36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 219
CONTENTS
Friday, April 30, 1999
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRECLEARANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-22. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1010
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1050
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1055
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VÁCLAV HAVEL
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1100
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANIÈLE SAUVAGEAU
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1105
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLOBAL INTERNET CONTEST
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONTARIO TAXES
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1110
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGH COMMISSION IN NEW DELHI
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1115
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1120
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS UNION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1130
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1135
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-78
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1140
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1145
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAZARDOUS GOODS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1150
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1155
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1200
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
1205
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banking Services
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parental Rights
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Merchant Navy Veterans
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STARRED QUESTIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRECLEARANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-22. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS LAW SUNSET ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-278. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1240
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1310
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 219
![](/web/20071219090755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 30, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
PRECLEARANCE ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs) moved that Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United
States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into
the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration,
public health, food inspection and plant and animal health, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today on
Bill S-22, the preclearance act which was introduced in the House
yesterday. This is a good news bill for Canada and Canadian
travellers. It is a key element in Canada's efforts to modernize
our border with the United States while at the same time
maintaining Canada's sovereignty and protecting the rights and
freedoms of Canadians.
Before explaining how this bill does exactly that, I will
briefly tell members what preclearance is and how Canadians have
and will benefit from these services.
Preclearance was introduced in Toronto in 1952. It is currently
operating at the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Ottawa and Montreal airports. It allows U.S. border control
officers working in Canadian airports to determine whether people
and goods can enter the United States.
In 1974 Canada and the United States formalized this arrangement
under the air transport preclearance agreement, but this did not
spell out the powers of U.S. preclearance officers in Canada and
was not given force through implementing legislation.
[Translation]
This year is the fourth anniversary of the Open Skies Agreement
and the 25th anniversary of the 1974 Air Transport Preclearance
Agreement.
These two agreements have worked hand in glove to transform air
passenger travel between Canada and the United States.
[English]
In the past, travelling from Canada to the United States was
long and arduous because the airlines were often prevented from
providing efficient routings by the outdated air agreement.
Because of open skies, some 60 U.S. destinations can now be
reached non-stop from 19 Canadian cities and many more can be
reached by convenient connections at U.S. hubs.
1010
Parenthetically, I should point out that in transporter traffic,
since the open skies agreement has come in, Canadian carriers
dominate that market. Canadian carriers carry more passengers in
the transporter market than do U.S. carriers. That is a
testament to the efficiency of Canada's various airlines.
[Translation]
Why was preclearance important to this success? Because many of
those 60 U.S. destinations do not have an adequate level of
customs and immigration inspection.
At airports with inspection services, passengers who are
precleared in Canada do not wait in line for customs and
immigration services upon arrival at U.S. airports and thus
enjoy shorter connection times with onward flights.
The fact that travellers could be precleared by U.S. inspection
agencies in Canada helped make Open Skies work.
[English]
Since the signing of the open skies, air traffic has increased
39%. That is quite a remarkable achievement. It has risen from
13.5 million passengers to 18.7 million. Compared to 1994, about
2.6 million more business travellers and tourists arrive in
Canada from the United States by air.
U.S. preclearance operations in Canada have operated efficiently
for over 40 years. In 1997, of the 8.5 million passengers
processed at U.S. preclearance sites, less than .002%, a
minuscule amount, were denied entry into the United States.
We have four major objectives for border co-operation: access
for our friends, families and business partners in the United
States and the promotion of tourism; facilitate goods to ensure
access to the United States market; protect Canadians from
international crime and its effects; and ensure Canadian
sovereignty and protection of our rights and freedoms.
This act does contribute to these four objectives and gives
Canada a crucial building block for the 21st century.
[Translation]
Major changes have occurred since 1974. The 1982 charter of
rights and freedoms granted Canadians new individual rights.
Border processing of persons and goods has evolved as a result
of the rapid increase in border crossings and the adoption of
new technology. Traffic has risen dramatically, as has the
number of routes. The need for efficient and effective
processing is essential in an era of just-in-time delivery.
This act, which is modelled on existing preclearance schemes in
Europe, will allow Canada and the United States to modernize and
apply new innovative approaches to border management.
It will be accompanied by amendments to the 1974 Canada/U.S.
Preclearance Agreement which will reflect the new legislation
and other safeguards agreed to by Canada and the United States.
The Preclearance Act will update and clarify the legal status of
U.S. preclearance services at Canadian airports. It will
provide legal authorities to protect travellers' rights, while
countering illegal activities under Canadian law. Finally, it
will provide the legal basis for other border facilitation
initiatives by air and other modes of transportation.
[English]
The bill will provide a structure for the preclearance regime
and it directs enforcement. The bill represents roughly two
years of negotiations with the United States government that was
really a balancing act which required marrying the legal regimes
of our two countries. It allows all of us to be satisfied that
our own rights are respected.
I should point out that the officials in the Departments of
Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Revenue Canada, Justice and
my department have worked very hard at crafting these compromises
to ensure these basics rights that we all respect and expect are
protected in the bill.
1015
The preclearance scheme we have before us is really a hybrid
which maintains the supremacy of Canadian law but allows the
United States to administer certain civil and administrative
matters in designated areas that pertain to the entry of persons
and goods to that country.
One of the primary objectives for us during negotiations was to
safeguard Canadian sovereignty. I do not think there is a member
in this House who would disagree with that priority. We think it
has been accomplished in a number of ways.
The agreement is entirely reciprocal. The charter of rights and
freedoms and all Canadian laws will apply in the preclearance
area, so let us not pay attention to those naysayers who somehow
say that it is an erosion of Canadian sovereignty. The charter of
rights applies everywhere in Canada and it will certainly apply
in this instance.
All criminal matters will be dealt with by Canadian law
enforcement officers. There will be no enforcement of American
criminal law. In the case of conflict of laws, Canadian law
overrides American law and that is the way it should be.
Strip searches are a rather unpleasant part of customs duty and
enforcement will be done only by Canadian officers. Canadian
police officers will be available at all preclearance sites to
ensure that these goals are attained.
U.S. preclearance officers will not, I emphasize they will not,
have immunity from criminal prosecution. The American government
will be liable for civil actions, personal losses or property
damage claims against American officers in the course of their
work.
While the charter applies exclusively to the action of
governments, the intent of the legislation is that the charter
would apply to U.S. officers' activities because their actions
would be authorized by the act and would occur on Canadian soil.
Travellers would also have full rights under the Canadian bill of
rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The American government
agrees with the application of the charter to U.S. preclearance
activities.
The main job of a preclearance officer is to determine whether
travellers and goods are to be allowed entry into the United
States. The act would grant a preclearance officer the authority
necessary to make that determination. The administration of U.S.
law would be limited to those dealing with customs, immigration,
public health, food inspection and plant and animal health.
Only the provisions of those laws that are directly related to
the admission of travellers and the importation of goods to the
United States will be administered. These border control laws
can only be applied in preclearance areas or in transit areas
which will be designated by the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
The bill also requires airlines to provide limited personal
information about passengers from third countries passing
through Canada, if the passengers wish to use in transit
facilities.
This information will be subject to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Advance
information will not be provided for travellers originating
their trip in Canada and bound for the United States.
All aspects of this preclearance regime will be fully reciprocal
with the United States.
Canada will not proceed with enactment of this legislation until
an amendment to the 1974 agreement has been signed between the
U.S. and Canada which guarantees reciprocity.
Canada has not established preclearance in the U.S. However, we
have agreed to consider requests by San Francisco and Anchorage,
Alaska, to establish Canadian preclearance services in their
airports.
[English]
Some amendments were passed in the other house which addressed
concerns with respect to the false declaration and the
introduction of a review process which ensures that a traveller
is knowingly making a false statement and which provides for a
review within five years of the legislation coming into force.
Very often we are criticized for introducing bills in the other
place.
Bills of this nature which deal with such technical matters and
fundamental issues of law are well suited to be introduced in the
other place. Senators have taken the time to thoroughly debate
and discuss this bill and they have made amendments which we feel
are very sensible. I would like to thank my colleagues in the
other place for their work on the bill.
1020
The bill ensures that a traveller can refuse to answer a
question and can leave the preclearance area unless an offence is
suspected. Mere suspicion is not sufficient grounds to conduct a
search. The legal standard that must be met is that reasonable
grounds must be there to suspect.
Travellers will be put on notice through signage and brochures
that they have rights and obligations in seeking entry to the
United States.
The fundamental principle of the bill is that Canada and the
U.S. wish to ensure the integrity of our border operations. We
do not want preclearance sites to become the preferred routing
for organized crime and we will not permit that. To prevent that
illegal activity on Canadian soil, we have to ensure that
travellers who are reasonably suspected of committing a crime can
be prevented from leaving the area while it is determined an
offence has been committed. This principle we believe is
consistent with Canadian operations at our airports and land
borders and with Canadian jurisprudence.
[Translation]
Upon passage of legislation, in transit preclearance operations
will be extended in Vancouver, and will be implemented in
Toronto and in Montreal's Dorval Airport.
Calgary Airport will be eligible for in transit preclearance no
later than January 1, 2001. Other Canadian airports with
current U.S. preclearance programs, such as Edmonton, Winnipeg
and Ottawa, subsequently will also become eligible for in
transit preclearance.
The successful implementation of an in transit pilot project at
Vancouver Airport, introduced after the Prime Minister's visit
to Washington in 1997, has demonstrated the benefits of this
process.
The act paves the way for in transit preclearance in other
airports. This will provide passengers, travelling from Asia
and Europe to the United States, better and quicker air service.
In the past, in transit passengers were obliged to pass through
both a Canadian and U.S. inspection process, often requiring two
visas and a much longer connection time. The new in transit
arrangements will eliminate the Canadian inspection process and
encourage international passengers to use Canadian air carriers
and airports for their travels to and from the United States.
[English]
It is not anticipated that there will be an increase in refugee
claims as a result of this particular initiative. The pilot
project in Vancouver has resulted in only one refugee claimant,
one out of about 100,000 passengers using these in transit
facilities.
The preclearance act is intended to be the basis for agreements
between Canada and the U.S. for other modes of transport as well.
As trade and travel between our two countries continues to grow
in leaps and bounds, the government intends to enter into
discussions and negotiations for air cargo, road, rail, marine
and ferry preclearance. All good news.
I am glad my friend from Winnipeg—Birds Hill is in such a good
mood. He will be speaking on the bill and I know he will
wholeheartedly endorse the government's position.
This legislation will clarify U.S. authorities and protect
travellers' rights under Canadian law and safeguard Canadian
sovereignty. There will be a uniform regime in place at
preclearance sites and border entry points to counter illegal
activities across our shared border.
I encourage my colleagues on the other side to give their full
and rapid support to a bill that we consider to be a priority so
that those airports I mentioned can put the necessary
arrangements into place and we can give better service to
Canadians and other travellers using Canadian airports.
This will increase economic activity, it will be good for the
airlines and it is good for our relations with the United States,
all without compromising Canadian values and the integrity of
Canadian law.
1025
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I will say
right off the bat that the Reform Party supports this bill, even
if it does come from the Senate. Some worthwhile things come
from there and we are debating one of them today.
Bill S-22 is an act to establish the reciprocal agreement
between Canada and the United States allowing U.S. customs
inspectors to operate in precleared designated areas as
established by the minister. The goal is primarily to allow a
freer flow of goods and travellers into the United States.
Coming from Vancouver where the test case was done, it is
certainly a great benefit to any of those who have been
travelling into the United States over the last few years. A lot
of us remember getting off airplanes in San Francisco, Los
Angeles or even Hawaii after five hours in an airplane and
standing in long lineups waiting to be cleared. It was a
disaster. Canadians in the west are very pleased that the test
was there and that it will be going right across Canada.
One of the more exciting things in this bill, as the minister
has just said, is that we are going to study in Anchorage and San
Francisco preclearing Canadians or others coming into Canada.
That is extremely important.
The minister mentioned the people in transit coming through
Vancouver and that only one has asked for refugee status, which
is a pretty good record. It is a commendable record and
certainly has speeded the service up. It has helped Canadian and
foreign airlines increase business in the Vancouver airport which
is great. It means more money for Canada if those planes land
here, fill up here and the crews stay here.
There is an interesting aspect of preclearing when coming into
Canada. A large number of people who come into Canada ask for
refugee status at airports at our own customs and immigration
facilities. Certainly if we get into preclearance, those numbers
will be greatly reduced.
I hope the government gets on with its study quickly and does
preclearance for all major locations coming into Canada,
especially some of those in Asia and the U.K. I think it would
certainly benefit all Canadians if we had that type of
preclearance coming into Canada. For anybody who arrives at
Vancouver International Airport now at certain times of the day
when there is between 500 to 800 people in lineups, it can take
an hour and a half to get through the clearance after having
spent 8 to 13 hours on an airplane.
The sooner we look at this preclearance ourselves the better. It
will benefit the travellers who will not have to stand in long
lineups when they arrive in our country. It will also benefit
our immigration process. People who land in Canada and their
passports are missing and they say they are refugees get to stay
here and go through a process that takes five to seven years.
That is not acceptable to most Canadians.
This bill is such a good one. We are talking about television
and we hope that when this bill goes to committee the meeting can
be televised. Then all Canadians could see the great benefits in
dollars this bill is going to bring to Canadians by allowing them
this freer access up and down. It certainly would be a great
bill to start the televising of committees which we have been
discussing in the House over the last few weeks.
Last year 8.5 million people were precleared from Canada going
into the U.S. That is a significant amount of our population.
Certainly with this bill it is likely to increase a little bit
over the years.
There are a lot of Canadians who will be quite excited when they
read today that their travel is going to be made easier. I know
those in British Columbia, many of whom will go through San
Francisco when coming back in, will be quite happy that they will
be able to get off the airplane in Vancouver and go straight home
because they will have been precleared at the other end.
I guess we will find out when we get into committee when we are
going to start these test cases. I know it will be a very
popular move in western Canada.
I said earlier that the minister has laid out pretty well what
is in this bill. I could go on for a lot longer on some of these
issues, but I will sit down right now and get this bill through
and into committee and make sure it becomes law as quickly as
possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are
debating Bill S-22. Far from being controversial, this piece of
legislation will make things easier for a number of travelers.
It is in keeping with what has been done so far with regard to
customs preclearance.
On May 8, 1974, the government of Canada and the government of
the United States of America entered into an agreement on air
transport preclearance. The purpose of that agreement was to
speed up and facilitate trade between the two countries.
1030
Bill S-22 goes along the same line, but is aimed at broadening
this statutory authority, on a reciprocal basis, to facilitate
cross-border movement by other means of transportation. To this
end Bill S-22 authorizes the United States to administer in
Canada provisions of American law related to the admission of
travelers and the importation of goods into the United States,
except for criminal law. It is important to note that criminal
law is excluded from this agreement.
The administration of such provisions of American law in Canada
will be subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
Finally, the bill provides that the government may, by order in
council, restrict the scope of these provisions if, in its
opinion, the United States do not accord Canada the same
privileges. There is therefore an element of reciprocity in this
agreement aimed at facilitating movement, both ways. If ever
this was not the case, the bill contains provisions allowing the
government to rectify the situation by order in council.
Canada has allowed U.S. federal inspection services to preclear
air passengers on its territory since the 1950s.
Preclearance refers to the measures by American federal
inspection services in relation to travellers and goods leaving
Canada for the United States.
As others have already pointed out, these measures were made
official in 1974 with the Agreement between the Government of
Canada and the Government of the United States on Air Transport
Preclearance.
Under that agreement, there are now preclearance services
affecting some 8.5 million passengers at the following Canadian
airports: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Ottawa and Montreal, of course at Dorval.
However, since that agreement was signed, there have been
certain changes in Canadian law, particularly the introduction
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, there
have been changes in border procedures because of the rapid
increase in cross-border traffic and technological advances.
The official powers set out in Bill S-22 and the changes to the
1974 agreement would make it possible to exercise more
appropriate control over the present border situation, while at
the same time protecting travellers under Canadian law.
American federal inspection services would be in a position to
examine and seize goods and apply certain monetary penalties
under American border control legislation.
American legislation would be administered only in designated
preclearance areas and would be subject to the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and other applicable Canadian
legislation.
No provision of American law that would be criminal under
Canadian law may be administered in Canada. Criminal matters
must be dealt with by Canadian authorities under Canadian law.
At the present time, international passengers travelling to the
United States from a Canadian airport with preclearance services
must go through Canadian customs and immigration services before
going to an American preclearance officer.
The preclearance in transit planned for Canadian airports with
approved services would enable passengers from third countries
to pass directly through American preclearance services, thus
undergoing a single inspection.
In transit preclearance services have been in operation since
June 1997 in Vancouver international airport as a pilot project.
Furthermore, if in transit preclearance services were
operational, airlines would be obliged, before entering Canada,
to provide preclearance officers with specific information on
those of their passengers going on to the United States.
It has been agreed that the provisions of this bill would be
matched with reciprocal provisions on the American side so that
Canada may preclear in the United States within the context of
American customs and immigration laws.
In general, that is not a problem.
There is only one small concern at this point, with respect to
the transfer of information the airlines will have to provide.
I know the minister referred to this in his speech. Obviously,
some care must be taken to ensure the airlines provide
information on passengers in accordance with the provisions of
privacy legislation.
So long as this is done properly for this part of the bill, the
rest will only make the lives of travellers easier and improve
cross border travel.
1035
In this context, there is no doubt that we will support this
bill, which, be it said in passing, has already been discussed
and debated in the other House. Although it is certainly not
our first choice and we might question its existence, much of
the work has been done on this bill from the Senate.
I encourage my colleagues to support it, but to be careful,
because it involves a reciprocal agreement. We must make sure
that the Americans act as effectively as us, in putting all the
measures necessary in place.
If everything goes well, it will not be necessary to rely on the
provisions of the bill that provide for the use of an order to
restrict the scope of this agreement.
Assuming everything goes well, this legislation would make life
simpler for travellers, given the increasing volume of business
between Canada and the United States and, in the case that
concerns us, between Quebec and the United States. As members
know, the United States is now Quebec's main trading partner. A
lot of goods are being traded and many individuals must travel
to the United States to do business. Many companies with
multiple interests have facilities or do business in Quebec, in
Canada, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and
transit through our country and, in this case, often through
Dorval airport.
This concludes my remarks on Bill S-22. I will be very interested
to hear what other members have to say. I ask everyone to
support the bill, while being vigilant concerning the
confidentiality of the information that will be transmitted by
airline companies, so as to prevent any abuse. The private
nature of that information is a concern to many people, in this
era of modern technology and massive transfers of personal
information.
This process must not lead to abuse. It must be implemented in
compliance with our own laws to avoid, for example, situations
such as the one in which the Minister of Human Resources
Development found himself, with the cards distributed to
travellers to obtain information on employment insurance
recipients.
Even though public opinion may support such a measure, we must
still comply with the law. In this particular case, there was a
problem and the courts strongly condemned the practice, from the
point of view of its compliance with Canadian law.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Transport referred to me earlier as the member
for Winnipeg—Birds Hill. I understand his reason for doing
that. Many years ago when he and I were younger members of
parliament I was the member for Winnipeg—Birds Hill and his
riding probably had a different name.
I begin by registering our usual objection to bills originating
in the Senate. We feel that there is no good reason this bill
could not have come first to the House of Commons where it would
have been considered by the appropriate committee and the good
amendments made by the Senate would have been made by the
committee instead. It is always a mystery to us why some of
these bills end up coming to us from the Senate instead of going
to the Senate from the House of Commons.
On the surface, in many real aspects, the provisions of this
bill have a lot of merit. If processes at the border points and
at airports in particular could be expedited, it is very hard to
argue against that at a practical level. Nevertheless, there
were a lot of concerns expressed by immigration lawyers and the
Canadian Bar Association, as well as others.
This is not my particular area to critique, but after brushing
up on it this morning I understand that a lot of these concerns
were addressed by the government by way of amendments being made
in the Senate. We commend the government for being open to
amending its own legislation and for not being its usual
pigheaded self when it comes to legislation.
I attribute this to the open-mindedness of the Minister of
Transport and we look forward to more open-mindedness on his part
in respect of this bill and other legislation for which he might
be responsible.
1040
There are some remaining concerns about the bill having to do
with privacy protection, which the member of the Bloc put on the
record just minutes ago. There are concerns having to do with
the power of U.S. authorities to detain people and a number of
other concerns that the government still has to address. If the
government can dispel those concerns, fair enough, but it was a
legitimate concern in the first place which many Canadians had
that this would be a further application of U.S. law on Canadian
soil.
I say further because we in this corner of the House tend not to
see this in isolation but to see it as a part of a growing trend
where, bit by bit, Canadians become more subject to laws which
are not of their own making; that is to say, not made in their
own parliament. I am thinking, of course, of the effect of the
North American Free Trade Agreement and other agreements on our
ability to determine our own policies in many respects.
We have certainly seen an awful lot of that lately, thanks to
chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, whereby
the Canadian government is now being repeatedly sued on various
grounds by American companies which have more rights in Canada
than Canadian companies. They can sue the Canadian government,
while Canadian companies only have access to domestic courts.
Thanks to chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement,
American companies have access to domestic courts in Canada, but
when that route fails them, if they do not have a leg to stand
on, as is often the case, they can then continue to harass
Canadian policy makers and Canadian polity, if you like, via the
investor state dispute settlement mechanism that exists courtesy
of the NAFTA.
Having said that, in respect of our larger concern, it is timely
that this bill should be debated this morning because we note
that the Canadian ambassador to the United States made a speech
this week wherein he talked about the possibility of a customs
union between Canada and the United States and further
codification in areas as yet unspecified in our relationship with
the United States. I hope that shortly I will be able to get a
copy of that speech and perhaps learn more of the detail of what
our ambassador had to say.
It ought to raise in our minds whether what we see before us in
Bill S-22 is part of a larger agenda or trend toward the customs
union and other ways of further integrating Canada with the
United States, which I think would be of concern to a great many
Canadians. It certainly would have been of concern to the
Liberal Party of Canada when the Minister of Transport first
joined it. It does not appear to be of concern to the Liberal
Party now because it has been responsible for one of the biggest
acts of integration, which is a polite way of putting it,
vis-à-vis the privatization of the CNR, and its coming into
American ownership at the level of about 60% of that vast
Canadian infrastructure, as well as various other things such as
going back on its position on the NAFTA.
However, this would still be of concern to many Canadians, even
if it is no longer of concern to the Liberal Party. Of course
the Liberal Party is in government and what it is or is not
concerned about is very significant. It does not appear to be
concerned about the continuing and deepening integration of
Canada with the United States.
I wonder what we are to make of this speech by Raymond Chrétien,
the nephew of the Prime Minister.
Is he flying a kite for the government, a trial balloon or
whatever metaphor one chooses? Is this something the government
has in mind and has asked its ambassador to the United States to
put into the public domain to see what kind of attention or
criticism it attracts?
1045
If he is not doing that for the government, what is he doing? I
thought it was the role of ambassadors to put forward the
position of their government. If he is not actually acting under
instruction from the government then I would submit there is at
least a good argument that he is overstepping his bounds as an
ambassador by putting forward the notion of a customs union.
Perhaps the minister or somebody else would like to say a word
about just what the ambassador was doing when he made this
suggestion.
It is hard for us to separate Bill S-22 and see it only in the
very practical dimension that the minister asked us to view it
in. Certainly from this very practical dimension it has a lot of
merits. There are concerns that exist about the bill itself and
for that reason it would be appropriate for it to go to committee
as soon as possible. Let us have a good look at it from the
point of view of the House of Commons to see if we can address
some of the outstanding concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, what is
interesting about Bill S-22 is that there is unanimity on it here
in the House. A very good job was done on it in the other
place, particularly the amendments by two honourable senators,
one of which was to put in a 5-year limit after it takes effect,
after which the minister can undertake a review. This is a very
wise move, and we thank the senators and the government members
for having accepted the change, which I feel is a very important
one. Any concerns there might be will be verified and
verifiable after the legislation has been in place for five
years.
I will not go back over everything other members have said this
morning on Bill SS-22. Essentially, it is a very solid bill, and
one that modernizes what has been done for some years in the way
of airport preclearance.
There are some concerns, however. Looking at a bill like this
one, one can conclude that there is not really any preclearance
in the U.S. for Canada and elsewhere. As someone put it to me,
“With the Canadian preclearance areas for the U.S., it is as if
the Americans were trying to protect themselves, by controlling
arrivals into their country from outside their country”. How
reassuring.
This leads them to say “If ever there are any problems, they are
not on our territory, so this will make it easier to handle
arrivals of people in the United States”. This is true.
One can put a negative slant on it, that is to say that the
Americans are using Canadian airports to have control over what
enters the United States, be it men, women, children or goods.
If there is a problem, at least they are not on American soil.
The law is very clear. Canadian law and the Charter prevail.
True, we are helping the U.S. authorities, but we are helping
even more Canadians and Quebeckers who travel to the United
States. A number of us travel to the United States on a regular
basis. Preclearance and intransit areas greatly speed up entry
into the United States upon arrival on U.S. soil on the other
side of the border. One does not have to wait for hours.
1050
If there is a problem, at least with preclearance one is still
on Canadian soil. The minister referred earlier to this whole
issue of sovereignty.
Canadian travellers have a certain guarantee. But, as I said
before, there is also a guarantee for the U.S. that, should
there be a problem, it will be dealt with outside of their
territory. This legislation helps people living in Quebec and
Canada, while also helping U.S. authorities control the movement
of men, women and goods.
To sum up, as I mentioned before, Bill S-22 updates and
implements a system that already exists in the context of the
global economy.
There is a desire to facilitate passenger travel. However,
extreme caution must be exercised. Many very interesting
questions were raised during the proceedings of the Senate
committee. I hope that the House committee will also review the
bill fully. The Americans must ensure reciprocity with respect
to their legislation on preclearance and intransit areas.
But the bill is clearly a step in the right direction. We will
see this in the future. Although the minister told us that very
few refugee applications were made at Vancouver Airport during
the preclearance and intransit areas pilot project, only one in
fact, all parliamentarians must realize that other applications
will follow.
There could be an increase in such applications in the future.
Depending on the international context, or preclearance and
intransit areas, many refugee applications will be made right
here in Canada. Will Bill S-22 be blamed? That is always a
possibility, but I think such applications could be attributed
to the situations people face in their own country.
I would therefore like to pay tribute once again to the work
done in the other Chamber. There are some exceptionally
talented individuals there who are responsible for seeing that a
bill as important as this one can begin or end its journey here.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to be able to make a few comments on this very
important bill.
We have the opportunity for Canadians to engage in a little of
streamlining to reduce costs a bit. I think I would be in favour
of that as would thousands and thousands of taxpayers who today
are facing the taxpaying deadline. They realize they have less
and less money for themselves because the government keeps taking
more and more.
Bill S-22 has a plan in it to streamline some costs. Passengers
who are merely travelling through Canada to another destination
would not have to go through Canadian customs. I think we would
applaud that.
I have a small concern which some people may not even notice. It
is Bill S-22 instead of Bill C-22. For those who know the way
things work around here, the S means that the bill was started in
the Senate. Usually we would expect a bit of a debate from a
Reformer on whether or not the Senate is justified in bringing in
such a bill. I will surprise the House today by saying that I
believe the Senate is justified in bringing in such a bill. The
question at hand is not whether the Senate is justified in doing
this but whether we could improve it.
When I was in high school many years ago we had a fine class
motto which I have used all my life: “Good, better, best, never
let it rest until your good is better and your better best”.
That is an excellent plan.
It is good that the Senate should take a piece of legislation
such as this, do some study on it, and realize that it is good
for the different provinces in the country. There is nothing
wrong with that. That is good.
1055
What would be better? It would be better if the Senate were
elected. Then when it did something like this there would be no
need to question the legitimacy of what is being done. There
would be no reason to question whether or not Canadian taxpayers
and Canadian citizens are represented since the senators would
have been elected by the very people they are purporting to
represent. That would be better.
What would be best? It would be best if the Senate were a true
triple E place where it would not only be elected but would have
equal representation in the provinces.
The Speaker: The member still has 17 minutes left in his
speech. As today is Friday, I thought we might be able to
recognize a few more members on statements. I thought
we could go to Statements by Members now and he would have the
full flush the next time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian Blood Services is launching this week its first youth
initiative aimed at raising the awareness of young Canadians of
the ongoing need for blood donations.
CBS is kicking off this campaign by sponsoring the band category
at the YTV network's 1999 youth achievement awards, which will be
held this evening at the National Arts Centre. This event, which
is celebrating its 10th anniversary, is widely recognized as a
premier platform to champion and promote the youth of Canada.
Bayer Inc., a leading manufacturer of blood products, has
enthusiastically agreed to partner with CBS and develop a 30
second advertisement targeted at the youth market, to secure air
time for this ad on YTV, and to allow for a young person
designated by each CBS blood centre to attend the youth
achievement awards.
Fourteen youths have flown to Ottawa for this special two day
program of activities which will include a visit to Parliament
Hill. These exceptional members of the youth community have all
distinguished themselves in assisting CBS in its essential
mission, either through public speaking or recruitment of blood
donors and volunteers, and they are here today.
I would ask all members of parliament to join me in
congratulating these exceptional young people.
* * *
CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, contrary to ministerial propaganda, Canadians are not
exactly beating down the doors of the Canadian Firearms Centre.
According to Access to Information, between December 1 and
February 28, 17,983 applications for possession licences were
received and three and a third per cent were actually processed,
along with 16,870 old FAC applications which were still lying
around.
Of 21,674 registration certificates issued only 2,023 went to
individual applicants. The remainder were for businesses.
At this rate every gun owner in Canada could be licensed by the
middle of the next century and all privately owned long guns
registered by the year 2864. The annual cost, $50 million; the
public benefit, zero.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the European Union has introduced labelling requirements for
genetically modified foods. Polls show that Canadians want
genetically engineered foods to be separated and labelled.
These foods are increasingly a part of our diet. They are
identical in appearance to unmodified foods but may pose unknown
risks from allergens and environmental threats.
Canadians have the right to know if the foods they buy and eat
have been genetically altered. They have the right to choose for
themselves.
* * *
VÁCLAV HAVEL
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Canadians witnessed in the House a living
champion of freedom, President Václav Havel of the Czech
Republic. The Prime Minister introduced him as “a beacon of
freedom”.
You, Mr. Speaker, referred to “how one individual can influence
the course of history in the face of great adversity” when
thanking him yesterday. Mr. Havel honoured our country by
accepting to address the nation.
It was also a very special moment for Manitobans when my alma
mater, the University of Manitoba, granted President Havel a
special honorary degree in recognition of his unique place in
world history, for he is a man of courage, conviction and
insight.
We were truly privileged in the House to experience the
eloquence of his philosophy and the simplicity of his words when
he concluded his remarks by saying “while the state is a human
creation, humanity is a creation of God”. Truly Mr. Havel
reminded us of the ethics of human conscience.
* * *
1100
[Translation]
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Chicoutimi this morning, the Government of Canada announced a
new initiative to create a technological road map.
This working tool will target the future needs of Canadian
industry in technological and product terms. In regional terms,
it will be used in the creation of a development plan for second
and third levels of aluminum processing.
The implementation committee will comprise people working in
Canada Economic Development, Industry Canada, the National
Research Council, the Aluminum Association of Canada, Alcan, as
well as the Quebec aluminum research and development centre.
Our government is concerned about development in the regions in
Quebec. An initiative like the one announced this morning is
another example of our concern for working together with the
stakeholders in the community and with the Government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to acknowledge the determination of Mr. Paul Glover. In
September 1993, two teenagers viciously assaulted him. He
suffered very serious injuries from multiple kicks to the face.
His facial bones were literally separated from his skull. Last
Friday in Vancouver, Paul won a civil judgment in excess of
$60,000 against the two who are now in their early twenties.
Paul Glover has paved the way for victims of violent young
people. The criminal courts hold offenders accountable to
society. The only recourse for victims is through the civil
court. Paul has shown that teenagers who cause harm to others
cannot escape their civil liability.
It is somewhat coincidental that at a time when parliament is
considering the role of victims in the criminal justice system,
Paul Glover has advanced the cause in the civil courts. Canadians
owe Paul and Debbie Glover and lawyers, David Marley and Vahan
Ishkanian, who worked free of charge, a debt of gratitude. Soon
I hope to see more victims of young thugs follow Paul's lead in
pursuing their own civil remedies.
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I
am pleased to tell the House that the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency Act received royal assent on April 29, 1999.
The creation of the agency marks the beginning of new and
exciting partnerships with the provinces and the territories. It
also offers a unique opportunity to provide better and more cost
effective service to all Canadians by reducing overlap and
duplication.
I can assure the House that the new agency will continue to
offer the best service to its clients and to be one of the best
and most respected tax, customs and trade administrations in the
world.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, between 1991
and 1997, Quebec's exports, primarily to the United States, in
the manufacturing sector, excluding automobiles, grew by 120%.
At the start of the decade, exports represented 21% of Quebec's
GDP. Today they have reached 36.4%.
The phenomenal increase in Quebec's exports can be explained by
business people's openness to globalization. Secure access to
the U.S. market, strengthened by the free trade agreement and
the rapid reduction of customs tariffs, have encouraged Quebec
businesses to turn to the U.S. market.
Quebec, one of the main forces behind the free trade agreement,
expresses its dynamism daily in meeting the challenges of market
liberalization.
To better ensure our place in the world and to give the economy
of Quebec room to expand internationally, only one avenue is
open: sovereignty for Quebec.
* * *
DANIÈLE SAUVAGEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is desperately looking for something to make people
forget its definition of the Quebec identity.
This is why many Bloc Quebecois members who are desperate to get
noticed and to look good in the eyes of their leaders are using
my analysis and the solution I have put forward in the Danièle
Sauvageau issue.
What is shameful is that, to them, this issue is just an
opportunity to score political points. They do not understand
that the last thing Danièle Sauvageau wants is to become a
political martyr helping them score points. She does not want
her reputation and credibility to be used by people who are
sorely lacking in that respect.
To show compassion for someone is to understand what this person
is going through and, more importantly, not to use but to
support him or her.
Those who will make comments or ask questions about Danièle
Sauvageau must realize that the more they use her, the more they
cut her off from the position she loves so much.
Politics must deal with other issues. It is not up to the
government to select a coach. There are other approaches, like
dealing with the thrust of programs, not their management. This
is the type of issue that makes people even more cynical about
politicians.
I wish luck to Danièle. I understand her sadness. I am confident
that the decision makers will follow up on the balanced solution
that I have put forward.
1105
I am asking the members of the Bloc Quebecois to show compassion
and to stop using Mrs. Sauvageau for their own personal benefit.
There are other ways to make the headlines. This one is
unhealthy.
* * *
[English]
GLOBAL INTERNET CONTEST
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two students and their computer teacher from Dauphin—Swan River
are going to Hong Kong after winning a global Internet contest.
Smith Jackson, a Ukrainian bilingual elementary school in
Dauphin, was the only Canadian school selected as the grand prize
winner in the AT&T; virtual classroom contest. Smith Jackson
formed a team with Talahassee, Florida and New Delhi, India to
win the grand prize in the elementary school category. Over 300
schools from 38 countries were involved in this contest.
All these students deserve our recognition for this global
accomplishment: Andreja Frykas, Jordan McLaughlin, Joey
Smigelski, Joleene Showdra, Travis Prytula, Scott Tokaryk, Alyson
Sametz, Brent Hancharyk, Andrei Dandridge-Evancio, Larisa Matwee,
Melissa Zabiaka, Allan Bernat and teacher Stephen Jaddock.
We wish them all the best.
* * *
BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 2, Canadians across the country will pause to commemorate the
Battle of the Atlantic.
On September 10, 1939, Canada declared war against Nazi Germany.
Within a matter of weeks the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal
Canadian Air Force and the Merchant Navy joined the battle.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest and perhaps the most
critical battle of the second world war. The liberation of
Europe depended on the ability of allied merchant convoys to make
their way through a phalanx of German U-boats.
Canada played a pivotal role in the ultimate victory of the
Battle of the Atlantic. Thousands of young and inexperienced
Canadians went to sea, unprepared but ready to fight, and they
fought. They fought with courage and they fought with pride,
under horrible conditions and the vagaries of a cruel sea,
because they knew that the freedom of our nation was at stake.
Over 5,000 Canadians paid the ultimate price and never returned
home.
I invite my hon. colleagues and all Canadians to participate in
the activities being held this weekend to commemorate the Battle
of the Atlantic. It is an opportunity to reflect on the proud
heritage of our men and women in uniform and to pay tribute to
those who sacrificed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
in the early stages of implementing the social policy framework
called the social union. However, I am frankly worried that
these programs could end up designed to aid bureaucrats, but not
necessarily Canadians.
This month, the auditor general looked at the first two programs
being implemented under the social union, the national child
benefit and the employment assistance program for persons with
disabilities.
Among his comments, he found that the NCB failed to make a
reduction in child poverty a measurable goal of the program. He
also noted that success for the EAPD will be measured by counting
participants, not by determining the increase in employment or
employability of disabled Canadians.
It is not good enough for the social union to claim success
because it spent a pile of money. Success should be measured by
the increase in the quality of Canadian lives.
I hope that the House and all Canadians will watch the evolution
of programs implemented under the social union like hawks to
ensure that the benefits go to needy Canadians, not to
bureaucrats and politicians for clever sleights of hand.
* * *
YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Jack and Mark Nowinski, 19 year old twins from my riding
of Kitchener—Waterloo, are in Ottawa this week and they are
winners of the YTV Youth Achievement Award for innovation,
science and technology.
They say that necessity is the mother of invention, but in this
case mother was the necessity for the invention.
These two young men invented an ECG machine, a mix of computer
software and electrical hardware, that allows people to monitor
their heart at home. They were motivated to do this in order to
help their mother, Barbara.
This invention also earned Mark and Jack top honours at the 1998
international science and engineering fair in Texas. They have
numerous other inventions to their credit.
They are currently students at Resurrection High School and
would like to go to the University of Waterloo's program of
electrical engineering this fall.
I join my colleagues in congratulating Jack and Mark for their
achievements and say to the Nowinski family, who came to Canada
from Poland in 1982, “thank you for enriching our country,
Canada”.
* * *
ONTARIO TAXES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
Ontario jobs are up because taxes are down. Mike Harris'
government yesterday announced its blueprint plan to keep Ontario
on the right track.
From 1995 to 1998, Mike Harris has cut taxes 69 times, including
a 30% cut in income tax rates. This was the largest tax cut in
Ontario history and the first real increase in take home pay for
the average Ontarian.
These cuts produced the dramatic result of 540,000 new jobs being
created in Ontario in under four years. That is more new jobs
than the combined populations of London, Kingston and Sudbury.
This puts Mike Harris's Tories ahead of schedule in their
five-year plan to create 725,000 new jobs. Most of all, the
Harris government's efforts to improve the province's fiscal
management means more money for education and health care for all
of Ontario.
1110
Ontarians will ask if they are better off than they were four
years ago. Yes, they are. They will also ask who the strongest
leader is. That is Michael Harris. Less tax, balanced budgets—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Maxwell Yalden, the former commissioner of official languages,
recently wrote an article to try to show that bilingualism had
made progress in Canada over the past 30 years, but failed to
include actual figures.
Mr Yalden will be interested to learn that, since 1951, in spite
of the millions of dollars invested, the ability to speak French
has dropped from 31.9% to 31.3% among Canadians, while the
ability to speak English increased by 4%.
Also, compared to 30 years ago, there are 60,000 fewer Canadians
outside Quebec for whom French is the language spoken at home.
In eastern Ontario, where the Official Languages Act has been in
effect for 30 years, the assimilation rate doubled in that time,
rising from 13% to 24%.
The Bloc Quebecois sincerely hopes that the next commissioner of
official languages will be an ally for the francophone
communities and that he will tell things as they are, not as the
government would like them to be.
* * *
[English]
HIGH COMMISSION IN NEW DELHI
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
many members with large and active Indo-Canadian communities in
their ridings, I have heard over the years a great number of
concerns regarding the immigration section of the Canadian High
Commission in New Delhi, India.
During the Easter break I had the opportunity to visit New Delhi
and made a point of meeting with the Canadian immigration
officers there to investigate these concerns.
What I found was a group of very talented, very professional
officers who, under the leadership of Mr. Jean Roberge, are
working hard to ensure that people receive the highest quality of
service.
Along with counselor Roberge, I met with officers Robert Romano,
Brian Beaupré, Larry Carroll and Brian Le Conte. These officers
are aware of the concerns and are working hard under very
difficult conditions to address and improve them. Their attitude
and actions on these issues are examples of the very best of the
Canadian public service.
Therefore, I am here today to applaud the employees of the
immigration section of the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi
and would encourage other members to do the same.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Jean Gerard Dionne, a fugitive pedophile, is behind
bars today, charged with sexual assault with a weapon, forcible
confinement, uttering death threats and possession of a dangerous
weapon.
Dionne began his sexually deviant criminal behaviour in 1982
when he sexually assaulted a two year old boy and then drowned
him. Dionne spent two years in jail for this crime. Upon his
release, he followed up by sexually assaulting a young girl in a
wheelchair for which he did four years. Dionne himself and the
prison psychiatrist said that he would strike again, and so he
did, last week in Ottawa.
In the case of the wheelchair victim and because of our system,
the jury could not hear evidence concerning Dionne's earlier
crimes and victims. Dionne will probably do another four years
and be released.
Is it not time for parliament to review this disclosure of past
offences? Is it not about time Dionne and others, who continue
to repeat these very terrible offences, be declared habitual and
dangerous offenders and be given life in jail?
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has just
recently released his report on the state of the federal
government's management policies, or the lack thereof, of our
east coast shellfish industry.
He rightly points out the lack of resources in his scientific
assessment of the various species such as crab, shrimp, scallops
and lobster. He also points out that the minister and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans do ignore advice from various
sources.
I will quote from the report:
We noted significant weaknesses in the Department's management
practices designed to achieve its objectives for the Atlantic
shellfish fishery. Our audit found decisions that contradict the
Department's Fishery of the Future strategy, which formed the
basis of our criteria for this audit. In addition, the
Department is pursuing social objectives that it has not
articulated to Parliament, and economic objectives for which it
has not identified expected results. There is an urgent need for
the Department to clarify these objectives and to develop and
implement the strategies to achieve overall sustainability of the
Atlantic shellfish fisheries.
The NDP wishes to thank the auditor general for his report.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's high taxes are threatening the continued presence and
expansion of our high tech sector and some of our largest
corporations.
The CEO of Nortel has said, “Canada has a problem. We are
driving our talent away”. He was referring directly to the high
taxes in Canada.
1115
Last week the CEO of Newbridge cited the presence of headhunters
scouring our markets in Canada as further evidence that our high
taxes are creating an opportunity for high tech companies south
of the border.
Nortel needs to hire about 5,000 workers for its research
operations in Ottawa over the next four years and it is unsure
whether it will be able to find these workers in Canada because
of the high tax regime of the government.
It is not just hockey franchisees who are feeling threatened in
Canada. Our high tech industries are pleading that our taxes in
Canada are killing job growth and opportunities for Canadians.
What will it take for the finance minister to recognize and truly
act on the high tax policies that need to be addressed to create
continued economic growth and expansion for our high tech sector?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have just received news that the Yugoslavian government is now
saying it would consider allowing an international military force
into Kosovo if the United Nations Security Council wishes to send
one.
This could be the first serious olive branch put forth by
Milosevic. What specific diplomatic actions is Canada taking to
ensure that this latest offer is being taken seriously?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have to check very carefully to test the veracity of
the press reports in question. If they are accurate it is very
encouraging, but in the meantime I do not think we can let up the
pressure. We want to make sure that these press reports
accurately reflect the position of the Yugoslav government.
Canada, through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, is actively
pursuing diplomatic initiatives. Our foreign minister had two
useful meetings this morning with Russian foreign affairs
minister Ivanov, and he has now gone to Athens to have meetings
with his Greek counterpart, who is an important player.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a responsibility to investigate all
possibilities for peace. This appears to be an admission by
Milosevic that the NATO bombardment is working.
Is the government prepared to negotiate with Milosevic to bring
a UN force into Kosovo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we will do, obviously, will have to be done as an
important and valued member of the NATO alliance, as well as of
the UN security council. I do not think this is something we
would do totally by ourselves. Obviously our foreign minister,
who is in the area, will want to do everything possible to see
what can be done to bring about a solution to the current matter,
which involves very much the agreement of Mr. Milosevic, not just
to have a UN force, which is something Canada has always been
interested in, but also to adhere to fundamental principles. Mr.
Milosevic's ignorance of them or failure to abide by them is the
reason we have undertaken—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this seems to be the first real admission that Milosevic
is backing down. We must seize this opportunity to negotiate a
UN settlement.
Is the Canadian government talking with our allies today to
negotiate a UN force and its involvement in Kosovo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are always in close touch with our allies, as well as
our fellow members of the security council.
We have to assess the accuracy of this press report. If it is
accurate it is very encouraging, but there is a lot more that has
to be done to resolve the matter and make sure that the Kosovars
can return to their homes in safety and security.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are paying the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and it is
getting worse.
The average Canadian taxpayer will pay $2,020 more in 1999 than
in 1993. Those are Department of Finance figures. These
taxpayers are feeling the pain. They know their bottom line is
way down, thanks to this tax hungry Liberal government.
On today's royal pain day the taxpayers want relief. Is there
some preparation R on the horizon? Why will the government
not relieve the pain?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, the government has reduced taxes by $16.5
million over the next three years.
1120
Of course the real issue, the real agenda which the Reform Party
has, is not simply tax reductions, it is to pay for those tax
reductions by gutting the social fabric of the country.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member if he shares the view of
the member from Okanagan who said yesterday that the $11.5
billion that we put into health care was irresponsible spending.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
irresponsible since the government took out $21 billion. It is
totally irresponsible.
Since 1993 2.5 million Canadians have been dragged, kicking and
screaming, into higher tax brackets. While the rates go down,
they move people into another category and they end up paying
more. Over 840,000 low income families in poverty have been
added to the tax rolls so that they now can pay taxes too. That
brings the government another $10 billion. Why will the
government not show some compassion for these poor Canadians who,
unlike hockey players and some certain shipping companies, cannot
earn their income—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no better definition of an oxymoron than the
Reform Party talking about compassion.
The fact is that the hon. member had an opportunity when he
stood in the House to correct the member from Okanagan and he did
not do that. Is he now saying that it is Reform Party policy
that spending on health to the tune of $11.5 billion is
questionable spending, that it is irresponsible? Is that the
Reform Party position? It is very clear that is exactly what
they stand for.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
a few minutes ago, we learned that the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Yugoslavia had announced that he was prepared to
consider the possibility of intervention by an international
force under the UN umbrella. Incidentally, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Canada was in Moscow yesterday, and appears
to have spoken with the UN secretary general.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister bring us up to date on the
situation and the discussions that are currently under way for a
negotiated solution to the conflict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the media reports are true, this is a very encouraging piece of
news. We are, of course, going to discuss the situation with
our NATO allies and our fellow members of the security council.
We are going to pursue our efforts toward a diplomatic solution.
In the meantime the pressure on President Milosevic to allow the
Kosovars to return safely to their homes must be kept up.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the NATO strategy, to which the government subscribes, does not
call for a stop to air strikes before the Serbian troops start
to withdraw from Kosovo, whereas the German and Russian plans
call upon NATO to stop bombing before the Yugoslav army
withdraws.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us exactly what the
government position is with respect to this apparent
contradiction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have just received news of a possible change in the Yugoslav
position. As I have just said, we are going to investigate
these reports and we will also hold discussions on the situation
with our NATO allies and our fellow members of the security
council, but for the moment our position is that the NATO
strikes need to continue—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a growing
consensus among NATO leaders, particularly the U.S. president,
that Slobodan Milosevic is no longer a valid partner for
negotiations and that a solution to the conflict will have to be
imposed on him.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he shares this view or
whether he still believes that a solution can be negotiated with
Milosevic's regime?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's position is still to seek a diplomatic solution, with
possible intervention by the UN and Russia as well. However, in
the meantime, the NATO initiatives must continue.
1125
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what hope can the
Prime Minister still have for a positive outcome to these
diplomatic efforts, if he and increasing numbers of NATO leaders
believe that a solution should be imposed on Belgrade, because
Milosevic is no longer a partner for negotiations they can
trust?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
unable to comment on the U.S. president's statements.
I can repeat that Canada's position is to maintain military
pressure on Milosevic's government, while continuing discussions
to try to reach a diplomatic solution.
* * *
[English]
CUSTOMS UNION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP I would urge the government to do everything
it can on the security council and within NATO to make sure that
this latest development turns out the way we all want it to turn
out.
I have a question on a different subject. Yesterday, in
Washington, the Canadian ambassador to the United States floated
the idea of a customs union between Canada and the United States
and also talked about a more intense codification of the
relationship between Canada and the United States.
Was the ambassador speaking for the Canadian government when he
floated this idea? If he was not, why was he floating the idea
in the first place?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be quite frank. I have seen some reports in the
paper this morning, but I have not yet received the text of the
ambassador's remarks.
Without saying that we are in favour of changing our existing
arrangements with the United States, there are a lot of ideas out
there. Even if we are not interested in changing our position,
certainly these different ideas can be discussed at many
different levels.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a copy of the speech. Perhaps I could provide a
copy of it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The fact is that he did say “What about a customs union?” He
is not just anybody having a chat in a coffee shop; he is the
Canadian ambassador. I ask again, is that the position of the
Canadian government?
He also referred to the economic value of our water resources.
This is the ambassador of a country that is committed to a ban on
the bulk export of water. That does not seem to jive. Is the
government still committed to a ban on the bulk export of water?
If it is, what could the ambassador have meant by talking about
the economic value of Canada's water resources?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our position on water resources has not changed. As the
government House leader has just been saying to me, a bill on
that subject will be tabled very shortly.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the Minister of Finance agreed yesterday to meet
with the CEO of Newbridge Networks to discuss the possibility of
tax relief for high tech workers in Canada.
The government must cut personal income tax rates to prevent top
R and D workers from leaving Canada for opportunities south of
the border. Taxes are too high, not only for Canadians involved
in high tech, but for all Canadians.
Will the minister show leadership and commit to providing
meaningful, broad based tax relief and tax reform to benefit all
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member knows what the government is
doing when it is reducing taxes, as it has done. I have already
announced a $16.5 billion tax reduction. The government is
repairing the terrible damage inflicted upon the Canadian economy
by the government of the party of which he is now a member.
The fact is that the Tories increased taxes some 38 times when
they were in office. Yes, as a result of that Canadian taxes are
too high and, as a result of that, in the last budget and in the
one before that we brought those taxes down and will continue to
do so.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
previous government also implemented free trade against the
wishes of the Liberals and that has provided the engine for
economic growth in Canada that has allowed the current government
to reduce the deficit.
Nortel is losing about 400 employees per year to U.S.
competitors, despite the minister's feel good speeches. Will the
minister show leadership and convene a summit of all high tech
CEOs in Canada to discuss the problems they are suffering as a
result of the government's continued reticence to provide
meaningful tax relief and tax reform to benefit all Canadians?
1130
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, I will meet with Mr. Matthews. I
have met with leaders of the high tech industries across the
country and I do so quite often.
I would be delighted to meet with them as a group. I know the
Minister of Industry has met with them as well. We will continue
to do so.
I have to say that for a Tory to complain about high taxes is
like Mike Tyson complaining about somebody biting his ear.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is pretty good.
On Wednesday I asked the solicitor general about a dangerous
prisoner who was given a bus ticket to be transferred from one
prison to another, unescorted. I want to give the House and
Canadians the response I got from the solicitor general's
department on this issue.
Spokesman Jacques Bélanger said “most of them finish their
trips”. Members can imagine what my question is. How many do
not finish their trips?
Maybe the solicitor general will establish a lost and found for
wayward prisoners so that we can get them back into the prisons
of this country from their unescorted bus trips.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a number of types of institutions
in this country: maximum, medium, minimum and some halfway
houses.
My hon. colleague is talking about an offender who had finished
his term in minimum security and was going to a halfway house. As
a few do, he did not do what he was supposed to do under the
Conditional Release Act.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general has that right. He did not do
what he was supposed to do. He was supposed to end up at the
other prison on the bus.
Let us talk about Jean Paul Wright then. Jean Paul Wright was
convicted for vicious attacks and beatings that left one man dead
three years ago in Moncton. Let us talk about this fellow. He
was put on a bus to go from one prison to another. Guess what?
He was a no-show, AWOL, goner, out of sight.
I would like to ask the solicitor general about this fellow. Is
he among the missing? Will he come back? Do we need—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have Correctional Service Canada and
when a person serves a term or comes to the end of his or her
term, or is released on conditional release, he or she has a
number of conditions. Sometimes, very seldom, things do not work
as Correctional Service Canada wants them to work.
Quite simply my hon. colleague needs to realize that when he
brings up individual cases I do not know all offenders in this
country. Possibly they are close friends of my hon. colleague,
but I do not know them all.
The Speaker: I am not sure we want to go down those two
roads.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the matter
of the millennium scholarships, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the one with the time to write books but no time to
read his mail, has said for months he supports the Gautrin
resolution. It is being offered to him again, and he again
wants more time to think about it.
Will the minister stop hiding and playing a game of semantics
and tell us today whether or not he agrees with the unanimous
proposal by the leaders of the parties in the Quebec National
Assembly to negotiate government to government to break this
Ottawa-created impasse?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never shirked my
responsibilities, contrary to the allegations of the Bloc.
This matter is important to us. The Government of Canada
decided to help students finance their studies. I think this is
a vital step in a knowledge based economy. Everyone knows how
vital education is to the future of our economy.
1135
My remarks yesterday were very clear. I said the Government of
Quebec's inflexibility seems to have softened. It seems now to
have dropped the right to opt out with full compensation and to
have opened up more promising avenues.
So we will be watching that with interest.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the minister said he had not had the time to read the letter.
So we will read him a passage from it, which says:
We propose to you that you identify a government negotiator to
represent the federal government, one who is not associated with
the Foundation.
Where does the minister see in the letter it stated that the
federal negotiator cannot be an elected representative, such as
himself, and why would he not agree to be this negotiator, as
the president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du
Québec asked him yesterday?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, contrary to what the hon.
member is alleging, I never said I did not have time to read the
letter. Quite the opposite. They are once again trying to
exaggerate. I never said I did not have the time to read the
letter. I said it came yesterday, in the evening.
I am an avid reader, easily able to read a letter of a page and
a quarter in the space of an evening. I promise you that.
I had read the letter. I never said I had never read it. What
I did say is that, unlike the Bloc members, we have government
responsibilities and we must take time to think things over,
unlike those who take pleasure in systematically opposing.
* * *
[English]
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. We do not
expect the solicitor general to know every prisoner in Canada but
we know he can set policy.
With summer coming and a lot of parents sending their young
children on buses because of its cost effectiveness, will the
solicitor general assure the House that his department will
inform the bus companies and other people when prisoners are
travelling on a bus so the safety of all Canadians is protected?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague refers to is
totally unacceptable and I can assure him that it is under
review.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, parents have a right to know if their children are
seated next to an unescorted prisoner. Their safety should be of
the utmost concern to all of us.
Will the minister assure the House and commit today to notifying
bus companies and passengers of the existence of criminals
travelling by bus?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague before, the
matter is fully under review.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-78
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since it is the Minister of Finance who, behind the scene, calls
the shots in this government and who, after siphoning $20
billion off from the employment insurance fund, is about to get
his hands on the $30 billion surplus in the federal public
service pension fund, will he at least agree to appear before
the committee reviewing Bill C-78, to explain his decisions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
committee invited its own witnesses. This is up to the
committee.
As for the $30 billion surplus, again, the rights of public
servants are not only fully respected, but their benefits are
guaranteed under the law. The legislation currently before
parliament even increases these benefits.
With regard to the surpluses, public servants are getting all
the benefits for which they made contributions. Since the risks
are fully assumed by the taxpayers, the money should belong to
them.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is trying to unilaterally appropriate a $30
billion surplus, without any regard for active and retired
public servants.
Will the minister finally admit that no provision in the
existing act allows him to claim that he is the sole owner of
that $30 billion surplus, and that nothing in the act allows him
to use that money as he pleases?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the
act is very clear. The issue went all the way to the supreme
court. Taxpayers, through the government, are the sole owners of
the surplus. Public servants will receive all the benefits that
they were promised under the act. They will even get additional
benefits under the proposed legislation.
It is the taxpayers who must get the surplus that they paid for.
* * *
[English]
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general just indicated to Canadians that the matter
of prisoners taking unescorted bus trips from one prison to
another is under review.
That just happened to come up yesterday, by the way, in the
House.
1140
Will the solicitor general therefore suspend here and now all
unescorted bus trips for prisoners going from one prison to
another until such time as that review is complete?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague
before, this matter is under review.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a brilliant answer. We already knew it was under
review. We are asking for the trips of people like I have just
described to be suspended until such time as the review is over.
Now I want to know what is in the review. What is taking place?
What is being reviewed? What kind of recommendations? Who is
involved in the review? When will it be printed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly got the message from my hon.
colleague. As I indicated, it is under review and this file that
he is talking about specifically is under review also.
Any time anything like this happens under Correctional Service
Canada, it is always reviewed thoroughly.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
present time the air traffic control tower at Sept-Îles airport
is providing air control services to the airports at
Havre-Saint-Pierre, Natashquan and Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon. With the
change proposed by Nav Canada, this service will in future be
provided by the air traffic control tower at Quebec City
airport.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us
whether he believes that the savings thus realized will be
substantial enough to justify such a decision, which represents
a potential risk to airport users in my riding?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Nav Canada is responsible for the air navigation system. It is
the not-for-profit corporation that directs air navigation
operations.
It carries out analyses throughout the country and it makes
certain decisions. Transport Canada is very much aware of air
safety. I do not believe that there is any problem in the case
raised by the hon. member.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. The opposition
continues to question the military equipment that is being sent
by Canada to the area of the former Yugoslavia. However
yesterday at the display of this equipment only one member of the
official opposition, as I understand it, was able to attend.
With that in mind, would the Minister of National Defence please
describe the equipment that is being sent to this area?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that at least one member of
the Reform Party, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, went
yesterday. The hon. member for Edmonton North was not there and
yet he was the member yesterday that was being quite critical.
I must say that the military people who are there have the
highest regard for the equipment they are using. I would sooner
take their word in that particular case.
They have the equipment to do the job that they need to do in
this peacekeeping effort in Kosovo. All of the equipment is of
recent vintage, within the last nine years. The Coyote is state
of the art reconnaissance equipment. The Bison and the other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development finally admitted yesterday, after persistent
questioning, that there was no protection for aboriginal women,
for Nisga'a women, in the Nisga'a treaty. He also admitted that
the Nisga'a laws on land matters would take precedence over all
other laws in Canada.
Why has the government lost the opportunity and abandoned the
rights of Nisga'a women in the Nisga'a treaty?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is absolutely wrong again. He was wrong on the
constitutional application to the treaty.
I said to him yesterday and I say here again in the House that
chapter 2, article 13, explicitly states that the laws of general
application will apply. In this case the B.C. family relations
act will apply to all women in British Columbia. Those women are
protected and also protected under section 15 of the charter.
1145
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary is wrong. He quoted from chapter 2,
section 13 and I have to do it again because he did not get it
yesterday:
In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this
agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law,
this agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or
conflict.
The hon. member knows that the Nisga'a people have the right to
all matters of land under this treaty. He knows that aboriginal
women have no rights when it comes to the disposition of a
matrimonial home. I am going to ask him again, why did the
government abandon Nisga'a women when it negotiated this treaty?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member does not understand is that when we made the
treaty with the British Columbia people and the Nisga'a people,
it is removed from the paternalism of the Indian Act. It becomes
a separate treaty. Therefore these general laws apply. If it is
a power not enumerated in the treaty, there is no conflict.
The hon. member is not reading the document properly. I wish he
would come to my department. We have given him the opportunity
for a briefing. He will not take it. He is categorically wrong
and he voted against women and women's issues on Bill C-49. Who
is he trying to protect?
* * *
PENSIONS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated in the House, “There
will be no government interference in the investment of CPP funds
and that is what the Canadian people want”. In light of the
fact that the CPP investment fund is now investing some of its
revenue in Imperial Tobacco through Imasco and Imperial Tobacco
is targeting young people to addict them to cigarette smoking, I
want to give the Minister of Finance one more chance in the House
today. I ask him whether he thinks that Canadians want their
pension funds invested in industries that are deliberately
targeting young people to addict them to the smoking of
cigarettes.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the CPP investment fund is
investing in the stock exchange indexes. That is the course of
action it will be following for the foreseeable future until such
time as it builds up a larger fund and until further decisions
are taken.
In terms of the question of young people smoking, the Minister
of Health has laid out a very clear program to deal with that. It
is the course we are following. It is education. There is no
doubt that the government must do everything in its power to
discourage young people from smoking.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in section 53 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board Act it states, “The governor in council may make
regulations regarding those investments”. Further on it says
that the investments will be reviewed every three years and the
minister may make regulations and recommendations.
In view of the act and that the minister has flexibility, will
he take this opportunity and recommend the ethical screening of
CPP investment funds so investments like the investment in
Imperial Tobacco will not occur in the future and addict people
to the smoking of cigarettes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure what the hon. member would want is that there
not be government interference in the investments. I am sure if
he takes a look at the investment policy of the Ontario teachers
pension fund, if he takes a look at others where there is large
scale union involvement, he will find that these pension funds
invest for maximum return.
There are ethical investment funds and this is certainly open to
the fund. We are saying it is very important that there not be
political interference in the administration of the funds by the
government.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members please not to use any
props or wave things around in the House.
* * *
HAZARDOUS GOODS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, every
day firefighters put their lives on the line to ensure the safety
of Canadians, yet they cannot get the support they need from
their own federal government. Firefighters have been denied
access to the needed funding to implement the program operation
respond, which is a communications system that can quickly
identify hazardous materials and provide appropriate emergency
response techniques and guidance.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he make
available the additional research and development funding for
operation respond which would properly safeguard the Canadian
public, yes or no? Certainly the minister thinks that Canadians
and Canadian firefighters are worth $236,000.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a lot misinformation that is
being disseminated by the International Association of Fire
Fighters.
The government helped to fund a pilot project in Burnaby a
couple of years ago while I was minister.
It demonstrated that the results from using the operation respond
technique would not even emulate the system now in place,
Canutec. It provides for professional chemists of the Department
of Transport manning a 24 hour, 365 day a year service to monitor
all hazardous goods transported in Canada.
* * *
1150
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today I contacted the Minister of Human Resources Development to
register my concerns about the decision to cut $180,000 from the
summer career placement program in southern New Brunswick. This
means that the ridings of Fundy—Royal, Charlotte and Saint John
will have approximately 200 fewer jobs to offer their youth. All
this when students are already graduating with an alarming
$30,000 of debt.
The reason for this is the disconnected test of reductions in
the local unemployment rate for adults, not students. In fact,
most regions in the province of New Brunswick have been cut.
When will the minister revisit the entire issue of funding levels
in New Brunswick?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the warning that he would be raising this important question.
The overall funding for summer career placement has not changed.
It is still at the level of $190 million a year. It is based on
a longstanding formula of the level of unemployment and the
number of students in a particular region.
I take note of the member's interest. I have heard a number of
other MPs say that they may not be satisfied with the present
method of distribution. I will ask my officials to look into
this to make sure we serve students as well as we possibly can.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of immigration.
There have been many news reports in recent days regarding
Canada's commitment to allow 5,000 Kosovar refugees into Canada.
Can the minister tell the House what the government's position
is?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning with
Mrs. Ogata, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees
because I wanted to know what her assessment was of the refugees'
situation in the Balkans. Mrs. Ogata asked Canada to reactivate
the emergency humanitarian evacuation plan that we had to receive
5,000 Kosovars and we will do so.
[Translation]
It is very clear that Mrs. Ogata is asking us to reactivate our
emergency plan and offer to take in 5,000 people. We will be
prepared to receive these people, and I am sure that Canadians
will open their doors to them.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister's compensation program for
farmers is as big a disaster as the economic factors that made it
necessary, such as the government's high taxes. Some farmers do
not have money to put in their crops. There are 100,000 farmers
on the prairies alone but to date, not one red cent has gone out.
How many more farmers have to go bankrupt before he acknowledges
that his program is a complete disaster?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is
wrong. The federal money is flowing today, as the minister
stated a few days ago that it would be. The federal money is
flowing. The minister has signed contracts with Saskatchewan.
We are not waiting for those contracts to be signed by the
provinces. We are sending out money now. As soon as the
provinces sign, more money will be sent out as soon as possible.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in his recent report on the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans the auditor general has
concerns about the lack of scientific or biological resources
with which to assess the shellfish industry. He pointed out the
possibility of highgrading or dumping of smaller or broken pieces
of shrimp within our waters.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There
was a recent temporary increase to 12,000 tonnes of northern
shrimp. Was that tac taken on scientific and biological
evidence? Is his department looking into the auditor general's
concerns about highgrading of shrimp in our waters?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are two very different fisheries,
the northern shrimp off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador
and the shellfish off the southern coast of Nova Scotia. They
are two quite different fisheries.
We have taken to heart the auditor general's words with respect
to shellfish. However, it is literally impossible to have a
policeman on every boat, which is necessary if we are to prevent
any possible cheating by fishermen.
What is necessary is a higher level of co-operation between
fishermen and a higher level of self-enforcement within the
fleet.
Those are ways that we can in fact make progress.
* * *
1155
[Translation]
MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently
Mr. Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development, mentioned that the government was negligent in
applying the regulations to control the transboundary movement
of hazardous waste because it had only 15 inspectors for 17,000
registered shipments between Canada and the United States.
My question is for the Minister of Transport.
Is it not of some concern to see the government contemplating
the import into Canada of plutonium, while controls over the
import of hazardous waste are already virtually non existent and
may be further relaxed?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I fully understood the logic in
the hon. member's question.
I want to assure members of the House that Canada has perhaps
one of the safest regimes for the transportation of dangerous
goods of any country in the world. As I said last last week, we
have 27 million shipments of dangerous goods every year and
800,000 are radioactive material. I want to correct myself. It
is not less than 1% spillage, it is less than one-tenth of 1%
spillage.
We have an act. It works well. I think Canadians should be
proud of it.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
healthy communities need strong support systems, especially when
it comes to providing opportunities for young people and for
involving them in our communities.
The municipalities of Florenceville and Plaster Rock in my riding
have proposed building arenas for just that purpose. Both the
province and the towns have each committed $1 million for this
construction. Can this government find a few dollars to help
young people in these two communities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know we have a number
of very good programs for young Canadians. The youth employment
strategy has been helping thousands and thousands of young
Canadians to integrate into the labour market. We have a number
of human resources development programs.
Maybe the member can come to me with the precise demand and we
will see what we can do about it. Definitely we want to help
young Canadians do as well as possible in all communities of
Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is April 30, the day that Canadians have to file their
income tax returns.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Revenue tell the House and Canadians what relief will be provided
to Canadians serving in the Balkans if they are unable to file
their income tax returns on time?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
assured DND personnel and other Canadian personnel in the Balkans
and their spouses who may have to file their income tax returns
after the April 30 deadline that they will not have to pay
penalties and interest charges. These Canadians can explain their
unique circumstances to Revenue Canada and establish suitable
filing or payment arrangements as soon as they are able.
Our soldiers and their families are facing very difficult times.
We want to minimize their concerns regarding their tax
obligations.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is blaming everybody else because the money is not
in the farmers' pockets.
The government knew a long time ago that money was needed in
February. It promised the money and it broke all of its
promises. The promised disaster relief that was supposed to be
there has been replaced with red tape.
How can the minister say he is helping farmers when he is doing
virtually nothing for western producers? Why should the farmers
believe the minister's statement that cash is flowing when they
have received nothing?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before money
can flow to farmers under this program, applications have to be
made and processed. To this point only in excess of 500
applications from farmers in the hon. member's province have been
filled out and sent in.
The minister has already stated that money will flow for those
applications that have been processed and it will continue to be
accelerated as time goes on.
* * *
[Translation]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with the Minister of Industry now lobbying for professional
sports millionaires, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has
announced that she will not invest one more cent in amateur
sport, thus dashing all the hopes the report of the subcommittee
on the study of sport in Canada had raised among athletes and
sports federations.
1200
Will the government admit that the report on sport was basically
nothing more than a huge smoke screen to hide the fact that it
could not care less about amateur sport and that it intends to
hand over millions of taxpayers' dollars to professional sports
millionaires instead?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the
case. The government has agreed to 53 of the report's 69
recommendations and will take action accordingly.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
members for Broadview—Greenwood and Bourassa and other members of
the subcommittee on the excellent work they did.
As for the question of funding, let it not be forgotten that the
government kept its promise and increased its contribution to
amateur sport by $50 million over five years.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
recreation facilities are good for our young people and good for
our communities. They encourage involvement in our communities
and they help to reduce social problems such as crime, suicide
and substance abuse.
Will the government commit today to help young people in towns
such as Plaster Rock and Florenceville by finding money for
community development?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same
question I heard a few minutes ago. The whole purpose of the
Department of Human Resources Development is to help communities
in Canada. We are doing a great deal to strengthen communities
and to help young people in these communities. Indeed, I think
the programs we have across the land are beginning to show very
positive signs in our communities.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, public
broadcasting should be a place for Canadians to find independent,
quality programming, free from commercial and political
interference. However, there is a new threat to the integrity of
the CBC and it is called sponsorship. The CBC has asked the CRTC
for permission to air commercials, which it calls sponsorships,
on its demographically desirable radio networks.
Will the government intervene now to preserve CBC radio's
integrity as a commercial free service? Will you stand up here
and now and say no—
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address
their questions through the Chair.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of the CBC
will be revised by the CRTC later next month. The corporation
has toured the country to solicit Canadians' views. I would
encourage the member and all Canadians, if they have concerns and
views about CBC proposals, to communicate those concerns to the
CRTC as soon as possible.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Andrei
Shapovalyants, Minister of Economy of the Russian Federation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to ten petitions.
* * *
1205
[Translation]
PETITIONS
BANKING SERVICES
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to join today with all members of the Quebec caucus in
tabling, on behalf of the coalition for banking services for
seniors, a petition signed by more than 30,000 people.
We wholeheartedly support this petition as well as this
coalition representing more than 1 million people.
[English]
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of citizens
from my province of B.C.
These individuals have asked that parliament affirm the duty of
parents to raise their children according to their conscience and
beliefs. They request that parliament retain section 43 of the
Criminal Code in its present form, as they believe that it
recognizes the primary role of parents in the raising and
disciplining of their children.
I respectfully submit this petition to the House of Commons on
behalf of my constituents in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway.
The petition affirms that implementation of the United Nations
convention on the rights of the child will not undermine the
rights, responsibilities and autonomy of parents. The government
has no intention of repealing or amending section 43 of the
Criminal Code or funding any research of court challenges
respecting it.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise to present
two petitions.
The first petition calls on parliament to compensate the
merchant navy veterans for their service and hardship on Canadian
and allied ships during World War II and the Korean war.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition concerns employment insurance. The
petitioners request that the EI fund be returned to its intended
purpose. They also request that an independent commission be
created to administer the Employment Insurance Act.
ABORTION
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition requesting that parliament support a
binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next
election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal
government funding for abortions on demand.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have a petition which is signed by a number of
people in my riding. The petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation, such as Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that
a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred
Question No. 225.
.[Text]
*Question No. 225—Mr. Daniel Turp:
Why has Canada not yet ratified Convention No. 98 of the
International Labour Organization on the right of workers to
organize and to bargain collectively, and has the current
government prepared a plan to ratify it during the life of this
parliament?
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the
answer, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): The
Government of Canada has a continuing strong commitment to the
implementation, and where possible, the ratification of
Internaltional Labour Organization, ILO, core conventions.
Although the authority to ratify an ILO convention is
exclusively federal, the implementation of most ILO conventions
falls under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, given the
division of powers over labour matters under the Canadian
Constitution.
For this reason the longstanding practice in Canada, as regards
ILO conventions which fall under both federal and
provincial/territorial jurisdictions, like Convention 98, has
been to ratify only if all jurisdictions concur with ratification
and undertake to implement the convention's requirements within
their respective jurisdictions.
With respect to Convention 98, there is a high level of
conformity in Canada to the convention's major principles, which
include protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and
workers' and employers' interference in each other's affairs,
and the encouragement and promotion of voluntary collective
bargaining. However, Canada has not ratified Convention 98 because
there are some divergencies between the convention's requirements
and the Canadian situation.
The main obstacle to ratification is that, with the exception of
the armed forces and the police and “public servants engaged in
the administration of the state”, Convention 98 does not provide
for any exclusions from collective bargaining rights. However, in
Canada, a number of jurisdictions exclude some other types of
workers, such as agricultural workers and certain professionals,
from their collective bargaining legislation. This has been
interpreted by the ILO as not being in compliance with
Convention 98.
Officials of the labour program of Human Resources Development
Canada have recently sought further clarifications from ILO
officials concerning Convention 98's requirements, with a view to
initiating a re-examination of the potential for Canadian
ratification of Convention 98, in consultation with the provinces
and territories as well as the social partners.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PRECLEARANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-22, an
act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and
goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes
of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant
and animal health, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
members' statements and question period interrupted us I was
talking about the very first letter of this bill.
It is a good bill. I personally think there should be no reason
for us not to support it. It will save taxpayers some money.
It will make travel better for Canadians travelling to other
countries, as well as those travelling to other countries for
whom Canada is only a stopping point. I believe the regulations
will be adequate to preserve the security of the country. If
not, we will chase that down when it comes. We need to be sure
that the criminals do not get away with anything because of this.
1210
I was talking about the very first letter of the bill. It is
Bill S-22. The first letter is S, which stands for Senate.
I said that we should really improve this. This is something
that is long overdue. It is too bad that we on this side, every
time this happens, have to remind the government that what we
have is a failed part of democracy, and that is because the
Senate is not elected. There is no excuse for that.
The Prime Minister said during the 1993 election campaign, and I
have said it so often that I know it by heart, that “Within two
years of being the government we will have an elected Senate”.
He promised as Prime Minister, “I can make that happen”.
Instead of castigating him for a broken promise, which I would
be slightly tempted to do, I would rather put it on a positive
note. Quite clearly, before 1993, our Prime Minister was
convinced that it was a good idea or he would not have said it.
It is a good idea in his mind. It is certainly a good idea in
the minds of Canadians. There is no reason in the world for this
not to happen. All he has to do is appoint to the Senate,
without any constitutional change, the people who are chosen by
the electors.
In Alberta, for example, we had a Senate election. Two people
were democratically chosen by the people. They are ready to
serve the next time there is an opening for the province of
Alberta. All the Prime Minister has to do is say that when the
vacancy becomes available “I will appoint the person who the
people have chosen”. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a
compromise, but at least the people serving in the Senate would
be the choice of the people rather than the political choice of
the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister wants to take this reasoning to the
ultimate, if he feels that he can better choose who is to
represent Alberta or any other province in the Senate, then why
does he not do it for MPs? Why do we have elections for members
of parliament? Why do we not just let the Prime Minister appoint
whomever he will, in whatever riding. We would have nothing but
Liberals in the House. Would that not be wonderful?
Unfortunately Hansard does not indicate sarcasm, so let
the record show that the member was dripping with sarcasm when he
made that statement. That way it will appear on the record.
I will rest my case there. I would be very pleased to support
the bill if it came from an elected Senate with the full
legitimacy of what we know and understand to be democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on
division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
1215
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you would find unanimous consent to see the
clock as 1.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FIREARMS LAW SUNSET ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control
legislation that is not proven effective within five years of
coming into force, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I must deplore the fact that
all private members' bills selected in the draw are not declared
votable items in the House. This is a real lack of democracy and
it allows the government to sweep issues under the rug that it
does not want to address.
I have been working on this bill, the firearms law sunset act,
since 1994. I first introduced the sunset clause as an amendment
to Bill C-68 during the debate in the spring of 1995. This bill
was first introduced in the House as Bill C-351 on September 28,
1995 and then again as Bill C-357 on December 2, 1996.
It is most disappointing to put so much effort into a piece of
legislation and to have it die after one hour of debate in the
House. This is a situation that must be rectified if we are ever
to have any chance of our constituents' legislative initiatives
being given their rightful consideration in the House.
In light of the rash of recent shootings, both here and in the
United States, more and more people are clamouring for tougher
gun control laws. What we need, and what the people really want,
is effective gun control laws. As we have seen with Bill C-68,
the Firearms Act, tougher does not equal effective.
Bill C-278 would rectify the government oversight by
implementing a process that would ensure that only gun law
provisions that were proven to be effective by the auditor
general would remain the law of the land.
Frankly, I do not know how any member of the House could
logically argue that they support ineffective gun laws. While
there may be arguments opposing the legislative process and the
wording of this bill, I would be absolutely amazed if anyone in
the House will be brave enough to argue against this principle.
People arguing against this bill will have to argue that they
support gun control laws even if they do not work, no matter how
much they cost and even if another measure might work better. I
am not arguing that gun control laws are unnecessary, only that
police time and resources should be spent on measures that get
the best bang for our bucks. That is exactly what Bill C-278 is
designed to do.
At this point, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my bill on November
7, 1997 when I reintroduced this firearms law sunset act in this
session. That day the House leader and the chief justice critic
for the Conservatives said:
Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party
lines. These (Firearms Act) regulations are not about public
safety—it is just another tax.
It is just another tax. We want effective measures and that is
what this bill is all about.
This bill is a sunset law. I want to point out to the members
exactly what that means. Robert D. Behn wrote this explanation:
The idea of the sunset law is that every government program
should periodically terminate, and continue only after an
evaluation and a legislative vote to reestablish it. The
objective is to replace the assumption that every program
automatically continues unless there is a vote to terminate it,
with the assumption that every program automatically terminates,
unless there is a vote to continue it.
Consequently, sunset laws are designed to ensure meaningful
program evaluation, to introduce the possibility of termination,
to merge duplicative programs and rationalize program structure,
and to eliminate conflicts and competition between programs.
By shifting the burden of proof from those who would terminate a
program to those who would renew it, the advocates of sunset laws
hope to create an incentive for individual agencies, and the
government as a whole to improve.
1220
That quotation says it better than I could. I think we have to
very carefully listen to what was said. That is what I hoped to
achieve in drafting the firearms law sunset act.
The bill would provide a five year sunset provision on all gun
control measures which means that the measure would be
automatically repealed unless the auditor general has reported
that it has been a successful and cost effective measure to
increase public safety and reduce violent crime involving the use
of firearms. That is, in essence, what the bill does.
The auditor general's report has to be considered by a committee
representing broad interest in the firearms community and the
committee report must be presented to and concurred in by the
House or the sunset provision will take effect automatically at
the end of the five years. That is what the bill provides for.
The bill also provides safeguards to allow parliament the time
necessary to make amendments to allow ineffective gun control
measures to expire without affecting the parts of the legislation
that are effective at fighting firearms crime.
We want to make our society safer. We want to pass laws in
parliament that are effective. We need sunset provisions so we
can focus on what works.
This bill is the total opposite of the ill-conceived Bill C-68,
the Firearms Act, that was passed into law on December 5, 1995
and prematurely brought into force on December 1, 1998. Bill
C-68 will guarantee that gun control laws are costly and
ineffective. Whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun
control law has to be both successful and cost effective in
saving lives and reduce the criminal use of firearms.
If members of Parliament want gun control measures that reduce
violent crime they will support this bill. If members of the
House want gun control measures that improve public safety and
save lives they will support the bill. Finally, if MPs want gun
control measures that not only reduce violent crime involving
firearms, but also want the most successful and most cost
effective methods for achieving these goals, they will support
the bill. If the MPs have an open mind and look at the bill, I
cannot see how they could not support it. Hopefully, they will
have an open mind.
Every year the government passes hundreds of new laws but seldom
repeals any. Should every bill passed by parliament not come
with a built in sunset clause which would automatically repeal
any measure that is not working or is not cost effectively
achieving its stated objective? How much could we save the
taxpayers of the country if we had that clause built into every
bill? That is our job as parliamentarians. It is fundamental
that we make sure that the laws of the land work. If they do not,
we should get rid of them. They cost the taxpayers a lot of
money because there is bureaucracy that is put in place to track
these measures.
Bureaucrats who depend on costly, ineffective government
programs for their jobs will hate the bill. Ministers who are
more intent on building empires and retaining their status at the
cabinet table will hate the bill.
Conversely, taxpayers who are footing the bill and the general
public who have to pay even higher taxes for this bureaucratic
bungling and inefficiency will love the firearms law sunset act.
1225
If members argue against this bill, they have to argue that we
should have laws whether they work effectively or not. I rest my
case. I think I have clearly explained the importance of the
bill.
The bill needs more time to be fully debated and explained. It
should be debated by all members in the House. I would like to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to make
Bill C-278, the firearms law sunset act, a votable item. In
support of that, I hope the attitude I detect on the other side
by the laughter will disappear. The need to have this item
votable should be uppermost. I would like to seek unanimous
consent to make this a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to have this bill made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
debate the bill after hearing the rhetoric and simplistic
interpretation of the member opposite. I think his true goal was
to do what he could not do when he tried to develop support
against gun control legislation in the country. The member knows
that more than 80% of Canadians support gun control. This is a
very silly piece of legislation.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is the parliamentary secretary imputing motive?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the parliamentary secretary
is perhaps suggesting reasons why the hon. member made the speech
he did. It seems to me it is a point of debate.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly
opposed to Bill C-278 for a number of reasons. The bill proposes
that we repeal the new firearms legislation without giving it any
reasonable time to work. The Reform Party would propose
sunsetting an act 11 months after it becomes fully effective.
The Department of Justice already has in place a carefully
considered plan for evaluating the new law's success and
achieving its objectives.
Bill C-278 ignores the accomplishments made in the first few
months of the new Firearms Act. Canadians can already see the
positive impact of Bill C-68. Canadians continue to strongly
support the government's position.
I would like to talk about what the Firearms Act has already
done. Members will see that it has already been effective. The
government is confident that within a reasonable time after the
new firearms law has been fully implemented its effectiveness
will be even more demonstrable.
For the first time ever, the new law requires instant background
checks before any gun sale can proceed. As of the end of
February of this year, more than 4,700 checks have been conducted
as part of gun sales or transfers. Of these checks, almost 7%
were flagged for investigation. In other words, more than 325
potentially dangerous gun sales were referred for further
scrutiny. Examples of these cases include people with past or
recent histories of violence, break and enters, theft or drug
involvement, or people who were trying to acquire guns that they
were not licensed to purchase.
One of the cases caught by the new system was that of an
individual from Nelson, British Columbia who tried to purchase
several firearms over a two week period. The individual had a
firearms licence but the background check showed numerous prior
convictions and several recent incidents involving spousal abuse,
uttering threats and drug activity. The individual's firearms
licence was suspended pending further investigation and the sales
were refused. On two subsequent occasions, the individual tried
again to purchase firearms. This time his licence was revoked
altogether.
This is the kind of situation the new system was designed to
control. Everybody in the House should share the goal of keeping
firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.
In this early case the system demonstrated its effectiveness
every time the individual tried to buy a gun.
1230
More than 85 license applications have been refused for public
safety concerns. It is through results like this that the
Canadian public knows the new gun control program introduced in
Bill C-68 will make the homes in their communities and their
communities as a whole much safer.
The choices laid out today are clear. If Bill C-278 were to
become law and all Canadian gun laws were sunsetted, Canada would
be left with no licensing, no registration, nothing. Why would
the Reform Party risk this? Is it because its hidden agenda is
to let everyone own powerful guns?
Let us look around at the rest of the world and see that the
control of firearms is something the entire world is seeking.
The government, unlike members opposite, is committed to
promoting public safety. It is clear that the Firearms Act
already has had an impact. The government is confident all
assessments will demonstrate that the system enhances public
safety once full implementation is completed.
Does the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville really want to allow
anyone unrestricted ownership of fully automatic guns? We know
that the Reform Party continues to fight firearms control. The
National Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association
must be proud.
Let us talk about specific parts of the bill. The member
opposite would have the auditor general and his office evaluate a
major public safety program in just a few months after it came
into force. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is
unrealistic. There is no way that the auditor general and his
staff could complete a thorough study in the time set out. It is
simply unacceptable.
I do not minimize the need to evaluate laws. We heard months
and months of testimony on Bill C-68. We listened to what
Canadians told us about gun control. We made sure that the law
would be effective. We built in an assessment program. We will
make sure that any glitches are ironed out, that any opportunity
to make the law even better is exercised.
The fact remains that when any new law comes into force we need
to allow a certain amount of time before we can assess its impact
and its effectiveness. Individuals need to adjust to new
requirements. Law enforcement agencies need to adjust to new
responsibilities. The judiciary needs time to consider the law's
meaning and intent as cases are presented. It takes time.
The Firearms Act is no different. To assess its effects on
public safety, on the incidence of violent crime and on cost
effectiveness, we have to allow time for the act to be fully
enforced.
The hon. member should be pleased that a full evaluation process
with an appropriate timetable is consistent with Treasury Board
guidelines and is already in place.
When the former minister of justice appeared before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during those months and
months of testimony, he spoke about the evaluation process. He
stated that the Department of Justice would be monitoring
experience with registration and licensing to determine what
improvements could be made and to make that information available
to parliament and to the public.
The evaluation plan calls for assessments of the extent to which
the operational elements of the Firearms Act, part 3 of the
Criminal Code and their associate programs have been implemented
and whether their objectives are being achieved. It also calls
for an implementation evaluation. This should begin one year
after the program launch and its findings will be submitted one
year later. This exercise will be carried out by key federal
partners and the results are to be consolidated with overall
evaluation of the Canadian firearms program.
Bill C-278 is a simplistic, unrealistic piece of legislation,
but I would be remiss if I did not point out one thing. In the
member's bill he supports the sentencing guidelines that the
government introduced in Bill C-68, so he has found something
good to say about our law.
1235
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
not be able to support the bill introduced by the Reform Party,
first of all because we see it somewhat as a head on attack on
the philosophy and the purpose of Bill C-68.
I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who successfully sponsored
this bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I also want to remind
the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the philosophy of
this bill, although we did have some concerns about the
legislation.
We were concerned about some administrative details and wanted
to make it easier for hunters, especially in terms of the
issuing of permits.
With the help of my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who is well
known for his exactness, especially by members of his own
caucus, we brought forward some 15 amendments to improve on the
bill, four of which were approved by the government.
I want to make myself very clearly understood. We do not believe
that increased gun registration and control under this bill, to
show where these guns are to be found throughout our society,
will help to fight crime.
On the other hand, however, we believe these are significant
steps that, coupled with other legislation, can make access to
firearms more difficult.
I do not want to sensationalize or make facile connections, but
I think the time is right for us, as parliamentarians, to debate
these issues. Unfortunately, we have all seen and been affected,
beyond partisanship, by what happened in Colorado and more
recently in Alberta.
I believe this should reinforce our conviction that, as
parliamentarians, we must take action to make it more difficult
to have access to firearms. Let us not forget that one of the
objectives of Bill C-68 was and still is to deal with the whole
issue of safe storage.
I have trouble figuring out how asking people to take certain
measures for the safer storage of their rifles, shotguns and
handguns could be a violation of their fundamental freedoms.
The Reform Party is making connections and saying things with
respect to an issue like firearms that do not have a great
impact on people. Canadians do not expect us to ban hunting or
to prohibit gun collectors from having access to their
collections. That is not what it is about. It is about taking
measures to ensure that guns are handled and stored safely.
More importantly, we need a national firearm registry so that
when police officers are called somewhere in the community, to
someone's home, they know ahead of time whether or not there
might be firearms on the premises.
I sincerely believe there is nothing outlandish in this
legislation. But we are not fooled. We know full well that what
the Reform Party wants is, for all intents and purposes, that
Bill C-68 be withdrawn.
As early as 1995, they started plotting against the bill. We
cannot agree to this, no more than we could agree to the
creation of more red tape that would have made life complicated
for hunters in certain communities. This is why the member for
Berthier—Montcalm introduced a number of amendments making the
bill more practical than it was before.
To make it very clear, I want to stress how moderate, how
reasonable the four main provisions of the bill seems to us. Mr.
Speaker, you are our focus on Fridays. I am sure our fellow
citizens who are watching want to know what Bill C-68 is about.
1240
I will quickly highlight the four main thrusts of Bill C-68. It
amends the Criminal Code to provide for stiffer sentences—this is
called sentencing—for certain serious offences involving the use
of a firearm, such as murder or kidnapping.
I believe lawmakers must deter criminals from using a firearm
while committing an offence. In legal terms, this is called
aggravating circumstances. The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this
provision in Bill C-68.
Second, there is the Firearms Act, the purpose of which is to
separate from the Criminal Code the administrative and
regulatory aspects relating to permits and registration. This
was done because we believe it is important for police forces to
know when someone has firearms. The reason for this is the
extremely high risk of violence that exists when a person owns a
firearm, one that is not present with the possession of any
other type of item.
Third, there is a new licensing system. The permit authorizes
acquisition of a firearm and the purchase of ammunition.
Finally, no doubt the most controversial aspect, and the one the
Reform Party was opposed to, while we were in agreement with it,
is of course the mandatory registration of firearms of all
kinds, including shotguns and hunting rifles.
So, there is the structure. But, here again, I repeat, I do not
think this is a bill that threatens basic freedoms. This leads
me to talk about organized crime.
As a political party, we believe that organized crime is a huge
organization and that there is no one way of getting rid of it.
Naturally, we know that there are different levels of organized
crime and that certain conditions foster the proliferation of
organized crime.
There are, generally, three. First, there must be some wealth in
the society. It is clear that Canada and Quebec meet this
criterion.
Organized crime also needs a society that has communication
networks, airports, railways, highways, etc. In other words, it
must be possible to connect quickly with another continent
because, as we know, organized crime is a global reality. It is
a fact of globalization, as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean
would put it.
Organized crime also proliferates in a society with
bureaucracies, charters and legal guarantees that often result in
delaying tactics being used in relation to court proceedings.
Organized crime is a very present reality in the Canadian
society. It is estimated that the underground economy is an
industry that generates close to $20 billion.
There is a connection to be made between registering firearms
and our desire, as parliamentarians, to fight against organized
crime.
Since my time is up, I reaffirm the Bloc Quebecois' support for
Bill C-68's underlying philosophy. We believe that gun control
is desirable. We are not prepared to support the Reform Party
bill before us today.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-278.
The events that took place in Taber, Alberta, have shocked
Canadians with the realization that brutal violence and killing
is not limited to the United States. Even more shocking is the
fact that the corrupting effects of an increasingly violent
society have now forever altered our schools, once safe places of
learning.
1245
In the wake of this tragedy we must attempt to maintain reason.
Horrific events such as the shooting in Taber often provoke the
knee-jerk reaction of demanding stricter gun control laws. As a
member of the Progressive Conservative Party I can state that we
support gun control. However, tragedies such as the shooting in
Taber provoke the government to act on emotion, not on logic.
Emotional responses to tragic situations lead us to ineffective,
irresponsible legislation like Bill C-68.
Bill C-68 was drafted in response to society's demand for a
tougher stand on crime. Instead of dealing with the issue of
crime in a meaningful way, the government took the easy way out
in touting Bill C-68 as the answer to its concerns. Bill C-68
has done nothing to prevent crime and has only led to
discriminatory practices toward law-abiding gun owners by the
federal government.
The government should have committed to sensible gun control
legislation that did not discriminate against long gun owners by
forcing them into expensive, time consuming and fundamentally
flawed gun registration. By doing this the government would not
have need for an escape clause bill that would allow it to
correct bad legislation every five years.
The PC Party supports Bill C-278 as we feel it provides for the
expiry of Bill C-68 after five years. Yet it will be five years
during which law-abiding responsible gun owners will suffer due
to Bill C-68. Since the cause of gun owners is not a popular one
among Liberals, it is easy for the government to ignore their
concerns and produce regionally popular although universally
ineffective gun control legislation like Bill C-68. This has
been especially true since the crisis in Ottawa on April 6.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 they have tried to
paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the
public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control
legislation through basic simplistic terms which play on the
fears of a public fearful for its own safety. For example, the
Liberals will promote their anti-gun legislation by stating
“guns kill people”, “guns make people fear for their safety”,
and “if we get rid of guns our problem will be solved”.
The government seems to conveniently ignore the fact that guns
do not kill people. Enraged individuals in need of counselling
kill people. The government does not want people to know that
handguns, not long guns, are the weapons of choice for most
criminals. It has neglected to remember that the majority of
long gun owners are responsible gun owners and law-abiding
citizens. Thus upon looking at these Liberal champions of
justice, it is abundantly clear that Liberal gun legislation does
little to stop the real criminals and infringes upon the
individual rights of responsible Canadians to own long guns.
The Liberals are already trying to amend the ineffective Bill
C-68. Whether it is Bill C-278 or the old Bill C-68, the fact
remains that the Liberal government's position on gun control is
in constant flux. The most recent Liberal gun control
legislation provides a great opportunity for Canadians to tell
their elected representatives to get rid of Bill C-68 before the
five year period has passed. Although Bill C-278 is a good idea,
Canadians should not have to wait five years to get rid of
ineffective legislation that does not take into account the
opinions of constituents across the country.
The Liberal government seems only to be concerned with the
opinions of its supporters who live primarily in urban Ontario.
This only reaffirms the Progressive Conservative Party's
consistent position concerning gun control. Whether it be the
position taken by our former leader, the Hon. Jean Charest in the
last parliament or during the last election; the position of our
party throughout the debate on the old Bill C-68; or our position
under our new leader, Mr. Clark, the unwavering opposition to any
ill-conceived long gun registration is clear. The focus here
should not waver.
The gun control debate is about long guns. It is about shotguns
and rifles. It is against hunters and sportsmen. The Liberal
government has continually failed to make legislative provisions
for long gun owners. Thus I argue that Bill C-278 should be
passed to allow for the removal of Bill C-68 in five year's time.
We would rather see the removal of Bill C-68 immediately. Yet,
as they say, good things come to those who wait and thus we will
be patient and place the PC Party's support behind Bill C-278.
1250
One of the key commitments of the justice critic to the
constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—and it was mine
as well—was to continue to oppose repressive Liberal gun control
legislation. Such legislation is ineffective and an unproven
mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates on and
targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be
using firearms. Bill C-68 does not affect the root causes of
crime. Thus it is hoped that Bill C-278 will eventually correct
this problem.
Bill C-278 is very timely. We heard the cries of thousands and
thousands of law-abiding gun owners that assembled on the Hill
before Christmas. There appears to be some opposition to what
the government is attempting with its repressive gun control
legislation. Our justice critic had the opportunity to
personally meet with a number of representatives from
organizations in his province of Nova Scotia and in my province
of New Brunswick, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova
Scotia Wildlife Federation, to review the negative impact which
has already resulted from ineffective gun control legislation.
Businesses in the province of New Brunswick and like businesses
in other provinces will be extremely and negatively affected by
the implementation of continuing gun control legislation because,
as we know, it will force businesses to subject themselves to an
extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that will not
impact on the criminal use of firearms.
We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of
the toughest gun control laws in the world. The Liberals have
tried to further that by adding burdensome registration fees
which amount to nothing more than a tax. I might add that the
Liberal government and its well intentioned allies have attempted
to sell their issues on gun control as a question of crime.
The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white:
proponents of bills such as a Bill C-68 support gun control
whereas opponents of such bills oppose gun control. That is
completely untrue. Let us make that perfectly clear. I do not
think there is anyone in the House, anyone in the opposition who
opposes gun control per se. Gun registration is about
ineffective Liberal legislation and its effect on law-abiding
citizens.
Firearm owners and I meet on a regular basis. They are some of
the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible
and supportive of effective measures when it comes to the
handling of firearms. If we want to do something specifically
aimed at those who use guns for criminal purposes, let us toughen
up the code sections. Let us toughen up the response of the
courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.
It came to light last spring that the statistics used by the
government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were
seriously flawed, according to the commissioner of the RCMP.
Words like exaggeration and misuse of statistics were then met by
the reply of the Minister of Justice that it was simply a
difference of methodologies. This seems to me to be a convenient
excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like
to hear.
Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a
Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control
legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through
parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent
years. In fact the government played a part in implementing some
of those pieces of legislation.
Under the previous gun law applicants were required to obtain
firearms application certificates which are called FAC licences.
They were required to take a gun course, undergo police checks
and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted
weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits.
Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and
sport club members who were taking part in shooting competitions.
Private ownership of most military assault weapons were banned or
restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take
mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearm handling
safety courses. The previous laws also included stringent
storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to
breach these regulations.
In conclusion, let us not continue to target law-abiding
citizens with ineffective and indecisive legislation. Let us in
fact target criminals. It will be a long and roundabout manner
of doing so, but I suggest that by supporting Bill C-278 we can
continue to point out the problems with Bill C-68. This
continued debate will hopefully lead to the removal of Bill C-68
in the next five years.
1255
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is rather sad that we are still debating horrible
legislation which was passed in 1995. It is a debate that never
ends.
Even though we are in grave economic difficulties and the
country is fighting an undeclared war, whenever I go back to my
constituency and visit the coffee shop or walk down the street
people still ask what we will do about the idiotic registration
law. It never dies.
I diverge a little from my colleague who has proposed the bill,
although I support it. The time the studies should have been
made was before the bill was passed, not after the fact. We had
a bill that was based on prejudice, public hysteria and
deliberately falsified data. It was all brought together under a
closure motion. That was one of the blackest days in the House.
It is something for which democracy is paying dearly.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said that he did not
see anything in the bill that would affect the civil rights of
Canadians. I wonder if the right to entry and search without a
warrant and the right to seize lawfully owned private property
without compensation constitute no threat to the general public.
I said some studies should have been done before the legislation
was passed. I took the initiative to do something in this
regard. I did a very detailed study of the crime statistics over
a 20 year period for the northern tier states of the northwestern
U.S. as opposed to the Canadian prairie provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I thought, as a resident of southern Saskatchewan, I would find
that the rates of homicide in those two rather different
jurisdictions would be more or less equal. I discovered to my
surprise that the homicide rates in those northern tier states
were actually lower than in our three western Canadian provinces
where we have had gun control of a sort since 1976.
In those northern tier states they call it gun control because
they have a law on the books in Montana that says you cannot take
your machine gun away from your own property. It is wide open
and yet their homicide rate is lower than ours and has been for
the last 20 years, if one takes the average of those northern
states and of our western provinces.
Interestingly, when I was doing this study, I discovered that
North Dakota has historically had a homicide rate of 1.2 per
100,000 people. Maine, another state adjacent to Canada but not
included in my study, also has that 1.2 per 100,000. That is
roughly the same order of magnitude as the homicide rates in
Japan where private ownership of firearms is virtually banned.
One can make what one wants of that. It is a fact.
On the other hand, in that great land to the south the
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia has what is probably the
toughest regulations governing firearms of any jurisdiction in
the western world, far tougher than we have in Bill C-68, and yet
its homicide rate is astronomical. It is 80 per 100,000 per
annum.
That is like a war zone and yet they have these extremely
rigorous control of firearms.
1300
New York City is another example. Both state and city laws
control firearms. Yet the homicide rate there is more than 10
times what it is in the wide open states of North Dakota, Montana
and Idaho.
That is the type of study that should have been performed
relative to the Canadian experience before we got involved in
this hysterical pursuit of a magic fix to do away with crime in
this country, but it was not done.
In recent years there have been several academic studies made of
this particular question, most notably by Dr. Manzer at Simon
Fraser University, Dr. Lott at the University of Chicago, and Dr.
Kleck from the school of criminology at Florida State University.
These academics have all agreed and determined that the existence
of a law requiring the registration of firearms has no particular
effect, either detrimental or beneficial, to the prevalence of
murder in any society. These are eminent academics.
If the government does not want to consult academics, it would
have been worthwhile had the government listened to rank and file
police officers rather than to the national association of police
chiefs when it went for police input. Some very good polling has
been done by the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers of
its members. It was discovered that lo and behold 75% of them
are opposed to the legislation in Bill C-68. Ninety-one per cent
of serving RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are opposed to the
legislation. These are the people who are out there on the front
lines every day. These are not the political policemen.
I had a phone call not too long ago from an RCMP sergeant whom I
know fairly well. He said, “There is a whole bunch of people
milling around my office today. I have this big lineup at my
door”. I asked what the problem was, what was going on. He
said, “All the Hell's Angels in town have come around and they
are trying to get their possession and acquisition certificates
and they all want to get them on the same day”. Perhaps there
was a little hyperbole in the man's statement, but I certainly
got his message.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
quoted what she referred to as the positive impacts of this
legislation. She should go back and take a look at this
legislation and all previously existing legislation because
background checks have been a fact of life in Canada for many
years. It is not something that was brought in with Bill C-68
and she should know that. To say that there has been a positive
effect from this new legislation is not true.
At the same time she set up quite a number of straw men. She
said something about the people who are supporting this bill
wanted to decontrol the private ownership of automatic weapons. I
reread the bill immediately after she said that to see if I could
find some reference of that nature and I am sorry, but it is not
there.
All the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is asking is that
after five years from January 1 this legislation be revisited,
that some proper studies be made of its effectiveness or lack
thereof, and that the government then act upon those studies to
determine whether or not the $50 million a year that this is
going to cost us is a sensibly directed expenditure, if it is
going to do any good.
The previous studies I have mentioned certainly suggest that it
does no good at all.
I would like to read a brief comment from Professor Kleck who
incidentally until 1976, according to his biography, was very
skeptical to say the least about the right to gun ownership.
He is a criminologist. He said that it was a sort of visceral
reaction on his part to think that if there were fewer guns,
there would be less crime. However, when he did his academic
research, and he has been doing research like this for 20 years,
here is what he said—
1305
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member has run
out of time. I know that there are other members who wish to
speak in the debate. I am afraid I am going to have to terminate
his speech at this time.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to be making only a brief couple of comments. My colleague
from the Reform Party has permitted me to split some time here,
so I am grateful for that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
did point out one valid issue which is that it takes a little
while for legislation, whatever the topic is, to actually have
any kind of effect. I would argue that the government never let
Bill C-17 make a positive effect in that regard.
Bill C-68 is a bad news bill because it makes no sense to
register the long guns of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and
farmers. The law enforcement officers in society today would
rather have the $300 million plus that is going to be spent for
better law enforcement initiatives than the arbitrary
registration program in Bill C-68, which the Progressive
Conservative Party and this hon. member definitely oppose.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my comments
will also to be very short.
We need to focus on what this bill actually says instead of much
of the talk that has been going on here on the issue of gun
control itself.
This private member's bill is a very important one. It says in
the desire of Canadians to prevent the deaths and accidental
deaths that come from improper use of firearms and also the
criminal use of firearms, that Canadians, especially this week,
demand and deserve that their money be spent where it is going to
be effective.
My colleague's private member's bill focuses on it very well. It
says that this bill should automatically expire after five years
unless it is proven effective in doing the job. In other words,
this is an issue which is certainly part of being a good steward
of the taxpayers' money, but it goes much beyond that. It says
that where we spend that money we want the job to be done right.
There should not be a Liberal in the House who would hesitate to
vote for this bill. Surely they too would want to cause the fast
expiry of any bill or any procedure which is proven ineffective.
That is what this bill says about gun control, or whatever it is
called. It is not really gun control. Right now it is a gun
registration system. The control element is essentially
non-evident in what the Liberal government is doing. The bill
before us today is simply calling for that to be evaluated.
I will tell the House this. If there is empirical evidence of
the effectiveness of what the Liberals are doing, I will vote for
it. But if there is empirical evidence that it is ineffective,
as we on this side suspect it will be based on scientific and
statistical evidence, then I want to see that bill gone. I want
the taxpayers' money to be spent and I want the government to be
doing that which is truly effective in stopping the criminal
misuse of firearms.
I cannot state this strongly enough. We were all shocked and
horrified this week, as people in Ottawa were several weeks ago,
by the blatant gunning down of innocent people by another person
with a gun. Of course we want to stop that. How we wish those
people had not had a gun. But is the result of that that we are
simply going to confiscate all the firearms? I really have a
problem with that.
We need to make sure that we are enacting effective legislation.
I would urge all members to vote in favour of this.
1310
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has misrepresented what this bill does in
the comments made that this bill will only give a few months for
us to scrutinize firearms regulations. It clearly says in the
bill that there are five years for the auditor general to assess
the legislation. Then the government went on to defend Bill C-68
that it passed almost four years ago claiming it was effective.
The arguments made by the Liberals, if in fact they are true and
we listened to them, should be open to the examination of the
auditor general, an impartial party. The argument made by the
government was that it was keeping firearms out of the hands of
criminals. If that is true, why not let the auditor general
examine these laws and determine if it is true? That is only
common sense.
The NDP did not participate in the discussion.
The Bloc Quebecois went on and spent much time arguing against
my bill describing the problem of organized crime. My question
for the Bloc Quebecois is what is there in Bill C-68 that will
affect organized crime in any way, except perhaps to encourage
gun use by criminals, smuggling and the black market?
In fact, Bill C-68 puts Canadians more at risk because it ties
up scarce law enforcement resources rather than allowing them to
be used most effectively such as in fighting organized crime.
The Bloc should support my bill because it ensures our laws will
become more effective.
In these last few minutes I would like to explain some of the
inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of the government's
current legislation.
The registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934 but
neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP is able to produce
any evidence to prove that this firearms registry has helped
solve or prevent even one crime. In fact, the RCMP does not even
collect statistics on whether a firearm used in a crime is
registered. It is not a factor. It is almost as if the
government did not want to know it was a failure.
Statistics Canada reports that 75% of all firearms crimes are
committed with handguns and less than 7% with rifles and
shotguns. Is it not time for the auditor general to look at why
the registration of handguns has never worked as intended?
Over the years tens of thousands of guns have been restricted,
registered, then prohibited by the government even though there
has been no evidence to show that these firearms were involved in
criminal incidents or were a threat to public safety. Many
prohibited firearms have been confiscated from their rightful
owners without compensation, breaking if we had them, property
rights laws.
It is time to have the auditor general determine if this
prohibition strategy is actually reducing crime, improving public
safety or saving lives.
The firearms acquisition certificates have been mandatory since
1979 but this has not prevented criminals or madmen from getting
firearms. Has it kept firearms out of the hands Marc Lépine or
Valery Fabrikant or Denis Lortie or Mark Chahal or Pierre Lebrun
and so on? Is it not time for the auditor general to examine the
effectiveness of the government's licensing program?
If my bill or any version of it became law, it would force a
constant improvement in this country's gun control laws. Gun
control laws that do not work would be repealed. Gun control
laws that are working would be retained and improved. There
would be a dynamic process of change and improvement. We should
not just have it here, we should have it in all legislation.
Most important, my bill would take the politics and the emotion
out of the process of making gun control laws. Laws would be
based on reason and logic and solid research. The public trusts
the auditor general far more than it trusts politicians. I am
willing to put our gun laws to the public safety test. Is the
government ready to do the same?
I would like to thank everybody who participated today. Someone
drew to my attention a comment made by somebody who thought that
we needed more gun control laws. He did a thorough study. Gary
Kleck said: “The research has caused me to move beyond even the
skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently
available evidence, imperfect though it is, and must always be,
indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net
positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault,
rape, or burglary” and so on.
We need to see if this is true.
Before this bill dies today, after all the arguments have now
been heard, I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the
House to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights for further review and examination. Let us send it
to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to refer
the bill as requested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 1.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.15 p.m.)