the registration system for long guns.
I can find no clear documentary evidence from the justice
department that makes this case. If I cannot make this leap of
faith, neither can long gun owners. This is the real danger of the
legislation, that we are placing a sizeable group of people in the
category of believing that the system is unwarranted. They see
the imposition of fees as an unwarranted tax, the proceeds of
which will be wasted on further bureaucracy with no tangible
results.
I spoke earlier about the concerns of taxpayers. Needless to
say gun owners are taxpayers. I said that they wanted to revisit
their contract with government. Do we have examples of where
people believe taxing systems exist without consent and how
they have reacted? We have only to look at the dreaded goods
and services tax, clearly a tax that lacked common consent.
A recent study by the accounting firm Peat Marwick
concluded that over 50 per cent of taxpayers would avoid paying
this tax if given the opportunity. Police officers in my riding
have avoided giving minor speeding tickets because they
believe that the three-price increase in one year is just an
unwarranted form of taxation on the working class.
The conclusion is that we are developing a system of justice in
Canada where people pick and choose the laws they are
governed by. This is mainly because they do not feel that they
consented to them in the first place.
10417
I do not think this system of justice is sustainable. I believe
that it will lead to chaos. Clearly our democracy must be one
of inclusion rather than exclusion. Our society is becoming
more complex and technical.
I would like to end my comments by quoting from one of our
own political philosophers, Mr. George Grant. In his book
Twilight of Justice he observed that one of the changes to a more
technical society in Canada, that the need for control of humans
in a technological society increases with the complexity of
society. Technique causes the state to become totalitarian, to
absorb the citizen's life completely.
(1740 )
Finally, the definition of liberal, which I am, is favouring
individual liberty. I hope the committee will take the time to
discuss some of these matters.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have owned firearms
off and on for more than half a century. I have been a reasonably
good citizen but now in the eyes of the Minister of Justice and
certainly in the eyes of the popular press, I have become a threat
to society, a menace to peace, order and good government.
I am going to be subjected, if these laws that are now before us
in Bill C-68 are all lumped together as one-the administrative
bureaucracy and the criminal sanctions-of running the risk of
being a common criminal. That, to my way of thinking, is
neither just nor sane.
If I or anyone else chooses to inconvenience the bureaucracy
by failing to comply with the purely administrative requirement,
the result will be a criminal record and the penalty could far
exceed that which some drunken hoodlums recently received for
murdering a harmless old man in the province of Saskatchewan.
This is absurd.
The justice minister says that he has actually separated the
administrative from the criminal because we have these two
sections in the one bill. That is smoke and mirrors if we are still
talking about draconian criminal penalties for failure to observe
an administrative law. That, in my humble opinion, does not
give separation.
I own a few firearms even today but I hardly ever hunt. I do
not belong to any shooting club. I do not belong to the NFA. If I
lost my guns tomorrow it would not make a big difference to my
lifestyle. However, I would be losing something a lot more
important than hardware. I would be losing a big piece of my
civil liberty.
The justice minister says that the right to own a particular type
of property, firearms, is really just a privilege. I submit that
Canada's top lawyer has an unbelievably feeble grasp of history
and of the common law. Omission from the British North
America Act or the charter of rights and freedoms does not mean
that a right does not exist. Our legal system is based on British
common law and on the sanctity of customary rights.
When Sir William Blackstone codified the common law he
noted that every individual has certain absolute rights, including
the right to personal security, personal liberty and the right to
own and use property. Does that sound familiar? American
revolutionaries did not invent those concepts. They merely
enshrined in their constitution the rights which as Englishmen
they already had.
Blackstone went on to list five auxiliary rights without which
the absolute rights could not be protected and maintained. One
of them was the right to own personal arms. When Americans
passed their famous second amendment to the constitution, their
right to bear arms, it was only a modest extension of a right
which they had before the revolution.
In Great Britain there has been a steady chipping away at this
right, starting in 1870 and accelerating after the first world war.
It was supposedly because of the threat from Bolshevik or
anarchist terrorists. However, just as in Canada today, public
hysteria was fanned by the government and, just as in Canada,
laws have become progressively more intrusive, complex and
downright repressive. Today they have almost achieved the
justice minister's ideal where only police, soldiers and the
trusted elite of society have legal firearms. However, there is no
shortage of firepower in the U.K.
(1745 )
A few months ago I talked with a Scottish gun dealer and he
told me that Great Britain is awash with guns. You can buy one
faster and more easily in a pub than from him, and cheaper
because there is no tax.
What is accomplished as gun laws are made tougher and
tougher? What affect does the hassle and the expensive
bureaucracy have on crime? Very little.
I have reviewed firearms legislation and crime statistics from
various states south of the border and from several other
countries. Now I am going to bore the House with some of the
dull facts that the justice department's social engineers
cheerfully ignore.
Consider the prairie provinces. Since gun controls began in
1978, the annual homicide rate has averaged about 3.2 per
100,000 people, of which about one-third are committed with
guns.
In the four border states of Minnesota, North Dakota,
Montana and Idaho the rate was 2.7 per 100,000. That is 16 per
cent less. Those are all wide open. The justice minister would
probably say those are lawless states where you can own and
carry almost anything short of a bazooka.
The District of Columbia, with the most stringent controls of
any North American jurisdiction except Mexico has the
unbelievably high murder rate of 80 per 100,000 per year, the
highest
10418
in the western world. How can there possibly be such problems
where guns are strictly controlled?
Maybe it has something to do with cultural and economic
forces. Maybe it has something to do with organized crime, drug
dealing, racial tension, grinding miserable poverty and a
collapsed public education system.
Gun control is an artificially induced smoke screen. It is a
cynical ploy to distract the public from the real issues, not the
least of which is the breakdown of our criminal justice system.
The government helped create this highly emotional issue and
now it is playing it for all it is worth. This issue has absolutely
no relation to crime control and it is absurd that the justice
minister has made the mixture. It is a lot easier to make
scapegoats of decent citizens than it is to admit that our justice
system is misdirected.
To give the devil his due, this bill does contain some good
features actually aimed at criminals instead of ordinary citizens;
the four-year minimum sentence for violent offences
committed with a firearm, for example, although those
receiving this penalty will still be eligible for parole.
In 1978, I told anyone who would listen that we had started
down a long slow road to public disarmament, that future violent
crimes would serve as excuses for more bureaucracy, that
registration by serial number would follow and that the last step
would be piecemeal confiscation of weapons, picking off gun
owners one at a time. It is all coming true.
Half a million handguns are going to be effectively
confiscated, no matter how the minister tries to sugar coat his
proposal. Confiscation of registered long guns will begin, as it is
already begun with handguns, through a process of natural
evolution and will probably be spurred by some horrendous
crime such as the Montreal massacre.
Public hysteria is a wonderful tool for government. Early in
1941, before Pearl Harbour, the Government of Canada
confiscated the arms of Canadians of Japanese origin living on
the west coast. Remember, we were not at war and these were
Canadians, but their guns were taken away.
The political establishment was delighted and the tame
establishment press bayed its approval, just as it is baying its
approval for the proposals on the table in the House today.
(1750 )
This bill is a classic example of the theory of government
which states that everything not compulsory shall be forbidden.
It is a bit of statism, and a bit of statism, like a bit of cancer, is
not good for you.
James Madison said it best: ``There are more instances of the
abridgement of freedom of people by gradual and silent
encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations''.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's
debate on second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons.
Canada has had a long history in the monitoring and
controlling of firearms. Canada has had laws restricting the
possession and the use of firearms since 1877. These were a
nationwide permit system for the carrying of small arms in
effect in 1892. All handguns have had to be registered since
1934. In 1951 a centralized registry for restricted firearms was
established under the control of the commissioner of the RCMP.
The classification system of prohibitive weapons and
restricted weapons including all handguns and non-restricted
long guns was introduced in 1968. This scheme was
significantly enhanced by a number of amendments in 1977. The
major addition was the creation of the firearms acquisition
certificate, FAC, a screening system for those wishing to acquire
any firearm including non-restricted hunting rifles and
shotguns.
A new administrative regime involving local firearms
officers and chief provincial firearms officers appointed by the
provinces was also established. Currently the provinces
administer the FAC system and most overall gun control. This
regime was relatively untouched for over 11 years until the
passage of Bill C-17 which received royal assent on December
5, 1991.
To my knowledge the last set of regulations pertaining to Bill
C-17 came into force on January 1, 1994 and prescribed the
criteria for competence in the safe handling and use of firearms.
Barely a year after the implementation of Bill C-17's last set of
regulations members are being asked to consider yet another
firearms bill.
I propose to offer my comments on what I consider the
positive aspects of Bill C-68. I will also offer my opinions on
the parts of this bill which require more consideration by the
justice committee and I will give my reasons as to why certain
sections of this bill should be deleted in their entirety.
The most positive feature of this bill is its no nonsense
approach to the criminal use of firearms. To that extent I applaud
the proposals to create new offences for the criminal use of
firearms, including the minimum four-year sentence for using a
firearm in the commission of violent offences and the minimum
mandatory sentence of one year for the use of a replica firearm,
mandatory jail sentences for the possession of stolen firearms
and stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in
firearms.
10419
For years Canadians from all walks of life have been
demanding stiffer mandatory sentencing provisions for the use
of a firearm in the commission of violent offences. Bill C-68
addresses this concern. Mandatory sentencing provisions for
the use of a firearm while committing one of the 10 key violent
offences of attempted murder, manslaughter, negligence
causing death, robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual
assault, aggravated sexual assault, extortion and discharging a
firearm within intent to cause harm will be increased from one
to four years. Offenders convicted of these offences will also
be prohibited from possessing a restricted weapon for life.
I am concerned that section 85 charges might continue to be
plea bargained away notwithstanding an increase in minimum
sentencing provisions. The justice department's own research
shows that two-thirds of section 85 charges laid are either
dismissed, stayed or withdrawn because of problems of
evidence or plea bargaining.
Bill C-68 also creates a new prohibitive category consisting
of certain calibre handguns with a barrel length of 105
millimetres or less. In effect this will result in the prohibition of
58 per cent of the handguns currently in existence in Canada.
Like all other owners of prohibited firearms, individuals who
possessed these handguns on or before February 14, 1995 will be
able to buy and sell only among themselves. Owners of these
handguns will be able to use the handguns for the purpose for
which they were originally obtained, whether target shooting or
collecting. They will be required to demonstrate every five
years that their handguns continue to be so used.
(1755)
These measures are a definite improvement over the action
plan of November 30, 1994 which had contemplated a complete
prohibition against any use or trade in these prohibited firearms.
To his credit, the Minister of Justice has announced his
willingness to have the justice committee consider whether
handguns in the prohibited class that are used in recognized
target shooting competitions should be exempted from the ban.
I am also grateful that the minister has asked the committee to
examine the whole question of whether there might be a separate
exemption provision for firearms that may have special
significance to families as relics or heirlooms.
The minister has also suggested that the committee study the
issue of whether technical amendments are necessary for
historical re-enactments or heritage events using black powder
reproduction firearms.
In each of these cases the Minister of Justice is to be
commended for his flexibility. I am deeply disappointed,
however, that the minister has remained steadfast in his
insistence upon the establishment of a national registration
system for all firearms, including non-restricted hunting rifles
and shotguns.
Bill C-68 includes provisions for the initiation of universal
firearms owner registration where the current FAC will be
replaced with a graduated firearms possession certificate, FPC,
starting in 1996. Although initially voluntary, by the year 2001
possession of any firearm without an FPC will result in a
Criminal Code offence that would carry a sentence of up to five
years, one year in excess of the mandatory term proposed for the
offence of using a firearm while attempting to murder.
As the second half of the proposed universal registration
system, the bill would require every Canadian to register his or
her firearm individually. Each firearm is to be identified by
make, model, manufacturer's serial number and other
identifiers, and a special firearms registration card, FRC, is to
be issued for each firearm registered.
We should not be surprised that law-abiding firearms owners
are deeply resentful over this registration proposal, which can
only be described as intrusive and cumbersome. As more and
more makes and models of various types of firearms are either
reclassified for regulation or banned outright, we cannot blame
some firearms owners for suspecting that the real reason behind
registration is a gradual confiscation of most firearms in
Canada. Over half of the current legally owned handguns in
Canada will be banned as a result of Bill C-68.
It should be obvious by now that criminals do not register
their firearms. A universal firearms registry, even if it were fully
subscribed to by all legal firearms owners, will not reduce
criminal activity involving firearms, nor will it improve public
safety. Neither law-abiding firearms owners nor other taxpayers
deserve to be burdened with any expense or inconvenience that
has no demonstrable effect on reducing crime or improving
community safety.
Canadians want tougher measures to be taken to reduce crime.
This bill addresses that through mandatory sentencing for the
use of firearms in the commission of violent crime.
During the third week of November 1994, when Decima
Research asked on behalf of Maclean's and CTV what the main
reason for the increase in violent crimes is, the greatest number
of responses, 40 per cent, said the justice system is too lenient.
Only 5 per cent of the over 1,600 respondents said that a lack of
tough gun controls was the cause.
Non-firearm owning Canadians are beginning to understand
that additional gun controls will only serve to penalize
responsible firearms owners unnecessarily and will not reduce
crime. The minister insists that a new registration system is the
support structure for the government's firearms control
package.
10420
I quote from a February 14 news release from the Department
of Justice: ``A universal registration system will help combat
smuggling by monitoring the types and quantities of firearms
coming into Canada''. How can that be so when by definition
smuggling involves evading the very authorities that would be
doing the monitoring at Canadian borders?
If we are prepared to spend more money on gun control, let us
spend it wisely. It has been suggested by the solicitor general of
Ontario that a national task force on firearms smuggling be set
up at key border points. I strongly support this proposal. A well
co-ordinated task force involving all levels of police forces,
additional customs officers and the support of all three levels of
government would yield real results in the reduction of
smuggled firearms into this country. That is where the real
problem exists. It is not in the continued harassment of
law-abiding firearms owners.
(1800)
I sincerely hope the justice committee will insist upon an
objective, dispassionate examination of the utility of a national
registration system as set out in the bill. I hope that at the end of
its study it would conclude that the current system requiring a
firearms acquisition certificate is more than adequate and that if
anything has to be done to curb the criminal use of firearms, the
work has to be done at Canada's borders and in our court rooms.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased today to stand in the House to speak on the Reform
motion to split Bill C-68. It reads:
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 concur with the motion and I encourage members opposite to
support Reform in the motion to split the bill.
I will read an excerpt from a letter from a constituent, Mr. Ole
Raasok of Irma, Alberta. He specifically asked me to mention
his name and to read his letter if I had the opportunity. He wrote:
I was living in Norway when the Germans invaded our country in April 1940
and took control of government in June 1940 after Norway's capitulation.
In the fall of 1940 all gun owners were ordered to register their shotguns and
rifles if they wished to hunt. As law-abiding citizens wanting to hunt, we were
dumb enough to register our guns.
I am reading from a letter sent to me by a constituent who was
raised in Norway and who experienced registration. I encourage
all members opposite to listen carefully to what this gentleman
has to say. I believe we should not make light of individuals who
have had similar experiences. He continued:
The following year we received an order to deliver all of our guns to the police.
There was no use in trying to hide them because the guns were already registered
and the government had the numbers. The guns were never returned and no
compensation was made for them. I believe this is the hon. justice minister's plan.
I became a lieutenant in the reserve army before I immigrated to Canada in
1951. In that capacity I had full command over 160 men who all had their own
weapons in their homes. There was never any talk of registration or permits to
transport or use guns. Statistics show that Norway has one of the lowest criminal
use of firearms in the world.
I have read only part of the letter from my constituent. I have
heard many members opposite say that any idea or any
suggestion by Canadians that registration and tougher gun
control would lead to confiscation is ridiculous.
Whether it is the intention of the government to move to
confiscation after registration, I have no idea. I would tend to
think not. However I believe it is healthy for people in a
democracy to have a certain level of distrust for government.
My constituent has seen the effect of not having a healthy
level of distrust. I ask hon. members opposite to understand that
many Canadians have this concern. Some do not trust this
government and others will not trust future governments. It is
important to listen to these concerns and it is important in a
democracy to have a certain level of distrust.
(1805)
History has shown that Norway is a prime example that
registration leads to confiscation. Is this what the minister has in
mind for Canadians? This question is often asked of me in my
constituency. It was not just every now and again but every day
over the past 10 days. Every single day I had constituents ask me
whether the minister had in mind confiscation after registration.
Earlier statements made by the minister suggested that he
would prefer to have guns only in the hands of the police and the
armed forces. The statement was made shortly after the House
started sitting about a year ago.
I fully support the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville because it will separate the so-called crime
bill into two different parts. It is logical to split the bill because
we are dealing with two different issues. On the one hand is the
aspect of targeting crime and on the other hand is the anti-gun
sentiment of the legislation which I do not support. The motion
is necessary because it focuses on the real problem of crime.
We as members of the Reform Party support a crime bill. We
support measures that would get tougher in dealing with the
criminal use of firearms, including penalties for smuggling.
10421
However we do not support targeting law-abiding Canadians
simply because they own guns.
From day one Reformers stated that legitimate law-abiding
gun owners were not the problem but rather that the problem
stemmed from the criminal use of guns in the commission of
crime. We need to ask why the minister has chosen to put these
two parts of the issue together in the same bill. While I cannot
answer the question for certain I believe it is a legitimate
question. When we consider that Canada already has some of the
toughest gun control laws in the world it is particularly an
appropriate question.
To link tougher gun control to crime fighting might sound
politically appealing, but there is no statistical evidence to
support the legitimacy of the idea. If the minister could provide
us with some evidence we would not oppose the original
legislation. The reality is that he cannot provide the information
because it does not exist.
Several constituents have come to me saying that they had
written a letter to the Minister of Justice asking specifically for
any evidence he might have to show that more gun control would
do anything to help prevent crimes committed with guns and to
show that a registration system would prevent even one death.
So far none of the constituents have had an answer to their
letters. That is a shame. It is a serious question and they are not
getting the answer.
Another concern has been raised often in my constituency
concerning the computer system that will be set up to
accommodate the central registry. The concern of my
constituents in this regard is about the central registry and a
hacker accessing the system.
We know hackers are very capable. They have accessed
military secrets in the United States. They can get the names and
use them in two ways. First, they can be used to find the
locations of large collections of guns so that they can be more
easily stolen. Second, criminals could determine from the lists
where easy targets for break and enter may exist, where they feel
the guns are not there and therefore they are easy targets.
My constituents have many other questions over past weeks
and indeed over the past year. However I will close by saying
that I would like answers from the minister to the two areas of
concern expressed by my constituents. I do not believe he can
give an answer in terms of the motive behind the registry, not
necessarily the minister's motive but the motive of future
governments. Also there is the possibility of the computer
system being broken into and guns being stolen or a break and
enter taking place.
(1810)
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the member's time has
expired.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House this evening to address a matter that has attracted a
great deal of concern in my constituency of Huron-Bruce.
On November 30, 1994 the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada announced the government's action plan on
firearms control. This was a series of proposals designed to
generate comments and constructive criticism from Canadians
so they might have an equal partnership in forming the bill
before the House today.
The people of Huron-Bruce seized the opportunity to
comment on the issue, causing my Parliament Hill and
constituency offices to be flooded with thousands of calls,
letters and visits.
Among the proposals was a mandatory minimum sentence of
four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition against
possession of a restricted weapon when convicted of committing
any one of or a combination of ten specific offences with a
firearm. Among those offences, attempted murder, armed
robbery and sexual assault with a weapon were included. Also
included in the proposals were new Criminal Code offences with
strict new penalties for illegal importing and trafficking
firearms, enhanced border controls with improved inspections,
and permit requirements for import, export and in transit
shipments of firearms within Canada.
I take this opportunity to commend the minister for putting
forth the aforementioned crime control measures. I would
however like to draw attention to Bill C-68, an act respecting
firearms and other weapons that is currently being debated in the
House.
The act encompasses most of the original proposals released
by the justice department, including a new mandatory
registration system and a ban on a variety of specific handguns
and replica weapons. As I have mentioned before, the proposals
prompted a massive outcry in my constituency. In response I
have spoken and met with many groups and individuals in an
attempt to acquire an understanding of their views.
The process has allowed me to speak directly with my
constituents, thus giving me a good understanding of their
thoughts and views. As an avid hunter and sportsman I am
pleased to recognize the government taking the initiative to
punish individuals for the illegal use of firearms. However I am
not able to support further restrictions being placed on the
legitimate and safe gun owner.
Bill C-68 is a bill that resulted from many tragic events in
recent Canadian history such as the massacre at Montreal's
École polytechnique in 1989 and a recent drive-by shooting in
Ottawa. The events have fuelled the fires of public demands for
changes to the Criminal Code with respect to the illegal use of
firearms.
10422
The most recent package of gun control measures is known
collectively as Bill C-17. The process of putting the legal
aspects of the bill into place has only now just begun. Unless
the new law is successfully implemented the changes contained
in the legislation run the risk of becoming little more than
symbolic gestures by the government to satisfy public opinion.
Good policy development and the delivery of adequate laws
also include effective implementation and enforcement. There
has not been enough time for the regulations contained in Bill
C-17 to be fully realized. Thus the effectiveness of the
regulations is also not fully understood. One can therefore
reason that if this is true it is also too early to impose or evaluate
the effectiveness of further controls such as a national
registration system that would require more time and would
place further stress on the already sparse financial resources of
the nation's taxpayer.
There are clear constraints in public funding when it comes to
our police forces that are already responsible for protecting our
citizens under other provisions of the Criminal Code. It has been
estimated by the justice department that implementation of a
registration system could cost up to $85 million with an annual
maintenance cost of $10 million, not considering annual
increases.
Public safety will only be endangered if we dilute our
resources. As a result we as members of Parliament must take
care in allocating the limited funds we have in this area to ensure
they are spent in the most effective and practical way possible.
It must be reiterated that gun control only plays a small role in
our overall criminal justice system. Other aspects of the
Criminal Code need to be fortified to effectively combat violent
criminal activities.
As a legitimate gun owner I am already subjected to a large
number of controls. By law, to purchase a firearm I must
complete a firearm acquisition certificate course, pass a formal
examination and submit to a thorough police examination of my
social, employment and psychological history. I must also
provide the police with character references that they can
investigate to ensure I will use my firearms in a responsible
manner. In addition, there is a mandatory 28-day waiting period
before I receive my FAC with picture identification.
(1815)
If I wish to hunt, I must first pass a mandatory hunting course
which covers firearm handling and safety. I must then also
submit to a provincially regulated test which further reiterates
these points.
In addition to these regulations, the province of Ontario has
strict ammunition purchasing regulations in effect. Once I have
the gun and the legal ability to hunt, I must then adhere to
stringent laws regarding separate storage of the firearm and the
ammunition under lock and key, rigid transportation standards
and tough guidelines for using firearms.
This clearly demonstrates how heavily the legitimate gun
owners are already regulated. These regulations, like all gun
control regulations, are very difficult to enforce. The police
simply cannot search each household to see if these rules are
being observed.
The UN estimates that firearm owners represent
approximately 27 per cent of the Canadian population or seven
million people owning up to 27 million firearms which is
considerably more than what people are telling us in most of this
debate.
Perhaps the government should concentrate its efforts on
implementing innovative and cost effective methods of
enforcing the laws currently in place. One such example could
be a community based group of gun owners checking the homes
of other gun owners in their area. This would alleviate the
suspicions that many Canadians have of government intrusion in
their daily lives and would assist in the enforcement of the safe
storage aspects of Bill C-17.
Third, I would argue that crime control would be a more
effective method of obtaining further public security. We must
punish the criminal element and leave the law-abiding citizens
alone. Firearms owners possess and use their firearms in a safe
and responsible manner and do not contribute to crime or violent
death and injury statistics.
In addition, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports
that in 1991 two-thirds of all accused murderers were known to
have criminal records, the majority for previous violent
offences, and were already prohibited from legally owning or
acquiring a firearm.
To further illustrate my point of the small number of firearms
involved in deaths in this country, I would offer the fact that in
1991 only one person out of every 400,000 Canadians died as a
result of a fatal gun accident compared to one person out of
every 14,000 who died as a result of a fall. I am suggesting that
we have adequate controls in place but we are simply not
enforcing them.
Under Bill C-17 all firearms are required to be trigger locked
in a locked cabinet separate from the ammunition. An analysis
of fatal gun accidents in the United States could not locate even
one instance where a child victim or shooter discovered a locked
gun, unlocked it and shot themselves or someone else. Studies
also indicate that at least one-half of all accidental shootings
involved the consumption of alcohol just prior to the incident.
How will the registration system prevent this from occurring?
Canadians must bear the responsibility of using their firearms
in a responsible manner. The Government of Canada should not
be asked to shoulder this burden. We must congratulate firearms
owners in this nation for their initiatives into the area of the safe
handling of firearms, not condemn them for their efforts. In
10423
Canada, while firearm ownership has increased, the accidental
death rate has reduced by 80 per cent between 1986 and 1991.
In conclusion, people are demanding that we take action to
further protect them from violent crime and other illegal
activities present in certain areas of our society. The problem
that the minister and indeed the entire government faces is the
question of what response is most appropriate.
In his recent report, the Auditor General expressed concerns
over the lack of evidence to justify the fact that the Canadian
government passed more gun control legislation between 1977
and 1995 than in the entire preceding 50 years. The Auditor
General also questioned the enforceability of the laws contained
in Bill C-17. He also expressed anxiety over the lack of
uniformity across the country regarding the FAC screening
system.
These concerns are only a few expressed by the Auditor
General and others concerned with this issue. I call upon the
minister to consider the Auditor General's comments and the
comments of all Canadians. Hunters and collectors compose a
large part of our population and generate revenue for our
economy each year through licensing fees, conservation efforts
and the recreational hunting industry.
Canada's first explorers were from Europe, coureurs des bois
who served the vital function of opening the new world to
settlers. Hunting and responsible gun ownership is an intricate
part of our rich heritage.
I suggest to the minister and to the House that firearms can
co-exist with all Canadians in an allegorical guns and roses
relationship respecting individual rights and privileges without
further imposing unnecessary, cumbersome and expensive
regulations on legitimate firearms owners and our nation's
finances. The process must begin here with us.
(1820 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course I
would like to see support for the amendment to split this bill.
That is the way we should proceed.
I received some information with regard to the registration
system recommended by the minister. The minister has said
both inside and outside this House that it is going to be a
simplified system, that it is going to place a tool in the hands of
the law enforcement agencies to help them do their job and
maintain a safer society. All the law-abiding gun owner will
have to do is pick up a card at the post office or one of the stores
in his or her community, fill in the make, model and serial
number of their firearm and mail the card in.
Last week I visited three of the RCMP forensic laboratories
and spoke with their technical experts on this matter. Either the
information they have is not getting through to the minister or he
is ignoring it. When I asked them about this concept of having
the gun owner fill in a card and send it in, they laughed.
I also found out that these labs have what they call a standard
collection of firearms, meaning they are one of a kind. No two
firearms are the same in the collection. These standard
collections are in every one of their labs across the country.
In this one lab the technicians had examined the long guns of
which there were just under a thousand. They found that 20 per
cent of those firearms did not have serial numbers and 1.7 per
cent could not be identified.
I do not know how the justice minister is going to create a
registration system when 20 per cent of a standard collection
that is fairly representative of the firearms in this country do not
have serial numbers. How are we going to register a firearm that
does not have a serial number?
When I asked these questions the technicians' response was
that they would have to be brought in. Brought in where? To the
labs that do not as yet have but would have the technology to
handle the thousands of firearms that would have to be brought
in.
Already they are examining the feasibility of what form and
what type of system ought to be used to place a serial number on
a firearm. Certainly it is going to cost more than $10 a firearm.
Certainly it is not going to impose a simple constraint on a gun
owner to fill out a form. I ask the minister, how in the world can
a serial number be written on a card if there is no serial number
on the gun?
I was also told that many firearms in this country are over 100
years old. A firearm does not wear out. A firearm is usually
maintained fairly well by the owner. Many of those firearms do
not have the manufacturer's name, the calibre, or any
identifying marks other than perhaps a model number or a serial
number.
I was shown a firearm that had been imported from Russia.
There are thousands of them in Canada, according to the
information given to me. All it has on it is a serial number
consisting of two Russian letters and three numbers. There is not
the calibre, the make or any other identifying features on that
firearm.
(1825)
If we are going to develop a registration system which is truly
going to be a workable and a valuable tool in the hands of our
law enforcement agencies, we had better take a careful look at
what we are going to do.
It is important, proper and wise that we consider the
amendment before the House now. If the minister will consider
splitting this bill, let us put our efforts together to devise a bill
directed at the criminal use of firearms. If there are people who
honestly and sincerely believe that universal registration will
help, let us examine it before we go forward. Let us not hurry
10424
into something that our technicians are telling us will not work
and will certainly cost a lot more than $85 million to establish.
I ask the minister if he would consider these proposals. This
kind of information is going to be laid, lock, stock and barrel,
before the standing committee, through witness after witness we
will bring forward, from either the RCMP or the city police
forces from across this country which have to deal with the
problem. They are now faced with a situation in which they have
to give a legal opinion in court instead of a technical opinion. I
will give the House an example.
If the minister goes forward and creates an offence for a
person in possession of a handgun based upon its calibre, such as
the .32 and the .25, that will create a serious problem. The
reason for that is simple. Although the offence, the charge, the
information in court will indicate that the individual is in
violation of a section by virtue of the fact that they are in
possession of a .32 calibre, all the defence counsel has to do is
ask the technical witness about the calibre of the handgun?
Although marked on its side that it is a .32 calibre, the
definition of calibre, according to these technicians, is not what
is marked on the side, but by the size of the projectile it fires.
The .32 calibre, according to them, fires a .30 calibre projectile.
I asked them what they would say on the witness stand when
asked about the calibre. They said they would simply tell the
court that it is designed as a .32, its markings are that of a .32,
but it fires a .30 calibre projectile and they would let the judge
decide. If they had respond yes or no to whether the firearm is
.32 calibre, they said they would not respond. I asked them if
they have ever considered a career in politics.
My point is that there are a host of technical difficulties.
When it comes to placing the identifying features from a firearm
on to a registration card that the police will be able to identify
without question, if they come across an individual with a
firearm in the back seat of a car or in the trunk of a car for
example, they are not going to be able to positively identify that
firearm.
All we have to do is look at the Terence Wade report in which
he outlined the problems within the present handgun
registration system. Approximately 30 per cent of the
information contained in that system is simply useless.
I understand from some of the legal opinions I am hearing that
soon the challenges in court will render the handgun registration
system invalid within a court of law because it cannot be relied
upon.
(1830 )
There are so many different types of firearms that we are
going to have an extreme degree of difficulty registering them to
the point at which the registration card issued can identify one
specific firearm out of the 7 million to 20 million that exist in
Canada today.
I point out difficulties that the registration system will have.
It flies in the face of what the justice minister has said in terms
of simplicity.
If it is going to be as simple as the justice minister has
indicated, then it is not going to be worth the powder to blow it
in the hands of the police officers as an enforcement tool.
Let us take a look at this. Let us go forward with the portion
directed at the criminal use of firearms. Let us take a second
look at the other part.
The Deputy Speaker: According to the rules there is a
six-minute extension of the debate because of the statement
made earlier.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, having served on the committee and being a member of
the wildlife federation and coming from a rural riding of
Saskatchewan, I am very concerned with the bill in its present
form.
I support the minister with regard to the criminal element, the
four-year mandatory sentence for the commission of a crime
with a firearm. The use of a fake firearm in the commission of a
crime and a one-year mandatory sentence I support
wholeheartedly. Those actions that would take into
consideration smuggling and other offences involving guns and
other illegal activities I support wholeheartedly.
However, I have some strong reservations with regard to
registration. If I am going to ask the citizens of Souris-Moose
Mountain or any other area to spend $85 million, we have to
consider what we are going to do for that cost.
I am prepared to register. I have owned guns all my life. I am a
wildlife member and a firearms safety instructor. I was never
impressed with the FAC formed some years ago. Now we have a
four-page document. The government might as well have made
it 30 pages and we could have had a light history of each of us as
we own handguns.
In Saskatchewan most of the people who own handguns
handle them safely, especially those who are members of
handgun clubs. They have to adhere to all the rules and
regulations.
As wildlife members we have to make sure that under Bill
C-17 we store our guns and ammunition properly. We do have a
responsibility to one another. As a hunter, in order for me to go
on any other person's land I have to respect it. That is a
privilege, not a right.
Many of us think it is a right and not very many farmers post
their land because they expect that each of us going on that land
does respect each other's property.
10425
However, within the framework of the legislation as it comes
forward, the reservations I have are that if we impose the
opportunity for someone to enter into my home and check to
see whether I have certain compliances, I would rather they do
that with a search warrant.
Make no mistake. Legislation is not easy but it is all
encompassing. Friends of mine have smaller barrelled guns that
are virtually at the end of their time. They have spent great
amounts of money on them and treasure them as relics. Those
will now go to the criminal element because they will not
register them or they will have to get rid of them.
(1835)
If we are going to confiscate, compensate. People would
accept that. When I was on the committee I did not say anything
about handguns. I think we have to very careful of the direction
we take in this regard.
I am very concerned. Rather than speaking to the media, this
is the place where we should exercise our opportunity as
members of this House on both sides to speak very clearly about
how we feel.
I do not believe I would gain any points by going before the
news media, trying to unravel where we are going. I credit the
minister and the justice committee will review both the
directions of my friends opposite and members on our side.
I will have the opportunity to vote against this bill. I cannot
support it in its present form. However, that does not mean to say
that I will not take a look at the changes that will come forward
and address them to see if they meet the needs of the Canadians I
represent.
I appreciate the opportunity to be frank and honest about a bill
that I know the minister has great concern for, and great concern
for all Canadians. Let us take a look at the changes and let us
register our concern and our final judgment on it.
_____________________________________________
10425
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
1, in a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I
objected to the $975 fee announced in the budget that will be
charged to anyone who wishes to immigrate to Canada, in
addition to the $500 they have to pay to have their file processed
by immigration officers.
Canada is now one of the most expensive immigration
countries. This unfair and unacceptable decision adds to the
incredible increase in all fees connected with immigration and
citizenship. By the same token, I want to condemn office
closures and personnel cuts at the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration and the drastic reduction in the number of IRB
commissioners.
These exorbitant fees are the equivalent of several months or
even a year's wages for immigrants from poor countries.
Refugees could not even afford to pay $500, so how could they
pay an additional $975? Most of them arrive in Canada without
any money. Sometimes they lost everything they had in their
country of origin. When they arrive here, they have to get winter
clothes, food and accommodation for their families. This tax is
cruel and inhumane.
With this measure, how can Canada claim to honour this
country's humanitarian tradition with respect to displaced or
persecuted persons, as specified in the Immigration Act?
Furthermore, the vast majority of refugees throughout the world
are women and children. This measure will make sponsorship
and family reunification even more difficult.
I want to take this opportunity to condemn the treatment of
refugees scheduled for deportation at the Malton detention
centre near the airport in Toronto. Last Wednesday, a citizen of
Uruguay who was to be deported had to be taken to hospital after
he tried to commit suicide. I mentioned the case of twelve
people of Hispanic origin who were ill treated.
(1840)
I again want to ask the minister to investigate these
allegations and to deal with those who are responsible for this
very serious and unacceptable situation.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, newcomers
to Canada have access to the universal social programs that are
paid for by all Canadians.
Immigrants and refugees also have access to our extensive
integration and settlement services, the best in the world. The
cost of these programs is $271 million a year, a great part of
which goes to the province of Quebec. We are talking about
language training, assistance in job searches and help for
families enrolling their children in schools. The list goes on.
Canadians have told us through consultations that they want
those who derive benefits from Canada's wide range of
programs and services to help pay for them. Refugees and
immigrants have said they want to help as well.
We recognize that not everyone will be able to afford the fee.
For that reason we have created a new loan option that will
enable refugees to get the financial assistance they need. Like
10426
the loan option for travel, we expect that they will repay those
loans at the 95 per cent rate at which they repay the others.
Newcomers to Canada make an investment in their future, a
Canadian future, and this is a small price to pay for living in the
best country in the world.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on March 3 in question period I brought to the
attention of the House the report of the federal environmental
assessment panel which reviewed low level military training
flights in Labrador and Quebec. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000
low level training flights a year are currently being conducted
out of Canadian forces base Goose Bay.
These flights are allowed under a 10-year multilateral
memorandum of understanding agreement signed by Canada
and the NATO allies which expires in 1996. The assessment
panel report recommends that the government accept the
Department of National Defence proposal to negotiate a new
agreement that would more than double the number of flights,
establish a new practice bombing range and expand the flight
training area.
This would effectively concentrate the flights over traditional
lands that have been used and occupied by the Innu nation for
more than 9,000 years. After 10 years of experience observing
the effects of these flights, the Innu contend that the noise
adversely affects the wildlife, especially caribou, which they
rely on for food.
The noise also causes the Innu mental and physical stress and
disrupts their culture and traditional way of life. Many Innu
boycotted the hearings because they felt these concerns as well
as issues relating to aboriginal rights and land claims
negotiations were not being adequately dealt with by the panel.
Although the panel did not adequately address the issues
raised by aboriginal people, it did acknowledge that research
concerning environmental effects on the flights was lacking. On
this point the report is very clear: ``So little is known about
much of the wildlife in the training areas and the effects of
overflights on them over the longer term that much uncertainty
and hence concern remains. As a result the panel could not draw
conclusions on the longer term effect of low level flying on the
natural systems''.
The panel therefore recommended that the project proceed
only if key conditions are met and certain issues are dealt with.
The first condition is that before a new low level flying
agreement is signed and the flights are allowed to continue, the
government must establish an independent institute to study and
monitor the effects of the flights.
The panel also recommended that as soon as possible the
government establish a joint management board for the George
River caribou herd and settle aboriginal land claims in the
affected area.
In question period the Minister of National Defence gave no
indication of whether he agrees or disagrees with the report, if
he would recommend that cabinet accept the report or what
measures the government will take to ensure that the panel's
conditions are met.
The government's own assessment panel admits the impacts
on the environment and aboriginal rights are unknown and
DND's avoidance procedures probably will not work. Does the
government think that these flights should be allowed to
continue when their effects are unknown? When one does not
know the impact of something, it may not be wise to proceed.
It is important for the Innu people whose lives will continue to
be affected by this program to know now if the government will
accept the panel's report and, if the government does accept the
recommendations in the report, what steps will be taken to
address the issues identified by the panel and ensure that its
major conditions including land claims negotiations will be met.
This is an important point, especially since it appears clear that
the provincial government of Newfoundland, because of the
land claims dispute, will not enter into land claims negotiations
with the Innu people. It is very important to know how the
Government of Canada will respond to this very important
matter.
(1845)
The government must ensure that it does not address the
economic interests of one group while ignoring the economic
interests of another.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will
perhaps recall that the Department of National Defence had
requested an environmental assessment be initiated to study the
impact of an increase in the activity of low level flights at CFB
Goose Bay.
The panel known as the FEARO panel has submitted its report
to two of my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and
the Minister of National Defence. The panel has made every
effort to hear from groups and individuals interested in putting
their views forward. It has made recommendations to the
government after considering their views.
[Translation]
The panel concluded that stopping the military flights would
be very damaging to the region's economy. It recommended that
this activity be allowed to continue, under certain conditions set
out in the report. According to the seven members of the panel,
there was little concrete evidence, at that stage, that the flights
had a substantial negative impact on the environment, human
health or the community.
10427
[English]
The federal government is now studying the advice of the
panel and will prepare a response to the panel's
recommendations. It will be made public on completion.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have a chance this afternoon to speak about the tax
system and in particular how it affects banks in Canada. I want
to lead off first of all with a comment from the ``Budget in
Brief'' or the budget itself.
I remember the Minister of Finance in his speech talked about
the fact that the government was going to get tough. It was going
to close off some loopholes. For example, the large corporation
tax rate was going to increase by 12.5 per cent. I remember my
friends on the Liberal benches were cheering at that point. There
was a a lot of applauding and actually a couple of half-effort
standing ovations.
This was a 12 per cent increase of the large corporation tax
rate. The tax rate of large corporations will rise from 0.2 per cent
to 0.22 per cent. Granted that is 12 per cent but it is a tax going
from 0.2 per cent to 0.22 per cent. Anyone who knows anything
about mathematics would say this is infinitesimal and yet
technically it is an increase. My gosh, we are hardly getting
tough when the tax rate goes from 0.2 to 0.22. Yet that is the kind
of impression the government left, that it had gone to all kinds of
trouble to close loopholes.
I am prepared to say this afternoon that the government did
not close any loopholes. Even the old family trust, the one that is
favoured and is considered the mother of all tax loopholes, is
still there. Basically it was just tinkered with and that privilege
will continue.
Let us talk about the Royal Bank. If there is one corporate
sector that is held up it is the banking sector. I want to challenge
people opposite and perhaps anyone watching to take a look at
the annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada for 1993. When
looking through this report, and granted I am not an accountant
or a tax lawyer, but I have read a lot of annual reports and
financial statements, to me it says the bank does not pay income
tax. Page after page says basically that.
When I spoke with the bank I was told that is not technically
correct. It actually pays tax. I have got to say today that the
Royal Bank does pay some tax. The Royal Bank pays all the
usual taxes that corporations pay but we have to realize that the
Royal Bank is included in a number of subsidiaries. When we
add up all of the subsidiaries which include things like Royal
Bank Mortgage Corporation, RBC Dominion Securities
Limited, Royal Trust, the Royal Bank Canada (Barbados)
Limited, the Voyageur Insurance Company and many more-the
consolidated umbrella of all of the aspects of the Royal Bank-it
does pay income tax. As a matter of fact, it paid about $509
million in 1992.
However, what we would call a bank that we go into with
tellers where we get a mortgage, a car loan or whatever, actually
lost money. Therefore, in spite of all of its fees and so on, it did
not pay income tax. It did pay a minimum corporate tax and did
pay the corporation tax of 0.2 per cent which the government has
now raised to 0.22 per cent. While the bank, including all of its
subsidiary operations did pay income tax, for clarification the
Royal Bank per se, unconsolidated, did not pay income tax.
Therein lies the difference.
Did the budget change any of that? No, it did not. As a matter
of fact, the budget changed very little of our tax system. I would
be remiss this afternoon not to say that the large share of our
accumulated debt-more than 45 per cent-comes from all of
the tax loopholes we have in the system. That is what has caused
a lot of our debt. Yet the government did not take any steps in
any substantive way to close these loopholes.
I would be interested to hear what my hon. friend has to say in
terms of whether the Royal Bank has paid income tax or not.
Remember-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance.
[Translation]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several banks reported record
profits in 1994. This has led observers to wonder whether the
banks are paying their fair share of taxes.
Banks pay a considerable amount of taxes. They pay income
tax and are subject to two federal capital taxes, including the
large corporation tax which applies to all corporations with
more than $10 million in capital, and the capital tax for large
financial institutions which acts as a minimum tax.
During the period 1991-93, the six largest banks and their
mortgage loan affiliates paid nearly $1 billion annually in
federal income tax and capital tax. The banks also pay income
tax, capital tax, property tax and other types of taxes to
provinces and municipalities.
Members are probably aware of measures that were
introduced in the last two budgets to ensure that banks, and
financial institutions generally, continue to pay their fair share
of taxes. This year's budget introduced a special tax on the
capital of large deposit institutions, including banks.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Under our rules the motion to adjourn
the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)