Sue Barnes

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 has one simple objective: to reduce death and injuries by firearms. Despite the views of a small and strident gun lobby, which I wish to emphasize does not speak for the majority of Canadians, this bill does not in any way support a hidden agenda on the part of this government to confiscate legally owned firearms or to sanction police state actions against the private dwelling houses of Canadians.

What this act does is limit in some measure access to firearms to people who are qualified, responsible, and knowledgeable about their proper use and storage. The numbers speak for themselves. Nearly 40 per cent of domestic homicides involve firearms. Most of the victims are women and children. Where firearms are used in homicides, 85 per cent were committed with long guns, the vast majority being legally owned.

The risk of death from a firearm discharge in Canada is almost equal to the risk of death from a motor vehicle crash: 2.37 deaths per 10,000 firearms possessed, versus 2.4 per 10,000 registered motor vehicles in 1990.

The opposition to this bill has been intense. They say that guns do not kill, people do. Simply put, people with guns kill, and they do so with frightening efficiency. Let us look at the suicide stats. Suicide attempts involving guns have a 7 per cent survival rate. Where guns are not involved the survival rate rises to 65 per cent.

The opponents of gun control say that if someone really wants to commit suicide they will find a way. However, experts on suicide prevention appearing before the committee testified to the contrary. Suicide is an impulsive act. Even a short delay will often give the person the chance to reconsider, and they often do. Therefore, limiting or delaying access to firearms can and will save lives.

It will come as no surprise that those areas of Canada where firearm ownership is highest also displayed the highest rates of firearm death and injury. Remarkably, these are the same groups that came before committee seeking an exemption from this bill, saying that their traditional way of life was threatened. But I note that the member for Nunatsiaq said that this bill will not result in one less caribou death.

It has been argued that firearm homicide is strictly a big city phenomenon. In Canada this is simply not true. For instance, a study by the Northeastern Ontario Trauma Centre found higher rates of gun homicides in rural northern Ontario than throughout Ontario as a whole.

What about the notion of arming for self-defence? The idea has been discredited. In fact, studies show that people with guns in their homes are 43 times more likely to kill themselves or someone close to them than to kill an intruder. An alarming study by Dr. Scott of George Washington University shows that for every woman who buys a handgun for self-protection, 239 women are murdered by such weapons, many with their own weapon.

There was a very instructive study by the Swiss professor Martin Killias in a May 1993 article in the Canadian Medical Journal . Dr. Killias is very clear on one point: gun ownership directly correlates with gun deaths and gun injury. Noting that 27 per cent of Swiss households have guns, about the same incidence as in Canada, he writes: Contrary to what gun organizations claim, Switzerland pays a high price for this. In suicide, Switzerland ranks third, just behind Hungary and Finland, but far higher than other countries.'' The reason for this isthe unusually high percentage of suicides committed with firearms''.

Dr. Killias' conclusions are confirmed in a similar 1993 study of 18 countries for the United Nations Inter-regional Crime and Justice Institute. Countries such as Great Britain and Germany, which strictly control access to firearms, have much lower death rates by firearms than Canada or the United States.

Gun registration is the rule throughout Europe: in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Canada and the United States are the exceptions.

What about public support for this bill? I have over 7,000 pieces of mail supporting this bill forwarded to me as an Ontario member by Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen of the Coalition for Gun Control. I especially wish to commend these two remarkable women for so effectively giving voice to the concerns of such a broad cross-section of groups, including police organizations, medical associations, churches, women's shelters and transition houses, teachers federations, municipal councils, including my own, universities, boards of education, labour groups, provincial bars and legal associations and, most important, the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people.

One of my constituents, Dr. Henry Barnett, the most prominent neurologist in Canada, spoke to me about his colleagues south of the border, about their hopes for effective gun control and about their discouragement and their complete inability to effect legislative change in the face of the opposition of the National Rifle Association, America's largest and most influential lobby group.

Let us make no mistake, the American ultra-right are watching this debate very closely. This debate involves more than guns. It is about our way of life, our freedom. It is about the right of Canadians to say no to guns. It is about our right to decide how we want to live.

Opposing the bill we have primarily gun clubs, gun sellers, gun collectors, hunters and outfitters, native peoples, and the Reform Party. To further their own agenda or to protect their own economic interest, some groups capitalize on the fears of their honest and law-abiding members. These self-styled advocacy groups, these so-called responsible firearms groups, have engaged in a deliberate campaign of misinformation. Every time the government proposes gun control, these same groups come out. The same accusations are made: police state, confiscation. But the confiscations do not occur. The police do not come out in the middle of the night.

"Punish the criminal", they say, "not the responsible law-abiding gun owner". "It is just another tax grab". Let us not ignore the real cost of guns. When law-abiding, responsible gun owners kill and injure themselves and others, aside from the lost lives of 1,400 Canadians there is a very real dollar figure, $70 million a year in primary health costs and related public services in this country paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

They complain at the inconvenience of having to register, of having to fill out forms. I remember one witness who came before the committee whose daughter had been shot dead by a long gun recalling her response to a provincial attorney general on the subject of inconvenience: "Let me tell you about inconvenience. The death of your child at the hands of a man wielding a gun is an inconvenience. Do you know how many forms I have had to fill out?" I will always remember that woman's voice.

The cost to the gun owner is nominal. It is $10 to register up to 10 guns, no cost whatsoever to subsistence hunters. Is this an oppressive or punitive tax? Does this in any way impede the gun owner's right to use and enjoy his weapon? Not in the least.

Every time gun controls are brought forward, the same argument is heard: "You will destroy hunting. You will cripple our outfitting industry, on which our remote communities depend." The argument is a red herring. Gun control has no effect whatsoever on a hunter's decision to obtain a hunting licence.

This is Parliament's fourth gun control bill, and our hunting and sports shooting community is in fine shape. In fact, it is stronger, safer, and more responsible than its American counterpart.

We do have gun clubs but we do not have civilian militias. Canadians understand gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. The government is prepared to safeguard that privilege but only if it is clearly understood privilege demands responsibility.

Let us be clear the bill falls squarely within the federal government's criminal law jurisdiction. It does not admit to any exceptions in the application. The government in the interests of all Canadians must ensure coast to coast compliance.

In fairness, many witnesses did draw attention to provisions which if misinterpreted might result in anomalies. In response the minister again appeared before the committee to suggest amendments regarding among other things bona fide inadvertent failure to register, inspection powers and relic firearms. These amendments are fully detailed in the committee report.

I add my voice to the people in my riding and across the country who support the principle embodied by the legislation. It is my pleasure to give Bill C-68 my unequivocal support and I recommend to all members of this House to do likewise.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the remarks of my hon. colleague, the leader of the third party in the House.

I listened with interest because I want to tell him that I would also listen with interest if I heard those loud cries from the civil libertarians in this country. I, for one, would listen to those and I am sure members on my side of the House would also listen with me and react.

The loud voices have not been heard by civil libertarians. They have been heard by a very vocal gun lobby very much supported by the Reform Party, the members opposite.

I want to come back to a statement that concerned me in my hon. colleague's speech about constitutional law which is something that we should be very concerned about.

The charter of rights and freedoms is something of which we must be very cognizant in every piece of legislation. When a minister brings forward legislation he has to sign on that he has taken into consideration constitutional and charter arguments. The charter, I often hear, is something that gets in the way. Our protection in search and seizure provisions comes from the charter provisions. That is why Canadians should not be afraid of the gun control bill.

I also want to talk about constitutionality because my colleague opposite raised it. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that gun control is a matter of criminal law. It does not matter that all the provisions of the Criminal Code offence be in the Criminal Code.

That the Criminal Code is for crime prevention has been very clearly ruled in the appellate court in Alberta and in the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been stated by Professor Hogg, who is the expert in Canada on constitutional law, that gun control law is a criminal control provision, a crime prevention provision, and is totally intra vires the Parliament of Canada.

What is the hon. member going to say to the Supreme Court justices?

[Ontario Election, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are getting wise to the reality of Mike Harris' ultra conservative policy. His pie in the sky promises of a 30 per cent income tax cut are an insult to the intelligence of the people of this province. How does he propose to juggle a massive tax cut and balance the budget without slashing essential services? He does not.

Mike Harris is deceiving the people of Ontario, shamelessly exploiting the discontent brought about by five years of NDP government. He is using it as a pretext to dismantle progressive and essential programs that the Liberals across this country have helped establish.

There is only one real choice for the voters in Ontario. Lyn McLeod has demonstrated her commitment to the people of Ontario by proposing realistic and workable proposals for change, realistic tax cuts to stimulate job creation, a balanced budget in four years, a firm commitment to cut $3.5 billion from government spending while maintaining funding for education and health.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

The perpetuation of the practice of female genital mutilation, while it may be confined to certain communities, has serious implications for all Canadians. Ultimately this is an issue of human rights. As such it concerns us all and we all share the responsibility for putting a stop to it.

When I came to Parliament Hill a year and a half ago I would never have foreseen myself speaking to such an issue. Today I stand here with my blinders removed, having been made to understand in some measure the brutality of this procedure and the devastating physical and emotional impact on the victims. I have risen in the Chamber to speak out on this issue before, as I did in Copenhagen at the interparliamentary union last fall.

It is imperative that we take the strongest possible stand opposing violence in all forms against women, both in Canada and around the world. Female circumcision, as it is so euphemistically called, is the manifestation of an oppressive patriarchal philosophy. It physically mutilates girls and young women, destroying their capacity in the future to enjoy normal sexual relations in order to ensure that they reach a marriageable age in the state of virginity.

It is estimated that 80 million women around the world, 600 every day, undergo this torment, often in the most primitive and barbaric circumstances, frequently without anaesthesia or properly sterilized equipment. The pain and the loss of blood may lead to shock, permanent injury, both physical and physiological and in some cases to death.

The physical manifestations, although seldom reported to authorities, are still well known. Less is known about the psychological and emotional effects of the operation.

This practice is not restricted to the third world. It is today an increasing concern for Canadians. For example, between 1986 and 1991, 40,000 people immigrated to Canada from northern and eastern Africa. In these areas the practice is routine enough that it is naive to think it has not been imported. It is naive and is in fact dangerous to ignore.

At the same time the argument has been made that we have no business imposing our cultural values on Canadian communities, especially Canadian ethnic communities. Canada is a society premised on the foundation of tolerance. Culture cannot and must never be used as an excuse to perpetuate criminal acts and violate human rights.

As a multicultural society, we must balance our respect for cultural variation with protection of the rights of children, women, indeed all humanity. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice, nothing more. It is not and has never been sanctioned by any religion. Let us be emphatic on this point when we say that no religion sanctions such practice. As great as our concern for cultural freedom, greater is our concern for the lives of our young immigrant and refugee women.

The very fact of this debate indicates clearly the development of our understanding and our concern about this important issue. Our legal structures are evolving to accommodate the changing needs of Canadians. For example, I note the gender related persecution provision used by Canada in its refugee determination process. Members will recall the new guidelines being applied to a woman whose daughter faced potential ritual genital mutilation in their homeland. Canada in that case granted them refuge.

At the same time, it is critical that in addressing this problem we must target our legislative response to bring about the most effective prevention. We must move with care in order to prevent the practice from moving still further underground and we must be sensitive to the communities involved.

I commend the member for her intentions and for her work in bringing this bill forward. I fully recognize the critical importance of the principle. However, at this point, I also want to bring out the reservations that I have about the bill, not the issue.

The bill essentially proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence of genital mutilation, punishable on indictment, and carrying a term of up to five years' imprisonment. Compare this to the existing code provisions which contain, among the various assault provisions, the offence of aggravated assault which applies to everyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of another person and carries a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment.

Moreover, section 21 of the code makes it clear that any party who aids or abets in the commission of an offence is guilty of the offence. As well, it is an offence under the code to remove a child from Canada who is ordinarily resident in order to commit any of the listed assault offences. Any person performing such an operation is also liable to prosecution.

Certainly then the existing code already covers these offences. Let us make no mistake, the Criminal Code when properly applied can be a formidable tool in this battle.

Bill C-277 is not tough enough. If the police were to charge under the specific offence, such as is stated in this bill, they would not be entitled to the stiffer penalty that we have now in the code.

I am concerned about driving the practice still further underground. This practice is very well entrenched and hidden and we must ensure that it does not slip entirely from view. I have been advised that there has not been a single prosecution in Canada of this practice. Is this just because it does not go on? I do not think so. We are not catching it.

Why are we not catching it? It is a brutal practice and it has been entrenched by the passage of time. In some communities the practice has great social prestige, marking the girl's transition to womanhood. Believe it or not, many girls look forward to this procedure with excitement and terror. They have been coerced by social pressures, the desire to please parents and communities or the fear of not finding a husband, into undergoing this brutal torment.

It will come as no surprise that even in those areas of the world where the practice is common, there are still women working against it. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women notes in its brief on the subject:

Women from various African countries now living in Canada who had the operation as children remember sheer agony. They speak bitterly of how they were held down by several women despite their resistance. They strongly agree that they will not circumcise their daughters, would never inflict such pain upon them.

As the document notes:

-there tends to be agreement that young girls put pressure on mothers to do it.

As long as such social pressures continue to exist, the Criminal Code is of limited value in this fight. I understand the argument that a specific provision of the code would draw greater public attention to the offence, but we must recognize that education is the best tool to make Canadians understand the barbarity of this custom.

To recap, the existing Criminal Code provisions are adequate in so far as the problem can be addressed through the code. A progressive and an aggressive campaign of public information is crucial.

The attorney general in Ontario has a task force on female genital mutilation. We have to study the recommendations and at this point I look forward and will not rule out having a specific Criminal Code offence on this issue.

I am very grateful to the member for allowing me to add my voice with women and men in this country and around the world and say this is a barbaric practice that has to be stopped. I am very glad we have people willing to stand up and talk very openly about these issues which have been for too long left undebated.

I really appreciate being able to stand in a public forum like this to discuss something so normally sensitive an issue and say with conviction this is an issue that violates our human rights. I am proud Canada is speaking out about this. I put my support behind whatever tools are out there to eradicate this offence.

I will give very hard thought to how I will vote on this issue because I have not yet made up my mind as to whether I will vote in support of the existing Criminal Code amendments. I know they are useful. I have concerns about limiting the length of time and I wish the members opposite to know those concerns.

[Jesse Davidson, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday a young man from my riding of London West will begin a remarkable journey. On May 20 on the TransCanada Highway at the Ontario-Manitoba border Jesse and John Davidson will set out together for the Quebec border on a route covering over 2,000 miles. They intend to arrive in September.

Jesse cannot walk. He is afflicted with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder, and is wheelchair bound. John Davidson has vowed to wheel his son across the entire province of Ontario.

This remarkable undertaking is sponsored by the Foundation for Gene and Cell Therapy. The journey will raise public awareness about DMD as well as money so desperately needed for medical research.

Young people with DMD seldom live to see their twenties. Jesse is 14.

I urge all members of the House, particularly Ontario members, and all Canadians to get involved. I am proud to acknowledge the efforts of individuals who take action to make a difference not only for themselves but for all of us. It is now time to show our support for them.

[Equal Rights, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to sentiments expressed by at least one member of the Reform Party regarding the denial of asylum for females fearing genital mutilation. I spoke last fall at the inter-parliamentary union on this topic. Countries cannot use culture as an excuse to deny women human rights. Women's rights are human rights.

Canada's commitment to equality for women is rooted in the belief that equal rights for women are an essential and inherent component of progress on overall human rights and democratic development.

Female genital mutilation in Canada can be prosecuted under a number of sections of our Criminal Code. Female genital mutilation is a brutal expression of patriarchal power. It is child torture.

Canada should and does lead the world with our gender persecution guidelines. These, like many other issues, require understanding and compassion, not rhetoric.

[National Film Board, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in Hollywood last night the Academy Award for best animated short film was won by "Bob's Birthday", a National Film Board co-production with filmmakers Alison Snowden and David Fine. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the National Film Board on winning its tenth Oscar.

"Bob's Birthday" is an entertaining and whimsical appraisal of the self-scrutiny part of every birthday, and represents a continuation of the rich tradition of superior films with which the National Film Board has been involved. This film has already won prizes at major festivals in Canada, the U.S. and Europe.

In its 56 years of existence, the film board has received 60 Academy Award nominations. Of the ten Oscars it has won, five have been for animated short films, an area that has gained very great respect and recognition around the world.

Bravo.

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is the sixth day of the national rail strike. Ontario's economy is coming to a standstill. Hundreds of millions of dollars are lost each day in this struggling economy because of the strike. It is unconscionable for the Bloc Quebecois, with the exception of one courageous member, to allow this strike to continue knowing fully the damage it is causing.

Among the millions who have the Bloc and the NDP to thank for this unnecessary strike are: 2,500 CAW members at Ford Canada's St. Thomas, Ontario plant who have been sent home because of a shortage of parts; 3,900 CAW members at Oakville and Windsor who will be working only halftime this week for the same reason; and at least 70,000 commuters in Montreal and Toronto who are facing long delays in getting to and from work.

Although our official opposition does not care about the Canadian economy, everyone else in this country does. It is time to move and quickly.

[Committees Of The House, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 20, 1994 your committee has considered Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 1994 your committee has considered Bill C-41, an act toamend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts inconsequence thereof. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Since Monday's fiscally responsible and fair budget we have heard speculative statements about how the budget impacts on Ontario. After four and a half years, the current premier of Ontario will soon have to do his own accounting to the people of Ontario.

Would the Minister of Finance please clarify how the budget affects Ontario, a province with 37.5 per cent of the nation's population?