CONTENTS
Monday, June 12, 1995
Bill C-68. Report stage 13568
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 13568
Motions Nos. 1, 10 and 158 13568
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13568
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13570
Motions Nos. 5 and 145 13581
Division on motions in Group No. 2 deferred 13582
Motions Nos. 24, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51 and 52 13583
Motions Nos. 56, 60, 69, 70, 71 and 73 13583
Motions Nos. 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88 and 91 13584
Motions Nos. 95, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 13584
Motions Nos. 104, 105, 106 and 108. 13585
Motions Nos. 112 and 113 13585
Motions Nos. 170, 207, 215, 216, 218, 224 and 225 13585
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13588
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13589
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13591
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13591
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13591
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13591
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13591
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13592
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13592
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13592
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13592
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13592
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13592
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13593
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13593
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13594
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13594
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13594
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13594
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13594
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13594
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13595
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13595
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13595
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13595
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13596
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13596
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13596
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13597
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13597
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13597
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 13598
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13598
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13598
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13599
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of report stage and on Motions Nos. 4, 6, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41,
42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95,
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 154, 170, 207, 215, 216,
218, 224, 225, 13602
Divisions on Group No. 3 motions deferred 13609
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12 and 35 13609
Motions Nos. 134, 136 through 144, 146, 147, 163, 164, 165 and 166 13610
Motions Nos. 174 and 175 13613
Motions Nos. 176, 177 and 178 13613
Motions Nos. 185 and 186 13614
Motions Nos. 191 and 192 13614
Motions Nos. 194 and 195 13615
Motions Nos. 196 and 197 13615
Motions Nos. 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210, 212, 213 and 214 13615
Motions Nos. 220 and 221 13615
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13616
Motions Nos. 239, 240 and 241 13617
Motions Nos. 243 and 244 13617
Motions Nos. 246 and 247 13617
Motions Nos. 249 and 250 13617
Motions Nos. 252 and 253 13617
Motions Nos. 255 and 256 13618
Motions Nos. 259, 264 and 265 13618
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13629
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13631
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13633
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13636
The House resumed consideration of the motion. 13636
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 174; Nays, 48 13636
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of report stage; and of the motions in Group No. 4. 13637
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13637
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 13641
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13644
Divisions on Group No. 4 motions deferred 13644
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 38, 209, 211, 217, 219, 258, 260 and 262 13644
Divisions on Group No. 5 motions deferred 13644
Divisions on Group No. 6 motions deferred 13645
Motions Nos. 21, 22, 33, 34, 36, 47, 57, 72, 74, 80, 89, 90, 171, 172, 227 and 261 13645
Divisions on Group No. 7 motions deferred 13646
Motions Nos. 160 and 168 13647
Divisions on Group No. 8 motions deferred 13647
Motions Nos. 26, 37, 44, 46, 86, 94 and 96 13647
Divisions on Group No. 9 motions deferred 13647
Motions Nos. 30 and 31. 13647
Motions Nos. 114 to 132 13648
Motions Nos. 155, 156, 157, 161, 162 and 263 13649
Divisions on Group No. 10 motions deferred 13649
Motions Nos. 53 and 61 13649
Motions Nos. 63 and 64 13649
Motions Nos. 67 and 68 13649
Motions Nos. 75 and 83 13650
Motions Nos. 84 and 135 13650
Motions Nos. 229 and 257 13650
Divisions on Group No. 11 motions deferred 13650
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 96; Nays, 123. 13651
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 17; Nays, 209 13652
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 39; Nays, 187 13654
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 177 13655
Motion No. 167 negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 175 13656
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 86; Nays, 137 13657
Motion No. 5 agreed on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 74 13658
Motion No. 145 agreed to on division: Yeas, 153; Nays, 71. 13659
Motion Nos. 4, 6 and 154 negatived on division: Yeas, 60; Nays, 163 13660
(Motion No. 23 agreed to.) 13661
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 173 13662
Motions Nos. 50, 41, 42, 45, 87, 88, 8, 174, 187, 189, 191, 197, 199, 223, 134, 136, 146, 147, 164,
166, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 196, 202, 228, 231, 240, 13, 15, 17, 93, 102, 25, 27, 160, 31, 161,
53, 61, 66, 13662
Motion No. 78 agreed to on division: Yeas, 173; Nays,49 13663
Motions Nos. 109, 111 and 169 agreed to. 13664
Motion No. 54 agreed to on division: Yeas, 180; Nays, 42 13664
Motion No. 103 agreed to 13666
Motions Nos. 220 and 75 agreed to 13666
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 34; Nays, 189 13666
Motion No. 200, 148, 149 and 150 negatived 13667
Motion No. 184 negatived on division: Yeas, 77; Nays, 146 13667
Motions Nos. 35, 165, 239, 16, 30, and 155 negatived 13668
Motion No. 182 agreed to on division: Yeas, 195; nays, 28 13668
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 2; Nays, 220 13670
Motion No. 186 agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 71 13671
Motions Nos. 20 negatived on division: Yeas, 28; Nays, 195 13672
Motion No. 179 negatived on division: Yeas, 43; Nays, 180 13673
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 180; Nays, 43 13674
Motion No. 18 agreed to. 13674
Motion No. 21 agreed to. 13677
Motion No. 227 agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 85 13677
Motion No. 26 negatived on division: Yeas, 8; Nays, 213. 13678
Motions Nos. 32, 48 and 62 negatived 13679
Motion No. 75 agreed to on division: Yeas, 178; Nays, 43 13679
Motion for concurrence 13680
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 170; Nays, 58 13680
(Motion agreed to.) 13681
13559
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 12, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing right to know legislation for the protection of
firefighters and other public servants who, in the course of duty, are confronted
by fires or disasters involving potentially harmful substances such as toxic
chemicals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to urge the
House to support the motion. It has not been deemed votable but
nevertheless it could be voted on and passed if there were a will
to do so. The House can do this by unanimous consent. The
procedure by which resolutions or private members' bills are
deemed votable was designed so only a minimum number of
motions and bills would be votable. It was not designed in any
way to prevent more than the required amount from becoming
votable, if the House chose to do so. I urge the House to do that
today if there is a will on the government side to allow the
motion to go forward. I will explain why I think that should be
done.
I thank my seconder in this instance, the member for
Kamloops, for helping me today and also the International
Association of Firefighters with which I have worked closely
over the last little while in developing this motion, along with a
couple of others, a notification protocol for infectious diseases
and the public safety benefit.
The motion urges the government to improve the safety
regime for firefighters and other emergency response personnel.
Firefighters as well as other emergency response personnel are
often called on to risk their lives to deal with accidents and
emergencies involving highly volatile and toxic chemical
substances at great personal risk not just in the immediate sense
but also in the long term sense. Studies have shown firefighters
have higher vulnerability and a higher incidents of certain
diseases associated with exposure to these kinds of toxic
chemicals.
They need to have rapid, accurate and complete information
about these hazardous materials where lack of information can
cost lives. It is the responsibility of the federal government to
ensure all reasonable measures are taken to provide that
information. That is what this motion is about.
I take the opportunity of this debate to make a specific
proposal. If the government is looking for something it could get
behind in a concrete and practical way the passage of this motion
would create a context in which it might do so.
I will make a specific proposal for this kind of problematic
situation involving toxic substances, accidents that occur during
the transportation of hazardous materials. In other words, it is
not only with respect to transportation that these things happen
but in the transport sector we could, as I will go on to suggest,
have a pilot project.
Firefighters have been calling on the government to take the
first steps in the development of a state of the art system to
provide emergency response personnel with the information
they need by taking advantage of the latest computer
technologies and software.
This is an issue on which there is clearly little occasion for
partisan politics. I hope members from all sides of the House
will support this motion and that the government will let it come
to a vote if someone on the government side near the end of the
debate could seek unanimous consent to have this go forward. I
am not aware of any members of the House who are opposed to
this. It is after all only a motion which asks the government to
consider the advisability of it. For the House to pass this motion
would afford Transport Canada an excellent occasion to move
this important file forward.
Accidents involving hazardous materials pose a number of
special challenges to emergency response personnel. On the one
hand the consequences of not reacting quickly and in the
appropriate manner can result in the death or injury of not only
emergency personnel but of large numbers bystanders if
accidents occur in densely populated locals.
On the other hand because such accidents occur relatively
rarely, giving personnel very little experience in dealing with
such emergencies and involve highly complex chemical
compounds, it is often difficult for personnel to react quickly in
the appropriate manner. Immediate access to information about
the
13560
contents of containers and the necessary procedures to be
followed is the key to improving this safety regime in Canada.
The current system which uses placards on containers to
identify the contents is not one that fulfils all the needs of
emergency response personnel. Firefighters told us when we
met with them recently at their national lobby in Ottawa that the
placards do not always provide sufficient information to aid
emergency workers and that these placards are often missing or
destroyed by virtue of the very accident that has called them to
the scene in the first place. We are in urgent need of an upgrade
in the reporting system for these emergency response situations.
Fortunately there is an emerging technology which would
prove to be very useful in filling the gaps in the current system.
Computer software along with communications links between
firefighters and police dispatch stations and the transport
companies is now being developed which would allow
emergency response personnel almost instantaneous access to
detailed information to be taken directly from transport
companies' data bases.
Not only could such a computer linkup provide firefighters
with precise information about the contents of a container, it
could also provide detailed guidance about the necessary safety
precautions to be taken when dealing with the material in
question.
It has also been shown that such a computer linkup could help
emergency response personnel in the event of train derailments
involving passengers trapped in damaged rail cars. The linkup
could provide rescue workers with detailed plans of how these
rail cars are constructed with blueprints which could aid them in
their search for trapped passengers.
While this network is now a technological possibility it is up
to the federal government to take a leadership role in developing
the specific computer software and communications networks
and putting a system in place.
The International Association of Firefighters has been urging
the government to begin the development process by
establishing a pilot project in concert with industry, labour and
local government stakeholders. It is proposed that such a pilot
project take place in a major transportation centre that would
permit the stakeholders to experiment with the new software and
communications links and to demonstrate the system's
effectiveness for later use across Canada.
(1110)
Winnipeg with its thriving rail and truck traffic has been
suggested as an ideal choice for such a project not by me but by
those interested in this project; although Winnipeg is not always
as thriving as I would like it to be on the rail side.
I hope my fellow colleagues from the Winnipeg area would
help make the case to the government for passing this motion
and also that if there were a pilot project to follow the
government consider very seriously using Winnipeg as a place
where this project might proceed.
The primary aim of going forward with such a project in a
timely manner is to save lives, the lives of the firefighters who at
present work in dangerous situations without all the information
they need and the lives of residents in communities where
accidents occur.
There is also an important international dimension to this
question. The American department of transport has already
begun work on developing such communications networks and
it is helping fund a pilot project in the Houston, Texas area
called operation respond. All indications are that the experiment
is proceeding well and that the department of transport will be
moving to set up a national system of regulations for the
transportation of hazardous materials.
In the context of NAFTA, Canadian export and transport
industries will be directly affected by such regulations and there
will no doubt be pressure for harmonization. It is therefore
imperative that Canada develop its own system which meets
particularly Canadian needs so that in the future we will not be
obliged to adopt uncritically or simply out of necessity the
American regulations by default because we did not have the
foresight to apply the available technology to a pressing safety
issue in Canada on our own.
I believe all members of the House will want to do whatever is
in their power to improve the safety of firefighters and their
fellow emergency response workers. Here is a case where the
hype about the possibilities of the new information revolution
might actually live up to expectations and do something
concrete in terms of human health and human safety.
Who would deny firefighters access to state of the art
technology in situations in which they are laying their lives on
the line? Who would deny them the right and the means to know
exactly what they are handling in these very dangerous
situations?
Support for this motion would be an excellent means for
members of the House to convey to firefighters on behalf of all
Canadians we are grateful of the often heroic service they
provide, and to convey our support for their efforts to improve
safety in their work environment.
I hope the government will allow members of the House to do
this by passing this motion; allow members to convey the
grateful support of Canadians to firefighters by using its
discretion collectively speaking to allow this motion to come to
a vote
13561
or to be passed by unanimous consent. I cannot imagine that we
would divide on the matter. Either we will pass it by unanimous
consent or it will be talked out.
I understand the government believes the wording of this
motion is too vague and without specific reference to the
transport of hazardous materials to be allowed to come to a vote.
I have talked to the Ministry of Transport about this.
I suggest to the contrary this motion simply conveys to the
government the House's desire that it take action on improving a
firefighter's safety and would give the government a welcome
boost in the ongoing discussions between labour, industry and
government stakeholders on the appropriate way forward.
By letting this motion go forward the government would
supply itself with an excellent spur to move a file forward which
members on all sides of the House think should be moved
forward. I hope the government has rethought its position over
the course of the weekend. This is after all only a motion. If it
passes, all the government is obliged to do is consider the
advisability of bringing in this system. It would create the
context, it would create a little parliamentary momentum.
Last year I had a similar motion on a completely different
topic and at the end of my speech I asked for unanimous consent
that the motion be put to a vote at the end of the hour. Some may
recall it was a motion having to do with the creation of a medal
for Dieppe veterans.
The procedure we followed at that time is the one I am
suggesting could be done now, that we could decide now that the
motion would come to a vote. People could speak to the motion
and at the end of the hour we could allow it to pass.
(1115 )
With that precedent in mind, knowing this is procedurally
possible and that firefighters were here not so long ago reporting
that no one disagreed with this suggestion, I seek unanimous
consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I interpret the member
correctly, is he asking for unanimous consent at this point in
time?
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I believe we could agree now that
at the end of the appointed hour the motion be put, if there were
unanimous consent to agree to do that. If there is not, then we
could seek it at the end of the hour, but we have to seek it at some
point if there is a will in the House to allow the motion to pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I trust I get not only the
intent but the spirit. The unanimous consent being proposed at
this time by the member for Winnipeg Transcona would be that
this motion become votable at the end of this hour of debate on
this motion.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent. Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Boniface.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to speak to this motion. I applaud my colleague's
initiative, because he raises an extremely important issue, which
must be discussed and eventually resolved.
I myself have a particular interest in this motion because, for a
number of years, I participated in conferences on this very issue.
My greatest wish is for us to find an equitable solution for all
concerned.
As you know, the motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing ``Right to Know'' legislation for the protection of
firefighters and other public servants who, in the course of duty, are confronted
by fires or disasters involving potentially harmful substances such as toxic
chemicals.
[
English]
As was pointed out, this is an all encompassing motion. I
assume it includes not only firefighters but also ambulance
attendants and police officers. As I proceed to raise questions I
do so in the spirit of trying to strengthen the motion, focus it, and
come to some sort of resolution.
No doubt it encompasses police officers and ambulance
attendants, quite apart from firefighters and perhaps others. It
might be useful to try to define those. No doubt it is also
intended to cover goods transported by rail and truck, but it is
important not to exclude air and marine modes as well.
As to potentially harmful substances, this is very broad and
may require further definition. For example, I believe it
includes infectious diseases and infectious material. However,
that remains to be discovered; perhaps it does not.
When I have discussed this initiative on different occasions a
number of questions have arisen. People want to know
specifically what is to be accomplished. They want specifics.
They want to make sure no one is excluded, that all who might
benefit from this or a similar initiative are identified.
The authorities also suggest there are some systems in place,
which my colleague has mentioned, that respond at least in part
to some of the concerns that have been voiced here. For
example, there has been reference to the Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act. There has also been a reference to the
CANUTEC system, an initial emergency response guide, which
is really quite common, popular, and useful. It is available in
13562
English and French throughout Canada and the world. I am told
it is a useful reference and useful tool as well.
(1120)
The federal authorities also point out that it need not be the
federal government by itself but that there are other partners
involved, for example, the provincial and territorial
governments, local governments, and perhaps even the private
sector. Those are questions that need to be resolved before we
can in fact proceed with a definitive proposal.
With respect to an initiative on the part of the federal
government, I want to tell my colleagues that the government is
monitoring the pilot projects. The government is concerned with
the scope of the project, what it is attempting to do and what it
has in fact accomplished. They are also obviously concerned
about cost. In today's world one has to be particularly prudent
about taking on additional initiatives and cost is obviously a
high priority.
The federal government also wants to make sure there are
partners, all of those people involved who could potentially
benefit from the initiative. I have mentioned the various levels
of government, but I should also mention that the private sector
indeed is involved in certain sectors and needs to be involved.
I want to study what is happening in the U.S. and elsewhere. I
give my assurance I shall continue to be extremely supportive of
such an initiative.
[Translation]
In summary, the transport department officials I spoke to felt
that the proposal was perhaps a little too broad and not specific
enough. I think, however, that my colleague is on the right track.
We can provide extra protection to firefighters and others likely
to be involved in disasters or difficult situations.
The other extremely important consideration is the need for
additional, clear information on pilot projects under way
elsewhere. I felt that before moving in that direction, the
government wanted to know all the facts, including how much it
would cost and who the partners would be. It wanted to ensure
that this would lead to something that would help not only
firefighters but all those involved.
For my part, I participated in a number of forums over several
years. This is something I care about and a most important issue.
We must realize that we will eventually have such a system. The
basic question for me is not only the issues I raised, but how we
could proceed, when, with whom and at what cost. I hope that
the questions I just raised will be answered soon.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but one of my colleagues across the
way felt the need to shout to someone, and I lost my train of
thought. Unfortunately, some people are not as polite as others. I
now get back to the motion.
[English]
As I said, I am interested in pursuing this proposal and I will
do everything in my power to try to find some sort of solution.
Clearly not today but hopefully in the near future we can come
up with specifics with regard to a pilot project where the
partners will be identified, where the costs will in fact have been
found as well, and perhaps we can go forward and do something
meaningful for our firefighters, our ambulance attendants, our
police officers and others involved.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as Bloc
members, we are pleased to support this motion made by our
colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
This is what we could call a forward-looking motion mainly
concerned with the interest not only of a trade, namely
firefighters, but also of the public in general.
For one thing, the government has a role to play in the area of
occupational safety. In fact, it can play several key roles by the
influence it has, the example it sets and the legislation it passes.
(1125)
Through its influence, the government can encourage
employers to adopt more adequate safety measures. For
instance, under existing legislation, since legislation does
already exist-we may not find it adequate but it nevertheless
exists-the government can check and make sure that safety
standards are complied with in many areas, such as
construction. The most common areas where risks are still high
are the agri-food industry, the environment, transport and, of
course, sites where explosives may be handled.
Through the way it deals with its own employees, the
government plays a crucial role. Naturally, as I said, the
government must set the example, for the entire population is
governed by the occupational safety legislation it enacts.
Safety standards for government employees must also be
monitored closely and, above all, the government must afford its
employees the opportunity to put standards in place so that they
are well protected. In addition, by introducing new legislation,
the government can strengthen those standards which may seem
inadequate or at the very least deficient at this time.
In our view, this is a fundamental role of government,
especially since new technologies, such as nuclear energy and
all the related areas, have developed rapidly.
13563
This fundamental role has become even more essential with
the proliferation of chemicals and toxic substances used in
various industries to develop new products. Many
environmental disasters in recent years have shown how
important government action is when it comes to protecting
those government employees responsible for managing such
disasters.
We need only think back to the explosion-in other countries,
but we cannot be spared forever-of the nuclear power plant in
Chernobyl or the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. These two
examples clearly show the kind of hazards to which government
employees are exposed.
Closer to home, the fairly recent devastating fire in
Saint-Basile-le-Grand and the lead contamination incident in
Saint-Jean are other examples which show that legislation is
crucial in this field, whenever chemical and toxic products are
used.
The Bloc will therefore support the motion. We were hoping
that there would be a vote on it but, unfortunately, the required
unanimous consent was not reached. Again, the government
must be a leader in the protection against dangerous products. It
can, through its attitude toward its public servants and the
public, and also by tabling a new bill, make the job of many
workers much safer.
Firefighters associations, including the International
Association of Firefighters, have been urging the government
for years to set up a national computerized information system
on dangerous products.
With such a system, as soon as the alarm went off, firefighters
would have information on the location of the fire and would be
able to react accordingly so as to prevent greater damage or
make sure that they did not pointlessly endanger their lives and
their health or those of the public.
The presence of dangerous products on the site of a fire can be
extremely costly, even fatal, for those involved. Recently, in a
small village in Quebec, firefighters answered a call to put out
what looked like an ordinary barn fire. However, because they
did not have adequate information concerning the premises, the
firefighters used normal techniques to put out the fire, without
being aware of the danger to which they were exposed
themselves.
(1130)
There was a propane tank inside the barn, that no one had any
reason to suspect was there. After they set up their equipment
and started fighting the fire, the tank exploded. Seven
firefighters were killed instantaneously in the blast and several
others were injured. This catastrophe could easily have been
avoided if the firefighters had known that the barn concealed a
deadly bomb.
Seven lives were lost, and the only thing the speaker who
preceded me, an hon. member from across the way, was
concerned about was the cost. Do other lives have to be lost
before they take action?
Another bill is currently before the House, Bill C-68 on
firearms. Why is the government in such a hurry to take action?
It is in such a hurry because 14 students were murdered at a
university in Quebec by a lunatic who was in legal possession of
a firearm. Because 14 human lives were lost, the House is
debating a bill on firearms, and the cost of implementing and
administering it are of no concern to the government. What it is
trying to do is protect the lives of Canadians, protect
everybody's life.
There are other causes of loss of human life each week in
Canada: toxic spills during transport by rail, oil spills on the
ocean, the use of chemical fertilizers which pollute or certain
toxic substances, such as pesticides or insecticides. Many toxic
substances which are widely used, sometimes carelessly, are
decidedly very dangerous in the long run.
We are proposing preventative measures, which sometimes,
actually not just sometimes but almost always, are less costly
than deterrents.
In the opinion of the International Association of Fire
Fighters, the computerized system currently in place,
CANUTEC, is not well adapted. Towns with firefighting
brigades have already put in place their own systems. I know
that, before the new year, cities are going to convert to this
system which will inform them before they respond to a fire
alarm whether dangerous goods could be at the site. Towns are
already absorbing the cost of these systems, so, there is no
reason for the government to claim that additional costs will be
involved. Local organizations will already be assuming the bulk
of them.
Therefore, through such legislation, the government not only
would increase the safety of workers but also would give peace
of mind to all citizens who have to live near or deal on a daily
basis with such life threatening products or environments,
which would improve their standard of living and protect them.
For these reasons, we support this motion and hope that it will
become votable as soon as possible.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion 136, proposed by the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of ``Right to Know'' legislation for the protection of firefighters
and other public servants who, in the course of duty, are confronted by fires or
disasters involving potentially harmful substances such as toxic chemicals.
That is a very broad statement. I am surprised we are talking
to such a statement because to my mind it would be a given that
13564
kind of information would be available or that there would be
processes in place to provide such information.
(1135 )
The motion was developed out of a genuine concern for the
safety of firefighters. These people seem to be lacking the
necessary information so they can do their jobs effectively or as
effectively as they would like to do it. I equate it to an
emergency department in a hospital. Emergency staff really do
not know what they are dealing with until the patient gets there.
I commend the member for Winnipeg Transcona for bringing
this problem to our attention. Because of the nature of the
firefighters' job it is not often they are actually in the news
unless some very unfortunate situation occurs. Several recent
incidents highlight the danger of the nature of the firefighters'
job.
Recently in Ottawa firefighters had to respond to a fire that
turned out to be in a house that was used mainly for drug
purposes. When the firefighters arrived at the fire they rushed
into the building to put the blaze out. They moved as quickly as
possible according to procedures for firefighting. They were not
expecting or necessarily looking for exposed needles and other
dangerous drug paraphernalia. The irony is that the local police
were aware it was a drug house but because of concern at
overstepping the bounds of privacy, the information was not
shared with another emergency response group. I find it
phenomenal that they cannot work in partnership and share
information that relates to an incident.
That is a concern we must definitely address, if not through
legislation proposed in this motion, then the government should
be looking at other ways to get around the letter of the law and
use some common sense. Information should be shared among
the principal players that are addressing the same concerns,
especially when safety is involved. We must be practical and use
some common sense on the issue.
Another issue which relates to the whole attitude of how
emergency response personnel deal with injured persons would
be to keep in mind today's environment in relation to infectious
diseases. HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis are two diseases that
come to mind that can cause a great deal of concern not only to
firefighters but any other emergency response personnel.
In response to these valid concerns, groups such as the
International Association of Firefighters have done a lot of work
in researching the problem. That research is available to us to
pursue. The association has called on the government to take
steps to protect firefighters while they are performing their
duties. One of the arguments put forward is that firefighters
deserve to know what hazardous materials may be present at any
incident. That follows logic. If firefighters are called to a
potentially hazardous situation, it sounds very logical to be able
to pass on information about what they are facing and what they
are dealing with.
That is a principle we can address by looking at a better
communication and perhaps addressing the Privacy Act or
situations involving that act.
A second principle would be access to reliable information
that will save lives by ensuring that firefighters use the most
effective response techniques at any incident. The previous
speaker talked about a propane tank in a barn. If somebody was
aware the tank was there, that information should have been
available to the firefighters responding to the fire.
Both arguments put forward by the IAFF are certainly valid.
The principles involved in them are certainly worth looking at.
They are very timely. There must be numerous options for
addressing the proposals by the association that we can look at
and it is time we did. This motion presents a couple of
suggestions in relation to ways of addressing that.
(1140)
The IAFF supports the establishment of a computerized
national emergency response. This is one suggestion on how to
address these issues. It would provide accurate information to
firefighters at the scene of a hazardous material incident. The
system would provide not only information for stationary
incidents such as the propane tank in the barn, but also for
hazardous materials that are on the move.
A system which deals with materials in stationary structures
should certainly be looked at for a couple of identifiable
reasons. We are already doing one through the women's program
in many institutions such as hospitals, et cetera. The other one
would be to prevent firefighters from going into the barn
without knowing about the propane tank.
I would like to move on to the computerized system for
materials in transit. A system is already in place which requires
little placards to be put on vehicles. One of the problems
occurring with that is that the placards may not be up to date.
Therefore, firefighters can arrive at a derailed train and find the
placard is not up to date or they may not even see the placard
because of fire. There are situations in the system which really
do not address all the problems.
A computerized system seems to be one very good answer.
However it will only be as good as the information being put into
it. The government is suggesting that this system is not up to par
in relation to providing the kind of information that would
facilitate the problem that firefighters have.
In the world of technology today, I am suggesting that system,
if it is not here now, is not far away. We should be looking at it
very seriously as a possible solution. We should be doing some
research and investigation of it and figuring out what the cost of
it is going to be. If it is plausible it should be implemented on a
13565
test basis some place to see whether or not it will address the
problem.
The motion deals not only with small aspects of the problem
but is all encompassing. It deals with stationary situations,
movable situations, health and all other aspects. Therefore,
because of the nature and broadness of this motion and the fact
that it is a problem that should be solved, we should be looking
at it. It is not an isolated type of thing. It is a general thing.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on private
member's motion M-136 presented by the member for
Winnipeg Transcona.
The motion urges the government to consider the advisability
of introducing right to know legislation for the protection of
firefighters and other public servants who in the course of their
duties are confronted by fires or disasters involving harmful
substances.
Let me first commend the member for bringing the issue up
for discussion through his private member's motion. I
personally know the member to be a politician of vision and
passion and a vigorous and eloquent defender of worker
interests.
Those of us on this side of the House share the concern he
brings to occupational safety and health. We too are appalled by
the number of accidents and fatalities that annually occur in our
workplaces. We also believe that work in Canada ought to be a
rewarding and satisfying activity that does not pose undue risk
to those who must perform it.
The good news is that because many innovative measures
have been taken over the years, considerable progress has been
made in the area of occupational safety and health.
(1145 )
The intent of the member's motion is something upon which I
think we can all agree. However, its fatal flaw is that it does not
fall under federal jurisdiction. If I may say so, the member is
knocking on the wrong door. Labour related matters including
occupational safety and health issues are mainly a provincial
and territorial responsibility. Requiring employers to provide
information on hazardous substances to emergency response
personnel is a matter which provincial and territorial authorities
need to address.
As the member may know, occupational safety and health
legislation in Canada is based on the internal responsibility
system. This arrangement recognizes the employer's right to
manage an enterprise in an efficient manner as well as the
employer's responsibility to protect the safety and health of the
employees. It also recognizes three fundamental rights of
workers: the right to participate, the right to refuse dangerous
work, and the right to know.
Since 1988 Canada has had in place a nationwide system to
provide information on hazardous material being used in the
workplace. Known as WHMIS for workplace hazardous
materials information system, it established a uniform
identification system for dangerous ingredients in the
workplace. It came about because in the early 1980s business,
labour and government realized that Canadian workplaces were
woefully lacking the kind of information necessary to handle
safely the kind of materials and equipment which were being
introduced in the workplaces of Canada.
The system was comprised of four features: labelling
requirements, the provision of material safety data sheets,
worker education, and protection for confidential business
information. WHMIS ensures that the hazardous materials
produced, imported into or used in Canadian workplaces are
adequately identified by suppliers using standard criteria. It
requires the data sheets on hazardous materials to be transmitted
by suppliers to employers and subsequently to employees. It
obliges employers to provide their employees with adequate
professional training on how to use the materials.
By effective dissemination and information through WHMIS,
employers and workers get the data and knowledge required to
communicate with one another, making possible the kind of
co-operative efforts necessary to enhance safety and health in
the workplace. Because employees have firsthand knowledge of
the workplace, their involvement is essential. For employees to
be able to assume responsibility for workplace safety and health
they must be able to recognize what is going on and understand
the changes occurring in the workplace. WHMIS ensures that
workers have the information they need to make the decisions
which they must make. In short, WHMIS is a response to the
right of employees to know the hazards of the materials with
which they work and the way to safely handle such substances.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that WHMIS is the
most advanced information system in the field of occupational
safety and health in the world. It is a system which works and, if
I may say so, it is a system we can proudly speak of
internationally. It should also be mentioned that WHMIS was
the result of an extraordinary collaborative effort which brought
together not only the governments in Canada but also organized
labour and the business community. No one sector, no one
government acting alone could deal with this issue in an
effective and efficient manner.
WHMIS legislation in each of the jurisdictions throughout
Canada is harmonized legislation based on a model regulation
which was developed during the consultative process.
Regulatory agencies in each jurisdiction ensure compliance
within its
13566
boundaries. WHMIS has been successfully implemented in all
jurisdictions.
I think most officials and informed observers believe that its
successful implementation was due to the fact that potential
problems were identified by the stakeholders during the design
stage when steps could be taken to minimize any possible
adverse impacts in the workplace. Although the process was
time consuming, its participatory nature made possible a
relatively smooth implementation.
(1150 )
As I indicated, most emergency response personnel, that is,
the employees alluded to in the member's motion, come under
provincial jurisdiction. Those who fall under federal
jurisdiction, including firefighters, receive their WHMIS
information and training as required by part II of the Canada
Labour Code, the part that deals with occupational safety and
health issues and by the provisions of part X of the Canada
occupational safety and health regulations.
The member might be interested to know that presently a
committee of labour and business representatives and
government officials is reviewing part II of the Canada Labour
Code. Among other things it is considering a recommendation
that part X of the Canada occupational safety and health
regulations be changed to indicate the local health and safety
committees which would participate in the development of an
inventory of hazardous substances. This inventory would then
be made available to health and safety committees, health and
safety representatives to the fire department and to the
employees' physicians on request.
At the present time only the province of Ontario has a
provision in its occupational safety and health act requiring
employers to provide a material's safety data sheet to fire
departments and local medical officers of health upon request.
Ontario is to be commended for taking the lead in this area.
The member might consider approaching the other provinces,
perhaps beginning with British Columbia and Saskatchewan to
urge them to consider implementing the kind of legislation he
has asked this House to implement.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the hon.
member's motion.
I want to express my very deep concern for the welfare of this
country's emergency response workers who risk their lives to
protect ours. Most Canadians cannot begin to conceive the
nightmare these individuals must be living through wondering
in doing their jobs to the best of their abilities whether they have
put their own health in jeopardy. We cannot imagine the fear and
trepidation all emergency workers must feel when they respond
to a call never knowing what danger awaits them.
Canada owes a great deal to the dedicated men and women
who put their lives on the line each day for our health and safety.
I can reassure the House this government does not take their
risks lightly. These risks are taken so seriously that this
government along with our provincial counterparts, industry
and labour have for some time now been developing programs to
protect not only emergency response workers but also those in
the transportation sector and those handling hazardous
chemicals in the workplace.
Under the transportation of dangerous goods regulations, for
example, a United Nations number or product identification
number and the shipping name of a commodity must be on the
label and the shipping document. Even in the absence of a
shipping name or a product identification number or a placard or
label the product may be identified by contacting the Canadian
Transport Emergency Centre or CANUTEC using any of the
following information: the flight number; the call sign if the
goods are being transported by ship; reporting marks and car
number if it is being transported by rail; carrier and truck or
trailer number and carrier and licence plate number if it is being
transported by road.
In the event of an emergency, the firefighter can call
CANUTEC which has an inventory exceeding 320,000 material
safety data sheets. CANUTEC is a national bilingual advisory
service provided by Transport Canada to assist emergency
response personnel in handling dangerous goods emergencies.
CANUTEC has established a scientific data bank on chemicals
manufactured, stored and transported in Canada. It is staffed by
professional chemists experienced in interpreting technical
information and providing advice which can be obtained by
calling collect on a 24-hour basis.
CANUTEC is able to immediately provide the relevant
information by accessing its database through the use of key
words such as the UN number, the product identification number
or shipping name required on the transportation of dangerous
goods shipping label and shipping documents.
(1155 )
Also, part VII of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
requires that shippers and importers of certain dangerous goods
have an emergency response assistance plan, ERAP, approved
by Transport Canada. Currently there are approximately 14,000
such plans covering over 4,000 organizations entered into the
transportation of dangerous goods directorate's national
registry. All of these plans are audited.
Due to the seriousness of safety and health problems of
hazardous chemicals used every day in the workplace, the
federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed following
a consensus proposal developed through extensive consultation
with industry and labour representatives to implement a
workplace hazardous materials information system. This
system is a national program to reduce workers' deaths and
injuries by
13567
providing workers and employees with health and safety
information about hazardous workplace chemicals. This system
is implemented through interlocking federal and provincial
legislation under the hazardous products act and in response to
the workers' right to know the hazards of the materials with
which they work.
Under the hazardous products act, suppliers of hazardous
materials must provide precautionary labelling and material
safety data sheets to employers. Complementary provincial
legislation requires employers to develop appropriate
workplace labelling and other forms of warning about hazardous
materials produced in their workplace processes and make data
sheets available to their employees and provide for worker
education on the safe use of hazardous materials.
Furthermore in the province of Ontario, the Ontario
Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that employers
provide fire departments with data sheets upon request. There is
no question we must continue to address the needs and concerns
of emergency response personnel, such as firefighters as well as
all other workers using hazardous chemicals.
Our goal is where possible to continue improving the systems
of hazard communication for the benefit of all workers. We want
emergency responders to have access to the most up to date
information on prevention methods available. We are
encouraging close co-operation between employers and
employees to ensure that they have appropriate training and
equipment to deal with out of control situations.
It is clear that the protection of Canadians, particularly those
whose job it is to protect the general population is tremendously
important to this government. In co-operation with the
provinces, industry and labour we are doing everything within
our jurisdictional power to provide emergency response workers
with the necessary vital information to assist them in carrying
out the dangerous work in as safe a manner as possible.
The intent of the motion is an honourable one. The
government will support any strategy or technique that will
provide protection for our citizens involved in such an
honourable and extremely dangerous endeavour. The intent of
this motion can become a reality with the co-operative efforts of
the federal and provincial levels of government plus the others
concerned and involved in the private sector.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to participate in what probably is one of the most
important private members' debates we have seen in this session
of Parliament. We are making an effort to listen to the lobbyists
for the firefighters particularly but also the police forces and
ambulance services across Canada which have been asking for
this initiative for many years.
I want to speak enthusiastically in favour of the initiatives
taken by the member for Winnipeg Transcona. If this motion
passes by all of the parties in the House of Commons, it will go a
long way in saving lives and making the work that the
emergency response personnel carry out much safer.
Previous speakers have acknowledged that emergency
response personnel, particularly firefighters, are often called
upon to deal with volatile and toxic chemical substances. If
there has ever been a time for rapid, accurate and complete
information about these hazardous materials, the time is now
more than ever before.
Accidents involving hazardous materials pose a number of
special challenges to emergency response personnel. By not
acting quickly the result can be death and injury, to say nothing
about bystanders, particularly if the accident takes place in a
densely populated locale.
(1200 )
It is sufficient to say that we have had the debate. We have
heard from all parties in the House of Commons. We have heard
enthusiastic support for an initiative that simply calls upon the
government to consider appropriate legislation and to take
appropriate action.
I seek unanimous consent for the motion to be accepted to
allow the initiative to continue forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous
consent.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like the record to show that government members said no to this
private member's motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest respect
to the member for Winnipeg Transcona and the important
motion he raised before the House today, that is not a point of
order.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the
order is dropped from the Order Paper.
13568
13568
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are 267 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 10, 158, 167, 266 and 267.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 19, 20, 39, 40, 55, 58, 59,
107 and 145.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 4, 6, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45,
49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82,
85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106,
108 to 113, 154, 170, 207, 215, 216, 218, 224 and 225.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 35, 133, 134, 136 to
144, 146, 147, 163, 164, 165, 166, 173 to 206, 208, 210, 212,
213, 214, 220, 221, 222, 223, 228, 230 to 256, 259, 264, and 265.
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 13, 14, 38, 209, 211, 217, 219,
258, 260 and 262.
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 93 and 102.
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 21, 22, 33, 34, 36, 47, 57, 72, 74,
80, 89, 90, 171, 172, 227 and 261.
(1205 )
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 25, 27, 159, 160, 168, 169 and
226.
Group No. 9: Motions Nos. 26, 37, 44, 46, 86, 94 and 96.
Group No. 10: Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 114 to 132, 148, 149,
150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162 and 263.
[Translation]
Group No. 11: Motions Nos. 48, 53, 61 to 68, 75, 83, 84, 135,
229, and 257.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-68 be amended by replacing the words ``other weapons'' in the
long title, on page 1, with the words ``related matters''.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 4,
the following:
``(a.1) generally to promote firearm safety and reduce firearm-related crime
without jeopardising the reasonable uses for firearms in Canadian society or
imposing an undue administrative and financial burden on Canadian taxpayers,
including legitimate firearm owners;''
Motion No. 158
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after lines 40, on page 58, with the
following new Clause:
``112.1 (1) The Minister shall periodically conduct a review of this Act and
the regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons
within twelve months of commencing the review.
(2) The first review must be conducted no later than December 31, 2003, and
no more than five years may elapse between the tabling of the report on a review
in the House of Commons and the commencement of a subsequent review.''
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 167
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 65, the following
new Clause:
``129.1(1) Sections 3 to 129 expire on December 31, 1999 unless prior to that
date, with respect to each section
(a) the Auditor General has prepared and caused to be laid before Parliament a report
on whether the section has been or will be a successful and cost-effective use of
public funds to achieve an increase in public safety and a reduction in the incidence
of violent crime involving the use of firearms,
(b) the report of the Auditor General has been referred by the House to such
committee as the house may designate for the purpose,
(c) the committee has considered the report of the Auditor General and made a report
to the House on the success and cost-effectiveness of the section and on the extent to
which
(i) public safety has been or will be increased or decreased,
(ii) the incidence of crime related to the use of firearms has been or will be
reduced or increased.
(iii) a cost-effective use of public funds has been or will be made to achieve an
increase in public safety or a reduction in the incidence of violent crime
involving the use of firearms,
(d) the committee has recommended to the House that the section should not expire,
and
(e) the House has concurred in the report of the committee.
(2) Where a section is to expire as result of subsection (1), the Governor in
Council may, by order, defer its expiry for a period not exceeding one year, if
the section contains matters that do not relate to firearms control and the
deferral is necessary in order for legislation to be proposed to Parliament to
continue the other matters in force after the expiry of the section.
13569
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 266
That Bill C-68, be amended by adding after line 28, on page 134, the
following new Clause:
``185.1 (1) In 2000, no later than June 1, and every three years thereafter, a
comprehensive review of the provisions of this Act shall be undertaken by such
Committee of the House of Commons as the House may designate for that
purpose.
(2) The Committee shall review the effectiveness of the provisions of this Act
and the use of firearms in the community in general and shall report to the House
as to whether any provision of this Act or the regulations or any other legislation
respecting firearms should be amended, augmented or repealed.''
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 267
That Bill C-68, be amended by adding after line 28, on page 134, the
following new Clause:
``185.1 No later than January 1, 2001, the federal Minister shall prepare a
report on the effectiveness of this Act in reducing the incidence of indictable
offenses involving the use of a firearm and lay the report before the House of
Commons.''
Mr. Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view
of the extraordinary number of amendments and in view of the
fact there is a limit on the debate today, I think you would find
unanimous consent to deem the motions in each group put to the
House when they have been put as you have just said.
If you indicate to the House that we will be debating Motions
x, y and z, the motions would then be before the House for debate
without your having to read the motions to the House. They are
deemed moved and seconded.
Similarly this evening, when it comes to the votes, the same
would apply. The Speaker could say the question before the
House is on Motion No. 26, for example, and the vote would
follow on that motion without having to put the motion. It would
save us a lot of time today in view of the very large number of
motions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just to be helpful to the
House, in group No. 1 Motions Nos. 1, 10 and 158 stand in the
name of the member for Algoma; Motion No. 167, the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville; Motion No. 266, the hon.
member for Kamloops; and Motion No. 267, the hon. member
for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
I will begin the order of debate by recognizing each of these
four members and then we will follow the normal sequence for
debate. I will begin with the member for Algoma, followed by
the member for Yorkton-Melville, the member for Kamloops
and the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Then we will
follow the normal sequence of government, opposition and so on
and so forth, according to the wishes of whoever may be seeking
the floor.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after many
months of discussion and debate we have come to an important
point in time as far as Bill C-68 is concerned.
My three motions in this group deal with one of the most
fundamental issues I have tried to express over past months both
in this place and in my constituency. They concern the need to be
respectful toward the legitimate gun owning community in
Canada. I am speaking particularly of the many hundreds and
thousands of legitimate gun owners in my riding of Algoma who
feel strongly with pride about their firearms ownership. They
believe as I do that they properly own and use firearms.
(1210 )
My first motion deals with the title. The current title of the
bill states:
An act respecting firearms and other weapons.
It is my proposal in this motion that we simply refer to the act
as an act respecting firearms and related matters. The inclusion
in the title of the word weapons places a negative nuance on the
legitimate gun owning community in Canada. In the hands of
legal gun owners firearms are not weapons. They are only in the
hands of criminals.
It is important to send the right message. In so doing if we
could amend the title by simply saying an act respecting
firearms and related matters we would send the right message.
My second amendment in this group relates to the purpose
clause. I am proposing an amendment to the purpose clause
which I should like to read to the House. It states:
(a.1) generally to promote firearm safety and reduce firearm related crime
without jeopardizing the reasonable uses for firearms in Canadian society or
imposing an undue administrative and financial burden on Canadian taxpayers,
including legitimate firearm owners;
The message that I have consistently tried to convey
throughout the months leading up to this point is that we have
many situations where firearms are misused or are improperly
stored. The message the government wants to give is that those
who
13570
commit crime and in so doing use a firearm need to be dealt with
swiftly and firmly.
The message must also be that those who legitimately own
firearms and use them for recreational or sustenance hunting,
for target shooting, for collecting or for use in occupations
deserve our respect. They represent Canadians across the
country who properly own and use firearms.
I would have preferred a preamble to the bill, but that not
being possible I believe this statement in the purpose clause
would clearly state to Canadians, to the legitimate firearms
community, that the bill is not intended to be a punishment for
them because they happen to own firearms. The bill is to deal
with crime and criminals. The provisions that deal with the legal
firearms community are simply part and parcel of a bigger
program to deal with crime and firearms abuse.
The final amendment in the group I am putting forward,
seconded by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka, is that
there should be a periodic review of the legislation by the
minister. This is to acknowledge that no piece of legislation can
be perfect. It must be our duty in this place and the duty of the
minister to look on a regular basis at how effective and how
efficient the legislation is operating, on the one hand as it
operates in relation to the legal gun owning community, and at
on the other hand how it is operating with respect to the criminal
abuse and misuse of firearms.
Periodic review is very important. it cannot start tomorrow
because the bill has not yet passed. It cannot start on January 1,
1996 because the first stage of the program will just be starting.
However I believe a few years after the program is in place there
should be a first review. I suggest the following amendment:
112.1 (1) The minister shall periodically conduct a review of this act and the
regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of Commons
within 12 months of commencing the review.
(2) The first review must be conducted no later than December 31, 2003-
And every five years thereafter.
(1215 )
I have chosen the year 2003 because it is the end of the first
five-year period after the beginning of the registration program.
I am hopeful that this set of amendments, which I encourage
my colleagues to support me on, will help to assure the legal
firearms community that there will not be reams of red tape
involved in what I expect to be a simple and inexpensive system
for firearms owners; that it is not a tax grab by government; that
it will not be an untoward invasion of privacy; and that it will not
lead to the mass confiscation of firearms.
Instead of discouraging young people from entering target
shooting sports or recreational hunting, the various provisions
in the act will continue to encourage the pursuit of those very
legitimate and honourable undertakings.
I encourage the House to look seriously at these amendments
and I look forward to the House's support.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and all the responsible
firearms owners who have written me over the last year and a
half, it is an honour and a privilege to be one of the few members
of Parliament who will have an opportunity to speak during the
six hours of limited debate granted to us by the arrogant and
dictatorial Liberal government.
While I have the privilege of representing my constituents in
the debate against Bill C-68, literally dozens of members of
Parliament will be denied that right because of the six-hour time
allocation imposed by the tyranny of the Liberal majority.
Voters send their MP to Ottawa to be their voice in
Parliament, and what do the Liberals do but take the voters'
right to be represented away from them by using
anti-democratic measures like time allocation and closure and
by making MPs vote according to the wishes of the Prime
Minister, not the people of their riding. It makes me sad and it
should make every Liberal member who did not oppose this
abuse of power sad too.
The Liberals abuse their majority to do anything they want
because they know there is nothing voters can do to stop them
until the next election. I know there are about seven million gun
owners who are just waiting for the next election. Considering
what happened to the Liberal Party in Ontario last week, I think
there are some Liberal backbenchers who are pretty worried
about the direction in which their party is taking them.
Last Thursday the Liberals abused their power by limiting the
time for debate on three bills, Bills C-68, C-41, and C-85. In
doing so the Liberal government limited debate on three of the
most controversial issues ever to be debated in the House, gun
control, sexual orientation and MP pensions. By forcing time
allocation the Liberals have declared their highest priorities to
be gun control, MP pensions, and including sexual orientation in
the sentencing legislation.
Personally, I do not believe these controversial issues are
priorities for the people of Canada. I am sure that if the people
knew how democracy was getting a kick in the teeth here in
Ottawa there would be a lot more concern expressed. I wonder if
the Liberals are hoping voters will forget this by the time the
next election is announced.
Today I am introducing two amendments to Bill C-68 that
would automatically repeal any and all gun control measures in
five years unless the provisions have proven to be cost effective
by the auditor general in improving public safety and reducing
violent crime committed with firearms. If any gun control
measure is not cost effective in improving public safety and in
saving lives, it should be discontinued in favour of more cost
effective measures. Is that not common sense?
13571
It will be difficult for the Liberals to argue against my sunset
clause amendment because they will have to argue that they
support gun control measures even though the auditor general
cannot find any evidence to show the measures to be cost
effective at reducing violent crime involving firearms. If the
Liberals oppose this amendment it will be clear to everyone in
Canada that public safety is not their primary purpose in
bringing forward this gun control bill.
Will the Liberals really stand up and say they support gun
control measures that do not work? Will the Liberals tell
Canadians they do not care whether gun control measures are
cost effective or not? Will the liberals tell Canadians they cannot
afford to implement new criminal justice measures that would
save more lives because they are wasting money on ineffective
gun controls?
(1220)
There should be a sunset clause in all legislation. We have too
many laws. If they are not cost effective, they should be tossed
out. We are creating a huge bureaucracy and we need to spend
money in this place more carefully. We are the stewards of the
public purse, and all legislation should be examined to see if it is
cost effective, not just the gun control measures.
The reason we need a sunset clause in this legislation is
because gun control in general and most of the measures
proposed in Bill C-68 defy all logic. First of all, gun control will
not improve public safety. It will do the exact opposite. Gun
control and registration of all firearms will mean more crime,
more injuries, more expense, more deaths and more victims. I
wish I had time to prove each of these, but the debate is very
limited.
The justice minister says he has no intention of confiscating
guns and then he proceeds to ban over 550,000 handguns and
19,000 rifles. What are the people to believe, the minister's
assurances or his actions? The justice minister says he no longer
believes that only the police and military should have firearms,
and then he proceeds to give himself the power to prohibit all
firearms in Canada without bringing any of the prohibition
orders before Parliament. The people do not believe the
minister's slick lawyer talk because his actions speak louder
than his words.
Bill C-68 will give drug dealers more rights than law-abiding
responsible firearm owners. This bill will run roughshod over
every Canadian's fundamental rights and freedoms, including
their right to own, use, and enjoy private property; their right to
be secure from unreasonable search and seizure; their right to
remain silent; their right to be assumed innocent until proven
guilty; their right to legal counsel; their right to freedom of
association; their right to be represented in Parliament; their
right to be treated equally before the law; and their right to
privacy. All of those rights will be run roughshod over by this
bill. Bill C-68 will not withstand a charter challenge on many of
these points.
Bill C-68 also intrudes into areas that are the sole
constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, namely
administration of justice, regulation of private property, issuing
of licences, assessing of licensing fees and user fees, education,
and contributing to increases in provincial income taxes and
municipal property taxes. Bill C-68 will not withstand a
constitutional challenge by the provinces.
The final piece of illogical behaviour is the government's
claim that they have broad public support for the measures
proposed in Bill C-68. If this is true, then why is the government
ramming this through Parliament? If the support is so broad then
why not let democracy run its course? If there is broad public
support then why not allow free votes? If there is such broad
public support, why discipline liberal backbench MPs who are
voting their constituents' wishes? If the public support is so
great, why impose time allocation during second reading debate
and leave at least 30 MPs waiting to speak?
If the public supports this bill, why did the standing
committee on justice limit the amount of time for public
hearings and deny to hundreds of people who wanted to be heard
the opportunity to be heard? If support is so great, why did the
standing committee refuse to hear expert testimony from
individual independent experts in various areas? For example,
we have been in contact with the Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada and
have learned that insurance companies do not ask their
applicants if they own a gun because they are not an identifiable
risk group. There are so many people who wanted to come
before this committee and were denied the opportunity. We have
a problem.
This proves the justice minister and his supporters are wrong
when they say gun owners are a risk to themselves or others. If
gun ownership represented any risk or liability, insurance
companies would charge gun owners a higher premium for life,
health, and property insurance. They do not. This is just one of
the many areas that have not been fully explored by the justice
committee.
(1225 )
If the minister is so convinced that the public supports his
proposals, then why is he not prepared to do the rigorous
evaluation recommended by the auditor general before
implementing further gun controls? Let us see if the measures
implemented in Bill C-17 are working before spending even
more money on measures that are not cost effective in achieving
the stated objective of improving public safety. If there is broad
public support, why invoke time allocation at report stage?
I am introducing this amendment so that we will always
evaluate this gun legislation to see if it is working, if it is
effective. Those parts that are not working or not effective
13572
should be repealed. Everything the government does defies
common sense.
This sunset clause should be supported by all members of the
House. I cannot think of any reason they would oppose it. I hope
we will have some common sense when we examine it.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation.
As my colleague, the previous speaker, has indicated, it is
unfortunate that many members of Parliament will not have an
opportunity to speak at report stage, since the government has
introduced closure and will limit the debate at this stage of the
legislation. However, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say
a couple of remarks about the bill itself.
I am certainly not a spokesperson for what people would refer
to as the gun lobby. Yes, I have been a fur trapper with my own
trapline. Yes, I have been a big game hunter. Yes, I have been a
recreational shooter, but that was some years ago.
The fundamental question I asked myself was whether this
legislation will curtail the number of people who are killed each
year by firearms. That is fundamental.
I looked at the details and noticed, for example, that about
1,400 people die of gunshot wounds each year, which has fallen
substantially over the last number of years. How does the 1,400
break out? Eleven hundred people die as a result of a firearm
wound through the commission of suicide. In other words,
people who have decided to take their own life are using a
firearm. If that firearm were registered would the person
interested in committing suicide likely not commit suicide? I
could only conclude that it would probably have little effect at
all, recognizing that suicide is a fairly thoughtful process and
that people normally think about it for some time. That takes
care of 1,100 people who die of firearm wounds.
About 150 people die each year as a result of domestic
violence, when one partner decides to shoot the other partner.
Would that be reduced if firearms were registered? Would
people not shoot their spouse or their partner? I concluded that
probably would not have any effect either. If things have
deteriorated in a relationship to that extent, whether the .22 is
registered someplace will probably not deter the person from
committing the act.
Then I noticed that about 100 people each year die who I will
define as gangsters. I suspect that gangsters do not register their
sawed off shotguns or pistols, so I concluded that would not
have much of an impact.
About 50 people each year die in Canada as a result of
shooting accidents. A shooting accident will take place, I
presume, whether or not a firearm is registered.
When I looked at the 1,400 people who lose their lives each
year as a result of firearms, I could only conclude that no one
would not die as a result of the legislation.
Will our streets, neighbourhoods and country be safer because
of the legislation? We have to acknowledge we will tie up the
work of the RCMP and police forces, which will spend hundreds
and thousands of hours doing evaluations and filling out forms.
When I talked to many of the RCMP officers in Kamloops, I did
not find a single one who actually supported the legislation.
With respect to the tens of millions of dollars that will go into
the registration system, they said put more members of the force
on the street and it will make Canada a safer place, as opposed to
a gun registration system that by and large will not be effective.
Then I listen with interest to some of the aboriginal members of
Parliament when they say the law ought not to apply to First
Nations peoples.
(1230)
When there are people in the Senate and in the House of
Commons saying this legislation should not apply to First
Nations people, what kind of system will this be in the end?
I will give the Minister of Justice credit. I suspect he was
honourably motivated when he brought this legislation forward.
I believe he thought it would make Canada a safer place as a
result of many people urging him to take some kind of action.
Will Canada be a safer place? By and large, no. I wonder if it
does not get the government members off the hook so they can
go across the country saying: ``Look at the tremendous action
we have taken to combat crime in our streets''.
The legislation is by and large a smokescreen. It is a scam, it is
a sham, it is an illusion the government is taking action against
crime when very little change will occur. I will not say there is
nothing good in this legislation, of course there is. Every year I
have been here I have supported changes to Canada's firearms'
legislation but not this one. This is a phoney piece of legislation
that gives the impression of real action when very little is taking
place at a tremendous cost both in terms of abusing the lives of
legitimate firearms owners and, more important, taking so much
time of the RCMP and other police forces.
Is it a priority to tie up hundreds of thousands of person hours
in this type of activity? That energy, time and money are
misdirected. I assume because of the muscle the government is
using in Parliament that the legislation will pass. That motivated
me to put forward this amendment. I will read the amendment:
``In the year 2000, no later than June 1 and every three years
13573
thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act
shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of
Commons as the House may designate for that purpose''.
I appreciate that the previous speaker indicated the interest in
the auditor general's evaluating legislation prior to action. I
support that because the auditor general has said on numerous
occasions that in his judgment the present legislation has not
been evaluated to see whether it is effective.
Even the justice department has stated time and time again the
evaluation of the effectiveness of present legislation has simply
not been done. Why then is the government so determined to
proceed with a whole set of changes on existing legislation that
has yet to be evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness?
Basically this is an attempt through one of 267 amendments to
say that if the government is to proceed with this anyway as a
result of its parliamentary muscle, let us at least include a
provision so that this changed legislation is evaluated on a
regular basis to see if it is effective, whether the registration
system is effective, whether the whole initiative is cost effective
and presumably to identify areas that need improvement.
It is meant to improve the legislation. I hope government
members take it seriously and give some thought to building in
some type of process by which this legislation can be reviewed
on a regular basis.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk at debate on
Bill C-68 on my amendment which, like a couple of the others
presented, calls for a review of this legislation. I have suggested
a period of five years.
The purpose of the legislation, the intent of the minister and
of the government to attempt to curb violence in Canadian
society is a worthwhile objective and the legislation in many
respects addresses that.
There are items in the legislation that have beyond a shadow
of a doubt proven to have an opportunity to do that; increasing
the penalties for the commission of certain violent acts with a
firearm, increased penalties for possession of stolen firearms,
increased penalties for smuggling, all of which most of us
accept. The idea of more policing of the borders is a proven
thing which most people would support.
(1235)
On the other hand there is the question of universal
registration of all firearms, going beyond what we have now
which is for handguns only. There is an open question whether
that provision will achieve the purpose of the bill which is to
reduce violence in Canadian society.
I and many Canadians believe that with any piece of
legislation there has to be a balance. There has to be a
relationship between what is being done, the cost and what the
result will be. There are four areas we should take a look at and
which I intend to address briefly in this speech. We must look at
what registration is likely to do and what is not likely to do, what
it will cost and what it may do. There is a difference between
what it will do and what it may do.
What is registration attempting to do? It is trying address
what we know, that a firearm normally begins its life as a legal
firearm and through its lifetime it goes through a process and
becomes illegal. Registration is an attempt to arrest that
process. It is not an attempt once a firearm becomes illegal to
stop somebody from using it in a certain way. That will not
happen. It is an attempt to stop the process of going from legal to
illegal. It does that a number of ways.
A large number of thefts occur from bulk shipments.
Registration will record those items as they reach the border and
then can be tracked to their point of destination and hopefully
stop theft from those shipments.
It will give police an opportunity better enforce prohibition
orders issued by judges. Under this legislation and previous
legislation a judge can put a prohibition order on individuals to
stop them owning firearms based on their past behaviour, for
instance being convicted of a serious criminal offence.
Registration will make it easier for a police officer to know
exactly what firearms they want to collect and execute the
prohibition order.
On safe storage, if somebody has a firearm stolen from his or
her dwelling and it is used in a criminal offence there will be the
possibility to trace it back exactly from where it came. That
might encourage certain people to practise better safe storage.
The licensing part of the registration system will give
authorities the opportunity to examine somebody's past
behaviour and to determine whether it should preclude them
from owning a firearm. Those are some of the things registration
is likely to do.
There are some things it will not do and people should be clear
on this as well. Once a criminal has a firearm in their possession,
whether it is registered is very unlikely to stop them from
committing a criminal act. That is not what registration will do.
Anybody with that in their mind is probably mistaken.
If somebody is intent on doing harm to themselves and is in
possession of a firearm, that the firearm is or is not registered
will probably not have a lot to do with the actions of that person.
The registration part is to stop the process from becoming
illegal. Once the firearm is illegal the legislation will not have a
lot of impact.
There are some concerns about what it may do. I am
concerned it will increase the cost of hunting. A lot of
individuals in my riding hunt. It will preclude them from
participating in that sport. On a more broad basis, hunting is an
important economic activity in my riding which is pursued by a
lot of people. A lot of individuals come into the area and spend
their money on lodging
13574
et cetera. The concern is whether it will decrease the number of
people who will participate in that.
The fear of many legitimate firearm owners is whether this
system of registration in the hands of a future government may
be used to prohibit firearms normally used in recreational
activities. It is a concern they genuinely hold and one we need to
address and take into account when looking at this legislation.
(1240)
We must look at cost. The cost individually to begin with will
not be that high, $10 for up to 10 firearms plus acquiring an FPC.
There is the concern that if that is the opening cost what will the
cost be in five years, ten years, fifteen years. It is a legitimate
concern not just with firearms but with anything that has a fee
attached to it.
There is also a concern about the global cost for it. It is set at
$85 million to implement and then there will be a cost to keep it
in place. That has to be a concern in a day and age when we have
fiscal challenges facing us as a government.
There are a number of considerations we have to take into
account. We have to take into account what registration will do.
We have to understand what it will not do. We have to
understand what it may do or at least have an appreciation of
what it may do. We also have to understand what it may cost. We
need to evaluate considering all of those components.
Will it stop violence? Will it be reasonable? Will it hurt
legitimate firearms owners? Those are the things we need to
know. Those are things being debated in the House, things quite
frankly that have been debated for the last year. I do not think it
will possible at this point to get any clear consensus on that or a
clear understanding.
In that respect I have proposed an amendment which will
mandate a review after five years so we will have an opportunity
as Parliament to understand whether the legislation is achieving
its objective to curb violence in society and understand whether
we need to modify or change it to make it more effective in order
to have an understanding as to whether some of those negative
consequences or concerns put forward will take place.
Therefore I urge my colleagues in the House today to help and
assist me by voting for this amendment requiring a review of the
legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to advise the House
that we have gone through the first round of debate and I
recognized the speakers under whom the motions stood. Now to
a more general debate I will look to the government, followed by
the official opposition, the government and the third party. We
will see who might be seeking the floor at any time.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak
on Bill C-68 at report stage.
I listened to the suggested amendments put forward by
different members. The member for Yorkton-Melville worked
on the committee and spent a good deal of time with other
members of the committee working on this bill which I feel is a
much better bill as a result of the work of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I do not agree when members say we tried to shut down
debate. We have had a lot of debate on this subject. We will have
report stage today and third reading tomorrow. Members may
want to speak to the bill at this stage. The important thing is
members have spoken to us about their concerns on this bill and
their thoughts and ideas have been taken into consideration; not
all but a lot. As a result changes are reflected in the revised
edition of the bill before the House today at report stage.
I will speak to the amendments that have been brought
forward. The first amendment is by the member for Algoma who
wants to change the title from other weapons to related matters. I
understand what he is trying to do but unfortunately the wording
he wants to use is too general. What we want to do here is relate
it to weapons.
(1245)
There is not a negative connotation meant in this this bill
relating to the use of weapons. A weapon is not something that
has a negative connotation in the opinion of the government. If it
had not been for weapons we would not have our free society
today after the first and second world wars and the Korean
conflict. We are not trying to downgrade or malign weapons.
This is not something we want to do. For that reason we feel the
wording as stated is what we would like to use.
He also mentions in section 4 on page 4 that the wording is
ineffective because some of the objectives are not stated. He
wants certain objectives stated. The problem is that while some
of the objectives are stated by the hon. member in his
amendment, other objectives are not. We feel that the section to
which he refers adequately states what it is the government is
trying to do.
I turn to Motion No. 158 relating to the review: ``The minister
shall periodically conduct a review of this act and the
regulations and shall table a report on the review in the House of
Commons within 12 months of commencing the review''.
The review is something many members wanted to see in the
bill and it was given a good deal of study. The problem is that we
will be registering the gun owners from January 1, 1996 until
December 31, 2001 and firearms themselves from January 1,
13575
1998 to December 31, 2003. That is when the act will really be in
place. Any time after that would be the logical time for a review
if one were to be brought forward. If we are looking at a five
year review the year 2008 presumably would be the time for a
review.
It is not felt at this time that a review should be included in the
bill. We want to give the bill a chance to work. We want to have
the bill passed, to have Canadians understand what is in the bill
and to have an opportunity to look at the regulations.
There certainly will be an election prior to the registration of
the firearms commencing on January 1, 1998. This could be a
subject of debate during the next federal election. I am sure all
members will be prepared to discuss this subject and I welcome
that. I think that is the way it should be. We would then have the
opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the act and
regulations which Canadians will have had an opportunity to
review and of which they will be better aware. To leave that out
at this time would be the most appropriate course.
The member for Yorkton-Melville has stated in Motion No.
167: ``Sections 3 to 129 expire on December 31, 1999 unless
prior to that date, with respect to each section the auditor general
has prepared and caused to be laid before Parliament a report on
whether the section has been or will be a successful in the cost
effective use of public funds to achieve an increase in public
safety and a reduction in the incidence of violent crime
involving the use of firearms''. Certainly a review in my opinion
would be preferable to this.
(1250 )
We have stated we want Parliament to have the control over
legislation, particularly this legislation. The motion gives the
powers over the act to the auditor general. While the auditor
general has a very worthwhile and important function in our
system of government, he is not an institution to which we want
to give control over our legislation and control over whether
legislation is going to be successful or not.
The member is placing the responsibility on one man and one
man's report as to whether or not legislation is going to
continue. This is not a review by Parliament but a review by one
person. If this precedent were instituted and followed up in other
legislation then Parliament might as well stop functioning. It
might as well shut down because the auditor general would
declare whether he or she thought bills should continue to be in
effect.
Motions Nos. 266 and 267, one by the member for Kamloops
and the other by the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, once
again call for reviews of the act and I would say the same thing.
This is not an appropriate time to implement a review. If it is felt
there is still a lot of concern with the act later on, it could be the
subject of an amendment perhaps after the next federal election.
The act has to be given the opportunity to work. We have to
see the regulations. Many members of Parliament will be very
pleasantly surprised.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-68 is about public safety. To ensure the safety of the
public we need certain measures that will not necessarily please
everyone.
When restrictions are set on our freedom of choice or freedom
of action, most of us start asking questions and there is bound to
be some protest against new measures. Only time will tell
whether these measures are effective.
Firearms registration is one such measure that has raised a lot
of controversy. Apparently harmless, this measure has caused
one of the most emotional debates I have ever seen and in which
I have taken part. At the time, even Bill C-17 did not seem to
raise arguments that were so emotionally charged.
One that recurs ad nauseam is that the measures adopted in
1991 were entirely adequate and that it is unnecessary to change
anything at all in the existing legislation. However, during the
debate on C-17, the pro-gun lobby argued that the proposed
measures were redundant and would put an additional burden on
honest gun owners.
Apparently, the pro-gun lobby has managed to live with the
provisions on storage, display and transportation of firearms. If
they are satisfied with the existing provisions, it is because they
are effective, and only time will tell whether a legislative
provision produces the expected results.
Perhaps I may draw another analogy. I well remember the
controversy that it raised in Quebec when the government
wanted to make wearing seat belts mandatory. A whole range of
arguments was raised against this decision. It was an attack on
individual freedom, was one argument we often heard. First
prove it will save lives, was another one. The government has no
right to make me buckle up, people said. I am a responsible
driver and never had an accident. Does that sound familiar?
However, according to the statistics, seat belts have saved
lives. Especially since a car is not supposed to kill but to carry
passengers. I could apply the same analogy to making helmets
mandatory for motorcyclists.
(1255)
All these measures were adopted by governments for the
well-being of the community, to protect public safety. I agree
some measures restrict our individual freedoms, but it is a small
price to pay for the benefits down the line. So much for
analogies.
13576
Now back to the motions concerning safe storage. The
motions I proposed would make it mandatory for the
manufacturer, importer and exporter of a firearm to install a
secure locking device on the firearm. A secure locking device
means a device that cannot be opened or unlocked except with an
electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or an alphanumeric
combination lock. Once installed, the locking device must
prevent the firearm from shooting.
The amendment I proposed, which will probably be discussed
later on, is entirely appropriate in a bill on public security.
Access to unlocked firearms is far too easy. Guns without a
trigger lock and ammunition that is not securely stored are
immediately available to the individual who gives in to suicidal
or violent impulses. When guns and ammunition are not
immediately available, the individual has time to think and calm
down.
The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are horrifying. In
1991, suicides represented 77 per cent of 1,445 deaths caused by
firearms. Out of 732 homicides recorded in Canada in 1992, 246
were committed with a firearm. Most homicides during the past
ten years were committed with shotguns or hunting rifles. In
three cases out of four, women killed by their spouses were shot
with a shotgun or hunting rifle.
The statistics are there. A trigger lock could have helped
reduce the number of suicides and homicides committed with a
gun. Just like making the wearing of seat belts mandatory, this
measure would help us save lives.
An amendment like the one we proposed would impose few
restrictions, considering the benefits that would ensue.
Equipping all firearms in circulation, including shoulder arms,
with a trigger lock is an indication that firearms are dangerous,
that they can kill and that owners should use them responsibly.
Firearms involve too much risk to be ignored. The mere
presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk of suicide five
times and the risk of homicide three times. The risk of accident
is greater in a home where firearms are kept than in a home
where there are none.
The improper use of firearms must be reduced by showing
that guns mean danger and that firearms must always be used
carefully and in accordance with the law and the requirements of
safety.
The mandatory trigger lock would permit this. A way must be
found to inform users who do not even know there are gun
storage regulations. Those primarily concerned, that is the
owners, are not even aware that gun storage regulations exist. A
survey by Léger & Léger confirms this disturbing discovery. It
was done between September 1 and 13, 1994 and involved 515
gun owners living in Quebec. In response to a question on
knowledge of the existence of the regulations, only 53 per cent
believed there was legislation on storage; 31.8 per cent said the
opposite; and 15.1 per cent were undecided-they did not know
there were any regulations on the safe storage of firearms.
(1300)
At the very least, a trigger lock and targeted advertising are
required and just as essential as a national registration system.
Bill C-68 is not intended to stigmatize firearms owners, but,
rather, to promote a form of social accountability. This is why
we must oblige manufacturers, importers and exporters to equip
firearms with a secure locking device.
These are my comments on the amendments before us at the
moment, since, unfortunately, I believe some members will try
to use the time and prevent us from discussing other motions.
This is why I chose to discuss mine now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Further to the comments
by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, it is not up to me to plan
strategy for anyone in this House. So long as no one questions
the relevance-we know how complex it can be to resolve-we
will continue the debate.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very important issue for many people in the rural areas
of the country.
I have considered this question over the last several years. In
my previous life as an opposition member we had a debate on
this issue. In fact we have debated the matter a number of times.
I was here when Bill C-17 was debated, which was brought in by
the former Conservative government.
That bill was supported by the hon. member for Kamloops
who stood in the House today to say that he was upset with the
fact that time allocation had been imposed. During the previous
debate that member was the House leader of the New
Democratic Party and he supported the government, in fact all
the parties, in limiting debate and supported not having a vote at
second reading. I find it somewhat surprising today that the hon.
member for Kamloops would stand in his place and criticize the
government for imposing time allocation.
We have debated this bill for the last year. I am sure all hon.
members in the House have had or should have had the
opportunity to express the views of their constituents, not only
on the floor of the House but across the country. Certainly in the
last year there have been opportunities for constituents to
express their views of the issue. I have travelled across my
riding. I have been to gun rallies. I have met with different
groups.
This past weekend as I debated how I will vote on the issue I
had the opportunity to speak with many of my constituents,
especially a number of the mayors and regional councillors. In
my constituency a number of motions were put forward by
regional councils and a number of municipalities outlining their
concerns with the legislation. I have also had an opportunity to
speak to a lot of my gun guys. I call them the gun guys because
they are the ones who have formed different shooting clubs.
13577
They are members of anglers and hunters groups and they have
come together to fight the bill. I say gun guys because the
membership is made up of guys. I have been out west and I have
discussed this issue with people in various ridings.
I took issue with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville
when he talked about the view of Ontarians on the issue. He
seemed to suggest that somehow the Mike Harris sweep meant
that people were against gun control in Ontario. That is simply
not true. Take the example of northern Ontario for instance
where there is the strongest disagreement with this bill. It went
Liberal and NDP. In two of the three ridings of the members of
this party that voted against the government on second reading,
those ridings went Liberal.
(1305)
Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the Reform Party, as it
does in my riding, tries to take credit somehow for the Mike
Harris victory in this past election. As members know, that is
simply not true.
I have had difficulties on this issue in my own riding simply
because I have had the opportunity of getting around and talking
to a number of people. If one talks to people generally on the
street, what they will say is that a lot of people are against this
legislation.
The Reform Party in my riding likes to build this up. The
Reform Party comes forward. Its past candidate writes letters to
an editor at a newspaper saying they will use this and fight the
member on it.
Most people in my riding know my views on this issue. They
know that I fought hard to make changes. What they do not know
is how the Reform Party says it is speaking out on behalf of its
constituents but when you look at the numbers and the polls, it
shows that many of these members are being two faced about the
issue. They are claiming to represent their constituents and they
are not.
There are only a few brave members of the Reform Party who
are standing up for what their constituents want. I find that to be
in contrast with what the Reform Party promised in the last
election. I have always in the House taken very strongly the
views of my constituents and tried to put them forward.
What the Reform Party never tells you when its members talk
about free votes-we have not seen very many free votes from
these people-is what you do in the House when-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind members on both
sides that all interventions must be made through the Chair, and
not directly to one other. In that way we might continue to have a
very parliamentary debate on a very serious matter before the
House.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, what the Reform Party never tells
its constituents when it talks about free votes is what to do in a
situation where your views on an issue are different from your
constituents.
If one looks at the polling across the country, one poll may be
different, two polls may, but when all polls across the country
show support for this legislation it is difficult.
A poll taken in my own riding by the Simcoe Reformer asked
a number of questions. It said: ``Are you strongly in favour,
somewhat in favour, or opposed to the registration of all guns?''
Those who strongly support were 33 per cent. Those who
strongly opposed were 23 per cent. For somewhat support, there
were 26 per cent and somewhat opposed, 19 per cent.
The question I have to look at is: ``How do you think your
member of Parliament should vote on this issue: For or against
the proposal on gun control legislation?''
Of those who had an opinion, 60 per cent said that their
member of Parliament should vote for the legislation and 40 per
cent said that he should vote against the legislation. That poll
was taken in my riding.
It has been difficult to get a good grasp on what the majority
of constituents think on this issue. What I did was call around. In
fact, I talked to some of the gun control opponents in my riding.
They said that they had been taking polls too. It showed 70:30.
The numbers were not only true but they were stronger.
It makes it difficult for all hon. members. I know tonight as we
vote on this Reform Party members will too be looking at how
their constituents think about this issue. On this issue we are
talking about a five-year review, which I totally support and
which I have put forward. The minister is here today and he has
indicated in the past that this might be a proper thing to do, to
review the legislation to make sure it is working.
(1310)
The Toronto Globe and Mail had an editorial which
essentially said the same thing. Let us see whether or not the
registration of guns will do what the government says it will do.
That is why I support the motions. I would put the year for
review at 2008 as the hon. parliament secretary has done. That
would be a good way to do it.
Since the parliamentary secretary said he supported the idea
and the minister is here and since the Reform Party agrees with
this, I wonder if we could get unanimous consent to put forward
a motion that would use the year 2008, five years after the
implementation. If there is unanimous consent, the motion
would say:
13578
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 134 the
following:
That no later than January 1, 2008, that the federal minister shall prepare a
report on the effectiveness of this act in reducing the incidents of indictable
offences involving the use of a firearm, and lay the report before the House of
Commons.
I wonder if we could get unanimous consent of the House for
this motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the unanimous consent
for the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin by touching on the inconsistencies that I see and the
reasoning behind this bill.
Inconsistencies always bother me because fact should support
fact and truth should support truth. An inconsistency indicates
that fact is not supporting fact. I am concerned about that.
The two inconsistencies are these. If the justice minister and
the government truly believe that the registration of rifles and
shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms and save
lives, why are we waiting until the year 2003 to make it
mandatory? Why are we waiting that long to begin to save lives
and create a safer society?
The other inconsistency is that 58 per cent of the handguns
that have been legally acquired and legally held are to be
banned. Why? Because they pose a danger to society. Yet those
handguns are not to be taken from society, they are to left in
society. They are to be grandfathered.
Why would the government, if it honestly believes that 58 per
cent of handguns held today in society are a danger to society,
then why would it allow them to remain in society?
I will have more to say at third reading about the bill. I will
begin my address to Bill C-68 at report stage by taking
cognizance of those two very glaring inconsistencies behind the
rationale of the bill as presented by the government.
I am opposed to a system of registration of rifles and shotguns
as outlined in Bill C-68. I am also opposed to the draconian
inspection powers and the absurd penalties provided for anyone
who fails to register a rifle or a shotgun.
Canada has some of the most stringent gun regulations in the
world now. Some 60 pages in the Criminal Code deal with the
acquisition, ownership and use of firearms, and we want to add a
whole bundle more.
(1315)
We do not need further controls on law-abiding gun owners.
We need the enforcement of the present laws and to get tough
with the criminal use of firearms. Canadians have been
demanding changes to the justice system in this country for
years. All they have received are weak-kneed, bleeding heart
policies that further erode the objective of justice, which is to
reduce crime.
The present and past governments have used gun control to
make Canadians believe they are doing something about crime
in Canada when they are not.
Bill C-68 is not a gun control bill. It is not going to control
guns; it is going to register them. There is a huge difference
between the two.
Bill C-68 is nothing more than a pretence that the government
is making our homes and streets safer and getting tough on
criminals.
I recall Lynda Haverstock, the leader of the Saskatchewan
Liberal Party, when she appeared before the standing committee
stated in effect that the federal government was spreading
misinformation by claiming Bill C-68 would reduce suicide and
domestic violence that involved firearms. I agree with this
observation.
The bill creates false hopes in the minds of Canadians about
what it will do in terms of making our homes and streets safer,
hope that will never be realized through this bill because it does
not address the cause of suicide or the cause of domestic
violence.
As the auditor general concluded in his 1993 report: ``Our
review of the new regulations indicated that important data
needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness
of the regulations were not available at the time the regulations
were drafted. The government proceeded with new regulations
for reasons of public policy''.
The government is doing exactly the same thing. There is not
a statistical justification for bringing in a universal registration
system, and yet we see that as the central pillar in Bill C-68.
The voters have awakened. They cannot be placated by
pretentious pieces of legislation. Canadians want concrete
measures effectively aimed at reducing crime. The Ontario and
Manitoba elections demonstrate quite clearly that the citizens of
these provinces reject the Liberal form of justice. They reject
the Liberal tendencies to make offenders' rights supersede the
rights of victims.
13579
Canadians must be able to see that the measures introduced by
the government will meet the objective of reducing crime before
legislation is passed, not after. Through common sense appraisal
of the law they must be able to see that it will be of benefit to
them, their families and their communities.
The justice minister has not provided any statistical
information to justify the implementation of these draconian
measures in this bill, although he has repeatedly been asked to
do so. He has not effectively demonstrated the link between
registering firearms and a reduction in crime. That is what the
attorneys general from the three western prairie provinces
addressed when they appeared before the standing committee.
There was no linkage they could see between the registration of
rifles and shotguns and the reduction in the criminal use of these
firearms.
Not one witness who appeared before the standing committee
could provide any substantive evidence that registration would
reduce the criminal use of these firearms. No one could
demonstrate how registration, the banning of .25 and .32 calibre
handguns, the new licensing regime or the intrusive inspection
powers will diminish the number of firearm crimes in this
country.
What they did inadvertently illustrate was an unrealistic fear
of firearms and an idealistic notion that by restricting ownership
of firearms, criminals, those people who thrive on obtaining a
valuable object to sell on the black market, would somehow be
thwarted by such regulatory acts aimed at honest citizens,
people who have owned and used firearms for years in a safe and
legal manner.
To date it seems the only impetus for Bill C-68 is to fulfil the
justice minister's original and unrealistic thought to have only
the police and military possess firearms in this country.
Time today does not permit me to address and debate each of
the Reform's amendments. The time allocation imposed by the
Liberal government with the co-operation of the separatist Bloc
party for both the report stage and the third reading of this bill
denies me and my colleagues the opportunity to present
evidence to substantiate our amendments or to represent the
concerns of our constituents.
(1320 )
I object to the shameful and undemocratic methods employed
by the government to ram this bill through Parliament. It is no
secret that the government is having trouble keeping its caucus
together on this issue. The threat of being kicked off a
committee is hanging over every Liberal's head if they dare to
represent their constituents by voting against the government
and in accordance with the will of the majority of the people
they represent.
I think the government is terrified to allow its MPs the
opportunity to go home for the summer to consult constituents
on Bill C-68, Bill C-41, or the government's pension bill. It
knows that the more Canadians learn about Bill C-68, as was the
case for the Charlottetown accord, the stronger the opposition
will grow.
So much for the competence of the government. So much for
the rhetoric that it has the support of Canadians. If it had the
majority of Canadians on its side it would not be moving so
quickly to have this bill passed, especially given the fact it will
not be implemented until the year 2003.
Reform is opposed to Bill C-68 in many of its forms.
Therefore, we will be voting against the vast majority of this bill
at third reading. Our amendments tabled before the House are an
attempt to make this draconian legislation more palatable for
those firearm owners who will be burdened by red tape, costly
controls of privately owned property, and intrusion into their
lives.
Reforms' amendments in no way concede to the principle of
more gun regulations in this country. We still maintain and are
adamant that there is no need for the registration of rifles and
shotguns.
I will have more time at third reading to address the concerns
of our party with regard to this bill, which are reflected by the
people all across the country.
I was in Stratford this weekend, and last weekend I was in
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. I have spoken to approximately
35,000 to 38,000 Canadians across the country who have all
expressed the very same views and concerns. They are prepared
to do whatever is reasonable and underlaid with common sense
to bring about a safer use of firearms. However, they do not
believe this bill will do that. They believe that it will do quite the
opposite and simply encumber law-abiding citizens when it
ought to be directing its efforts at those who would use firearms
in a criminal manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill and particularly to
the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. But first I
must say that I am somewhat surprised by the debate
surrounding this bill, which, at first sight, should bring us
together in support of the goal that was set.
Without accusing anyone-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have a little bit of a
problem. I simply want to clarify something with the hon.
member and all my colleagues. We are currently debating the
first group of motions on Bill C-68. Otherwise, if we broaden
the debate-if I can use that expression-, if this is what the
13580
House wants, the Chair will certainly acquiesce to its request.
However, at this time, I am seeking some guidance from my
colleagues.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, tell me if I am mistaken, but I
understood that, given the limited time available to discuss each
group of motions and the number of members scheduled to
address the first group-as you can see, there is no Bloc
amendment in this group-, we would be allowed, while
speaking to the first group, to argue on any amendment moved
by any other member. I am one of the movers of an amendment
that will come up only in the fourth group and, if I am not
mistaken, I think that this group will not pass.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker. It is up to you, but I understood
the House agreed to broaden-as you say-the debate on this
group of motions. It is up to you, of course.
(1325)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As you know, the Chair is
not involved in those discussions.
[English]
If there has been some agreement reached by the parties as to
how this debate might proceed, you would be in full knowledge
that the Chair is not a participant in those deliberations and is
consequently unaware of any such agreement, which is not to
say there is not one.
All I am attempting to do is facilitate the debate in the
traditional fashion for colleagues on both sides of the House. I
seek your guidance. If there is something the Chair is not aware
of, please make us aware.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on the
content or to change the format.
The hon. member for Saint-Hubert talked generally about
trigger locks and things that were not related to group one. The
hon. member for Crowfoot did likewise. I can understand why
they would do it, because we do not know how far we will get in
this debate.
However, with both parties having had an opportunity to put
points of view on the record, I would hope that not all members
are going to talk generally. I would like to adhere to the
groupings so we will be able to discuss the merits of the
amendments. I am not saying we have to adhere completely to
that, without deviation, because we do have a time limit and all
members have a right to be heard on the subject matter at report
stage. I hope we adhere to the groupings as best we can so we
give an airing to the motions that have been put forward. If not,
then why have these motions at all?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I appreciate the
intervention from the hon. parliamentary secretary. Certainly
we are all cognizant that a great deal of work goes into
formulating these groupings to facilitate the debate and to bring
a certain focus to amendments within a certain grouping.
I will join the parliamentary secretary and everyone else in
the House in appealing to everyone to keep their remarks and
participation as much as possible within the context of the
groupings. Otherwise, I will react to whatever the mood of the
House is at any time during this debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, in this case, I will simply
pass my turn and wait for my amendment to come up before
taking the floor. I will also wait for third reading to denounce the
government.
In that sense, I think that, given all the amendments and the
time limit on debate, the government could have shown good
faith and allowed the opposition to present arguments, as was
done before I rose. I was not the first member to speak to this bill
in a general way. I will give up my turn, given the government's
way of proceeding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I very much appreciate
the understanding shown by the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm. True, he was not the first member to
discuss the bill in a more general way, but I did react to a
previous speech.
[English]
Certainly I will attempt to the best of my ability to conduct the
debate in the fashion that will be most acceptable to at least the
vast majority of colleagues in the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find unanimous
consent to consider that all the questions have been put, a
division demanded and deferred.
I think you would be able to follow this procedure throughout
the day if we reach the end of a group, simply to save time in the
House. In other words, we will have a vote on them at the end of
the day. There is no need to call the yeas and nays at this point
and then defer the vote.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion of
the hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
Does the House agree that the Chair should defer the
questions instead of putting the motions in group No. 1 to a
vote?
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1330)
[English]
We will move to group No. 2. I want to apprise the House the
only motions standing in group No. 2 will be Motion No. 5 and
Motion No. 145. All other motions in group No. 2 have been
withdrawn.
13581
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we
have a clarification on the withdrawal of those other motions? I
am unaware of any withdrawal.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The mover or movers of
those other motions within group No. 2 have decided to
withdraw their motions. That is the only explanation I can offer
the House at this time.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I understand some of those are my
motions and I have not withdrawn any. I am not aware of anyone
withdrawing them on my behalf either.
I was looking at a past Order Paper, not today's. I am in error
and I withdraw my intervention.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
from Crowfoot for his co-operation. Certainly we were looking
for whether we had given less than accurate information. I
would not want to do that on any debate, certainly not on this
one.
Now we will go to group No. 2, with only Motion No. 5 and
Motion No. 145 standing. As I understand, by previous
agreement I do not have to read the motions.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-68 be amended, in Clause 2, by adding after line 11 on page 4, the
following:
``(3) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to
abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.''
Motion No. 145
That clause 107.1 of Bill C-68 be amended
(a) by striking out, in the English version, line 23 on page 52 and substituting the
following:
``may lawfully use it;
(b) by striking out line 28 on page 52 and substituting the following:
``obtains a registration certificate for it; or
(c) a person who possesses a firearm and who is not the holder of a registration
certificate for the firearm if the person
(i) has borrowed the firearm,
(ii) is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it, and
(iii) is in possession of the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself or
herself or his or her family.''
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will speak on both of these motions proposed by
the Minister of Justice. Motion No. 5 relates to clause 2 and adds
a new subsection (3):
For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate
or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(1335)
We have heard from many aboriginal groups about the
importance of firearms in exercising their traditional hunting
rights. With this in mind the government is in the midst of
consultation with aboriginal groups so the main tenets of the bill
can be applied in a manner which is sensitive to the aboriginal
communities. This motion would simply confirm the
government's commitment to work in concert with aboriginal
communities so that the firearms legislation can operate in their
communities in a way which recognizes and is respectful of
constitutional aboriginal treaty rights.
What we want to do is rationalise the constitutional and treaty
rights which the aboriginal people already have with Bill C-68.
That is not to create due rights, but then again it is not to
derogate the rights aboriginal people already have. We want this
legislation to work in conjunction with the treaty and
constitutional rights of the aboriginal people. That is very
important for the operation of this bill and for the respect of the
rights of aboriginal people under the Constitution and the
treaties.
Reform members are calling this a two tier justice system. We
have stated and we state again there is to be the same rights
applied to all Canadians and that the bill is to apply equally in all
parts of Canada except where we have stated certain conditions
would apply to those who hunt for sustenance. We are
acknowledging that there are treaty and constitutional rights for
aboriginal people. We want to mesh the application of this bill
into that.
Motion No. 145 strikes out certain lines in the English version
of the bill. We are proposing an amendment consequential to the
new lending conditions to be provided in the legislation. Motion
No. 145 would provide an exception to the summary offence
provision of possessing a firearm without a registration
certificate if the person were a sustenance hunter who had
borrowed the firearm.
This is in relation to section 107(1) of the Firearms Act which
will come into being with Bill C-68. It says someone who has
borrowed a firearm for hunting for sustenance would not be
charged because they were hunting with or using an unregistered
firearm. We think that is applicable and is in keeping with those
who must hunt for sustenance to feed their families in the more
remote parts of the country.
I put forward on behalf of the government those two motions
which we feel will add to the bill, particularly to those residents
of the more rural parts of the country. We are mindful of the
concerns of those in the rural and regional parts of the country
and we want this bill to be respected, obeyed and applicable in a
meaningful way to these regions.
13582
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was a bit
unclear as to what the parliamentary secretary was saying. Is he
saying this would not apply to anywhere south of the Northwest
Territories, to any aboriginals in Ontario, Quebec and the west?
(1340)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With respect, that is not a
point of order.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment put
forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice. This clause was recommended by most of the aboriginal
groups that came to the justice committee during its hearings on
Bill C-68. Some specific recommendations were made by the
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees of
Quebec to include a non-derogation clause in the bill.
While the government's position is that the bill does not
abrogate or derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights,
aboriginal people want greater assurance and comfort.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Aboriginal groups are happy the government and the minister
have responded. I thank the aboriginal witnesses for this
suggestion. I express my deep appreciation to the minister for
listening and responding to these concerns.
I am sure we will have the support of the Reform Party. I will
quote the hon. member for Crowfoot who quite clearly said
during one of the hearings that the support is there from the
Reform Party: ``I find it unacceptable that the government will
make agreements with our aboriginal people and then violate
those agreements. This is unacceptable. What is the purpose of
the agreement and where is the honour of the agreement if it is
simply to be violated? No wonder the aboriginal people come
forward. I admire your patience. I cannot get over your patience
in the face of this kind of treatment''.
It is quite clear that when the aboriginal people of Canada
want a non-derogation clause in the gun control bill the Reform
Party will be with us all the way on this issue. It would not want
the Government of Canada to break its treaties with the
aboriginal people who have negotiated land claims and treaties
over the past number of years.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
(1345 )
[English]
I am glad this amendment has been put forward. I am sure
members of this House will find that this amendment is
acceptable to all, that it will address the needs and that it
recognizes and acknowledges the special place aboriginal
people have in this country.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the same agreement
applicable that the votes will be deferred?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on Group No. 2 stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 3.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 11, on page 4, the following
new Clause:
``2.1 This Act does not apply in respect of
(a) any firearm that is not a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm; or
(b) any ammunition that is not prohibited ammunition.''
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 17, on page 4, with the following:
``4(1) The purpose of this Act is''; and
(b) by adding after line 18, on page 5, the following:
``(2) Nothing is this Act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is
licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or
prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this Act,
from
(a) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting,
trapping or other lawful activity, or
(b) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That the French version of Clause 10 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
lines 36 to 41 on page 10 and line 1 on page 11 and substituting the following:
``10. Les articles 5, 6 et 9 s'appliquent aux transporteurs se livrant à des
activités, notamment, de transport d'armes à feu, d'armes prohibées, d'armes à
autorisation restreinte, de dispositifs prohibés ou de munitions prohibées reliant
une province et une ou plusieurs autres provinces, ou débordant les limites
d'une province, et, à cette fin, la mention du''.
13583
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-68, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page
11, with the following:
``province.''
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-68, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 14,
with the following:
``registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm unless the''.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-68, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 32, on page
14, with the following:
``14. A registration certi-ficate may be issued only for a prohibited firearm or
a restricted firearm
(a) that bears a serial number sufficient to distinguish it from other prohibited
firearms or restricted firearms; or
(b) that is described by one or more of the fol-lowing characteristics:
(i) its make,
(ii) its model,
(iii) the name of its manufacturer,
(iv) the length of its barrel,
(v) its calibre, or
(vi) its assembly number.''
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-68, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21, on
page 18, with the following:
``or to a police force if the person informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and
complies with the''.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-68, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33, on
page 18, with the following:
``proposed transfer of a prohibited fire-arm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon,
prohibited device, ammunition or''.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-68, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21, on page
19 with the following:
``(c) decide whether to approve the transfer or importation; and''.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 21,
with the following:
``transfer of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the Registrar may''.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 21,
with the following:
``transfer of a firearm, a chief firearms officer may''.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 21,
with the following:
``prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm to Her Majesty in right of Canada or''.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 21,
with the following:
``province or to a police force, a chief firearms officer''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 54
That Clause 32 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 4 to 8 on page
22 and substituting the following:
``(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the borrower holds a licence
authorizing the borrower to possess that kind of firearm, and
(ii) lends the borrower the registration certificate for the firearm, except in the
case of a borrower who uses the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself
or herself or his or her family; or''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-68, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 7, on page 22 with
the following:
``(ii) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, lends the borrower
the registration''.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-68, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 22,
with the following:
``(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor''.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-68, in Clause 40, be amended in the English version, by replacing
lines 38 and 39, on page 26, with the following:
``same effect as a registration for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for the
period for which the confirma-''.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-68, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42, on
page 26, with the following:
``41. A customs officer shall inform a chief firearms officer without delay of
the exportation or''.
13584
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-68, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on
page 27, with the following:
``(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, holds the registration
certificate for the prohibited firearm or the restricted firearm;''.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-68, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 31to 33, on page
27, with the following:
``(e) provides a chief firearms officer with the prescribed information and any other
information required by that officer.''
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-68, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17, on
page 28, with the following:
``(c) in the case of a restricted firearm or a restricted weapon,''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-68, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 30, on page
28, with the following:
``(f) provides a chief firearms officer with the prescribed information and other
information required by that officer.''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 78
That clause 45 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 28 to 30 on page
28 and substituting the following:
``(f) provides the Registrar with the prescribed information and any other
information reasonably required by the Registrar.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-68, in Clause 47, be amended in the English version, by replacing
line 4, on page 29, with the following:
``certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for the period for''.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-68, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on
page 29, with the following:
``49. A customs officer shall inform a chief firearms officer without delay of
the exportation or''.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-68, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 29,
with the following:
``50. A chief firearms officer shall inform the member''.
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-68, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 13, on page
30, with the following:
``a chief firearms officer.''
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-68, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing lines 132 and 33, on
page 30, with the following:
``53. (1) A chief firearms officer may require an applicant for a''.
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-68, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10, on page
32, with the following:
``58. A chief firearm officer is responsible for issuing registration certificates
for prohibited firearms or restricted firearms and assigning firearms
identification numbers to them and for issuing authorizations to export and
authorizations to import.''
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-68, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 28, on page
32, with the following:
``firearms, restricted firearms, cross-bows, prohibited weapons,''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-68, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 34,
with the following:
``64. A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted
firearm''.
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-68, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 31, on page
35, with the following:
``shall give notice of that decision in the prescribed form to the individual.''
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-68, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 12, on page 32,
with the following:
``67. A chief firearms officer may refuse to issue a''.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-68, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 36,
with the following:
``(2) A chief firearms officer may revoke an authoriza-''.
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-68, in Clause 69, be amended
(a) by replacing line 42, on page 36, with the following:
``69. (1) A chief firearms officer''
(b) by replacing lines 2 to 5, on page 37, with the following:
``a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm held by an individual where the chief
firearms officer decides under section 65 that the firearm is not being used for''.
13585
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-68, in Clause 70, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 25, on page
37, with the following:
``or authorization to transport, a registration certificate, authorization to export or
authorization to import, the chief firearms officer shall give notice''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 103
That the French version of clause 71 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
line 25 on page 38 and substituting the following:
``autres provinces, ou débordant les limites d'une province, et, à cette fin, la mention
du''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-68, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 28, on page
38, with the following:
``province.''
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-68, in Clause 72, be amended
(a) by replacing line 30, on page 38, with the following:
``(a) a chief firearms officer''
(b) by replacing line 20, on page 39, with the following:
``officer or provincial minister under''.
Motion No. 106
That Bill C-68, in Clause 73, be amended
(a) by replacing line 29, on page 39, with the following:
``chief firearms officer or provincial''
(b) by replacing line 37, on page 39, with the following:
``firearms officer or provincial min-''.
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-68, in Clause 74, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11, on page 40, with the following:
``firearms officer, or provincial'';
(b) by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page 40, with the following:
``(b) direct the chief firearms officer to issue a licence, registration''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 109
That clause 75 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 31 to 42 on page
40 and substituting the following:
``(a) the Attorney General of Canada may appeal to the superior court against the
order, if the order is directed to a chief firearms officer who was designated by the
federal Minister, to the Registrar or to the federal Minister; or
(b) the attorney general of the province may appeal to the superior court against the
order, in the case of any other order made under paragraph 74(b) or (c).''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 110
That Bill C-68, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34, on
page 40, with the following:
``order, if the order is directed to a chief firearms officer who was''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 111
That clause 76 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 19 to 23 on page
41 and substituting the following:
``(a) the Attorney General of Canada, in the case of an appeal of an order made under
paragraph 74(a) confirming a decision of a chief firearms officer who was
designated by the federal Minister, of the Registrar or of the federal Minister;''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 112
That Bill C-68, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 41,
with the following:
``a chief firearms officer who''.
Motion No. 113
That Bill C-68, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41, on
page 41, with the following:
``(i) direct the chief firearms officer to issue a licence, registration''.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 154
That Bill C-68, be amended by adding after line 26, on page 57, the following
New Clause:
``110.1 Notwithstanding section 2.1, the Governor in Council may make
regulations that are applicable in respect of firearms that are not prohibited
firearms or restricted firearms for the purpose of
(a) establishing minimum age and safety criteria for purchasers of firearms;
(b) establishing safe storage and handling standards for firearms; and
(c) regulating the exportation and importation of firearms.''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 31, on page
70.
Motion No. 207
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 42, on page 87,
with the following:
``a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm the serial number on which has been.''
Motion No. 215
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 98,
with the following:
13586
``ly possess the firearm and, where the firearm is a prohibited firearm or a
restricted firearm, a registration''.
Motion No. 216
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 99,
with the following:
``(b) in the case of a firearm, which is a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a
registration''.
Motion No. 218
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended in the English version by
replacing line 37, on page 100, with the following:
``thing and, in the case of a seized firearm, which is a prohibited firearm or a
restricted firearm, a''.
Motion No. 224
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 44 and 45, on
page 106, with the following:
``cate is, if certified as a true copy by a chief firearms officer, admissi-''.
Motion No. 225
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 46, on page
107 and lines 1 to 27, on page 108.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Following the process we
adopted in the first grouping, I have before me a list of the
movers of the various motions in this grouping. I will begin with
the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the third group of
amendments regarding Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons. I also want to thank my hon. friend from
Carleton-Charlotte for seconding the amendments I have put
forth. Within this block I have moved four motions for debate
today, Motions Nos. 4, 76, 92 and 154.
Judging by the level of debate in this House, in the media and
among Canadians generally, this legislation undoubtedly is one
of the most important bills presently before the House. I am
honoured therefore to rise today to speak on this motion on
behalf of my constituents of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Over the past year I have consulted widely with people in my
constituency. Whether at public rallies, through regular
correspondence or during many conversations with concerned
individuals, I have maintained a regular contact with over 1,500
people on the firearms issue alone. The series of amendments I
have brought forward represents the culmination of this
consultation process. The amendments represent the views I
have heard from many of my constituents. I feel that if adopted
they will make the bill stronger and more acceptable to a large
majority of firearms owners.
Before outlining the details of these amendments, I want to
clearly state that I intend at the end of the day to support Bill
C-68. I believe the majority of the provisions in this bill will
achieve our government's stated goal in improving public safety
on the streets and in our homes. Certainly I am not alone in this
regard. The vast majority of Canadians have expressed support
for the crime control elements of Bill C-68. Initiatives
including stiffer penalties for illegal importation and trafficking
of firearms as well as cracking down heavily on those who use
firearms in the commission of crime will indeed improve
security on our streets.
In discussions I have had with my constituents, a common
theme has consistently emerged. Many individuals have serious
concerns with the mandatory registration of all long guns. The
motions I have introduced reflect this concern. They are also a
reflection of my absolute commitment to represent the views of
the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants. I have promised from
day one to work to address their problems with this bill and to
bring forward realistic solutions in order to mitigate these
concerns.
(1350)
The overall objectives of this series of motions is quite
simple. As I proposed in my written submission to the justice
committee, I support amending the legislation in order to
exempt owners of non-prohibited, non-restricted long guns
historically used in Canada for hunting or sport shooting from
licensing and registration provisions of Bill C-68. Any new
purchases or transfers of existing firearms would be subject to
the requirements outlined in the legislation.
This proposal offers a reasonable balance between the rights
of legitimate owners and users of firearms and our government's
commitment to strong, effective firearms legislation. We have
an opportunity to send a positive message to Canadians that we
understand historical, cultural and economic attachments that
have governed the use of firearms to this point in time. However,
we will also be sending an important message that times are
changing. In keeping with legitimate public concerns, new
generations of firearms owners will be subject to new rules.
Within this series of motions I would like to highlight two
which are of particular importance. Motion No. 4 would add new
clause 2(1) to the bill. This clause reads:
This act does not apply in respect of
(a) any firearm that is not a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm; or
(b) any ammunition that is not prohibited ammunition.
This motion would allow for an exemption from the licensing
and registration components of the bill for current owners of
long guns.
By supporting the inclusion of this clause, all members of the
House will have a chance to acknowledge the legitimate rights
of owners of long guns. It will ensure that these individuals will
not be subject to undue burden or costs without weakening the
crime control elements of the legislation. It will allow us to gain
greater support or at the very least, tacit acceptance of Canada's
gun owners. After all, without their acceptance or their
willingness to comply with the new laws we may face problems
enforcing this legislation.
13587
The second motion I would like to briefly discuss is Motion
No. 154. This motion would entail the adding of new clause
110.1 to the legislation. This clause reads:
Notwithstanding section 2.1, the governor in council may make regulations
that are applicable in respect of firearms that are not prohibited or restricted
firearms for the purpose of
(a) establishing minimum age and safety criteria for purchasers of firearms;
(b) establishing safe storage and handling standards for firearms; and
(c) regulating the exportation and importation of firearms.
This additional clause responds to concerns over the ability to
determine whether or not a long gun is owned and operated in a
safe and legal manner. It has been included to ensure that
officials have the ability to establish and enforce certain
standards that must be strictly adhered to in order to legally own
a long gun. This is not unlike the present system that uses the
FAC.
Through this amendment, the government will have the
opportunity to implement through the regulations a means to
ensure the safe and legal ownership of long guns. Any
regulations would of course have to remain consistent with
clause 2.1 which provides for the exemption of long guns from
the licensing and registration components of the bill.
I am pleased by the changes made to the bill during the
committee hearings. These changes do reflect many concerns
which have been brought forward by legitimate gun owners. I
would also like to applaud my hon. colleagues who have worked
so diligently on this legislation.
(1355)
I would now ask my colleagues, as well as the Minister of
Justice, to support the measures I have brought forward for
debate today. While we have certainly come a long way in our
deliberations, I believe we must go further still.
These motions represent a modified course of action, a course
that will in my opinion help gain the support of many firearms
owners. By adopting this series of motions, I believe we will
still achieve the overall intent of the legislation without adding
to the overall bureaucracy or cost. Above all, we will develop a
bill that addresses the concerns of all people on all sides of this
issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just to give members the
information as best I can, we are following the order of the
movers of the motions in Group No. 3. I will now go to the hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka who of course we
anticipate will complete his remarks after question period.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am cognizant this will be a two part process.
The amendments in this third group deal with what I believe
to be one of the most significant concerns which was expressed
by my constituents and was expressed generally in much of the
testimony given in front of the justice committee. They reflect
to a great extent much of the correspondence most of us in this
House have received from the Canadian public. Quite frankly,
they mention the concern that the legislation is not necessarily
going to do what it is intended to do which is to control violence
in Canadian society, or it will achieve that to some extent but in
doing so will affect legitimate firearms owners.
There are many activities that firearms owners undertake in
Canada which are legitimate, longstanding and traditional. In
my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka hunting has been an
important sport for many years. It is an important economic
generator. It brings large numbers of people to our area every
year.
I can see that we are approaching the time for question period.
I will finish later.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., we will now go to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
13587
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize
National Public Service Week.
Canada's public servants have developed an enviable
reputation worldwide. Their professionalism and dedication is
second to none. I am particularly pleased to recognize Master
Corporal Steven Vézina of Greenwood in my riding of
Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Mr. Vézina is one of 100 hundred public service employees
receiving this year's awards of excellence. Mr. Vézina, along
with Master Corporal Daniel Coté of Bagotville, Quebec are
being honoured for proposing modifications to the cathode ray
tube assembly in the CF-18 aircraft. Their suggestion has saved
Canadian taxpayers $400,000 a year.
The award of excellence is the highest honour accorded to
federal government employees. I am proud to acknowledge the
work of Mr. Vézina and all of the recipients for their service and
dedication to Canada.
13588
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House today on this first day of the
Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week, the theme of
which this year is ``Reach Out and Communicate''.
It is extremely important to celebrate this week in order to
make all stakeholders in the work force aware of the importance
of a safe and healthy work environment.
Some fatal or serious accidents could have been avoided.
Every day, two workers are killed and, every 38 seconds, an
accident happens which could require compensation to be paid.
The time has come to tackle vigorously what must not be
regarded as inevitable.
Quebec has adopted very strict measures to limit occupational
hazards, and the Bloc Quebecois applauds such determination.
It is now up to the work force in Canada to clearly give priority
to this fundamental aspect of work.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has a unique opportunity to demonstrate its
commitment to judicial reform in Canada.
Robert Paul Thompson has applied for early release and
tomorrow the parole board will hear his application. I will be in
attendance at this hearing in Renous, New Brunswick, along
with his victim's mother, Helen Leadley.
Let the government and the parole board never forget that
Brenda Fitzgerald was an abused and battered woman who
ultimately lost her life in her battle against Thompson.
Thompson's violent rages are almost incomprehensible. In
his anger and jealousy he alone was able to overcome three
others, and with only a knife as his weapon.
I will be in attendance at tomorrow's hearing to confirm my
commitment to Helen Leadley and to her family. I made a
commitment to victims of crime to ensure violent offenders
such as Thompson are not released.
Will the government also make use of the opportunity
tomorrow and keep a convicted killer in jail?
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recognize and congratulate Robert Sherren of Niagara Falls who
on June 8 was awarded the emergency medical services
exemplary service medal.
The ceremony was presided by Governor General Romeo
LeBlanc at Rideau Hall. The award recognizes employees in
emergency services who have been working with Canadian
ambulance services and performing their duties in an exemplary
manner for at least 20 years. Of these 20 years at least 10 have to
be served in the performance of duties involving potential risk.
It is with pride that I extend congratulations to Mr. Sherren for
the outstanding service he provided to the community.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 100
years ago today Brigadier General George P. Morrison was born
in Quebec City. For almost 40 years now this gentleman has
resided in the village of Chester in my riding of South Shore.
George Morrison who joined the army in 1915 bears the
distinct honour of being the oldest living graduate of the Royal
Military College in Kingston, Ontario.
In the wake of the recent celebrations marking the 50th
anniversary of the end of the war in Europe, I feel it is important
to recognize and honour Brigadier General Morrison, as he
served Canada during both the first and second world wars and
served with a Canadian artillery battery during the Russian
revolution.
The freedom that Canada and many countries throughout the
world enjoy today comes as a result of the selfless contributions
made by people like Brigadier General Morrison. I would
therefore ask those assembled in the House today to join me in
wishing Brigadier General George Morrison a happy 100th
birthday.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
bring to the attention of the House the heroic actions of a
20-year old constituent of mine, Scott Edward Goodridge.
Last October 17, a 12-year old boy was swept into the harbour
at Renews by a large wave. The boy's friend ran to Scott
Goodridge's nearby residence for help. Without hesitation Scott
raced to the rocky shore, grabbed two lifejackets and dove into
the extremely cold and rough waters. Scott swam approximately
13589
65 metres to reach the young boy and placed a lifejacket over his
head.
During these tense minutes another man assisting in the
rescue was also swept into the waters. While towing the first boy
to safety Scott swam to the second man, kept him afloat until all
three were taken aboard a small boat.
Last fall I brought Scott's heroic efforts to the attention of the
Governor General of Canada. I am very pleased to tell the House
that on June 23, Scott will be awarded the Governor General's
Medal of Bravery.
I invite all members of the House to join me in paying tribute
to the actions of Scott Edward Goodridge who braved rough seas
and a rocky shore to save two lives, those of a young boy and of
another man.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is the National Action Committee on the Status of Women's
annual lobbying day. This is a great opportunity for all the
women's groups represented in this committee to get to know
where the political parties stand on various women's issues.
Women are seriously concerned about preserving their vested
rights. They know from experience how easy it is to cite
financial difficulties as an excuse to ignore their needs and
expectations. Yet, these are legitimate needs and expectations
which, in many cases, are urgent.
Women grappling with problems of violence, poverty or
unemployment must be able to rely on parliamentarians to adopt
policies and legislation addressing their problems. They cannot
afford to wait. And neither can their children.
(1405)
As the recent march held by Quebec women and gatherings
such as those today show, women are making their demands with
an increasing sense of urgency. The government must listen and
take appropriate action.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
floods ravaged southern Alberta last week affecting High River,
Pincher Creek, Fort Macleod, Lethbridge, and the community of
Medicine Hat.
Friday night the South Saskatchewan River peaked at almost
10 metres above normal, forcing the evacuation of 5,000 people
from Medicine Hat. Hundreds of homes were affected and acres
of real estate were submerged. It was the worst flooding in over
100 years. Now with the receding of the floodwaters comes the
back breaking and dirty job of cleaning up.
While it is too soon to tally the damage, by all accounts it will
be in the tens of millions of dollars. In the wake of a calamity
like this it is hard to see the good but there is good. The concern,
the kind words and the sweat on the brows of hundreds of
volunteers are eloquent testimony to a community that would
not stand idly by while its neighbours struggled.
I know I speak on behalf of the members for Macleod and
Lethbridge when I say it is a great privilege to serve the people
of southern Alberta who have shown great character in the face
of adversity.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to draw to the attention of all members of the House the
Transportation Safety Board's report on the crash of an Air
Manitoba flight at Sandy Lake on November 10, 1993.
The report finds that previous to the crash Transport Canada's
audit and surveillance of Air Manitoba ``did not uncover serious
maintenance discrepancies that were present''. In general it
finds serious ``shortcomings'' in Transport Canada's
``regulatory overview process of air carriers''. It makes a
number of recommendations to improve the audit.
Families of the victims of the crash are also concerned that
when safety infractions are found by Transport Canada they are
not then made public, depriving crew and the travelling public
of information they need to make decisions.
This incident has raised serious questions about the
effectiveness of Transport Canada's monitoring of safety
regulations in the airline industry and thereby of the safety of
airline crews and the travelling public.
I call on the Minister of Transport to address these problems
with the greatest of urgency.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I extend my congratulations to the Environmental
Centre for New Canadians which in partnership with
Environment Canada and the Environmental Partners Fund
established a very worthy environmental educational project.
The creation of a multilingual resource centre which provides
materials on the impact of pollutants on the environment will
increase the diversity, experience and numbers of people
involved in improving the state of our environment.
The centre's goal is to overcome the barriers new Canadians
face in their attempts to seek information on a range of
environmental issues. Their voices strengthen the efforts to
improve our
13590
environment, facilitating a better relationship with all levels of
government, schools, corporations and environmental groups.
Our government along with several community partners in the
metro Toronto area support the need for culturally and
linguistically sensitive and relevant environmental information
to diverse ethnic groups. Sustainable development can after all
only be achieved through preventive environmental care by all
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians of Filipino heritage join the Filipino people
in their celebration today of the 97th anniversary of Philippine
independence.
Anniversaries like this give us an occasion to recall the
immortal writings of her national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, and the
bloody struggle that led to the triumph, and to renew the
commitment to defend it at any cost. That proclamation of
independence has since been a source of pride.
The Filipino people have also shown that democracy, a tool to
secure freedom and dignity for the citizenry, can be restored
without a drop of blood; witness the peaceful Aquino revolution
of 1986.
Freedom is not an end in itself. It is a challenge to a higher
calling: freedom to do good and thereby ensure human dignity
for all.
Filipino Canadians who are proud of their new home and who
pledge their undivided loyalty to Canada are equally proud to
share this noble heritage.
I urge all colleagues to join Filipino Canadians nationwide on
this very glorious occasion in the history of the Filipino people.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week,
June 11 to June 17, is National Public Service Week.
A prominent politician once remarked:
Public servants serve you right; indeed, often, they serve you better than your
apathy and indifference deserve.
(1410 )
During this week Canadians should note the valued role that
public servants play through the services they deliver.
The government recognizes and supports an efficient and
strong public service. At a time when we are re-examining the
role of government, public servants in my riding of Kitchener
and throughout Canada are rising to the challenge to assist in
tailoring a system that more effectively meets the needs of
today's Canadians.
The excellence of the public service of Canada is recognized
worldwide. I wish to extend my gratitude to all public servants
who have offered services to Canadians in a manner second to
none. I remain confident and look forward to a public service
with a more defined role that is more satisfying, fulfilling and
challenging for the 21st century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we
wish to draw the attention of the House to the historic agreement
endorsed by the Action démocratique du Québec, the
Government of Quebec and the official opposition in Ottawa,
the Bloc Quebecois. In response to the expectations of
Quebecers, the team for change will put before Quebecers this
fall a proposal for sovereignty for Quebec and an offer of
economic and political partnership with Canada.
Faced with the atmosphere of resignation and inertia
engulfing the ``no'' camp, the forces for change united to offer a
plan for the future and invite Quebecers to say yes to
themselves, to stand tall and to speak as equals to the other
nations of this world.
We are all confident that this plan for partnership reflects the
genuine and profound aspirations of the people of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, along with millions of Canadians I am angry at the
Liberal government for its frequent use of undemocratic tactics
regarding firearms, employment equity, sentencing for hate
crimes, and MP pension bills.
The Liberals are proving that they are no different from
Mulroney's Tories who used procedural trickery to ram through
the GST. Liberals have equaled Brian Mulroney when it comes
to lack of fairness, honesty and integrity in the House.
What is worse, Liberals have got into bed with the separatists
to expedite the hijacking of Parliament. They struck a deal with
the Bloc so sovereignty could start by St. Jean Baptiste
weekend.
Now it seems that the PQ-BQ alliance treats its members as
ruthlessly as the Liberal government. Mr. Parizeau punished one
of his members for voting against the PQ budget, just as the
member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was punished for voting
against the Liberal budget and three other Liberals were
punished for voting against gun control.
13591
It is clear the Liberals and the Bloc-PQ parties are old style
political parties cut from the same cloth. They have no sense of
fairness or democracy and are arrogant in the extreme.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to challenge the leader of the Reform Party to explain to
the Canadian people why he is blatantly disregarding their
expressed wishes by voting against Bill C-68, the firearms
control legislation.
He is sanctimoniously paying lip service to his stated
principle of casting his vote with the majority. Can he not hear
the voices of the 71 per cent of Canadians, of the 58 per cent of
Albertans and of the 79 per cent of women who believe that
registering firearms will bring greater safety to our streets and
in our homes, or is he just refusing to listen?
The leader of the Reform Party has offered no proof that he
has consulted with his constituents in Calgary Southwest on gun
control. Will he follow the example of his own MPs, the hon.
members for Calgary West and Edmonton Southwest by seeking
the collective wisdom of their constituents and supporting the
legislation, or will he ignore the two-thirds of Calgarians who
support registration of firearms? Canadians deserve an
explanation.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the second anniversary of Nigeria's 1993
presidential election which led to Moshood Abiola being chosen
as the first democratically elected leader of Nigeria.
Regretfully President Abiola has been prevented from
assuming office by the military regime backed by General Sani
Abacha. General Abacha has disbanded all elected bodies, jailed
the president elect, closed newspapers, repressed labour unions
and carried out public executions.
Nigerians have already demonstrated their readiness and
enthusiasm for democracy. On behalf of the Government of
Canada I call on General Abacha to respect human rights and the
democratic process.
(1415 )
Nigeria must be free to choose its own leader and its own
future.
13591
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a time
when the economy is in low gear, with almost zero growth
during the first quarter, the statistics tell us that for the sixth
month in a row, there has been no net job creation in Quebec.
Meanwhile, the federal cabinet is looking at a new plan for
reducing unemployment insurance benefits. Clearly, Ottawa has
decided to reduce its deficit at the expense of the unemployed.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the federal cabinet is
putting the finishing touches on a plan to reduce unemployment
insurance benefits that would cut $1.6 billion from the plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government made a commitment to reform social
programs. There will obviously be transfers from one program
to another. At this point, all I can say is that this fall, we will
have a bill on the subject. The minister is consulting with his
cabinet colleagues and his provincial counterparts. Hon.
members will know what the bill is about as soon as it is ready
this fall.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering what was indicated in the last federal budget and
what was leaked to the newspapers last weekend, the Prime
Minister should give us some assurances or confirmation.
Now that for the past six months there has been no net job
creation in this country, would the Prime Minister confirm that
the plan now before cabinet would oblige young people entering
the labour market to work for 26 weeks full time-six full
months-before they were protected under the unemployment
insurance plan? Is that what he has to offer the people of
Shawinigan, which depends even more than other cities in this
country on government programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone knows that in the past 19 months since we
came to power, the unemployment rate went down from 11.5 per
cent to 9.5 per cent. We think we can do better. We must keep
working on creating jobs. With changes like those we want to
make in existing social programs in this country, we wish to
provide an incentive for people to work instead of receiving
social benefits. Social program reform is based on a desire to
create jobs and help people to find work instead of staying
home, to give them back the dignity of being able to work, which
is something I am sure they all want.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister can make pretty speeches and juggle the figures,
but the fact remains that the number of workers who are no
13592
longer entitled to unemployment insurance because of the
government's cutbacks and are now on welfare is absolutely
shocking.
That being said, how can he justify the fact that the
unemployment insurance reform his cabinet, his government, is
considering will, according to his own analysis, affect people
with incomes of less than $25,000 annually, in other words,
workers whose employment status is precarious, who are at the
bottom of the wage scale, the neediest in our society, and that
these people may be permanently disqualified from receiving
unemployment insurance benefits as a result of his cutbacks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since this Parliament has been in session, we have been
used to hearing the official opposition make similar predictions
that have never come true.
I would simply ask the hon. member to wait until the bill is
introduced in the House of Commons. Our objective is to help
people on low incomes find jobs and to give them a chance to get
back into the labour market. That will be the objective of the
reforms proposed by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
(1420)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The major proposed cuts to the UI program will primarily
affect women and will do so in a very significant way. Indeed,
women, who often hold the most precarious jobs, will be
particularly affected by the proposed cuts.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by increasing the
number of hours of work required to be eligible for UI from the
current level of 180 to 300 hours to somewhere between 450 and
700 hours, he is directly targeting women, who hold the vast
majority of part time jobs in Canada, and that many of them will
no longer be eligible for UI benefits?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said,
no decision has been made regarding the UI program. A bill will
be tabled this fall but, again, there has been no decision yet.
I consulted Canadians, including Quebecers, and 60 per cent
of them are asking for a UI reform that will promote work and a
more equitable distribution of income. This is the purpose of the
UI reform.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand that the minister is ruling out any cuts to the UI
program? Or are we to understand that the federal government's
answer to the women's march, which ended in Quebec City last
week, is a program of UI cuts which will force women trying to
re-enter the labour force to hold a full time job for six months to
be eligible for UI benefits?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to
the hon. member that in the last several months, for example, by
the previous changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act the
government has provided additional benefits for close to
300,000 Canadians drawing unemployment insurance, of whom
about 80 per cent were women. They gained an extra $1,000 per
year income benefit. That was one of the direct results of our
changes.
In the province of Quebec alone we have provided direct
assistance to over 50,000 women for training and career
development programs. We are introducing a special program
for women to go on to graduate school in universities. We have
established under the self-employment program special
initiatives for women to set up their own businesses.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata attended a
meeting at the women's human resource centre in her riding, to
help women find work.
[English]
We are very committed but we have to make changes in the
programs so we can move from passive assistance to active
support with new tools to help people get back to work.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House on Friday the Deputy Prime Minister
admitted that Howard Wilson, the government's much touted
ethics watchdog, has no teeth and has been relegated to a very
minor role on ethical questions.
She said: ``If there are questions about the ethics of the
government, the ultimate arbiter of those questions is not a
bureaucrat, it is the Prime Minister''. Canadians will take little
comfort in that revelation, given the government's mishandling
of the Canadian heritage minister's unethical behaviour.
Since section 23 of the federal conflict of interest code has
been violated by the heritage minister without reprimand or
penalty, and since the Prime Minister is now the de facto ethics
commissioner, will the Prime Minister tell us what parts of the
code he is prepared to uphold and how he intends to enforce it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister was absolutely right when
she said it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the
country to make decisions about the ethics of his ministers. I am
13593
the one who named them, and I am the one who has the
responsibility to dismiss them if ever I decide to do so.
In the case of the minister of heritage, I said very clearly last
week that all he did was have a fundraising activity that was
according to the laws of Canada. The names of the people
involved are public. Everyone has admitted they have given
money to the Liberal Party, just like money is given to the
Reform Party and to all other parties. Everything is public.
(1425 )
I discussed that with the ethics commissioner, who is there to
advise the Prime Minister. The final responsibility is the Prime
Minister's. I always take it. I never run away from my
responsibilities.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to accept
responsibility. We are not talking about fundraising.
The Prime Minister has code of conduct guidelines, which he
waved around with great flourish at the beginning of the session.
One section of it says that a public office holder shall take care
to avoid the appearance of being placed under any obligation to
any person that might profit from special consideration on the
part of the office holder. The heritage minister broke this
guideline. He did not avoid the appearance of conflict of
interest.
If the Prime Minister assumes ultimate responsibility for the
application of these guidelines, will he hold the heritage
minister accountable for violating not some general thing about
fundraising but this specific guideline in his own code of
conduct guidelines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we go to any fundraising activities we meet
people who do business. I do that regularly, ministers have to do
that regularly, and members of Parliament do that regularly. We
meet with the Canadian people and some contribute to the good
functioning of the democratic institutions of Canada.
Everything is public.
The Reform Party is proposing at this time to make it even
more open than it is today. It would like third party groups to
finance while they are not running for office, to favour one cause
or the other.
We say if people want to be elected to Parliament and have
influence, they should run for a political party and raise the
money according to the laws of Canada. That is exactly what this
party is doing, the Bloc Quebecois is doing, the Reform Party is
doing and the Conservative Party is doing. They go to the people
of Canada and ask for contributions. The contributions are made
public; everybody has access to these lists, and anyone can
check at any time of the year. The list for last year will be
published in the next few days. The Reform Party will check the
list of people who gave to us and we will check the list of those
who gave to the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that every day he pretends
not to understand what the issue is he strengthens the public's
suspicion that the government has something to hide.
The heritage minister clearly violated the Prime Minister's
conflict of interest guidelines with his dollars for contracts
dinner, and the Prime Minister has gone to great lengths to
pretend that this indiscretion was merely some part of routine
fundraising, which it was not and is not.
Will the Prime Minister stop this charade, admit that it is now
his office that is managing the disclosure or cover up of ethics
code violations and provide the House with a full and frank
disclosure of the heritage minister affair-who was invited, who
contributed what and who got what?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to a very long question there is a very simple answer.
There is no cover up of any kind. The leader of the Reform
Party, the third party, which is about to become the fourth party
in Canada, knows the names of everyone who was invited and
contributed. It is all well known. It is all public information. We
have nothing to hide. We gave the list of the people who were
present at this party. There is no cover up. They have the names
of the people and the amount of money that was contributed.
That is the way we have raised money for political parties in
Canada for many, many years. That is the way the Reform Party
does it all the time.
The leader of the Reform Party has a lot of those kinds of
dinners all the time with a lot of people who contribute to his
own party.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The federal government has
shown yet again that it is proposing cuts mainly targeting
Canada's jobless, who, for the second time, will be the targets of
a reform proposal of this government.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, altogether, last year's
unemployment insurance cuts of $5.5 billion and the $1.6
billion in cuts recently announced amount to a 25 per cent total
cut in assistance to the most needy of our society, those who
have to claim unemployment insurance benefits to survive?
13594
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a
report published by the Quebec Department of Fisheries, which
is based on consultations made by the minister, Mr. Beaudry. It
said that unemployment insurance is not well adapted to the
realities of Quebec's fisheries and that it currently hinders
progress and development in this sector to a great extent by
halting private initiatives and stifling people's dynamic energy.
I hope that the Bloc members of this House will agree with the
report published by the Government of Quebec, which calls for
reforms to the unemployment insurance system.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister confirm that the federal government is not planning to
reform the unemployment insurance system by cutting forestry
workers' benefits by 22 per cent and fishery workers' benefits
by 33 per cent? Does he not feel that this would hit regional
workers very hard and that, in fact, the two tier system that he
said he did away with because it was discriminatory is again
rearing its ugly head in in his new proposal?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we
indicated that we were aiming at obtaining a 10 per cent saving
in order to provide for reinvestment in employment programs
and to provide for general stimulus to the economy. The ways
and measures in which we will undertake that will be tabled in
the House next fall when we have finished the kinds of
discussions and examinations of the very extensive consultation
that went on last October.
For the hon. member to be citing all kinds of facts and figures
concerning what may happen or what could happen simply is not
relevant as we have not yet made any decisions concerning the
nature of the reform. We are busy and involved in undertaking a
serious review of the consultations, talking to provincial groups
and others. When we are ready to put forward the legislation the
hon. member then will be in a position to react to reality, not
simply to speculation.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Regarding the contracts for dollars dinner held for the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Prime Minister stated that all
the information is public. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage would be happy to make
public all the information.
Clients of the department were specifically targeted and
invited to contribute. We are discovering, one name at a time,
who contributed and what rewards the minister gave. The
Liberal whip said the names of contributors have been tabled in
the House and yet they have not.
Who is on the contributors' list that the Prime Minister is
hiding from us? Who else has been rewarded with contracts,
grants or appointments for contributing to the minister's debt
retirement fund?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again that is a completely false accusation. Every
contribution to the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc
Quebecois or the Conservative Party, which is above $100,
requires a receipt to be given to that person. This list is made
public every year. Every contribution which is above $100 is
published.
When I was in the House the other day the minister gave the
list to her. She has not read it yet. If she needs more information
we have a procedure. She can table her request in the House of
Commons and if it is within the responsibility of the minister,
the request will be met as soon as possible. We have nothing to
hide because every contribution to the Liberal Party is known by
anyone who wants to know.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that everyone in the country knows that the heritage
minister should resign except the cabinet. Liberal backbenchers
are saying that the contracts for dollars dinner was unethical and
so are newspapers and Canadians across the country. The
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is asking for the minister's
resignation. The Montreal Gazette, Le Droit, the Citizen, the
Sun, La Presse and Le Journal de Montréal are all expressing
similar sentiments.
(1435)
[Translation]
With Canadians calling for the resignation of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, how can the Prime Minister keep on a
minister who is awarding contracts to companies organizing
fundraising dinners for him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have answered the question. All the documents on
this matter are public. Those who made contributions have been
issued receipts, and their names will appear on the lists
published. In any case, the names have already been given to the
press and to journalists. Everyone knows who was at the dinner.
There is nothing hidden, and so I have nothing to add.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
13595
We have learned on the eve of the G-7 Summit that Russian
President Boris Yeltsin will be taking part in both political and
economic discussions with the seven major industrialized
nations-an indication that Russia is one step closer to
membership in this exclusive group.
Given the many human rights violations in Chechnya and the
attitude of the Russian President during the Prime Minister's
visit to Russia last spring, what position does the Prime Minister
intend to take on Russia's increased inclusion in the group of
seven?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Yeltsin will not attend the G-7 meeting. He will
participate in the political meeting of the G-8 on the second day.
The two meetings are different. The first is the meeting of the
western world's seven most industrialized nations; the second,
on the following day, will be a political meeting of the group of
eight. Mr. Yeltsin will participate in this meeting.
Economic discussions will be over. Mr. Yeltsin may choose to
raise economic issues affecting Russia or other countries at the
second meeting. I cannot stop him from raising the issues he
wants. However, the G-7 economic summit will be over when
we meet with Mr. Yeltsin.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is as follows.
Since there will be a political meeting with Boris Yeltsin in
attendance and in the light of the discussions there will be in this
regard, does the Prime Minister intend to propose a joint
statement by the heads of state to encourage Russia to respect
human rights in Chechnya? In other words, does the Prime
Minister intend to assume a leadership role among his
colleagues with respect to human rights in Chechnya?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I met President Yeltsin in Moscow a few weeks
ago, I raised the concerns of the government and people of
Canada about his behaviour in Chechnya. I also intend, as the
chairman of the meeting of the group of eight, to raise the matter
again. I am sure many of the other leaders will raise the same
problem, but I will take the initiative.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Prime Minister.
The cost to taxpayers for individual MPs' expense
allowances, travel expenses and salaries are available for
voters' scrutiny in the Public Accounts of Canada, volume II,
part II. However, the cost of individual MP pensions is not there.
The information commissioner is being forced to take recourse
to the courts just to obtain a list of MP pension beneficiaries.
Why is the government trying to hide how costly the MP
pensions really are?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is not trying to hide anything. It is
trying to reduce the cost of MP pensions. Even though we have
had suggestions to increase the size of the payroll of MPs
coming from the very party that now asks the question,
nevertheless we are proceeding on course to reduce by one-third
the cost to taxpayers of MP pensions.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
The House will notice that minister did not offer to reveal the
real cost of MP pensions. We know that some Liberal members
must opt out of the pension scheme in order to fulfil campaign
promises made in the last election.
(1440)
If the government will not commit to publishing the benefits
of the MP pension plan, will the minister at least agree to
publish a list of those members who opt in and those who opt out
or is he trying to hide that information too?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it will be up to each member of Parliament. Once the
bill has been proclaimed, members will have 60 days in which to
make a determination whether they want to be part of the plan.
If the member wants further information he has only to look at
the public accounts to determine what goes into MP pensions.
What is in MP pensions, what is contributed by the taxpayer, the
government wants to reduce and that is part of its reform.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We are now witnessing a disturbing slowdown of the
economy. The GDP has been falling for the last two months. On
Friday, we learned that employment growth remains stalled. In
fact, there has been no net job creation in the last six months.
Since some 23 per cent of the Quebec workforce is now
unemployed, does the Minister of Human Resources
Development not agree that the Liberal job creation policy is a
dismal failure and a glaring example of inaction?
13596
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying
it is a disaster but if he looks at the figures that his colleague who
is asking questions about the G-7 tabled, we have the highest
level of economic growth of any of the countries of the G-7.
The result over the past year has been over 430,000 new jobs
in Canada. To call that a disaster seems to be turning logic on its
head topsy-turvy. We are working hard to put in place an
economic framework that will stimulate private jobs.
Eighty thousand jobs have been created in the private sector
over the past month. That shows that the stimulus is in the right
place and that is the course we are following.
In the meantime we will help those without jobs to get the
kind of support and training they need to fit the new kind of
economy we are moving into.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
the answer I just received, does the minister not realize that, as a
result of this government's first 18 months in power, the
unemployment rate in Quebec still hovers around 11 per cent,
the employment level has not moved in six months, 50,000 more
people are on welfare, and thousands of unemployed workers do
not qualify for UI benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it
must be said that the figures quoted by the hon. member and his
colleagues are wrong and that, since October, the Canadian
economy has created over 219,000 jobs in the private sector,
30,000 in the month of May alone.
True, there have been job losses in the public sector because
governments want to save money so they can spend it on
programs. It must be said that, while job creation over a six
month period starting in October reached that level, more than
50,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec in the last 12
months, 111,000 since the election.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
At this time of the year many single parents, mostly women,
find themselves in debt to the government because they have to
pay taxes on the receipt of support payments that have not been
taxed during the year.
Would it not be appropriate for Revenue Canada to require tax
deductions administered through the courts so that payments
into custodial homes are received net of tax like forms of
employment income? Would the minister not agree that this
would go a long way to alleviating the April blues suffered by
these families?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and
the concern he has for this important area of public policy which
goes well beyond the tax area.
(1445 )
The hon. Minister of Justice has made it clear we are shortly
to bring forward provisions with respect to maintenance and
support and in relation to the Thibaudeau decision. These will
soon be brought forward and I know that he among other
members will be very interested in seeing them.
As for the department and the responsibility we have for
collection for those who may have been concerned about the
impact of the Thibaudeau decision, I assure him we will
continue our normal practice of making sure the collections take
place with sensitivity and with full understanding of the position
individuals may find themselves in.
It is certainly not our intention to hassle single parents or to go
after their last dime.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when interest rates are high economic slowdown and
recession are inevitable.
Statistics now show the inevitable has occurred. Economic
growth in this quarter at an annual rate is essentially stagnating;
there is no economic growth. The tragedy is these problems
could have been avoided if the deficit was smaller and had
produced lower interest rates.
Does the Minister of Finance admit Canada's economy and
employment situation would be better today if spending cuts in
the last two budgets had been greater and the elimination of the
deficit had been put on a definite time frame?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of RegionalDevelopment-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
being an eminent economist in his own right knows full well the
Canadian recovery was largely based on exports primarily to the
United States.
The member knows as well the United States economy is
going through a substantial slowdown and that as a result quite
clearly our exports have been affected which is reflected in the
Canadian economy.
He also knows we have made substantial deficit reduction
cuts. We have taken substantial action in the last two budgets.
13597
He also knows the problem is the deficit we inherited. I know
deep down he is very proud of the actions of the Canadians
government in cleaning up the nation's finances.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, national income this year has been stagnant because
exports are down. It is disturbing that housing starts are also
down, car sales are down, manufacturing is down, retail sales
are down and service industry output is down. The only things
that are up are interest rates and taxes.
Will the Minister of Finance let the people know how he plans
to get them out of the quagmire he created by his inadequate
spending cuts in the past?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I may have to take
back my words about eminent economist.
The hon. member knows if we take a look at the last three to
four months our interest rates are down substantially. He knows
our job creation has increased substantially in the private sector.
He knows as well our job creation record given the last couple of
months has been substantially better than in the United States
which has suffered from a major loss.
On the other hand I do not want to criticize my colleague too
much. I am delighted to finally see somebody from the Reform
Party asking a question about the economy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last Friday, in response to questions from the official
opposition, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister
of Health were able to confirm whether there had been an
investigation into the illegal use of somatotropin in Canada.
Will the minister undertake to table the investigation report
prepared by her department to confirm that this hormone is not
being used illegally in Canada?
(1450)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said time and time again that, despite the
rumours, no one was able to bring any concrete example to our
attention. Again, if you can give us the names of any individuals
selling somatotropin, please let us know, because what they are
doing is illegal. It is illegal to sell this product and to import it
into Canada, and it will remain illegal as long as it has not been
approved by Health Canada, if indeed it is approved.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us whether or not her department is taking any
measures to enforce the Food and Drugs Act under which, as she
told this House, the use of somatotropin is prohibited in Canada,
and if so, what measures have been taken?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is illegal to import this product into Canada or to sell
it in Canada. We have worked together with Customs on this and
found nothing. What can I say? We will arrest as many people as
need be, but there is a limit.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister stated in his budget that UI would be cut by
a minimum of 10 per cent. The surplus created would be used as
a buffer to prevent the need for UI rate increases during tough
economic times.
Now the human resources minister has leaked a document
directing half of that surplus to increased spending on training
programs. Clearly the government has two ministers trying to
pull the country in two different directions.
Has the human resources minister consulted with the finance
minister about this abrupt change in policy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have to
consult with the Minister of Finance every day concerning these
matters.
Let me correct the hon. member's statement. It is unfortunate
that she tries to slip in these certain amounts of illusions and
suspicions. I did not leak a document to anybody at any time. I
assure the House of that.
We know very clearly Canadians want a reform which will
simplify the system and provide for a real end to the
disincentives in the system. It will also be a program which
helps people to get back to work. Unfortunately that one crucial
element of getting people back to work is not part of the Reform
Party's vocabulary.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are paying substantial UI premiums to help ensure
against lost income during periods of unemployment. However,
the minister acts like these premiums are his money to use to
tinker with the system.
Why does he not return the UI program to true insurance
principles rather than continuing to invest our money in his
failed training programs like TAGS?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I visited the
North Sydney learning centre where I had an occasion to talk to a
number of former fishermen and plant workers under the TAGS
13598
program. They were starting classes at eight in the morning and
sometimes going through until midnight. Many of these same
workers who left school at grade eight or nine are now in a
position after four months of the TAGS program to take their
equivalency exam to get their grade 12.
This shows that if we give people a certain hand up they will
take full advantage of it. They are now ready to become high
school graduates because of the kind of initiatives and resources
we have been able to provide.
I wish the Reform Party had more trust in the real motivation
and commitment of Canadians given the chance to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans. The recent agreement reached between Canada and
the European Union to conserve and protect Atlantic fish stocks
was the object of a meeting held in Toronto last week by the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Can the minister,
who was largely instrumental in developing Canada's position,
inform this House of the outcome of those meetings and of the
support expressed by NAFO regarding the crucial Canadian
objectives?
(1455)
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Following the NAFO meeting, the scope of the
Canada-European Union agreement was expanded in two major
ways. The conservation agreement on Greenland halibut, or
turbot, now includes all Northwest Atlantic groundfish catches.
As well, the Canada-European Union agreement now extends to
the 15 NAFO members.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think I should have a talk with
Quebec fishermen sometime.
[English]
The meeting in Toronto last week in conclusion changed two
important things. First, the NAFO enforcement rules now cover
all vessels, not just EU vessels. Second, the new rules cover all
species of fish, not just Greenland halibut or turbot.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
On June 9, the UN secretary general officially recommended
that the security council approve the deployment of a rapid
reaction force in Bosnia. While the UN is about to give the green
light to such an operation, the Canadian government is still
hesitant about Canada's participation in that force.
Will the Prime Minister tell us clearly whether a decision has
finally been made regarding Canada's participation in a rapid
reaction force in Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is still looking at the issue. We are
waiting for the outcome of the discussions taking place between
those countries which have already decided to participate, and
for the UN position. As I said last week, I am personally not very
enthusiastic about Canadian participation. However, if it is
necessary, we will participate. However, there is no urgency, and
a decision does not have to be made immediately.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Over the last three years our country has spent over $51
million funding post-secondary education in Indonesia. Why
we are doing this when we have just stripped $6 billion out of
post-secondary education in Canada? Why are we funding this
when the Government of Indonesia said it would ask us to pay
for its students to come over here?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the hon. member is trying to
compare apples and oranges. The responsibilities that Canada
has taken on regarding education are not only acknowledged but
actually sought by a considerable number of stakeholders. The
programs which for the most part are run in collaboration with
Canadian universities and colleges have considerable spin-offs
in the countries where these programs are in operation as well as
in Canada itself.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the parliamentary secretary for the
minister of Indian affairs who will be well aware of the
six-week old blockade checkpoint now on Adams Lake in
British Columbia.
13599
Tensions are escalating. Will he or the minister of Indian
affairs please travel to the site to attempt to resolve this issue,
primarily over land claims, before serious problems begin?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Members spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
If the parties agree to ask the minister of Indian and northern
affairs or me to come and help resolve the issue, we are prepared
to do so.
* * *
(1500 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As he knows, the law of the sea convention protects the
world's fisheries and prevents ocean pollution. It came into
force in 1994. Canada is among the nations who have yet to
ratify it.
Having celebrated international oceans day last week, I would
like to ask the minister whether he can say when Canada will
ratify the international law of the sea.
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that this
fall we will table a bill which I hope will allow us to ratify the
treaty.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a
conclusion the question period.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Wole Soyinka, Nobel prize winner
in literature and a leader of the democracy movement in Nigeria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to draw the attention of members to
the presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Émile-Derlin
Zinsou, chairman of the permanent council of the Francophonie.
13599
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table today the twelfth report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts. The topic of this report is the
Department of National Defence, which has the largest budget
of all federal departments.
It covers four chapters of the auditor general's 1994 report.
First, Chapter 24, Defence Management Systems; Chapter 25,
Information Technology; Chapter 26, Infrastructure Reductions
and lastly, Chapter 27, Infrastructure Management.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts concludes at the
end of its report that the auditor general should review on a
regular basis the Department of National Defence's initiatives
to improve its management structure and methods regarding
management information systems, information technology,
rationalization and infrastructure management and that he
should report his findings at an appropriate time.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee is asking the government to table a global response to
this report.
* * *
(1505 )
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today
to present petitions containing the names of 1,086 constituents
who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson.
The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer
for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early
release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of
their sentences.
I will be attending Robert Paul Thompson's National Parole
Board hearing in Renous, New Brunswick, tomorrow, June 13,
and I pray that the decision arising from that hearing will
support the actions of these petitioners.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before the House again today on what has become a crusade
to obtain justice for the victims of violent offenders. Every day
13600
since February 6 a petition has been tabled. Today's petition
contains 1,257 names of constituents, all of whom wish to halt
the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
I, along with my colleague, will attend Robert Paul
Thompson's National Parole Board hearing tomorrow in
Renous, New Brunswick. I pray that the decision arising from
that hearing will support the actions of these petitioners.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition on behalf of Mr. Clifford Joynt, who along
with 144 other constituents calls upon the Parliament of Canada
to recognize that the word Canadian be listed as an answer to the
ethnic origin question in all future censuses.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is my privilege to present 17
petitions containing well over 15,000 signatures of Canadians
who are opposed to Bill C-68.
The petitioners are requesting that Parliament not attack the
recreational firearms community and that it support legislation
that severely punishes one who uses a weapon, including a
weapon other than a firearm, protects the rights and freedoms of
the law-abiding recreational firearms community to own and
use firearms responsibly, passes careful scrutiny to see that it
will improve public safety in a cost effective manner, and
repeals present firearms control legislation, which features
tortuous language and has been characterized by the courts as
one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship.
As we draw to the close of the debate on Bill C-68 this week
because of time allocation invoked by the government, let these
petitions serve as a reminder that the minister does not have the
support of these nor millions of other Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to remind
the House that in tabling petitions we do not enter into debate.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition that is humbly submitted by over 250
petitioners who are residents of Burlington, Mississauga,
Toronto, and further points.
The petitioners are asking for an extension of the stay outside
Canada for landed immigrants from the present 183 days to two
years, the reason being that the care of property back home
requires attention for a period that is longer than what is
presently permitted under the law.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
four petitions on different subjects, some of which are
contradictory, and I would like to table the petitions pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present two petitions from constituents in my riding as well as
ridings throughout central Nova Scotia.
The petitioners call on the government to enact changes to the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation, in keeping with the
campaign pledges that were made by the governing party during
the election campaign.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present two
petitions from persons from the riding of Miramichi.
The two petitions pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human
life.
(1510 )
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have four petitions to table
before this House. Two are concerning Bill C-68, calling on
Parliament not to enact any new firearm registry, registration
fees, costs, or any further restrictions on the ownership, sale,
use, transportation, or storage of firearms.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition is praying 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.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition is requesting that Parliament delete entirely
proposed section 718.2 from Bill C-41.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to present a petition on behalf of JC-55 super country
13601
radio station in Kamloops, who circulated a petition and have
now collected nearly 75,000 signatures.
They point out in the petition that Canadians are becoming
increasingly fearful to walk on our streets and in our
neighbourhoods. They believe that many violent offenders and
sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or being released
without proper treatment or rehabilitation. They believe that
those convicted of dangerous offences or sexual offences should
be incarcerated until they have successfully undergone
treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have
been completely rehabilitated.
Therefore, they are simply asking the House of Commons and
the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps are necessary to
accomplish these aims.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of the
town of Elkford in my community.
Your petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation
against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high
risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention
orders and specifically passing Bill C-240.
I am particularly pleased to present this petition because of a
serious situation they were in. They asked me what to do. I
suggested that they do exactly this, that they petition the
government.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Question No. 185 could be made an order for return,
the return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 185-Mr. Caccia:
What is the total amount of federal public money, in 1995 dollars, that has
been given to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) since its inception?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I would ask that all other questions be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order to ask the government House leader when I can
expect to receive an answer to Question No. 137, which has been
on the Order Paper since February 6, 1995. I requested an
answer from the government within 45 days, and now, as of
today, 126 days have passed.
Last Thursday the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader said once again that I can expect an answer to my
question soon. I know the government is not interested in a free
and open debate on the issue of gun control because they have
invoked time allocation, but I find it hard to believe the
government does not have the information on the cost of gun
control readily at hand. My dictionary defines ``soon'' as
``before long, promptly, quickly''. If the government isn't
forthcoming with the information on the cost of gun control,
maybe the parliamentary secretary should find a better word to
describe this.
Will I have an answer before the six hours of limited Liberal
debate in third reading of Bill C-68? Will I have the information
so we can properly debate this question?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member
suggested, timetabling and organizing House business is an
important aspect of government. In the case of these bills, the
official opposition and the government agreed that six hours was
quite a reasonable time to debate the gun control bill at the two
stages, and that is what we have agreed to do.
The government has not opposed this unilaterally, and I know
the hon. member knows that and would not want to think that the
government was acting unilaterally in cutting off debate, but we
are trying to organize the time between now and the end of the
session. Part of the duty of organizing that time involves getting
answers to questions.
I can tell the hon. member that a draft answer to this question
has been seen. It was inaccurate. It is being corrected and will be
available soon for the hon. member.
(1515 )
Mr. Abbott: Soon again.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says ``soon again'' and that
is absolutely true.
Whether I will have the answer before the six hours of debate
on third reading ends tomorrow I will have to wait until
tomorrow to see. I hope so but I am not optimistic. Normally
movement of the document around the various places it has to go
to be corrected takes more than 24 hours. However I assure the
hon. member I am doing my utmost to ensure he is provided with
full and accurate answers to his questions.
13602
13602
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 4, 6, 23,
24, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 69, 70, 71,
73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100,
101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 154, 170,
207, 215, 216, 218, 224 and 225.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments.
As I was saying before question period, one of the concerns
that has been brought forward to many members in the House
has been the issue of the legitimate use of firearms. There is a
concern that some of the provisions contained in Bill C-68
could be used to curtail what in essence is legitimate activity by
legitimate firearms owners.
There are a number of activities undertaken that are historical
in nature, that actually represent a way of life and a lifestyle we
have come to know and enjoy in rural Canada, in my case in rural
Ontario.
Hunting for sustenance has a long history. Hunting for sport
has been done in my riding for generations and generations. It is
important to the psyche where one generation passes its firearms
and the whole tradition of hunting to the next generation.
Hunting is important in terms of economics as I mentioned
when I spoke earlier. A large number of individuals travel to my
riding and make use of the great facilities we have there. Of
course trapping is important as an economic generator. Other
recreational activities like target shooting are also important
and for many people the collecting of firearms.
It is important we ensure the provisions contained in Bill
C-68 do not curtail such activities. For the most part they are
designed to do what I fully support and what I know other
government members support: control violence in Canadian
society. That is the legitimate objective of the legislation, one
that I support.
If regulations are put forward that achieve public safety in
their implementation and that help to reduce violence in society,
most Canadians and legal firearm owners would be quite willing
to support that. For the most part many of the regulations in this
legislation do that. However some legitimate concerns have
been expressed that need to be addressed and of which we need
to be cognizant.
There is the issue of cost. Many people who participate in
hunting are not wealthy individuals. They either hunt for
sustenance or they hunt for sport. We have to be very careful not
to create a regulatory regime or a costing structure that will
some day make it impossible for these individuals to pursue
hunting.
Although the government has done a good job in setting out a
fee schedule that is modest, I have concerns that it stay that way
and that firearm owners are not going to be faced with high costs
down the road.
I have a concern which I know is shared by many of my rural
colleagues and by many legal owners of firearms: that
provisions in this legislation could be used at some point in the
future. The government has stated unequivocally that it is not its
intention to do that but there is concern that people can use the
provisions in the legislation to at some time prohibit firearms
that are normally used for recreational purposes.
(1520)
This is a genuine concern. It is something that has been
expressed by a lot of people. We need to put something in the
legislation that makes it absolutely crystal clear that it is not the
intent of Bill C-68 to restrict the legitimate use of firearms for
legitimate purposes like hunting, target shooting and collecting.
It is absolutely essential that we make sure that it is not done.
Although most individuals will accept the regulations
contained in the bill that are designed to increase public safety,
although most individuals will accept those provisions that will
ensure they attempt to curtail violence, it is important that we
place within the body of the bill a safeguard, a provision that
explicitly states that nothing in the legislation is intended to
curtail the legitimate use of firearms.
I will read the amendment:
That nothing in this act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is
licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or
prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this act,
from
(a) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting,
trapping or other lawful activity, or
(b) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.
It is absolutely essential that we make it clear that nothing in
Bill C-68 is to be used to curtail the legitimate use of firearms. I
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the motions that I am presenting and speaking to on
behalf of the government are:
Motion No. 23 which is a correction of the French text.
Motion No. 54 would amend the conditions which attach to
lending a firearm to better reflect the actual practice. If a
firearm's owner lends a gun to someone he or she knows very
13603
well, it may not be necessary for that owner to verify the
borrower's licence each time. If someone is lending a firearm to
a brother, his wife, or a wife to her husband, that firearm owner
has every reason to believe that the person has a licence.
Consequently this motion would change one of the lending
conditions in the bill at the present time. What the government
would require with the amendment now is: ``having reasonable
grounds to believe that the borrower holds a licence''.
This depends on the actual circumstances and may require a
lender to request proof of the borrower's licence. For instance, if
it is a stranger, someone the lender has never met before, then
the lender would not have reasonable grounds to believe that the
borrower holds a licence whereas if it was a member of a family,
the borrower would.
Therefore it is a significant change which will make the actual
practice of using a borrowed firearm much more in line with
reality.
Motion No. 72 would clarify that a non-Canadian business
wishing to ship firearms in transit through Canada must obtain
an authorization to export, but need not have a business licence
in Canada.
As has been said before, even if the firearms are in transit
through Canada, the firearms must be registered. There cannot
be a shipment in transit, or otherwise, of firearms in Canada if
those firearms are prohibited weapons.
(1525 )
A motion was adopted at committee stage which provided that
in an application to the registrar for an authorization to export,
the registrar could only request from the applicant such other
information as is reasonably required. For consistency sake,
Motion No. 78 would also add the word ``reasonably'' to
authorization to import. Therefore, the word ``reasonably''
would be required not only for export but for import as well. We
have to look to the business practices of manufacturers. There is
no reason that they should be giving any information requested
of them, particularly if it does not have any relation to what is
required and gives confidential competitive data that would
only serve to hurt their competitive position.
As I mentioned, a very similar motion was introduced and
adopted at committee stage. However, customs in particular is
asking for a slight modification in the wording referring to the in
transit shipments to avoid any future confusion.
Motion No. 109 relates to changes introduced at committee
allowing an appeal of the minister's decision in respect of
shooting club approval. In it we referred to provincial ministers.
This change is to make a reference to federal ministers as well as
provincial ministers. The federal and provincial ministers will
be able to give approval to shooting clubs.
Motion No. 111 is essentially the same as 109. It relates to
changes introduced in committee allowing the appeal of a
minister's decision in respect of shooting club approval. The
minister may be provincial or federal. As I have said, this
motion is intended to clarify the appropriate minister in the
appropriate circumstances.
Essentially, most of the amendments in group three relate to
the registry system. A number of motions delete the role of and
references to the registry right through to the registrar and is
related to the Reform Party's proposal to eliminate the registry.
The second largest area where motions are put forward refer
to the rationale for a registration system and whether they
should apply to long guns. The concern is that the registry
system is put into effect for various reasons for long guns as well
as for handguns. The idea is so that we will have a record of all
firearms in Canada. If a firearm is stolen, we want to know
where that firearm is. We want to have, if not the serial number,
then certainly pertinent data that would allow us to track that
firearm.
We also want to be able to register firearms immediately on
their entering the country. We found that when certain firearms
are brought into Canada initially and not registered, as was
practice in the past, between customs and the
wholesaler-distributor, some of those firearms disappear.
As I mentioned earlier, we also want to register firearms even
when they are in transit through the country. If that is to be an
inconvenience then so be it, but frankly we do not really want to
encourage the in transit shipment of firearms through Canada.
We also want to be able to impress on people that firearms are
important and that the owner's care is very important as well.
We feel the registration system will be of benefit and will
reduce death through firearms. We feel there will be a greater
appreciation of firearms. The minister has stated time and again
that the costs are going to be minimal for the registration of a
firearm beginning in January 1, 1998. It may not be anything but
very shortly it will go to $10 for up to 10 firearms and maybe up
to $18 for 10 firearms before the end of the five year period.
(1530)
The minister has been very frank on that. He has stated there
will not be any cost initially for getting a possession licence but
for the renewal of an FAC or eventual renewal of a possession
licence it will be $60 for a five year period. Once a firearm has
been registered there will not be any need to register it again.
With respect to the possession licence there does not have to be
13604
any course taken if the possession licence is for firearms
presently possessed and not for the purchase of new firearms.
The registration system has been put into effect with the
lawful gun owner in mind. Supposedly there will be the
inconvenience of having to register long guns. That is in the eye
of the beholder. A lot of people who have long guns do not mind
registering them. It is not, as some people have stated, an idea of
keeping track of all the long guns with the eventual intention of
confiscation. That is not the intent at all. If that were the case,
we would not be spending up to $85 million on the registration
system.
The member for Yorkton-Melville has requested costing. The
minister provided the costing in committee when he initially
appeared. He stated why in his and the government's opinion it
would be $85 million.
The idea is to put the possession licence in effect on January 1,
1996 and the registration certificates for firearms beginning in
January 1, 1998 to give the system a chance to work gradually.
Also it is hoped that Canadians will see that the registration of
firearms and the possession licences are not an attempt to act
against the lawful gun owner.
To know what firearms are illegal first we must know which
firearms are legal. That makes sense. We cannot just say that a
particular firearm is illegal unless we have a common
denominator to say which ones are legal. That is a basic axiom
and we want to create that basic axiom in the registration of
firearms.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
amendments deal with the registration system.
During the appearance of witnesses before the standing
committee, I recall asking a criminologist how the registration
of rifles and shotguns would reduce the criminal use of those
firearms. I was surprised at his answer. He said that we would
probably see no effect in this area for 15 years. That was the
closest we could get to seeing any impact on the whole area of
deaths by gunshot wounds during the four weeks of testimony
before the committee.
When we look at the registration of firearms, before the
system can register one single firearm we have to licence all the
owners under the provisions of clause 5 of the bill. Clause 5
requires the chief firearms officer to take cognizance of the
criminal record of the individual, the mental health record of the
individual and a neighbourhood check as to the record of the
individual to determine whether there is any violence in that
individual's history. Before getting to the registering of firearms
the owner of the firearm must first satisfy the chief firearms
officer that he or she is eligible to own a firearm in accordance
with the criteria set out.
(1535)
When we look at the cost of this it is not unlike the procedure
followed to obtain an FAC today. If we look again at the cost of
the FAC the Toronto metro police board did an analysis of the
cost for an FAC during 1994 and it came to $185. If that is the
cost to register or license an individual and it is going to have to
go through a similar process and cost a similar amount, then we
are looking at three million gun owners multiplied by $185
which comes to $550 million before a single firearm is
registered. The cost of this whole thing will be far greater than
the $85 million suggested by the justice department.
Then we have to look at the possibility that a gun owner may
not meet the criteria. If the gun owner does not meet the criteria
what happens to his firearms? It means he cannot get a licence to
own them, therefore he cannot own them. What happens to those
firearms? We never got a clear response, at least I did not, from
the witnesses including justice officials on that question. Some
said they might be allowed to sell them or export them.
If a person is not eligible to hold a licence to own a firearm it
means it would be dangerous to allow them to continue to own a
firearm. It seems very clear to me that it would be the
responsibility and duty of the police to remove those firearms
from the possession of that individual if that individual does not
meet the criteria to hold a licence. That issue has not been
clarified well enough.
There is the issue of cost before a single firearm is registered.
If the individual does meet the criteria and receives a licence
then there is the added cost of registering the firearm. To suggest
it is going to cost $10 to register a firearm is utter nonsense.
What can we register for $10 today?
Although it may only cost the firearms owner $10 it is going
to cost the taxpayer a lot more for the police or whoever is
transferring the information and identifying features from the
firearm into the system itself and then issuing a registration
certificate. No one has assured the committee or assured me that
it is going to cost less than $10. I will have more to say on this
during the final debate at third reading.
We must seriously look at the whole registration system. No
evidence, not even a smidgen has been produced that we could
consider from a common sense point of view that the
registration of a rifle or a shotgun is going to reduce the criminal
use of that firearm. If all of the firearms in the country were
registered now, what would stop the suicides? As our hon.
colleague from Kamloops indicated, what would stop those
individuals who lose their sense of responsibility through drug
abuse, alcohol abuse or simple anger and despair? What would
cause them to be less likely to use a firearm simply because it is
registered? It does not make sense.
13605
I ask all hon. members to consider these amendments that deal
with that aspect of Bill C-68. We say it is not going to work so
why go forward with it?
(1540 )
We asked the government to bring forward those portions of
the bill that get tougher on the criminal use of firearms. There is
not anyone in this House or anyone in Canada who would not
immediately support that aspect of the bill. The government has
failed to do so. That saddens me and many of my colleagues on
this side of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have recognized and
heard from each of the movers of the motions in Group No. 3.
Now we will open debate to the remainder of the House.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
My comments will be on Motion No. 54, the lending
provisions.
I would like to thank Atima Hadlari for lending me his
shotgun yesterday to go out hunting in Cambridge Bay for geese
and ducks. He was very nice about it. I know him very well. He
offered me the use of his .12 gauge shotgun and I obliged.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who appeared
before the justice committee expressed concerns about the
lending provisions of Bill C-68. They talked about the
impracticality of lending a registration certificate along with a
firearm when someone is out on the land hunting for food, which
we were doing just a little over 24 hours ago in Cambridge Bay.
This is an issue of concern in my riding of Nunatsiaq. The
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Grand Council of the Crees of
Quebec, the Council for Yukon Indians and representatives of
the Government of the Northwest Territories all expressed
similar concerns. Again, the minister and the government have
responded to the concern. I express my thanks to the minister for
listening.
Motion No. 54 is a practical one. It would remove the
requirement to transfer the registration certificate along with
the firearm when the firearm is being loaned to someone who
will be hunting for sustenance purposes.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
All of the Inuit in my riding hunt for food. They may
supplement it with food from the Bay, the co-op and other
stores. We do not have grocery stores as such; we have
department stores. They may supplement the food they get from
hunting with food from the stores, but they all hunt.
I was in my hometown of Repulse Bay two weeks ago. I went
caribou hunting and got a caribou. I was in Baker Lake a week
after that. People there depend on caribou. Everyone depends on
the caribou they hunt. As I said, a little over 24 hours ago I was
in Cambridge Bay. There because they hunt for food, they are
always concerned about their neighbours, their friends or
whoever else may lack hunting equipment, whether it is a
snowmobile, a rifle, or gas. They lend hunting equipment to
their neighbours, their relatives, their sons, their daughters or
whomever. Lending firearms is a common occurrence. In the
north it is as common as lending a lawnmower or a cup of sugar
to a next door neighbour.
(1545)
In doing this the government is acknowledging that we have a
way of life which includes lending whatever we have to our
neighbours, sons, daughters or whomever; our firearms in this
case.
It is with deep appreciation to the minister that I support
Motion No. 54, knowing that he has listened to my ongoing
concern about that portion of the bill and knowing that he has
understood that it is a special case.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you. The hon.
member is speaking to us in a language that I neither recognize
nor understand. I would like to know if we must continue to
listen. As far as I know, the hon. member is not using one of the
official languages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In response to the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, there is
nothing in the standing orders that would allow the Chair to
force a member from either side of the House to speak in one
language or another.
Allow me to raise a personal point. In these circumstances, I
still appreciate the hon. member for Nunatsiaq's using his
mother tongue and, I take it, translating his words into English
from time to time. Resuming debate.
Mrs. Venne: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members
of Ukrainian or German descent-our members come from all
kinds of backgrounds-can now make their speeches in their
mother tongues?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I can only answer the hon.
member's question pursuant to the standing orders of the House
of Commons, which hon. members must comply with. At this
time, there is nothing in the standing orders preventing anyone
from using, as you say, a language that is not one of Canada's
two official languages. In the present circumstances, the hon.
member for Nunatsiaq may speak in his mother tongue.
13606
Mr. Anawak:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
It is an insult to the people of Canada that some people would
not agree with our speaking our own language when the Inuktitut
language in Canada is 4,000 years old and the English and
French languages are mere hundreds of years old.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1550 )
Mr. Anawak: A lot of my constituents are out camping now
because school is over for the summer. They will not wait
around for someone to come along and say: ``Here is my
registration certificate. There is a polar bear coming so you
better come and get your rifle or lend me your rifle''. There has
to be an understanding on the issue of lending. This applies to all
sustenance hunters whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
The motion will benefit all hunters and trappers because it
recognizes that there is a different way of doing things in the
rural areas. I strongly support the motion and urge the House to
support it.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
this morning I was a little confused about when I was supposed
to speak and on what, but I think I have it all straightened out
now. However I am sure you will straighten me out if I do not.
I will be speaking to clause 110 and would like to respond to
the motion made with regard to it. I agree with the member
across the way who moved the amendment that something needs
to be done about the clause. I personally believe it needs to be
totally scrapped.
I disagree with the parliamentary secretary who feels there is
no concern about prohibiting certain firearms, confiscation, et
cetera, because of the powers in the clause.
I have given out several hundred copies of the bill even
though it cost quite a bit from my budget. I have had responses
back from a number of people, including legal minds and people
who support the idea, who say it is a terrible piece of legislation,
that it is just plain bad and written very poorly. Many of these
people came to Canada from places like Czechoslovakia and
Hungary and lived in the days when those kinds of thing
happened. They know what they are talking about.
We all know how much the Liberal government desires power.
Bill C-68 is a further example of how power hungry the Liberal
government can be. clause 110 of Bill C-68 gives absolute
power through order in council to dictate every condition chosen
to end firearm ownership for reasonable law-abiding people.
No matter how many times the minister and the power hungry
members of his government state that their intention is not to
remove ownership of firearms from Canadians, the wording and
the language in the bill read otherwise.
We on this side know why the minister and his government are
invoking closure on the bill. It is just another example of their
thirst for abusive power. Their attempt at ramming the
legislation through before the House closes for the summer is
their own means of protecting their backbench members.
As the Ontario election has shown, the people of Canada are
tired of top heavy government that passes legislation to look
good rather than to do what the people want. The clock is ticking
on Liberal style government. As each second passes more and
more people have read Bill C-68 and discovered that it is a bad
bill and it is not about public safety.
The people of Canada have discovered that Bill C-68 is all
about giving absolute power in clause 110 to a chosen few social
engineers and ivory tower intellectuals who believe they know
what is best for Canada. As the Ontario election proves, the
people of Canada are tired of dictatorial government of any
stripe and want a government that mirrors the will of the people,
not the mandate of closet dreamers.
(1555 )
The clock is ticking and each tick places more and more
pressure on the minister to push Bill C-68 through the House.
Each tick of the clock gives more and more Canadians time to
understand the powers given in clause 110 to the governor in
council and to make absolute demands upon the people of
Canada. Each tick of the clock is making the Liberal government
and the minister weaker among the citizens of Canada. That is
why they are in such a hurry to get this dictatorial mandate
through the House.
The Liberal government finally understands that the people
have had enough of false prophesies from a government opposed
to the wishes of Canadians. Canadians did not agree to firearm
controls to hamper and incriminate law-abiding friends and
neighbours who own and use properly stored firearms.
Canadians want the government to use legislation to deter and
punish those who believe a firearm can be a useful tool in
robbery, assault and murder.
Canadians want their government to get tough with criminals,
to make criminals understand that using a firearm will result in
swift, sure justice with dire consequences for unlawful
behaviour.
As more and more Canadians read and understand Bill C-68
they find that the legislation does not protect them from
criminals and law breakers who improperly use illegally
smuggled firearms. They have found legislation that
criminalizes their
13607
friends and neighbours at each and every whim of a select few
and orders in council.
Canadians did not elect members to the House so that a chosen
few among them could dictate their favoured beliefs. Canadians
elected members to the House because they believed members
when elected would stand up for constituent wishes over the
elite who want control over every aspect of Canadian life.
During the last election each party promised Canadians that
they would vote according to constituent wishes, that if elected
constituents would come first over party politics and the whim
of a few chosen to rule.
The order in council in Bill C-68 shows Canadians that the
Liberals have broken the most sacred of their promises and that
the government is without integrity and cannot be trusted to
maintain its promises beyond the ink drying in the red book.
There is no representation by constituents in the bill.
Constituents asked for input in their governments. The bill
removes all authority from people and gives total control of the
people to the chosen few.
The clock is ticking and the Liberal government knows it. At
each tick the government knows its old style government of
distortion and outright misrepresentation is doomed to failure,
but the government has cashed too many cheques from its
special interests and vested groups to back down.
As the heritage minister holds special meetings where
contributions can buy political favours, the justice minister has
special meetings where utopian idealists convince the
government they know what is best: ``Give yourself absolute
power. Use that power to make firearm owning Canadians
semi-criminals at the least and outright criminals at the most.
Threaten Canadians with absolute punishment for daring to own
politically incorrect private property, legally owned firearms,
and then Canadians will be safe''.
Canadians have read Bill C-68 and know that it has little to do
with public safety. It has little to do with making career
criminals and first time criminals fearful of our courts.
Canadians have read Bill C-68 and discovered the government
wants dictatorial powers. That is why more and more Canadians
are pushing their Liberal backbench members to vote against the
bill. The government knows when its backbenchers return to its
constituencies there will be questions asked. The government
knows constituents will ask how ill advised spending of tax
dollars for registering lawful private property will increase
public safety when study after study states registration will not
reduce use of firearms by criminals.
The government knows constituents will ask their Liberal
members why they supported a bill the constituents did not
want, but most of all the government knows constituents will
ask why backbench members agreed to give the chosen few
absolute power to dictate to Canadians.
(1600 )
The clock is ticking. As Ontario voters proved, the Liberal
ideal of government by the elite chosen few is over. Canadians
have chosen to take back their right to govern and the
government knows it. As I said, too much political capital has
been granted by the minister and his government to abandon this
ill advised bill. While the clock is ticking on their style of
dictatorial government through order in council they are stuck
with it and they shall be stuck with it during the next federal
election. They will have to explain to constituents why they did
not do as promised, why individual MPs in the Liberal Party
were not listened to, why there were few free votes and why the
government chose the old style Liberal way of government by
the few which it stated it would not do.
The clock is ticking not only in Ontario but in British
Columbia and all across Canada where Canadians believe
government is elected to follow the wishes of the people, not to
follow the wishes of a selected few chosen to mandate by order
in council.
Bill C-68 is a documented futile attempt at social
engineering, not criminal justice. This bill affects law-abiding
citizens more than criminals, demands more from citizens than
criminals and wastes tax dollars on a non-existent claim of
public safety.
Canadians know this and that is why more and more
Canadians understand what Bill C-68 means to the democratic
principles they thought they voted for. More and more
Canadians will abandon the Liberal government. As the clock
ticks the Liberal government loses credibility on each count.
The government that promised integrity but gave Canadians the
old style of patronage will find its bases thinning.
The bill will not reduce the flow of illegal firearms or reduce
the use of illegal firearms. It is estimated the bill will increase
the flow and value of illegal firearms while it punishes
law-abiding citizens.
A vote for this bill is a vote against democratic principles. It is
a vote for absolute power and the worst part of it is those who
vote for the bill are supporting a minor defeat for democracy in
this land.
Bill C-68 is not about public safety or good governance, it is
about the manner in which Canadians will be governed. I
support government by and for the people, not dictatorial
misadventure, and I believe that most Canadians agree with me.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I take the opportunity to address these motions. At report stage
there are some 267 motions to amend the legislation.
13608
I will address the time element because as members begin to
talk we lose sight of the fact that there has been a great deal of
discussion about Bill C-68. It has been happening now for well
over a year. Members have had discussion papers and briefing
documents. It has taken a great deal of time and now is the time
to move forward.
If the House had to debate each amendment with the
appropriate time allocation we would be here until next
Christmas. The government has to move forward. We have had a
great deal of time to discuss this. The allegation of some
members that somehow this is ramming something through is
quite to the contrary.
The hon. member for Wild Rose said the government's
position on Bill C-68 is simply the whim of a few. Yet, as we
well know, more than two-thirds of Canadians actively support
this piece of legislation.
I want to address the issue of registration. That is certainly
one of the areas where members have brought forward their
concerns. In my riding people have asked questions concerning
registration. I think it is fair to ask the question and to explain
how registration and crime reduction go hand in hand and cannot
be split, as hon. members might suggest.
Many members have asked why we are going after
law-abiding citizens and not criminals. Law-abiding citizens
are law-abiding citizens until they are convicted. There are no
shades of grey in between.
(1605)
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently came
out with a report. I thought it was very useful. Today the law
requires all handguns to be registered, and law-abiding citizens
have them registered.
One of the interesting facts was that 40 per cent of the crimes
committed with these guns were registered. That is very
significant. Members in the Reform Party continue to say
law-abiding citizens, those who register their firearms, do not
commit crime. Yet 40 per cent of the crimes committed with
handguns presently required to be registered were committed by
registered firearms.
This legislation will ask that all firearms now be registered
including long arms, shotguns and rifles. I found out another
interesting statistic from this report, that 47 per cent of all
firearms crimes committed in Canada involved long arms. That
is the reason long arms should also be registered.
I do not think Canadians have to look too far for the facts that
encourage them to tell their members of Parliament that we do
value safety. Canadians hear statistics all the time about the
realities of gun crime; 200 children are shot by guns every year.
This is appalling to Canadians. There is a problem to be dealt
with.
There a were some 1,400 firearms deaths last year, some 77
per cent of which were suicides. Only 3 per cent of those
firearms deaths had anything to do with self-defence. These are
facts which indicate clearly there are problems we can address
to ensure our communities remain safe.
Unlike the platitudes and rhetoric I have been hearing from
the Reform I will give more facts. The Prime Minister was
recently in the United States. He was asked why people in the
UN thought Canada was the best country in the world. He said
the global economy is making us more and more alike. He said
there were two things that really made Canada distinctive. The
first is our medicare system. I do not have to explain to hon.
members how important that is to Canadians. The second is that
we can walk in our parks safely, unlike in the United States.
In the United States there are more gun shops than there are
gas stations. There are private security officers in the United
States than there are real police. For every one crime with a
firearm in Canada there are 100 in the United States. When we
take into account the 10 to 1 population differential that means
the situation is 10 times worse in the United States than in
Canada.
With such a vast majority of our population being so close to
the U.S. border why has the gun problem not moved more fully
into Canada? There are a couple of reasons. One has to do with
the American constitution which has effectively the right to bear
arms, whereas in Canada we do not have that right enshrined in
our constitution. Ownership of a gun in Canada is a privilege
subject to certain rules. Those are some of the reasons we have
such a low relative crime rate with guns.
The real question has to do with crime. The members repeat
the question about what the bill will do about crime. It is an
excellent question. The importance of the question is how we
approach it. Do we wait until after we have a problem and then
start to deal with it or do we do things in advance anticipating
forces in our society which may result in a greater level of
crime?
We spend 75 per cent of what we do on remedial health care
and only 25 per cent on prevention. To make sure our health care
remains affordable and accessible, we have to deal more on the
preventative side. This bill has an awful lot to do with
preventing crime. It is not reducing crime; it is preventing crime
and it results in the same effect.
(1610)
Since the mid-seventies about 64,000 firearms were reported
lost, missing or stolen in Canada. We wonder how many guns
were actually lost, missing or stolen but not reported. This fact
alone indicates that members who would suggest criminals get
their firearms only through smuggling really failed to
understand the facts. So-called law-abiding gun owners are
major suppliers of firearms to the criminal element. Some 1,400
firearms last year were reported lost, missing or stolen.
13609
The cost issue has come up in my riding and in the House. The
parliamentary secretary has done an excellent job to make sure
Canadians know despite the rhetoric we have heard from others
that cost is not a major item here. Registration will begin on
January 1, 1998 and does not have to be fully implemented until
the year 2003. In the initial phases it will cost something like
$10 for up to 10 guns for a five year period. Clearly in the first
period as we go through this process of transitioning to
registration of our firearms cost should not be a major problem
for Canadians.
With regard to the issue of what gun control will do about
crime, the most important element is public education. Now that
we have discussed the issue of crime and firearms for well over a
year now, more and more Canadians know what a serious
responsibility it is to own a firearm. They know now they have to
have a licence, that they have to register, that there are
restrictions on storage and mandatory criteria for ammunition,
transportation, et cetera. It is a very serious responsibility.
One of the things I am finding from talking to a number of
serious gun owners and club shooters is they are finding there
are an awful lot of guns now for sale to collectors and to clubs
and other owners. A large number of people in Canada who have
acquired firearms either through an inheritance or on a whim
really are not very serious. Recent statistics show 60 per cent of
firearms owners have not shot their guns in the last year and
some 40 per cent have not shot their guns in the last five years.
A lot of people with firearms in their homes probably were not
totally familiar with the rules and regulations. Now through this
education process, now that more and more Canadians
understand the important responsibility of owning a firearm,
they are getting rid of those guns. That is good in terms of
reducing the probability of firearms being dumped into the
criminal markets.
The Minister of Justice has listened to Canadians. The
amendments are constructive and address the concerns of many
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to the
agreement made this morning the divisions on the motions are
deemed deferred.
(1615)
[Translation]
We will now proceed to group No. 4.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 24, on page 4, with the following:
``under subsection 101.1(1) of this Act or subsection 92(1), 93(1) or:''; and
``(b) by replacing lines 31 and 32, on page 4, with the following
``constitute an offence under subsection 101.1(2) of this Act or subsection 92(2) or
93(1) of the Criminal''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page
4, with the following:
``under section 106 of this Act and subsection 95(1) of the Criminal Code,''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33, on page
4, with the following:
``constitute an offence under section 106.1;''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38, on page
5, with the following:
``offence under section 106.2 or 106.3 of this Act or subsection 99(1) or 100(1) of
the Criminal Code; and''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 18, on page
5, with the following:
``wise constitute an offence under section 106.4 or 106.5 of this Act or subsection
103(1) of the Criminal Code.''
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-68, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6, on page
16, with the following:
``sal in accordance with this Act,''.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 41, on page 50, the following
new Clauses:
``101.1 (1) Subject to subsection (4) and section 98 of the Criminal Code,
every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, unless the person is
the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess the firearm; and
(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) and section 98 of the Criminal Code, every
person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted
weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited
ammunition, unless the person is the holder of a licence under which the person
may possess it.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty
of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifty
dollars and to a minimum fine of five hundred dollars;
13610
(b) for a second offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and to a
minimum fine of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars
or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to
(a) a person who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a
prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition while the person is under the direct
and immediate supervision of a person who may lawfully possess it, for the purpose
of using it in a manner in which the supervising person may lawfully use it; or
(b) a person who comes into possession of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a
restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition by the
operation of law and who, within a reasonable period after acquiring possession of
it,
(i) lawfully disposes of it, or
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a
firearm, a registration certificate for the firearms
101.11 (1) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a
person is in possession of a firearm in respect of which the person does not hold
a registration certificate, the peace officer shall seize the firearm and may, for
this purpose, search the person or a vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of
the Criminal Code concerning search and seizure.
(2) Any thing seized pursuant to subsection (1) shall be dealt with in
accordance with sections 490 and 491 of the Criminal Code, subject to
subsection (4).
(3) A peace officer who seizes a firearm in accordance with subsection (1)
shall give to the person who had possession of the firearm a notice in writing
that the person shall obtain a registration certificate for the firearm within seven
days of receiving the notice.
(4) The firearm that was seized shall be returned to the person who is lawfully
entitled to its possession where the person obtains a registration certificate for
the firearm within the period of time set out in subsection (3).
101.2 (1) A person who has been convicted of an offence under paragraph
101.1(3)(a) or (b) is deemed not to have been convicted of a criminal offence.
(2) An offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)(a) or (b) does not constitute
an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.
(3) For greater certainty, notwithstanding subsection (1), the provisions of
the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to an offence
referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)(a) or (b).
(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this section prevents the punishment to
which a person might otherwise be lawfully sentenced on a conviction for an
offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)(a) or (b).
(5) Subject to subsection (6), every person is guilty of an offence who
discloses to any person any record of a conviction for an offence referred to in
paragraph 101.1(3)(a) or (b) or the existence of such a record or the fact of the
conviction.
(6) No person commits an offence under subsection (5) where that person
discloses anything referred to in that subsection to a prescribed person for the
purposes of allowing the prescribed person to determine whether a person
found guilty of an offence under subsection 101.1(3) has been previously
convicted of an offence under that subsection.
(7) Every one is guilty of an offence who uses or authorizes the use of an
application form for or relating to any of the following matters that contains a
question that by its terms requires the applicant to disclose a conviction for an
offence referred to in paragraph 101.1(3)(a) or (b):
(a) employment in any department, as defined in section 2 of the Financial
Administration Act;
(b) employment by any Crown corporation, as defined in subsection 83(1) of the
Financial Administration Act;
(c) enrolment in the Canadian Forces; or
(d) employment on or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or
business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 134
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 17, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``102.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who knowingly makes, before a
peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer, a false report or
statement concerning the loss, theft or destruction of a firearm, a prohibited
weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition,
an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) In this section, ``report'' or ``statement'' means an assertion of fact,
opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible
or not.''
Motion No. 136
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 28, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``104.1 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an
offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there
is a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device,
other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless
(a) in the case of a firearm,
(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of an
authorization or a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess
the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm,
transport the prohibited firearm or restricted firearm,
(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the
motor vehicle was the holder of an authorization or a licence under which that
other occupant may possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm
or a restricted firearm, transport the prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and
13611
(iii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the
motor vehicle was a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this
Act or any other Act of Parliament; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or
any prohibited ammunition,
(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of an
authorization or a licence under which the person or other occupant may
transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or
prohibited ammunition, or
(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the
motor vehicle was
(a) the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the other occupant may
transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited
ammunition, or
(b) a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this Act or any other Act
of Parliament.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle who, on
becoming aware of the presence of the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted
weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition in the motor vehicle,
attempted to leave the motor vehicle, to the extent that it was feasible to do so, or
actually left the motor vehicle.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle where the
occupant or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is a person who came into
possession of the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited
device or prohibited ammunition by the operation of law.''
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-68, in Clause 106, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 44, on
page 51, with the following:
``106. (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) possesses a firearm, unless the person is the holder of a licence under which the
person may possess the firearm and, where the firearm is a prohibited firearm or a
restricted firearm, unless the person holds a registration certificate for that firearm;
or
(b) contravenes, in respect of a firearm, a condition of a licence, registration
certificate or authorization held by the person.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) in the case of a first offence, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction;
(b) in the case of a subsequent offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.''
Motion No. 138
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse,
possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or
prohibited ammunition and
(a) does not hold a licence under which the person may possess it; or
(b) contravenes a condition of a licence or authorization held by the person.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 139
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.2 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization
under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder,
transfers a firearm or ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 140
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.3 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization
under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder,
transfers a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or
prohibited ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 141
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.4 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization
under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder,
imports or exports a firearm or ammunition.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.5 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without authorization
under this Act or any other Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder,
imports or exports
(a) a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited
ammunition; or
13612
(b) a component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or
assembly into automatic firearms.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.6 Any proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection 106.4(1)
or 106.5(1) of this Act may be commenced at the instance of the Government of
Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that government.''
Motion No. 144
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 44, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``106.7 Subsections 106(1) and 106.1(1) do not apply to
(a) a person who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a
prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition while the person is under the direct
and immediate supervision of a person who may lawfully possess it, for the purpose
of using it in a manner in which the supervising person may lawfully use it; or
(b) a person who comes into possession of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a
restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition by the
operation of law and who, within a reasonable period after acquiring possession of
it,
(i) lawfully disposes of it, or
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a
firearm, a registration certificate for the firearm.''
Motion No. 146
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 10, on page 53, the following
new Clause:
108.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) having lost a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited
device, any prohibited ammunition, an authorization, a licence or a registration
certificate, or having had it stolen from the person's possession, does not with
reasonable despatch report the loss to a peace officer, to a firearms officer or a chief
firearms officer; or
(b) on finding a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited
device or any prohibited ammunition that the person has reasonable grounds to
believe has been lost or abandoned, does not with reasonable despatch deliver it to a
peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or report the finding to a
peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 147
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 10, on page 53, the following
new Clause:
``108.2 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) after destroying any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited
device or prohibited ammunition, or
(b) on becoming aware of the destruction of any firearm, prohibited weapon,
restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that was in the
person's possession before its destruction, does not with reasonable despatch report
the destruction to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.''
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following
new Clauses:
``129.1 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 106,
106.1. 106.2, 106.3, 106.4. 106.5 and 108.1, any question arises as to whether a
person is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate,
the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the
authorization, licence or registration certificate.''
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following
new Clause:
``129.2 (1) In any proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament,
a document purporting to be an authorization, a licence or a registration
certificate is evidence of the statements contained therein.
(2) In any proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, a copy
of any authorization, licence or registration certificate is, if certified as a true
copy by the Registrar or a chief firearms officer, admissible in evidence and, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, has the same probative force as the
authorization, licence or registration certificate would have had if it had been
proved in the ordinary way.''
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following
new Clause:
``129.3 (1) A certificate purporting to be signed by an analyst stating that the
analyst has analysed any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited
ammunition or explosive substance, or any part or component of such a thing,
and stating the results of the analysis is evidence in any proceedings in relation
to any of those things under this Act or under section 19 of the Export and
Import Permits Act in relation to subsection 15(2) of that Act without proof of
the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the
certificate.
(2) The party against whom a certificate of an analyst is produced may, with
leave of the court, require the attendance of the analyst for the purposes of
cross-examination.
(3) No certificate of an analyst may be admitted in evidence unless the party
intending to produce it has, before the trial, given to the party against whom it is
intended to be produced reasonable notice of that intention together with a copy
of the certificate.
13613
(4) For the purposes of this Act, service of a certificate of an analyst may be
proved by oral evidence given under oath by, or by the affidavit or solemn
declaration of, the person claiming to have served it.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), the court may require the person who
appears to have signed an affidavit or solemn declaration referred to in that
subsection to appear before it for examination or cross-examination in respect
of the issue of proof of service.''
Motion No. 166
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 33, on page 65, the following
new Clause:
``129.4 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, declare for any purpose
referred to in subsection (2) any period as an amnesty period with respect to any
weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition, explosive substance or
component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or
assembly into an automatic firearm.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) may declare an amnesty period for
the purpose of
(a) permitting any person in possession of any thing to which the order relates to do
anything provided in the order, including, without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, delivering the thing to a peace officer, a firearms officer or a chief
firearms officer, registering it, destroying it or otherwise disposing of it; or
(b) permitting alterations to be made to any prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon,
prohibited device or prohibited ammunition to which the order relates so that it no
longer qualifies as a prohibited firearm, a prohibited weapon, a prohibited device or
prohibited ammunition, as the case may be.
(3) No person who, during an amnesty period declared by an order made
under subsection (1) and for a purpose described in the order, does anything
provided for in the order, is, by reason only of the fact that the person did that
thing, guilty of an offence under this Part.
(4) Any proceedings taken under this Part against any person for anything
done by the person in reliance of this section are a nullity.''
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 8, on page 72,
with the following:
``(3) For the purposes of sections 92 to 95, 99''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9, on page
72, with the following:
``(3) For the purposes of sections 95, 99, 100, 103 and 117.03 of this Act
and''.
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 73,
with the following:
``(b) a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if''.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 176
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
(a) by replacing line 13, on page 73, with the following:
``who uses a firearm or an imitation firearm''; and
(b) by replacing line 29, on page 73, with the following:
``using the firearm or imitation firearm.''
Motion No. 177
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20, on
page 73, with the following:
``tent A firearm), 272.1 (sexual assault with a weapon), 273 (aggravated sexual
assault),''
Motion No. 178
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
(a) by deleting lines 30 to 39, on page 73;
(b) by replacing line 2, on page 74, with the following:
``under subsection (1) is guilty of an'';
(c) by replacing line 26, on page 74, with the following:
``offence under subsection (1) shall be''; and
(d) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 73, with the following:
``the person for an offence under subsection (1).''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 179
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 47, on page
74 and lines 1 to 11, on page 75.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 180
That Bill C-68 in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35, on
page 75, with the following:
``under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten years.''
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 181
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 45, on page
76 and lines 1 to 10, on page 77.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 182
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 76
and substituting the following:
13614
``91. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section''
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 183
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
(a) by replacing line 18, on page 76, with the following:
``possesses a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, unless the person is;''
(b) by replacing lines 38 and 39, on page 76, with the following:
``(a) a person who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a'';
(c) by replacing line 14, on page 77, with the following:
``possesses a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm knowing that the person is'';
(d) by replacing line 28, on page 78, with the following:
``prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted'';
(e) by replacing line 8, on page 79, with the following:
``in which the person knows there is a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm,'';
(f) by replacing lines 17 to 20, on page 79, with the following:
``may possess and transport the firearm,'';
(g) by replacing lines 29 to 32, on page 79, with the following:
``possess and transport the firearm, and'';
(h) by replacing line 26, on page 80, with the following;
``ing aware of the presence of the prohibited firearm, restricted firearm,''
(i) by replacing line 36, on page 80, with the following:
``of the prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted'';
(j) by replacing line 33, on page 98, with the following:
``(a) a person in possession of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm who''; and
(k) by replacing line 4, on page 99, with the following:
``may seize the prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, re-''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 184
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 45, on page
76 and lines 1 to 11, on page 77.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 185
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by adding, immediately after line
11 on page 77, the following:
``(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who possesses a firearm that is
neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm and who is not the holder of
a registration certificate for the firearm if the person
(a) has borrowed the firearm;
(b) is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(c) is in possession of the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain the person or the
person's family.''
Motion No. 186
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 77
and substituting the following:
``92. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 187
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 12 to 47, on page
77 and lines 1 to 23, on page 78.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 188
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 14 on page 78
and substituting the following:
``(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who possesses a firearm that is
neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm and who is not the holder of
a registration certificate for the firearm if the person
(a) has borrowed the firearm;
(b) is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(c) is in possession of the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain the person or the
person's family.
(6) Where a person is charged with an''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 189
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 45, on page
78 and lines 1 to 4, on page 79.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 190
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 79 and
substituting the following:
``94. (1) Subject to subsections (3) to (5)''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 191
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 46, on page
79 and lines 1 to 38, on page 80.
Motion No. 192
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page
80, with the following:
``95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 193
13615
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by adding, immediately after line
38 on page 80, the following:
``(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle where
the occupant or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is a person who
possesses a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm
and who is not the holder of a registration certificate for the firearm if the person
(a) has borrowed the firearm;
(b) is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(c) is in possession of the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain the person or the
person's family.''
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 194
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37, on
page 81, with the following:
``under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment
for a term of three years.''
Motion No. 195
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 40, on page
81.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 196
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 19, on page
82.
Motion No. 197
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 43, on page
82, and lines 1 to 11, on page 83.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 198
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 22 and 23, on page 82, with the following:
``subsection 101.1(1) of the Firearms Act or subsections 92(1), 93(1), 94(1) and
95(1) of this Act, possessed a firearm without a firearm''; and
(b) by replacing lines 36 and 37, on page 82, with the following:
``the coming into force of any of subsection 101.1(1) of the Firearms Act or
subsections 92(1), 93(1), 94(1) and 95(1) of this Act, possessed''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 199
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 1 to11, on page
83.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 200
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3, on page
83, with the following:
``between the coming into force of subsection 101.1(1) of the Firearms Act or
subsection 92(1) or 94(1) of this Act and the later of January''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 201
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 9, on page
83 with the following:
``91(1), 92(1) or 94(1) and January 1, 1996, possesses a firearm that, as of that date,
is not a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, shall be deemed for the purposes of
that subsection to be, until December 31, 2000, the''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 202
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 21, on page
84.
Motion No. 203
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 34, on page
85.
Motion No. 204
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 28, on page
86.
Motion No. 205
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 43, on page
86 and lines 1 to 5, on page 87.
Motion No. 206
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 24, on page
87.
Motion No. 208
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 89,
with the following:
``(5) Sections 114 to 117 apply in respect of''.
Motion No. 210
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 91,
with the following:
``(5) Sections 114 to 117 apply in respect of''.
Motion No. 212
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 92,
with the following:
``(7) Sections 114 to 117 apply in respect of''.
Motion No. 213
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 46, on page
93 and lines 1 to 13, on page 94.
Motion No. 214
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 7, on page
96.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 220
13616
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended
(a) by adding, immediately after line 9 on page 106, the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section
117.1, no individual who is employed by a business as defined in subsection
2(1) of the Firearms Act that itself is the holder of a licence is guilty of an
offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the individual, in
the course of the individual's duties or employment, possesses, manufactures or
transfers, or offers to manufacture or transfer, a partially manufactured
barrelled weapon that, in its unfinished state, is not a barrelled weapon from
which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable
of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person.''
(b) by renumbering the subsequent subclause and any crossreferences thereto
accordingly.
Motion No. 221
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by adding, immediately after line
21 on page 106, the following:
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section
117.1, no individual who is employed by a museum as defined in subsection
2(1) of the Firearms Act that itself is the holder of a licence is guilty of an
offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the individual, in
the course of the individual's duties or employment, possesses or transfers a
firearm that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with
near precision, an antique firearm if the individual has been trained to handle
and use such a firearm.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section
117.1, no individual who is employed by a museum as defined in subsection
2(1) of the Firearms Act that itself is the holder of a licence is guilty of an
offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the individual
possesses or transfers a firearm in the course of the individual's duties or
employment if the individual is designated, by name, by a provincial minister
within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Firearms Act.
(5) A provincial minister shall not designate an individual for the purpose of
subsection (4) where it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of any
person, to designate the individual.
(6) A provincial minister may attach to a designation referred to in subsection
(4) any reasonable condition that the provincial minister considers desirable in
the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of any person.''
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 222
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 106,
with the following:
``offence under any of sections 89, 90, 93,''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 223
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30, on
page 106, with the following:
``offence under sections 89 or 90, any question arises as to''.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 228
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 38 on page 108, the following
new Clause:
``117.16(1) Every section in this Part expires on January 1, 1999 unless prior
to that date, with respect to each section
(a) the Auditor General has prepared and caused to be laid before Parliament a report
on whether the section has been or will be a successful and cost-effective use of
public funds to achieve an increase in public safety and a reduction in the incidence
of violent crime involving the use of firearms,
(b) the report of the Auditor General has been referred by the House to such
committee as the house may designate for the purpose,
(c) the committee has considered the report of the Auditor General and made a report
to the House on the success and cost- effectiveness of the section and on the extent to
which
(i) public safety has been or will be increased or decreased,
(ii) the incidence of crime related to the use of firearms has been or will be
reduced or increased, and
(iii) a cost-effective use of public funds has been or will be made to achieve an
increase in public safety or a reduction in the incidence of violent crime
involving the use of firearms, and
(d) the committee has recommended to the House that the section should not expire,
and
(e) the House has concurred in the report of the committee.
(2) Where a section is to expire as result of subsection (1), the Governor in
Council may, by order, defer its expiry for a period not exceeding one year, if
the section contains matters that do not relate to firearms control and the
deferral is necessary in order for legislation to be proposed to Parliament to
continue the other matters in force after the expiry of the section.''
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 230
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 231
That Bill C-68, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 109,
with the following:
``ment for a term of one year; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 232
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 233
That Bill C-68, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 109,
with the following:
``ment for a term of eight years; and''.
13617
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 234
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 235
That Bill C-68, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 109,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 236
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 237
That Bill C-68, in Clause 138, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 110,
with the following:
``term of six years.''
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 238
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 239
That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 111,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 240
That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 110,
with the following:
``272. (1) Every person commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims,
disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
(2) Notwithstanding section 85, every person who commits an aggravated
assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment
for a term of six years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.''
272.1 (1) Every person commits an offence''.
Motion No. 241
That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 111,
with the following:
``a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 242
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 243
That Bill C-68, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 111,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 244
That Bill C-68, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 111,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 245
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 246
That Bill C-68, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing line 42, on page 111,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 247
That Bill C-68, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 112,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 248
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 249
That Bill C-68, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 112,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 250
That Bill C-68, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 112,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 251
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 252
13618
That Bill C-68, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 112,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 253
That Bill C-68, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 112,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 254
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 255
That Bill C-68, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 112,
with the following:
``(a) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.
Motion No. 256
That Bill C-68, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 112,
with the following:
``ment for a term of six years; and''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 259
That Bill C-68, in Clause 148, be amended by deleting lines 20 and 21, on
page 115.
Motion No. 264
That Bill C-68, in Clause 172, be amended
(a) by replacing line 1, on page 127, with the following:
``(8) Sections 114 to 117 of the Criminal''
(b) by deleting lines 4 to 9, on page 127.
Motion No. 265
That Bill C-68, in Clause 183, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 29, on page
133.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the
motions under group No. 4, since this series of amendments
basically deals with the decriminalization of the whole
registration system for certain categories. In any case, the Bloc,
under Motion No. 133, for instance, proposes to decriminalize
failure to register shoulder arms. Let me explain that shoulder
arms means shotguns and rifles. Contrary to certain comments
by the government or even by the third party, we do not want to
decriminalize all guns but only shotguns and rifles, referred to
as shoulder arms.
Throughout this debate, I was surprised to see that although
both the gun lobby and the anti-gun coalition raised some
arguments that were very emotionally charged, there was no
discussion, although there should have been, about what society
wants out of this bill.
I think society wants better gun control. I think it makes
sense, in a society like ours, that people who own guns should
register them. But do we really want to make criminals of people
who, either out of stubbornness or sheer ignorance-although
all citizens are supposed to know the law, there are a number
who do not- because they do not know all the details of the
legislation, will not register their shoulder arms?
Does the minister want to make criminals of these people? I
hardly think so.
I was on the committee when the minister came to testify and
seemed to be willing to open the door to decriminalizing failure
to register a firearm. I felt the minister was listening very
carefully. I felt he wanted to make the legislation more flexible
in this respect, but I also felt that there was a huge lobby out
there asking the minister not to give in, because the public ought
to feel the government is very serious about this legislation.
With the amendment proposed under Motion No. 133, the
government could have sent a message showing it was serious
just the same, since I do not think that giving someone who fails
to register a criminal record proves anything about the
government's intentions. Sure, it shows it is being serious, but at
what price? Some people will be prosecuted for failing to
register the old twelve-gauge in the closet-this is one of my
favourite examples-will they have a criminal record, with
everything that entails? For instance, someone with a criminal
record may have trouble finding a job or obtaining a passport. Is
that what the Minister of Justice really wants? I do not think so.
So why not make this clear in the bill?
With this amendment, we could also have sent a very clear
message to the public that it is a serious matter to fail to register,
by imposing substantial fines. For the first violation, a fine of
between $500 and $2,500, which is quite a substantial sentence.
We could also send a clear message by saying that unregistered
guns will be seized and the owner will have seven days to
register, upon receipt of a notice to that effect. The objective is
to register these guns so that the objective will be met without
criminalizing a group of people for no good reason.
I think we could have achieved the purpose of this bill. But no,
as I said earlier, there is this debate between two groups at the
opposite ends of the spectrum, about the same bill. The first
group says: Listen, the legislation goes too far, it is too
totalitarian and will cost too much money. What this group
really wants is no legislation at all.
(1620)
On the other hand, the coalition and every other group in
favour of firearms registration would like the legislation to go
13619
further. The penalties are never severe enough; they are asking
for pretty outrageous sentences. Basically, what would make
them happy is for no one to be allowed to own weapons.
I think that the Bloc's proposal regarding decriminalization
makes for a balanced amendment. I think that this kind of
amendment favours neither the gun lobby nor the coalition. The
ultimate objective could be served by such an amendment.
This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. There is
obviously a need for the government to legislate in this area.
This bill meets a need. I think that the statistics showing a large
majority of voters in Canada and Quebec in favour of increased
gun control are right.
I spoke to my constituents, not only hunters or representatives
of one group or another, and they have told me that they want
increased control. But they do not necessarily agree with certain
specifics, such as criminalization. I think that a considerable
education effort is still required if we want to know what the
people really want us to do in this regard.
Yes, the people want firearms legislation, but I think this is
not the kind of legislation they want. In light of the amendment
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois in committee, the government
has relaxed a number of clauses in its bill along the lines of what
the Bloc had suggested. Much to its credit it paid attention, in
certain respects, to the amendments and suggestions made by
the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-68.
If what the government is looking for is a bill that meets a
consensus, a bill that will gain the widest support possible, the
bill before us contains a stumbling block called
decriminalization and, on this subject, the government should
consider the proposed amendment carefully.
Ten minutes is a very short time to debate these amendments,
but since I can speak only once and this bill is being debated
globally, let me say that we cannot address decriminalization
without addressing something else at the same time. As regards
the issue of decriminalization, I feel that the minimum sentence
of four years is unconscionable. To provide a minimum sentence
of four years for certain offences committed with a firearm is to
yield to the gun lobby.
Why remove the courts' discretionary power? Why remove
the discretion which judges can use, given the evidence before
them? The government argues that, on average, the courts
currently impose a four year sentence for such offences. But
why force them to automatically impose that sentence? Why not
let them weigh the evidence? Why not trust the courts and the
appointed judges, who are supposed to represent the public?
Why not let them weigh all the evidence and then impose the
sentence which they feel, is the most appropriate, given the
evidence before them? This is an aspect which the Minister of
Justice should look at very carefully, to comply with the existing
legislation and to promote Canada's objectives in that respect.
There is also the issue of universal appliction of the act in
Canada. The Minister of Justice repeatedly said that the act
would apply everywhere in Canada. I hope it does, including on
Indian reserves. If this act is going to be implemented
everywhere, why does clause 110, among others, provide that
the government can exclude a person?
(1625)
Since the past is indicative of the future, we are well aware
that some people, particularly aboriginals, will be excluded
because hunting is an important activity for their survival.
Why not pass legislation which will not only apply
everywhere, but also to everyone? In conclusion, if the
government is prepared to listen to Canadians, including
Quebecers, it will accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois regarding decriminalization. This would ensure that
people are really treated fairly, and it would also ensure that the
legislation targets those who should be targeted, which is not the
case right now.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will
just take a few minutes to address my amendment here. It has to
do with the subject of decriminalizing the offences that are now
in the Criminal Code.
If we look at sections 91 and 92, we see that the penalties
under indictment of both of those sections are absolutely
draconian. Section 92 allows for an individual who knowingly
refuses or neglects to register his or her firearm to be sentenced
to a term of ten years. Under section 91 if they proceed by way of
indictment they can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
five years.
There has been a new section put into the act at committee
stage, I think it is 107.1, which makes it a summary conviction
offence. However, the police will have the authority to arrest
anyone in possession of a firearm under any of those sections,
even the most draconian, which is under section 92. They can
arrest them. It is an indictable offence. They can charge them,
fingerprint them, and then they can reduce or withdraw the
charge afterwards, while that person's fingerprints are on file.
We see the same kind of thing occurring to a certain degree
under section 85 of the Criminal Code, where they lay charges
against individuals for using a firearm in the commission of an
offence and then later withdraw those charges as a plea
bargaining tool. I see the same kind of power and authority being
granted through these sections.
Therefore, the purpose of our amendments is to eliminate the
draconian measures and penalties that are included in this bill. I
might bring to everyone's attention that the idea of sentencing
someone or making them liable to a penalty of ten years for
13620
deliberately neglecting to register their .22 or their shotgun is
absolutely absurd and unacceptable.
We all remember Mr. Lortie, who went into the Quebec
assembly and murdered three people. He served ten years. To
equate that kind of an act and that kind of punishment with the
failure to register a rifle or a shotgun is to me beyond
comprehension and absurd.
These amendments are designed to decriminalize offences
where there is no mens rea involved, no intent and no overt act to
endanger anyone. It is simply that they have failed, whether
deliberately or inadvertently, to fulfil an administrative act,
which is to register. It should not be a criminal offence and there
should be no means whereby the police can arrest the person
under those circumstances and have that person face an
indictable offence where the punishment is as much as ten years
or five years, depending on whether it is under section 92 or 91
of this act.
Those are my comments on that.
(1630 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to
speak to the amendments to Bill C-68. The reason I am so
delighted is that since the government invoked time allocation
last Thursday, I find myself being one of the chosen few who
will be able to speak at report stage.
The government's motive is one of fear. It knows that many of
its backbenchers are already going to vote against the bill and
they are afraid that if Bill C-68 is not dealt with before summer,
many more of their backbenchers would find themselves having
to commit that greatest of all sins a Liberal member can commit,
the sin of representing one's constituents.
That is what I am attempting to do with this bill. I am trying to
gauge the sentiments of my constituents. The bill is one of the
few issues where people have expressed a great deal of interest.
In my recently released householder I provided each side of the
argument with the opportunity to state the case for or against the
bill. Representing those who support the bill is none other than
the Minister of Justice.
My householder is in the homes of my constituents. While I
have started to receive responses, the government's artificial
deadline will prevent many of their voices from being heard. If
the majority of my constituents wanted registration, given the
opportunity, I would support the registration portion of Bill
C-68.
It seems the government wants as few voices heard as
possible. The bill has been rushed through the entire process.
The schedule to hear witnesses was fixed in advance, ignoring
hundreds of requests by groups and individuals to appear.
The timeframe to enter amendments was rushed, not allowing
sufficient time to have legislative counsel prepare amendments.
The clause by clause consideration was rushed, forcing the
committee to sit until one o'clock in the morning.
What can one say about report stage and third reading? The
tactic of introducing time allocation before debate even starts is
a tactic that would have made the Mulroney administration
blush.
The Liberals always complained when the Tories introduced
closure but they have fully embraced the concept themselves.
What is interesting is that there has never been a hint that the
Reform Party or anybody else was attempting to filibuster the
bill.
We have played by the rules, trying to improve a poorly
drafted bill in case it passed third reading. How badly drafted
was this bill? Let me say that during the clause by clause
consideration the member for Crowfoot noticed that the wording
of one clause would make it necessary for anybody wishing to
buy a box of ammunition, even a box of .22 shells, would have
been required to obtain prior approval of the chief firearms
officer of the province.
It was interesting to see the look of confusion on the faces of
the parliamentary secretary and the assistant deputy minister
when they quickly realized that that was not their intent.
The bill has been amended but this is an example of the poor
quality of legislation that goes through when Parliament rushes.
Another example of the quality of this bill is the list of 37
amendments that the Minister of Justice is making at report
stage. This is in addition to approximately 80 amendments that
the government made in committee during clause by clause.
Government members say: ``So what? Who cares? We are
sitting so high in the polls''. One wonders if they will remember
that the Ontario Liberals went into their provincial election
riding high at 53 per cent in the opinion polls as well. Probably
not, since Liberals have very short memories. After all, it was
only in the last Parliament when Liberals were loudly protesting
over rules by the Tory government to introduce more legislation
where Parliament would be bypassed with orders in council.
However, these protests are now silent as the government has
created unprecedented provisions for government by order in
council. There are 75 instances in this bill that call for
regulations to be introduced. The government's attitude is forget
Parliament, the cabinet knows what is best for Canada. After all,
if amendments had to come through Parliament there may be
13621
more of those Liberal backbenchers who may try and represent
their constituents. The government would not want that to
happen, would it?
Its attitude is: ``Trust us. We know what is best''. Having sat
through the committee hearings on Bill C-68, it is apparent that
the government does not know what it is doing.
The pretence under which this bill was introduced was that it
would reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately there was no
such substantive evidence presented that indicated this bill
would do either. The bill was purported to go after the criminal
use of firearms, yet most of the bill is directed against the
ordinary law-abiding gun owner.
(1635)
Those aspects of the bill that do deal with the criminal use of
firearms are insignificant. That is why I have introduced the
amendments I have.
The government chose to identify 10 serious crimes such as
manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery and to create a minimum four year sentence if a firearm
was used. However, what difference will these minimum
sentences make? Not very much because the down side of
minimum sentences is that they all too often because maximum
sentences. Unless the minimum sentence is raised to a level that
is sufficiently higher than the current average sentence, there
will be no deterrent effect.
Will a four year minimum sentence for manslaughter with a
firearm prevent any deaths? The average sentence for
manslaughter in British Columbia is currently four years. Under
current law, if a firearm is used in a death an additional one year
sentence is added under section 85. How is it possible that a four
year minimum sentence could have any deterrent effect when
the average sentence is already five years?
That is why I have entered amendments that would increase
the minimum sentence for manslaughter to eight years. For eight
other crimes it would be increased to six years and for one
crime, criminal negligence causing death, we are suggesting the
minimum sentence should be reduced.
Another flaw in the bill is that under these 10 specific crimes,
it is necessary to prove that the object used in the crime is a
firearm. While this may not be difficult in manslaughter cases or
those charged with causing bodily harm, what about cases
involving sexual assault, kidnapping or robbery? If the gun is
not fired or if it is not recovered, how does the crown prove that
the object used meets the legal definition of a firearm? The short
answer is that it cannot. Thus, in many of these cases there will
never be a charge of using a firearm because the crown simply
will not be able to prove that a firearm is used.
That is why I am moving the second set of amendments. It will
no longer be necessary to prove whether the object used was a
firearm or just an imitation firearm. The victim of a sexual
assault may not know if the object used is a real firearm or just a
replica. The terror is equal in any event. To let a sex offender
walk away from this crime because the victim is unable to state
whether it was a real firearm or just an imitation is wrong. These
clauses must be amended.
Bill C-68 is bad legislation. It does not do what it sets out to
accomplish. If this law is not bad enough, the way the
government has handled it is even worse. How can anyone
justify closing down debate before it even started on legislation
that will not come fully into effect for another eight years? They
cannot. Arrogant governments believe they do not have to
explain anything, except when they try to explain to themselves
why they have been rejected by the voters and have fallen into
oblivion.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate I cannot help but
wonder why the opposition is all of a sudden so exercised about
time allocation when in fact we dialogued about this bill for
almost a year.
The Minister of Justice went from coast to coast to coast
speaking to groups on the bill. The subject matter of the bill was
brought forward on November 30 and the bill was brought
forward based on that subject matter on February 14, 1995.
There has been a lot of dialogue and a lot of consultation.
The committee has met, but not all the witnesses who wanted
to appear could appear. There was a restriction on the number of
witnesses, but it was done with the belief that those witnesses
would have their points of view brought forward by either a
national organization to which they belonged or a similar
organization which would speak for the the interests of
witnesses. There were individuals who wanted to come forward.
That was not possible.
(1640)
Many people wanted to speak to the bill as with most
important bills. It is not democracy to hear everybody. That is
not the way it has been practised since Athens and the days of
Pericles. The way it is done is to choose representatives to come
before the committee.
Also, we are talking about the amendments today at report
stage. In some cases we are getting a point of view on these
amendments and in other cases we are not. The fact of the matter
is we have third reading yet to come.
Perhaps not everybody who wants to speak at third reading
will be given the opportunity to do so. At committee stage we
allowed members to have five minute interventions on points
before the committee, which was requested.
13622
Members will know that as speakers come before the House
and speak at third reading that the first speeches are 20 minutes
and then the other speeches are 10 minutes. Many members are
giving those 10 minutes speeches here today.
Relating to the last speaker on minimum sentences, this area
has been given a great deal of attention. The member is not
satisfied that in 10 very serious offences the minimum sentence
would be four years. She wants it increased to eight years in the
case of manslaughter and six years in other cases. That is one
point of view.
We have had witnesses before the committee who felt that a
10 year minimum, and in fact the previous speaker from the Bloc
condemned the government for having a four year minimum in
these cases, saying that the discretion should be allowed to go to
the courts as is the case at the present time. We have heard it
from both sides. We feel four years is a period of time that is
defensible in this case.
Minimum sentences are never something that a government
wants to bring forward because it takes discretion away from the
courts. The courts are put in place to judge the actions of our
fellow citizens in relation to the laws, both statute and common
law. They are to use their discretion and they are trained
professionals in the law and with experience on the bench.
To say that we are going to implement minimum sentences is a
curtailment of that discretion and to say that we are going to
have a minimum sentence of eight years is an absolute affront to
that discretion. The question is, would a minimum sentence of
that extent in fact not be challenged under the charter of rights
and freedoms. Frankly I feel that it would.
We have have a minimum sentence for those 10 situations. We
have a minimum sentence of one year for illegal importation and
exportation of a firearm and also for other criminal offences as
well. We have attempted to impress on Canadians the
seriousness of the wrongful use of a firearm with these
minimum sentences. There is a limit to how far we can go and
many people and institutions have told us we have gone too far
already. We do not think so but we do not think that going further
will gain any respect for the law. It is only going to lead to a
complete and utter disrespect for the law where the law
arbitrarily is imposing extremely harsh sentences without the
judge being able to have some latitude.
We talk about section 85 and plea bargaining and also about
section 85 with respect to an imitation firearm. If we are going
to give four years for a firearm, it is awfully hard to give four
years to an imitation firearm that is not a danger to the person on
the other side of the counter. There has to be some discretion. It
is still possible for the judge to give a stronger sentence. That
imitation firearm would still come under section 85 where
robbery is included. There would then be a subsequent one year
sentence for the imitation firearm.
(1645)
The case is also put to the attorneys general and provincial
ministers of justice as to why these extra charges are plea
bargained away. This area is within their discretion. It does not
have to happen in the provincial jurisdiction because the
provinces have control over the administration of justice. As in
the case of dangerous offenders they have to say these offences
are not to be plea bargained away.
I want to mention Motion No. 133 as brought forward by a
member of the Bloc Quebecois. Motion No. 133 would impose a
simple fine for first and second offences. These are offences that
would be under clause 107.(1), the new offence under the
firearms bill which takes the possession of unregistered long
guns out of the Criminal Code and puts them into the firearms
act.
The member suggests a simple fine for first and second
offences of not only illegal long guns but also for possession of
prohibited fully automatic firearms, silencers and prohibited
ammunition such as armour piercing bullets. Such a lenient
offence would be a mockery of what we are attempting to do
under this legislation. Clause 107.(1) attempts to treat leniently
and with some kind of compassion those who honestly did not
register their long guns. It is certainly not an intent to excuse
people with prohibited fully automatic firearms from
non-registration.
The penalties the member would impose under Motion No.
133 are much less severe than is the case right now. It would say
to someone who blatantly violates the law that they would not be
convicted of a criminal offence. As I mentioned, it would
trivialize the severity of possessing firearms without a licence
and a registration certificate.
We have attempted to bring forward laws and eventually
regulations that will not minimize the seriousness of the offence
but which will honestly recognize the honest mistake of
non-registration. They will also allow those who are in charge
of enforcing these laws to deal with the offences in a humane and
a compassionate way relating to the facts of the situations as
they see them.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Waterloo-national defence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to speak to the motions before us in group No. 4, if I
am not mistaken. I would like to point out that the Criminal
Code currently provides a number of mandatory minimum
punishments. The one of interest to us today is set out in section
85 of the Code. It reads as follows: ``Everyone who uses a
13623
firearm while committing [-]an indictable offence [-]is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment, in the
case of a first offence, [-]for not more than fourteen years and
not less than one year, and, in the case of a second or subsequent
offence, [-]for not more than fourteen years and not less than
three years''.
(1650)
As we can see, the Criminal Code already provides a
mandatory minimum sentence of one year for the use of a
firearm with criminal intent. It also provides a minimum
sentence of three years for all subsequent offences. These
sentences are served consecutively to any other sentence. That
means that an individual found guilty of robbery, for example,
would be sentenced for the principal offence-the robbery
itself-and would then have this sentence extended by one or
three years, as the case may be.
The proposal by the Minister of Justice to increase the
minimum sentence to four years would not improve the situation
in any way. At best, individuals would be given only the
minimum sentence of four years. At worst, the Supreme Court
would consider the provisions setting the mandatory minimum
punishment at four years unconstitutional, because it would
consider such punishment cruel and unusual under section 12 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At the moment, an individual found guilty of one of the
offences set forth in the new section 85 could very easily be
sentenced to a term longer than that contemplated by the
Minister of Justice. In fact, the combination of a consecutive
mandatory sentence and sentencing for the principal offence
could easily exceed four years.
Section 85 of the Criminal Code is therefore amended in Bill
C-68 with the addition of a list of ten violent offences to which
the provision will apply. We have wondered about the
seriousness of the minister in establishing this list. It includes
manslaughter, a crime without criminal intent, but it does not
include armed assault. Is punishment to be the same, regardless
of whether the victim survives his or her wounds?
Forcible confinement is not on the list either, although
kidnapping and hostage-taking are. I must say I have serious
doubts about the deterrent effect of an increase in the minimum
sentence provided in section 85 and related sections.
I would like to point out that the working document prepared
by the Department of Justice on the present section 85, in
particular, and on the imposition of minimum sentence in
general, concludes that the public as a whole is not aware which
offences carry mandatory minimum sentence. It is hard to see
how such a measure would deter potential delinquents, since
they generally do not know what the minimum sentence is.
In addition, the same document that the Minister of Justice
should have examined more closely concludes that mandatory
minimum sentences probably have very little effect as
deterrents and on the rate of the commission of serious crimes.
Robbery is a prime example. And what is worse, apparently
juries are less inclined to find someone guilty if they know that
the crime the defendant is accused of committing carries a
mandatory sentence.
If judges choose not to allow sentences for multiple offences
to be served concurrently, the result would be a substantial
growth in the prison population. In fact, the minimum sentence
of four years would be the starting point to which any additional
period of detention necessary would be added, depending on the
circumstances surrounding the offence.
Obviously, an individual accused of several offences could
serve sentences consecutively. The Minister of Justice seems to
believe naïvely that detention centres will be able to hold more
inmates. He argues, in fact, that his bill will be a deterrent and
will decrease the number of crimes perpetrated with a weapon.
He has no way of knowing what impact his bill will have on
the number of convictions made under his reformed system in
the future. Let us not forget that a chain is only as strong as the
weakest of its links.
(1655)
If we increase the minimum sentence provided for in section
85 of the Criminal Code, we must expect the prison population
to swell although we do not have the facilities needed to
accommodate the new inmates.
The warning issued by Université de Montréal Professor
Pierre Landreville is worthy of consideration. In an article
published in the December 23, 1994 edition of Le Devoir, Mr.
Landreville outlines the danger of such legislation, and I quote:
``[-] every year in Quebec, some 1,500 individuals are
convicted and could eventually be sentenced to a minimum of
four years in prison, in addition to the sentence given for the
main offence. Quebec's prison population, which is now around
4,000, would almost double in the first four years following the
implementation of this measure''.
The increase in the prison population would lead to an
increase in related costs. Did anyone bother to find out how
much Bill C-68 would cost, when we know that, in 1992-93, the
annual cost of keeping a single inmate averaged $56,000 in
maximum security and $36,000 in medium security?
The mandatory minimum sentence is the minimum number of
years to be served. In a so-called clarification effort, minimum
punishment was included in the wording of the offence itself.
That is why we find the phrase ``to a minimum punishment of
imprisonment for a term of four years'' in 10 different clauses
13624
listing possible sentences for the offences in question. I am
talking about clauses 135 through 144 of Bill C-68.
The amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in
Motions No. 182 and following are all aimed at eliminating the
mandatory minimum sentence by revoking these clauses.
Significantly increasing mandatory minimum sentences is an
ill-advised public relations exercise. There is no better way to
score points.
The Minister of Justice wanted to ease the fears of a generally
misinformed public and to make the pro-gun lobby swallow the
pill by claiming that Bill C-68 does not deal with the
registration of long guns. He failed miserably in both cases.
Increasing mandatory minimum sentences involves far too
many uncertainties, considering eventual tangible benefits. Bill
C-68 is a bill on public safety and not a marketing operation.
The Minister of Justice would have been better off explaining
his bill and answering gun owners' legitimate questions. Had he
done so, he would not have provoked such a general outcry.
I therefore urge the House to support the Bloc motions, which
reflect the kind of society we all want to live in.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity today to express my support for the
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and put them into
the context of this debate.
In this instance the emphasis is mainly on decriminalization,
and that is entirely in line with the position taken by the Bloc
Quebecois which is to make this a balanced piece of legislation.
This seems to have been a rather difficult debate, with some very
active lobbies on both sides, and I must say that in my case, I got
some firsthand experience of this in my riding, and with citizens
who want to make sure that this process produces some effective
results.
So with this in mind, the Bloc worked on this bill and tried to
come up with some satisfactory results.
What is the primary objective? Basically, to improve gun
control. Prevention is the main thing, in other words, we want to
ensure that now and in the near and not so near future, we can
improve the situation. Through better control, we also want to
reduce the number of guns that are out there but are not being
used, and a number of examples come to mind. Everyone knows
people who, somewhere in a closet, have a gun they inherited
and which they still have but do not use. They still own it but
hardly ever use it. There are a lot of guns around.
(1700)
This bill is rather well received by the general public,
especially in Quebec. However, the groups that are directly
affected are more sceptical. They have expressed certain
reservations and, in some cases, out and out dissent. Generally
speaking, the people most likely to be affected-and I am
thinking of hunters, of whom I represent a certain number in my
riding-are wondering what will happen. There are a lot of
rumours about what it might actually cost them. They have
sometimes felt that the government was out to get them.
Many people who use guns, either hunting rifles or revolvers,
use them responsibly. So we do not really want to brand them as
criminals, and that is why we would like to see some flexibility
with respect to criminalization. We are suggesting ways to make
this position more flexible.
In the case of Quebec, the registration of firearms, including
hunting rifles, has been in effect for a number of years. The
problem is how the process is used. Now the government wants
to create a national registry. I realize some people are going to
say that it is like starting all over again. They say: when I bought
my gun at the store, they took down the serial number and all
that. Now, when they want to set up a national registry, for
Canada, in this case, we have to more or less repeat the same
process. I agree there are some costs involved in implementing
the system. The bulk of the cost would be during the start up
phase, but subsequently, we can assume that the system would
become much simpler and far more flexible. Nevertheless, there
are some questions about these new measures.
I want to make it clear that we in the Bloc Quebecois support
the principle of improving gun control. However, we want to
minimize the impact on the individual, and in this case, the user.
Since this bill is intended to benefit the general public, it would
perhaps make sense for everyone to contribute to the start up
costs. I do not own any firearms and it would not bother me to
contribute as a citizen, as a taxpayer, to this system's start up or
to pay for a firearm's registration, if one day I decide to purchase
one, on the condition, of course, that the fees are reasonable.
Throughout the process, we have maintained pressure on the
government to banish the rumours regarding figures and to
reassure people that the cost would be reasonable. Because a bill
is just a bill, its effectiveness relies on the decision of
individuals to respect the system and the law. It is they who
ultimately determine how effective a law is going to be. When
the majority of people respect it, it becomes a standard for
society. At that point, it becomes easier to enforce. The best way
to have people respect a law is peer pressure.
Therefore, I agree with the statement that we all have to
contribute and that users also have to do their part. Under the
current proposal, a $10 fee will be imposed for the registration
of the first 10 firearms. Most Canadians do not own more than
10 firearms. These fees seem reasonable. Some people do have
more than 10, for example collectors, but there are special
provisions for them. Now, an ownership certificate is also
involved. To be able to own a firearm, people will have to
purchase a certificate at a cost of approximately $10 per year,
payable for a period of five years. It is important to note that this
13625
ownership certificate replaces a certificate that already exists,
the firearms acquisition certificate.
For a good many people, the only fee involved will be the
initial cost of registering their firearms, $10. I think that this is
reasonable and so do a good number of my constituents. The fear
they have is that an amendment will be introduced later which
will raise costs exponentially. They want reassurances, like the
one discussed in committee, that the government will not pull a
fast one on them.
(1705)
In this regard, we suggested indexing it to the cost of living,
which would appear to be one of the most reasonable proposals
made. We cannot, however, use the same formula, because of the
way the House works. So, I now propose, instead, that these fees
be frozen for 20 years, although I still think our first position
was better and more acceptable to the government.
However, we make the point again to the government that this
would be one way it could ensure the greatest support and the
least resistance for its bill. I think the people in my region and in
other regions will accept this system, so long as it means the
least possible inconvenience for them, including any financial
inconvenience that may be involved. The registration fee must
not be seen as a disguised tax on firearms.
The other point is to ensure as well that an inefficient
bureaucracy is not created with the legislation. As members of
the opposition, we must ensure over time that the system exists
without accompanying machinery of no practical value and that
the people working in the system do what they are supposed to
be do, that is, control weapons, so that we do not end up with a
system costing more than it should.
If these points can be assured, I think the bill will be more
saleable. Of course, there has been considerable debate about
the effectiveness of registration. Will it really meet the
prevention goals? This is, I admit, where debate was perhaps the
most difficult. People, experts from both sides testified for and
against registration. We as legislators must make up our minds
after listening to experts who disagree on this subject and to
people from both sides who lobby hard to get their message
across. Some of them even resort to threats, linking this to
election and political issues, which I find somewhat regrettable
because there are other, more important matters.
That said, we must make up our minds, and I am now one of
those who have come to support this bill, because I think that we
must take this step in our social development. Although we may
have some doubts, are these doubts enough to abstain, in my
case, or dissent? I think not, and that is why we must support this
bill.
But-and I will conclude on this-we are asking the minister
to be a little more flexible to ensure that people will rally behind
this bill, and that any negative impact on those affected will be
minimal. In this regard, I think that their only concern at the
present time is the matter of costs. I feel that going along the
lines of the amendments that follow would allow us to take a
very important step while being a little more flexible on
decriminalization.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
heard earlier in a speech by one of the government members that
the objective of the legislation was to improve public safety on
the streets and in our homes. Every single Reform member in the
House is out for exactly the same objective, to improve public
safety on the streets and in our homes. Unfortunately the bill has
very little to do with that.
I have asked a number of people, including members of the
House, to explain what they think the bill is all about. One
member suggested that it was the warm fuzzies, the warm
fuzzies simply being that it makes us feel good, that it makes us
feel better.
The justice minister has been very interesting in coming
forward with a figure of $85 million to make his creation work,
$85 million to register seven million guns. We are taking at look
at the imposition of registration and we are taking a look at the
expenditure of $85 million. It reminds me an awful lot of the
idea of what it would cost for transportation of a particular
entity.
(1710 )
If we take into account only the capital cost of the car and not
any of the actual running expenses, we might get a rather
distorted picture.
I do not buy the justice minister's estimate of $85 million by a
long shot. I do not think it is anywhere even remotely close. At
best, even if that was the federal cost, what about the provincial
cost?
I asked the justice minister about a situation where
environmental activist Paul Watson talked about the fact that he
had used a stun gun in either New Brunswick or the province of
Quebec, I cannot recall. He rose in the House and made the very
clear point that the administration of justice was a provincial
issue, a provincial responsibility.
13626
Even if the $85 million figure were believable, which I do not
think it is, the real cost of administering this useless program
will fall to the provinces.
I also cite from page 13480 of Hansard, June 8, wherein the
Speaker of the House made a ruling on a point of order raised by
the House leader for the Reform Party. I recognize that clause 98
was dealt with in Motion No. 3. Nonetheless this is germane to
my argument. He said:
Clause 98 as introduced in the House had the concept of ``police officer'' for
which the concept of ``inspector'' has been substituted by the committee. It still
remains a provincial ministerial responsibility as to which class of individuals
shall be so designated. It may well be that a provincial minister decides to
recruit an entirely new class of individuals for the purpose of clause 98, but it
clearly remains the decision of the provincial authority to do so. Whether the
class of individuals are called inspectors or police officers has no direct impact
on the royal recommendation attached to the bill.
He was ruling on the fact, in the judgment of the Speaker, that
the costs of the program were actually going to be borne by the
provinces in the same way as the cost of driving the automobile
once it is purchased are borne by the owner. In actual fact the
cost to the Canadian taxpayer, even if we could believe the $85
million as a starting point, is $85 million to buy into the initial
registration of the program. The enforcement of the program
will be something quite different.
Let us deal with the $85 million figure. I want to restate for
the third or fourth time that I do not buy the $85 million figure
even at the federal level. What could we do with money
equivalent to that?
I read in the June 10 Gazette:
The RCMP will spend $68 million over the next few years in an attempt to
curb smuggling along the 700-kilometre border between Quebec and the U.S.
The largest number of new officers will go to the Valleyfield detachment,
near the Akwasasne Mohawk reserve.
Akwasasne, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border and incorporates parts
of Quebec and Ontario, is considered a key crossing point for contraband.
If we are to spend $68 million in that case or if we are to
spend, as the justice minister has suggested, this impossible
figure of $85 million, would it not be good if we could actually
spend it on something that would accomplish that for which it is
being spent?
It seems rather illogical when one refers to the polls that the
justice minister and parliamentary secretary keep referring to.
They say that 60 per cent, 68 per cent or 75 per cent of people are
in favour of registration. That is terrific, except invariably-and
I will make up a figure-68 per cent of people are in favour of
registration but 72 per cent of people do not think it will do
anything. What is the point of the registration program if in the
belief of Canadians it will not do anything? Why are we getting
into it in the first place? Why are we harassing ordinary
law-abiding Canadians?
(1715)
With respect to the source of weapons coming into Canada, I
will read a small part of a very profound report by the
MacKenzie Institute. It is rather detailed but is also quite
enlightening.
By the time of writing, 102 weapons which have been sold to the four
Mohawks were recovered by Canadian police forces. Details on these firearms
include the following: 65 light semi-automatic pistols; 32 semi-automatic
pistols; four revolvers; one submachine gun; at least another 21 light
semi-automatic pistols, 39 semi-automatic pistols and four Cobray submachine
guns pass through this connection into Canada.
What possible effect did or would the registration program
have on the passage of this arsenal?
Other weapons that were not traced to Vermont but were seized along with
those 102 weapons included five assault rifles, two submachine guns, a sawed
off shotgun, 14 other pistols and 23 unspecified weapons. At least five of these
were also smuggled in from the United States. Of the 102 weapons, various
Canadian police forces have provided information on the crimes the firearms
were associated with, and/or the history of the suspects who had been in
possession of the firearms.
The arms provided by the four Mohawks were linked to the
following crimes and criminals. Again, I am only going to read a
small part of the list. ``Thirty-five were associates and/or
members of the Russian Mafiya, Armenian thieves'', and it goes
on and on.
The connections are amazing. The point I am trying to make is
that our border at this point is no bar to guns. A registration
program is going to have no effect in changing that situation.
This is underscored and underlined even by the Canadian Police
Association.
My point is why are we going after targeting law-abiding
Canadian citizens when the surveys themselves which
supposedly support registration say that people recognize
registration will make no difference. We are going after the
wrong people.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
far from happy with Bill C-68 in its present form. As usual, I
think the government has turned a deaf ear to the various
motions in amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Once
again, the government has missed a wonderful opportunity to
improve its bill by incorporating the findings of the various
committees, the conclusions reached at public hearings or quite
simply the views contained in letters sent in by our constituents
throughout this country.
One thing is for sure: for or against, this bill leaves no one
indifferent. I have said it before, and I will say it again, although
this is a very controversial bill, it is, in my view, essential and in
the interests of all Quebecers and Canadians that the govern-
13627
ment pass it so that citizens are better protected against the
upsurge in crime and violence that can strike anyone at any time.
I cannot, at this time, go into all the details of this bill, but it is
clear from the controversy surrounding it that it has some major
flaws. I will mention just two in particular. First, in a move
designed to impress the public, the Minister of Justice included
in his bill a minimum sentence of four years, in lieu of the
provisions of section 85 of the Criminal Code. In its present
form, section 85 provides that a criminal who uses a firearm
while committing an offence will have to serve an additional
consecutive sentence of one year. In the case of a second or
subsequent offence, the additional sentence is three years.
(1720)
Surely the Minister of Justice cannot seriously think that a
minimum sentence of four years on top of the original sentence
will have a dissuasive effect. It will not. It will merely serve to
worsen the already serious problem of overcrowding in
Canada's prison system.
Furthermore, I would remind you that members of the Quebec
bar told the committee that a minimum sentence of four years
for use of a firearm in committing an offence could result in
something like an additional 250 people a year joining the
prison population. When you think about how much it costs
taxpayers to keep one offender in jail, I do not know whether this
country, which is bankrupt, currently has the means to support
another 250 people in jail. The auditor general also spoke of this
subject.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, the Bloc
Quebecois justice critic, is proposing to simply drop clauses 135
to 144, which merely list ten crimes with a minimum sentence of
four years. I think that we should stick to the current rules
established in the Criminal Code. It should be up to judges to set
the sentences for the various crimes committed by offenders.
Would it not be wiser to follow Quebec's example in justice
matters, and to channel our efforts towards better
understanding, by putting emphasis on prevention and bringing
in measures which promote rehabilitation, instead of giving in,
like this government has, to repressive movements from all over
the country, which are expounded mostly by the Reform Party.
Another point that is of particular concern to me is that
section 106 of the current Criminal Code stipulates that people
who make a living from hunting do not have to pay the licencing
fees related to firearm ownership.
I know very well that we have grown accustomed to the
government's double standards over the past two years, but this
bill is too serious and important for that kind of game. Clause
110 of the bill would effectively allow the governor in council to
introduce discriminatory regulations uniquely for the benefit of
aboriginal peoples. I fail to see why belonging to a certain class
of persons changes the application of the legislation.
It is therefore imperative that any person who owns a firearm
be obliged to pay registration fees, whether that person lives off
the proceeds of the hunt or is a native. This government must not
allow the creation of different classes of citizens. It is not
helpful at all and merely creates conflicts within our society.
Guns must be controlled and regulated by laws that are
logical, sensible and apply to all citizens of this country,
irrespective of their age, sex, occupation or cultural heritage.
I know this bill does not enjoy unanimous support, but we
must remember that as elected representatives, it is our duty to
protect our constituents, often from themselves.
This bill should respond to the main concerns which have
been raised constantly in the past five to ten years with respect to
gun control.
(1725)
We know this bill is not a panacea for the crime and violence
that exist in our society. However, it is time to acquire the
additional tools we need to deal with these problems. I think this
bill is a tool that will help society evolve, and that a few years
from now, it will be too late.
Finally, I may recall that at the present rate, there will be
about four million guns of all kinds in less than ten years. We
cannot afford to leave this legacy to future generations. It is time
to act now. This has gone on long enough.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to
discuss report stage of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons. This is perhaps the most controversial piece of
legislation the House has seen since the implementation of the
GST. It is also a piece of legislation which has caused a great
deal of debate and at times heated discussion since this issue was
first raised in the House.
I have learned there is little or no middle ground on the issue
of gun control. It is an issue that Canadians either do or do not
support. I surveyed my constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona
twice to gauge their feelings on this issue. I did this through
household surveys and received conflicting results. Some
individuals suggested the first question was too broad and all
encompassing and others felt the second question was too
narrow. This is a problem in which each side is divided into
black and white; there does not seem to be any shade of grey.
How do we resolve this conflict in order to vote according to
the wishes of the majority of our constituents? I felt the best way
to resolve the problem was to bring in an independent third
party. In this case it was an independent pollster. This polling
13628
firm's objective was to find out how my constituents truly felt
on the issue of gun control. The results were as follows.
Just under 50 per cent of the respondents said they believed
the government's proposed gun control legislation should not be
passed without modification or amendment, while only 28 per
cent said it should be passed. Over 55 per cent believed that the
potential benefits of the proposed legislation would not justify
the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce it compared with
30 per cent on the yes side. An astonishing 70 per cent believed
that the authorities would be granted too many powers
concerning the issues of search, seizure and compensation,
while less than 25 per cent felt that the new powers would be
justified. Finally, almost 80 per cent of the constituents from
Edmonton-Strathcona believed that criminals would not
comply with the justice minister's proposed gun control
legislation compared with only 11 per cent who said that
criminals would.
It is also interesting that this government seems to be
travelling down the same road as the previous Conservative
government. There was an outcry of self-righteousness from the
Liberals while they were in opposition over the Conservatives'
use of time allocation to ram through legislation.
The Liberals had managed to make the most faithful
individuals of our democratic process turn into pessimists. This
Liberal government is trampling on Canadians' democratic
rights by limiting the time in which we as parliamentarians can
debate legislation put forward in this House.
(1730 )
The Mulroney government used time allocation 35 times to
pass 200 bills. That is 17 per cent of the Mulroney government's
bills, which is shamefully unacceptable, as was indicated by the
other side.
Now let us look at the government's record, in which time
allocation has been used an unprecedented 14 times on only 59
bills, including this one, Bill C-68. On this bill time allocation
has been used not once, not twice, but three times. In other
words, the government has used time allocation 24 per cent of
the time, 7 per cent more than the Mulroney government. That is
totally unacceptable to me and to the constituents of
Edmonton-Strathcona and I believe to all Canadians.
The government must start to listen to the people and not the
spin doctors, or else it as well will be able to hold its caucus
meetings in a phone booth.
The people of Edmonton-Strathcona have spoken out on this
issue, and the majority concur with the Reform Party's position
that registration is not the means to an end in which the end is a
decrease in crime. It is for this reason that the Reform Party has
brought forward amendments to split the bill during second
reading. We would have passed the crime control measures
immediately, which would have allowed us more time to spend
debating the merits and pitfalls of a full scale registration plan.
We as a caucus applaud the justice minister's endeavour to
curtail the deliberate criminal misuse of firearms. He has done
this through increased penalties for criminal misuse of firearms
and through an increased effort to further enhance controls on
illegal border crossings.
Unfortunately certain aspects of Bill C-68 will have a
detrimental impact on the competitive sports shooting group. If
we are to believe the majority of shooting organizations, they
feel there is a real possibility of the loss of Canada's sports
shooting structure. Prohibiting or restricting firearms that are
commonly used in legal, legitimate, recreational circumstances
such as casual target shooting or in formally organized
competition does not prevent criminal acts. It only further
restricts the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
As the Reform Party's critic for amateur sports, I feel
obligated to speak directly to the specific sections of the bill that
have the most direct effect on sports shooting organizations
across Canada. We proposed amendments in committee that
would have allowed those individuals who are members of the
registered recognized shooting associations to be exempt from
Bill C-68, and this was defeated. Our position is that we do not
want to prohibit guns that are used specifically for competition
and thereby prohibit those at the entry level from entering the
sport.
Our reasoning is that you do not come into the world of
competitive shooting with a $5,000 or $6,000 target pistol. You
start off at the entry level with a very inexpensive firearm. You
join a club and you take up shooting. Invariably these firearms
tend to have barrel lengths of four inches or so and to be .32
calibre, which is what the Olympic shooters use.
It is a concern for me that the proud tradition that Canada has
in competitive shooting may be lost. A perfect example was
during the Commonwealth Games last year, an event that
resulted in 43 medals for Canada. Twenty-two were shooting
medals. That is over 50 per cent of Canada's total medals
awarded. Under this bill, that number will decline dramatically.
Bill C-68 prohibits two-thirds of the pistols owned by
law-abiding citizens. Many of these are collectors' items or are
target pistols in current use in competitions such as the
Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Some of these firearms
may be grandfathered, but that is simply a delay.
13629
(1735 )
The majority of my constituents feel that Bill C-68 is an
ineffective and intrusive piece of legislation. What Canadians,
both rural and urban, want is crime control, plain and simple.
Until these types of problems which I, the rest of the Reform
caucus, the people of my constituency and the people of Canada
have raised are dealt with, we as a party and I as an individual
cannot support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wanted
to rise and speak on these amendments to Bill C-68, first
because we supported the bill at first and second reading. We
supported the principle, because we believe virtue is
unassailable.
Surveys reveal that 79 per cent of Canadians and Quebecers
agree with the adoption of measures making it more difficult to
obtain firearms. We see this as a modern measure with an eye to
the future. We want to take steps to limit violence, and this is
why we approved the bill at first and second reading.
We also want to continue to support this bill. However, some
amendments seem reasonable, and the government should
permit some changes to the bill. In some cases, the changes
sought are even more stringent than what was proposed. We
want legislation that is more balanced and fairer for people.
It must be credible. The people governed by it must believe
that it will improve things. If people do not believe in it, it
becomes like other oppressive legislation, like burdensome
taxes, which we already know about. When taxes become
burdensome, what do people do? They start smuggling and black
marketeering. They find a way to get around the law.
If people see this legislation, which is so important, as
exploiting them, if some people, such as hunters, feel they have
to pay a hidden tax, they, and there are more of them than any
other group covered by the legislation, will probably be less
likely to comply with it, because they find it oppressive.
We therefore proposed certain amendments, on
decriminalization among other things, because someone who
forgets to register a weapon is not a criminal. This person
presents no danger to society. This person does not deserve to go
to prison, as someone said before me, at a cost of $50,000,
$60,000 or $78,000 a year in a federal penitentiary. This is what
it costs to keep a person in prison.
It seems to us that certain sentences are not consistent with
their intent or with the offence committed. We understand that a
punishable offence must be tied to a reasonable sanction. The
proposals we are making, however, seem more reasonable than
what the bill currently provides.
We do not think that, if these amendments are voted down
tomorrow morning,-or tonight, because we will probably vote
tonight-that we will vote against the whole bill. No, that will
not be the case. We want to play fair. We therefore propose to the
government that it accept some of the amendments that will
make it easier for people to accept the bill without putting their
peace and security at risk and that will enable it to co-operate, to
accept some help from the opposition so that this legislation
may be civilized, modern and fair to everyone.
(1740)
Other inexpensive measures could be implemented. Hunters
have never been opposed to safety measures. Quebec already
has a law requiring people to store firearms in a separate, locked
cabinet, and to keep bullets in another room of the house. We
proposed in amendment an inexpensive locking device that can
be obtained for $10 or $15.
If the manufacturer were required to supply this device with
the firearm, it would cost even less. The purchaser of a firearm
would automatically have the locking device and citizens would
be safer. This is a small, one time outlay, but the continuing
costs of licences or registration certificates are much less
acceptable to hunters. If, however, sportsmen in Quebec and in
the rest of Canada were certain that, despite the cost to them, the
bill would save lives, I think that they would throw their support
behind it tomorrow morning. While there is still time, let us take
the action that will make it easier for people to comply.
I hope that the government will see the validity of the
amendments put forward by the official opposition and that it
will vote in favour of these amendments this evening.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is quite clear that the Liberal government has bitten off a lot
more than it bargained for as it proceeds to ram Bill C-68
through the House.
The government contends its gun control bill will do wonders
to prevent gun related crimes. The government contends that
Canadians from coast to coast want Bill C-68. The government
contends that the cost for tighter gun control is minimal. While
the government contends, Canadians are learning the facts about
gun control and the facts about gun related crimes.
Let us start with the government's premise that gun control
will reduce violent crime. Statistics Canada reported in 1991
that a total of 753 homicides were committed. Two-thirds of the
murderers had prior criminal records. Almost half, 46 per cent,
of those homicides were committed during the perpetration of
another criminal offence, and only 36 per cent of these
homicides were committed with firearms, half of which were
committed with handguns, which are already required to be
registered. If we look further into the statistics we see that 71 per
13630
cent of these homicides were committed by individuals who
could not even legally obtain a firearm.
Despite the fact that Canadians have been required to register
their handguns since 1934, gun related crime has remained
relatively constant over the years. That is because those
restrictions have not prevented criminals from getting
handguns. Tougher gun control will merely drive up the street
value of weapons, making gun smuggling more lucrative than
ever.
Bill C-68 in all likelihood will actually increase the criminal
element in our society instead of reducing it.
It is worth mentioning that New Zealand abandoned firearms
registration in 1983 after the police there said that registration
diverts police away from more important duties. In Australia
more than 40 per cent of firearms have not been registered, even
after decades of requirements that they do so. The justice
minister would do well to look at the experiences with gun
registration in other countries.
The Liberals also contend that Canadians from coast to coast
want Bill C-68. The Canadian Medical Association, the
Canadian Bar Association, and a host of provincial governments
are not in favour of the very contentious provisions of Bill C-68.
(1745 )
Polls show that as more people learn about Bill C-68 the
support drops. That is why the government is ramming Bill
C-68 through the House by invoking closure.
There is the cost of universal registration of guns. The
Liberals will have Canadians believe that registration will only
cost $85 million. That is totally and completely erroneous and
the justice minister knows it. The government bases its cost on
the premise that there are only about 6.5 million firearms which
would need to be registered at a cost of $85 million. The facts
speak for themselves. Why does it currently cost $82 to register
a handgun and why would it be only $13 to register long guns?
In 1976 the Solicitor General of Canada estimated Canadians
owned ten million firearms. Each year approximately 200,000
additional firearms are legally imported into Canada,
suggesting there should now be at least 14 million guns.
A 1992 United Nations survey found that over seven million
Canadians, 26 per cent, own firearms. At the same time a justice
department study showed that each owner had an average of 2.7
firearms for a total of 19 million. In April 1995 the deputy
commissioner of the RCMP stated that there could be as many as
25 million firearms in Canada, two and a half times the 1976
figure.
If high firearm numbers equate with high crime then the crime
rate should be two and a half times higher than it was in 1976. In
fact, justice department statistics show that the crime rate in all
categories has been stable with only minor fluctuations over the
same period. Despite the claim that gun control impacts directly
on crime, neither Bill C-51, the Trudeau bill nor Campbell's
Bill C-17 have had any observable affect on this trend. What is
the justification for more gun laws?
The people of Yellowhead want a criminal justice system
which works for them. They want tough laws to deal with young
offenders and they want tough laws to deal with the criminal
element. They want their property and their rights protected.
They will not be punished for not registering their firearms.
They want the bad guys punished.
Under this terribly misguided gun control bill those who
inadvertently fail to register their firearm face a summary
conviction offence which would result in, at the very least, a
criminal record, and at the most it could end up in a five year jail
sentence. If a person knowingly fails to register their firearm
they could face a maximum of 10 years in jail. That is for
law-abiding citizens, but the thugs who steal firearms face a
maximum of two years in jail. What kind of country are the
Liberals building for the future?
Section 99 of this ill conceived Bill C-68 puts at risk
fundamental liberties handed down from the Magna Carta,
going all the way back to 1215. Section 99 allows for
warrantless searches to be conducted. Section 107 criminalizes
non-co-operation with police. Sections 91 and 92 enforce harsh
penalties for non-compliance with gun registration. All of these
single out law-abiding citizens. So much for almost 800 years of
judges and scholars; 800 years of jurisprudence. This firearm
legislation has the potential to abrogate and trample Canadians'
liberties and freedoms, not only for gun owners but non-owners
as well.
I speak on behalf of the majority of my constituents when I
say that the bill will do little to protect them from the criminal
use of firearms. I have stacks of anti-gun control letters and
scores of petitions signed by thousands of constituents who want
the government to reconsider the legislation. I will quote from a
couple of these. Mrs. Dorothy Harrison of Barrhead, Alberta
writes: ``The criminals will not register their guns and
law-abiding citizens will be penalized. The present justice
industry is a gold mine for lawyers and totally inadequate''.
(1750)
Mr. John Rae of Whitecourt, Alberta writes: ``As a concerned
citizen of the Yellowhead riding, I am alarmed at the number of
13631
flaws in the gun control legislation that will turn law-abiding
citizens of this country into law breakers''.
This bill is more than just about firearms legislation. It is
really about raw political power exercised by the state over its
citizens.
If the government was really serious about reducing crime it
would look at the causes of crime and the causes of urban
violence. But to do so, the government would have to tackle
some very holy sacred cows, sacred cows that this government
along with previous governments helped to build.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this will be the only opportunity I have to address Bill C-68 in
the Chamber. I was not able to speak to the bill at second reading
because there was time allocation then. Now there is time
allocation at report stage and time allocation again at third
reading. There has been time allocation at every stage of the bill.
It is unfortunate that in the end most members will be lucky to
have 10 minutes to speak to this bill.
It is my intention to oppose the bill at report stage and at final
reading unless substantive amendments are made. I have
mentioned before that in the last election I made certain
commitments to represent Calgary West in the House of
Commons and to do so on the basis of Reform principles and
policies. All Reformers ran on those principles.
Among those principles and policies is a commitment to
ascertain the views of our constituents and to vote those views
where they can be ascertained. Specifically, on moral issues and
on the issue of gun control, I have made a particular
commitment to discover and to vote the wishes of my
constituents. I have followed a process in attempting to do that.
Through my householder I surveyed the general opinions of
my constituents on gun control prior to the tabling of Bill C-68.
That survey covered three general areas that are included in the
bill. It covered the area of registration of all weapons, tougher
penalties on gun crime and also the area of further restrictions
and prohibitions on various classes of weapons. All of those
things were supported in principle by a large majority of those
who responded to the survey. That was prior to the tabling of Bill
C-68. Consistent with that I supported Bill C-68 at second
reading despite my own misgivings about some elements of it.
At that time I sent out a second survey to my constituents
giving a little more information on the bill and asking very
specific questions about the contents of Bill C-68 as well as
giving my own views on it. Those questions, which were much
more complex, asked about elements of the bill. As well they
asked for their overall feeling on the bill. It came back with a
somewhat different result that I think reflects not only greater
knowledge of the bill but a change in public opinion that has
occurred in Calgary in the past few weeks.
While some elements of the bill remain strongly supported by
the population I should say that both my householder survey and
the scientific survey I have conducted have indicated that there
is still broad support for the general principles of the bill.
However there are some very severe concerns about specific
matters, about some of the penalties for non-registration, the
confiscatory elements of the legislation and the cost concerns.
Some areas are supported and some are not. In the end the
households that replied indicated about 60 per cent overall
disapproval of the bill. I will reflect that in my vote.
(1755 )
From my own personal standpoint I believe there are elements
of gun control and specifically of this bill that could be helpful.
The government has over reached in a number of areas of the bill
and it is unfortunate that we cannot get a more modest package.
Let me make some comments from my perspective as
intergovernmental affairs critic of the Reform caucus because
there are several areas of the gun control package that deserve
some comment. We know that the Department of Justice retains
overall responsibility for gun control but the program is
predominantly administered by provincial and territorial
governments, through chief firearms officers and local police
agencies.
In 1993, the auditor general concluded that delays in reaching
financial agreement with the provinces and territories under the
authority of section 111 of the Criminal Code could well weaken
the gun control program. Financial agreements had been
initiated in 1979 and extended several times. The agreements
expired on March 31, 1993 and now new agreements have been
signed only with the maritime provinces.
I have been told the funds that the provinces received are not
adequate to cover their costs. For example, in the case of
Saskatchewan, it has not received payment for its
administration of existing gun control programs since April 1,
1993 and it appears that little progress toward resolving this
conflict has been made.
The federal government's latest offer amounts to only about
two-thirds of the actual cost incurred for these programs.
Agreements with the provinces are also mandated under section
108 of the Criminal Code to ensure maximum co-ordination
with regard to administration of gun control.
We know that several of the provincial and territorial
governments, and I include here Alberta, Saskatchewan, the
Yukon territory, the Northwest Territories and now Ontario are
not supportive of the bill. Clearly a high degree of provincial
support is needed if this program is to be implemented with any
degree of success.
13632
Many amendments have been suggested to the bill, including
the creation of a new level of bureaucracy, gun control
inspectors, for which no cost estimates are available and about
which all provinces are very concerned.
It would seem to me that a government that wanted to have its
provincial counterparts on side would slow down and consult
with them more on the bill, on the amendments and on its
implementation. Instead we have a situation where at least two
provincial governments, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are
considering constitutional challenges or perhaps even refusing
to administer gun control programs. That is unfortunate but it is
part of what I talked about earlier in my speech where we have a
situation where in many areas the government has over reached
itself. In some cases it raised some very legitimate areas of
concern and in other areas raised concerns where concerns were
not necessary.
My own feeling, having talked to many people in my riding
about this, people who own guns and do not own guns, people
who are for the bill and who are against the bill, gun owners who
are for and gun owners who are against, non-gun owners who
are for the bill and non-gun owners who are against it, is that
there is a fairly broad consensus on the kind of gun and crime
control that is needed.
Many citizens would be more than willing to register their
weapons and co-operate with police if they felt that in so doing
this would affirm the legitimacy and respect for their
responsibly used property rights and for responsible gun
ownership.
Unfortunately there has been a pattern of legislation in the
past decade where registration has been followed by increased
regulation, ultimately by restriction, prohibition and then by
confiscation, often without compensation. This has led to fears
that some may say are unfounded but which do have their
grounding in people's experience with gun laws.
These are people who have tried consistently to obey the law.
That is unfortunate. Government has reinforced that impression
by concentrating on the issue of gun control. Most people see a
role for gun control but we have a government that refused to
move in most areas of criminal justice reform.
The Young Offenders Act remains unreformed. Sentencing
remains not reformed satisfactorily. We have ongoing debates
about capital punishment and other areas of the criminal justice
system which the government has not touched at all.
All in all, the government's fairly one dimensional
determined agenda in this area has probably cost it the support
of many Canadians who might otherwise support this
legislation.
(1800 )
I will be the first to admit that it is very difficult to measure
public opinion on this bill. Certainly when this bill was
originally brought before the House my constituents were
overwhelmingly in favour of its general direction. There has
been a shift in public opinion. That shift has been away. The fact
of the matter is that no clear consensus now exists for many of
the measures in this bill. For that reason, I will be supporting a
wide range of the amendments to the bill, and if those
amendments are not adopted I will oppose the bill on the final
vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to participate in today's debate at report stage of Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. I already
had an opportunity to speak on February 16, during the second
reading debate on this bill. I then supported this bill and I-like
my party, the Bloc Quebecois-continue to do so. I would,
however, like the House to adopt the amendments proposed by
my Bloc colleagues, the hon. members for Saint-Hubert and for
Berthier-Montcalm.
These amendments would decriminalize the failure to register
a firearm, impose a 20 year freeze on licensing and registration
fees, ensure that all parties are treated fairly in this matter, and
eliminate the minimum four year sentence for some criminal
offences involving a firearm.
I generally agree with the institution of a national system to
register all firearms and the inclusion of new offences in the
Criminal Code, except for the amendments proposed by my Bloc
colleagues. I think that we must staunch the illegal flow of
firearms into and within Canada and tighten border controls. We
all know that enormous quantities of firearms are imported into
Canada every year.
The debate on Bill C-68 has been and still is too emotional, in
my opinion. The discussions so far have been very heated. I have
received hundreds of letters, protesting this bill I must admit,
most of which are from English Canadians. I think that the
campaign against this bill was mostly orchestrated by the
firearms industry. I also believe that the Reform members gave
in too easily to the lobbying of firearms manufacturers.
I consulted my constituents in the riding of Bourassa. An
overwhelming majority recognizes the need to bring in stricter
gun control laws. Over the past year, firearms were used in some
crimes in my riding, which has swayed public opinion towards
better protection of the public. Of course, stricter firearm
controls cannot in themselves resolve the problem or all of the
problems associated with criminal activity. We must admit
however, that they will, however, be of great help.
13633
The registration of all firearms is a positive move. Gunowners
will also have to find ways of storing them safely. I support
Motions Nos. 84 and 135 in particular, which were proposed by
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and which would oblige the
manufacturer, importer or exporter of firearms to equip them
with a safety lock.
(1805)
I think that these amendments markedly improve this bill and
would be relatively inexpensive to enforce. After consulting
with the citizens of my riding, I can state that they support the
main points in this bill. I think that this piece of legislation is a
step in the right direction, despite its omissions and
shortcomings.
The number of deaths caused by firearms is unfortunately still
too high. In Quebec alone, between 400 and 450 deaths are
caused by firearms per year. Firearms are the weapons used in
most homicides and in three out of four suicides in Quebec,
which total approximately 300 per year.
Therefore, we must combat the criminal use of firearms more
effectively. According to the polls, Quebec shows the strongest
support for gun control. This is particularly true within the
labour movement where I come from. Quebec's three labour
congresses support the broad principle of this bill, as do the
municipalities, the Quebec Bar Association and public health
experts.
However, I have serious reservations about several provisions
in Bill C-68, especially those dealing with procedures and
registration costs. The government claims it will cost $85
million, spread over seven years, to set up this system. However,
the Government of Quebec has already indicated that in Quebec
alone, it will cost more than $300 million.
Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to give us the figures
for the real cost of registration? The minister said that on
average, a woman dies of gunshot wounds every six days in this
country. Guns are used in most domestic murders.
The government has a right and a duty to protect citizens
against the unlawful use of firearms. Public safety must be
better protected. I will therefore vote in favour of the
amendments presented by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-68 and the
amendments put forward by my colleagues.
On time allocation, we must understand in this assembly that
there are many Canadians interested in this subject, and to set a
time limit on the amount of debate when we have such an
important bill before us is not the act of a responsible
government.
Look at the number of amendments that have been placed
before this Parliament. There are 267 different motions before
us right now. What does that say about the bill? In a very clear
way, this to me says that the bill is inadequate. It says that the
bill does not meet the needs of Canadians. From those 267
amendments that are before us, there are all kinds of ideas that
are expressed by Canadians as to ways and means by which the
bill could be adjusted to better meet the objectives, whatever
they are.
However, the government has not listened to the 267 motions
that are here. We have had very little debate today by the
Liberals. They have made up their minds. They are determined
to ram this thing through and put closure on it. Tomorrow we
will have third reading. The bill will then go on to the Senate,
and supposedly the government has done its job. It has not. That
is one of the things I have concern about.
(1810)
The second thing is who really asked for this legislation?
What were Canadians asking for? They were asking during the
last campaign for legislation that would be tougher on the
criminals. That was their major objective.
If we listen to all the debate that is going on in this House,
what are we talking about? We are talking about the registration
of guns, which is a major concern supposedly, but it is not the
first priority. It has been the focus of the discussion. We have set
aside a major, thorough, knowledgeable, good discussion on the
first priority of Canadians, and that is legislation and laws in the
country and actions of the court that will punish the criminal and
protect the responsible citizens of this country.
We have mixed up the priorities. We have before us poor
legislation, which is not doing the job. We have a government
that is focused on registration, which is unacceptable to the
Canadian public and is not meeting the needs.
There are three areas I will concentrate on. First, we have to
look at the question, which has been raised in the House a
number of times, of whether it will prevent crime. Will this
legislation prevent any harmful act occurring to another citizen?
Second, what about the cost of this legislation? Will this
registration be worth the cost to the Canadian taxpayer?
Whether they pay it because of their licence fee, whether they
have to pay money for registering their gun, it is still a tax. It is
still a cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Is that cost going to be
worth while and bring about the benefits we want? Third, what
about the freedom of responsible individuals in Canada? Does
this legislation infringe on their rights and their freedoms to act
as responsible citizens? I would like to address those three items
13634
with regard to this legislation and also relative to the
amendments that are before us today.
First, will registration of long guns really fight crime and
prevent crime? The answer is clearly no. That has been
reinforced by the minister, not only in this House. It has been
reinforced by the Minister of Justice making comments on
radio, television, and through the written media that he can
produce no evidence that registration will prevent crime and
stop any harmful act in the streets of Canada, no evidence at all.
So why are we doing it? There has not been any justification.
Second, has registration in the past of handguns prevented
crime from happening in the streets? Has it controlled the use of
these weapons in an offence? We had very strict comprehensive
gun control legislation brought into this assembly in 1977 and
again in 1991. We have found that legislation has had no effect,
that the rate of crime has gone up. It has had no impact on the
incidence of homicides, on suicides, on violent crime or crimes
committed with firearms. It has had no effect at all.
Today we are trying to put another layer of legislation in that
requires registration and licensing of Canadians who have guns,
and no one has answered that basic question: will it help to fight
crime and to reduce the amount of crime or the harm that occurs
to individuals? Nobody can answer that. I am sure at the moment
there is no answer.
We have been convinced as the Reform Party that registration
is not the answer to crime control at all. I know many Canadians
tell us that in a very clear way.
(1815 )
I wish to cover a second point with regard to cost. The
conclusion is very clear. The registration of guns will be a huge
waste of taxpayers' money. Whether taxpayers pay $85 million
directly, whether taxpayers have to pay a licensing fee or a
registration fee for one gun or a number of guns, it will be a huge
cost to Canadians.
Estimates are $500 million. Others estimate it to be even
more. It will be an unnecessary huge cost at a point in time when
Canadians have a limited amount of money to spend on the extra
things government would demand of them. It seems to be a very
useless exercise to spend money on something that does not
have results.
One of the authorities of the country who has been mentioned
a number of times in this assembly, the auditor general, has said
very clearly that before we pass new legislation we should look
at past legislation to see whether it has met its objectives and has
been cost effective in any way.
I have already cited the 1977 legislation and the 1991
legislation passed by the House. From all estimates or
judgments the expenditure of money out of the public purse to
put that legislation in place has not brought about the results
Canadians want. It has not lowered the rate of crime or reduced
it or stopped the number of killings that have been going on. It
has done nothing.
Again Canadians are being asked to spend millions and
millions of dollars, over half a billion dollars most likely when
the bill is tallied, to try to register them and then supposedly
reduce the amount of crime. It has not happened in the past and it
will not happen in the future.
I asked my constituents, like everybody else has, what they
thought of registering guns. Thirty-one per cent said that stiffer
gun control would be effective, in other words registration, in
reducing crime or crime related activities. Sixty-nine per cent
said that it would not. Thirty-six per cent agreed with
registration.
That was a reflection of southern Alberta attitude that was
very accurate. When I walked around my constituency and went
door to door, business to business, I found that 99 per cent of my
constituents-and I talked to at least 200 or 300 of them on the
street-came to me on a volunteer basis to say clearly that
registration was not the way to go and that I should vote against
it in Parliament.
With the government invoking closure, a government that has
not allowed us to discuss it fully, how else can we vote?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to make a couple of brief comments that I think are
relevant to the debate as many Canadians are watching the
deliberations of the House on Bill C-68.
The previous speaker mentioned that some 267 amendments
would be considered at report stage. I took out the Order Paper
and Notice Paper for today to find out the exact source of all the
amendments. I found, even when reviewing the last 60, that
some 45 of them were put before the House at report stage by
two members of the Reform Party who were also members of the
justice committee that dealt with the bill.
Motions at report stage are admissible if the committee has
not dealt with the matter. I think there is another condition.
However it raises an interesting question.
(1820)
The previous speaker tended to indicate that all these items
had to raised. If many of the amendments that have been raised
before the House at report stage are still to be addressed by the
House, it begs the question why members of the committee who
were there to discuss the bill did not raise these questions and
motions at the justice committee. Why are they now tying up the
time of the House?
As I stated earlier, if all 267 motions were to be debated in the
House with all the time members would want, we would be here
until next Christmas. Frankly I think Canadians are saying that
we have consulted more than enough on the gun control
legislation.
13635
The member also referred to the government ramming
legislation through. It has been almost a year since the
discussion documents were tabled by the justice minister. He
has travelled from coast to coast. He has talked to Canadians
about the issues. As a result of the committee work the justice
minister has brought forward many extremely important
amendments that respond to the concerns of Canadians. One
example would be with regard to first time offenders and the
non-registration of weapons. Those were positive and
constructive changes with regard to the messages the justice
minister heard.
Throughout the day I have seen the justice minister in the
House and in the lobby. He has followed the debate very closely.
He has listened to all hon. members whether it was in committee
or in the House. He has certainly listened to Canadians.
I had an opportunity to be with the minister in Toronto. We
went to Regent Park, a subsidized housing development, where
there were ordinary people from a number of walks of life, gun
owners and non-gun owners alike, who all had an opportunity to
speak. It was a very interesting meeting. We heard from the
people in that community that it was commonplace for them to
hear a gunshot at night when their children were playing in the
streets. They were very scared and concerned about what was
happening to safety in our communities.
Considering the priorities of Canadians, community safety is
certainly an important issue. One issue I keep hearing about
from members of the Reform Party is the issue of registration.
They proposed initially that registration and addressing the
crime element should be separated, but the minister has
explained clearly that there is an important and integral
relationship between registration and crime control. One
example concerns the importation of firearms.
Recently in Toronto there was a case where a gun dealer
legally imported firearms but subsequently marketed them on
the black market. Registration under the legislation, for
instance, would require that on importation the weapons would
be registered by the importer. There would be a clear trail of the
weapons from the time they enter the country.
Another aspect concerns the importance of the relationship
between Canada and the United States. Many members have
suggested that we have to go after the criminals and those who
are smuggling in firearms from the United States. Members
know well that some 1,400 guns are reported lost, missing or
stolen each year by Canadians. We can imagine how many
weapons are actually lost, missing or stolen. Clearly those
weapons are in the hands of the criminal element.
Therefore it is important to ensure that all Canadians who
have firearms and register them are well aware of their
responsibilities. In talking with gun clubs and other large gun
owners I have found that the educational aspect of the
consultative process has been extremely valuable to the
Canadian public. Only about 10 per cent of Canadians actually
own firearms. The other 90 per cent are probably not very
familiar with the rules regarding firearms.
(1825 )
The comfort level of Canadians at large has been improved
substantially because of education, knowing that there is
licensing, knowing that there are courses, knowing that there are
restrictions on transportation and ammunition sales, and
knowing that registration will ensure gun owners have an
opportunity to show they support law, order and safety in
communities.
The whole issue of crime control comes down to whether we
wait until we have a problem in Canada with regard to safety and
crime in our communities or whether we respond proactively. If
we took into account that for every one incident of a firearms
related crime in Canada there are 100 incidents in the United
States, and if we took into account the population differential of
ten to one, for every incident in Canada there are ten in the U.S.
on a per capita basis.
Could we imagine what the reaction of the Canadian public
would be if the crime rate due to guns in Canada were to double?
That would mean there would be only one incident for every five
in the U.S. I dare say that most certainly the Canadian public
would be extremely upset about the decay within society.
We have something in Canada of which we are very proud and
must protect, that is safety in our communities. As we all know,
the Prime Minister has boasted about safety in Canada. We can
safely walk in our parks. As a result of initiatives such as this
one we will ensure that Canada remains a safe country in which
to live and a safe country for our children.
I do not think the honest hunter, gun collector or target shooter
will be impacted in any material way by the legislation. The cost
is not an issue. Ten dollars for 10 guns for five years is not an
issue.
People in my own riding have come to see me and I have asked
them how it would affect them. After we got over the cost issue
it got down to the issue of confiscation. There are questions
about confiscation. My constituents continue to raise the spectre
that the government wants to register guns because it wants to
take their guns away.
The justice minister has made it very clear that confiscation is
absolutely not an objective of the government. Canada has a
very vibrant economy in hunting, target shooting and collecting
that will remain. When it gets down to paramilitary weapons,
automatic weapons and guns that have absolutely no purpose
except to hurt people, they are the ones Canadians say should be
off the streets and out of the hands of those most likely to cause
harm to our community.
13636
It is clear the amendments brought forward by the committee
are constructive. The vast majority of the 267 amendments
presented by the Reform Party at report stage are nothing more
than a disruption of the House of Commons.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in the words of my colleague, I should like to straighten
out the previous speaker from the Liberal Party on a couple of
issues.
He suggested that we were tying up the time of the House on
the bill. He more or less said that it was terrible for us to do so
and that it was not all that important. In my community and in
communities across the country it is important to people. If the
hon. member wants to look back at the number of petitions
presented in Hansard, he would see that the numbers of names
on them are extensive. If he says it is not important he is missing
the boat.
He also said that we have been debating the issue for over a
year. It is my understanding that the bill was introduced on
February 14. It must be another short year for the Liberals.
There were amendments to the gun laws in 1977 and 1991.
Many people ignored those changes. I have evidence from
several studies which indicate that is exactly what will happen
next. As much as these folks are insisting on putting these things
in, a lot of people are saying it is hogwash and will not work.
(1830)
There is something about the costs they say are small but I
wonder about the costs of all the policing, of this whole
exercise, of making sure all the law-abiding citizens remain
law-abiding citizens or perhaps trying to find them as being
criminals.
The cost of their time spent enforcing gun laws as opposed to
time looking at the more severe problems of drugs and so on is
extra ordinary cost. For a member of the other party to put that
swing on it is absurd.
I recently competed in a politically correct competition with
the Ridgedale Rod and Gun Club in my riding. If I could not use
a prop-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am very sorry to
interrupt the member. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on
the motion of Mr. Gray under government business No. 25.
* * *
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion
of Mr. Gray.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 251)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
13637
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-174
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-48
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(1855 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
13637
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group
No. 4.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, before the vote I talked about the closure issue. Closure
was forced upon the democratic principles of the House by the
Liberal government before debate really took place on the Bill
C-68 gun issue. Although the justice committee talked about the
gun control legislation, there is more to it than that. The public
has a right to hear from all members, all of its representatives
from across the country on this issue. I do not think what the
Liberals have done is in the least bit democratic. Back in my
riding people are asking why such an imposition has occurred on
this particular bill.
In fact, the Reform Party introduced 138 amendments to Bill
C-68. I would like to ask the government, with closure limiting
debate to six hours at report stage and another six hours at third
reading, how on earth is it possible to debate 138 amendments?
It surely does not allow the members of the Reform Party to
accurately describe what is wrong with Bill C-68. This is
forcing an anti-democratic bill through the House and it is
wrong.
That is in part what is wrong with a majority government. This
government has not taken the hint from the last government that
was in majority in this House of Commons. It got arrogant. It got
overconfident. In the early stages, those are the signs we are
seeing from this Liberal government. That is unfortunate, but
fortunate for the rest of the land because we only have about two
years to put up with this nonsense.
(1900)
There are two other bills of particular note going through here
on the basis of closure, and they are Bill C-41 and Bill C-85, the
criminal justice system and MPs' pensions. Again, this
government invoked closure on perhaps the most important
legislation they could dream up since Parliament opened. They
forced closure on it. It is absolutely unbelievable.
I can tell members that there are many people across this land
who do not understand why, including myself. They make jokes
about it here as I talk. We will see where the jokes go two years
from now when we hit the election.
Before the votes started I was about to talk a little about the
Ridgedale Rod and Gun Club, one of many rod and gun clubs in
13638
this country. I had the privilege of participating in a shoot in that
club about three weeks ago. I won one of the competitions. It
was on a politically correct gun competition with pistols and
politically incorrect guns. I had never really shot these pistols
before, although I am a gun owner myself; I have three rifles.
What surprised me in particular about this competition was the
level of pride and satisfaction these members had. There was an
extreme level of competence these people had.
One of the members who spoke here previously from the
Liberal Party said that these people do not mind Bill C-68.
Every person at the Ridgedale Rod and Gun Club was extremely
upset at it.
I do not understand how a government that invokes closure on
this bill, says it is not costly, and whose members say that people
agree with what they are doing could be so wrong. I guess what
we are going to see is a lot of this Liberal arrogance for the next
two years. It is going to catch them and it is going to catch them
hard.
These people at the Ridgedale Rod and Gun Club, I have
admiration for people who have collections of any sort. There
were several people there. One fellow had one of the better
collections of Enfield rifles in Canada. He was asking: ``Why
are they doing this? What is this for? Come and look at my
collection. I will show you what safety is all about''. I did not get
to see the collection, but as far as safety goes with these folks,
they are probably number one in the country. They know what
gun safety is all about.
I do not understand what the direction is here. I thought we
were after crime and criminals. These people are not criminals.
These are not crime makers unless a government chooses to
head them in that direction by way of calling them criminals by
virtue of non-compliance with Bill C-68.
An hon. member: It is not going to happen.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I hear over here that it is
not going to happen. If not, why does the government not allow
us to debate this issue instead of calling closure on it? The
government is saying it can read the Canadian people so well,
but it is absolutely wrong. It is wrong on Bill C-68, on Bill
C-41, and on those preposterous MP pensions on Bill C-85,
which it is insisting on bringing in.
The Ontario Handgun Association I believe wrote all MPs
letters. I will give members information it provided to us.
(1905 )
Recent survey data indicate that a minimum of one-third of
Canadian gun owners will refuse to comply with the proposal by
the Minister of Justice to register all firearms. In the 1995 gun
control survey organized by Professor Gary Mauser of Simon
Fraser University, Canadian firearm owners were asked the
following question: ``If the government's proposal to register all
firearms becomes law, do you plan on registering all, some or
none of your firearms?'' The response to this question is in the
final analysis nearly one-third of all Canadian firearm owners
candidly admitted to a stranger over the telephone that they
would not register their firearms.
What is wrong with a government that puts through closure on
such an important issue when Canadians will tell it to stick it in
its ear?
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to on Bill C-68 under protest to
the closure limiting the members in this House to a six-hour
debate on report stage.
The constituents in Mission-Coquitlam want crime control,
not gun control. We have gun registration now and we have laws
now that would help control crime in our country. However, the
courts do not enforce many of our laws and often our police are
frustrated at the lack of substance in sentencing.
Bill C-68 as it now stands will not prevent abuse with a
firearm. It will, however, punish many good, law-abiding
Canadians who are gun collectors, hunters, and gun club
members. To force a national registration on these law-abiding
citizens I believe is a waste of time and money and a waste of the
necessary manpower we will need to put this registration into
permanent record.
The justice minister tells us that there are pretty scary
statistics out there dealing with the use of guns. Every six days a
woman is murdered by a gun. Over 1,000 suicides per year are
the result of gun usage. After reciting these statistics, we are
also told that these are the reasons we need gun control. We are
never told two things: first, how will the registration of rifles
and shotguns reduce these numbers; second, what percentage of
these acts takes place with guns that would would be required to
be registered under this legislation?
The Reform Party's position is crystal clear on law and order.
The party stands for tougher laws to deal with criminals and
more protection for potential victims of crime. The party has
stated on many occasions that Canadian laws need to be tougher
on criminals.
The gun registration system proposed by Bill C-68 will do
nothing to prevent the use of handguns and rifles in the
commission of crimes.
When analysing the part of the bill dealing with gun
registration one has to go back to first principles of what
problem this legislation is trying to address. The problem is a
proliferation of firearms, both handguns and rifles, and their use
in criminal activities. This being the problem, it is difficult to
see how a system of national gun registration would be of any
benefit.
13639
All can appreciate that criminals are not going to register
illegal weapons or weapons acquired illegally. The registration
of a weapon will not stop its use in a domestic quarrel. Recently
here in Ottawa we had the tragedy of the shooting of a young boy
and a young girl. Registration of that firearm would not have
prevented that tragedy.
Some of the problems can be addressed through action taken
at the United States border, allowing customs officials to stop
the importation of guns, and stiffer penalties for those who
commit crimes with guns. The bill addresses both of these
issues, although not in sufficient depth to suit the Reform
caucus. Customs officials should be empowered to prohibit the
importation of firearms, and any crime committed with a gun
should result in an increased sentence, which is mandatory and
cannot be plea bargained away.
I also am in support of those parts of the bill that would attack
the problem of gun smuggling in Canada. 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,
I think 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 with trained police.
I am also concerned because the registration system will be
computerized. We all know that sophisticated criminals can
break into virtually any computer system constructed,
especially with the availability of Internet and World Wide Web.
There is the distinct possibility that criminals will be able to
break into the computer code and the registration system to
determine where the guns are. It will be like shopping at home
for criminals. It will mean that those who register guns will not
be safe and will be under the constant threat of being broken into
by criminals to steal their guns. Gun registration will not save
lives, but tougher laws to deal with criminals will.
(1910)
To reiterate, here are ten points I feel we have to address
regarding the registration system.
The registration section does not stand up to a cost-benefit
analysis. That is, the lowest cost estimate is now at $85 million,
without any indication from the government as to its beneficial
effects on crime. Legislation should not be passed when the
government cannot tell taxpayers how much it will cost to
implement.
The analysis of the cost and effectiveness of gun control
legislation already in place has not been completed, as requested
by the auditor general in 1993.
It is argued we must have registration because the chiefs of
police support it. The chiefs also support capital punishment and
repealing the section of the Criminal Code that grants murderers
the opportunity for early parole. The Liberals do not support
these positions. Either the chiefs are right or wrong. Liberals
cannot cherry pick to suit their purposes.
Proposed clause 112 of the bill states that regulations made
pursuant to the bill will not have to come before Parliament for
scrutiny. This is objectionable. What is the government trying to
hide?
Proposed clause 117 allows police to search your car, house,
et cetera, without a warrant if they believe you have a weapon
that was used in a crime. However, if during the search they find
an unregistered gun, it may be seized.
With reference to the arguments raised regarding the number
of suicides in Canada and domestic violence, this bill does
nothing to address the root causes of either of those problems.
These are social problems, which will not be resolved through a
registration procedure.
In the polling results showing public support recited by
advocates of this bill the questions regarding support for gun
control usually link it with a question: ``Are you in favour of
legislation to reduce crime?'' That also affects the response one
gets to that question.
The car licensing analogy is used to justify registration: if we
register cars then we can register guns. If the analogy is to be
complete then legislation should be changed to require safe
storage of cars, and any accidents caused by stolen cars should
be the responsibility of the owner. Alternatively, has vehicle
registration done anything to prevent drunk driving or the
prevention of accidents?
There has been no answer from the government to those who
argue that a computer registry of guns could be accessed by a
computer hacker. This would give potential thieves the location
of virtually every gun in Canada.
Handguns have been subject to registration since 1934. There
is no evidence and it is the government's argument that this has
had no effect on reducing the criminal use of handguns.
The justice minister knows very well that a registration
system will not reduce the number of murders or suicides by
firearms one bit. He should know that Canada is a large and
diverse 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 the
present laws in Canada are among the toughest in the world with
respect
13640
to firearms. Therefore I urge members opposite, members from
outside of metropolitan Toronto, to look at Canada and see it for
what it is: a vast country where hunting and outdoor activities
are a way of life to some and a recreation to others.
The registration system proposed in this bill will not
accomplish the goals set forth. Therefore, when it comes time to
vote for the bill, vote it down until the necessary amendments
are a part of the bill.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will talk
for a minute about why I joined the Reform Party. Obviously my
colleagues and I supported other political parties in the past.
What caused us to join the Reform Party?
We recognized a long time ago that we needed to change the
system. I do not think Prime Minister Trudeau ever made a more
accurate and truthful statement than when he said that MPs are
nobodies. I think no MPs in this House should know that and feel
that more than the backbench MPs on the opposite bench. They
are nobodies. When they stand up to speak out and vote against
the government on a bill, they are chastised, reprimanded and
punished for representing their constituents. That is what we are
here for; we are here to change the system.
(1915)
The Conservatives under Prime Minister Mulroney wanted to
get the GST through this House. What did they do? They cracked
the whip and got their backbench MPs, even though their
constituents solidly told them they did not support the GST, to
vote in favour of it. Where are the Conservatives now? I do not
see them around this House. That is where these people are
going to be after the next election as a result of the kind of
activities they have engaged in over the last few days. There is
no change in sight.
I would like at this juncture to take a minute and commend
those Liberal MPs who had the courage, the fortitude and the
tenacity to stand up and vote against this bill even though they
knew they were going to be punished for doing so. They were
being true to their constituents. They were representing their
constituents which is what they were elected to do. In the face of
adversity they were prepared to do it and I commend them for it.
We may have differing views and different philosophies but by
and large I can admire people who are prepared to stand up for
their constituents.
Reformers will be in every Liberal riding at the next election.
We will remind the constituents how the Liberals treated
parliamentary democracy in this session, what they did to ram
through these government bills and how they abused their power
and position.
It has been said that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. This goes back to the heart of why we need
to change the system. We need to take some of the power away
from cabinet and away from the Prime Minister and distribute it
among the MPs. We would then have the opportunity to see real
democracy in action and not the executive kind of authoritarian
democracy we have had in Canada, these democratic
dictatorships we have had over the last 30 or 40 years.
In speaking to the bill itself, it is an established rule that
justice should not only be done but should be seen to have been
done. In other words the law must not only be just but it must be
seen to be just. Can this be said about Bill C-68 and the agenda
behind it? I do not think so.
Gun control is a controversial subject. It is clear that real and
serious disagreements exist in Canada over it. I am aware and I
acknowledge that the opinion polls show a majority of
Canadians tentatively support the government's position at the
present time. I would caution my colleagues opposite that the
more and more people find out about it, the less supportive they
are.
I also caution that in the words of Thomas Jefferson, great
initiatives should not rest on slender majorities. If a majority
supports something but does not feel very strongly about it and a
minority opposes it very strongly, it undermines the rule of law
to ram it through.
There is something else that undermines the rule of law even
more directly and that is when governments say one thing and do
another. It erodes the very foundation of our society if
governments misrepresent. That is why I want to ask my
colleagues opposite to do a little soul searching on this bill. I
want them to look at themselves in the mirror and ask this
question: Is this legislation a prelude to confiscating citizens'
firearms entirely? I do not expect them to concede that in this
House.
Let me point out a couple of quotations that worry me. First,
when this whole business began the Minister of Justice said
openly that in his view only agents of the state, police and
soldiers, should have weapons. He has since stopped saying it,
but has he stopped believing it? His assistant, Darryl Davies,
recently said that hunting is a barbaric and murderous activity
and should be banned in Canada. He also said nobody in a
civilized country needs a gun. This is a high level official
working in the minister's office.
(1920)
The minister has not to my knowledge repudiated either of
these remarks. Can we believe the assurances that hunters and
hunting are not targeted by this bill with these kinds of
statements made by such senior people in the minister's office?
Other prominent gun control advocates including former
Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board chair Susan Eng
have made it quite clear: ``Gun registration will start the process
of stigmatizing gun use, just like drinking and driving. In their
hearts, gun owners know this and this is what makes them so
mad''. We know what Ms. Eng is up to here and we know what
13641
the real agenda is behind the legislation when we hear these
kinds of statements.
Manitoba Liberal leader Lynda Haverstock said in May 1994:
``I think what we should be doing is ensuring there is less and
less and less availability to having guns'', which she justified on
the grounds that ``sometimes our overall responsibilities have to
override individual rights''.
I know my colleagues opposite and my colleagues on this side
of the Chamber have very serious differences about the bill as it
now stands. The sweeping powers it gives the police worry us.
The security of the universal system of registration worries us.
The severe penalties for infringing this law in a society where
murderers are free to go out on the street a short time after they
are convicted strike us as unbalanced. The implied assault on the
way of life of millions of Canadians troubles us.
What worries me most at this moment is that this entire bill is
a massive fraud. I am concerned that all the pious assurances
that confiscation is not contemplated are just a smokescreen
behind which the legislation permitting confiscation can be put
in place. Then the very people who say no private citizen should
own guns will act on that belief.
Perhaps my colleagues opposite have not given this much
thought. Perhaps they have accepted the smooth assurances of
the Minister of Justice. I hope they will take the time to consider
before voting on this whether the real agenda is outright
confiscation at some time in the future. If it is, then I challenge
them to either put it on the table openly right now and let us
debate it, or put it aside and put the legislation aside that will
make it possible.
This bill is bad enough as it is. What we really wonder is why
the Minister of Justice is so determined to pass it when it is well
established that there is no correlation between rates of violence
and gun crime and laws respecting firearms ownership.
What is the real purpose of the bill? If it is a prelude to
confiscation then it is extremely dangerous to the credibility of
our government and to the notion of the rule of law in Canada if
the government does not come forward and is clean with people
right now telling them that is what is on its mind.
I hope my colleagues opposite will not vote to pass such a bill.
I can assure them if they do, we will be there at the next election
to remind their constituents how they voted today on closure,
how they voted last Thursday morning on closure and how they
voted on this very, very important piece of legislation, Bill
C-68.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on Bill
C-68 this evening. I say it is a pleasure because I am one of only
three Reform MPs who has had the opportunity to address the
House on this very important piece of legislation three times in
the past. The first time was at second reading, the second time
was on the Reform amendment to split the bill which was also at
second reading before the government enacted time allocation
and the third time is tonight.
As has already been said by many of my colleagues, we find it
absolutely deplorable that on such a crucial piece of legislation
which has elicited such high emotions across the land, we find
the government has yet again enacted time allocation at report
stage and at third reading.
(1925 )
The government limited the debate at second reading and
forced the bill to the committee. It gave assurances that all of the
pertinent facts, data and arguments could be brought forward at
committee. Today in arguments put forward by Liberal members
we were questioned why we were bringing forward these
amendments at report stage. We were asked why we wanted, in
their words, to tie up the House debating this legislation when
we could have done it at committee stage. Those of us who
participated at committee stage know that the exact opposite
happened. There simply was not time to adequately address all
of the concerns.
The Liberals limited the number of witnesses who could
appear before the committee. Today I heard that while all MPs
had the opportunity to appear before the committee they were
limited to five minutes to make their points. As anyone who has
ever made a public address knows, five minutes goes very
quickly, especially when one is trying to make points on as many
issues as are encompassed by this comprehensive piece of
legislation known as Bill C-68.
Bill C-68 is a very detailed, lengthy and intricate piece of
legislation with some 132 clauses in the firearms act and
amendments to another 100 sections in part III of the Criminal
Code. For the government to suggest we can get through that and
bring forward all the pertinent points by concerned constituents
and concerned Canadians across this land in a few hours of
debate is absolutely ludicrous.
I find it deplorable that the government would enact time
allocation and ram this through the House. That is exactly what
is happening tonight. It is exactly what will be happening in a
day or two when we are limited to six hours of debate at third
reading as well.
I would like to speak about our amendment at second reading
stage to split the bill. The Reform Party feels very strongly that
we are dealing with two completely separate issues in Bill C-68.
One issue is further regulation and restrictions on law-abiding
firearms owners. The second issue is what to do and how to get
13642
tough with criminals who misuse firearms and actually use them
as weapons.
It is interesting to note that one of the Liberal members earlier
today suggested an amendment to actually change the name of
the act to ``an act respecting firearms and other related matters''
rather than ``an act respecting firearms and other weapons'' as it
is presently named. I would certainly support that amendment.
As I have travelled throughout my riding, a lot of people have
expressed concern that people do not differentiate between a
firearm and a weapon. It is an important distinction to
law-abiding firearm owners that a firearm is only a weapon at
such time as it is used in the commission of a criminal offence.
Prior to that it is simply viewed to many people as a tool, or
something used in a hobby if they are a shooter. It is not
considered by them to be a weapon. It is merely private property.
It is an important distinction.
Some of my colleagues have talked about the fact that what
we are discussing here is the fourth group of amendments. It is
interesting to note that we are being asked to debate in a few
short hours some 267 amendments to this legislation. How can
we do that justice? How can we adequately debate the pros and
cons of those individual amendments? We simply cannot. For
the purpose of debate some of them have been grouped. Group
No. 4, for example, which we are currently debating has 33
individual motions. How can we do them justice and adequately
discuss them in that short time frame?
I am very concerned with the erosion of democracy. The
Reform Party feels very strongly that the primary purpose of
members of Parliament, which I have spoken about before in the
House, is to properly and effectively represent the wishes,
concerns and views of the majority of their constituents where
that view can be ascertained.
(1930)
How can I do that? I have made that point as well. How can I
do that on this piece of legislation when it deals with two
distinctly separate issues?
The constituents of Prince George-Peace River have made it
very obvious to me that they want to get tough with criminals.
They want to bring in tougher sanctions on the criminal
elements in the country. Therefore I support the part of the
legislation that deals with the amendments to part III of the
Criminal Code.
At the same time my constituents are telling me that they want
to have no part of registration. Why do they not want to have
registration? We hear ludicrous arguments that we register our
dogs and our cars so why should we not register our firearms?
They are concerned for three main reasons. One is the cost and
we have talked about that before. They are concerned about the
paperwork time and the cost to police forces that are already
stretched to the limit. Hundreds and thousands of useless hours
will be spent compiling the information.
We pointed out in committee as well as in the House that the
mailing system proposal of the justice minister will not work.
How can a firearm be identified if it is not actually physically
seen and inspected? It is interesting to note that Quebec has
indicated that it wants $300 million if the government goes
ahead to administer the registration program in that province.
Yet the justice minister is still clinging to his $85 million total
cost, which is obviously far from accurate.
Constituents are concerned and law-abiding gun owners are
concerned about the cost recovery that has been bandied about
from the other side. What will that mean in the future? What will
the costs of paying an annual ownership fee amount to if they
want cost recovery?
The second issue in addition to cost is the security of the list
that some of my colleagues have addressed. I spoke about it
earlier in the House. Will this not provide a shopping list for
criminals? We all know that hackers break into computer
systems practically on a daily basis across the nation and around
the world. If they can break into IBM and can break into the
Pentagon, what makes the justice minister think they will not be
able to break into this computer system to get a hold of the list?
It will provide criminals with a list of where the firearms are and
what types of firearms they are so that they can steal the firearms
they want to use. It will also by omission provide them with a list
of what homes in which communities do not have firearms and
therefore the home owners are defenceless.
The third issue on registration is future confiscation with
which some of my colleagues have dealt. Above all is the
statement that it will not be effective. New Zealand, Australia
and other countries have tried it. I note that draconian gun
controls brought into effect in the United Kingdom in 1988 were
followed by dramatic increases in crimes involving firearms.
They were not effective. It has been proven around the world
that registration and stiffer gun controls are not effective.
I will make a point, which my constituents make to me on
almost a daily basis, to the Liberals opposite because they will
know about it pretty soon. There is another election before
registration becomes mandatory and the voters will be there to
remind them about this legislation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to take but a few minutes to set a few
facts straight in the House and possibly to assist or enlighten
some of my colleagues across the way. While we will try to
enlighten the people across the way, I recognize it may be a
major challenge. Nevertheless let us spare no effort in the noble
cause of enlightening the people across the way who say that it is
undemocratic to propose this bill.
13643
(1935 )
The bill is supported by the vast majority of Canadians in
every province. Furthermore the bill is proposed by a
government elected under a program including the bill among
others.
According to the opposition we have the following
proposition: ``The majority of people want it. The majority of
Parliament want it. The majority of people have asked the
majority of Parliament to enact it but it does not matter. It is
undemocratic for us to be voting for that which the people
want''. However, in the eyes of the Reform Party, it is far more
democratic to agree with the leader of the Reform Party because
he said so.
There is something wrong with that way of thinking by the
people across the way. Then members of the Reform Party say
that they have not had enough time to debate the bill and that the
use of time allocation is wrong.
I invite colleagues across the way to pay attention because we
will be asking questions later. This is the way it works. A few
weeks ago we had in the House a bill regarding no less an issue
than the rail strike in Canada. At that time two of the three
parties in the House proposed time allocation, and the Reform
Party was one of the two parties. If the use of time allocation is
not proper, why was it proper on an issue the Reform Party liked
as opposed to one they disliked?
Mr. Abbott: It was a national crisis.
Mr. Boudria: I hear a bit of heckling from across the way. I do
not think I am being particularly provocative on the issue.
Nevertheless let me submit this to you, being far more objective
than I am and seeing it through the neutral eyes of Madam
Speaker, that they say they have only had a few short hours of
debate. The bill has been debated longer in the House and in
committees than the throne speech, budget speech and all the
budget bills put together. All that debate combined is not as long
as debate on the bill dealing with guns, and for them it is still not
long enough.
The last member of the Reform Party who spoke said: ``I need
much more time to speak on these profound amendments''.
Most of the so-called profound amendments would delete all the
clauses in the bill. How much time does one need for that kind of
nonsense?
The Reform Party argues it is more democratic to allow it in
the minority more time to remove the clauses supported by the
majority of members of Parliament and the majority of
Canadians. This is Reform Party logic. It makes sense to a few
people but a very small and decreasing number of people. That is
what is wrong with that logic.
I do not want to be too provocative about it but members of the
Reform Party are trying to prevent the majority of Canadians
from having legislation they want. They are against the
democratic principles they pretend to espouse.
[Translation]
And this is what is wrong with the Reform Party. I know that
the members of the Reform Party tend to kick up a fuss from
time to time. We hear their cry from time to time in the House.
Nevertheless, the members opposite are not in a bit of a state
because the majority of Canadians are supporting them.
[English]
One member said a little earlier tonight that gun registration
would not have eliminated a particular crime. The member
described victims of a particular criminal incident and said that
registering the guns would not have had the desired effect in that
case. That is about the same as asking-and I have had a few
people ask me about it-how many lives the registration of guns
would save.
Mr. Abbott: Zero.
(1940 )
Mr. Boudria: That is a good point. I am glad the hon. member
across the way is wide awake and listening. It is about the same
as asking how man lives licence plates on motor vehicles will
save.
If we do nothing else of course it will not save any. Who says
it is not in the interests of society to do anything else? It is the
same with licence plates on motor vehicles. It permits one to
determine when cars are being used in an inappropriate way, to
chase them down, to give tickets and to take other measures to
provide greater safety for Canadians.
[Translation]
It is the same thing with gun control. It is the same thing. The
members in this party and most Canadians want laws in this
country that differentiate us from our neighbours to the south, in
the United States of America. I have a great fondness for the
United States, a great land of prosperity. However, the
Americans have laws that permit people to bear arms in the
street in some states, like Texas, for example.
Now this is not the sort of society we want in Canada. I say
this to the members opposite over the outcry and all the noise the
Reform Party is making-we do not want this sort of society.
This is not at all what we want.
We want a society in which we will-
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure hon. members
would be interested in hearing the final moments of the speech
of the government whip.
13644
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that I
am trying not to be provocative, it is getting a few members
across the way a bit more than excited. Nevertheless this is a
serious piece of legislation proposed by a minister who has
travelled the country to listen to the views of Canadians.
We have debated the bill longer than any other piece of
legislation has been debated since we have been in office. We
debated the bill, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, longer
than we debated the throne speech, the budget debate and all the
budget bills combined. We have nothing to apologize for.
Canadians have been consulted.
Now that they have been consulted, the time for decision has
come. This is a government that does not hesitate to make
decisions. The government will make the necessary decisions.
The government will enact the legislation necessary to make
this a better, finer and safer society for all.
In a few years from now some of the members across the way
in the Reform Party will be apologizing to the people of Canada
for the wrongheaded decisions they are taking today. They will
be apologizing for those blunders, as the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands put eloquently. That is what will
happen. I say to members across the way that it is still time for
them to change their minds. There is still time to vote for the
legislation the people of Canada have asked us to enact. There is
still time to do what the majority of Canadians want.
If members across the way think they are behaving in a way
that is deserving of the support of the majority of the people they
pretend to represent, now is the time to show it. Now is the time
to vote on a measure the people of Canada want.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill as every bill is to make
the country a safer place. I will indicate how the bill will do the
exact opposite. It will make our streets less safe in the future.
As I only have two minutes I will be very brief. I will dispense
with all the rhetoric and take the minister's argument a part
piece by piece.
When passed the legislation will cost between $85 million
and $500 million. That money has to come from somewhere and
will be taken away from the functional arm of justice. There is
something called opportunity cost. When it is pulled away from
one arm of justice to another it should be put into an area with
better efficiency. Unfortunately it has been proven that gun
registration does not work and will not make our streets safer.
Studies have been done in Australia, New Zealand and other
countries.
The minister says that we will have less homicide. The reality
is that of the 720 homicides in the country last year 220 were
committed with firearms and 5 were committed with legally
owned handguns. The minister says that we will have less
suicide. Persons who are going to commit suicide do not go out
to get a gun registration or an FAC. They do not go through all
the loops necessary to get a gun. They kill themselves or attempt
to kill themselves with whatever is available.
In short, that is why the registration aspect of Bill C-68 will
not work. It will make our street less safe because it will take
money away from the functional arm of justice.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 7.45 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Thursday, June 8, and in accordance with
the provisions of Standing Order 78(2), it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Pursuant to agreement made earlier, all motions in Group No.
4 are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested
and deemed deferred.
Pursuant to agreement made earlier all the motions in Group
Nos. 5 to 11 are deemed proposed and seconded, questions put,
divisions requested and deemed deferred.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-68, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 5, with
the following:
``safety of any other person, that the''.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-68, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing line 13, on page 6, with the following:
``against any other person; or''; and
(b) by replacing line 17, on page 6, with the following:
``other person.''
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-68, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36, on
page 16, with the following:
``desirable, in the interests of the safety of any other person, that the''.
Motion No. 209
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24, on
page 90, with the following:
``ble in the interests of the safety of any other person, to make an order''.
Motion No. 211
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18, on
page 91, with the following:
``the interests of the safety of any other''.
Motion No. 217
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
13645
(a) by replacing lines 40 and 41, on page 99, with the following:
``desirable in the interests of the safety of any other person, for the person'';
(b) by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page 100, with the following:
``in the interests of the safety of any other person, for the person to possess any''; and
(c) by replacing line 11, on page 100, with the following:
``safety of any other person, it''.
Motion No. 219
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 27, on
page 101, with the following:
``interests of the safety of any other''.
Motion No. 258
That Bill C-68, in Clause 147, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42, on
page 114, with the following:
``n the interests of the safety of any other person.''
Motion No. 260
That Bill C-68, in Clause 151, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page
116, with the following:
``the interests of the safety of any other person, to include as a condition''.
Motion No. 262
That Bill C-68, in Clause 169, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22, on
page 123, with the following:
``interests of the safety of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-68, in Clause 6, be amended
(a) by replacing line 30, on page 6, with the following:
``6. A person is eligible to hold a licence''; and
(b) by deleting lines 36 to 39, on page 6.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-68, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 34, on page
7, with the following:
``restricted firearms only if the individual successfully completes a restricted
firearms safety course that is approved by the attorney general of the province in
which the course is given.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-68, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 42, on page
8, and lines 1 and 2, on page 9, with the following:
``dividual against whom a prohibition order was made merely because another
person against whom a prohibition order was made cohabited with, or was an
associate of, the individual.''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Clause 8 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 29 and 30 on
page 9 and substituting the following:
``individual has consented, in writing or in any other manner that is satisfactory to
the chief firearms officer, to the issuance of the licence.''
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-68, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 10, on page
33, with the following:
``individual who is eighteen years old or older remains valid unless revoked
pursuant this Act.''
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 102
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 19, on page 38, the following
new Clause:
``70.1 (1) A chief firearms officer shall not revoke or refuse to renew the
licence of an individual to possess a restricted firearm, or a handgun referred to
in paragraph 12(6)(a), where the individual
(a) is not eligible to hold the licence or have it renewed by reason only of illness,
travel or other valid reason; and
(b) lends the firearm or handgun the Her Majesty, a police force or other borrower, in
accordance with this Act, for the period of the ineligibility.
(2) The Registrar shall not revoke the registration certificate for a firearm or
handgun in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Clause 9 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 14 to 21 on page
10 and substituting the following:
``holder to acquire restricted firearms.
(3.1) In subsection (3), ``firearm'' does not include a partially manufactured
barrelled weapon that, in its unfinished state, is not a barrelled weapon
(a) from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged; and
(b) that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person.''
Motion No. 22
That Clause 9 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 31 to 35 on page
10 and substituting the following:
``(a) who, in the course of duties of employment, handles or would handle only
firearms that are designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near
precision, antique firearms, and who has been trained to handle or use such a
firearm; or''
Motion No. 33
13646
That the French version of Clause 17.1 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking
out lines 27 and 28 on page 15 and substituting the following:
``(iii) désire la transporter aux fins de réparation, d'entreposage, de vente,
d'exportation ou d'évaluation,''.
Motion No. 34
That the French version of Clause 17.1 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking
out lines 30 to 32 on page 15 and substituting the following:
``d'armes à feu.''
Motion No. 36
That the French version of clause 18 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
lines 7 and 8 on page 16 and substituting the following:
``(iii) désire la transporter aux fins de réparation, d'entreposage, de vente,
d'exportation ou d'évaluation,''.
Motion No. 47
That the French version of Clause 29 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
line 5 on page 21 and substituting the following:
``ques, techniques ou scientifiques relatives''.
Motion No. 57
That the French version of Clause 33 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
line 13 on page 22 and substituting the following:
``bées, de dispositifs prohibés, d'armes à autorisation restreinte, de''
Motion No. 72
That clause 43 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 23 to 28 on page
27 and substituting the following:
``(c) holds a licence authorizing it to possess those goods, except where those goods
are to be shipped in transit through Canada by a business that does not carry on
business in Canada;''
Motion No. 74
That the French version of clause 44 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
line 36 on page 27 and substituting the following:
``l'autorisation d'exportation à l'agent des''
Motion No. 80
That the French version of clause 48 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
line 6 on page 29 and substituting the following:
``tion de marchandises visées à l'article 42 doivent faire l'objet d'une autorisation''
Motion No. 89
That the English version of clause 54 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
lines 13 and 14 on page 31 and substituting the following:
``54. (1) a chief firearms officer is responsible for issuing licences.''
Motion No. 90
That the English version of clause 55 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out
lines 20 to 22 on page 31 and substituting the following:
``55. a chief firearms officer is responsible for issuing authorizations to carry
and authorizations to transport.''
Motion No. 171
That the French version of clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking
out lines 30 to 33 on page 70 and substituting the following:
«exporter» Exporter hors du Canada, notamment exporter des marchandises
importées au Canada et expédiées en transit à travers celui-ci.''
Motion No. 172
That the French version of clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking
out lines 37 to 40 on page 70 and substituting the following:
«importer» Importer au Canada, notamment importer des marchandises expédiées
en transit à travers le Canada et exportées hors de celui-ci.»
Motion No. 227
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 36 and 37 on
page 108 and substituting the following:
``prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in
Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use''
Motion No. 261
That clause 161.1 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 30 to 32 on
page 118 and substituting the following:
``(d) have been taken as a sample or seized under the Firearms Act or any other Act
of Parliament; or''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-68, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 20, on page
13, with the following:
``and for which on''.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-68, in Clause 12, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 44 to 45, on page 13, with the following:
``1977 if the particular individual is the spouse or a brother, sister, child or
descendent of an''; and
(b) by adding after line 2, on page 14, the following:
``(7.1) Where the particular handgun referred to in subsection (6) was
manufactured between 1945 and 1977, the particular individual referred to in
subsection (7) is only eligible for the licence if the individual submits, with the
application for the licence, a statutory declaration declaring the handgun to be a
family heirloom and stating the reasons for that belief.''
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 159
That clause 113 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 19 to 25 on
page 59 and substituting the following:
``tion certificate;
13647
(b) in the case of an individual referred to in subsection 12(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8),
to acquire and possess any prohibited firearms referred to in that subsection that are
acquired by the holder on or after the commencement day; and
(c) in the case of a particular individual who is eligible under subsection 12(7) to
hold a licence authorizing the particular individual to possess a handgun referred to
in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) in the circumstances
described in subsection 12(7), to acquire and possess such a handgun in those
circumstances, if the particular handgun is acquired by the particular individual on
or after the commencement day.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 160
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 40, on page 59, the following
new Clause:
``113.1 (1) Every person who, immediately before the coming into force of
any of subsections 106(1), 106.2(1) and 106.4(1), possessed a firearm without a
firearm acquisition certificate because
(a) the person possessed the firearm before January 1, 1979, or
(b) the firearm acquisition certificate under which the person had acquired the
firearm had expired, shall be deemed for the purposes of that subsection to be, until
January 1, 2001 or such other date as is prescribed, the holder of a licence under
which the person may possess the firearm.
(2) Every person who, immediately before the coming into force of any of
subsections 106(1), 106.2(1) and 106.4(1), possessed a firearm and was the
holder of a firearm acquisition certificate shall be deemed for the purposes of
that subsection to be, until January 1, 2001 or such other date as is prescribed,
the holder of a licence under which the person may possess the firearm.
(3) Every person who, at any time between the coming into force of
subsection 106(1), 106.2(1) or 106.4(1) and the later of January 1, 1998 and
such other date as is prescribed, possesses a firearm that, as of that date, is not a
prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, shall be deemed for the purposes of
that subsection to be, until January 1, 2003 or such other date as is prescribed,
the holder of a registration certificate for that firearm.''
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on
page 69, with the following:
``(a) a handgun that has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 169
That clause 133 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 34 on page 69
and substituting the following:
``a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 226
That Bill C-68, in Clause 133, be amended
(a) by replacing line 32, on page 108, with the following:
``(2) Subject to subsection (3), in making regulations, the Governor in''; and
(b) by adding after line 38, on page 108, the following:
``(3) The Governor in Council may not prescribe any handgun that is
designed or adapted to discharge a .25 or .32 calibre cartridge to be a prohibited
firearm.''
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-68, in Clause 12, be amended
(a) by replacing line 21, on page 13, with the following:
``February 28, 1995 a registration certificate''; and
(b) by replacing line 25, on page 13, with the following:
``(a) on February 28, 1995''.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-68, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 16,
with the following:
``12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) may''.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-68, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 19,
with the following:
``subsection 12(6) (pre-February 28), 1995''.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-68, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 26, on page 19,
with the following:
``12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) or''.
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-68, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 30,
with the following:
``in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995''.
Motion No. 94
That Bill C-68, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 34,
with the following:
``12(6) (pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) for''.
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-68, in Clause 65, be amended
(a) by replacing line 10, on page 35, with the following:
``(pre-February 28, 1995 handguns) a chief''; and
(b) by replacing line 26, on page 35, with the following:
``(28, 1995 handguns) that are possessed by an''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-68, in Clause 16 be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4, on page 13,
with the following:
``16. (1) A registration certificate for a prohib-ited firearm or a restricted
firearm may be issued to only one person.
13648
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a prohibited firearm or a
restricted firearm for which a registration certificate''.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-68, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page
14, with the following:
``of a firearm where
(a) two spouses, who each hold a licence to possess the firearm, apply to have the
registration certificate issued to them jointly; or
(b) a registration certificate referred to in section 121 was issued for the firearm to
more than one person.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 114
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 80.
Motion No. 115
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 81.
Motion No. 116
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
Motion No. 117
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 83.
Motion No. 118
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 84.
Motion No. 119
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 85.
Motion No. 120
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 86.
Motion No. 121
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 87.
Motion No. 122
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 88.
Motion No. 123
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 89.
Motion No. 124
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 90.
Motion No. 125
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 91.
Motion No. 126
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 92.
Motion No. 127
That Bill C-68, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24, on page
46, with the following:
``registration certificates and authorizations; and''.
Motion No. 128
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 97.
Motion No. 129
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 98.
Motion No. 130
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 99.
Motion No. 131
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 100.
Motion No. 132
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 101.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 148
That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing line 44, on page 55,
with the following:
``(p) subject to section 110.1, prescribing the fees that are to be paid to''.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 149
That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing line 44, on page 55,
with the following:
``(p) prescribing, after consultation with the committee of the House of Commons
that normally considers matters relating to justice, for a period of twenty years
following the coming into force of the regulations, the fees that are to be paid to''.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 150
That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page
56, with the following:
``(q) prescribing, in a manner that is equal and fair for every one, the method of
payment for the fees payable under paragraph (p);''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 151
That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by deleting lines 12 and 13, on
page 56.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 152
That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 33, on
page 56, with the following:
``provision of this Act or the regulations applies;''.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 153
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 26, on page 57, the following
new Clause:
``110.1 (1) The fees referred to in paragraph 110(p) shall not be increased
during any period by a percentage greater than the percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index for the same period.
13649
(2) For the purposes of this section, the Consumer Price Index for a period
means the average of the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by
Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act.
(3) No fee shall be prescribed under paragraph 110(p) for the transfer of a
firearm by an individual to an immediate family member.''
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 155
That Bill C-68, in Clause 111, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46, on
page 57, and lines 1 to 5, on page 58, with the following:
``(3) A proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may
be made
(a) on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it has been laid; or
(b) at any time after it has been laid, where the federal Minister is of the opinion that
the making of the regulation is urgent.''
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-68, in Clause 111, be amended by adding after line 5, on page 58,
the following:
``(3.1) A regulation shall be made subject to affirmative resolution of
Parliament.''
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-68, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 43, on
page 62, and lines 1 and 2, on page 63, with the following:
``(2) For greater certainty, a registration certificate that is deemed to be a
registration certificate issued under section 58 is valid until it expires by virtue
of section 64.''
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-68, in Clause 123, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 44, on
page 63, with the following:
``(3) A permit expires on the expiration of the period for which it was
expressed to be issued.''
Motion No. 263
That Bill C-68, in Clause 169, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 43, on page
123.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-68, in Clause 29, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6, on page 21, with the following:
``relate or distinguish the one or more restricted firearms or handguns in his or her
collection;''; and
(b) by replacing line 10, on page 21, with the following:
``handguns collection is to be kept; and''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-68, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 21,
with the following:
``sections 20 to 27, 29, 30, 39 to 41 and 45 to''.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-68, in Clause 34, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 22, with the following:
``licence may import a restricted firearm if, at the time of the''; and
(b) by replacing lines 34 and 35, on page 22, with the following:
``(iii) produces an authorization to transport the''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-68, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8, on page
24, with the following:
``licence may export a restricted firearm that was imported by''.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-68, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5, on page
25, with the following:
``(ii) produces his or her licence and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a
re-stricted firearm, the registration certificate for the prohibited firearm or the
restricted firearm and the authorization to transport the prohibited firearm or the
restricted firearm; and''.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-68, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page
25, with the following:
``and an authorization to''.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-68, in Clause 39, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page 25, with the following:
``accordance with that section and an authorization to transport the''; and
13650
(b) by replacing lines 31 and 32, on page 25, with the following:
``(c) in the case of a restricted firearm for which a registra-''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 75
That clause 45 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 8 to 13 on page
28 and substituting the following:
``(a) holds a licence authorizing it to acquire and possess those goods, except where
those goods are to be shipped in transit through Canada by a business that does not
carry on business in Canada;''
Motion No. 83
That clause 51.1 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 26 to 34 on
page 29 and substituting the following:
``51.1 No business shall import a prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon,
prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that is to be shipped in transit
through Canada and exported.''
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding immediately after line 34 on page 29
the following the new article:
``51.1 (1) A person shall not import or export a firearm that has not been
rendered inoperative by a secure locking device.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ``secure locking device'' means a device
that
(a) cannot be opened or unlocked except with an electronic, magnetic or mechanical
key or an alphanumeric combination lock; and
(b) once installed on an unrestricted firearm or a restricted firearm, prevents it from
shooting.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
(4) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) is
deemed not to have been convicted of a criminal offence.
(5) An offence referred to in subsection (1) does not constitute an offence for
the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.
(6) For greater certainty, notwithstanding sub section (4), the provisions of
the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to an offence
referred to in subsection (1).
(7) For greater certainty, nothing in this section prevents the punishment to
which a person might otherwise be lawfully sentenced on a conviction for an
offence referred to in sub- section (1).
Motion No. 135
That Bill C-68 be amended by adding after line 24, on page 51, the following
new Clause:
``103.1 (1) A person shall not complete the assembly or manufacture of a
firearm without equipping the firearm with a secure locking device.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ``secure locking device'' means a device
that
(a) cannot be opened or unlocked except with an electronic, magnetic or mechanical
key or an alphanumeric combination lock; and
(b) once installed on an unrestricted firearm or a restricted firearm, prevents it from
shooting.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under sub section (1) is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
(4) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) is
deemed not to have been convicted of a criminal offence.
(5) An offence referred to in subsection (1) does not constitute an offence for
the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.
(6) For greater certainty, notwithstanding sub section (4), the provisions of
the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to an offence
referred to in subsection (1).
(7) For greater certainty, nothing in this section prevents the punishment to
which a person might otherwise be lawfully sentenced on a conviction for an
offence referred to in subsection (1).
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 229
That Bill C-68, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on
page 109, with the following:
``ing knowing it is unauthorized)''.''
Motion No. 257
That Bill C-68, in Clause 145, be amended by deleting lines 3 and 4, on page
113.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(2005 )
And the division bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you
were to seek it I think you would find unanimous consent to deal
first with report stage Motion No. 267 and then to deal with the
motions in the order in which they are listed on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, I recognize the
hon. member for York South-Weston.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note
there are some 267 amendments. It would be helpful if we were
to receive a brief explanation of what the purpose of each
amendment is.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon.
member for York South-Weston but it would take up a great
deal of time for the Chair to try to explain each amendment.
13651
If the hon. member is rising on the same point of order, the
Chair has already dealt with it. If it is a different point of order, I
will recognize the hon. member for York South-Weston.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are requesting
unanimous consent. I am simply indicating that members need
to vote intelligently on these amendments. When bills are
presented to the House there is an explanatory note. For those of
us who did not sit at the justice committee or sit through the
evidence this is the first opportunity for the House to consider
267 amendments. I am not asking that each and every
amendment be dealt with in great detail but for a brief
explanation as to what the effect of the amendment would be.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Chair take it the hon. member
is not giving unanimous consent to deal with Motion No. 267
first?
Mr. Nunziata: I am content to deal with Motion No. 267 first
but I would like someone to explain in 30 seconds what
amendment 267 is all about.
The Deputy Speaker: I take it there is unanimous consent to
deal with Motion No. 267 first. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 267.
(The House divided on Motion No. 267, which was negatived
on the following division: )
(Division No. 252)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélair
Bélisle
Caron
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacDonald
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Telegdi
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-96
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murray
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Zed-123
13652
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2020)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 267 lost.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member for
Mississauga East voted twice on the motion. Am I correct in
assuming that the House would count her first vote in support of
the motion?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary rose
to explain that she had been counted in error and therefore she
was counted with her second vote.
The next question is on Motion No. 1. The Chair's
understanding is that the Chair is not going to have to read each
of the motions, that the number is sufficient.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it appears that only two members
are voting in favour of the motion. Perhaps I could ask for
unanimous consent that the members who have voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting nay, with the exception of
one or two who could rise to ask that their vote be recorded as
yes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent to that
motion.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a bit of
misunderstanding on how you vote on these issues. The clerk
has looked on both sides of it. Can you explain to members
which side you will be looking at first when you are voting?
The Deputy Speaker: Actually, neither side. The clerk has to
do the counting. We try not to look on either side. We look
wherever somebody is standing.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 253)
YEAS
Members
Arseneault
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Mayfield
Mitchell
Nault
Riis
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Ur
Wappel
Wood-17
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
13653
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Zed-209
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2030)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I was voting in favour of the motion and I
inadvertently got a vote ahead. I want to make sure that my name
was not recorded twice in error.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 10.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to save a bit of time, I
wonder if there would be a disposition that the members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
Perhaps the mover of the motion and others could stand and
indicate if they wish to vote differently.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc members will vote in favour of this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote no
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise. As the
member for Calgary Centre, I wish to record my vote as a yea.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote nay on this
motion, including the member for Kamloops who had voted yea
on the previous motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent among all
the members to proceed as has been proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(2035 )
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would
be helpful when the government whip rose if he stated which
motion number it was applying to.
The Deputy Speaker: It is Motion No. 10. That has been
agreed to and the vote will be counted shortly.
Mr. St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we have finished
the count, but I want to be shown as being in favour of Motion
No. 10.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, do we get up on a point of order and
indicate that or do we just stand up? Please explain. I was voting
in favour of the motion. Do you require us to get up on a point of
order to do that or do you just look to either side to see who gets
up?
The Deputy Speaker: That is a good point. Is anybody not
satisfied that their vote has not been indicated by what was said
or by what they have done?
13654
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion No.
10, if that is the motion we are voting on now.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear as
well that I am voting in favour of Motion No. 10.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Miramichi on a
point of order.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, we know the Miramichi is a
great river, but the Restigouche is even greater. I would be
voting in favour of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing and the
hon. member for the great river of Miramichi.
Mr. Hubbard: No.
Mr. Wood: I am voting in favour, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 254)
YEAS
Members
Arseneault
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Hopkins
Hubbard
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Mitchell
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Silye
Speller
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wood-39
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Zed-187
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
13655
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
[English]
The House is now voting on Motion No. 158.
(2040 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House would concur
to apply the result just taken on the vote on report stage Motion
No. 10 to report stage Motion No. 158 which is the one we are
now dealing with. The votes appear prima facie at least to be
identical. Perhaps the House could seek that and any member
wishing to indicate otherwise could rise at that point.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it
recorded that I voted in favour of Motion No. 158.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion
No. 158.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show
that I am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion No.
158.
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion
No. 158.
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I
am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.
Mr. Steckle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to record my vote as
being in favour of Motion No. 158.
Mr. Shepherd: In favour, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I vote yes on the motion.
Mr. Verran: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the motion.
Ms. Ur: In favour, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Skoke: In favour, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make sure that my
vote is recorded as a nay for Motion No. 158.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be recorded
that I am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.
I think part of the problem is that the sheet the Speaker is
using which has grouped the votes is not available to the
members which may be slowing down the vote. Perhaps if the
Speaker could give us the list of motions as they are in
groupings, that would allow us to get the votes done a little
quicker because we will be able to anticipate what the vote is
going to be on.
The Deputy Speaker: Anything that would speed things up
would be fine.
(The House divided on motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 255)
YEAS
Members
Arseneault
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finlay
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Hopkins
Hubbard
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacDonald
McCormick
Mitchell
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Wood-50
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
13656
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
White (Fraser Valley West)
Zed-177
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2045)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 167.
Mr. Silye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put
some order back into this evening's proceedings. This is at the
prompting of some of the ministers of the crown on the front
benches.
I suggest we have a stand up vote on Motion 167 and we duly
record everyone's wishes. I think it will follow what we have
agreed to beforehand as the whips. If that is the case, then we can
proceed with the applied votes and reverse applied if it works
out that way.
The Deputy Speaker: Anything for order, I am sure we are all
for that.
The House divided on Motion No. 167, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 256)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-50
13657
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Zed-175
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2055 )
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No.
266.
(The House divided on Motion No. 266, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 257)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Stinson
13658
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)-86
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Zed-137
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2100)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 266 lost.
[English]
Moving on to group No. 2, the next question is on Motion No.
5.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 258)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
13659
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2110 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 145.
The House divided on Motion No. 145, which was agreed to
on the following division:
(Division No. 259)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-153
13660
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-71
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2120 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 145 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 4. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 6 and 154.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 260)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Nault
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-60
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
13661
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Zed-163
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2130)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.
Motions Nos. 6 and 154 are also therefore negatived.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 23 I am told only
ensures that the French and English texts are the same. Perhaps
you, Mr. Speaker, could ask if there are five members who
actually desire a vote on this. If not, we could then deal with it
accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker: Members have heard the words of the
whip of the government. Are there five members who are
concerned about this matter? It would seem not.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion No. 23 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 24.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(2140)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 negatived.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 28. A vote on Motion No.
28 applies to Motions 29, 43, 49, 51, 60, 69, 71, 76, 79, 92, 95,
100, 207, 215, 216, 218 and 225. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 28 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion
No. 50. A negative vote on Motion No. 28 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 50.
All those in favour of Motion No. 28 will please rise.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you
will find that Motion No. 76 should not be included in the
grouping.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that acceptable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13662
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to save time let me try
again to see if there would be unanimous consent to apply the
vote just taken on report stage Motion No. 24, in other words the
last one, to report stage Motion No. 28, which is the one now
before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Members have heard the terms of the
proposal. Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken
to the motion now before the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it understood that all of the motions
that were indicated earlier would also be affected by the vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 28
negatived. Therefore Motions Nos. 29, 43, 49, 51, 60, 69, 71, 76,
79, 92, 95, 100, 207, 215, 216, 218, 225 are negatived.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent success, let
me ask for unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the last
motion to Motions 50, 41, 42 and 45. They all stand in the name
of the same hon. member.
Mr. Speaker, I can try for a few more if the House is so
disposed. We can also try to determine whether or not there is
agreement to apply the same vote to report stage Motions Nos.
87, 88, 8, 174, 187, 189, 191, 197, 199, 223, 134, 136, 146, 147,
164, 166, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 196, 202, 228, 231, 240, 13,
15, 17, 93, 102, 25, 27, 160, 31, 161, 53, 61 and 66.
(2145)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261]
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 50, 41, 42, 45, 87, 88, 8,
174, 187, 189, 191, 197, 199, 223, 134, 136, 146, 147, 164, 166,
175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 196, 202, 228, 231, 240, 13, 15, 17, 93,
102, 25, 27, 160, 31, 161, 53, 61 and 66 are negatived.
(Division No. 261)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-49
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
13663
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-173
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 78.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you
would find unanimous consent to apply the result just taken in
reverse to the motion now before the House, Motion No. 78.
I believe you would also find unanimous consent to do the
same on Motions Nos. 109, 111 and 169.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent by all
members to what has just been proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 78, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 262)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
13664
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-173
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-49
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 78, 109, 111 and 169 are
agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 54.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to determine if there
is unanimous consent that the members who voted on the motion
just prior to this be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House in the following manner, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are also in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that Reform
Party members will vote no to this motion, except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
(2150)
The Deputy Speaker: If any members wish to vote otherwise
indicate so now.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will vote yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 263)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
13665
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-180
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 54 carried.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply the same vote to Motion
No. 103.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: The same could be done on Motion No. 220 if we
are seeking unanimous consent and for Motion No. 75.
The Deputy Speaker: We are only dealing with Motion No.
103 at the moment.
Mr. Silye: Reform Party members vote no except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise. The member for Swift
Current may wish-
The Deputy Speaker: Would the Reform Party members who
wish to vote otherwise please indicate so now.
Mr. Taylor: We vote in favour, Mr. Speaker.
13666
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 263.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 103 carried.
Is there unanimous consent to apply those votes as indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 263.]
The Deputy Speaker: Therefore Motions Nos. 220 and 75 are
agreed to.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 7.
A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 133, 173,
181, 198 and 222. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 7 obviates
the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11,
12, 137, 144, 163, 114, 182, 184, 192, 197, 199, 201 and 223.
(2155)
A negative vote on Motion No. 7 necessitates the question
being put on Motions Nos. 8, 174, 184, 197 and 223.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous
consent that the members who just voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House
with Liberal members voting against this particular motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The members of the Bloc Quebecois support
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members are against
this motion and vote no except for those members who wish to
vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote yea
unless otherwise noted.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 264)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-34
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
13667
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Zed-189
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 rejected.
Consequently Motions Nos. 133, 173, 181, 198 and 222 are
negatived.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could seek
unanimous consent that the same result apply to report stage
Motions Nos. 200, 148, 149 and 150.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 264.]
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 200, 148, 149 and 150
are negatived.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent that members voting on the previous motion could be
recorded on the present motion with Liberal members voting
nay on Motion No. 184.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Reform Party members vote yea, except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
(2200 )
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote yea.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 184, which was negatived
on the following division;)
(Division No. 265)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-77
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
13668
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-146
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would seek
unanimous consent to apply the same vote to the following
motions: Motions 35, 165, 239, 16, 30 and 155.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 265]
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 35, 165, 239, 16, 30, and
155 are negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 182.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find agreement that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the present motion.
Liberal MPs will be voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote nay.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote
yea, except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats would vote yea on
report stage Motion No. 182.
(The House divided on Motion No. 182, which was agreed to
on the following division.)
(Division No. 266)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
13669
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Zed-195
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-28
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 182 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 183.
Before calling on the government whip, an affirmative vote
on Motion No. 183 obviates the necessity of putting the question
on Motions 187, 189 and 191. A negative vote on Motion No.
183 necessitates the question being put on Motions 187, 189 and
191.
(2205 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you could find unanimous consent to record the votes in the
following way: Liberal members will be voting nay on this
motion.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to record that I will
be voting in favour of that amendment.
Mr. Murphy: Yea, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we will vote nay on Motion No.
183.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will probably
vote no except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote nay.
13670
(The House divided on Motion No. 183, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 267)
YEAS
Members
Mitchell
Murphy-2
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Zed-221
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 183 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 186.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you would ask it, I believe you
would find there is unanimous consent for members who voted
on the previous motion to be recorded as voting as follows on the
motion now before the House: Liberal members will vote yea.
Again, if you were to ask it, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the same result to Motions Nos.
188, 190, 185 and 159.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc members will vote nay on all these
motions.
13671
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, and the Reform
Party members vote no.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree and we
would vote yea.
(The House divided on Motion No. 186, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 268)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-71
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
13672
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 186 carried.
Therefore, Motions Nos. 188, 190, 185, and 159 are also carried.
(2210)
The next question is on Motion No. 201.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the result in reverse taken to Motion No. 182 to
the vote now before the House.
I think you would find unanimous consent as well to apply the
same results to Motion No. 230 and Motion No. 84.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion proposed. Is that agreed?
Mr. Duceppe: D'accord.
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed, with unanimous consent.
(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 269)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-28
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Zed-195
13673
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
[English]
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as
voting yea on Motion No. 230.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 201 negatived.
Consequently Motions Nos. 84 and 230 are negatived. The vote
on Motion No. 230 applies to Motions Nos. 232, 234, 236, 238,
242, 245, 248, 251 and 254.
The next question is on Motion No. 179. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 259.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as voting as follows: Liberal members
will vote nay on this motion.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote nay. I believe the results of this vote could also be
applied to Motion No. 208.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Reform Party members vote yea except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise on both motions.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats would vote no to
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 179, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 270)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-43
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
13674
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-180
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 179 negatived.
Therefore Motion No. 259 is also negatived.
(2215)
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, before putting the question on the
motion you just mentioned, could you seek unanimous consent
to apply the vote just completed on Motion No. 179, but in
reverse, to Motion No. 220?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: By unanimous consent it is so ordered.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 271)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
13675
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-180
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-43
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 18, if you were to
seek unanimous consent I think you would find that the Liberal
members will be recorded as voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay
on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yes,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor Mr. Speaker, New Democrats would vote yea.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect to Motion No. 18 by
unanimous consent it is so ordered, as was indicated by the
whips.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 266]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 21.
A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 22, 33, 34,
36, 47, 57, 72, 74, 80, 89, 90, 171, 172, 227 and 261.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to determine
whether five members wish to rise and ask for a recorded
division. In other words, if the Chair would seek the yeas and
nays, the Speaker might find that members do not wish a
recorded vote on this motion for the same reason as the other
item earlier today.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
(2220 )
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification.
These are all government amendments. I am in favour of them
all except Motion No. 227 which would have the affect of
overturning an amendment carried at committee. If I vote in
favour of Motion No. 21 can I still vote against Motion No. 227,
or am I precluded from doing so?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the hon. member to vote as he has just outlined?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I too want to be noted as voting
against Motion No. 227.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would also like it to be recorded
as voting against Motion No. 227.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be recorded as
voting against Motion No. 227.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
against Motion No. 227 as well.
Mr. St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting
against Motion No. 227. Could I also record that I am in favour
of Motion No. 102?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to record likewise
with regard to Motion No. 227, that I would vote against it.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification on the
motion. We cannot find it and we do not know what it is. We
would like it to be read, please.
13676
The Deputy Speaker: It is Motion No. 21 in Group No 7. Mr.
Rock, seconded by Mrs. Marleau, moved:
That clause 9 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 14 to 21 on page
10 and substituting the following:
``holder to acquire restricted firearms.
Does the hon. whip of the Reform Party want Motion No. 227
read out as well?
Mr. Silye: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I understood the House to be
voting on report stage Motion No. 21. Perhaps the Chair could
just ask for the vote on Motion No. 21 and we will deal with it
accordingly. The other motion is not even before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. whip of the Reform Party was
going to consult. Does he have a further point he wishes to
make?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is in favour of
Motion No. 21 but we are against Motion No. 227 and I do not
know why you have Motion No. 227 grouped with Motion No.
21.
The Deputy Speaker: It is a consequential ruling by the Chair
that the vote would apply to Motion No. 227 as well, along with
a number of others.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of efficiency here I would
like to clarify that the Reform Party members will vote yea on
Motion No. 21 and nay on Motion No. 227.
(2225)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc members will vote in favour of
Motion No. 21, but against Motion No. 227.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other permutations or
combinations?
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 21 New Democrats
would vote yea, but I believe the whip of the government should
be informing the House on why Motion No. 227 is not before the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: The table officers who have been
terrific will try to figure all that out and give us the count on
Motions Nos. 21 and 227.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could
you clarify whether we are also voting on Motion No. 227? If
that is the case I should like to be recorded as being opposed to
Motion No. 227.
The Deputy Speaker: I gather there is no consent to do what
we have been trying to do for the last 15 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if there is no consent to function
as logically as we have just done, I would propose that the whips
of each party indicate how the members of their respective
parties will vote on Motion No. 21 and the subsequent motions
and that the party whips be asked to indicate how their party will
vote on Motion No. 227, more specifically.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The problem has been caused by the
fact that in the confusion we were voting on Motion No. 21. The
vote on Motion No. 21 also applies to about 15 other motions
including Motion No. 227.
Apparently the Table can figure out how we have all voted if
the government and all the other party whips will permit us to do
the calculation and come back with an answer. Is that
acceptable?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is some difficulty with what
is happening at this point.
We were told that we were voting on report stage Motion No.
21. I believe, if you were to seek it, you would find the
respective whips would indicate that probably everyone is
voting for that motion.
However the difficulty is the following one. I believe the
Chair is seeking, at the request of one member, to split the
decision already taken by the Chair earlier today, which would
have the effect of voting separately on Motion No. 227 and then
on all the other motions grouped in that list of some 10 or 15
motions indicated earlier by Mr. Speaker.
I never understood that we could split a decision made by the
Chair. If the Chair could explain that to us we could proceed.
The Deputy Speaker: The point is one that I think can be
accepted. The Chair has made a ruling that the vote on Motion
No. 21 will apply to all the other ones.
As the whip indicated, the hon. member for Scarborough West
wished in effect to vote differently. However we are bound by
the ruling of Mr. Speaker and therefore we will have to take a
vote, I suppose on Motion No. 21, and it will be applied to all the
others as indicated by the ruling of the Chair.
(2230)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we could certainly quite
reasonably follow a logic that does not stand up in order to
follow procedure, because we support Motion No. 21 and the
subsequent motions, except Motion No. 227. We could,
therefore, battle over procedure, and all those watching us this
evening would conclude that we are procedural experts rather
than people who vote responsibly.
I therefore suggest that the House decide unanimously to vote
on Motion No. 21 and the others and to vote on Motion No. 227
13677
separately so we can do this a bit logically and so that people
understand what we are doing here tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, is there unanimous
consent to vote on Motion No. 227 separately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: So we will vote on this motion
separately.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, now that we have separated the
two matters, I think you could ask the House whether five
members wish to rise and ask for a recorded vote on the group of
motions you have listed, with the exception of Motion No. 227,
which we will vote on shortly.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the motion of the
government whip. Do five members wish to rise as indicated?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
As there are no nays, Motion No. 21 is adopted. Accordingly
Motions Nos. 22, 33, 34, 36, 47, 57, 72, 74, 80, 89, 90, 171, 172
and 261 are agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 227.
(The House divided on Motion No. 227, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 272)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker-132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Arseneault
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-85
13678
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2240 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 227 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 26, but there may be some
confusion. Do any of the whips wish to make representations?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on further consideration, I think
the Chair will have to seek the vote directly from the floor.
(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 273)
YEAS
Members
Hopkins
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Wood-8
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)-213
13679
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
(2250 )
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be registered as
voting nay on this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 26 lost.
Consequently Motions Nos. 37, 44, 46, 86, 94 and 96 are also
lost.
Perhaps the government whip might indicate whether he
thinks Motion No. 32 has been voted on. It appears it has not.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the essence of time and
co-operation I believe there would be a disposition to apply the
result of the vote just taken on the following motions proposed
by the same hon. member: Motions Nos. 32, 48 and 62.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's note: See list under Division No. 273]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 32, 48 and 62
rejected.
The final question is on Motion No. 75. The vote on this
motion also applies to Motion No. 83.
(2255 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who have just voted be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will be voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote nay,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will vote yea.
The Deputy Speaker: By unanimous consent all those votes
are cast as indicated.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 75, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 274)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
13680
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood-178
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-43
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 75 agreed to.
Consquently Motion No. 83 is also agreed to.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 275)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
13681
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells-170
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Collins
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Ur
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-58
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Dupuy
Easter
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Proud
Ringuette-Maltais
Simmons
Walker
Whelan
Young
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adjourn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.)