CONTENTS
Thursday, February 16, 1995
Bill C-69. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9693
Bill C-302. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9693
Bill C-303. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9693
Motion moved and adopted. 9694
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9694
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9694
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9695
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9695
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9695
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9695
Motion for concurrence 9697
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 130; Nays, 74. 9697
Bill C-70. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9698
Bill C-60. Report stage (without amendment) 9698
Motion for concurrence 9698
Motion for third reading 9698
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9706
Bill C-68. Motion for second reading 9706
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 9724
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9724
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9724
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9724
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9725
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9725
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9725
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9725
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9725
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9725
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9726
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9726
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9726
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9726
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9727
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9727
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9728
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9728
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9728
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9728
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9731
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9731
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9732
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 9735
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9736
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9738
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9743
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9752
Bill C-263. Motion for second reading 9753
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9761
9693
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 16, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1005)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-69, an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
He said: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inform
the House that the bill just introduced is in response to the order
of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 68(6), made last
Tuesday.
Consequently, further proceedings will be subject to the
provisions of Standing Order 68(7)(a), which includes a
requirement that consideration of second reading be postponed
until no earlier than the third sitting day after today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to amend the Canada
Health Act (nutrition services).
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today
in this House a bill to amend the Canada Health Act with regard
to nutrition services.
This bill includes the expression ``nutrition services'' in the
definition of health services provided under the existing Canada
Health Act. We all know that nutrition is an essential component
of health and that Canadian dieticians are the only health
professionals duly trained and authorized to evaluate a person's
nutritional status.
Furthermore, the Canadian government recognizes dieticians
as key resources in developing health policies such as Canada's
Food Guide, which sets guidelines for good health. I therefore
feel that it is important, as much for the general public as for the
order of dieticians, that they be formally recognized and
included in the Canada Health Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (dangerous intoxication).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill.
I know other members in the House were working on similar
bills. The motivation behind the bill is to remove the ability of
persons to hold themselves harmless from responsibility for
self-induced intoxication.
As members know, recently the Supreme Court held that
persons could be held harmless from the result of their own
actions because of self-induced intoxication. This goes against
the grain of all thinking Canadians and common sense.
This bill, which I would ask all members in the House to
support, would create a separate offence. The offence of being
criminally intoxicated would ensure that Canadians are held
personally responsible for the results of their actions. They
cannot hide behind the charter of rights and freedoms to escape
responsibility for what they have done. This would prevent
violence to others who are innocent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
9694
(1010)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for a couple of
motions. I move:
That notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, when the
House adjourns on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, it shall stand adjourned until
10 a.m. on Friday February 24, 1995;
That the address of the President of the United States of America, to be
delivered in the House Chamber on Thursday, February 23, 1995 before
members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons, together with all
introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of
Commons Debates of Friday, February 24, 1995 and form part of the records of
this House; and
That media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and
related remarks be authorized pursuant to established guidelines for such
occasions.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That two Library of Parliament research officers assigned to the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be allowed to travel
to Toronto on February 19 and 20 in order to attend a conference of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present a petition today from
men and women in southern Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House
to the fact that public safety is the number one priority of the
criminal justice system. The existing controls on law-abiding,
responsible firearm owners are more than enough to ensure
public safety and that the current and proposed laws
criminalizing certain firearm activities when the danger to the
public safety and criminal intent is either virtually non-existent
or totally absent.
The target for all gun control laws in the Criminal Code of
Canada must be the criminals who are either a danger to the
safety of the public or those who have criminal intent, not
law-abiding, responsible firearm owners. No amount of gun
control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from
acquiring guns by illegal means. What our criminal justice
system must ensure is that criminals who steal, import, sell and
possess guns and/or use guns in the commission of a crime will
be severely punished.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request Parliament to
support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who
use weapons in the commission of a crime; second, support new
Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and
protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms, and last, support legislation which repeals
and modifies existing controls-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I remind hon.
members that it is normal to read the prayer only and not to enter
into a form of debate when presenting petitions.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this petition is about abuse and violence in society.
[English]
The petitioners believe that unnecessary violence and abuse
in society in all of its forms, on radio and television, have
become a major concern of the Canadian population.
(1015 )
They want the government to ensure that the CRTC is able to
regulate it and reduce it and if possible remove it, I suspect.
They point out that it is not necessary to educate and it goes
counter to families trying to raise their children.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present three
petitions on the whole business of firearms legislation. Two
petitions are from towns in Yellowhead and one is from Ontario.
Among other things the petitioners request that Parliament
support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals
who use weapons in the commission of a crime. I concur with
that request.
9695
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker
I have petition with 1,826 signatures. It is a rather interesting
petition. It was the inspiration of a Mrs. Ruby Stone who lives in
my riding.
She is petitioning the government as all these people are
against the introduction of a $2 coin. Some of us may not be
aware that there is a study going on in this country to introduce a
$2 coin. Sometimes these things are slipped in. I know this
government would not likely do that.
I think we should introduce more $2 bills because if you use a
$5 bill you usually get four coins back. People are getting tired
carrying them around. I support these petitioners.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is with pleasure that I
rise today to present a petition containing signatures from
people in Beaverton, Fenelon Falls, Woodville and Cannington
in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
This petition calls on Parliament to oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 78 of my
constituents from Gold River and Campbell River, British
Columbia, who call upon this Parliament to reject any further
firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council and
rather focus on the misuse of firearms by violent criminals.
I support the petition.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition today from some 25 lower
mainlanders, some of whom are constituents of mine from New
Westminster-Burnaby, British Columbia.
The petitioners fear that inclusion of sexual orientation in the
Canadian Human Rights Act will infringe on the historic rights
of Canadians such as the freedoms of religion, conscience,
expression and association. Therefore, they call upon
Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to present several petitions. Several members of my
constituency of Trinity-Spadina call upon the Government of
Canada to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to give
statutory recognition of homosexual relationships and to
enshrine their equality before the law with that of heterosexual
relationships.
On behalf of my constituents, I humbly submit these
petitions.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I also rise today for members of my constituency of
Trinity-Spadina who call on the government to enact
legislation of a national policy on child care that is unifying and
provides non-discretionary, equitable and sufficient service to
all residents of Canada.
On behalf of my constituents, I humbly submit this petition.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have four petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of
Simcoe Centre today. The first group of petitioners request that
the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to
include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that
such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same
benefits and societal privileges as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition concerns the subject of the family. The
petitioners request that Parliament oppose any legislation that
would directly or indirectly redefine the family, including the
provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are not
related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption, where marriage is
defined as a legal union between a man and a woman.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
third petition is on the issue of euthanasia.
(1020 )
The petitioners request that current laws regarding active
euthanasia be enforced and that Parliament not sanction or allow
the aiding or abetting of suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
final petition today is of the subject of section 745 of the
Criminal Code. The petitioners request that Parliament repeal
this section so that those convicted of first degree murder will
have to serve their full 25-year sentence behind bars.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today. The first is to
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament
9696
make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition from the constituents of
Hamilton-Wentworth calls upon Parliament to put an end to
the discriminatory treatment of gay and lesbian citizens and
their familial relationships by amending federal legislation that
currently allows unequal treatment, including an amendment to
the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
Madam Speaker, the third petition calls for Parliament to not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of the
great communities of Logan Lake, Kamloops, Ashcroft, Cache
Creek, Merritt and Savona. There are hundreds of names on this
petition.
The people point out that Canada's mining industry is a
mainstay of employment in over 150 communities across
Canada, an important contributor to Canada's gross domestic
product in total exports and a cornerstone of our economic
future. They point out that the industry has proposed a 10 point
plan of action which would enhance the mining industry of
Canada.
They are calling upon Parliament to take any action that will
increase employment in this sector, promote exploration,
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and essentially keep mining in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
46 and 128.
[Text]
Question No. 46-Mr. Chatters:
With respect to government funding of Indian bands, tribal councils and
aboriginal/Metis organizations, (a) how many are in a deficit situation, (b) for
each of them, what is the amount (i) received in the last fiscal year, (ii) of their
current deficit, (iii) they will receive for the current fiscal year?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am
informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and Canadian Heritage as follows:
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, DIAND, is concerned:
(a) For the year ended March 31, 1993, 159 Indian bands,
tribal councils and aboriginal organizations are in a deficit
position.1-2
(b) With respect to the names and deficit situation of Indian
bands, tribal councils and aboriginal organizations, this
information is confidential third party financial information
under section 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and
cannot be released.
1 DIAND does not fund Metis organizations. Please refer to the answer by
Canadian Heritage.
2 DIAND determines a recipient's deficit position by applying an indicator of
whether the recipient's cumulative deficit is greater than 8 per cent of its total
revenues, one month's cashflow. Statistics are collected on this basis.
In so far as the Department of Canadian Heritage is
concerned:
(a) Based on the 1992-93 audited financial statements
available-48 per cent were available-27 organizations were
in a deficit situation.
(b) With respect to the name and deficit situation of these
organizations, this information is confidential third party
financial information under section 20(1)(b) of the Access to
Information Act and cannot be released.
Question No. 128-Mr. Simmons:
What action will be taken on the recommendation made by the Auditor
General in his 1994 annual report that the ``Ice Services Branch must ensure that
its contingency plans can be put into effect quickly and successfully'' in the
event of systems malfunction or communications failure so as to avert any
possible ``rerouting or disruption of ship traffic in and out of Canadian ports or,
at worst, loss of life and property?''
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Data collection buoys are stationed
so that in the event of an emergency they can back each other up.
These buoys are equipped with information transmission
devices which ensure transmittal of all necessary information.
The buoys and equipment have been designed and are situated so
that, short of several stations failing at once, the ice services
program will be maintained.
A complete failure of all the ice program systems at once is
highly unlikely. In the event of a major catastrophe, we have an
agreement with the U.S. National Ice Centre to provide essential
ice information to our clients until our normal operations can be
resumed. We can do the same for the U.S. We developed this
backup plan over the past year and it will be tested shortly.
9697
Once these tests have been completed, a comprehensive
backup plan will be published in order that Canadians will know
exactly how ice information is being provided.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The questions as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
question stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9697
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules and related acts, laid upon the table Tuesday,
February 14, 1995, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
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. 162)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-130
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bélisle
Caron
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
9698
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Sauvageau
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Assadourian
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Hopkins
Valeri
(1105)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules and related acts be read the first time and
printed.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1110 )
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, an act
respecting an agreement between Her Majesty in right of
Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian Band, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Irwin moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise to address the House on third and final reading of Bill
C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian Band Agreement Act.
As the member of Parliament for Central Nova, on behalf of
the Pictou Landing Micmac First Nations people in my riding, I
thank hon. members for their support of this bill at second
reading and in committee. I am certain that the more than 400
Pictou Landing Micmacs appreciate your support in helping to
bring much awaited certainty to their lives.
This may appear to be a minor piece of legislation but it is
very important to the First Nation concerned. Therefore it
deserves quick passage through Parliament.
Bill C-60 is important for three reasons. First, the bill will
ensure that claims by members of the First Nations related to the
effluent treatment system at Boat Harbour are to be directed to a
fund established for that purpose under the agreement. As a
result it will protect both the Government of Canada and the
Pictou Landing Micmac from further claims.
Second, Bill C-60 will ensure that the Pictou Landing
Micmac are responsible for managing the settlement money that
has been and will be paid out by the federal government.
Third, Bill C-60 will confirm that the Government of Canada
intends to live up to its commitment to aboriginal people,
including commitments made by previous governments.
Hon. members from all sides should recognize that the
settlement agreement with the Pictou Landing Micmac is
already well on its way to full and complete implementation. We
are not being asked today to approve new arrangements, to make
new commitments, or to break new ground. We are being asked
to live up to outstanding commitments that have been made by
the Government of Canada to the Pictou Landing Micmac of
Nova Scotia. Living up to that commitment is very important, so
important is it that this government put it in writing in an
agreement.
In our red book we mapped out our intention to build new
partnerships with aboriginal people. Today we are being asked
to live up to that pledge, not just for the Pictou Landing Micmac
but for all aboriginal people. Specifically, this bill asks us to
take appropriate action to protect both the Government of
Canada and the First Nation from further claims related to the
Boat Harbour effluent treatment system.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you a little more about Boat
Harbour back when. Imagine a picture with rolling hills dipping
to the ocean, sandy beaches, boats drifting by with multitudes of
fish in the ocean and majestic black cormorants nesting in
9699
Pictou Harbour. I hope this image will bring you and my hon.
colleagues closer to Pictou Landing and closer to the
understanding of the importance of this bill, because in spite of
this picture just painted this is not the Boat Harbour that exists
today.
(1115 )
For more than two decades treated effluent from Scott Pulp
and Paper Mill at Abercrombie Point has been released into Boat
Harbour, less than half a kilometre from the Pictou Landing
Micmac community. This has had a serious and negative impact
on the environment and on the quality of life on the reserve and
in the surrounding communities in Pictou County.
Now Boat Harbour is an industrial effluent treatment facility
operated by the province of Nova Scotia. It serves the nearby
Scott Maritimes Limited kraft paper mill. Boat Harbour is
adjacent to Pictou Harbour, about 150 kilometres northeast of
Halifax.
The Boat Harbour holding pond was created by blocking the
entrance of a former tidal estuary to the Northumberland Strait.
Boat Harbour is currently surrounded by provincial crown land
and the reserve lands of the Pictou Landing Micmac.
It bears repeating the First Nation was not happy about this
effluent treatment system when first approached in 1966. It
agreed only after intense lobbying by Nova Scotia.
The damming of Boat Harbour permanently raised the level of
the harbour and flooded approximately 12 hectares of reserve
land. The harbour became devoid of oxygen almost immediately
after the treatment facility commenced operation.
Over the ensuing 12 years the First Nation made a number of
representations to the Government of Nova Scotia seeking
compensation for damage to its land and for the flooding.
Although the province made improvements to the treatment
facility, it ended negotiations with the First Nation in 1982 by
refusing to recognize its claim. The Pictou Landing Micmac
then entered the federal government's specific claims process.
In 1986 the First Nation filed suit against the federal
government alleging breach of fiduciary duty.
Boat Harbour has been lost as a source of food for the
Micmac. For the past 25 years this First Nation has also had to
forego hunting, wildlife harvesting and other benefits on some
12 hectares of flooded reserve land.
As a result of the federal government's fiduciary
responsibility to the First Nation people the government reached
an out of court settlement with the First Nation that has avoided
a potentially lengthy and costly legal battle. Now it rests with
this hon. House to bring this chapter in the government's
relations with the Pictou Landing Micmac to a close. There
should be no hesitation to do so by the hon. House.
As my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pointed
out at second reading, Bill C-60 is very straightforward.
The settlement agreement ratified by community members in
a 141 to 25 vote in the summer of 1993 is a $35 million
settlement which includes a $20 million compensation package;
$8 million was earmarked to be distributed among the members
of the First Nation for individual compensation. Much of this
money has already been paid out; $9.725 million was placed in a
continuing compensation fund to address special claims by
members of the First Nation related to the Boat Harbour
environmental problem; $2.275 million was allocated to support
projects that would benefit the First Nation, including the
building of a multi-purpose recreational centre and the
establishment of a Pictou Landing economic development
promotional package. This money is intended to compensate the
members of the First Nation for general impact associated with
the Boat Harbour facility.
The remaining $15 million in the settlement has been directed
into a community development trust fund that will enable
members of the First Nation to relocate if necessary. This fund is
being administered by the First Nation and will ensure that the
First Nation and its members will be able to protect themselves
from any future health effects from Boat Harbour.
This bill accomplishes two basic objectives, both of which are
in the interests of the First Nation, the federal government and
the Canadian taxpayer. The first objective is to ensure that the
$35 million settlement fund that has been agreed upon will be
the full amount for which the Government of Canada will be
liable related to the Boat Harbour effluent treatment system.
(1120)
As the House has been previously informed, about 80 per cent
of the settlement funds have already been transferred to the First
Nation. In turn, the First Nation has paid out most of the $8
million earmarked for individual compensation to eligible
members.
Any claims over and above this amount will be addressed
through the $9.725 million continuing compensation fund. The
Pictou Landing Micmac have also been using the $2.75 million
allocated to the band compensation and development account to
support projects that will benefit the entire community such as
the building of a multi-purpose centre and the establishment of
a Pictou Landing economic development promotional package.
These two initiatives and others pursued by the Pictou
Landing Micmac will be of great benefit not only to the First
Nation but to other residents of Pictou County.
9700
Bill C-60 provides that any claims by the members of the
First Nation that are not already settled by acceptance of the
payments to individuals be directed to the continuing
compensation fund. It will ensure that both the Government of
Canada and the First Nation are protected from any such claims.
The second objective to be achieved by Bill C-60 is to
stipulate that the moneys paid to the Pictou Landing Micmac
under the final agreement will not be considered Indian moneys
as defined by the Indian Act.
This benefits the federal government because it releases the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from
any responsibility for managing these moneys. In these times of
fiscal restraint the department should avoid taking on
administrative functions that can and should be performed by
First Nations.
This provision of Bill C-60 benefits the First Nation because
it will ensure that the Pictou Landing Micmac have complete
control over their compensation dollars. This would not be
possible if the moneys were considered Indian moneys as
defined pursuant to the Indian Act.
This is one of the most important provisions of this bill. I have
said this government is committed to fulfilling its obligations to
aboriginal people. Beyond just fulfilling commitments, we want
to build a new partnership, a partnership based on trust, mutual
respect and participation in the decision making process.
This provision of Bill C-60 is a step toward making this goal a
reality. Management of their own funds affords First Nations
opportunities to chart their own course for economic
development.
I am confident that my constituents, the Pictou Landing
Micmac, like many First Nations across the country will
prosper. The government recognizes that the untapped potential
of aboriginal people is untapped for Canada. In a small way the
development opportunities afforded by the provision of Bill
C-60 open the door to potential.
The projects already borne from this settlement like the
Pictou Landing economic development promotional package
are just the beginning, a beginning not only for the First Nation
but for other communities in Pictou County and in Nova Scotia
as a whole.
Implementation of the Boat Harbour agreement has been
proceeding well with no significant problems encountered by
either party to the agreement. Nevertheless, the settlement
agreement does require Canada to explore ways that might yield
a solution to the environmental problem that now exists at Boat
Harbour.
Toward this end several federal departments are facilitating
and working with the Pictou Landing Micmac and other
concerned parties to achieve the rehabilitation of Boat Harbour.
I want to advise hon. members in this House that the federal
government is committed to ensuring that the clean-up of Boat
Harbour meets Canada's high environmental standards. This
proposed legislation will have no impact on this process.
As a party to the final agreement, the Pictou Landing Micmac
have clearly indicated that they want and expect this legislation
to be enacted.
(1125)
To ensure that Bill C-60 meets with this understanding in the
settlement agreement the First Nation was consulted during the
drafting of the legislation. Members of the First Nation are now
awaiting Parliament's decision. In making that decision I would
ask my hon. colleagues to keep the crown's honour in mind.
I would ask them to remember that this legislation is the
product of a clear and genuine commitment which was made at
the request of the Pictou Landing Micmac more than a year ago.
I would remind them that the government's word was accepted
by the First Nation in good faith despite the problems it has
endured over the past 25 years.
It is time to put the unfinished business behind us so that the
First Nations and the federal government's energy can be
devoted to building for the future rather than rectifying past
mistakes. We can and must do so by giving our unanimous
support to Bill C-60.
Therefore, as the member of Parliament for Central Nova I
ask on behalf of my constituents, the Micmac First Nations
people, for unanimous support from this honourable House for
Bill C-60.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, let
me tell you right away that the Bloc Quebecois will be
supporting this bill. As usual, I will try and explain the Micmac
reality. I think it is important to give a little background because
the Micmac Nation has always been recognized as a fishing
nation living for the most part by rivers, lagoons or the sea.
Many people wonder about the meaning of the word
``Micmac''. In fact, there are two: ``a nation and its language'',
and ``my family and friends''. When I travelled just recently to
the Restigouche reserve, which by the way is called Listuguj,
Whatever meaning you give to the word Micmac, what I saw and
experienced on the reserve of which Chief Miller is the worthy
representative confirms that both meanings perfectly describe
the reality as I experienced it on this reserve.
I saw people bound by very strong ties of friendship. Families
form a very tightly knit fabric. Micmacs are also very proud of
their language. In fact, they make a point of promoting the
Micmac language in schools. Micmacs have traditionally been
very close to their roots and accorded great importance to their
culture.
9701
Historically, what set Micmac villages apart from others was
the fact that lodgings often housed one or more families and
were located by the water. The significance of this bill's impact
comes from the fact that the Pictou Landing reserve was located
by the water, which is essential. Naturally, all that has happened
over the course of the last three decades has had a direct impact
on Micmacs' lifestyle. I felt that this needed to be pointed out.
The Micmac Nation is a nation who was much affected by the
arrival of Europeans. A population decline ensued. In the early
days of the colony, there were about 50,000 Micmacs, as
compared to a mere 10,000 registered Micmacs today. Some
kind of socio-cultural conflict arose also because, for the
Micmac Nation as for other aboriginal nations, exposure to the
European culture did not always prove beneficial.
Socio-cultural shocks have led this nation, and others, into
dire poverty. Even during British rule, efforts were made to turn
Micmacs into farmers but, given their traditional way of life,
these efforts failed of course. Integration attempts continued,
with Micmacs being sent out to work on the railway and in
logging. Finally, you realize that these people were really
sincere in the importance they accorded to their culture, a
culture that has not only lived on to this day but is still highly
valued, while all integration attempts have failed.
(1130)
Therefore, I felt it was important to present this short
scenario, because the bill relates to a Micmac nation, the Pictou
Landing community, which has always lived close to water. This
bill deals with a specific body of water, the Boat Harbour.
The problem started when the Scott Maritimes Limited Pulp
and Paper Mills settled at Abercrombie Point. As we know, pulp
and paper companies tend to pollute the environment. As well,
the protection of the environment was not seen as vital then as it
is now. The priority was to create jobs in an area largely covered
with forests. In fact, that is where the bulk of wood harvesting
took place.
However, in 1965, the provincial government decided to build
a waste treatment plant after realizing that the company was
polluting the water. It was thought to be a good idea to set up a
treatment plant to try to solve the problem. I say ``to try to
solve'' because, as I will show in the next few minutes, that
attempt unfortunately failed, with the result that lots of
contaminants ended up in the water.
That plant, which was built to treat the water coming from the
pulp and paper mill, created a body of water covering several
acres, in the vicinity of the reserve, and even on reserve land.
From the very beginning, there was a lack of movement on the
government's part regarding the cleaning up of this
environmental catastrophe. This is deplorable. For two
decades, from 1965 to 1985, the Micmac tried to come to an
amicable settlement with the federal government, which is
responsible for native issues, and also with the Province of Nova
Scotia, which has jurisdiction over the environment.
For almost 20 years, the Micmac tried to reach some
agreement. Because nothing was being done, they finally
decided, in 1986, to sue the government.
In this area, the environment has reached the critical stage in
terms of its deterioration. According to some information, the
level of pollution is such that it has been blamed for a number of
deaths on the reserve.
Through an agreement in principle, the government proposed
a financial out-of-court settlement to the Pictou Landing Indian
band. That agreement in principle was reached in December
1992 and ratified in July 1993. It is a compensation agreement
intended to settle out of court a suit brought by the Micmac in
1986.
The bill may look like a minor piece of legislation. There are
only four clauses. Consequently, one might think that it does not
deal with a complex issue. However, I know from experience
that the number of clauses is no indication of how complex a
piece of legislation can be. That bill may have only four clauses,
but the last one refers to a specific agreement which, as I will
show in a minute, is flawed in many ways. Although the bill does
have some merits, as the hon. member pointed out. For instance,
the money to be paid will not be money as provided under the
Indian Act, which means that the community will be able to
spend it as it sees fit.
This is probably one of the few positive factors I found in the
bill. If we refer to the agreement as such, and there is a reference
to the agreement in clause 4, we realize that it does not really
deal with the environmental problem. And I am not so sure that
we are doing the Pictou Landing First Nation a big favour.
Clause 4 of the bill, where we find the reference to section 13
of the agreement, mentions a compensation account. In the
event of legal proceedings in the days and months to come,
claims may only be made against this compensation account.
(1135)
We in the Bloc Quebecois considered trying to help those who
did not waive their rights, because, as I will explain later on, the
people who use this compensation fund waive their right to sue
the federal government, and in return, the government gives
them $35 million, and I will give you a breakdown of this
amount later on. In any case, at first we had some questions
about section 13, because some people had not waived their
rights.
What happens to those people? I will expand on this later on,
but before I go any further, I would also like to thank my
colleagues on the standing committee who agreed to adjourn so I
9702
could investigate this particular point, since we were not
entirely satisfied with the response we got from the bureaucracy.
That day, after meeting with officials from the Department of
Indian Affairs, we were supposed to adopt the bill clause by
clause, but because of my questions and the response from the
officials, we agreed, many thanks to my colleagues, to adjourn
for two days and-it never rains but it pours-I was given a draft
amendment a few minutes before the committee started a special
sitting to hear the Bloc Quebecois amendment, but
unfortunately, the amendment suggested by our legal expert was
not quite what we had in mind. As a result, I had to go before the
committee empty-handed and apologize.
We then considered introducing an amendment at the report
stage, and although I did not discuss this with my colleagues on
the standing committee, in the end, we decided not to introduce
an amendment, after receiving additional information from the
officials and getting in touch with the community of Pictou
Landing.
Initially, and I will provide some details later on, we were
somewhat dubious in the case of individuals who did not waive
their right, about their ability to bring legal proceedings against
the company or Nova Scotia, and we could perhaps discuss this
later on, but meanwhile, I would like to say a word of thanks to
my colleagues, because they gave me a chance to get to the
bottom of this matter and do a decent job in committee, in other
words, to carefully examine each clause and then decide
whether or not we wanted an amendment.
I touched on this earlier, and I would just like to say, very
briefly, that this is money that will not be subject to the
provisions of section 35 of the Indian Act. This means the Pictou
Landing community will be able to use this money as it sees fit,
without being restricted by the provisions of the Indian Act.
I would now like to comment on the agreement as such, and
perhaps I should point out that only $17 million remains to be
paid to the community, so the rest of the money has already been
paid, and that being said, I may have quite a few things to say
later on about the logic of having a bill before the House today
when the process has already started and all the money or almost
all has been paid, so that the government is saying: I just want
you to agree and adopt this bill.
It seems to me that certain elements with respect to the
process of negotiation with the band must be taken into account,
the government's fiduciary responsibility, the Bloc Quebecois'
responsibility as the official opposition and the responsibility of
the opposition parties of the time, have been overlooked. The
whole thing is now presented to us as a package. Now we are
faced with an alternative, that is, do we vote in favour of the bill
or not. Since 95 per cent of the people in the community voted in
favour, our options are somewhat limited.
So, therefore, naturally, we will support the bill without
amendment. We do, however, have a few things to say about the
agreement, and I think we will use this debate to express them. I
said earlier that the agreement was signed on July 20, 1993 and
was ratified following a referendum. At the time, 95 per cent of
the people said they were in favour of it. In a minute we will
have a look at why they were in favour. I have my own personal
idea on the matter. In democratic terms, however, we cannot
criticize the agreement as such. Given the very high rate of
participation-80 per cent-and the strong vote in favour-95
per cent-, we really cannot criticize the democratic aspect of
the question.
(1140)
Furthermore, according to the officials we asked, the
remaining 5 per cent are people registered on the list of band
members, but who do not live on the reservation. We were told
they could live as far away as California. There were also a
number of people with intellectual handicaps, who were unable
to vote because they could not understand the scope of the
agreement.
I will quickly go through the agreement, section by section, to
highlight certain comments that, among other things, raise
doubt about the seriousness of the government's intention to
really resolve the legal action issue and also the basic
environmental issue.
In section 2 of the agreement, Canada agrees to pay a $35
million settlement. This amount is intended to cover
compensation and to fulfil the government's fiduciary duty.
Three funds have been created: one for band compensation and
development, one for community development and one for
individual compensation and development. I do not wish to get
into the breakdown of the $35 million, so suffice it to say that the
three funds exist. I will repeat throughout my speech that, in our
opinion, this is not enough to compensate for the current
environmental damage and the wrong done to these people.
As I have said, since 1965, it is clear that the environment has
been seriously harmed by the construction of the effluent
treatment facility. Over the past 30 years, the government has
been slow to put facilities in place. It has somewhat neglected its
fiduciary duty towards first nations because they continually
protested the way they were being treated, and neither the
federal nor the Nova Scotia government made many firm
commitments or took much real action to correct the situation.
We can also say that the negative effects have taken on
catastrophic proportions at present. Earlier, I mentioned 162
hectares. Responsibility for resolving the issue and for taking
legal action is now in the government's lap. We think that the
government is not only hesitating now and will be hesitant in the
future to enter into legal proceedings, but that it will also
eventually take legal proceedings in the event that Boat Harbour
is further developed. Therefore, we have reason to doubt wheth-
9703
er the government really has the will to really resolve the main
issue.
The true problem remains the same, even with this bill,
because pollution has not disappeared. All that is proposed is
that some aboriginals be relocated. We might also wonder what
type of land aboriginal people will be able to afford with that
$35 million. And we are told that moneys have already been
earmarked for purchasing this land. But will these people be
better off? Unfortunately, we do not have the answer. I see this
merely as an attempt to relieve the federal government of its
fiduciary duty to aboriginals and to get out of a tight spot. So we
have to find out whether the move will solve the problem.
I also know that the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia
are trying to assess the issue of environment versus
employment. One cannot deny that Scott Paper creates a lot of
jobs in Nova Scotia. We also know that this community suffers
from a high rate of unemployment. So can we afford to say to
this company, given the present situation, that standards will be
set so high, that we will allow so many suits that, in the end, it
will have to close its doors and lay off a lot of employees?
We are caught in this tension between the environment and
employment. I understand that employment was easily given
higher priority than the environment at the time. But, for several
years now, there seems to have been increasing concern over the
environment. So the debate or tension between the environment
and employment remains unresolved. And for our part, we can
see that the government has decided to give priority to
employment over the environment.
(1145)
I would like to move on to section 5 now. In this section, one
begins to see the Canadian government's position in the matter.
The agreement was reached in December 1992 and ratified in
July 1993. Even before the agreement was signed, each band
member had received $2,000. This, in itself, is a clear indication
of the government's approach to the matter.
Even before an agreement had been reached, even before a bill
had been introduced, the government had already started with its
hand-outs. We have to realize also that the Micmac Indians on
that reserve live in appalling conditions, as practically none of
them have jobs. Their environment is heavily polluted and, after
30 years, they are sick and tired of negotiating or trying to
negotiate with the government. They have to set money aside to
set up a fund to pursue their case against the government. It is in
such a context that they are presented with a nice cheque for
$2,000 and told: This is a first instalment, you will get more,
probably as much, but first of all you must relinquish your right
to sue. You sign away that right and the federal government will
give you $2,000.
We can see why these people would jump at this offer, it is a
ray of hope, a chance to improve their situation. Not only were
they given a cheque for $2,000, but individuals were promised
an additional amount of $1,500 upon signing the agreement in
principle. Except that the parliamentary process was
conveniently forgotten. This was done without us, we were
informed only when the bill was tabled and, today, we are asked
to approve a bill implementing this agreement. I find this
approach questionable.
This is an approach that we consider paternalistic. It is like
saying: We have been negligent, but we are going to make up for
it, we are going to give you some money and you forget about the
whole thing. With this money you will be able to move
elsewhere. We, as a government, are not going to restore the
environment, but neither are we going to launch any lawsuit
against you. People who sign and take the money must sign an
undertaking not to sue the government of Canada or of Nova
Scotia or the company. Everybody involved in that mess is
getting off scotfree. They did not act responsibly and now
people have to take the money because they are in dire straits.
This is a paternalistic approach. We find this kind of approach
questionable, at best. In short, band members had already
received money, $2,000 in December 1991, and $1,500 in
December 1992, before the agreement was signed, and now the
government confronts them with a fait accompli.
Before I became a parliamentarian I was, among others
things, a negotiator for twenty years or so. This is a well known
fact in negotiating circles: when one of the parties to the
negotiations is in a very weakened position-negotiating being
basically a power struggle-it is easy to promise things, give
them systematically and then say to this party: Now, all you have
to do is to sign this form and all your problems will be solved.
Everything was done very quickly, in a paternalistic manner,
and the environmental issue has not been settled. The whole
process is highly questionable.
The agreement provides for a period of prescription; that is to
say that individuals have up to two years after the signing of the
agreement to decide whether to give up their rights and be
entitled to this famous compensation fund, or not to give them
up. According to the interpretation given by officials, these
individuals are going to be caught between a rock and a hard
place, because it will be extremely difficult to challenge the
legislation on account of section 13 which creates a further
impediment, with respect to individual rights, for people
wanting to appeal to the courts. As I said before, it is this
particular point we find extremely questionable.
(1150)
Thus, this prescription period will come into effect in July of
this year. Then, not only will the people have not taken
advantage of this find it difficult to start legal proceedings but
they
9704
will no longer have access to the compensation fund. They will
be left with nothing at all.
Other sections as well are a little disturbing. The federal
government is getting out from under any future fiduciary duties
or obligations towards the community with regard to the risks
associated with the facilities. It not only said that you are
released of responsibilities, of prosecutions concerning the
environment, but that, in the future, if the company decides to
pollute even more, the government will assume these
responsibilities and thus release individuals from them.
We see that the environment has been greatly deteriorating for
almost 30 years and we recognize that this could continue in the
future and that the federal government is released of all future
responsibilities. I think that this is prejudicial enough to the
environment to be mentioned.
Section 7 stipulates the responsibilities of the chief and his or
her council with regard to the management of the money
received. I agree that the $35 million received are not native
moneys but one has to realize that the band and the chief must
meet certain requirements. This money is not given
unconditionally, to be spent however they wish.
In section 8, the government recognizes that Canada's current
position is that it is not at all sure that Boat Harbour will be
brought back to its natural condition, that is, the condition it was
in before 1965. The government itself admits that it is not sure
this can be done. But the government of Canada is committed to
exploring possible ways of dealing with the environmental
problem.
We have to take a good look at the words that are used. The
government will explore possible ways of dealing with the
problem. There are other words to which I would like to draw
your attention. The government of Canada may undertake, at its
sole discretion, reasonable action that it deems necessary. As a
negotiator, I could not accept that such vague words as ``at its
sole discretion'' and ``reasonable action'' be included in an
agreement, especially since it is the government itself which
must decide what constitutes reasonable action.
There are some flaws in the agreement and we feel that it is
important for us to inform you of these flaws and to tell you that,
unfortunately, it is a done deal and that this agreement must now
be justified. We will not keep our mouths shut. We will
denounce all these flaws. I hope the government will take my
comments into account so that things are done differently in the
future.
Section 9 deals with the creation of a committee on
environmental issues composed of three members from the
Micmac community and three members appointed by the
government of Canada. It says further on that the number could
increase with the agreement of both parties. What does that
mean? It means that, eventually, the government of Nova Scotia
could be represented on this committee and so could the main
pulp and paper company, thereby diluting native participation.
It is something to be cautious about. Fortunately, both parties
concerned have to agree to this.
I have no advice to give. I think that people are mature
enough, but personally, if I were on the aboriginal side, I would
maintain my participation on the committee at 50 per cent and
would not agree to the addition of other members, who would
reduce my impact. Just a warning in passing, but a necessary
one.
Section 12 provides that all members that have received
moneys must automatically renounce completely any present or
future claims. Thus, anyone accepting money, who has recourse
to the compensation account, agrees not to take any action
regarding past or future events. The danger is that the Scott
Paper company will feel it is off the hook, that it will continue to
pollute-I know that jobs are involved-but the difficulty,
however, is that none of the compensation money has been set
aside for the environment.
(1155)
After all, this is a company that is providing employment,
even if it hardly gets full marks for its environmental
performance. In my view, this company does not even get a
passing mark. So, in exchange for an amount of money, the
members of the community must forever agree not to take any
action against the federal government, Nova Scotia, or the
company.
In fact, all rights to take legal action are transferred to the
federal government, in the terms I mentioned earlier, at the
discretion of the government, reasonable action, as decided by
the federal government. One is left to wonder if the federal
government is going to take its environmental responsibilities
seriously, and I must admit that I have not yet ruled out the
possibility of pointing out to my colleague from Laurentides,
the environment critic, that there is a major environmental issue
at stake here of which she should be aware. As I was saying, if
the company decides to step up production, thereby increasing
pollution, it is a great pity, but there is almost no conceivable
way of stopping it at the present time.
As for section 13, I probably raised the question with officials
and was told that my question was perhaps not clear the first
time. After reading the committee blues once again, I realize
that the question was clear enough and that the official probably
changed his mind in the meantime. But section 13 only refers to
the compensation account. Those who relinquished their rights
have already dipped into the compensation account. Those who
do not give up their rights by the July 1995 deadline I mentioned
earlier can access the compensation account but, according to
9705
lawyers, the department and, after checking with the band, the
Indians themselves, no one can get around this account.
Therefore, band members who have decided not to give up
their rights will be forced eventually to use the compensation
account, with little or no recourse against the different levels of
government or the company. The purpose of the compensation
account is to settle past and future bills, but it will be the only
money offered by the government.
The federal government must have thought: ``I will pay $35
million to settle past and future debts, and that is how I will
discharge my fiduciary responsibility toward the Pictou
Landing Indians.'' In a nutshell, I think that is what the
government attempted to do. No one, I think, could circumvent
the provisions in this bill and say, ``I will go further by
launching a personal lawsuit for, say, $10 million''. People will
always be brought back to the compensation account, which is a
major obstacle to taking individual legal action. If I were in the
shoes of someone who did not give up his rights, I would see if I
could sue under the constitution.
I know that this would be an additional obstacle, but I think
that individuals can probably still sue. However, the clause I
have just read to you will certainly be used by crown attorneys to
bring people back to the compensation fund.
In conclusion, there are positive elements in the agreement.
This money will be exempt from the Indian Act. However, this
approach is highly questionable from a regulatory and
parliamentary standpoint. On one hand, the federal government
and the province of Nova Scotia have let the situation
deteriorate for 30 years. The federal government has neglected
its fiduciary role for 30 years. It takes action only when the
damage is done and almost irreversible.
(1200)
It entices the natives knowing full well that they are living in
miserable conditions. It waves this $2,000 cheque at them and
promises another $1,500 will be paid if the agreement is signed.
It tells the band: ``You will have a compensation account. You
will have up to $35 million to relocate and start up new
projects.'' Given their living conditions, this offer is so
tempting that I can see why they jump at it. The approach is
paternalistic. Any right to sue is taken away in a context where
the scope is so broad and the words used so vague that nothing
stops the government from doing absolutely nothing and letting
the situation deteriorate if it so pleases. Finally, the government
comes up with this bill when all is settled.
When I say that all is settled, I mean that the agreement was
signed and money paid. The band already committed itself. It is
all done. The only thing left to do is for us to put our seal of
approval on the whole thing.
Regarding the settlement process and the parliamentary
process, we express serious concerns. Sadly, we have been put in
front of a fait accompli. We will go along with the referendum
decision whereby a 95 per cent majority approved the agreement
as is, but I would like to make a suggestion to the government. It
would be interesting if any new claim settlement-and I am
convinced there will be more, given the number of reserves in
Canada-be subjected to a regulatory process and a slightly
more democratic parliamentary process, so that we are not put in
front of a fait accompli again. You just cannot come and tell us:
``See, it is all settled; all you have to do is to pass the bill''.
As I said, this bill looks quite innocuous with just four
clauses, but it has impacts and effects on Pictou Landing. Let me
wrap up. Based on the background I gave you earlier, we can
assume that people who have probably lived by that this stretch
of water now have to relocate on land that-I hope, with $35
million-will allow them to maintain their traditions and
culture. These people depend on fishing for their livelihood and
survival.
While deploring the regulatory and parliamentary process,
the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill in consideration of the
decision made by Pictou Landing and the aboriginal people who
live there to approve the agreement as it stands.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member for Central
Nova in whose riding is the Pictou Landing band. I also enjoyed
the speech of the Bloc member for Saint-Jean. However, if it
had not been for the opening and closing statements, I would not
know which way he would be voting.
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words at
third reading of Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian Band
Agreement Act. The legislation has received due consideration
at second reading and careful review in committee. I thank the
departmental officials who have provided us with a cogent and
detailed explanation.
While my party and I had some concerns, particularly over
ratification of an agreement after payment of $28 million of the
$35 million package has already been made, we support the
intent of the legislation.
I will give a quick background. In 1966 the crown failed to
provide or to obtain the band's informed consent to transfer to
the province of Nova Scotia its riparian rights on the Boat
Harbour tidal estuary. This transfer permitted the province to
operate Boat Harbour as a facility to treat effluent from the kraft
mill owned by Scott Industries Maritime Limited.
In July 1992 the government approved a mandate to negotiate
an out of court settlement of the lawsuit. It was ratified by vote
9706
on July 5, 1993. The final agreement was signed on July 20,
1993. That was under the previous administration.
(1205)
The final agreement provides that the band gives Canada a
release from responsibility and liability for past, present and
future effects related to the Boat Harbour effluent treatment
system in exchange for compensation to the Pictou Landing
band. As I mentioned previously, the total compensation was
$35 million of which the band received $28 million at the end of
April 1994 and will receive the remainder in April 1995.
The one outstanding question in my mind is: What has taken
so long to bring the bill forward? I have asked the question and I
have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
There are two critical issues addressed in the legislation. First
it will ensure that all future claims by members of the First
Nations in that area will be directed to an established fund that
the bill provides. This means that no further claims can be made
against the crown in this instance. This is critical to me and my
party. We therefore are satisfied with that arrangement.
Second, Bill C-60 provides that the Pictou Landing Micmac
band is responsible for managing and disseminating the
settlement money provided, a total of $35 million, $20 million
of which will go to pay out claims to the band and to individual
members. The remainder, $15 million, shall be used to pay band
members to relocate should it become necessary. Once the
allotment has been used, the band has no further recourse
against the crown for further financial compensation.
Having addressed the two operative principles of the bill, I
want to add that it is my hope the $20 million will help deliver
the band to self-sufficiency. We feel that every agreement the
government signs should ultimately bring more self-sufficiency
to the band.
The Reform Party supports the conclusion of outstanding
claims. The Pictou claim is a consequence of the non-fulfilment
by the government of an obligation arising from the improper
administration of reserve lands by the department. This breach
of fiduciary responsibility and duty has now been settled.
I am confident members of the Pictou band will manage this
settlement responsibly and I wish them well.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
(1210 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, may I say that I consider it a
privilege to lead off debate at second reading on this important
piece of legislation and to urge the House to adopt the legislation
in principle before sending it to the standing committee for
detailed consideration.
If I may, I would propose to begin my treatment of the
legislation today by speaking about matters of principle that
motivate the government in preparing and presenting this
legislation: objectives, ideals and values.
The government suggests that the object of the regulation of
firearms should be the preservation of the safe, civilized and
peaceful nature of Canada.
While there are many reasons we respect and admire our
neighbours to the south and value our unique relationship with
them, there are also aspects of the American way of life that we
see as very different from what we want for ourselves. Perhaps
chief among them is the way in which firearms are regulated and
used.
It is said that there are over 200 million firearms in private
ownership in the United States of America, including tens of
millions of handguns, with varying levels of regulation, but
generally in a context in which the private use of firearms is
acknowledged, recognized and even in some places encouraged
including for self-protection.
It seems to me and to the government that we do not want that
for ourselves. We do not want to live in a country in which
people feel they want or need to possess a firearm for protection.
That is the first principle we take as a guiding principle for the
preparation of legislation in terms of the regulation of firearms.
A second principle is that if we are to retain our safe and
peaceful character as a country we should signal in every
possible way that we will not tolerate and we will severely
punish the use of firearms in the commission of crime. Those
who take up a firearm to threaten others, to rob or to assault must
know that by choosing to use a firearm they are making an
important decision about a large part of the rest of their lives.
The punishment must be certain and must be significant.
Those who smuggle guns, those who traffic in illegal
firearms, those who profit by putting guns into the hands of
criminals must know that the penalties for such misconduct will
be swift and will be certain. That is the second principle we take
as governing or guiding the preparation of legislation as it
relates to firearms.
9707
A third principle is that we must acknowledge and respect
the legitimate uses of firearms. We should acknowledge and
respect the history and tradition of hunting, not only as a
favourite pastime in many parts of Canada but as a very
important economic activity contributing directly to the
prosperity of a number of regions throughout Canada. We must
acknowledge and respect the use of firearms for ranching or
hunting purposes where firearms are a tool, an implement used
by the proprietor of business to get by. We must allow for that.
We must not interfere with that unduly.
(1215)
May I say as well that we must acknowledge that some people
enjoy collecting firearms. Some people enjoy the shooting
sports. Indeed, Canada has achieved distinction internationally
through the skill of those athletes who train and excel at sport
shooting. We must acknowledge and respect that interest and
that skill. But those legitimate interests, while they are
acknowledged and respected, must be carried on in a context
that is consistent with public safety.
[Translation]
Consequently, Canadians firmly intend to safeguard and to
reinforce the exceptional civility which has always been theirs.
The legislative and political program entitled ``Safe Home Safe
Street'' is testimony of this government's commitment.
[English]
These are the elements of the legislation that we bring
forward today as Bill C-68: First, tough measures to deal with
the criminal misuse of firearms; second, specific penalties to
punish those who would smuggle illegal firearms; and third,
measures overall to provide a context in which the legitimate
use of firearms can be carried on in a manner consistent with
public safety. In all of that, the universal registration of firearms
is a fundamental strategy, a fundamental support system to
allow us to achieve the objectives I have described.
I know that for many members and for many Canadians the
prospect of universal registration is the aspect of this legislation
which is the most controversial. In the months I have spent
travelling the country and speaking with those who own, use and
enjoy firearms lawfully, I have been told by many that they see
registration as a point on which they are going to differ with this
government.
May I deal directly with the issue of registration and how it is
going to enable us to achieve the objectives of a safe and
peaceful society, a more effective response to the criminal
misuse of firearms and enhanced public safety.
I will begin with the proposition that we live in a society in
which all manner of property is licensed, registered or regulated
in some way. All manner of activities are regulated either by
legislation or administrative action to achieve a level of
orderliness which is desirable in a civilized society. In that
context, where cars, pets, and property of all description are
registered or recorded for purposes of tracing ownership or
reflecting transfers, surely the prospect of registering firearms
is rationally justified by a society that wants to achieve a level of
order.
What is the connection between registration on the one hand
and the efforts of police to fight crime on the other, or trying to
achieve a safer society? From my inquiries, from everything I
have read and all the discussions I have had, both with law
enforcement officers and with members of the firearms
community themselves, it seems to me that criminals derive
their firearms from the underground market. They do not
register their firearms. They do not buy them at a local
dealership, fill out the forms, apply for the firearms acquisition
certificate, take the courses or pay the fees. Criminals acquire
their firearms in the underground market illegally.
Those who engage in street crime tap into a market that is fed
from one of two sources: guns that are smuggled into Canada
and therefore are here illegally, or guns that are stolen from
lawful owners and then traded in the underground.
(1220 )
Suppose you are inclined to use a gun in a holdup or an
assault. You can go to one of Canada's major cities and, out of
the trunk of a car, behind an after hours club, or on the second
floor of a certain downtown hotel, or at a suburban house, if you
know someone who knows someone, you can by one of these
guns illegally and put it to a criminal use.
Surely we must choke off the sources of supply for that
underground market. Surely we must reduce the number of
firearms smuggled into the country. Surely we must cut down on
the number of firearms stolen and traded in the underground.
How do we achieve that? Through registration.
The registration of all firearms will enable us to do a better
job at the borders. We will never stop the smuggling of firearms
entirely. There are 130 million border crossings a year. We
cannot stop every vehicle and check every trunk and glove
compartment. But we can do a better job than we have done in
the past and registration will enable us to do it.
Last year approximately 375,000 firearms came into Canada.
Almost all guns sold here are imported. We do not know where
they are or how they got here. There is no control once they
arrive. We know that guns leak from shipments that come in
lawfully. Just last week in Toronto there was an arrest of
someone who had been illegally selling guns that were legally
imported.
9708
Registration will enable us to record what arrives and track
it to the point of sale into the hands of a lawful owner.
Registration will enable us to stop the kind of leakage that now
occurs, to reduce the incidence of people illegally selling that
which is legally imported.
Along with other measures that the government proposes in
relation to border controls, including enhanced inspection and
enforcement, registration will enable us to address one of the
two principal sources of guns for the criminal market in the
underground.
As to the second source of guns, those stolen from lawful
owners, last year approximately 3,800 firearms were lost or
stolen by those who lawfully own them in Canada. In the years
since 1974 a cumulative total of 65,000 firearms have been
stolen or lost and not recovered.
What does this have to do with registration? The police
contend, and I accept it as a matter of logic, that registration
which obligates each of us to record the fact of our ownership of
firearms will imbue the owners with a heightened sense of
responsibility to comply with laws already on the books
mandating safe storage. These might involve locking the
triggers, keeping the ammunition separate, or keeping the
firearms themselves in a locked case.
With compliance with those safe storage requirements the
incidence of firearms being stolen, of someone breaking and
entering into a person's house and finding a shotgun leaning
against the closet wall or a handgun in the bedside table will
diminish. A second important source for criminals and guns will
be addressed.
There is more. Registration will reduce crime and better equip
the police to deal with crime in Canadian society by providing
them with information they often need to do their job. Let me
provide a practical example for my colleagues in the House.
Two weeks ago in Victoria when I met with provincial and
territorial ministers of justice, we talked about a number of
amendments to the Criminal Code that might make it more
effective. One of them had to do with criminal harassment or
so-called stalking.
It was suggested an improvement might be to add to the
panoply of penalties the court can impose when convicting a
person of criminal harassment, an order prohibiting them from
possessing firearms because we would be dealing now with
someone who had been convicted of a crime which too often
leads to violence.
That suggestion was made in the context of ministers, not all
of whom agreed with universal registration. But when the
question was asked: Assuming that we have an order against
someone made by the court forbidding them from possessing
firearms because they have been convicted of criminal
harassment, how will we enforce that order? How will we know
that all of the person's firearms have been surrendered? How
will the police know what firearms to look for when they arrive
to enforce the order?
(1225)
Mandatory registration will provide a basis upon which the
police can enforce that kind of order, which is commonly made
in the courts when people have been convicted of such offences.
I have said in the House in the past and rely heavily upon the
fact that preponderantly the police are in favour of universal
registration. We can quibble about individual officers. I know it
is not unanimous. However, the chiefs have been vigorously
pressing for this legislation for many years.
The Canadian Police Association, through its executive, is
supportive of these measures. Police forces and boards across
the country are encouraging us to proceed with this legislation. I
know there are police officers who see it differently, but
preponderantly the police forces are in favour of these
measures.
Victims groups, including CAVEAT, urge us to have universal
registration. Priscilla de Villiers, the president of CAVEAT, lost
a daughter in a dreadful tragedy. She was murdered by a man in
respect of whom the police had investigations concerning
firearms.
In the Jonathon Yeo case there was an inquest into Nina de
Villiers' death. After spending months looking at the facts of
that case, the jury at that inquest recommended universal
registration of all firearms. Priscilla de Villiers has spoken out
strongly in favour of that measure, explaining her conviction
that it will help the police to deal with crime.
The point is broader still. Registration will assist us to deal
with the scourge of domestic violence. Statistics demonstrate
that every six days a woman is shot to death in Canada, almost
always in her home, almost always by someone she knows,
almost always with a legally owned rifle or shotgun. This is not a
street criminal with a smuggled handgun at the corner store.
This is an acquaintance, a spouse or a friend in the home.
What does this have to do with registration? Domestic
violence by its very nature is episodic and incremental.
Typically, somewhere along the line the court has made an order
barring the aggressor from possessing firearms. When the police
try to enforce that order, just as in the case of stalking, they do
not know whether they have been successful or not. They do not
know what firearms are there.
When firearms are registered, if it is necessary for a person to
register and show proof of registration to buy ammunition, as it
will be, the police will know what firearms are there. The police
will be able to enforce those orders and lives will be saved.
Suicides and accidents provide another example. Last year, of
the 1,400 people who died by firearms in Canada, 1,100 were
suicides. I know there are those who say that suicide by its
9709
nature will result in death no matter what controls are in place if
the person is determined to take his or her life. No doubt that
point has some force. However, too many of those suicides were
by young people acting in a moment of anguish, acting
impulsively because of a failed relationship, difficulty in the
home, or problems at school.
If a firearm is not readily available, lives can be saved. If
registration, as the police believe, will encourage owners to
store firearms safely so those impulsive acts are less likely, the
result may be different.
In the years since 1970, some 470 children have died in
Canada as a result of accidents with firearms. If we can achieve
safer storage through registration, if registration will provide us
with a tool by which we can identify firearms owners, educate
them about their obligations for safe storage and encourage
them to comply, children's lives could be saved. Against this
background what are the objections to registration? It is said that
it will be unduly costly, both to the government and to the
firearms' owners. Let us examine that contention, first, with
respect to the government.
(1230)
We have provided our estimate of the cost of implementing
universal registration over the next five years. We say that it will
cost $85 million. We have also said that we will put before the
parliamentary committee, on which all parties sit, details of
those calculations showing our assumptions and how we arrived
at those figures. We encourage the members opposite to
examine our estimates. We are confident we will demonstrate
that the figures are realistic and accurate.
In so far as the cost to firearms' owners is concerned, the
system of registration that we envisage if this legislation is
enacted would commence next year with the registration of
owners. Those who own firearms would be asked within five
years to pick up a card, conveniently available in their
communities, to identify themselves by name and address and to
return it. They would then be sent a permit or a licence to own a
firearm. In the first year of the five-year implementation period
we expect that the cost to the firearms owner would be zero. If it
is not zero, it would be a nominal amount in the range of $10.
The second phase of registration, the registration of the
firearms themselves, would commence two years later in
January 1998. Again firearms owners would be asked to fill out
a card, which they would pick up in their communities, identify
their firearms by make, model and serial number, to return it and
we will send them a registration certificate for their firearms.
Once again, this would be phased in over five years from 1998.
Once again, in the first year of implementation, the cost would
be zero, or if not zero a nominal amount in the range of $10 to
register up to 10 firearms.
If we contrast the relative convenience of such a system-all
we are asking of firearms owners is to fill out two cards and mail
them in-with the advantages that responsible people say we
will achieve through such a system, it seems that on any
cost-benefit analysis registration is justified.
It is said that such a system will be complex and bureaucratic.
Surely it is evident from the description which I have given that
it will be just the opposite. We can take the opportunity of
designing and implementing such a system in collaboration with
provincial authorities, with the input of the firearms groups to
eliminate irritants, to overcome paperwork burden, to simplify
and streamline the system so that all of our objectives can be
achieved at the same time.
It is crucially important, in my judgment, that as we debate
this question of registration, in respect of which there are
strongly held views on both sides, that we do so on the real facts.
Let us confine ourselves to the reality of the situation. Let us not
hear that the registration system will cost $100 per firearm. Let
us not hear that it is a prelude to the confiscation by the
government of hunting rifles and shotguns. Let us not contend
that it will cost $1.5 billion to put in place.
That is the way to distort the discussion. That is the way to
frighten people. Surely this debate must be carried out on the
real facts. When the real facts are addressed it seems clear that
the objectives of which I spoke at the outset can be achieved
while respecting the legitimate uses of firearms. This can surely
be done without imposing unduly on firearms owners through
the introduction of universal registration for the reasons I have
described.
So far as crime is concerned, the House will know from
statements made earlier that the legislation contemplates a
toughening of the penalties of the criminal misuse of firearms. It
contemplates a change in the structure of the code to overcome
the plea bargaining of charges relating to the use of firearms so
that the penalties will be woven directly into the sections which
provide for the offences themselves.
(1235)
I have discussed with my provincial and territorial
counterparts their collaboration in an effort to ensure that the
laws we write in the Criminal Code will be enforced as such in
the courts and that the attorneys general of the provinces will
instruct crown attorneys, in any case in which the facts justify
them, to seek the penalties that are included in this legislation as
deterrents to the criminal misuse of firearms.
In the course of the work that I did in response to the Prime
Minister's request that I prepare this legislation, I met with over
150 national and regional organizations of firearms owners and
users. I met with hunters, farmers, target shooters, collectors,
skeet shooters and athletes who achieved distinction for Canada
in the Commonwealth and Olympic Games. I met with the
9710
Shooting Federation of Canada. I met with all manner of local
hunting and outdoors and wilderness clubs.
I want the House to know that I listened and I learned from
that process. Elements of this package were changed
substantially, moulded specifically, on what I heard from
firearms owners.
For one thing, the House will see in Bill C-68 that we not only
intend changes to the Criminal Code to toughen the sanctions
but we also contemplate a separate statute called the Firearms
Act to deal with the regulatory aspects in relation to firearms
acquisition, use and ownership.
This is intended to meet the longstanding complaint from
firearms owners that they were offended by having to consult the
Criminal Code to determine the manner in which their private
ownership of firearms was to be regulated.
I was asked why it was necessary to combine the regulation of
private ownership of firearms with the criminal law. I responded
by removing those elements from the code and embodying them
in a separate statute called the Firearms Act.
There were also suggestions early on calling for the central
storage of firearms or urban gun free zones. From my
consultation with the firearms community I learned that such
proposals were impractical and they were not pursued.
At the outset the government was urged to ban all handguns.
We were told that three-quarters of Canadians, and indeed the
majority of firearms owners, believed that all handguns in
private ownership should be banned. We did not do that.
In the course of my meetings with the firearms groups, I was
very much impressed with the ardour with which many
Canadians approach the target shooting sports. They are highly
skilled people, very law-abiding, conscientious in their
pastimes and their hobbies. These Canadians want to continue in
those sports.
Therefore this legislation acknowledges and allows those
sports to continue. What we have done is remove from
circulation over time, and to ban immediately after the
enactment of the legislation, the importation and sale of those
handguns inappropriate for target or sport shooting, the
so-called Saturday night specials. These handguns are by their
design and characteristics suitable for concealment,
inexpensive to buy, easy to trade in the underground and not
appropriate for target shooting because of their lack of accuracy.
We have also made it clear that for those who own handguns in
the banned or prohibited categories, such owners will be able to
use them in accordance with the requalification requirements in
the statute and trade them to and from others in the same class.
Consequently complaints that we were affecting the property
value of owners' investments have been addressed.
May I also emphasize that as this bill goes to committee
following second reading debate, it will go with my request that
the committee look at specific changes in the law. First of all, to
ensure that we are accommodating all of those sporting
competitions with handguns, we have already made it clear that
the .22-.32 calibre Walther used by Linda Thom at the 1984
Olympics will not be covered by the ban. We want the
committee to take the advice of the International Shooting
Union to determine whether there are other handguns that
should be exempted so that legitimate sporting activities will
not be threatened.
(1240)
Second, I will ask the committee to examine the question
whether there are black powder shooting events that might be
affected by this legislation. It is not our intention in any way to
limit historical re-enactments with the use of reproductions. We
do not believe we have done that but we will ask the committee
to look specifically at that question and to let us know whether
additional technical amendments are required to make the
meaning clear.
Third, we will ask the committee to look at the question of
relics and heirlooms, recognizing that there are families and
individuals who want to pass on to the next generation firearms
that they have acquired and that have a specific sentimental or
historical value to the family. That should be respected. We will
ask the committee to fashion a way to allow it to happen
consistently with the imperatives of public safety.
May I also observe that the introduction of universal
registration will allow a rational way to control access to
ammunition so that those who wish to buy ammunition will have
to establish that they are properly registered to have and use a
firearm.
Last, may I refer to the aboriginal communities who during
the period of consultation were insistent that we respect, first,
their treaty rights and second, their traditional and community
way of life.
The firearms legislation will apply to aboriginal communities
in exactly the same way as it applies to everyone else. The
principles are identical. However, we have undertaken to respect
treaty rights. We believe that this legislation is consistent with
treaty rights because it is no more than the regulation by the
federal government of hunting and other activities.
An hon. member: Two classes of Canadians.
Mr. Rock: Not two classes. Furthermore, we believe that this
legislation can be implemented in a way that is sensitive to the
traditional way of life of aboriginal people, that its
administration can be decentralized to the community. We are
committed
9711
to working with the aboriginal communities across Canada to
ensure that happens.
From time to time issues and questions arise which permit the
legislature of a country to define what kind of future it wants for
the country. It seems to me that on the subject of the regulation
of firearms we have just such an issue. We have an opportunity
for Parliament to make a statement about the kind of Canada that
we want for ourselves and for our children, about the efforts we
are prepared to make to ensure the peaceful and civilized nation
that we have and enjoy and to demonstrate just who is in control
of firearms in Canada. Is it the gun lobby or is it the people of
this country?
Much reference is made in the House on the subject of polls. It
was not polls that inspired this legislation. This legislation is
based on the principles and objectives that I described at the
outset. However, polls are useful from time to time to remind us
just where the people stand on these issues. There is no doubt
that these proposals enjoy the support of the vast majority of
Canadians, rural and urban, in every region of the country. They
see this legislation as an opportunity for us to make exactly the
kind of statement I referred to about the kind of country we
want, the kind of future we want and just how firearms should be
acquired and used in Canada.
I commend this legislation to the House. I invite its attention
to the principles of which we speak and I ask for the support of
the House for those principles.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
at last we have a bill on gun control, and we are very pleased. It
was high time the Minister of Justice tabled his plan of action in
the form of a bill. We are delighted to proceed with the real
debate. No more delays, no more conferences and consultations.
Now the debate can start on Bill C-68, which is supposed to be
an innovative piece of legislation.
We in the official opposition are aware of the concerns of a
public that is disturbed, and rightly so, about the proliferation of
firearms and the shocking number of deaths caused by these
weapons.
(1245)
We do not criticize just for the sake of criticizing, although
the Minister of Justice does not seem to agree. Our criticism is
constructive. Basically, we support legislation that will tighten
gun control.
Right from the start, I would like to stress the attitude of the
Minister of Justice during the debate on gun control. It is always
a pleasure to watch a politician who sticks to his guns.
That being said, although the Minister of Justice is to be
commended, Bill C-68 is not a panacea. It will not deal with all
the problems out there. In fact, I am not so much worried about
what the bill contains as about what it does not contain. I will
expand on this in a few minutes.
I can hardly ignore the behaviour of the minority pro-gun
lobby, a minority that managed to give the impression that its
extreme position is widely shared. The pro-gun lobby and their
Reform Party friends have been piling on the speeches. They
would have us believe that more is better. The warm welcome
they gave the Minister of Justice when he visited Calgary says a
lot about their allegiance and their cynical attitudes. Threats of
civil disobedience, the sacrosanct right to own firearms and
individual and collective rights are all part of their rallying cry.
They want the public to believe that a bill on gun control is
worthy of a dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. I even received
a communication in my office in Ottawa, with a list attached of
countries where genocide had been practised and the dates on
which gun control legislation had come into effect in those
countries.
These fervent supporters of the right to bear arms were trying
to establish a link between gun control and the genocides that
have tarnished the history of mankind. This is pretty sad. I never
saw such a total lack of intellectual honesty. These people
should be ashamed of spreading such monstrous lies. To claim
that the Armenian genocide was a direct consequence of gun
control legislation that came into effect 40 years earlier is not
only absurd but insane.
I agree that these individuals are not representative of the
majority of those who object to all forms of gun control. Reform
Party members should check their ranks and flush out the
extremists. Some spring cleaning would be in order.
I come back to the bill before us today. In the fall we criticized
it and, again today, we decry the minister's hesitation. Since the
minister has been promising us legislation on arms control for
such a long time, we were expecting something more complete, I
can assure you.
The Minister of Justice wanted to win everyone over by
giving something to each of them. Reformers, the gun lobby, and
a number of colleagues of the Minister of Justice are delighted
with the increase in the minimum sentences for crimes
committed with guns and the fact that current firearms owners
have almost eight years' grace to comply with the requirements
of the national registration system the government is proposing
today.
Let us have a closer look at who should be celebrating: the gun
lobby or those in favour of stricter arms.
First, the bill proposes major changes to the Criminal Code. In
terms of sentences, the bill increases from one year to four years
the minimum sentence an individual must serve for committing
a crime with a firearm. The present section 85 of the Criminal
Code provides for a minimum sentence of one year for anyone
using a firearm to commit a criminal act.
9712
The problem with section 85 is that only a third of the charges
made under this section result in convictions. Lawyers on a case
will use this section most of the time for plea bargaining. The
Crown is satisfied with the few convictions, because, in return,
it obtains a guilty plea for the principal offence, such as robbery
or sexual assault.
(1250)
The bill does not resolve this de facto situation. Minimum
sentences are increased, but there is no mechanism to force
lawyers to stop bargaining for guilty pleas. In addition, judges,
generally, tend to follow a principle of combining the number of
years a defendant has to serve. Nothing in the bill will change
this practice.
I would even bet that they will continue to do it and in this way
reduce the length of the sentence for major offences. In real
terms, there may be no significant increase in the actual number
of years that the person will have to serve. However, if judges
stop giving concurrent jail sentences, the increase in the jail
population could become another problem area. I will come
back to this later.
Finally, section 85 is modified by the addition of a list of 10
violent offences which will be covered by the provision. We
wonder whether the government really was serious when it drew
up this list. Manslaughter, an unpremeditated crime, is on the
list. However, armed assault is not. Does that mean that the
punishment will be the same, whether or not the victim survives
the assault? Forcible confinement is not on the list, but
kidnapping and hostage are.
I also really have doubts about whether the increase in the
minimum sentence provided for in section 85 will be a deterrent.
I would like to point out that a working paper on section 85, in
particular, and on minimum sentences, in general, prepared by
the department of justice concluded that for the most part, the
public does not know which offences have a mandatory
minimum sentence.
In addition, the same document, which the Minister of Justice
should have analyzed more thoroughly, also concludes that
mandatory minimum sentences are very weak deterrents and
have little impact on the incidence of major crimes. Robbery is
an excellent example. Even worse, apparently juries are less
inclined to render a guilty verdict if they know that the accused
will have to serve a mandatory sentence for the offence.
Assuming that judges will not apply the principle of adding up
the total number of years for multiple offences, prison
populations will increase substantially as a result. Indeed, the
minimum sentence of four years would be served after any other
sentence imposed by the judge.
The Minister of Justice seems to believe, naively, that
detention centres could accommodate this increase in the
number of prisoners. He claims that the deterrence effect of his
bill would lower the number of firearms offences. There is no
way of knowing the impact of his reform bill on the number of
future convictions.
We must bear in mind that a chain is only as strong as its
weakest link. If the minister wishes to increase minimum
sentences stipulated under section 85 of the Criminal Code, he
must realize that prison populations will increase thereby and
that we do not have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate
these new prisoners.
Let us turn our attention to the warning issued by Professor
Pierre Landreville of the Université de Montréal. In an article
published in Le Devoir of December 23, Mr. Landreville
explains the danger of such legislation, and I quote: ``Some
1,500 persons are convicted each year in Quebec and could
possibly be given a minimum sentence of four years in addition
to the sentence for the major offence. The population of Quebec
penitentiaries, currently about 4,000 prisoners, would nearly
double in the first four years after implementation of this
measure''.
If prison populations increase, so too will the related costs.
(1255)
Will the minister honestly tell taxpayers how much his reform
will cost us, knowing that, just to keep a prisoner in jail, it cost
on average, in 1992-93, $56,000 in a maximum security facility
and $36,000 in a medium security one? Can the pro-gun lobby
still say it is satisfied with the increase in the minimum sentence
stipulated in section 85?
Moreover, for those of us in favour of gun control, can we
claim this as a victory? Certainly not. The bill establishes a
separate piece of legislation providing for a licensing system
regarding the possession and use of firearms, and a national
system for the registration of all firearms. Non-compliance with
the provisions dealing with licensing and registration will be an
offence under the Criminal Code. Going against the wishes of
several of his Liberal colleagues, the justice minister decided to
maintain sanctions in the bill.
Moreover, Bill C-68 provides for new offences and hefty
penalties for the illegal importing of firearms and gun
trafficking. In addition to the compulsory minimum sentence,
individuals convicted of one of the ten designated violent
offences will be prohibited for life from possessing a restricted
or prohibited weapon. Up to now, everything is fine and these
provisions are the direct result of our representations.
Also, under bill C-68, from now on, importing or selling .25
and .32 calibre handguns and handguns that have a barrel 105
mm in length or less will be prohibited. This ban affects roughly
58 per cent of all handguns in Canada.
9713
Concurrently with Bill C-68, the justice minister has banned
several types of military and paramilitary weapons by an order
in council taking effect on January 1st, 1995. A total of 21 types
of military and paramilitary firearms will now be prohibited,
and they include more than 200 models. However, as the
Minister of Justice said, the cornerstone of his bill is the
registration system, a computerized record of names and
particulars of all gun owners, along with a description of all
the firearms they own.
On the eve of the new budget of the Liberal government, the
proposals of the Minister of Justice raise a number of questions
on the cost of implementing such a system at the national level.
The minister was saying, on December 6, in Alberta, that it
would cost at least $85 million to implement. He said that the
cost would be spread over five years and that, afterwards, the
system would generate revenues. The day before yesterday,
during a press conference, he went back on his word and said
that the cost would actually be spread over seven years. He
demonstrated to the people that he has no idea of the possible
cost of such a system and who should bear it.
Unfortunately, we can no longer rely on the minister's
estimates since, in two months, he added two years to the
amortization period. In a few months, will come before the
Standing Committee on Justice to tell us that the costs will never
be recovered?
We always asked for a self-financing system. How is the
Minister of Justice going to finance his system? He said that gun
owners would not have to pay a cent to get their new registration
certificates. Current owners will simply have to pay renewal
fees of $60 in five years.
He also states that new certificate holders will only have to
pay a small fee of around $10. How can the minister claim that
system costs will be paid off over five or seven years? Why not
10 years?
(1300)
In the meantime, he is asking the provinces to loosen their
purse strings to help him pay the bill. He is asking the provinces
to help him administer a system whose costs are unknown. This
means that not only gun buyers and owners but all taxpayers will
pay.
As I said earlier, to the costs associated with the system we
must add those associated with a possible increase in prison
population. The Minister of Justice can manipulate numbers as
much as he likes, but the fact remains that the costs of his bill
will be supported by the entire population.
Another flagrant example of the lack of rigour in calculating
costs is a January 19 memorandum from the office of the justice
minister stating that the government hopes but cannot confirm
that current gun owners will not have to pay fees to obtain
certificates of ownership.
The memorandum goes on to explain that fees will go up over
time to encourage early registration and that the government is
hoping that fees will not be charged during the first year.
Terms like ``hoping'' and ``cannot confirm'' suggest that the
minister does not know the first thing about arithmetic. He has
no idea of how much ordinary taxpayers will have to pay. He
does not have any idea of the costs associated with Bill C-68 and
how much gun owners will have to pay. We are basically
demanding that the Minister of Justice's mathematics be
clarified.
Finally, can we really talk about a victory, as suggested by the
minister, when we know that all this great system will not
become operational until the next century? I doubt it.
On the subject of regulations, the justice minister has missed
a golden opportunity to practice what he preaches. Regulations
respecting the storage, display, handling and transportation of
certain firearms is a legal jumble that his department would
have trouble sorting out. These regulations have been in force
since January 1, 1993, but a great many people are still not
aware of their existence, let alone their requirements. Even the
police, who are responsible for enforcing them, says they are
unfamiliar with these regulations.
When I questioned him in the House on November 15, the
Minister of Justice answered, and I quote: ``I well understand
that the challenge we face is to make Canadians understand and
comply with safe storage requirements.''
I reviewed his action plan and his bill inside out, but nowhere
is any revision of these regulations to be found. Yet, the Minister
of Justice claims universal registration of firearms is necessary
to make owners more responsible vis-à-vis storage and
transportation. How can gun owners be asked to be more
responsible and comply with regulations that they do not know
about or do not understand?
The danger with inadequate regulations is that improperly
stored firearms and ammunition are readily available to an
individual who yields to a suicidal or violent impulsion. On the
other hand, if firearms and ammunition are not readily
available, chances are the person will calm down. Statistics on
deaths caused by firearms are alarming. In 1991, suicides
accounted for 77 per cent of the 1,445 deaths caused by firearms.
In 1992, out of 732 registered homicides in Canada, 246, or 34
per cent, were committed with a firearm.
In the last ten years, most homicides were committed with
shotguns or hunting rifles. Three times out of four, a spouse is
killed by a rifle or a shotgun.
(1305)
In Quebec, from 1990 to 1992, there were 1,293 deaths caused
by firearms, which represents an annual average of 425. In that
same province, suicides account for three out of four deaths
9714
caused by firearms, for a total of about 300 suicides per year.
These statistics cannot be overlooked.
The inquest conducted in Montreal, last November, by
coroner Anne-Marie David shed some light on the deficiencies,
and the resulting dangers, related to inadequate regulations.
Coroner David's report was released on January 26.
Throughout the hearings, the most frequent criticisms were
related to the inconsistency of the current regulations.
Lieutenant Guy Asselin of the Quebec provincial police testified
and said: ``The regulations are not necessarily clear, which does
not help those who have to enforce them, nor those who want to
comply with them''.
The spokesperson for the Quebec police and fire chiefs'
association, Mr. Richard Côté, made essentially the same
comment when he said: ``Police officers do not know how to
interpret the law. You almost have to be a legal expert''. Mr.
Côté added that these regulations were included in the program
of only two of the nine CEGEPs offering the police technology
course, and that the related training lasted only a few hours.
If police officers themselves cannot understand the
regulations, how can the Minister of Justice claim that his bill
will increase safety at home? Police officers are not the only
ones who do not know the regulations. Those who are directly
concerned, and I am referring to the owners of firearms, hardly
know there is such a thing as regulations on the safe storage of
firearms.
A Léger & Léger poll has confirmed these disturbing facts.
The poll was conducted from September 1 to September 13,
1994, among 515 owners of firearms residing in Quebec. When
asked whether they knew about these regulations, only 53 per
cent of respondents thought there was a law on storage, 31.8 per
cent said no and 15.1 per cent were undecided. It is clear that, in
addition to a national registration system, a thorough review and
targeted advertising are necessary.
The Minister of Justice forgets that sometimes simple
solutions are the most effective. If the government made it
compulsory for businesses to supply individual locking systems
for every firearm sold in this country, the problem would be
practically solved.
The minister keeps repeating that registration of owners and
firearms is just like getting a driver's licence or a licence for
your car. If the minister had pursued his analogy, he would have
realized that cars are sold with locking systems. I may have a
driver's licence, but that does not mean I can start my
neighbour's car without an ignition key.
My point is that every firearm sold in this country would have
a device that would make it totally harmless. The owner would
then be under the obligation to keep the firearm locked at all
times, failing which he would be breaking the law. In this way,
gun collectors would be able to exhibit their pieces, and in
season, hunters would be able to practise their favourite sport.
I support the recommendations of coroner David, in which she
urged the Minister of Justice to amend the wording of the
regulations for storage, display and safe transportation of
firearms, to make them more consistent and ensure they are
more readily understood by the general public.
Similarly, the Minister of Justice should pay particular
attention to the recommendation that the regulations be changed
to oblige people selling guns to lock or disarm all weapons
intended for sale and to prevent them from storing restricted
firearms anywhere but in a vault and prevent the delivery to a
customer of a firearm not equipped with a safety catch.
(1310)
In conclusion, I believe that setting up a national registration
system is a positive step, subject to my earlier comments. I
must, however, say again that I find it most regrettable that the
Minister of Justice bowed to pressure from the gun lobby. By
spreading owner and weapon registration over eight years, the
minister is stating very clearly that he does not want the system
implemented during his term of office. Furthermore, I believe
the minister backed off significantly from his original plan of
action by permitting the purchase and sale of handguns between
owners of the same type of weapons.
Finally, it appears that the minister has not yet completed his
consultations and that he is now leaving it up to the Standing
Committee on Justice. He wants the committee to look at the
following questions: Should we allow the owners of prohibited
firearms to bequeath these weapons to their children? Are there
handguns that may be used for target practice? Will the use of
replicas of powder fired guns be allowed at celebrations?
The minister should have assumed the consequences of his
choices himself rather than force the parliamentary committee
to make some of the unpleasant decisions.
In closing, we hope the minister still has sufficient leeway to
take our recommendations into consideration.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to begin this debate before I get into the text of my
intervention by touching on a couple of comments the justice
minister made.
This is the most confusing time for the justice minister to
bring new legislation on gun control into the picture. The reason
is that we have court decisions, one in Alberta, clearly
indicating the orders in council passed by Kim Campbell are
invalid.
9715
Until such time as that decision is overturned, the orders in
council passed by Kim Campbell and the orders in council
passed by this minister, becoming effective January 1, are
considered to be invalid and are not being enforced. I also
understand that B.C. has taken the same position on these
orders in council. A court of Queen's Bench decision renders
those orders in council invalid.
We have asked the justice minister in this House if he would
not consider waiting until that particular case moves through the
appeal courts and a final determination is made. The justice
minister has refused to accept that advice and is now heaping
orders in council upon orders in council that the courts in this
land are saying are invalid.
It also means that all the actions taken by the police and the
court under the authority of the orders in council passed by Kim
Campbell's government have been illegal. All of the seizures,
confiscations and destruction of weapons without compensation
are considered illegal.
Unless the judge's decision is overturned they will remain in
that state. We have asked the justice minister to please wait until
such time as this confusion within the courts has been cleared
up. He has failed to do so.
I would like to touch on the point the justice minister raised
about registration of rifles and shotguns where an individual
will simply have to go to the appropriate place within his
community, pick up a card and fill in the make, model and serial
number.
I was talking to a firearms inspector in Alberta. I suggested
this was the method that would be introduced. He said it is utter
nonsense. I asked why and he said you cannot register what you
do not inspect, otherwise you are going to have a system that is
absolutely unreliable. I asked: ``What do you mean?'' He said:
``Unless you inspect the identifying features on a firearm and
the firearm inspector records that within the system they cannot
be sure of the accuracy of that information''.
(1315)
The justice minister knows as well that there are many
firearms with the same serial number, the same identifying
features. The suggestion by the justice minister that this is going
to be easy and inexpensive is simply nonsense. It is just not
accurate.
I cannot support this gun control legislation because the
centrepiece of it, the registration of all rifles and shotguns, will
not reduce the criminal use of firearms.
The justice minister has not told us how these measures will
reduce the criminal use of rifles and shotguns. The police chiefs
have not told us. The Coalition for Gun Control has not told us
how the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce their
criminal use. No one who supports the registration of rifles and
shotguns has told us, told the House or told anyone how it will
reduce the criminal use of these firearms. They have not because
they cannot.
Handguns have been registered in the country and their use
strictly controlled for 60 years. Yet we see an increase in the
criminal use of handguns in Canada today. If handgun
registration does not reduce the criminal use of these particular
firearms, will the justice minister please tell Canadians how the
registration of rifles and shotguns will have a different effect?
Death from shotgun wounds occurs in four primary areas: in
criminal activity, in domestic disputes, in suicides and in
accidental use of firearms. The imposition of a firearms
registration system will do nothing to reduce deaths in any of
these areas. The gun control bill does not address or reduce the
cause of domestic disputes or suicides. Certainly registration is
not the answer.
The justice minister has stated in the House, as he did today,
that every six days a woman is shot to death in the country. This
is a horrific statistic. Unless the causes of domestic dispute that
produce these statistics are addressed nothing will change. The
registration of firearms will not change this statistic and nothing
within the minister's bill will address the cause of domestic
disputes.
Safe storage of firearms may reduce suicides and accidental
shooting. However these regulations are already in force. I have
heard no one to whom I have spoken who is opposed to those
regulations. They are common sense and they support them.
Over 80 per cent of the people in my riding of Crowfoot,
Alberta, who responded to a survey indicated they did not
believe the banning of handguns or the registration of rifles and
shotguns would reduce the criminal use of firearms. The
question that was asked directly was: ``Do you believe that the
registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use
of these firearms?'' Over 80 per cent said no.
The other question was: ``Do you believe an outright ban of
handguns will reduce the criminal use of these firearms?'' Over
80 per cent said no, but 94 per cent said that they were in favour
of imposing harsher penalties upon the criminal users of
firearms.
I believe during the period of review and debate on Bill C-68
as more Canadians become apprised of the details of the
legislation and as people recognize the ineffectiveness of these
gun controls in reducing crime and the enormous cost to the
taxpayer, opposition will mount. I am reminded of the support
for the Charlottetown accord when it first came out. Over 70 per
cent of western Canadians were willing to support it but the
more they learned about it, the more support for that accord
plummeted like a stone.
9716
(1320)
Canadians have repeatedly urged the government to do
something about crime, to strengthen the Young Offenders Act,
to reform sentencing procedures and the parole system that
continues the early release of violent offenders into society.
These people have witnessed innocent victims being murdered,
raped and viciously assaulted by offenders released into society
by a system of justice that is preoccupied with the rights of the
criminal, not the protection of the law-abiding citizen.
I might add that the registration of rifles and shotguns is
aimed at the law-abiding citizen. I will touch upon this point
later in my speech. If they should deliberately neglect to register
their shotgun or firearm they are subject to 10 years in jail,
which is draconian, absolutely absurd.
The sentencing provisions of the bill suggest the justice
minister and the Liberal government are getting tough on crime.
This is nothing more than a pretence. The bill contains
provisions for a minimum of four years imprisonment for the
criminal use of a firearm. However section 85 of the Criminal
Code already allows for an additional sentence from one to
fourteen years for the use of a firearm in the commission of a
crime. This law has not been enforced rigorously at all in some
areas of the country.
Crown prosecutors have used their discretion either to ignore
this law or to plea bargain it away. The justice minister admitted
shortly after he submitted the proposals in the legislation that
his new bill would not eliminate the discretion of the
prosecutors to continue to ignore or plea bargain away the new
four-year minimum sentence. There is no assurance of that.
We look upon this portion of the bill as a step in the right
direction. However it would not be needed if section 85 were
enforced and it will be useless if the crown continues to plea
bargain away the new four-year minimum sentence.
In addition to the lack of enforcement of section 85, lenient
sentences and early parole are contributing to a violent society.
Who is responsible for this? I ask this question of the House: Are
the parliamentarians who created the laws that now spew violent
offenders on to the street before they have served their full
sentences not responsible for the death of the Melanie
Carpenters of the country? Are those same parliamentarians not
responsible for creating a situation where the rights of the
criminal supersede the rights of the victim and the victim's
family? Are they not responsible for the growing fear of
violence experienced throughout the country?
I want the people of Canada to know that when the justice
minister had the opportunity to vote for a safer society or the
early release of murderers into society, he voted for the violent
criminal instead of a safer society. The Minister of Justice voted
against eliminating section 745 from the Criminal Code which
grants first degree murderers the right to apply for early parole.
The justice minister in effect voted for the criminal and against
eliminating violence and against the Melanie Carpenters of the
country. So did the entire caucus, except for the Minister of
Transport.
The Minister of Transport stood with 24 of his Liberal
colleagues and voted with the Reform Party to eliminate section
745 which allows for the early release of convicted murderers
into society. I might add that during that vote when I looked over
at Bloc members I did not see one of them standing against the
early release of violent criminals back into society.
If the minister is sincere about fighting crime we recommend
that he do the following: increase the maximum jail terms for all
violent crimes including firearms crimes, implement a zero
tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms,
ensure that charges are laid in all firearm crimes and that plea
bargains are not permitted, provide judges with sentencing
options including no parole for all violent crime and provide for
progressively more severe penalties for repeat violent offenders
and firearms offenders.
(1325)
Until the Minister of Justice implements these get tough
measures he is only pretending to get tough on crime. Until the
minister can demonstrate to us that the sentencing provisions of
the bill will deter criminals from using a firearm during the
commission of a crime we cannot support the bill because that
we understand is what the bill ought to be doing. It is not going
to do that.
Until the minister can assure Canadians unequivocally that
the registration of rifles and shotguns and the banning of 58 per
cent of the handguns currently sold in Canada will reduce the
criminal use of firearms we will work to defeat this convoluted
and expensive piece of legislation.
Reform members, like many Canadians, support gun control
legislation based upon common sense. We fully support any and
all gun regulations that will enhance public safety by reducing
the criminal use of firearms. We say that present firearms
legislation is adequate.
What the government ought to be doing is focusing its
attention on the criminal use of firearms, giving Bill C-17 an
honest chance and evaluating the impact it has upon these
problems. It was recommended by the Auditor General in his
1993 report that before the government moves forward with any
further gun control legislation a careful and thorough analysis of
Bill C-17 and its impact upon the whole issue should be made.
This we submit has not been done and it should be done.
The expensive and ineffective system of licensing and
registration rifles and shotguns described within Bill C-68
simply does not make sense. It will not reduce the criminal use
of these
9717
firearms. It will not reduce domestic violence and it will not
prevent suicide.
The minister has not provided us with any statistical
justification for the registration of rifles and shotguns. How can
Canadians, in the absence of such information, be confident that
universal registration will reduce the criminal use of firearms
and thereby make society safer?
The minister defends the bill by claiming that the chiefs of
police support him and have requested the registration of all
rifles and shotguns. We ask this question: Why does the minister
not also embrace the chiefs' position on capital punishment and
on the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code which
grants murderers the opportunity for early parole?
It is clear to me that he does not really believe that when we
have a law enforcement problem we go to the chiefs of police. It
seems the justice minister is only going to the chiefs of police
when he needs them to support a particular bill.
We cannot afford ineffective legislation particularly in the
area of criminal justice. We must have sound and proven
controls in place that ensure public safety.
The minister states that the cost of the legislation will be only
$85 million. However the cost of registering a single handgun is
estimated today to be $82 and over $100 in Quebec. It is
estimated that there are approximately six million rifles and
shotguns to be registered in Canada.
Taking the lowest of these two fees, the cost for registration
alone comes to $492 million. If the minister is suggesting that
the registration of a rifle or a shotgun will be substantially less
than the present cost to register a handgun, has the government
been wasting taxpayers' money on the handgun registration
system? Does this imply that the registration of long guns will
not be as rigorous and thorough and therefore less effective than
the handgun registration system?
I might add that the Terence Wade report clearly demonstrates
that the expensive handgun registration system is defective and
almost useless as a crime fighting tool. This is a report that we
had to wring out of the justice department.
Let us deal with the banning of handguns and the hand held
crossbow.
(1330)
Where is the information and where are the statistics that the
Minister of Justice used to justify such a draconian measure?
That is what we ask for. Certainly anyone who responds to
common sense will respond to those kinds of statistics that
justify such measures. We have not seen them. We have not seen
any of the statistics upon which much of this legislation is
based.
The minister's original proposals banned the handguns used
by our World Cup competitors. When asked in the House of
Commons to exempt the .32 calibre handgun which is used in
those competitions he said he most certainly would not.
However, Bill C-68 does provide an exemption for these
handguns and I compliment the minister for taking a second
look at that issue.
It is clear, though, the minister's consultative process was
badly flawed in spite of his presence that he was taking expert
and technical advice from all interested groups. In connection
with that, in the back of one of the pamphlets which was put out
with the proposals, was a list of all the organizations and groups
which the Minister of Justice met with on firearms. They are
listed by way of province. There are eight listed for Alberta.
However, I have been advised that the Nosehills Gun Club and
the Provost and District Fish and Game Association never met
with the justice minister; yet that is what the document claims.
Further inquiries indicated that they sent a letter to the justice
minister expressing their concerns about the gun control
proposals. They did it by way of someone else who was coming
to Ottawa to meet with the justice minister. They had not
received a reply to their letter, which was sent by courier, as of
the date on which I spoke with them.
I submit that the registration of rifles and shotguns does not
and will not protect Canadians. If the registration of firearms did
we would have no problem with handguns and the criminal use
of handguns. Every firearms control aimed at law-abiding gun
owners such as the banning of handguns and the registration of
firearms is an assurance to criminals that their victims and their
potential victims are becoming more and more defenceless and
helpless.
It has been proven by various sources that banning a product,
including firearms, does not prevent criminals from getting
these items from the black market. Repeatedly governments in
this country have learned that prohibitive or restrictive
measures lead to an underground market where people thrive on
the challenge of obtaining something illegally and where
ruthless entrepreneurs profit tremendously.
This bill clearly indicates that those Canadians who so
adamantly oppose registration and may defy the minister and his
law will not go unpunished. Under Bill C-68 these people will
be subjected to a maximum ten-year penalty, a penalty which is
equivalent to those imposed on some murderers in this country.
What comes to mind is Mr. Lortie who went into the Quebec
legislature and murdered three people and wounded 13 others.
Now he is out after serving 10 years. The justice minister wishes
to equate anyone who deliberately neglects to register their
shotgun or rifle with that kind of prison term. That is absurd. It is
wrong. It is unconscionable. It ought to be deleted from the bill
before it goes any further and I would ask the minister to do that.
In addition, this bill creates one penalty for those who in
ignorance of the law fail to register their firearms and another
much more serious penalty for those who deliberately neglect to
9718
register their rifle or shotgun. The Reform Party believes that
existing controls on gun ownership are more than enough and
that no further controls of this type are necessary to ensure
public safety. We also believe that no amount of gun control on
firearm ownership can stop criminals from acquiring guns by
illegal means.
(1335)
In conjunction with the regulations we recommend these
following features: decriminalize minor violations respecting
storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms;
decriminalize those offences that are more of an administrative
matter than any criminal attempt to violate a law; make all
firearm regulations, including orders in council, subject to
review and approval by Parliament, and let us have no more of
these orders in council that are not viewed by the elected
representatives of the people being passed into law; simplify the
firearms acquisition certificate renewal process.
I would like to end my speech today using the words not of
members on this side of the House but those of members from
across the way. On November 5, 1991 the Liberal member for
Kenora-Rainy River said when the House was debating Bill
C-17: ``What we are debating is just what it means to the
law-abiding citizen, the individual who feels that this piece of
legislation does absolutely nothing to the criminal element that
we as members of Parliament are supposed to be dealing with.
We are not supposed to be restricting severely law-abiding
citizens who are not the problem at all. We have suggested to
law-abiding citizens of this country that we cannot trust them to
do the right thing''.
On the same date the Liberal member for Willowdale said:
``There has been almost no suggestion and certainly no evidence
that it is legitimate gun owners and members of gun clubs who
have created the problem of gun related deaths in Canada. It
seems to me that this bill as it now reads is dealing not with the
fundamental issue of controlling the criminal use of guns, it is
penalizing people who have proven in the past that they are part
of the solution and not part of the problem of gun related deaths
in Canada. This bill is very deficient in that it is not fair. People
have over the years acquired a number of guns. Many of these
guns are going to be taken away from them by this bill without
compensation''. It certainly applies to this bill.
The member further stated: ``It is expropriation without
compensation. You cannot do that in terms of people's homes
and cars. Surely this is not fair. Let us not pretend that we are
dealing with the root cause of gun related deaths in Canada and
the harm that guns can cause Canadians. It does not address the
real problems so that we as a Parliament will have to come back
to deal with those issues not too many years from now''.
I have news for the member for Willowdale. You are back,
your party is back and, like the previous government, is still not
dealing with the problem, certainly not the cause of the problem.
Finally, we have the words of the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk: ``I believe this is nothing but a bill to
hoodwink the Canadian people into believing that the
government is concerned about trying to do something about
gun control when it clearly does not. This bill addresses none of
these uses of a firearm except by placing more stringent
conditions on the acquisition of an FAC. It fails to address the
real problems in society. It gives Canadians a false sense of
security that the government is actually doing something to stop
crimes when it is not. This bill seems designed to disarm,
overregulate and financially devastate the honest Canadian
citizen. It will redefine Canadians as criminals and punish them
severely for things like paperwork. I suggest that in this bill the
government is encouraging an underground network of illegal
guns''.
These members were all speaking against Kim Campbell's
Bill C-17 which did not restrict and confiscate law-abiding
citizens' guns to the same extent as the current bill before us will
or threatens to.
I am glad that so many members on the other side of the House
share the same common sense opinions expressed on this side. I
sincerely hope that these members continue to express these
views despite the pressure from within their caucus to do
otherwise.
I would like to tell this House and make a commitment to all
Canadians that a Reform government will repeal any
ineffective, costly legislation such as Bill C-68.
(1340)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, regarding the last comment by my Reform
colleague, I can understand why the Reform Party will never
form the government. It would be going against the wishes of 95
per cent of Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Which survey?
Mr. Lincoln: At the last biennial-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. The hon.
member.
Mr. Lincoln: At least they should show courtesy. If they do
not agree, they should show courtesy. We listen to them. We do
not agree with them, but we listen.
At the last biennial convention of the Liberal Party in May
1994 the women's commission of the Liberal Party presented a
resolution asking for tighter gun control laws in Canada. I felt
very privileged to be asked to second that motion which was
adopted by unanimous vote of our party then. That same day the
9719
Prime Minister in his address at the end of the convention made
a very strong commitment to gun control legislation.
I would like to quote his words: ``I would like to thank the
women's commission in particular for having tabled an
excellent resolution and strengthening firearms legislation. I
believe that there is no place for firearms on our streets or
playgrounds and I believe that the time has come to put even
stricter measures in place to achieve this goal. I will be asking
my Minister of Justice to examine your resolution very closely
and to draft tough gun control legislation. I hope we have the
support of all parties for this tough gun control. I know the Bloc
Quebecois supports gun control and Preston Manning and the
Reform Party are certainly talking a lot about crimes. I hope
they will support these restrictions because tough talk is easy.
What Canadians want and what we must provide is tough
action''.
At this point I would like to pay special tribute to the Minister
of Justice. He has been patient in an exemplary fashion. He has
heard. He has listened. He has crossed Canada to hear groups
that were for gun control legislation and those violently opposed
to gun control legislation.
He has heard not only from police chiefs but from community
groups, from sports and gun clubs and any number of citizens of
Canada who felt one way or another about this legislation.
Eventually the time comes when decisions have to be made.
I thank him for his courage, his tenacity, his perseverance in
bringing forward Bill C-68. What is more important is that he
has told us time and time again that this is only part of a much
broader picture, that crime prevention is not ensured by gun
control legislation alone, that several measures must be taken
together so that there is a reversal of attitudes in our society so
that crime does not continue to be the menace it is today in our
streets, in our villages and in our towns.
The whole crime prevention package is far broader than gun
control legislation. It includes sentencing reform. It includes
corrections and parole reform. It includes, as we have done,
amendments to the Young Offenders Act. It included a Canadian
crime prevention council which was launched last year.
More important, it includes broad social reform. In our red
book we have tried to portray a holistic approach to society, to
social reform, because unless we prevent the social causes that
are the very root of crime in our society we will never eradicate
crime no matter what legislation we put forward, no matter how
tough the legislation, no matter how tough the jail sentences.
We have to reverse attitudes, create a new type of society in
which we eradicate the root causes of crime: poverty, lack of
education, lack of opportunity. This is what we are doing to
approach social questions in a holistic fashion so that there is
not only the tough legislation on gun control and crime but also
the addressing of the root causes that lead to crime.
(1345)
The intention of Bill C-68 is not to penalize or hinder
legitimate gun owners. Not at all. In fact it recognizes the
legitimate right of gun owners to use them for sport or for their
livelihood. It recognizes the treaty rights for aboriginal people
in Canada. At the same time it does recognize a profound reality.
That reality is very simple. Guns are lethal weapons and they
kill.
In fact, some of the opponents of gun control have tried to
portray this as an urban versus rural debate. I suggest it is not. In
fact, statistics accumulated for the period between 1980 and
1989 showed that in those 10 years there were 63 per cent more
deaths by guns in towns with a population of under 5,000 than in
towns with a population of over 500,000. Therefore it is not a big
city versus small city problem. It is a problem of the safe
handling of guns.
Guns impact especially on the lives of women. In the case of
violence against women 42 per cent of all acts of murder
committed on women have been done with guns. Of those guns
80 per cent of them are rifles used by their owners to batter and
murder their wives.
We have to do something about this. We have to attack the
problem, certainly the long term problem, by looking at the root
causes of the social evils of society. At the same time we have to
take short term measures to ensure that crime does not pay and
that guns will not kill.
[Translation]
I would like now to pay a special tribute to two young women I
know well-especially one of them-, Heidi Rathjen and Wendy
Cukier, two young women who quit lucrative jobs. Heidi
Rathjen is an engineer. She is now working almost on a
volunteer basis to achieve stronger legislation on gun control.
Heidi Rathjen said recently in an interview: Had we had stricter
legislation, Marc Lépine and Valery Fabrikant might not have
been able to do what they did. Were there even a slight chance
that stronger legislation would have prevented Marc Lépine and
Valery Fabrikant and all the others who committed senseless,
horrible crimes from doing so, then that legislation would have
been worthwhile, a thousand, a hundred thousand times over.
Michael Hogben was one of the four individuals killed by
Valery Fabrikant. Michael was one of my friends. I worked very
closely with him at Concordia University. We worked together
on the Esther Goldenberg lectures, and it was on the eve of these
lectures, which Michael was to organize, as he always had in the
past, that he was killed. I remember being at the Hogben
apartment with Esther Goldenberg after his funeral. I remember
seeing Mrs. Hobgen there, whom I had not met before, and the
two young Hobgen girls, and thinking that a scholarly person, a
person with so much to give to society, not only erudite but a
person of character, exceptionally high-minded, well-liked by
everyone, his students and colleagues, was killed in the prime of
9720
his life, senselessly, by someone who had managed, under
existing legislation, to obtain not one but two firearms.
We must recognize that the legitimate use of firearms is
acceptable, but when used maliciously, firearms can cause
irreparable, irreversible damage.
(1350)
How can one measure the damage of a ruined life, the
nightmare experienced by the surviving family, who relive the
event every day and every night, because they can never forget?
This is not death due to illness, it is violent death brought about
by the use of a firearm. And that is a price no society can afford.
I know the debate on firearms is heated. I know the whole
question of registration is especially controversial.
[English]
Yesterday in question period and again today our friends from
Reform were questioning the cost of $85 million. They saw that
as being too much. One Reform member said yesterday that we
should send that money to cancer research or not spend it.
I wonder if the Reform members have calculated the cost to
society of a simple trial, of putting people in jail, of police
control for people who have used guns. The cost is far greater
not only in terms of money, but certainly in terms of life lost.
What is the value of a life? Is it $1 million, $2 million, $80
million, $85 million? I wonder how much the lives of the 14
young women killed at the polytechnique were worth. I wonder
how much Michael Hogben's life was worth. They are not
statistics. We do not measure their lives, their souls, their beings
in monetary terms.
It seems to me that society has not only the right but a duty to
make sure we take every possible step we can as legislators to
try to eradicate the ills caused by guns. If registration helps,
even if it is not watertight, even if there are loopholes and even if
we cannot prove statistically that it will work 100 per cent of the
time, if it makes committing crime more difficult, then it would
be worth it and would be money spent well.
Registration will certainly improve the control of the flow of
firearms across borders. It will help the police trace firearms
used in crime. Moreover, it will place the responsibility on the
individual himself or herself. When someone has to go through a
registration process, be it for a car, a boat, or any possession, it
ties a special responsibility to that person to care for that
possession.
Registration will be an immense deterrent. In fact, it is no
accident that a great number of community organizations, police
organizations and all anti-crime community organizations and
institutions are heavily in favour of registration. That includes
the great majority of people in the province of Alberta where
most Reform members are from. British Columbians should be
proud because it is the case in B.C. as well.
If registration and gun control legislation were only to save
one life, I suggest it is worth it. I know the Bloc members share
our view on this and I thank them for it. On this side we hope,
and are convinced, that if it saves many lives, then Bill C-68
will be a major piece of legislation. Not only will it be because it
is Liberal legislation, the work of this government and this
Minister of Justice, but because it is a piece of legislation that
society at large needs and wants.
Today we are in the process of getting it. Once again, I pay
tribute to, thank and am very grateful to the Minister of Justice
for having brought this bill forward.
(1355)
I hope the great majority of us here will reflect the majority
view of Canadians at large, and 95 per cent of those in Quebec,
who believe that gun control legislation is not only needed but it
was needed yesterday. It is a great piece of legislation. It is a
forward piece of legislation and I will support it with great
conviction.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I get the impression
from the rhetoric over there, the violence of it and the great
emotion I heard that this is exactly the type of approach to gun
control that makes people in this country frightened. The
reasoned arguments which were expressed by the justice
minister, although I emphatically disagree with them, do not
carry the same connotations as what came across the aisle from
the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.
If one is to take seriously what he was saying, I am quite
convinced that this is the type of thinking, this rabble rousing,
this fanning the emotions of people which will ultimately lead to
the confiscation of private arms in this country. That is why
people are so concerned.
The hon. member refuses to deal with real numbers. He says
that he thinks registration will be a deterrent. Those were his
words. We do not pass legislation of this magnitude simply
because we think something.
He quoted the chiefs of police, as did the Minister of Justice. I
would remind both members that when gun control was being
discussed in this House in 1976, the police chiefs presented a
brief to the Standing Committee on Justice. In that brief they
emphatically stated that registration would serve no useful
purpose in the control of crime. Whether the organization had-
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will have seven or eight
minutes remaining after question period and the hon. secretary
of state will have the chance to speak at that time.
9721
[Translation]
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9721
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the budget is quickly approaching. Canadians are not prepared
to pay more taxes. They are in fact letting all of us in
government know that they are prepared to react very negatively
should taxes be increased.
However, Canadians are prepared to do with less services.
They are asking us to cut services and programs and to ensure a
fair taxation system so the middle class does not bear an undue
burden of taxes.
Being a Liberal is not easy in these times. While we know we
must bring down the deficit, we also know that our party has
shown compassion over the years and has taken care of
individuals in need.
We must and will continue to ensure that we are able to care
for all Canadians, both now and in the future. I am committed to
working toward these fundamental values. We recognize that
difficult choices must be made if we are to ensure Canada's
well-being and prosperity.
We are listening to Canadians. We hear that a fair taxation
system should be introduced, cuts to services should be
implemented, that duplication should be avoided and most
important, that those in need should not suffer through this
exercise but rather be strengthened by it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, even though the reason interest rates have gone up is
that the Minister of Finance has not taken any deficit-fighting
action for a year now, he is bragging that he will be able to reach
the gigantic deficit goal of $39.7 billion.
The minister's strategy is extremely obvious. To reach the
enormous deficit goal of $39.7 billion, he plays with numbers at
the expense of the unemployed. In fact, he is using the surplus in
the unemployment insurance fund to reduce the government's
deficit.
The Minister of Finance not only is using this surplus to
reduce this year's deficit, but now that 11 months have passed
by, we can see that he also overestimated the 1993-94 deficit by
close to $4 billion in his last budget. All that to make people
believe that the situation is improving. In reality, the minister is
playing all kinds of games to mask his lack of action in the fight
against the deficit.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as one who left school too early and returned to get my
grade 12 at the age of 28, I wish to mention a new study.
We have heard that 30 per cent of Canadian youth leave
school. However a school leavers survey from September 1993
shows this has improved 18 per cent of 20-year old Canadians
not completing high school.
Employment is related to school leaving, with employment in
excess of 20 hours per week a big factor. Despite long hours in
blue collar and service jobs, hundreds in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap are attending an alternate education
program called ``The Open Door'', open until 9.30 p.m.
weekdays. Since it started three years ago school leavers have
completed 338 courses.
Last week I had the pleasure of speaking there. Today on
National Literacy Action Day I applaud ``The Open Door'' and
the hard working people walking through it to a better future.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House is aware that the Ministry of Transport has
introduced new long term regulations and guidelines for local
regional airports.
To increase understanding I was active in facilitating an
airports conference in Brandon, Manitoba on February 7 and 8,
1995. The main conference objective was to bring together
stakeholders from central Canada to discuss the challenges of
assuming ownership and operation of community airports.
I can confidently say the majority of 91 participants left the
Brandon Airports Conference respecting the minister's efforts
of establishing a more affordable, integrated, efficient and
competitive transportation system that still remains safe, secure
and accessible.
My thanks to the inspired participants, informed speakers and
my staff for making the conference such a great success.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians were shocked yesterday when they learned
that almost all Reform Party MPs did not make time to attend
solemn
9722
observance of the 30th anniversary of Canada's flag. In fact I
saw only one Reformer there.
Perhaps it is because they wanted to stay in their offices
preparing to sing our national anthem on the floor of the House
of Commons. Perhaps they were just too busy getting ready for
another event which took place last evening.
I was one of many members who accepted an invitation to
attend a reception by the Canadian Restaurant Association, a
wonderful event where guests are served tasty delights from
every Canadian province.
Included in the crowd were many Reform Party MPs who
appeared to be having the time of their lives. Their usual
sanctimony was gone. There was no evidence of the
parsimonious, frugal, grassroots politicians. They came to eat,
drink and be happy. On that, I think everybody can agree.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 30th anniversary of our maple
leaf flag.
Our flag is a proud and distinct international symbol. It is
recognized and greeted with warmth all over the world.
Canadians can be seen wearing the maple leaf on their
backpacks while travelling abroad. Even some Americans have
been known to wear our flag while travelling.
The maple leaf flag unites us from coast to coast. The flag is
one of the things that encompasses all Canadians despite our
varied regional characteristics.
Yesterday in communities all across Canada there were flag
raising ceremonies, speeches and school assemblies. Canadians
from all races and religions celebrate the flag together.
I congratulate and welcome the three new members elected to
represent their constituencies and our flag. Today I ask all my
colleagues to reflect on the significance of our maple leaf flag
and its meaning to all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister of heritage made a very clumsy attempt at
camouflaging the federal government's prereferendum
propaganda by literally plastering Quebec with posters on the
30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, at a cost of over $1
million.
(1405)
Today's Toronto Star confirms that more than half of these
propaganda posters are for Quebec, despite the minister's
statement that only 30 per cent of them would be put up in that
province.
Why will the minister not simply admit what the federal
government's goal is in lavishly celebrating this anniversary, in
using all available means to try to influence Quebecers on the
eve of the referendum and in trying to artificially instill in them
a fleeting feeling of Canadian identity?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Simikameen-Merritt to remind my colleagues that
Bill C-263, which I introduced in the House, will be debated
today.
Bill C-263 is an act to amend the Financial Administration
Act and will bring five crown corporations under part X of the
act. The five corporations are the Canada Council, the Canadian
Film Development Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, the
International Development Research Centre and the National
Arts Centre Corporation.
The bill intends to bring accountability to these five
corporations through allowing the Auditor General to conduct
special examinations, a value for money audit every five years,
as the Auditor General's office does regularly with other
departments in the public service.
This matter concerns accountability. It works toward
reducing waste, improving requirements for planning,
improving strategy and cost systems. In short, the bill will
ensure that five crown corporations are following good
management practices.
I encourage all members to support Bill C-263.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
proposal for the Minister of Transport who says he wants to rid
himself of the financial obligations for the Crow benefit. He also
says he wants to get rid of the Canadian National Railway.
Since the present value of the Crow benefit obligation is
somewhere between $7 billion and $9 billion, sums which the
government is hard pressed to find, why does the minister not
offer prairie farmers the CNR (North American) as at least a
partial payment of the Crow obligation?
9723
While CN's net worth is considerably short of the Crow
obligation, it could be a start toward providing a means of
connecting farm fields with sea ports in a way that satisfies both
Canadian needs and international obligations under the GATT.
Such a proposal leaves farm people with some control over
export costs since it allows them real choices in striking a
balance between viable railways and viable farms, something
the minister has not considered so far.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
great honour to speak on behalf of my fellow Quebecers on this
occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the Canadian flag.
Internationally, the Maple Leaf is a symbol of generosity,
democracy and freedom. At home, it symbolizes strength, unity
and pride.
The past thirty years have seen profound changes in Canada.
Rather than passively submit to these changes, our country has
shaped and adapted them to the principles and values of
tolerance, justice and fairness that we hold dear.
Canadians from coast to coast proudly display our majestic
red and white flag. Businesses spend thousands of dollars to
develop a trademark, but Canada has the finest trademark in the
world, the Maple Leaf.
Long may it fly! Long live Canada!
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is Literacy Action Day. Since 1990, the Year of
International Literacy, government, business, labour and
voluntary sectors have been working together to find ways to
solve this problem.
The Canadian Commission for UNESCO's International
Literacy Year's objective is to eradicate illiteracy by the year
2000.
Despite ongoing struggles as many as 963 million people,
26.9 per cent of the world's people, remain illiterate.
Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian adults have some difficulty
dealing with the reading requirements of everyday life.
[Translation]
I would like to pay tribute to three organizations in my riding
who are fighting relentlessly against illiteracy. They are the
Haitian community action and social affairs centre, the Villeray
literacy centre known as La Jarnigoine, and the new immigrants'
centre known as Le Centre N-A Rivé.
Education is the key to freedom. Let us continue to work
together to eliminate illiteracy.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February
4 the Ottawa
Citizen reported that some hunters savagely killed
their hunting dogs by slashing their throats or shooting them at
point blank range because the dogs were no longer useful at the
end of the hunting season.
Recently the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
responded to this article saying that the federation has
advocated mandatory identification of hunting dogs for many
years. The federation takes this position so that hunters would
be discouraged from abandoning their responsibilities as dog
owners and to ensure that lost dogs are returned to the owners.
As we begin the debate on gun control in the House of
Commons, I call on the hunters who oppose any firearm
registration to help us create a safer Canada and not only support
registration of dogs but the registration of guns because, like
dog owners, gun owners sometimes abandon their
responsibilities, resulting in the loss of life. It is our
responsibility as lawmakers to discourage this.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 6, the Minister of Finance boasted that more than
438,000 jobs had been created in Canada and that this was the
best performance in a decade. Unfortunately for Canadians and
Quebecers, Statistics Canada's annual figures are nowhere near
this level. In fact, 261,000 jobs were created in 1994.
If we compare these figures with those recorded at the end of
the early 1980s recession, last year's 261,000 jobs should be
compared with an average of 347,000 jobs created annually
between 1985 and 1988. The minister has nothing to brag about.
Especially since, with the increase in population, 825,000
jobs would have to be created to return to prerecession
employment levels.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, most Canadians' sense of fair play was offended when
the airborne regiment was ordered disbanded. They saw this
action,
9724
rather than being based on factual evidence, as an emotional
overreaction to amateur videos.
A whole regiment laid low for the misbehaviour of a few.
Humiliation for the several hundred remaining members of the
airborne as well as every serving or retired member who ever
saw duty with the regiment.
Families: wives, daughters, sons, who proudly associated
themselves with the regiment now feel tarnished by this
ignominious end to their unit. A professional, highly trained and
motivated force which should be remembered for claiming the
dominion of our north; for the deep respect earned while on duty
in Europe and in the Middle East; and for the humanitarian relief
provided across many continents. Government, attempting to
appear decisive, has made an inappropriate decision.
A proud and capable regiment has been lost from the order of
battle and the Canadian taxpayer burdened with a large and
unnecessary expense.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this decade of the 20th century has been declared
by the United Nations as the Decade of Literacy. This is a time to
raise our awareness of those Canadians who can neither read nor
write.
It is a disturbing fact that nearly three million Canadians are
unable to function with basic literary skills. We are now halfway
through the Decade of Literacy and inroads are being made by
groups like the Movement for Canadian Literacy and ABC
Canada.
Learning to read is a golden key which unlocks the door to
creativity and independence. One of the greatest satisfactions of
my entire life was teaching an adult male to read. He trusted me
enough to share his dark secret that he had been faking it.
Privately we persisted and a few months later he was on his own,
actually reading the daily newspaper. The joy was like the
miracle of restoring sight to the blind.
I encourage anyone hearing my voice today who cannot read
to take action to seek the help in learning the greatest joy in life,
the joy of reading.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on January 19, the PQ government decided to close
Quebec's office in Edmonton, thus forcing francophones in the
three Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Territories to turn to
the Vancouver and Toronto offices for assistance.
(1415)
On May 27, 1994, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois unveiled a
policy on francophone and Acadian communities, claiming that
after achieving sovereignty, Quebec would strengthen the role
of its offices across Canada in promoting Quebec's co-operation
programs.
Who is right? The leader of the Bloc Quebecois who wants to
make more assistance available or the separatist PQ government
which closes offices and cuts services to francophones outside
Quebec?
_____________________________________________
9724
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In a prereferendum speech to
the Metropolitan Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs said, and I quote: ``-no one in Canada is
going to discuss the status quo. There will be no more status quo.
There will be major changes-''.
Does this statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs mean
that the Prime Minister has changed his mind and that his
government will now support major changes in the way
federalism operates, this after doggedly defending the status
quo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is
introducing major changes in the way unemployment insurance
and social programs operate. Who is opposed to these changes?
Who wants to keep the status quo?
An hon. member: The Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The Bloc Quebecois,
exactly.
When the Minister of Finance suggests ways to improve our
society, who wants to keep the status quo? Always the Bloc
Quebecois.
Our federalism is flexible. We will make some adjustments,
but we do not have to change the constitution to make those
adjustments. We must be practical and tackle one problem at a
time, in the best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
seriously. The Prime Minister should take this seriously.
If it is so easy to transform Canada by signing administrative
agreements and if the Prime Minister is sincere about this, could
he explain why, fifteen months after his party came to power, he
has yet to recognize the unanimous demands for full jurisdiction
9725
over manpower training from all stakeholders in Quebec? All
stakeholders in Quebec are asking him to withdraw from this
area of jurisdiction. If it is so easy and if he is so serious about it,
why has nothing been done? Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made several offers to the Government of
Quebec. We have offered to simplify the system, as the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs said. We could not offer
everything they wanted, but we offered half a loaf.
Since these people want to maintain the status quo, they will
not consider accepting anything else. Right now we are signing
harmonization agreements with Canada's nine other provinces,
except the Government of Quebec that wants to keep the status
quo. We are not maintaining the status quo. They are.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, may I
remind the Prime Minister that the Quebec Premier who turned
down the agreement with the Liberal government was the former
Liberal Premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister's partner on the
no committee for the Quebec referendum?
Will the Prime Minister admit that this manoeuvring by his
Minister of Foreign Affairs was an attempted rerun of the
referendum speech by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers must have liked Mr. Trudeau's speech,
because they voted 60 per cent in favour of staying in Canada,
and this year, Quebecers will again listen to the people in
Quebec who want to stay in Canada. Apparently, on the evening
news tonight, we will be told that it is even better than last time.
Two or three months away from the referendum, they are at least
15 points behind where they were in February 1980.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what has stuck in the mind of Quebecers about Pierre
Elliot Trudeau's 1980 speech is that promises were not kept.
An hon. member: And unilateral patriation.
Mr. Duceppe: In his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
announced that, from now on, the federal government would
concentrate on areas of federal jurisdiction, recognizing
implicitly that duplication and overlap had become common
practice in Ottawa, when he said: ``We will review this matter
and focus on areas of federal jurisdiction.''
My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that his Minister
of Foreign Affairs has announced that the federal government
will no longer encroach on areas of provincial responsibility,
will the Prime Minister indicate from which areas Ottawa plans
to withdraw?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have offered on several occasions to withdraw from
forestry agreements for example, but Bloc members would rise
in this House and ask that we go on providing funds for Quebec
forests. Questions were put to us on this subject.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It is always the same thing.
They want us to withdraw, but at the same time they want us to
continue paying. If we withdraw, we withdraw. The problem is
they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want us to
collect taxes for Quebec to spend as it pleases. Well, from now
on, we will spend our own money and they can spend theirs.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants his remarks to be taken
seriously, could he clearly identify the areas from which he
intends to withdraw, as well as the federal departments and
agencies that will be abolished to eliminate the costly
duplication referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
is incidentally the minister responsible for Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are working day in and day out with the other
provinces to try and eliminate duplication. In many areas, there
is no duplication. Take income tax for example. In every other
province, there is only one level of government collecting.
Duplication comes from Quebec deciding to have its own
ministry of revenue collect personal income tax, unlike the other
provinces. You know, it does not cost Ontario anything to collect
its provincial income tax, because a line was added to our tax
form for that purpose, while in Quebec a separate report has to
be filed. Hundreds of millions are spent unnecessarily because
of this. Duplication often comes from the other side.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, just a few hours ago Moody's bond rating service
announced it will review Canada's foreign debt rating and also
Canada's AAA domestic rating. Moody's is not only sending the
government a wake-up call, it is ringing the alarm bell.
Will the Minister of Finance finally acknowledge that the
markets are rejecting his deficit reduction targets as inadequate
and that Canada's debt and deficit situation is much more
serious than he or the Prime Minister has led us to believe?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Moody's certainly
could have waited until the government brought down its
budget.
9726
When the government brings down that budget the financial
markets will see very clearly this government has kept faith with
what it said in its pre-election campaign and in the last budget.
We have repeatedly said that we will fulfil our obligations, we
will live up to our commitments, we will hit our targets. In terms
of this year's deficit, I am here to tell you we have done a hell of
a lot better.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister and the members opposite just do not get
it. When one of the world's largest bond rating agencies will not
wait two weeks to get the minister's budget, it is telling him that
his targets are not only unbelievable, they are unacceptable to
the money markets. That is the message they are trying to send
to the minister.
(1425)
Will the minister simply accept the fact that his deficit
reduction targets are inadequate and commit to eliminating the
deficit within the life of this Parliament, which is what the
money markets are asking?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year in the
months that followed the budget the leader of the third party
kept standing up and saying that we would never hit our targets,
that they were too tough, that we would never get there, that the
sky was about to fall, that Chicken Little had a lot of trouble.
Why at least does the leader of the Reform Party not have the
decency to stand up today and congratulate the government for
having done what he said we never could do?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to congratulate the minister on hitting that target would
be like congratulating a high jumper for getting over the bar
when it is at three feet.
We are wondering whether the minister and the government
ever learn anything from the experiences of others. The
government and this minister are going down exactly the same
fiscal path as the NDP Government of Ontario. First it denies the
situation is serious, then a half-hearted attempt at tax increases
to deal with it, then in the final analysis come to cut spending
after it is too late.
Is it really the minister's ambition to become known as the
Bob Rae of federal politics?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last October the
government provided a very accurate analysis of this country's
financial situation. It was an analysis praised by the financial
markets. It was an analysis praised by the great majority of
economists. It was an analysis praised by those of the Reform
Party who understand economics, who basically said it was an
accurate analysis. Is he about to now deny that which his
colleagues said?
Let me tell the House something. I know it is hard for this
member to accept some good news. This country is leading the
G-7 in growth, leading the G-7 in employment, leading the G-7
in controlling inflation.
For the love of heaven let me say today, manufacturing
shipments in this country were up 1.6 per cent in December and
12-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government's pre-budget public relations exercise,
including the speech made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is
an attempt to convince Quebecers that the government is about
to decentralize the federal regime.
Does the Prime Minister agree that true decentralization
requires a transfer of tax resources, including tax points, so that
the provinces can take over from the federal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to be in a position where someone else
would collect taxes on my behalf, so that I would not have to do
it myself. Tax collection is a part of political responsibility. If
they want us to decentralize, fine. However, they were happy to
let us collect taxes, and take the blame for it, and then get the
money from us. In the context of responsible government, it
would be better if everyone collected his own taxes. The
situation would be clearer for everyone.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that is precisely what we are asking, namely that the
federal government withdraw from these tax fields. We will do
the job ourselves.
Does the Prime Minister agree that this renewed Canada,
which he is predicting, is nothing more than an attempt to hide
the fact that the federal government continues to dump the costs
of social programs on the provinces?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can see that the Bloc members are in disarray because
they realize that our flexible federalism approach is working
very well. If they knew a bit about history, they would know
that, a few years ago, the federal government collected over 60
per cent of the taxes in this country, while incurring close to 60
per cent of the expenditures.
9727
Now, the figures are reversed. Indeed, the provinces, which
used to collect 40 per cent of all taxes, now spend and collect
60 per cent of the money. The federal government is currently
collecting 40 per cent, a proportion which is diminishing. Thus,
the situation changed considerably over the last ten years, even
without any constitutional amendment.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the age old problem of patronage under the former Tory
government is well known. Now it is coming back to haunt the
new masters of patronage, the Liberal government.
Most recently Canada Ports Corporation chairman Arnold
Masters has reportedly abused his expense account, billed an
unreasonable amount of work and doctored the minutes of the
corporation's board of directors.
Now it has been revealed that nearly 50 top executives of
shipping companies from Vancouver to Halifax have written to
the Minister of Transport calling for Masters' immediate
resignation.
When will the Minister of Transport take action on these
abuses, take the advice of the Canadian shipping industry and
demand the resignation of Arnold Masters?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a serious matter.
Because we try to pay attention to the advice that is given by
members of the third party in the House, in situations such as
this one where serious allegations have been made and there is a
call for drastic action we want to take some time to make sure we
do the right thing.
The hon. member would know, as many of his colleagues have
said on another matter that has been the subject of a great deal of
discussion in the House, a person does not want to act rashly in
these matters.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has already claimed to be waiting on a
report from the transport committee's study of marine policy
before he takes any action.
The purpose of that study is to consult with users to determine
how they want their port system changed to make it more viable.
Those users have spoken and they have spoken loudly against
Arnold Masters.
With this kind of unified opposition, when is the Minister of
Transport going to act?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, the appointment of the
gentleman in question was made by the previous government.
He has been in office for several years and had acted as a director
prior to that. We understand the importance of making sure that
the operations of Canada Ports are done efficiently.
There have been questions raised by the hon. member and
others at hearings of the Standing Committee on Transport. We
are going to review the matter very seriously, but I want to
emphasize that the Standing Committee on Transport, mandated
by the House to look into the whole area of the operation of
Canada Ports, is meeting across the country right now and will
have an opportunity to hear from these people who signed their
names to a letter. They can make their allegations directly
before the committee.
Perhaps, if the hon. member has any other information that he
wishes to make known to the Canadian public, he might want to
step outside and make whatever allegations he wishes to make.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Pointing to the massiveness of the system, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said that Ottawa would work to eliminate
overlap and duplication. It would therefore be devoting its
efforts to areas under its jurisdiction. Under the constitution,
health is a provincial matter.
To demonstrate his good faith, does the Prime Minister
intend, as logic would dictate, to abolish the national forum on
health that he chairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, health is a complex issue, and we have a responsibility
in this area. We set up a national health service in Canada, which
all Canadians and a large majority of Quebecers continue to
support. It guarantees free health services to all Canadians and
ensures that there will not be two categories of hospitals in
Canada and Quebec-one for the rich, and one for the poor.
We wanted to ensure dignity, in Canada, for all who are sick.
This is why the federal government stepped in. Canada's health
system has set an example for the world, and the Americans
would like to have it right now.
(1435)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand from the Prime Minister that his ``new'' Canada in
health matters simply means that Ottawa will force the
provinces to meet ever more stringent national standards while
cutting transfer payments to them and leaving them with the
financial burden?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we decided to try to improve the systems. As I was
saying earlier, we have succeeded in signing agreements with all
9728
the provinces to eliminate duplication. The only government
that does not want to sign an agreement with us in an attempt to
identify areas of duplication which could be eliminated is the
government of Quebec, because it wants to use the status quo for
its purposes. I just hope they will hold a referendum soon, ask
an honest question, so that the blackmail business will be over
with.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Communication Group has been recommended for
privatization, yet unbelievably the President of the Treasury
Board has extended the workforce adjustment directive giving
the employees of CCG guaranteed job protection. This is the
very same workforce adjustment directive the minister is
attempting to eliminate from other federal employees.
Why would the minister extend a policy that guarantees these
federal employees job protection when the recommendation is
to get rid of the agency?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said before in the House that we are going
through a downsizing. Part of that downsizing will require that
different programs and services are curtailed or completely
removed from what we provide to Canadians. That is part of
getting our deficit reduction targets met.
In the course of doing that it will be necessary to downsize the
public service, but we will be treating our employees in a fair
and equitable fashion in doing that, whether they are part of that
agency or any other part of the government.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question was: Why give them the protection of the workforce
adjustment agreement when we are trying to downsize the
government?
Will the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that
he will rescind the most recent extension of the workforce
adjustment agreement and that there will be no further
extensions of the policy, as he admits, while we are downsizing
the government?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as it applies to the particular agency the hon. member is
mentioning, I would have to repeat what I am saying in terms of
the public service overall.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in his speech to the Chambre of Commerce of Metropolitan
Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and minister
responsible for Quebec stated that the government must
concentrate less on regional development and focus instead on
helping small business.
Can the Minister of Finance, minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec, confirm his government's intention to
withdraw from regional development and focus exclusively on
helping small business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious
that the best way to go about regional development is to help
small business. That is truly where most new jobs are created. I
am not the only one to say so, so do local authorities in Quebec,
as well as the provincial government, the parent company.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is clear, given that
Quebec has adopted a general strategy for regional
development, including assistance to businesses, would the
minister not agree that, in the interest of avoiding all duplication
and overlap, as the Prime Minister has said, he must recognize
Quebec as the sole authority in terms of regional development,
including assistance to businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only do I
disagree with the hon. member's hypothesis, but I say that,
having discussed the matter with the current Government of
Quebec, the current government does not agree with the hon.
member's hypothesis.
* * *
(1440)
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, he tabled a report entitled ``On Track'' from the
committee reviewing the Railway Safety Act. Can the minister
tell us when he will be in a position to respond to the report's
recommendations?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned a very major report
9729
that is quite long. First off, I would like to thank those who wrote
it. The government is currently preparing its response to the
many recommendations, a good number of which are very broad
in scope, and we should be able to publish that response within
90 days.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 24 of last year in my constituency,
Catherine Evenson, a beautiful young lady who was confined to
a wheelchair, was raped in her home. The man facing rape
charges is a refugee and is now trying to cement his stay in
Canada by applying for permanent resident status.
Will the minister of immigration intervene in this case and
ensure that no permanent status in Canada is considered until the
case is heard and the verdict is handed down?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no specific details of
the case. I appreciate the hon. member raising it. I will give her
my word that certainly I will have officials look into the case.
It is also a good reason, rather than simply dealing with
individual cases, to have had Bill C-44 approved at third
reading. It attempts to make the system better so that we
minimize any such horrible cases we hear about.
I was somewhat distraught that the Reform Party, which
relishes bringing case after case to the floor of the House of
Commons, did not see fit to support Bill C-44.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the minister that I have been in constant
contact with his office on the matter as well as with the Solicitor
General's office. I also stress that I am assured Bill C-44 will do
nothing to help this case at all.
I thank the minister for his response. I assure him that today
this young woman and her family are listening to and watching
these proceedings. Would the minister please notify me as soon
as a decision is made?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, I
would be happy to look into the file. I can appreciate that the
hon. member has been in touch with officials of my department,
but as any member can appreciate no minister can be on top of
the thousands of cases across the country.
The hon. member, with all due respect, is absolutely wrong if
she and her colleagues believe that Bill C-44 will not improve
the system's capacity to keep those individuals from getting
protection and allowing those legitimate cases to be accepted in
our system. I ask her and her colleagues to change their minds
about Bill C-44 because it would help Canadians and the
system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The Official
Languages Commissioner published a study this morning on
services in the minority official language offered to the public in
designated federal offices. Among other things, the study found
that in Quebec, service in English is available 98.8 per cent of
the time, while in the rest of Canada, 28 per cent of all
designated offices still do not provide service in French.
How can the President of the Treasury Board justify that,
more than two years after a regulation was passed on the issue,
over one in four francophones outside of Quebec are unable to
obtain federal services in their language?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, even while the official languages commissioner was
undertaking his survey the Treasury Board was consulting with
managers in offices across the country to help ensure that they
were carrying out their obligations under the Official Languages
Act.
Furthermore, we have assembled information that we have
provided to Canadians through minority language newspapers
across the country so that they know where to find the offices
and who to contact to be able to get services in the language of
their choice.
(1445)
Finally, let me say that this government is solidly committed
to quality services in the official language of choice by
Canadians and in meeting its obligations under the Official
Languages Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the alarming increase in the assimilation rate of francophone
and Acadian communities in Canada, how can the minister
justify the slow pace with which the government has made its
services available to francophones in the language of their
choice? Is bilingualism a sham?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the official languages commissioner said that in 79 per
cent of cases across the country the service was available and
that 92 per cent of the time it was good quality service that was
being provided.
9730
We are not satisfied with those numbers. We are not satisfied
with anything short of 100 per cent in meeting our targets under
the Official Languages Act.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice could not
or would not answer how a national gun registry program would
reduce crime. If the minister could show this evidence to
support registration, most Canadians would probably support it.
Will the minister provide this House with evidence that shows
how a national gun registry will save lives and reduce the
criminal use of firearms in our communities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anyone has questions
to answer about their position on gun registration surely it is the
Reform Party of Canada. The very party that styles itself as the
party of law and order opposes a measure that the police want in
this country. The very party that styles itself as the party of the
people is against a measure that poll after poll shows is
supported by the vast majority of Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for Canadians who are concerned about the
cost of firearms registration and for Canadians who are
concerned about crime on the streets using firearms, would the
minister give them the statistics that confirm a national firearms
registration program will save lives and will reduce the criminal
use of firearms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time and again the
police chiefs of this country tell us that a registry system will
help us stop the traffic in illegal arms at the border. It will help
us ensure that the number of firearms lost and stolen every year
and end up in the hands of criminals is reduced. Time and again
they tell us they need registration to enforce court orders that
prohibit people convicted of crimes of violence from possessing
firearms. I will take the word of the chiefs of police on that
question.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
The minister announced today that hundreds of governor in
council and ministerial appointments will be eliminated as a
result of the agency review. I agree that this overhaul of boards
and commissions is long overdue, but is it all just window
dressing or will this initiative bring real savings for Canadian
taxpayers and help put an end to political patronage?
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must thank
the hon. member for his question. It allows me to comment on
the agency review report which was released today. The report
looked at 400 commissions, boards and agencies and 120 were
affected, 73 were wound up, 47 were restructured and no less
than 665 governor in council positions were abolished.
To give members an idea of the scope of this review, since this
government was elected, it has appointed approximately 700
persons to governor in council positions, 100 of which were
reappointments. In short, the government has abolished more
governor in council positions than it has appointed new persons
to such positions.
We are bringing efficiency and fairness to government.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Forty maritime
organizations and businesses have asked the Minister of
Transport to dismiss the chairman of Ports Canada's board of
directors, Arnold Masters, from his duties. Just a few minutes
ago, the minister said that he had to wait for a report from the
transport committee before he could take action.
How can the minister wait for the report from the transport
committee before taking action in this matter, since the
committee has no mandate to review Mr. Masters' case?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what a revelation: the hon. member will now wait for a
mandate before raising such issues. When I appeared before the
transport committee, the hon. member, instead of dealing with
the problems affecting the transportation system across the
country and proposing solutions, went on and on about Mr.
Masters. With or without a mandate, the hon. member always
knows where to dig.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since Mr. Masters is completely discredited in the eyes of the
Canadian maritime industry, why does the minister not suspend
him immediately now that the allegations are out in the open?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I indeed received a letter signed by several
stakeholders in the industry asking me to replace the gentleman
in question. However, as far as I know, the allegations are based
on
9731
comments which so far are not supported by any evidence of
criminal or fraudulent activities.
I wish to emphasize that we are, of course, reviewing the
situation because it is important. Unless the hon. member has
specific evidence to submit to us which would point to
unacceptable behaviour on the part of Mr. Masters involving
criminal or fraudulent activities, I would appreciate it if the hon.
member exercised his right to make these accusations outside
this Chamber instead of staying here where he is protected.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister is well aware that virtually all of the OECD
countries now have an inheritance tax for people who inherit,
say, sums of money over $1 million. This would generate
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue at a time when
revenue is much in need.
Can the minister tell us, is there some reason Canada does not
have an inheritance tax like virtually every other OECD
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the
question as asked concerning the reasons for not having one. I
interpret this question to be not related to the budget, but simply
seeking information.
The reason is that we in Canada, unlike other countries, have
deemed capital gains disposition on death, which roughly
equates to an inheritance tax. Another reason is that we have
much higher property taxes than do many other countries. It is
felt that does the case. Also, the principal interest most
Canadians have is their main residence, which as the hon.
member knows, is not subject to capital gains tax and would not
be subject to any kind of a wealth tax.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is why
I suggested a ceiling of $1 million would be a useful guideline. It
would get around the matter of one's principal residence.
The minister has said that not many poor people use tax
loopholes. I suggest that not many poor families use family
trusts. Can the minister explain to the House of Commons and
the people of Canada why a country like Canada would continue
to have in its tax system a provision that caters virtually
exclusively to the wealthiest families in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, family trusts are also used by many small
businesses in order to make sure the business can pass from one
generation to the other. Where objections have been raised to
family trusts is where it really does entail undue tax advantage
for those who are using it. This was a position that many on this
side of the House took when in opposition and it is a position
that is certainly supportable in debate.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Many Indian people in my riding are expressing deep concern
that the federal government is about to sign a self-government
agreement with Gitksan Indian leaders. Their concerns relate
mostly to the fact that elected band councils will disappear and
will be replaced by an unelected and unaccountable hereditary
chief system.
Can the minister confirm that the federal government will not
now or in the future allow such a system of government to gain
power in Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the minister
cannot answer my question perhaps the Prime Minister can.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada as the leader of the
government guarantee that his government will never sanction
undemocratic Indian governments of any kind in Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that
the Government of Canada will never sanction undemocratic
governments of any nature.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The good news is that 27,000 Newfoundlanders are benefiting
from the TAGS program. The bad news is that many hundreds of
fishermen and plant workers, all of whom have had a long work
attachment to the fishery, are being deprived of benefits. I say to
the minister that the culprit is the appeal process. There are
rumours, for example, that more than 95 per cent of second level
appeals are being rejected by HRD officials.
9732
What is the minister doing to ensure that the appeal process
is fair?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to express my
appreciation to the hon. member and other members of the
Atlantic provinces and Quebec who have been working very
closely with us to ensure that those who are eligible will be able
to receive their benefits under the TAGS program.
We understand there are some difficulties being faced by the
appeal process. The latest records are that about 75 per cent of
the appeals are being recommended, but there are some
difficulties which the hon. member and others have brought to
my attention.
I have been working closely with the minister of fisheries. I
can make a commitment to the hon. member that we will have a
correction of the appeal process within the next two weeks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Since 1986, Portuguese nationals need visas to visit Canada.
Portugal is the only EEC country to which such a restriction
applies.
Does the minister, who stated in 1986 that, by imposing visa
restrictions on Portuguese citizens, we were doing a disservice
to a European country and an ally, agree that this is a
discriminatory and unjustifiable measure which must be lifted
as soon as possible?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for
raising a question on an important policy issue. Members should
be very well aware that the federal government has already seen
fit to lift visas in a number of countries throughout the world.
Some months back we lifted the visa restriction on Hungary.
During his trip to South America the Prime Minister made an
announcement that no longer will Chile, a country the member
knows well, have a visa restriction.
We are making progressive moves but it is a two way street.
When we lift visa restrictions we also want to make sure that our
system is protected with respect to documentation as well as
visits from individuals from that part of the world. Where they
meet our conditions we can make such moves, as we have in the
past.
(1500)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. This
morning I had the pleasure of introducing a private member's
bill to the House which would have the effect of amending the
Criminal Code to make dangerous intoxication a criminal
offence. This would prevent people from hiding behind the
charter of rights and freedoms to get away from their own
responsibility for offences committed while drunk.
Will the minister take this bill, make it a government bill and
try to get all-party support for this very important consideration
that all Canadians hold together? Most people in Canada cannot
understand why this loophole exists.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon.
member's initiative and I share his objective. I too have been at
work on this very subject.
The Department of Justice has its own approach to this very
problem. I expect before too many days are out to be introducing
government legislation to achieve the same objective.
The Speaker: We will have the usual question on the
Business of the House. Then I will hear a question of privilege, a
point of order and then I want to give a ruling a little later on
another question of privilege.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as customary, I would like to ask the Secretary of State
for Parliamentary Affairs to let us know what the legislative
menu for the coming week will be.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the
consideration of Bill C-68 on firearms. Tomorrow, we will start
the debate in third reading on Bill C-59 to amend the Income
Tax Act.
[English]
On Monday we will debate third reading of Bill C-37, the
young offenders legislation, and if there is any time left when
this is finished we will resume consideration of report stage of
Bill C-52.
9733
Tuesday will be an allotted day. On Wednesday we will deal
with second reading of the electoral boundaries readjustment
bill and we will then resume consideration of Bill C-68.
There will be no ordinary sitting on Thursday but at three
o'clock p.m. on that day there will be a joint meeting of both
Houses in this Chamber to hear an address by the President of
the United States.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege and I appreciate the
opportunity to be recognized today.
I take the point of privilege very seriously. After six years and
some months in this Chamber I have never risen on a point of
privilege, recognizing that to do so would mean that my rights as
a member of Parliament were abused or the ability to do my job
was somehow impeded by rules of this House or by actions that
may have taken place elsewhere.
I rise today on a point of privilege to express my concern that
my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament has been
impeded by rules and regulations that exist in this place.
A bill before the House at the present time, Bill C-68, the
firearms legislation, is a bill that in my constituency and
elsewhere across Canada is of great interest. The bill has elicited
a tremendous amount of letters and telephone calls over the last
few months. The proposals that were brought forward by the
government have been out in front of Canadians for several
months.
As a result of those proposals being put forward to Canadians
I have had a great many telephone calls and letters from my
constituents asking to be kept informed of the progress of this
bill and when the bill was printed and available in the House to
supply those constituents with copies of that bill.
I have compiled a list of names in my constituency and tried to
assess the number of letters that I received with regard to this
bill.
(1505)
I have calculated that maybe 200 or 300 copies of the bill
would be required for me to distribute to the people who have
expressed an interest in responding to this issue in front of all of
us to provide me with their comments and backgrounds so that I
can properly represent them and to communicate an intelligent
review of the bill to the minister and the government.
On doing so I have contacted the Department of Justice for
extra copies of the bill to provide to my constituents. I am told
by the Department of Justice that I am limited to a handful of
copies of the bill.
I contacted distribution of the House of Commons and I am
told that there is a limited supply of the bill, that very few can be
available to me. Only after all members are done getting their
limited supply will I be able to have access to the few copies that
would be left over.
Finally I took the bill along with a letter and some newspaper
clippings to printing this morning to ask if it could produce
some copies so that I could keep my constituents informed as
they requested about the contents of this important bill.
I am told by printing that it cannot do it because the rules of
the House of Commons specify that if the bill is available
elsewhere, it cannot print it.
We have exhausted all the possibilities of the bill being
available elsewhere. I do not want to be embarrassed in front of
my constituents by being unable to provide them with copies of
bills that I am debating in this Chamber.
I ask that my question of privilege be examined by the House
and at the very least that I and members of Parliament who
require copies of this bill to keep our constituents informed be
allowed to have printed enough copies to satisfy our demands.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, although I doubt that this is a question of privilege
the issue brought to the attention of the House by the member is
an important one.
A number of my own colleagues have approached me in my
position as whip on the same issue. Perhaps more appropriately
it would be a matter for the Board of Internal Economy to
consider. If either that member or another member can make a
formal request that we do that you, Mr. Speaker, and I and others
who sit on that board could look at this issue and how to
accommodate it.
For this to be a question of privilege, I suppose a member
would have to be denied access to the information which of
course he is not. There is a fee, quite a hefty one, for obtaining
copies of the bill. I am informed that it is in the area of $10 a
copy.
It is more appropriately a matter to be discussed by our board
as an expenditure of the House. Perhaps in so doing we could see
what we could do to accommodate at least some of the members
or accommodate all members with a quantity of some sort to
satisfy the demand that is expressed by this member and others
who have brought it to my attention as well.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the words of my hon. friend but recognizing that, it
might be some time before the Board of Internal Economy
would have an opportunity to address this. The matter is rather
urgent. The legislation is before the House now.
9734
Our constituents want to find out immediately what this bill
involves. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can assure members that
this is not some item that might be put off indefinitely or for
a few days even.
The Speaker: To the extent that I can give that assurance to
all hon. members, I will surely give it. This would be a point that
would be put on the agenda. I do not know whether I can talk to
the Board of Internal Economy. I will defer to that and go back to
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for an
answer to that question.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am really responding as
the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy. I can
assure my hon. colleague that he has my undertaking to bring it
to the attention of the board as early as the meeting on Tuesday.
The Speaker: With agreement from hon. members we will
proceed this way. If there is not agreement at the end of it all I
will take this up again and I will get back to the House.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke rose and put a question.
(1510 )
I am informed, although I did not see it as I could not see it
from my seat, that on the television cameras it was quite obvious
that he was holding a prop. The prop was in the nature of a sign
posted on the back of the document or portfolio that he was
holding. The document was clearly visible on television and
contained a slogan that related to recent meetings on taxes in
Canada.
The person who told me this saw it on television in the lobby. I
was not in the lobby, I was in the House and could not see it from
where I was sitting.
I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 501:
Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of
any sort in the Chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the display of
competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and
milk powder have been ruled out of order.
Citation 502 states:
When a member produced samples of grain in the House, the Speaker
deprecated the practice, saying, `If we allowed hon. members to produce such
exhibits, we would get ourselves involved in a position where perhaps all too
often hon. members would want to table dead fish, herrings, or red herrings,
damp grain or wild oats'.
This quotation from previous Speakers indicates the grave
nature of this offence against the rules of the House and I ask the
Chair to apply the proper discipline to the hon. member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The Speaker: Perhaps there is a simple explanation. The hon.
member is here now and perhaps he can explain it in a few
words.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that a prop is something that
relates to the subject at hand. I held up my speech and I used a
piece of stiff cardboard in order to keep the pages from falling
over, as they will.
I will not display it now and further incur the wrath of the hon.
member, but as it happens there was a label on the back, which
we have on briefcases and everything else, which said ``No more
taxes. No more debt''.
I can understand the hon. member's sensitivity to that. It was
not my intention-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am glad we do not have the lash in our arsenal.
I would encourage all hon. members not to use props. The
hon. member has explained that it was done inadvertently. I
accept the hon. member's word.
* * *
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a question of
privilege by the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, which he raised first on
November 2, 1994 and then again on February 8, 1995.
On November 2 the member rose to complain that during
question period the previous day the Deputy Prime Minister had
breached confidentiality by quoting from a letter which the
member had written on behalf of a constituent to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. He contended that by revealing the contents
of this letter without his permission the Deputy Prime Minister
had interfered with his ability to carry out his duties. He argued
that his constituents would now wonder whether or not matters
on which they sought his assistance could be kept confidential.
The Deputy Prime Minister responded that the letter was part
of the public record of the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission.
On February 8, 1995 the hon. member again rose on a question
of privilege to state that new information had come to light on
the same matter. He explained that the constituent on whose
behalf he had written had received a letter from the manager of
correspondence and complaints at the CRTC. In that letter the
constituent was advised that under the terms of the Privacy Act,
9735
unless she requested otherwise, the hon. member's letter, sent
on her behalf, and any other correspondence related to her
complaint would become part of the licensee's publicly
accessible file in early January.
The hon. member now argues that contrary to the statement of
the Deputy Prime Minister his letter was not in fact a public
document when the Deputy Prime Minister quoted from it last
November and again requested that I review the matter.
(1515)
[Translation]
The chief government whip then intervened and argued that
what was at issue was a question of law and that the Speaker
does not rule on such matters. He also added that if the hon.
Member had a complaint with the CRTC, there were other
avenues by which he could pursue it.
Let me first address the matter of whether or not the member's
letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was a public
document and therefore able to be quoted from in debate.
Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, page 151, citation 495(7) states:
When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private
letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document,
and if quoted by a Minister in debate, must be tabled on request.
[
English]
From this, I must conclude that the letter from the hon.
member to the minister was in fact a public document and
therefore could be quoted from in the House.
It is not for me to decide whether or not, as the Deputy Prime
Minister stated, the letter was part of the public record of the
CRTC. The application of the Privacy Act and the laws and
policies governing CRTC dossiers are beyond my purview. As
my predecessors have repeatedly ruled, it is not now, nor has it
ever been, the role of the Speaker to rule on questions of law.
This has been a longstanding practice and I draw members'
attention to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice
in the Dominion of Canada, Fourth Edition, 1916 at page 180
which reads that the Speaker:
-will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a
question of law, though the same be raised on a point of order or privilege.
This is also repeated in citation 168(5) of Beauchesne's sixth
edition, 1989.
On matters of privilege, it is up to the House to decide whether
or not a member's privileges have been breached. The Speaker
must be persuaded that there is some evidence that a member has
been hindered in the performance of his or her parliamentary
duties, before putting the question to the whole House for
determination.
Having carefully reviewed the procedural authorities and the
interventions of hon. members, I must conclude that in the case
before us there is no prima facie question of privilege.
I thank all hon. members for their contribution to this
decision.
_____________________________________________
9735
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand there was
some time left in the question and comment period for the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I
believe the member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia had the floor.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had digressed to the
question of the political flip-flop of the Association of Police
Chiefs on the question of the registration of guns. However, I
would like to pursue my original debate with the hon. member
for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.
He has at rather great length discussed the causes of domestic
violence and suicide in the home as it relates to the registration
of firearms. I fail to see, and I have tried very hard to
understand, how a registered gun is any less lethal than an
unregistered gun. If we want to solve the problem of domestic
violence leading to death or of suicide with firearms, there is
only one way it can be done. That is by totally disarming the
civilian population.
(1520)
I would ask the hon. member if that is his vision of Canada.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I was really interested in hearing
the hon. member before question period when he contrasted the
styles of the Minister of Justice who spoke in calm tones and
mine with very passionate, emotional tones.
In this party we are individuals. We have different styles,
different ways of expressing ourselves, different points of view
sometimes. That is what makes a democratic party. I do not see
why we should not speak with passion. I feel very passionately
about this issue. I feel passionately about it because guns kill.
They cause death and injury. We should do whatever we can to
be on the side of caution. That is what Bill C-68 is all about.
9736
I would remind the hon. member that there are an estimated
five million rifles and shotguns in Canada. Nobody knows who
owns them. Over the past 20 years 62,000 guns have been stolen
and not recovered. Over 3,000 a year are lost and nobody knows
where they are.
A registration system makes it easier for police control, for
people in charge of legal control to trace possessions. This is
why we register cars and boats. When they get stolen or
burglarized people can trace them.
Today the Reform Party is challenging us to prove without any
fear of contradiction, with 100 per cent certainty, that
registration will be watertight or statistically proven. We have
suggested that there is a whole body of opinion relating to crime.
The police chiefs association, the Canadian Association of
Police, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Crime
Association all tell us that registration will have an impact on at
least controlling the guns that flow across the borders
unregistered, unknown.
Surely it is worse, the precautionary principle. Where is
common sense? Where is the fact that we should use caution
when it comes to lives? The onus should be on us to show we
have taken every possible action to ensure life is protected.
If registration would save one life-according to all the
experts it will save many lives-then of course registration is
possible. We have a duty as a government to do it. Bill C-68 is
awaited by a great majority of Canadians. Eighty-eight per cent
of Canadians in the Angus Reid poll say they are for registration,
including a majority all across Canada. In some provinces it is
up to 95 per cent, in another, 69 per cent. Every western province
is for it.
Therefore, Bill C-68 is a big step forward. It is a reflection of
what the majority of Canadians want. I am very pleased it is
here. I will support it with great conviction.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the rhetoric flow,
having it interfaced with an appeal to common sense. That is
what we ask for, to see some common sense in the gun
legislation in this country. The hon. member mentioned there
are estimates which range from five million to as high as 12
million firearms and long guns unregistered in the country.
(1525)
The registration of handguns has been in effect since 1934.
We have had 60 years of registration and it has done nothing to
prevent criminals from acquiring and using handguns for
criminal purposes.
I ask the hon. member for a succinct answer, if possible,
because I know his time is up. How will registration of long guns
be more successful than the registration of handguns has been?
He also mentioned experts who say that registration will work
and that ``it will save countless numbers of lives'' I believe was
the term. Name the experts. We would love to know who the
experts are who claim that registration will save lives.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I said it would save lives. If it
saves just one life it would be worth it. They never talk about life
over there. They talk about guns. They do not talk about human
life. That is really what this bill is about.
The member makes the point that the registration of handguns
has been in place since 1934 and it still permits criminals to use
handguns. What would happen if there was no registration of
handguns? Would there not be more crime?
If the registration system needs improving, then let us
improve it. Today we have computers, all kinds of technical
means to ensure that a registration system is far better than the
one that was set up many years ago. This is the opportunity to do
it. We have the technological means to set up a proper
registration system. It will take time but the minister has
allowed for that in the bill. Once it is set up it will be a modern,
up to date registration system which may filter into the
communities and which hopefully will involve the community
at large, the grassroots. It will be far better than the system we
now have, which is no system.
If the handgun registration system is not perfect, then let us
perfect it. But at least it is a step toward caution, toward saving
lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate at second reading of Bill
C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons, which was
tabled on February 14, 1995, by the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
That legislation, which was promised a long time ago by the
Liberal government, and the tabling of which was postponed on
several occasions, amends the Criminal Code and includes a
new Firearms Act. It provides harsh sanctions for crimes
committed with a firearm, as well as a system of registration
certificates and a national firearms registration system.
This dense, complex and technical piece of legislation of 132
pages, with no explanatory notes, will give effect to the
measures announced on November 30 by the minister. The delay
in the tabling of that bill can only be explained by the
considerable opposition it has stirred in the ranks of the Liberal
Party. Over 30 Liberal members will vote against that bill,
including the member for Timiskaming-French River, the
member for Kenora-Rainy River. Some ministers are also said
to have strong reservations about the new legislation.
I hope that these dissenting members will have an opportunity
to express their views in this House, so that we get an idea of just
how divided the Liberals are on this issue. The hon. member for
9737
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who just made a good speech,
should use his persuasiveness to convince his colleagues to
support this legislation.
(1530)
Bill C-68 proposes several measures, including: the
establishment of a national firearms registration system; a
minimum jail sentence of four years for violent crimes
committed with a firearm, as well as a prohibition to ever own a
restricted or prohibited weapon; the inclusion of new Criminal
Code offences with harsh penalties for the illegal importation
and traffic of firearms; measures to tighten controls at the
Canadian border-this morning, the minister mentioned that a
very large number of firearms are imported into Canada each
year-, and a prohibition to import and sell .25 and .32 calibre
handguns, as well as handguns equipped with a barrel of 105mm
or less.
Individuals who do not acquire a licence or a certificate
within the time prescribed could be sentenced, under the
Criminal Code, to a maximum of six months in jail, or to a fine
of up to $2,000. The weapons license is renewable every five
years at a cost of $60. The registration certificate will be valid
for life, unless the weapon is sold or transferred. Once the
system is in place, the license will be mandatory for the
purchase of ammunition.
Control of firearms has caused and continues to cause heated
debate. Those in favour of control are demanding, among other
things, more stringent regulation, that all weapons be registered,
and that certain types of firearms be prohibited.
On the other hand, the weapons industry is angry at having to
submit to new restrictions. It will therefore intensify its pressure
in strongly opposing this bill. We of the Bloc Quebecois have
always held that there must be legislation in this area in order to
better control firearms.
In my opinion, it will also help resolve the crime problem. I
also realize that more restrictive gun control alone cannot
resolve the crime problem. We must reconcile the right of
individuals to protect themselves against violence with the
legitimate interests of weapons' owners, including hunters.
It must be pointed out that the minister resisted the pressure of
the powerful gun lobby. Universal registration of firearms is a
positive measure. It will encourage owners to find ways to store
them safely.
Reactions to the bill in Canada and in Quebec are divided.
However, I think most of the country, including the people in my
riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North, support the broad lines of
the bill. Therefore, I believe this bill, despite many gaps and
shortcomings, is a step in the right direction.
(1535)
Among the measures contained in this bill, the registration of
all firearms is the most seriously disputed. Under the
administrative control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
this measure should be implemented in conjunction with the
provinces and territories. We will keep an eye on co-operation
between the RCMP and the Government of Quebec. In Quebec,
where at least one firearm offence is committed daily, the police
must use stronger measures to effectively counter the criminal
use of firearms.
In my province, 400 to 450 deaths are caused by firearms
every year, about 300 of which are suicides. This is why the
health care community, in particular, has been calling for
registration of all firearms for a long time. We must remember
that in Quebec firearms have been registered since 1972, but the
registration system must be improved.
I have serious reservations about several measures in the bill,
especially in regard to registration procedures and costs. The
national registration system is not self-financed, something
which the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for a long time.
The justice minister has merely mentioned that implementing
this system will cost $85 million over seven years. But he has
not said where he got these figures, how he arrived at this
amount. In addition, I believe the cost will be much higher than
what the minister has calculated.
Moreover, we believe the minister and his government have
given in to the powerful progun lobby by allowing a period of
eight years for the registration of gun owners and their weapons.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am Chilean by birth. I came here
following the military coup in 1973. Chile was a peaceful
country; Pinochet's dictature brought total insecurity. When my
wife, my children and I came to Montreal in 1974, we most
cherished the safety of this country's cities and streets.
However, I was shaken by the tragedy of December 6, 1989,
when 14 young women lost their lives at l'École polytechnique
de Montréal, at the hand of a misogynist murderer. Marc Lépine
used a Luger rifle. The incident spurred a major movement in
Quebec and Canada in favour of increasing firearm controls and
it heightened awareness of the daily violence that women are
subjected to in our society.
I was personally affected by the tragic incident five years ago
because one of my goddaughters was studying at l'École
polytechnique during the incident but, fortunately, did not get
shot.
The bill outlaws the sale of all weapons like the one used by
Marc Lépine. At the time, close to three out of four Canadians
felt that the massacre of the 14 students at l'École polytechnique
demonstrated the need for tighter gun controls.
9738
(1540)
Women, seniors and Quebecers in general were and are the
three groups most in favour of legislative action to restrict the
sale of weapons. According to figures from Statistics Canada,
between 1978 and 1982, 37 per cent of all murders were
committed with firearms. Of the 6,465 crimes committed
between 1978 and 1987, 33 per cent were committed using a
firearm.
The minister said that on the average, every six days a woman
dies from a gunshot wound in Canada. The situation is therefore
very serious. However, in my opinion, the minister is afraid to
really get to the heart of it. He should have tabled a tougher bill.
He extends until the 21st century the time limit for those who
currently owner firearms to get a certificate in compliance with
the minister's action plan.
He has committed the sin of omission on many points in his
bill. The Minister of Justice did not pay enough attention to
coroner Anne-Marie David's inquest, held in Montreal in the
latter part of 1994. Twenty or so witnesses representing various
organizations testified about how inconsistent and unclear the
regulations were and how the minister's new proposals did not
address the problem as a whole.
Government must protect citizens against any fraudulent and
dangerous use of firearms. Public safety must be improved by
limiting the use of firearms for criminal purposes. I think that all
immigrants in Quebec and Canada wish to live in a safe and
law-abiding society. I also think that the people do not want
Quebec and Canada to become like the United States as far as
firearms are concerned.
But at the same time, I would like to see this bill take into
consideration the legitimate interests of hunters and farmers.
Hunting is a long-standing traditional activity. It is a major
leisure and economic activity for many Quebecers and
Canadians. Sports shooters have gained international
recognition. Many aboriginal people hunt to feed their families.
I have nothing against people using weapons for good reasons.
I do not think that in Canada, unlike other countries, we need
to be armed to protect ourselves. At least, this is not the kind of
society I would like to live in.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa
mentioned that about 30 members on the government side will
be voting against the bill. I would suggest that he redo his
research because many of the concerns that our members had
have been addressed in the latest changes to this bill.
I was pleased to hear from him that he personally will be
supporting this bill because, as he said, it was a long time
coming. He did comment, though, that the bill did not go quite
far enough.
(1545 )
The minister of the environment and wildlife for Quebec
stressed that the bill goes too far. I am wondering if he can give
us some clarification if this is the same split within his party. He
makes a very strong statement that the bill does not go far
enough and yet we are hearing another message from that
province that the bill has gone too far.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I hope that the dissent within the Liberal caucus
with respect to Bill C-68 is not deep-seated. I accept your
explanations, but I still think there are some serious problems
about this bill within your caucus.
As I said before, we agree with the general principles of the
bill. We are in favour of tighter gun controls, especially in
Quebec, where we had the tragic killings at l'École
polytechnique in Montreal and where other occurrences have
made us very much aware of the problem.
I hope that during consideration of the bill in the Justice
Committee, we will be able to take a closer look at this
legislation and propose amendments that will make it more
effective and give it more teeth, and that will also ensure it will
come into force as soon as possible. As the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis said earlier with such passionate
conviction, I think society in Canada and Quebec absolutely
needs this legislation.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member for Bourassa two questions.
The hon. member indicated that he supported the idea of
prohibiting the Mini Ruger which was used in the polytechnique
massacre. I can support that and understand that assault
weapons are off the list. My constituents support that as well.
However, someone who is deranged will find a weapon in some
way, whether it is registered or not under this current program.
He could have used a sawed off shotgun, for example.
The first question is how would registration have stopped that
circumstance from actually happening?
The second question is with regard to a remark the hon.
member made concerning universal registration. He said it is a
good idea because it will encourage owners to store their guns
and ammunition safely. The last House of Commons passed Bill
C-17 and put into place legislation that required all people in
Canada to store their guns and ammunition safely. It has not
lowered the crime rate or the illegal use or misuse of firearms in
crimes in any way. How can the hon. member say that universal
registration is going to make a difference with regard to this?
9739
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, of course there are limits to what we
can do. There are mentally disturbed individuals in every
society. However, I believe that our goal and the public's goal is
to minimize the risk of crimes being committed with firearms.
I do not know whether the weapon used by Marc Lépine was
registered, but I think firearms registration will be helpful
because we will know who the owner is. In the case of people
who are mentally disturbed, I trust they will be denied the right
to have a firearms licence.
I think registration is essential to gun control. Of course, if we
have a national registration system, we can also ensure safer
storage of these firearms. I hope that this bill will help us
achieve some of these goals, despite, I repeat, some
considerable deficiencies in Bill C-68.
(1550)
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember one time being stopped by a policeman for
a routine check in my car and in the back seat was a baseball bat.
He asked why I had a baseball bat in my car. I said that along
with the ball and the glove on the floor of the car, I used it to play
with my children. This was a few years ago. He said that was
fine, but that if I were carrying it to use as protection or to use
against someone it would be a crime to have it in the car.
It seems to me that the intention of the use of a firearm or a
hatpin or a hammer or a kitchen knife or a pair of fists is the
thrust of what we should be talking about. It is the intention of a
person to harm, the deformed will of a person that we should be
addressing ourselves to. We cannot stop every threat. When we
are told that if we can save even one life, if it were true I would
accept that.
If we are so concerned about saving lives, why is the
government and why are the people of Canada not more
concerned about the technical standards of appliances, of
automobiles, of so many of the things we use? Why do we allow
smoking? Why are the restrictions on drunken driving not more
stringent? This is a red herring.
How will the registration of guns, how will further
restrictions on guns and how will this bill on gun control affect
the misuse of guns by someone who is determined to cause
someone else harm?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I believe the
national firearms registration system will provide tighter
controls over who owns these firearms and where they are
stored. I am not alone in this respect.
In my own riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North, 15 per cent
of my constituents are senior citizens. I discussed this with
them. We had a number of meetings, and I asked them: What do
you think about gun control and the bill announced by the
Minister of Justice? All senior citizens are in favour of tighter
controls because they want to be able to go out, and walk in the
park, without fear of being attacked by some crazy person with a
gun. And many people would agree.
I spoke to the labour movement, the Canadian Labour
Congress, which represents more than two million members in
this country, and especially in Quebec, they agree with the broad
principles of this bill. I spoke to physicians and health care
workers. They also want tighter gun controls in Canada. I think
the majority of the people in Canada and Quebec, and in my
riding, support the broad principles of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel
that it is a great opportunity for me to speak on the topic of gun
control. I hope to talk about some of the concerns expressed by
the Reform Party and go through a whole series of situations in
terms of support, some of the statistics that support strong gun
control.
(1555)
Let me start with a basic premise on why gun control is good
for Canada. Gun control is not simply about controlling guns. It
is about public safety. It is about crime prevention.
Do members think-I have asked this question to people
often-if we have more guns on the street we will have more
crime? Consistently the answer is yes, the more guns we have on
the street, the more crime we will have. If you can go out and buy
a gun in a local store, do you think we will have more crime? The
answer consistently is yes.
Is that not logical? If there are fewer guns on the street and if
the government makes it more difficult for people to get more
guns, will we not have less crime? My basic premise is if we
have fewer guns on the street and those that are there are
restricted and managed, we will have a safer society and safer
communities.
The other part of it is just the psychological effect, the fact
that we know as a society we do not tolerate people having guns,
and the fact people know it is illegal to have guns on the street
and that we do have restrictions. That will also help in
determining that psychologically there is less fear in our
society. That is very important as well.
Let me look at the support that this bill has right across this
country, whether it be in Alberta, British Columbia or anywhere
else. There is tremendous support for this bill. For example,
from October 5 to October 25, 1994 Environics Research Group
Limited conducted a national survey of Canadian public attitude
9740
toward various gun control measures. The survey reported that
90 per cent supported a law requiring all firearms to be
registered.
In British Columbia 88 per cent of the people support strong
gun control. In Alberta 83 per cent of the people support gun
control. Virtually all Canadians, 96 per cent, support increased
penalties for the use of a firearm during the commission of a
crime. Part of that bill also increases the crime whenever a
firearm is used in the commission of a crime.
Seventy-five per cent wanted restricted access to
ammunition. Sixty-seven per cent supported a law preventing
civilians from owning handguns.
There is a whole list of the polls done. It goes on and on. I
could probably go on. There was a survey done in Alberta
recently which said that 64 per cent of Albertans support a
national firearms registry.
This was a poll done by Alberta's minister of justice, Mr.
Evans, who said that he was surprised by the results of this poll.
An Angus Reid poll was done in the fall of 1994 in which 70 per
cent of Canadians favoured tougher gun controls.
I can go on and on and cite more polls but it is pretty evident
that Canadians support strong gun control. If one looks at the
groups that are supporting gun control, there are incredible
groups that are saying they want gun control.
For example, on August 25, 1994 at its 89th annual
conference the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed
six resolutions that support strengthened firearms control
measures. Mayors of B.C., mayors of some of the people in the
Reform Party, said they want stricter gun control. Eighteen
mayors throughout British Columbia representing 1.7 million
people said they want stronger gun control. This is coming from
the mayors of municipalities.
It is quite evident that groups right across Canada, whether it
is the mayors, the Canadian police chiefs or other groups
including community groups, have said they want stricter gun
control. As the Reform Party always says, we are listening to
those Canadians. We are listening and we are responding. We
believe we need to listen. The difficulty for Reform Party
members is that if they do not support this bill, they will be
against the majority in their own ridings that wants stricter gun
controls.
(1600)
I know we have to be careful in using statistics because they
can be used in misleading ways. I want to share some statistics
with the Canadian public. A recent survey showed that guns
were used in 42 per cent of murders of women by their spouses.
One woman in Canada is killed with a gun every six days. Most
often she is killed in her own home and almost always she is
killed by someone she knows. That is quite a revealing statistic.
There is another statistic that we should look at closely. Over
80 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned at the
time of the shooting. Is that not an incredible statistic? The
members of the third party say: ``It is the criminals that are
committing the crimes''. It shows that over 80 per cent of the
rifles and shotguns were legally owned by those people at the
time of the shooting. What does that tell us? It sends a very
strong message when 80 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were
legally owned at the time of the shooting. We have to take
action.
In 1991 there were a total of 1,445 deaths involving firearms.
Of those, 19 per cent were homicides, 4 per cent were accidental
deaths and 77 per cent were suicides. In 1992, 26 per cent of all
robberies involved firearms. This represents a gradual decline
since 1977 when it was 39 per cent, the year before stricter gun
control measures were passed by Parliament.
As the result of stricter gun controls we have cut robberies
down from 39 per cent to 26 per cent. We heard the same
arguments in 1977 when the Liberal government, proposed by
Minister Ron Basford, passed legislation on stricter gun control.
The same arguments are coming out. In looking back the
statistics show we did the right thing. In 15 or 20 years we will
look back and say we did the right thing now as well.
In 1992 there were 732 homicides. Of those 732, 34 per cent
were committed with firearms. That is a serious problem.
We can compare our gun laws with those in other countries.
Unfortunately we do not have a comprehensive study that
compares countries that have stricter gun controls and those that
have less restrictions.
We do have one very comprehensive study that took the
example of two cities which were within a 100 to 150 mile
radius. The study looked at what happens in crime in those two
cities. The two cities were Seattle and Vancouver, the city which
I am from and represent, Vancouver South. It looked at these two
cities because there were a lot of similarities in geography,
climate, make-up and population. It was a study done between
1980 through 1986 in order to investigate the associations
among handgun regulations, assaults and other crimes, as well
as homicides.
The two cities are similar in many ways. They share common
geography, as I said, climate history and both cities have a
comparable level of schooling and have almost identical rates of
unemployment and ethnic diversity.
9741
(1605 )
Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has
adopted a much more restrictive approach to the regulation of
handguns. During the study period, it is quite relevant that both
cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery.
In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than
that in Vancouver. However, the rate of assaults involving
firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
That sends a very good message. Despite similar overall rates of
assault the relative risk of death from homicide was
significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Virtually all of
this excess risk was explained by a 4.8 fold higher risk of being
murdered with a gun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver.
That is very revealing.
The conclusion of this study was that restricting access to
handguns will reduce the rate of homicide in a community. That
is the basic premise I started from. It is logical that if we have
more guns on the street, we will have more crime. If we have
fewer guns on the street, it is logical that we will have less
crime.
That is a very simple way to look at it. Unfortunately the
members of the Reform Party still do not see that. It is very
simple. The average person should understand that. If we let
people buy a gun whenever they want with no restrictions or
rules, we will have higher crime. If we restrict firearms, we will
reduce the crime.
Another example is Indianapolis. Its police wanted to stop
vehicles to have a real, active approach on gun control, like our
drinking program. They said they would stop cars in a certain
area where they had problems; they would search cars, looking
for guns. They set up a proactive approach to this.
The police actively sought out and confiscated illegal
firearms in high crime neighbourhoods. The result was that gun
related crimes were reduced by almost 50 per cent in the
relevant areas. Homicides and drive-by shootings also went
down significantly. This is a very good message.
Even with this information, the Americans have been unable
to put forward stricter gun controls because of the national
riflemen's lobby association. Strangely enough, we hear
members of the Reform Party talking about lobby groups. They
say their favourite subject is lobby groups and how they are
against lobbyists and lobby groups. However, when the lobby
groups support their position, they are holding hands. They do
not mind going to bed with the lobby groups that support their
position, as they have done with the gun lobby group.
We always get the argument that we should punish those
people who cause the crime. Here is another statistic that will
interest people. Eighty per cent of all homicides in Canada occur
between people who know each other. Most homicides occur as
a result of assaults during arguments or altercations. A small
minority occur during the commission of a robbery or other
felony.
If there are more guns in the homes, there will be more
homicides. If there are fewer guns in the home, there will be
fewer homicides. It is very simple.
(1610 )
What is the cost of this program? Prove that it will reduce
crime. If everything we did to prevent crime had to be proven
first, we would not have very many crime prevention programs.
We have heard from major groups that have said that this bill
will reduce crime. Common sense tells us that it will reduce
crime. However, members of the Reform Party want evidence,
proof now, on crime prevention programs. The proof is already
there if we look at past legislation and at the gun control bill of
1977. It shows that stricter gun control reduces crime. We do not
need any more proof. The government will take action whenever
a crime prevention program shows it reduces crime and helps
public safety.
Once a crime is committed there are incredible costs. I know
members of the Reform Party have mentioned costs. But what
does it cost once a crime is committed? What is the cost to a
family? What is the cost to society? What is the cost of losing a
family member? There are huge financial costs, for the courts,
for the legal system, for the pleas. To keep someone in jail costs
$60,000 a year.
Yes, the program will cost something. The registry system
will cost approximately $85 million. But it is not a cost, it is an
investment because it is going to reduce crime. It is an
investment because it will ensure there are fewer tragedies,
whether it be a suicide or a murder. Hopefully as
parliamentarians we can attempt to reduce those kinds
tragedies. That is why I am supporting this bill.
The Reform Party strongly opposes any preventive gun
control measures. Its arguments are primarily based on
defending the interests of gun owners, not in public safety.
Reformers ignore the facts about the use of firearms in domestic
violence, suicides and accidental deaths. Although Reform
claims to put a high priority on crime prevention, the only action
it advocates is to deal with criminals after lives have been lost.
We want to prevent the loss of lives. That is our goal.
The costs of registration have been exaggerated by the
Reform Party with allegations that the registration system will
cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Concerns about the design
and the cost of the system are being dealt with by taking time to
develop it carefully.
I have to congratulate the Minister of Justice who had the
courage to tackle this issue and to make sure that it is done right.
Too often politicians do not want to tackle tough issues. They do
not want to tackle issues where there is some resistance. The
9742
minister saw resistance to gun control. It took a lot of courage
for him to bring in this legislation.
With today's technology it will also be cheaper than it would
have been 15 or 20 years ago. We think those figures are correct.
I know that I am running out of time. My colleague from
Edmonton Southwest said his survey showed that 69 per cent of
the people in his riding support stricter gun control. In a lot of
ways Canadians are ahead of politicians on this one. However,
as a government we recognize that we must do this. The
Canadian public wants us to do it. The police forces want us to
do it. Let us do it for our children. Let us do it for the youth so
they will face less crime.
(1615)
I have three children and I want them to live in a safe society,
where they do not feel threatened by someone having a gun. I
want them to build a stronger society. We do not want to be
Americanized as do some Reform Party members. We want to
have a safe country. We do not need guns.
If there is any message I can send today it is that everyone,
including the Reform members, should support this bill and give
support to the minister. If anything, it should be a tougher bill
than what it is now. I hope in the future we can make it more
tough because the fewer guns out there, the less crime. It is only
logical.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.
I too have spent the last seven or eight weeks touring the
country far and wide talking to people at many public meetings.
I have also received polls. I received one yesterday regarding
registration from the constituents of
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, which had 2,807 respondents.
Of those respondents, 111 said yes and 2,696 said no.
That is what came from that riding. The member of
Parliament has received that poll from those constituents. Is that
member of Parliament going to be allowed to represent his
people? After all, the polls he is getting certainly do not indicate
what the minister and other members are claiming.
Are we aware that the Prime Minister received 200
resolutions from municipalities in the province of Manitoba
opposing the minister's gun law? We have not heard anything
about that, but I know they were delivered to the Prime Minister
of Canada from the province of Manitoba.
Tons and tons of petitions are being tabled. I have managed to
put in over several thousand names from all over the country
because some members evidently do not want to table these
petitions. They have come from all parts of the country. The
latest one was from Manitoba and was signed by somewhere in
the neighbourhood of 1,400 individuals, including 400 or 500
women who signed it on special pink paper so it would be
recognized. They are opposing this bill.
The hon. member for Burlington was with me at a meeting in
Kamloops. The place was packed full. There might have been
300 or 350 people there. They asked that member to send a
message to the minister. They called for a vote and they all stood
opposing the gun proposals.
For heaven's sake, when you see these kinds of things-and
everywhere I go I see them-and you get them from your own
members' ridings, where it says that 96 per cent oppose gun
registration, where in the world are you dreaming up these
figures that you keep talking about?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The Chair
recognizes that this is very controversial and that there are very
strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However I
would remind members on both sides of the House to always
direct their interventions through the Chair, through the
Speaker, and avoid referring directly to one another as ``you''.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I forgot for
a moment that you were there. I will not do that again. But as you
say, it is very easy to get worked up.
I have attended over 19 public meetings. I have personally
interviewed thousands of people and I have listened to them. I
did not encourage them in any way, fashion or form. I asked: Are
you familiar with the proposals? They said yes. I asked: Are you
in favour? There was an overwhelming no. This is mostly
grassroots. I do not have time for a lot of the elite, as do some of
the ministers. I am talking to grassroots individuals throughout
the country. They do not want it. It is loud and clear from every
indication.
Check the petitions that are tabled and tell me how many
petitions are in favour of this and how many are against. Mr.
Speaker, you will be pleasantly surprised.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, on any given day on any issue I
could probably get 1,000 people out in my riding. If a Reformer
comes to speak in my riding, I can get 1,000 people to protest
against them because of their stance. It is not hard to get 300
people up against it.
(1620 )
However, that is not the issue here. The issue is that overall,
the polls coming in show again and again that the majority of
Canadians are supporting this. There are going to be some
people who oppose it because it will be in their interests to do so.
These are the hunters and the people who sell guns. It is in their
interests to oppose this.
9743
Some of them have legitimate reasons. I give the minister
credit because he has met with people right across the country
from coast to coast to talk to them about their legitimate
concerns. Some of them are hunters up in the north whose
livelihoods depend on guns.
When the polls show that 15 per cent of the people are against
this bill, they are going to sign petitions, but 85 per cent of the
people want gun control. It is an overwhelming fact that people
want gun control.
The Reform Party will pay a very high price for not listening
to the Canadian public in the next election. A recent poll has
shown how marginalized it is and it will be more marginalized
after the next election. It will have less than the two seats the
Conservatives got.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard the hon. member from the other side state
many facts and figures.
It has been mandatory to register handguns since 1934. I
would like to know how much and how far crime has depleted
with the use of handguns. I also heard the member mention
crime control at border crossings. I would like the hon. member
just to remember that this is the same government that could not
stop the smuggling of cigarettes.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, this government has done a very
good job in stopping the smuggling of cigarettes. All one has to
do is look at the facts.
The hon. member was not listening when I gave an example. I
said that in 1977, 39 per cent of the people were using a firearm
in robberies. Now it is only 26 per cent. The evidence is there
and it is overwhelming. If some people want to ignore the
evidence, so be it. Some people do not want the truth and choose
to ignore the evidence, as some of the Reform members have
done.
However, we are not going to ignore the truth or the facts. We
are going to look at this in 20 years and know that we did the
right thing in this Parliament. We will have passed strong gun
control legislation which I think should be even stronger than it
is now. Canadians across this country have shown support for us.
In the recent byelections it was three seats out of three for the
Liberals. Why? It is because we are doing the right thing, we are
listening to Canadians.
It is surprising that whenever we have done consultations the
Reform Party has called them a sham. It is not interested in
consultation and it is the party that wants consultation.
There are some legitimate concerns out there on gun control
and the minister has dealt with those concerns. This is an
excellent piece of legislation. I hope the members will strongly
endorse and support it because when they look back at it 20 years
from now, they will know they did the right thing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate,
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 Kamloops-Taxation.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has
given me written notice that he will be unable to be present to
move his motion under Private Members' Business on Friday,
February 17, 1995.
[English]
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a).
Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item
of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour
will be deferred and the House will continue with the business
then before it.
(1625)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I could stand today to say it is a pleasure for me
to speak on Bill C-68 but I am afraid I cannot. I had hoped that
the hon. minister would have listened to the concerns of literally
hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians across the country
who have deep concerns about gun registration. Obviously he
has not and has chosen to forge ahead.
I personally have received thousands of letters from people
who are concerned that the Minister of Justice has confused gun
control with crime control. I am sure that every other member of
Parliament in the House has as well.
There is a growing perception that our justice system is not
working. The justice minister and the anti-gun lobby are trying
to convince everyone that if we just make it tougher to own and
use a gun legally, somehow it will be harder for criminals to use
them illegally. Somehow I have my doubts about that.
Our justice system was built on the principle that one is
innocent until proven guilty. We must work hard to maintain the
integrity of that system to ensure that innocent people are not
deprived of their rights for the wrong reasons.
When any program is put into place, it should be clear what
the objectives are. There should be a means of evaluating its
effectiveness. In this case, I feel the government has clearly
failed.
9744
What does imposing more restrictions on law-abiding
citizens have to do with crime control? To use the minister's
own words, how does registration make Canada a safer, more
civilized place to live? In 1993 the Auditor General said that
we do not have statistics indicating whether previous gun
control legislation has had any effect on the misuse of firearms.
The results of just one short term evaluation done in 1983
were used as a basis for the even stricter gun control legislation
introduced by Kim Campbell, Bill C-17 in 1991. When Bill
C-17 was passed, there was no real proof that the new laws or
regulations would meet the government's crime control
objectives.
This justice minister has introduced legislation with some
very clear crime control measures, such as stiffer penalties for
using a gun in the commission of a crime or for weapons
trafficking. However, in the same bill he has included
restrictions on honest citizens who he cannot demonstrate have
anything to do with the problem.
I object to the minister lumping measures against criminals in
with measures against law-abiding citizens. I object to the
implication that responsible gun owners are somehow guilty of a
moral deficiency or harbouring criminal intentions simply
because they own a gun. I am referring to such measures as
mandatory registration and powers of search and seizure
without a warrant.
In parts of my riding, every household has at least one gun.
The police have been handed the power to search businesses and
premises other than dwellings, without a warrant. The minister
has created a new category of criminals in this country.
Where I grew up in northern B.C., someone is a criminal if
they do something illegal, if they actively go out and break the
law. This bill makes honest Canadian citizens criminals subject
to a 10 year prison term if they do not do something. If they fail
to register their .22 they can be thrown in prison for up to 10
years.
Ten years was the penalty Denis Lortie got for murdering
three people and wounding 13 others in the Quebec National
Assembly. Ten years is the maximum penalty this minister is
seeking for a young offender who commits premeditated first
degree murder. Is this minister saying that because someone
fails to register their gun they must be going to commit murder
or rob a bank?
This legislation is a slap in the face to every law-abiding gun
owner in Canada. This government tells us that we need tougher
gun laws against legal gun owners because stolen guns are used
by criminals. Where is the proof that registration will prevent
even one death? The government does not have any.
If crime prevention is not the objective of registration, then
what is? Murder rates in Canada have remained relatively stable
over the last 15 years. Yet in April, the justice minister reacted
to two high profile murders in Ottawa and Toronto by floating a
proposal for a total ban on guns within city limits. Who did he
think would be affected by such a ban, the criminals?
(1630)
Tougher gun control legislation in many states has had no
discernible impact on gun violence. In the United States 93 per
cent of the guns used in homicides were apparently acquired
illegally. New Zealand and Australia found registration did not
help the police. It did not seem to have any tangible aim and did
not help at the scene of a crime when the offender stole,
borrowed or found a firearm.
What about in Canada? Here the government does not keep
statistics on the use of illegally versus legally owned guns in the
commission of crimes. Why not? Would they not support the
government's position?
Last June I asked the Minister of Justice to prove to
law-abiding gun owners that they are part of the crime problem
before he enacts even tougher laws. We want proof that tighter
restrictions for people who respect the law will prevent the
criminals who do not respect the law from getting their hands on
guns. Eight months later we are still waiting for an answer.
Restricted and prohibited firearms are already registered.
What has their registration done to prevent crime? In most cases
where restricted and presumably registered guns are used in
crimes the government does not even know if the criminal
bought the firearm legally. It does not keep records. There are
already 1.2 million registered firearms in the country and this
government does not have a clue how many of them were used in
crimes because it does not ask. It knows guns used in crime were
smuggled into the country and I fully support tougher measures
against gun smuggling.
Why is the minister taking rights away from people who are
not criminals? The hypocrisy of selling universal registration as
crime control is readily apparent to everyone.
We know that thousands of guns are smuggled into the
country all the time. What is the point of borders and laws if we
cannot or will not enforce them? If we cannot close our borders
to cigarette smuggling how much more difficult is it going to be
when the government finally gets serious about gun smuggling?
When will the government take a stand and give the police or the
army the mandate to stop international trade in arms?
I visited with police in the Cornwall area. The minister and
other members opposite like to talk about how they have the
support of the police forces. Everyone knows gun smuggling is
going on down there but they have not been able to stop it. When
I questioned the police as to why they have not been able to stop
the smuggling they said to me: ``Why should we risk ourselves
with a small revolver against automatic weapons? When we
9745
apprehend these people, we make an arrest, we get them into
court and they get off with a slap on the wrist''.
Their message to me was to get tough with the people who are
misusing and abusing firearms rather than legislate a useless
registration system.
I hope this government's anti-smuggling legislation works
better than its anti-cigarette campaign. I understand cigarette
use has increased dramatically since this government lowered
the taxes a year ago. I hope the plan is not to lower the taxes on
guns to combat smuggling.
Bill C-68 has some tough laws on trafficking. Under sections
99 and 100 of part III of the Criminal Code a weapons trafficker
will get up to 10 years. I also notice that tucked away in section
110(v) of the Firearms Act the governor in council can pass
regulations ``respecting the manner in which any provision of
this act or the regulation applies to any of the aboriginal peoples
of Canada and adapting any such provision for the purposes of
that application''.
The question has been asked and will repeatedly be asked
whether this legislation will apply equally to all Canadians. The
minister's reply throws more confusion when he says yes, but
with flexibility toward the aboriginal people. What does this
mean? Canadians need to know.
The justice minister maintains that the government is not
effectively destroying the value of the prohibited handguns
because Bill C-68 creates a class of gun owners they can trade
with. This class is defined as any current gun owner who legally
owned one of the newly prohibited guns on or before Tuesday,
February 14. Considering that date I wonder if Bill C-68 is not
just a Valentine's present by the minister to Wendy Cukler of the
Coalition for Gun Control.
(1635 )
Does that really protect their investment in these guns? Over
time the class of owners will dwindle through attrition. Fewer
and fewer people will be allowed to buy these guns and
eventually there would be only one avid collector in possession
of half a million guns. When he or she dies all those guns will be
confiscated by the crown. Will they get fair compensation for
those firearms if he or she tries to sell them before they die?
There will only be a few collectors allowed to buy them. Do not
tell me that fair compensation will be offered. Do not tell me or
the country that their market will be stable.
Last year a young Edmonton mother, Barb Danelesko, was
savagely murdered in a home invasion. Do you think she could
have convinced a firearms officer that she needed to protect
herself or her children? Recently one young offender found
guilty for that crime was handed a three-year sentence.
Under Bill C-68, if Mrs. Danelesko had had an unregistered
firearm at her disposal for her defence and had survived, she
would have had to face up to 10 years for non-compliance.
Where is the balance? Where is the justice?
Proven criminals receive fewer years than this minister wants
to give responsible hunters who have done nothing wrong but
failed to register their shotgun.
Many people, especially those living in cities, do not believe
the ability to protect your home and family is a legitimate reason
to own a gun. The justice minister certainly does not believe it.
Less than a year ago he said he came to Ottawa with the firm
belief that the only people in this country who should have guns
are police officers and soldiers. This is a sobering thought for
millions of responsible gun owners in Canada. With the
introduction of Bill C-68 he is one step closer to fulfilling his
goal.
He also said he did not want Canadians to think they needed to
protect themselves. I have news for him. With our over burdened
police forces and court system, most Canadians already know
they need to protect themselves.
Guns are a necessary part of life for many people in northern
B.C. Farmers need them for predator control. Trappers and
guides use them every day in their work. Hunters use them to
help stock their freezers. Many of us also believe that we should
be able to use guns for personal protection, to defend our homes,
our families and our property.
The criminals laugh while the rest of us become their victims
and have our civil liberties taken away. This is how the Liberal
government deals with gun related violence. People need to be
able to defend themselves in situations in which the police, as
much as they would like to, cannot.
In Edmonton a man shot at intruders in his yard and he is the
one facing charges. The papers called the thwarted robber the
victim. If we are to have true justice the rights of the innocent
defending their homes must supersede the rights of the guilty
who are trying to rob them.
Today the criminals are called the victims and society
apologizes for their behaviour. Meanwhile responsible citizens
have more of their rights infringed upon because the police and
the courts cannot keep up.
This government is trying to convince Canadians that gun
control is the same thing as crime control. Maybe it is easier to
go after law-abiding gun owners than after hardened criminals.
I do not believe it is going to solve the crime problem and I do
not think most Canadians do either.
I do recognize, however, that there are positive aspects to this
legislation. If the hon. members opposite would listen, I will list
the positive aspects.
9746
For example, I applaud the changes to section 85 for the use
of a gun in the commission of a crime. It has been beefed up
to include imitation firearms and use during flight or the
attempted commission of a crime. Although the first offence
only gets 1 to 14 years, subsequent offences will net a criminal
3 to 14 to be served consecutively to any other sentence related
to the same event.
However, these changes are meaningless if the charge is plea
bargained away in our overcrowded courts. On the first offence a
criminal would also be prohibited from owning a gun for 10
years. If he or she violates this prohibition order, they are
subject to a maximum 10-year sentence. It does not say if it is
consecutive.
(1640 )
I have some questions about whether the 10-year maximum
for violation of the prohibition could ever get tacked on to a
maximum 14-year sentence for using a gun in another crime. I
think a potential 24-year sentence for using a firearm again
would certainly make some criminals think twice before
acquiring yet another gun for illegal purposes.
Making sentences tougher on the books will not mean
anything to criminals if our judges will not impose sentences
consistently or if gun charges are plea bargained away. Imposing
a mandatory minimum sentence for armed crimes has no
deterrent effect if criminals do not get a consistent message.
The minister has given law enforcement officers greater
powers under this bill for search and seizure. The police need to
be able to go into a domestic violence situation with the ability
to remove firearms while the situation is still out of control.
However, this minister has given police far greater powers.
Under section 117.02 police officers can enter any premises,
except dwellings, without a warrant if they suspect someone has
not registered their shotgun. Why does this justice minister
believe people sign away their rights to privacy simply because
they choose to own a gun?
I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 112
which says many regulations made by the governor in council do
not have to be laid before the House. I find it very disturbing that
further regulations can be made with respect to the Firearms Act
or part III of the Criminal Code without coming before
Parliament.
A small handful of people can make regulations affecting
millions of gun owners and there is no public accountability or
scrutiny before going into effect. I do not believe it is right that a
handful of bureaucrats should be able to make regulations that
can land Canadian citizens in prison.
The Minister of Justice believes Canadians widely support all
of his gun control initiatives as we have heard countless times in
the past and again today. Why does he not have the courage to
place all orders in council related to his Firearms Act before the
House? Why does Bill C-68 make it so explicit that regulations
can be passed without parliamentary approval?
More important, why does he not separate his new Firearms
Act pertaining to legal gun owners from his amendments to part
III of the Criminal Code dealing with criminals? He has said in
the House today that the reason he has drafted the Firearms Act
is to address the concerns expressed by legitimate firearms
owners, that they feel certain violations pertaining to them
should not fall under the Criminal Code.
If he is convinced this has widespread support, he should have
the courage to separate these two issues and defend each on its
own merits.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am frankly sick of listening to the flagrant
misrepresentations the hon. member is indulging in with his
efforts to mislead the Canadian public as to what is going on in
this bill. He knows perfectly well he is doing it and he should be
ashamed of himself.
I refer him for the purpose of clearing up the error-perhaps
he will admit his deliberate error-to section 92(1) of the
proposed new bill currently before the House. Page 68:
Subject to subsection (4) and section 98, every person commits an offence
who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.
Subsection 3 says:
Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of
an indictable offence and liable-
-to the 10 year imprisonment to which he referred. This is a
person who committed an offence possessing a firearm knowing
the person was not the holder of a licence and that the gun was
unregistered. In other words, it is the criminal misuse of
firearms.
Let us go back to section 91(1) of the bill:
Subject to subsection (4) and section 98, 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 it; and
(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.
Then it says in subsection (3):
Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(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.
9747
He knows that an offence punishable on summary conviction
carries a maximum sentence of six months or a $2,000 fine. It
also carries the possibility of an absolute or conditional
discharge. He knows that the innocent gun owner who fails to
register will be charged under that section, not someone who
is committing an offence which is the section he is referring
to when he talks about 10 years. He is misleading the Canadian
public. He should apologize for his deceit.
(1645)
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that we are able to excite the opposition across the
way.
What I was referring to-and I stand by my earlier
statements-is that there are two classes of people when it
comes to registering firearms. There are those who will be
covered by section 91 who will for some reason not hear about it.
I cannot imagine who they will be because everyone, before we
get done, is going to know about this. I do not think the
government can keep it a secret much longer. The word is
getting out.
For those who inadvertently do not register their firearms, the
hon. member is quite correct, under section 91 they will either
be facing a jail term of up to five years or an offence punishable
by summary conviction which could be as little as a fine.
However, section 92 pertains to people who willingly disobey
and do not register their firearms. For this crime, the
government has decided that 10 years imprisonment is a
justifiable sentence. I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of
gun owners throughout my riding.
In January I took a tour throughout my riding which covers the
whole northeastern corner of British Columbia. I tried to talk to
as many people as possible. We held meetings on this. As one of
my hon. colleagues said, I did not try to drum up the anti-gun
control sentiment. I merely went to these meetings and asked the
individuals how they felt about it. I did not have to ask very
loudly because they were very forthcoming with their
sentiments about more gun control and certainly about
registration, not only on restricted firearms but on long guns as
well.
I asked them in confidence, without revealing names, how
many of them were going to be registering their firearms. I did
not find one individual in my travels who said he or she would
willingly and voluntarily register his or her firearms.
Under section 92 those individuals, if they have willingly not
registered their firearms, will be subject to 10 years of
imprisonment. That is how I read this, but I admit that I am not a
lawyer, and thank goodness I am not a lawyer.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague give his speech and I
have a couple of questions I would like to ask him.
Regarding the numbers and stats, how far did you go in trying
to find this information? Were you able to get this information
from the Minister of Justice or his department? Also, with you
living in a rural area how long would it take for the police to
respond?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We use the word ``you''
so often that somehow there is sort of a dialogue going on
between the two of you while the rest of us are attentively
waiting to get involved. I certainly do not want to be forgotten or
left out. Please, through the Speaker.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to forget
about you either.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon.
member how long it would take the police force to respond to his
home in case of an emergency if he was to dial 911 like we
normally can in most cities?
(1650 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his questions.
As I indicated in my speech, it is simply not possible for our
police to get there on time. If we talk to the policemen one on
one they readily admit this.
Statistics clearly indicate, unfortunately, that the vast
majority of times when police are responding to a crime, by the
time they get there the crime has already taken place. Their job
is to try to investigate and hopefully apprehend the criminal.
That is the job and the duty of the police in most cases. On rare
occasions they can intervene in time to save someone from
assault, rape or murder, but it does not happen very often.
In my case, because I live outside of town, I suggest it would
probably take in the neighbourhood of half an hour for the police
to get there if someone was breaking into my home. We see
increasing evidence across the country that citizens are
concerned. There is increasing evidence of home invasions,
where young hoodlums break into homes, often targeting the
elderly. They break into these homes for no apparent reason.
Many times the people are at home and they have no means to
defend themselves.
I guess the answer to my hon. friend's question is that it would
probably take about half an hour before the police could respond
to a break-in in my home.
As to how much effort I have made to try to get statistics from
the government, I referred in my speech to the fact that last June
I asked a question during question period of the minister
requesting the statistical evidence to prove how even the
existing gun controls under Bill C-17, without registration,
were working to prevent crime, to bring down the levels of
violent crime and the criminal misuse of firearms. Nothing was
forthcoming.
9748
On October 28, 1994 I placed a question on the Order Paper.
I could read it but it is quite lengthy. It consists of seven
specific questions that ask the government to provide proof to
us, and to the Canadian people, how legal firearms pertain to
crime in the country.
I will refer to one of the questions, which is part (c) of
Question No. 96. In that question I was referring to section 85 of
the Criminal Code, which is already in force. The question is as
follows: ``How many of those charged with this offence were the
legally registered owner of the firearm used in the commission
or attempted commission of the crime?'' It is a very simple,
straightforward question asking for statistical evidence.
What was provided after three months, not 45 days, was the
following answer:
The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey-
which comes from StatsCan:
-does not collect information which can distinguish the number of criminal
offences which have been committed with the use of legal firearms. Prior to 1992
the Homicide Survey collected data on registered and non-registered firearms,
but because this information was grossly under-reported (90 per cent unknown)
the data are no longer collected.
That is the best the government could provide to me in the way
of statistics to show that legally owned firearms have anything
to do with curbing crime.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of northern Ontario have a culture that is unique, and part
of our culture is hunting and fishing. My riding of Nickel Belt is
a rural riding. I probably have more hunters and fisherpersons
than most of the Reform members.
I support this legislation and I have supported registration
since we began to speak about it. As a matter of fact, during the
campaign we had 12 debates and I made it very clear that our
policy was to fight crime. We have presented legislation which
will fight crime.
Part of this bill deals with the smuggling, the importing, of
arms. It is a very important part of this legislation.
(1655 )
The next package that will be coming is sentencing. The
Reform Party would like to throw everybody in jail and throw
away the key. That is not the way we want to run the country.
Probation is a very important issue for the government. The
Young Offenders Act is very important as is the gun bill or the
gun and rifle registration.
How can a government that is serious about fighting crime, a
government that is responding to requests from Canadians from
all over to combat crime, a government that wants credibility
say: ``We will look at importation and smuggling. We will look
at sentencing. We will look at probation. We will look at family
violence. We will look at the Young Offenders Act but we will
not talk about guns or rifles. We will not talk about this''.
How can any politician have credibility and say, we will fight
crime but we will not talk about the weapons that kill people?
I intentionally prepared this speech not wanting to use
statistics. The reason I am not using statistics is that I do not
have to stand in the House to convince my colleagues from the
Bloc Quebecois. Very seldom can I stand and say that I agree
with what they are doing. They agree with this bill.
Even though its members want to leave our country-they
will not leave-they have the good sense, they have the wisdom
and they care enough to want to leave behind a country that is
safe, a country that continues to be the envy of the world. In the
end that is why they will not leave. They will stay with us and
feel good about having supported this legislation.
I will not spend too much time referring to the Reform Party
because it is very clear that its view of Canada and my view of
Canada differs immensely. I would not spend valuable time in
the House trying to compare the views of these individuals who
do not care who has guns, who do not care how many guns there
are, who do not care what kind of guns they are, who want to
throw everybody in jail, who say: ``Hang them. Bring back
capital punishment if you want to eliminate crime''.
An hon. member: Good idea.
Mr. Bonin: ``Good idea'', he says. Do all these things. One
thing we never hear is ``do it with compassion''. Talk about the
individuals. Talk about the families of criminals, because they
are victims also. If we do not deal with people everything is so
simple.
When I have a discussion with a group it really scares me
when one individual in the group has all the answers, when one
individual for any problem that one can present has a solution. It
is usually a very simplistic solution. I get my share of hearing
simplistic solutions when I listen to the Reform Party address
the House.
The people representing Canadians on all sides of the House
have worked for years to make Canada a safe country, a safe
society, a place where people want to emigrate to and contribute
to and create wealth.
My two sons are married and I am very proud of that. They
married last summer. The next step will be grandchildren. I look
forward to it. I spoke so proudly a few minutes ago about
northern Ontario and Nickel Belt but there are things that I am
concerned about for my grandchildren.
I have brought a newspaper article. I have them by the dozen
in my riding. ``Former boyfriend shoots single mom then
commits suicide in apartment''. That was in my riding and there
are a number of them.
9749
(1700)
Mr. Grubel: It was a handgun.
Mr. Bonin: I hear remarks. This does not affect individuals
who care not about people but it affects me that this young
woman was shot and killed. It affects me that every six days it
happens in Canada. When we say it, we hear silly remarks from
individuals who do not care about people. They ask whether the
gun was registered. If it was registered, would it make it okay?
No, that is not the issue.
Mr. Morrison: That is the question.
Mr. Bonin: That is not the issue. The issue is that for a
number of years in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada you could
buy guns if you owned an FAC. If you did not own an FAC you
could not buy guns. That is fine.
What has been happening is that people are starting to think
differently about guns. I come from a culture where there was a
gun on the wall. It came from dad, a beautiful short .22, a
masterpiece. We all wanted to inherit it.
The issue is that people are tired of guns. People who do not
use them say that it is too cumbersome and too much trouble to
own rifles. They want to get rid of them, have them taken off
their hands. Someone with an FAC could take it off the owner's
hands for 20 bucks. The person with the FAC bought it,
legitimately and legally. The result of that is there are people in
my riding who own 250 and 300 rifles legitimately and they are
not registered.
Mr. Morrison: So what?
Mr. Bonin: The so what is that come June, junior boy or girl
graduates from high school and throws a party. There are 300
people in that house and a fight breaks loose. Members are
laughing. We are talking about possible victims and they are
laughing. When the fight breaks out and the police are called
they say: ``Give us a break. Give us a chance. Before we knock
on that door we want to know if there are 300 guns downstairs''.
And these members laugh.
This legislation is just a small piece of a large puzzle. All
members of Parliament take their jobs seriously, even my
colleagues from the Reform Party. I know they take their jobs
seriously. I do not think their motives are correct, but I think
they believe in them so they are doing the best they can.
I take this very seriously. Gun control is very serious. Guns
are serious. However it is not the most pressing problem in my
life. I want to deal with this, I want to pass it and I want to get it
done.
Then I want to move on to senior citizens who are losing their
ability to support themselves, some of whom are lonely and
addicts dying alone. I want to deal with people who cannot find
jobs. I want to deal with children who go to school in the
morning with cramps in their bellies because they do not have
food. I want to move on. When we deal with these issues I hope
my colleagues will have the same vigour they have when they
take so much pleasure in talking about guns. What a fun thing to
talk about.
I want to deal with family violence. I want to deal with the
deficit. I want to deal with the debt. For Canadians to be part of a
democracy, if the price they have to pay is to register their guns
and their long arms then I am prepared to do it. I will be the first
to line up to register mine.
Reform members say that registration will not eliminate all
serious crimes so we should not do anything about it. They do
not worry about how many guns people have. They do not worry
about the kinds.
(1705 )
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police say that we
need gun registration. The police association says: ``We support
registration. Help us do our job''. The Reform Party says: ``They
do not know what they are talking about''. The police officers
want it. Their associations do too.
The Reform Party spoke of motions that were presented by
towns and municipalities. The FCM represents all
municipalities in this country and it supports this. But the
Reform Party says: ``They do not know what the heck they are
talking about''. The list goes on. I will not name them all
because it will take up my 20 minutes.
Nobody knows anything about anything, only the few
members of Parliament here on the Reform side who do not even
agree with the majority of people in their own ridings.
Mr. Morrison: What about the 12,000 people who marched
on Ottawa?
Mr. Bonin: Last summer was when the debate first started
and I remember full well. It has been a good debate. We have
served our constituents well. We have met with them. Many
times my constituents were misinformed and they disagreed
with me. I met with them anyway and I took my bumps.
Last summer when we met for the first rally, here is what was
distributed. It is very interesting that many of the lines that are
used in the presentations by the Reform members are lines that
are used in the documents of propaganda. It may be a
coincidence.
This is how the debate started: ``To all firearms owners, the
federal Minister of Justice wants to ban all firearms in Canada.
Contact your member of Parliament immediately and tell him or
her the following: This is unacceptable. Firearm owners are
tired of being punished for the acts of criminals. Members of
Parliament who advocate gun control or the banning of firearms
and ammunition banning are attempting to deceive Canadians
into thinking that gun control will prevent or reduce crime.
Banning of firearms and gun control will not prevent or reduce
9750
crime. Criminals do not obey laws'', and it goes on to talk about
polls. When I heard these things at the beginning I said no.
The media called me and asked whether I supported the
banning of all guns, arms and long rifles. I said that I did not
support that as it is part of our culture. I still have guns. Every
year my brothers phone me and ask: ``Are you coming hunting
with us this year? You have not been hunting with us for a
number of years. You are so involved with your politics you
never have time to come hunting''. But I will go back. Someday
I will retire and I will go hunting. I am a legitimate gun owner
and I will be the first one lined up to register my guns.
But then there was a debate. People call it a rally. There we
were, as we usually say, two against a thousand. But it was two
against about 250. It was amazing. The information that came
out of that room was scary. When it was over I moved through
the hall talking to individuals. I asked one individual: ``What is
the problem for you?'' The answer was: ``It is going to cost a lot
and it is not going to work''. I asked: ``If it does not cost a lot and
it is an efficient and effective system, can you live with that?''
The answer was yes.
Do you know what? One of the organizers stepped in and said:
``Do not say that. That is what Hitler did. He registered all guns
and then he confiscated them all''. That is the fear that was put
into them. Some of these people were senior citizens. The reason
they were concerned about the cost is because it is difficult for
them to make ends meet. These organizers put that fear into their
minds. They said: ``That is what Hitler did''. I heard Hitler's
name so many times it was scary.
My answer to them is that in Canada we have more boy scouts
and girl guides than we have soldiers, so we cannot go in and
confiscate all those guns. We have no intention of doing it and
we do not have the capacity to do it.
(1710 )
We kept getting the calls. Getting the calls is very difficult
because everyone agrees that we work long hours and it takes
time. However, that is the best way to deal with the issue. I
would rather get 100 phone calls than meet 100 people in one
hall because I know I can give the correct information and mail
out documents.
Canadians are reasonable when we pull the individuals away
from the people who try to influence their way of thinking. They
understand common sense. They tell me that if it is cheap and
reasonable, there is no problem and they will register them. That
is what is happening and it will be cheap.
We continued the debate and the fear mongering kept
happening. Now we are here with a document. We had a
document before Christmas which I mailed out to many people.
Some people will never agree with anything that is said. Maybe
they were former Reform Party candidates, I do not know, but
they will never agree. It is impossible to discuss common sense
with them. Now we have a document so I am calling them.
If I have a few minutes I call them and say for example: ``You
are a target shooter and you are the first group I went to see. I
went to see you at the range on a Sunday morning''. Like the
minister, I was impressed at the seriousness of these people and
how they are careful to check their members. I remember being
asked for a letter of reference for a person who wanted to
become a member. They go through the whole thing. It
impressed me. That was at the time when it was being said that
we would confiscate all these things. The media was saying it
and the Reform Party was saying it.
I said to them then: ``No. The Liberal Party does not do it to
the people; we do it for the people. We are being asked to do it
and we will do it for Canadians''. Now I call them and I say:
``Tell me what the problem is with the bill in the way we have
presented it. Does it prevent you from practising your sport?''
One of them said: ``Well, the .32''. I said to him: ``No, in the
legislation you will find that all guns and rifles that are used in
legitimate competitions will be permitted''. They had no
problem with that.
Some will have a problem. When I go back they will have
heard this and they will say: ``Ray, you said I would have no
problem and I have a problem''. I agree that some people will
have problems.
Before talking about the collectors, just before I left home I
saw a sad thing on TV. I cannot even begin to tell you how many
rifles, guns, grenades, rounds of ammunition, launchers and
machine guns that someone turned over. The discussion was
bringing people out of the woodwork. This was in a private
home. It scared the heck out of me. We do not know who the
individual is. For all I know, it could be my neighbour. I do not
think so but it is somebody's neighbour.
I called the legitimate collectors and asked them if they had a
problem. They do not have a problem any more. They have
intelligently and reasonably brought their comments to the
Minister of Justice either directly or through us and their
concerns have been addressed. Their investment can now be
sold to other collectors of the same nature and the estate can sell
them. Brokers eventually will sell them outside the country, the
illegal ones. Eventually they will be gone and I will be glad
when they are.
Some people said: ``Well this gun came from my
great-grandfather''. When they told me that I brought it to the
attention of the Minister of Justice because I had to agree with
them. It is not a gun that will be used even for target shooting. It
is just great-grandpa's gun or rifle. It is something that you do
not sell, there is no value in that. Now we are going to find a way
for people to pass them on.
9751
(1715)
We are left with registration, the only other problem we can
have now. The minister has repeatedly told us today that it will
be cheap. It may be free. I am talking about registration. It may
be free and will be very reasonable. I am talking about people. I
am talking about the gun owners.
It is difficult for the Reform Party to relate that I am talking
about individuals. It is talking about the 85 million, because it
does not know how to associate an issue with individuals. That is
what we are talking about here today. The cost will be very
reasonable. It will be efficient.
After we had our discussions, our rallies, the pro-gun groups
were still not satisfied. I understand it was because there was so
much wrong information going around. On their behalf I asked
the justice minister to come to our region to talk to the people
who are against him.
As backbenchers they say we do not count in this House and
cannot do a thing. We, the backbenchers, were able to ask our
Minister of Justice to come to our communities to talk to the
people who are working against him. Tell me another country
where that happens. That does not even happen in the United
States, a democracy. However, in Canada it does because we
have a Minister of Justice who cares about people, individuals.
He covered six ridings.
It was suggested that we invite four individuals in each riding.
I invited the president of the local gun club. I did not try to dodge
the issue, did I? I invited the president of the local gun club who
was against the legislation and probably still is. I will have to
phone him when I get back home.
I invited the president of the fish and game association, who is
adamantly against it. He bought a membership in my riding and
he was going to the annual meeting in Toronto, and we did not
try to stop him or railroad the meeting. We welcomed him. To
balance the load, I invited the crown attorney because they meet
the victims.
My fourth candidate was Dr. Bota who works in emergency at
Sudbury General Hospital. This is the individual who meets the
victims, sometimes teenagers who try to commit suicide with
these long rifles lying around uncontrolled in their homes. They
blow off half their face. He works on them for hours and hours.
He saves them and tries to rebuild their features. These young
people are still alive. They are discouraged individuals. If we
can save one of them, it is worth it. One in a hundred years is
worth it.
Let one go. It is just an individual. That is what I am
hearing-embarrassing. The hard core individuals said the
figures were all wrong in Dr. Bota's study, who had just marked
real cases, a real scientific poll.
Canadians have asked us to do something for them. They have
asked us to make Canada safe. The women of Sudbury who are
walking one night a year to take back the streets that are too
dangerous are saying do it.
I say to the minister let us do it fast, in spite of the members
from the Reform, because we know the people they represent
want us to do it too.
(1720)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I really do
not know what to say about this. Most of what I heard was
absolute nonsense.
Not all of what he said was nonsense. He talked about saving
one life. An individual told me of this actual account where an
elderly couple was driving through the United States. Somehow
they got off the turnpike and down two or three miles on to a
narrow road. When they ran out of gas, he took a container and
tried to get back to the highway. He got lost in the woods and
they never saw him again but his wife had some supplies in the
motorhome and she was able to live for two weeks. She was
saved by a hunter who found her. He saved one life. I agree with
my hon. colleague.
There are both sides to this argument and we should recognize
both sides. He has certainly taken a shot at the Reformers but he
should take a look and save some of his energy in terms of
discussing what we stand for and why we are against this bill. He
should talk to his own backbench. He should perhaps clean up
his own House if he thinks that this bill is absolutely waterproof
and bulletproof. Start there.
He told the story about selling his guns to a person who had a
FAC. He has over 200 guns. He told about a party and problems
arising and the police being called in. It sounded to me as if
everyone was going to run for a rifle.
I spent 14 years as a peace officer and I have never heard such
nonsense in all my life. Even if that did happen, what difference
would it make to the police or anyone else if those firearms were
registered? What difference would it make? This is the essential
question that we ask.
For those who commit suicide, what difference does it make if
the weapons are registered? For women who are shot every six
days in this country, what difference does it make? This bill does
not attack the cause, domestic disputes. It does not attack the
cause of suicides. That is what we are saying ought to be done.
Certainly if registration is going to reduce that, please tell us
how because we do not know how. We have as much concern
about these matters as anyone in the House. We have sons and
daughters, brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles. They are
not immune to these social problems. We have as much concern
about that as anyone across the way.
9752
We ask very simply how will the registration of these 200
firearms have any impact at all? Reduce the suicides. Reduce
the domestic occurrences. How will it do that? I did not hear
a thing. I never heard a thing that the hon. member said that
went anywhere near answering that question.
That is what the common sense people are asking for. I have
told the people all across the country where I have met with them
that I would be willing to give up my right to own the old weapon
that I have locked away if it would reduce the criminal use of
firearms.
It is not going to reduce the criminal use of firearms. It is
simply not because we know where they are getting them from.
He has given evidence of that. The haul that the police made in
Vancouver on all of these weapons being smuggled in is
evidence.
As a peace officer I know we get about 10 per cent of the
infractions that occur. One can multiply that haul by about 90
per cent for the day. We have some understanding of the number
of firearms being smuggled into our country.
If statistics and evidence can be submitted to suggest that this
will save lives, we have not seen it yet and that is what we are
asking for.
(1725)
Before the hon. member comments on what I have had to say, I
would like to point out one glaring error in the statistics which
have been given to the House in this debate. In 1977 the Auditor
General's report indicated clearly that the reduction in violent
crime through the use of firearms was beginning before the
legislation came in. The Auditor General said that it was wrong
to assume that the total responsibility for the dip which had been
reported in the House after the 1977 legislation was brought in
was the only cause for the decline because there were causative
factors which came to bear prior to that.
I leave that information for the hon. member. I have been in
northern Ontario, by invitation, and I welcome him on the
campaign trail during the next election if he continues his stand
on this issue.
Mr. Bonin: Mr. Speaker, the challenge is accepted. I will be
running in the next election and I will support this bill.
I am here to do a job. I am here to do what is good for
Canadians. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, everything
that I do in politics is not measured by the number of votes that I
will be getting. I am here to do an honest job. I swore an oath. I
told people about the way that I do my politics and my politics
are done for the good of the people I represent, not to be
re-elected.
It is fascinating that people who question every simple
statistic presented by reputable companies, who have disputed
every poll done by credible, reputable companies are saying
show them statistics. We know already they will say they are all
wrong, only their statistics apply.
My hon. colleague who asked the question said that he was a
police officer and that he had never heard of such hogwash.
When I said there were 250 to 300 rifles in some of my
constituents' basements, it is because a crime was committed in
one of those homes, the wife was killed and suicide occurred. I
do not make up these stories. They break us up when we think
about them, when we think of their children and their
neighbours. It is not hogwash. If that is the type of police
officers in his community, I am very pleased he was not a police
officer in northern Ontario. I will leave it at that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have very little time
before we move to the next order of business at 5:30. I will take a
question from the hon. member for Red Deer, but wanting to
give an equal amount of time to the hon. member for Nickel Belt
to respond, I hope that the intervention will be brief in order that
he may give a brief response.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will make my
question very brief. I will not try to answer or discuss any of the
claims which have been made. However, what I would like to
do-and you know the facility that I am talking about in central
Alberta, between Edmonton and Calgary-is challenge the
minister to stand in front of the thousands of people who would
come out to hear the facts about this whole gun control
legislation and tell them why they should vote for it. That is an
open challenge to the minister to come to tell the people the
facts. There will be thousands.
I just brought down a petition which had 5,000 signatures.
That gives us an idea of the interest which exists. These people
want to hear answers, they want the truth and they want the facts.
I challenge the minister to take me up on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Bonin: Mr. Speaker, the justice minister travelled to
Alberta on at least five occasions. Possibly the hon. member
opposite was misled when I said that, as a back-bencher, I had
asked the minister to come and visit my riding. I think he heard
somehow that I was the Minister of Justice. He heard wrong. Mr.
Rock is the Minister of Justice and I am the back-bencher.
I would like to address the first question, as I am told it was
not answered. How will registration help reduce crime?
Already, I have widows phoning me to say: ``I have rifles here
and I do not know what to do. Can you help?'' Already, people in
my riding are starting to say: ``We have rifles at home and we
want to get rid of them.''
9753
People who own between 200 and 300 rifles will take them
out, women will make sure that men get rid of rifles, and vice
versa, and the problem will be solved.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9753
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.)
moved that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof
(exempted crown corporations), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the message was loud and clear to every
member of Parliament during the last election. Our constituents
demanded accountability.
All members of the House were asked by their constituents to
come to Ottawa to work toward solutions to the debt problem
facing our nation. I am sure all hon. members would agree that
as elected representatives of the people we ought to work toward
ensuring accountability in every activity of the federal
government.
The Canadian people want us to provide the means by which
we can all come to trust the government. When it concerns
government programs my constituents, and I am sure many MPs
feel the same way, are very inquisitive. They are like
investigative reporters. They use the five ws: who, what, when,
where, why and all the time when it comes to government
programs they ask how much it is going to cost. The people of
Canada want to know. They want to be proud of the activities
and the performance of the federal government.
Bill C-263 provides all members of the House with an
opportunity to say to their constituents that at least in some
small way we have come together to work toward ensuring that
the federal government is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer.
I feel strongly that members from all sides of the House
should rally in support of Bill C-263 so that we can honestly say
we have tried to respond to the wishes of the people who sent us
here.
Bill C-263 is not all encompassing, dictatorial, unable to
change or restrictive. Bill C-263 is flexible. I have tried to
provide an occasion for all corners of the House to work together
and at the end of the day five crown corporations will be more
accountable. We will all feel as though we have done a good
day's work and proudly report to our constituents what we have
done. Our constituents in turn will take note of our work and
they will feel we are serious about doing positive and
constructive work.
As members know, in the 1993-94 fiscal year crown
corporations incurred losses of $57.2 million. Their net
borrowing from the Government of Canada amounted to $14.2
billion and they received $4.6 billion from the government
through budgetary appropriations.
We say $1 billion so often it just floats by. How much is $1
billion? It is such a massive amount. If you earned $1 per second
you would be a millionaire in 11 days; but it would take you 33
years to become a billionaire.
When we are talking of billions of dollars it is very important
that we do not just flash by it very quickly and not understand
how large a sum of money it is. Our task is to ensure for our
constituents that every government department and agency be
accountable for every tax dollar spent. I dare say that everyone
in the House wants to be able to say to the people at home that we
are responsible to the people who ultimately pay the bills, the
Canadian taxpayer.
(1735)
On those occasions when constituents ask us why it is that
certain public corporations do not report their financial status,
members have no satisfactory response. The average Canadian
wants to know about all federal agencies and departments.
When constituents hear about an activity financed by the
government and they are not allowed to know about the finances
associated with that activity, they become quite interested. They
are concerned that maybe there is something to hide.
The Auditor General has a key role to play in this regard. In
many cases, which I will refer to in a moment, the Auditor
General has not only made available publicly the exact facts and
figures concerning the activities and performance of the federal
government, but the Auditor General has been able to improve
such activities and performance levels by dissecting and
evaluating agencies and departments.
There is no shame involved in the work performed by the
Auditor General. The auditor's detection of poor performance
and recommendations is seen by Canadians as routine and
expected. Canadian firms, large and small, perform audits on
their own activities and performance. Often the audits show that
they are right on track with their objectives. And sometimes
they must swallow tough medicine to cure ailments detected in
their business audits. This is a fact of life. Canadians expect
their government to follow good business practices as well.
No one can deny the performance of the Auditor General in
recent history. Progress has been made. The Auditor General has
9754
the power to follow up on recommendations. The result has been
that in many cases Canadians are realizing better value for their
tax dollars because of the efforts of the Office of the Auditor
General.
In May 1994 the members of this place took a step closer to
greater accountability by freeing the Office of the Auditor
General to report on matters which the auditor deems pressing.
Members of the House have already moved in the direction of
Bill C-263, by endowing the Auditor General with a measure of
discretion. In fact, there was a great deal of agreement on all
sides of the House. We saw this as a good thing, a chance that
would enhance the Auditor General's ability to do the job
expected of the office.
Canadians want their watchdog to have a long enough leash.
We all wanted to further empower the watchdog last spring, and
I am sure I speak for all of us when I say we were proud to do so.
With reforms instituted in 1984, most crown corporations
have operated within the accountability framework established
under part X of the Financial Administration Act. Part X of the
act requires each crown corporation to do three things:
There must be an annual report. The annual report in addition
to its financial statements in the auditor's report also presents
information on how well the objectives of corporations were
achieved during the reporting period. Crown corporations must
submit a corporate plan. They must submit budget summaries
for tabling in Parliament.
In my view, these requirements are basic and simple. They are
not unreasonable. Yet we have a system where all crown
corporations are not required to do these basics.
Canadians expect that their tax dollars are spent within this
framework of accountability. Again, when Canadians hear of
moneys being spent by the government without the above
criteria, they become suspicious. There is good reason for
Canadians to feel this way. The Financial Administration Act
could be easily made applicable to the crown corporations listed
in Bill C-263.
There are 49 crown corporations, seven of which are
exempted from the Financial Administration Act. They are the
Bank of Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation,
also known as Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, the
International Development Research Centre and the National
Arts Centre. Bill C-263 would move these crown corporations
under the supervision of the Auditor General with the exception
of the Bank of Canada and the CBC.
With respect to the Bank of Canada, central banking
independence is critical for the proper conduct of monetary
policy. Monetary policy is ultimately the responsibility of the
federal government, specifically the Minister of Finance and the
executive of the Bank of Canada. There are informal avenues of
accountability to which the governor of the Bank of Canada is
subject.
(1740)
With respect to the CBC, provisions of the Financial
Administration Act were incorporated into the Broadcasting Act
in 1991. In short, the CBC is already subject to the
accountability requirements of Bill C-263 and the Financial
Administration Act.
This latter point is important for all members to note. The
CBC is the recipient of about 70 per cent of government funding
provided to exempt crown corporations. This means that Bill
C-263 is finishing the job already accomplished by Parliament.
Since 1991, the CBC has adjusted to the accountability
requirements of part X of the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. members may agree with my observation that the CBC,
more than any other exempt crown corporation in Bill C-263,
was most insistent about the idea of the critical importance of an
arm's length relationship to government. Yet the CBC has not
had any of the difficulties that it anticipated in adapting to these
accountability requirements. The CBC has been operating
within this framework for the past four years.
I can remind my colleagues that the Auditor General already
performs financial audits on the five crown corporations in this
bill. These audits do not permit the Auditor General to comment
on the appropriateness of the activities of the five nor is the
auditor able to comment on the extent to which each fulfils its
mandate. As it stands now these are not value for money audits.
Value for money audits are done every five years. They are
different from the annual audits in that they comment on
corporate management, goals and objectives. I think it is fair to
say that the boards of the exempt corporations should welcome
the value for money audits. It is not unthinkable that the board
members would look on the audits as helpful to their work as
well as a positive accountability measure.
In the course of my work and research concerning this bill, I
have stumbled across some very interesting things. For
example, I have a letter from Tommy Banks, a member of the
Canada Council audit and evaluation committee which he wrote
to me shortly after I began working on my bill.
In his letter, Mr. Banks heralds the benefits of special
examinations which the Auditor General has been invited to do
for the Canada Council every five years since 1986. Mr. Banks
9755
states that ``the glaring scrutiny by the Auditor General-is
contemplated as an ongoing process''. Yet there is no
formalization of this process. The problem now is that there is
no assurance that these value for money audits will be done in a
set time frame with the resulting benefits of regular periodic
audits. Clearly a legislated requirement is needed.
It has been 10 years since the accountability framework for
crown corporations was established. Exempt corporations have
had a decade to review and analyse the effects of the Financial
Administration Act on the independence of non-exempt crown
corporations. By now it is highly likely that crown corporations
exempted from the act would conclude that the Financial
Administration Act poses no real threat to them. The CBC is an
illustration of this. Provisions of the Financial Administration
Act were incorporated into the amended Broadcasting Act of
1991.
The exemption of the seven crown corporations means that
they have not been subject to certain provisions that support
good management and accountability. As such, their exemption
is hard to justify in these times of fiscal restraint. These exempt
crown corporations are more than two times more dependent on
budgetary appropriations from government as a percentage of
total assets than non-exempt corporations and more than four
times more dependent on a per employee basis.
I feel it is reasonable to require the five crown corporations to
prepare a business plan so that annual reports can allow
Canadians to monitor and gauge the performance of the five.
There have been some cases where a crown corporation's annual
report objectives differ from its business plan objectives.
(1745)
An example of that is in 1991-92, Telefilm Canada spent 90
per cent of its film funds on projects from Toronto and Montreal.
One film of the 24 supported by Telefilm came from western
Canada. Moreover, Telefilm spent 41 per cent of its budget that
year on French language film and only 2 per cent on the English
language film from the west. We know Telefilm has stringent
linguistic targets. Having said that, I think hon. members would
agree that the objectives of Telefilm were not fulfilled in the
business it conducted in 1991-92.
Even though there are provisions for exempt crown
corporations to invite the Auditor General to conduct a special
examination, the audit itself is only released to their board of
directors, not to this place. The problem with making
administrative as opposed to legislative arrangements for
voluntary audits is that with a change in administration or
administrative policy, these agreements may fall apart.
Providing the corporations with an option of inviting the
Auditor General in to do an audit is just not good enough.
For example, because the National Arts Centre remains one of
Canada's most secretive crown corporations, in 1990 the House
of Commons communications and culture committee
recommended that the Auditor General perform a special
examination of the centre. The board's directors jumped at the
chance. Yet the process was fudged. The board had problems
releasing the report, even though it initially promised to publish
the report.
Some 300 days after receiving the report, which the board
originally denied receiving, it finally responded. The Ottawa
Citizen called the response hilarious. The Auditor General had
portrayed the arts centre as an institution that fails to properly
define its objectives, plot its future, monitor its expenses and
communicate with its board.
In this regard, we can clearly see that inviting the Auditor
General to do a special examination or a value for money audit is
insufficient. If the Auditor General's office was involved with
the corporation on a regular basis, business plan objectives
would not deviate from objectives stated in the annual reports.
The benefits are worth the cost of the Auditor General's audit.
Reporting is not onerous. It is good management. Value for
money audits pay their way.
Another example: In 1992 the Auditor General reported that
tax arrangements for foreign affiliates were costing Canadians
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Following the
report, amendments were made to the rules relating to how
foreign affiliates were taxed. This ensured that foreign affiliates
paid their fair share.
In 1993 another special examination identified overpayments
to CPP and old age security, which were between $120 million
and $220 million per year. Following the report, an action plan
was tabled with the public accounts committee to stop the
problem. The government was able to act and produce an action
plan.
You may be wondering if the other 42 non-exempt crown
corporations included in the Financial Administration Act have
increased their accountability since the introduction in 1984 of
the act. In 1993 the Auditor General reported that management
of crown corporations has improved because of the
requirements for planning, strategy, and cost systems, in short,
good management practices.
I think we can all agree that in times of restraint those who
spend taxpayers' dollars must be more than ever aware that they
are answerable for how they spend those dollars. Since part X of
the Financial Administration Act has been so effective for other
crown corporations, it seems reasonable that the crown
corporations outlined in Bill C-263 are in line as well.
In closing, I would like to quote a statement from the director
of the National Arts Centre Corporation board, who is
recognizing that improvements were needed in the corporation's
financial management. The director said: ``Given the limited
resources which management has at its disposal, tackling the
institutional mentality rooted in two decades of lack of
accountability has been a monumental task''.
9756
I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-263.
(1750 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to the bill presented by
the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The bill has as its basic purpose the removal of exemption
from application of divisions I to IV of part X of the Financial
Administration Act for five crown corporations. These are the
Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation,
the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development
Research Centre, and the National Arts Centre Corporation.
[Translation]
These corporations, together with the Bank of Canada and the
CBC, are exempt under section 85 of the Financial
Administration Act. All other crown corporations, which
number about 41, are subject to part X of the FAA.
If we study part X, we see that the goal was to provide a more
or less standard accountability and control system for all our
crown corporations.
The role of Parliament was to hold the government and the
crown corporation accountable through the appropriate minister
for the public funds allocated to the corporation.
[English]
The government's role was seen to be to provide
co-ordination, direction, as necessary, and control with the
objective of protecting the public's investment and ensuring that
public policy objectives are met.
Part X of the Financial Administration Act represents a
comprehensive accountability system allowing crown
corporations to adopt private sector management systems and
practices, while ensuring that government and Parliament
exercise certain key approvals.
For example, corporate plans of crown corporations subject to
part X require approval annually by the governor in council. As
well, the corporation's annual report must be tabled in
Parliament. Part X requires that it contain information on how
well the corporation has met its objectives.
[Translation]
At the end of each calendar year, the President of the Treasury
Board must submit to Parliament his annual report on crown
corporations and other corporate interests of Canada. This
report contains a section which is audited by the Auditor
General and which shows to what extent activity summaries and
annual reports are submitted in accordance with established
criteria for every minister responsible.
[English]
It can be seen from this one example how part X is designed to
ensure that not only government but Parliament as well is
viewed as integral to a sound accountability and control system
for crown corporations.
As previously indicated, certain crown corporations are
exempt from this part X system. The grounds for exemption,
while not found in any written or formal criteria or regulation,
reflect some of the special sensitivities in the relationship
between the government and these particular corporations.
For example, the perception of arm's length freedom from
government direction and decision which involve awarding
grants to juried recipients is viewed as fundamental for the
Canada Council. The government should not be seen to be
dictating artistic merit as a matter of the politics of the day.
Similarly, the mandated freedom for the CBC in areas of
programming and journalistic independence led to the provision
that this corporation also be exempted from part X.
The remaining exempts, five of which are named in the bill
before us today, are subject to the elements of accountability
found in their own enabling legislation. For example, all are
required to provide annual reports for tabling and for those
which are dependent upon government subsidization, they are
subject to the annual process and procedures of parliamentary
supply.
Bill C-263 contains two additional elements of some concern
to me.
The first of these is the provision that employees of the
National Arts Centre, the Canada Council and the International
Development Research Centre become members of the public
service. This is moving in the wrong direction.
Crown corporation employees are, for the most part, not
public servants. In fact, the legislation creating the four
museums crown corporations specifically states that museum
employees are not public servants. We do not want to increase
the size of the public service for no good reason.
(1755)
The second element deals with the concept of agent of the
crown status being introduced for these three corporations by
the bill. This is a complex legally challenging subject that
requires some thought.
I believe the International Development Research Centre was
specifically made a non-agent for compelling reasons relating
to its mandate and the freedom to choose fields of research of
international significance. Agencies should not be arbitrarily
invoked under the assumption that it removes autonomy.
Clearly, the experience we have had over the last 10 years
indicates that generally there may be merit in bringing other
exempts under a modified form of accountability framework
9757
similar to the regime that is now in place for the CBC which is
different from some of the others. I can and do support that
general principle.
Bill C-263 however, while moving these corporations in the
right direction, contains certain fatal flaws which I suggest
would preclude my support for it today. I urge hon. members not
to support it.
[Translation]
The most serious flaw is that the bill does not recognize the
need for a thorough review of the mandates given to these
corporations in order to develop an appropriate accountability
framework, without the appearance of unjustified political
meddling in sectors where a certain level of independence from
the government is in the public interest.
[English]
For example, part X contains sections which provide for a
directive power for government to override decisions taken by
crown corporation boards of directors. This could be construed
as a fundamental change in the traditional approach of
successive governments allowing cultural crown corporations
the freedom to engage in decision making affecting artistic
merit or research matters. This issue was thoroughly reviewed in
the debates and committee hearings on Bill C-24 back in May
and June of 1984.
Looking forward, I see merit in exploring better ways to
ensure accountability for the crown corporations named in this
bill. Subject areas such as auditing, corporate governance,
financial management and control, corporate planning,
reporting to Parliament and borrowing plans have been very
thoroughly addressed in part X of the Financial Administration
Act and have resulted in a system which the Auditor General
noted is working well. The hon. member acknowledged that in
his speech.
This system can probably be further modified to meet the
special circumstances of the majority of exempt crown
corporations. Whether this is best achieved through a series of
initiatives amending existing enabling statutes for each of the
named corporations in question requires further study.
I am informed that discussions have already occurred with
some of these corporations as to the best way of achieving this.
[Translation]
I have no doubt that additional efforts will be invested to
improve the accountability system while giving exempt crown
corporations the appropriate level of freedom that Canadians
will continue to perceive as being in the public interest.
[English]
As this bill stands I cannot support it and do not recommend it
to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of Bill C-263 is to amend the Financial Administration
Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
As you know, these five crown corporations are now
exempted from this act. The Financial Administration Act is a
very broad law which deals among other things with the running
of Treasury Board, public funds, public spending and the public
debt.
This act was amended 58 times between 1985 and 1994, an
average of once every two months. I will not go as far as saying
that there has been a lack of consistency in the Financial
Administration Act in the last decade, but the least that can be
said is that a flood of legislative amendments were adopted to
adjust to a so-called changing environment.
There are currently almost 50 crown corporations in Canada.
The overall budget of these corporations is close to $5 billion
and together they employ 115,000 people. Their economic
impact is therefore considerable.
(1800)
Although relatively autonomous with regard to their
management, these crown corporations are ultimately
accountable to Parliament through the minister responsible.
These crown corporations' management framework, established
in 1984, comes under Part X of the Financial Administration
Act.
These crown corporations are accountable; they must submit
an annual corporate plan to the minister responsible. They must
also submit an operating budget approved by Treasury Board.
They must prepare an annual report, that is, the required
financial statements and statistical data showing to what extent
their goals have been achieved.
Finally, each corporation must conduct internal audits. The
corporation's auditor also carries out a special, more
comprehensive audit every five years. However, seven
corporations are exempted from these legal requirements.
Bill C-263 maintains the exemption granted to the Bank of
Canada, which keeps its independence at the management level
and may, for example, pursue its monetary policy whatever the
government in power.
Bill C-263 also maintains the exemption already enjoyed by
the CBC. In any case, the corporation is already subject to the
accountability principle-internal and special audits, annual
report and corporate plan-through the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation Act which reflects the provisions of Part X of the
Financial Administration Act.
9758
The ultimate purpose of Bill C-263 is to remove the
exemption from accountability for the following five
corporations: the International Development Research Centre,
the Canadian Wheat Board and three other corporations
involved in the arts: the Canada Council, the National Arts
Centre Corporation and the Canadian Film Development
Corporation.
If this bill were adopted by the House, all five corporations
would be subject to the provisions of the act. They are exempted
mainly because of the specific nature of their relationship with
the government. Parliament has, until now, preferred to
maintain the arm's length relationship of these corporations.
In 1991, the auditor general commented that many exempt
corporations had voluntarily conformed with the provisions of
the act. Half of the exempt corporations had asked for a value for
money audit. Many exempt corporations had also established
internal audit functions and audit committees within their
organizations.
These corporations can be allowed greater flexibility in terms
of management control. Extending certain provisions of Part X
of the Financial Administration Act to the five corporations
mentioned in the bill would not necessarily mean eliminating
arm's length position in terms of administrative control.
According to the auditor general, there are a number of ways
in which the rules can be standardized to make exempt
corporations more accountable. One way would be to
incorporate the provisions of Part X of the act in the enabling
legislation for each exempted corporation, as in the case of the
CBC, which remains accountable to Parliament but maintains a
large measure of management autonomy, which means it is not
subject to management audits by the government.
One could also add these corporations to the schedule to the
Financial Administration Act while exempting them from
certain provisions of the act. Many exempt corporations already
conform voluntarily to many of the provisions in the act, so that
any concerns that overly vigorous management audits would be
detrimental to the mandate of these five corporations would
seem to be exaggerated.
In any case, we will vote against Bill C-263 because it goes
too far in terms of controlling the administration of these
corporations. It would subject the five crown corporations
identified to close supervision involving both their
accountability and their control over their management.
We would prefer a more flexible approach, such as the one
advocated by the auditor general, who proposes incorporating
the requirements selected by the legislator in the enabling act of
each of the five exempted corporations, as is already the case for
the CBC, as we have mentioned.
Each corporation will have to be looked at individually, after
analysis, to discover the best way to make it accountable and
establish a level of control in keeping with its particular goals
and mission. We will therefore vote against this bill, because it
gives the same status to all government corporations, except the
CBC and the Bank of Canada.
(1805)
We favour ensuring accountability by making these
corporations responsible for their operations rather than by
controlling them, as Bill C-263 would have it. We want to
increase their accountability, make them accountable to
Parliament and thus permit a better assessment of their
performance. We are opposed to unbounded control over the
management of these corporations. Three of them contribute to
the development of the arts, the fourth, as we said earlier,
contributes to agricultural development, and the fifth
contributes to international development.
We can provide a proper framework for their operations and,
at the same time, show some flexibility in monitoring their
management practices; this can also enhance the performance of
these corporations and their efficiency.
We are also opposed to the bill as presented because it gives
the minister responsible the right to interfere in the mandate of
cultural agencies. Such agencies must be accorded greater
flexibility in their activities.
Bill C-263 does not resolve the issue of the accountability of
crown corporations since, as the auditor general himself has
said, several non-exempt corporations do not comply with this
principle of accountability, even if they are subject to it. They do
not respect all of the accountability requirements prescribed by
law.
This bill increases only slightly the accountability required of
crown corporations. It seems to us that other means could be
used to hold these crown corporations accountable for their
results to a greater extent. This does not mean passing
legislation. The auditor general's input can be extremely helpful
in evaluating their results. Likewise, the fact senior executives
of such corporations must appear before standing House
committees, such as the public accounts committee, to account
for their management, serves as a powerful incentive to produce
the required reports and present documents of higher quality.
We favour this type of approach since it seems more effective
to us than new legislation.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before the member
proceeds with his intervention, on the basis that the mover of the
motion spoke to his motion and the next two interventions were
9759
against the motion, I am going to look to the same party as the
mover and possibly he will speak to the motion.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the member
opposite representing the government and the member
representing the Bloc who just finished speaking to the bill.
The intent of the private member's bill is to bring more
financial accountability to crown corporations. These are not
public corporations; they are crown corporations. It is kind of a
hybrid. It is not as though they are using their own money; they
are using our money.
How is it that a member of Parliament representing the people
of the country, especially the member for Kingston and the
Islands, the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader, could possibly say that he cannot support the bill as it is
written? What would it take for the government to support the
bill?
Perhaps the answer is not to support the bill. Perhaps it would
be to privatize it. Mr. Speaker, if this were your money or my
money, or the money involved was not public money but
personal money out of the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer,
would we be looking at our responsibilities as members of
Parliament a bit differently?
A crown corporation has the benefit of being supported by
public funds. Yet it does not have the downside of having to
worry about whether it is going to get funds to manage its daily
affairs from the product of its work. When things go wrong in
these crown corporations, when they are not efficiently
managed, when they do not have a business plan, do they go to
their shareholders who are individuals that put up the money?
No. They come running to the Government of Canada with their
hands out and say: ``Top it up''.
The problem is that our country is going into the hole at the
rate of $110 million a day. What do we have to do to get it to sink
into the heads of members opposite that they should start by
doing the little things right and eventually, if they do enough of
the little things right, the big things will turn out right? A little
thing is to support the bill which calls for more accountability in
a mere five crown corporations.
(1810)
In order to get some unanimity in the House, the mover of the
bill deliberately left out some of the more contentious crown
corporations such as the CBC. If we in the House were to reduce
the budget of the CBC by about 50 per cent tomorrow, which
would mean that we could spend lots of money on cancer
research, lots of money on AIDS research or not borrow money
to put more of our children to work, I guarantee it would focus
the attention of the CBC on what it really should be doing, what
we can afford and what we cannot afford. However the mover of
the motion did not include that because it is a very contentious
issue.
What do we have here? We have the Canada Council, the
Canadian Film Development Corporation, the International
Development Research Centre, the Canadian Wheat Board and
the National Arts Centre.
What, the National Arts Centre? How did the National Arts
Centre creep into this? How on earth did that become a crown
corporation? Could it be that it is located in Ottawa and it is one
more thing for the people of Canada to subsidize?
It would be an interesting exercise to go to the rest of the arts
centres in the country to find out whether they are crown
corporations and whether they have their arms in the pockets of
Canadians from coast to coast. Somehow I doubt it.
What is it about being in Ottawa that gives people the thought
that money is something that sort of grows on trees or that if it is
public money it is not accountable for?
Anybody who has been in business knows that the discipline
of an audit is not a negative thing or a bad thing. The discipline
of an audit will make any company work better. That is why
these crown corporations should be saying: ``Wait a minute. We
want to be overseen. We recognize the fact that we are dealing
with public money''.
Why should they not want to be involved? Is it because they
are not efficient? Is it because they can run like little fiefdoms
and do whatever they want any way they want to? Is it because
the Canadian Wheat Board is not perhaps so much a wheat board
but a co-op? Is it because the Canada Council is a collection of
people who are self-interested, get public money and dole
public money out to whoever they think should have it?
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Canada Council and
the people involved in the Canada Council are doing so
somehow maliciously. I am sure they are doing everything that
they are doing with their hearts in the right place. However it is
not their money; it is our money. Why should we not oversee
every nickel they spend?
The Canadian Film Development Corporation has been the
subject of some debate in the House in past months. There are
people who think it is doing a good job and there are people who
think it is not doing such a good job. There are people who say
we have to support it because it is Canadian culture. I think most
of us like to go to a movie every once in a while to see a movie
that speaks about us, to see something familiar. There might be
some granting to the Canadian Film Corporation that pays off; it
might even make some money from time to time.
9760
(1815)
It would be interesting if they used their own money and had
to compete in a world market on the quality of their product and
rather than saying that we have this domestic market which has
the tariff wall surrounding it, we are going to make movies that
everybody in the world is going to clamour to see because of the
quality of the story, the quality of the acting, the quality of the
distribution?
That is what we should be looking for in our Canada. We can
compete with the best in the world in anything, in business, in
arts, in film development. If we are going to have crown
corporations that have the purview of doling out public money
for private purposes, certainly to oversee over these crown
corporations is common sense.
I would like to conclude my few moments of discussing this
bill, because it is a votable bill, by once again appealing to my
hon. colleagues to reconsider the initial response not to support
this bill.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
brought this bill to the House with the express intent of ensuring
that it was innocuous enough that it could find support on the
Liberal benches and with the Bloc as well as a testimony to the
fact that on some things, albeit a minor start, the members of
Parliament in this House assembled can come together for the
right reasons and do the right thing.
It is a tragedy that every time a member gets up to speak, to
move a motion or to do something in this House, it is always
done on an adversarial position. It need not be that way.
Common sense is common sense, whether it originates on the
Liberal benches, on the Bloc benches or on the Reform benches.
When we have an opportunity in this House to come together
in unity to do the right thing for the right reasons which could
have the effect of using taxpayers' money more efficiently, we
should seize the opportunity, seize the moment and do the right
thing for the right reasons.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this bill that is
before the House, Bill C-263.
I want to assure the member who just concluded his remarks
that my remarks are not made in an adversarial way but just to
simply point out how this bill would address the Canadian
Wheat Board. I know it is a crown corporation that is of some
interest to the Reform Party and it is of some interest to all of us
in this House, particularly those who are involved in the
agri-food industry.
I want to point out in the next few minutes why this bill is
absolutely unnecessary and actually would be doing much of
what the Reform Party has faulted governments in Canada for in
the past, repeating something that is already done and doing
things twice and spending money that is not necessarily spent.
The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 as a
marketing agency for western grain farmers. At the time farmers
in western Canada wanted a system that would control price
fluctuations, distribute delivery opportunity equitably and move
the largest volumes of grain at the best possible prices.
That mandate is still the same. The Canadian Wheat Board
remains the same now as it was years ago in the mandate that it
has, to earn farmers the best possible returns for their wheat and
barley. That is exactly what the board has been doing for that 60
years. It has done an excellent job of selling Canadian grain at
the best possible prices and then returning as much money as
possible to the users of that board, those users being western
Canadian farmers.
Although the Canadian board is a crown corporation, its
operations are financed by 130,000 grain farmers in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and the grain growing areas of British
Columbia.
(1820 )
This in itself makes this crown corporation unlike many of the
others. Some crown corporations including the Canadian Wheat
Board are exempt from the application of the Financial
Administration Act. It is one of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt listed this afternoon as
being exempt.
With this bill this exemption would be removed and the crown
corporations affected by the bill would become subject to a
different reporting system with different requirements.
For example, under this bill the Canadian Wheat Board would
be required to submit a corporate plan to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food for approval by the governor in
council. The board would also have to submit an operating and
capital budget annually for approval by Treasury Board. This
report would then be included in a review by the parliamentary
committee.
Finally, the wheat board would be subject to an audit by an
outside auditor and possibly the Auditor General of Canada.
There is no doubt in my mind that the objectives of the bill are
well intended. I can assure everyone that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government are in favour of
ensuring that the accountability is there. That accountability at
the present time is to farmers, the government and to taxpayers.
9761
It is essential to remember that the board's operations are
funded by farmers, not by government. Nor does the board
operate with a capital base funded by the government. Although
some accountability to the government is appropriate the
board's first responsibility is to western Canadian wheat and
barley producers.
I should also emphasize that the board is already accountable
to the government through a variety of provisions in the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, a separate act. The safeguards
established under that act are virtually the same as those under
the Financial Administration Act. Again, why repeat it?
Even though they are there they are slightly modified to take
into account the unique nature of the wheat board's business.
For example, the board is required to file an annual report with
the minister by March 31. This annual report is tabled in
Parliament.
The wheat board act requires the board to have an external
auditing firm conduct an audit each year and to keep proper
books. The Canadian Wheat Board Act also grants borrowing
powers subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. In all
of these examples the provisions of the Financial
Administration Act are virtually identical.
I could go on but the point is Bill C-263 which has been put
before us today is not the way to enhance the accountability of
the Canadian Wheat Board. The government's main concern for
accountability and the reporting process that ensures it should
stem from a need to be aware of possible government
expenditures.
There will only be government expenditures if there is a
deficit in the pool accounts. A deficit in the pool accounts will
only occur if the Canadian Wheat Board's initial payments to
farmers are set at or raised to levels that exceed the ultimate
levels from the sales of wheat and barley. Since the government
must approve the level of the initial payments it already has an
effective method of accountability in this area as well.
Another serious concern with the bill is that the nature of the
marketing activities of the Canadian Wheat Board requires
extreme confidentiality. The reporting relationship between the
Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is created under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and
it is appropriate, given the need to ensure that confidentiality.
We are also concerned about timing. The minister has already
announced his intention to begin a process that will rigorously
examine all of the facts and issues relating to western grain
marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. It is no secret that
opinions on this and these issues are sharply divided on the
subjects. There have been meetings, rallies and demonstrations
on both sides of these issues.
Before the government makes any decision on the future of
the board, farmers have a right to carefully consider the
situation and together they must decide what represents the best
balanced solution for their industry. Bill C-263 represents a
very important decision. Its impacts on the Canadian Wheat
Board and on western grain growers are potentially far reaching.
(1825)
It is our duty to act fairly through a transparent forum and to
consult farmers before we make any major decision on the
future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We know what the majority of farmers want. When we are
convinced that the procedure to get their views has been fair,
impartial and equitable and does represent what the majority
wants, then and only then will this government be ready to
approve changes to existing legislation.
Until then I urge members of this House to respond to Bill
C-263 with a clear and strong message that we are not yet ready
to make major changes without understanding the consequences
and most important without consulting with its users, the prairie
farmers.
There is still a lot of work to be done and there is still much
consultation to go through before we can come to a definitive
decision on the future of the wheat board.
In conclusion, I would ask the members of this House not to
support Bill C-263 as it relates to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, basically what
I want to talk about in Bill C-263 is the openness, accountability
and transparency that I think these agencies should have. I want
to talk specifically about IDRC. That organization is often
confused with CIDA. It is wrong that this should happen.
Throughout many of the discussions I have been involved in
we have heard what the people of Canada are saying about
CIDA. They are saying that there is inefficiency, that they want
accountability there. However, they quite often mix IDRC into
that same ball of wax. I think that is rather unfair.
This bill asks for accountability. I think that will do nothing
but benefit that organization because the Canadian public wants
to know it is getting good value for its dollar.
Under the current system IDRC is not getting audited the
same way as other government institutions. It does not follow all
of the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
Therefore, Canadians have a hard time really knowing whether
they are getting value for money.
In a time of serious spending cuts and serious budgetary
constraints, we can make an awfully good case for getting some
kind of regular, accountable audit procedure. In terms of this, I
know this year IDRC has done a budget. I have certainly talked
9762
to the organization. I would say it is a very well run
organization. I know a member across who would agree with me
on that.
If there were support for this bill we would have to separate
IDRC from CIDA. Going through most of my notes, in many
cases the people in IDRC I have talked to would totally agree
with this. In private conversation they would say that. We have
an agency, a crown corporation, that may or may not do an audit.
Only because of good management would it do an audit,
becoming accountable.
We also have the public saying this agency is the same, it
gives out aid or it is something involved with aid, and what are
we going to do about that, maybe we should subject it to the
same treatment that we subject an organization like CIDA to.
As I pointed out, that is totally wrong. For that reason I would
strongly advise members to read the member's bill, to take a
look at what it is trying to accomplish and the fact that it is
allowing this organization to get its dollars and cents out on the
table and to make them open to the public, thus achieving the
accountability and transparency that I believe people are
demanding.
(1830)
Obviously I had a lot of other areas I would have liked to have
covered, but for the sake of time I will stop at this point. I ask
members to reconsider their support of Bill C-263. When it
comes to an area like the IDRC they would welcome that as
much as any of us would in this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9762
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious to anyone who is watching the various news programs
today, or who has any sort of sensitivity to what is going on in
the country, that there is the equivalent of a tax revolt well under
way.
People have literally been driven to the wall when it comes to
the existing tax system which, to give it undue consideration,
would be to call it unfair, unjust, unbalanced and discriminatory.
It discriminates against the small business sector relative to the
corporate sector. It is biased against the average working
person, as opposed to people in the upper income or the very
wealthy tax brackets.
This tax revolt has occurred by the economy moving
underground. There probably is not a Canadian citizen who is
not participating in some way in the underground economy, with
the exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and some of my
colleagues who are presently in the House.
Who does not participate with cash transactions or in a barter
system? It is increasing. It is estimated that somewhere between
$40 billion and $120 billion of business transactions each year
take place in the underground economy. This makes it almost
impossible to pay down the debt of the country until we get some
confidence back in the system.
Why is that? First of all, if we add up all of the tax
exemptions, they come to about $36 billion a year. That was in
the press yesterday. Thirty-six billion dollars a year is lost to the
treasury because of tax exemptions. Many of these exemptions
are legitimate but many must be classed as tax loopholes. I give
my friend, the Minister of Finance, full credit for going public in
the last few days and saying that the system is filled with tax
loopholes that have to be closed. He also said that the poor do
not use tax loopholes. It is clear what he means. The rich use tax
loopholes.
When we go down to the harbours in some of the port cities of
Canada and see the huge yachts, they are by and large tax
deductions. I personally know a number of people with boats
who write off half of the cost of the boat and call it a business tax
deduction for entertainment purposes. The boxes in the big
sports stadiums are tax write-offs. We found out from the news
today that even escort services can be a tax write-off if the name
is changed to a tour guide or a bodyguard.
I suspect a lot of submissions will be made by individuals who
are entertaining their clients. A lot of touring will also be going
on, or perhaps a lot of bodyguards will be put into place. That
will be a legitimate tax write-off.
The reports say that Revenue Canada will soon send out a
circular clarifying this issue. As long as the escort service is also
a tour guide or a bodyguard, it will qualify for a legitimate tax
write-off. I could go on, but I suspect that we are all familiar
with the various forms of tax write-offs.
I would like to ask a couple of serious questions. Canada is
one of the very few OECD countries that does not have an
inheritance tax. Across the way, when my hon. friend inherits $2
million or $3 million, it is not taxed. We are virtually the only
country in the western world where an inheritance is not taxed.
9763
(1835 )
Even the United States has an inheritance tax. The United
States also considers capital gains to be like any other income.
In other words $1 of capital gains is taxed like $1 of regular
income. But not in Canada. That $1 of capital gains is only
considered to be worth 75 cents for taxation purposes.
Once again we are one of the very few OECD countries that
says to people: If your income is from capital gains we are
automatically going to give you a 25 per cent tax break before
we even start considering it.
Again I have to ask, why the tax break for those who earn their
income from capital gains as opposed to someone working in a
radio station, a factory or a plant? Why do we distinguish
between those two kinds of incomes? Why do we let those
people who inherit vast amounts of money off, not to pay any
income tax at all on it? Again, we are one of the very few
countries in the world that does that.
I could also ask about the family trust provision. Here is the
mother of all loopholes. I believe there is now universal
agreement that if there is a tax provision that has to go in this
budget, it has to be this family trust business. The tax experts
told us this provision was brought in to protect only the very
wealthiest families of Canada. Must we have a special tax
provision that costs us many hundreds of millions of dollars to
make life easier for the very wealthy in Canada? I think the
reaction to that is no.
We will be watching very closely to see what the Minister of
Finance does when he brings in his budget in a few days and
whether or not he says: ``We are going to take this loophole of
loopholes, the mother or father of all loopholes out of the
system''. If he does that, then I think we can legitimately say
that yes, there is some balance to the budget.
For example, he should tax the inheritances people receive,
let us say, over $1 million or $2 million. I am not talking about
people who inherit the family farm or the person who inherits a
small business or the family home or whatever. I am talking
about people who inherit $2 million, $3 million, $5 million or
$10 million. Why should they not pay tax on that? They would if
they were in virtually every other western industrialized nation,
but not in Canada.
A whole set of questions must be asked about the loopholes in
the system. I am very happy to see that the Minister of Finance
has now acknowledged this. We will be watching carefully as he
attempts to close off some of these loopholes in an effort to
make the tax system a bit fairer.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to try to respond to the very windy
comments of the hon. member for Kamloops. With his typical
hyperbole he went on to grossly exaggerate the deficiencies of
the Canadian tax system, I am sure for the benefit of his viewers
in Kamloops.
He sounded a little like the premier of Ontario did when he
was in opposition, and we have all noticed how he has changed
his tune since he came into government. Of course he has made
the worst mess we have ever seen of any government in any
province. I suspect the hon. member for Kamloops would agree
with me if he lived in Ontario. He does not, so he has missed out
on some of the worst aspects of NDP rule in our province.
The NDP is involved in the tax system in Ontario and the
Ontario taxpayers are complaining about high taxes. What they
have not fully realized in every case is how many of those taxes
are charged by their provincial government. It has really slapped
it to Ontarians in a big, big way, in spite of having a massive
deficit and total incompetence in its government and running the
economy of that province.
I agree with him that the fundamental basis of a sound tax
system is that everyone pays his or her share. When a minority
of taxpayers are able to avoid paying their fair share, the
legitimacy of the whole system suffers.
Like the hon. member for Kamloops, the Minister of Finance
and indeed every member of this caucus is committed to trying
to restore an element of fairness to our tax system. But the
government in fact has already taken steps to do that. It did it in
the last budget.
I did not see the hon. member for Kamloops applauding the
minister on budget day last year. I am sorry he did not, but I can
safely tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will agree, that
none of us have ever seen the hon. member for Kamloops
applaud a budget in this House.
There is a good reason for that. None of them has been an NDP
budget. If there had been one, no doubt he would applaud it. But
as long as the budget is presented by any other party, no matter
how fair it is, he will say it is not fair enough for him. He does
not talk about Bob Rae's budgets. If he did, I think he would be
complaining about the lack of fairness. I am sorry we are not
able to hear his thoughts on that tonight.
I want to point out examples of some of the things the
Minister of Finance did last year in his budget.
He eliminated the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption
that had been put in by the previous government that benefited
high income individuals almost exclusively. The deduction for
business meals and entertainment expenses was reduced from
80 per cent to 50 per cent, another item that benefited substantial
taxpayers. Large Canadian controlled private corporations are
no longer eligible for the small business deductions which
benefit small business and which the hon. member for Kamloops
ignored in his remarks. I think that is important.
9764
The need for increased equity and simplicity in the tax
system is recognized. The finance minister has made it clear
on a number of occasions that his budget will be fair and will
try to reduce inequities in our tax system.
I am sure the member for Kamloops will applaud the minister
on budget day and thank him for the great service he is doing for
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)