Svend Robinson

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 19th, 1995]

On which occasions since September 1, 1994, has Gordon Campbell, the BC Leader of the Official Opposition, communicated by letter, fax or telephone with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or any officials within their offices, concerning the Kemano II completion project and what were the nature of the representations made on each occasion?

[Non-Governmental Organizations, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Recently the government announced the total elimination of funding for global education groups and youth organizations, from the Queen Charlotte Islands Global Link Society in B.C. to the St. John's Oxfam office in Newfoundland, as well as the total elimination of $8 million for the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

I want to ask the minister this question: In view of the government's earlier promises in the foreign policy statement and in Cairo to strengthen these programs, will the government now reconsider this slashing? And will it explain why it has abandoned the promises it made to the people of Canada and to the poor women of the world?

[Employment Equity, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last month I had the honour of leading a delegation to Turkey to look into the very serious situation of human rights violations in that country. In particular, I was looking at the appalling human rights violations affecting the Kurdish community in Turkey.

Some 12 million Kurds live in Turkey. They have been denied any democratic rights whatsoever to express their fundamental cultural and linguistic heritage.

Following my return from that delegation, I raised a question in the House last week. I asked the Prime Minister to explain why the Canadian government is seriously contemplating sending a delegation led by a minister of the government to celebrate 75 years of Turkish parliamentary democracy.

It is absolutely appalling that the government would seriously consider sending a delegation of that nature when six members of the Turkish Parliament are locked up in the Ankara prison solely for have spoken out for human rights, democracy and justice.

When I had the privilege of meeting with these members of Parliament, including a Kurdish woman, Leyla Zana, who has been sentenced to a term of 15 years, they were astonished and deeply concerned that our government would seriously contemplate sending that delegation.

Second, I raised the issue of the possible sale of 39 CF-5 fighter aircraft to Turkey. We know of the human rights abuses. We know of the burning and destruction of villages. We know of over two million Kurds who have been made homeless in southeastern Turkey. We know of the attacks on journalists. We know of the very profound attacks on many other minorities in Turkey.

This arms deal is fundamentally immoral. I call on the Government of Canada to join with Norway and Germany, two of our strong NATO allies, in imposing an arms embargo on Turkey. Far from selling fighter aircraft, we should be imposing an arms embargo. Look at Turkey's record in Cyprus for example: the illegal invasion, as well as its current appalling human rights record.

Canada's policy is supposedly not to sell weapons to areas of conflict and not to sell weapons to countries with questionable human rights records. The government says: "No problem, we will get a promise from Turkey that they will not use this against civilians". The Turkish government made a similar promise with respect to tanks sold to them by Germany. That promise was broken as well.

I call on the government to say now, categorically, that it will not participate in this charade of the celebration of Turkish democracy, that it will cancel the Canadian delegation, that it will not sell CF-5 fighter aircraft, that it will impose an arms embargo and call on the Turkish government to arrive at a peaceful solution through political dialogue and peaceful means instead of attacking the Kurdish community.

Finally, the PKK has called on the government to recognize that the time has come for dialogue, not for separation but as General Secretary Ocalan said: "The time has come to live side by side on free and equal terms". The way to achieve this is to be open and honest.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will take the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Point of order.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on February 7, over 500 members of the RCMP marched for the first time in history here on Parliament Hill to denounce the attempt of the Liberal government to deny them their fundamental constitutional rights to free collective bargaining and in fact to even punish them for talking about collective bargaining.

The next day I asked a question in the House of the Solicitor General. I asked him to explain why the government intended to proceed with Bill C-58, legislation that would clearly deny the most basic rights of members of the RCMP.

At that time the minister stated that the bill does not add to the powers of the commissioner and it does not take anything away from members of the force.

The bill has now gone to committee, has gone through committee and has been reported back to the House. What is very clear is that statement of the minister suggesting the bill does not take anything away from members of the RCMP is completely and utterly false.

What the bill does very clearly is deny and override the effect of the 1994 judgment of the Federal Court in the Yvon Gingras decision. Pursuant to that decision it was clear RCMP employees are guaranteed certain rights under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In other words, the commissioner of the RCMP was not free to simply rule arbitrarily with respect to all working conditions of members of the force.

In addition there is a strong argument that part II of the Canada Labour Code, the provisions with respect to occupational health and safety, are guaranteed now prior to the bill to members of the RCMP.

The effect of this legislation, this draconian bill, is to take away those existing rights. The bill may as well dramatically affect entitlement to other benefits, to other entitlements such as the bilingualism bonus which will now be completely discretionary.

The current provisions of governing labour relations within the RCMP are totally unsatisfactory. The divisional staff relations representative system has been vigorously condemned by among others the E Division Members Association from British Columbia and the C Division. I want to pay tribute in particular to the president of the E Division Members Association, Michel Funicelli, and members of his executive.

I would also like to pay tribute to Mr. Gaétan Delisle who has been fighting in Quebec for some time now for the rights of members of the RCMP stationed in that province.

Also the Canadian Police Association and its executive officer, Scott Newark, who have worked long and hard to expose this attack on the basic rights of members of the RCMP.

I am calling today on the government to realize it has made a mistake, to come to its senses and to back off on this legislation, to allow members of the RCMP to make their own decisions about their future, about their labour relations.

This bill would eliminate any possibility of third party intervention in employee-management relations. It would basically put all power in the hands of the commission. It is a bad bill. I call on the government to withdraw it now.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in opposition to the amendment which has been tabled by the member for Yorkton-Melville and to speak strongly in support of the principle of Bill C-68.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House. In saying so, I want to take this opportunity to make very clear that this legislation is the product of the dedication, the commitment, the integrity and the energy of many men and women across this country.

I am proud of the history of my own party in speaking out for strong and effective gun control. One of my former colleagues in the House, Stuart Leggatt, the former member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby, was one of those who originally participated in the debate on gun control legislation in 1976 and 1977. He spoke very eloquently about the importance of effective gun control.

I took the opportunity to review those debates and to look at some of the newspaper coverage of the debates at the time. It was eerily familiar. One headline was: "West up in arms over government's gun control proposals". In 1976, a group calling itself the Firearms and Responsible Ownership coalition distributed a commentary suggesting that the purpose of the government's bill was to ultimately stop any and all legitimate use of firearms in Canada. It went on to suggest that gun control legislation was a threat to sportsmen. That was in 1976 and we are hearing the same kind of unfounded allegations today.

It was my colleagues, Ian Waddell, the member of Parliament for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and Dawn Black, the member for New Westminister-Burnaby, who in the last Parliament spoke out very strongly for tough and effective gun control legislation. They called for a stronger Bill C-17, a strengthening of the bill that was brought in by Kim Campbell.

Our platform in the last federal election was unequivocal. It stated: "New Democrats have consistently argued for more effective gun control. We support the most recent legislation and have fought hard against efforts in the House of Commons to weaken it. We continue to promote an even stronger, more effective law. In particular, we want a national firearms registry system which would provide law enforcement agencies with a list of each firearm in circulation and its serial number. This would facilitate the tracking of all weapons stolen or used in crimes". I am pleased and honoured to stand in my place in the House of Commons today to reiterate that commitment to strong and effective gun control legislation.

I would also like to pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun Control. It has done such an outstanding job in helping to make Canadians aware of these issues. I particularly pay tribute to Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen, the executive director.

Heidi Rathjen had the good fortunate to survive the massacre that left 14 dead at l'École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. I would also like to pay tribute to Mrs. Suzanne Edward, whose daughter was among the victims of the December 6, 1989, massacre.

Finally, I would like to pay a special word of tribute to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who has so tirelessly advocated strong and effective gun control legislation over the years. I have seconded a number of private members' bills that he has tabled and he has seconded a number of mine.

It is not often that I take the opportunity to commend a minister of this government. I see the Minister of Justice in the House today and I know he has made a genuine effort to respond to the concerns of Canadians. He has travelled extensively across the country and has listened to hunters, gun collectors and others in all provinces and territories, including my own province of British Columbia. I want to take this opportunity to commend the minister for his efforts to genuinely understand, listen to and respond to legitimate concerns of those in the field of gun control and for the leadership he is demonstrating in moving forward on this very important legislation.

I listened with interest to the previous speaker from the Reform Party who asked the question: Where is the evidence to back up the call for registration? I have a very interesting quote from the first Reform Party member of Parliament to sit in the House of Commons. The member for Beaver River spoke in this House on November 6, 1991. What she said on the question of firearm registration was very interesting.

"I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that over 90 per cent of all respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered". The Reform Party member for Beaver River went on to say: "I agree with that and I think every Canadian would agree with that as well". Let me just say that I agree with the member for Beaver River when she spoke in November 1991. I can only ask why it is that her colleagues have not listened to the very thoughtful analysis of the member for Beaver River as well.

The previous speaker for the Reform Party asked where the evidence is. I will cite a statistic to the Reform Party member who asked the question and left the House. In Britain in 1993-94 there were a total of 55 firearms deaths. That is in a country with a population of 60 million. In Canada there were over 1,400 deaths caused by legally owned firearms.

What more do those who ask for evidence need? We will save lives. We will reduce the level of crime. That alone is grounds for rejecting this amendment and moving ahead on this very important legislation.

Recently the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very comprehensive memorandum on the issue of registration because that is the issue. No one is questioning the importance of getting tougher on smuggling. No one is questioning the importance of tougher criminal sanctions. That is clear.

Some concerns have been raised about the potential impact of lengthy mandatory minimum sentences on prison populations and I share some of those concerns. The real issue and the purpose of the amendment is registration.

What do the chiefs of police have to say about registration? They say without information about who owns guns there is no effective gun control. Tracking guns that are imported into Canada and then sold is critical to controlling abuse. They point out registration will help promote safe storage which will reduce gun theft as well as suicides and accidents.

I have seen this in my own constituency. There was the case of a young man 18 years old who was at a party with a group of friends. He took out his father's gun and tragically was involved in a fatal shooting. A police officer from the Burnaby RCMP said it is a typical case of firearms not being secured the way they should and firearms not being handled the way they should, a life gone for nothing. How many other lives will we lose before we recognize this madness must come to an end?

I am proud that we do not have the American psychology of the right to bear arms. We do not have the pressures of the National Rifle Association intimidating elected representatives. We have seen powerful attempts to lobby.

One of the factors I am proud of that distinguishes Canada from the United States is we are prepared to say we do not believe in that culture of unrestricted gun ownership. This bill will help to preserve and to strengthen that commitment.

We will save lives with this bill. There is no doubt about that. Police, women's groups and others have made it very clear they want to see strong and effective registration. They want us to remove firearms from volatile situations. Those situations include circumstances in which there may be a suicide, in which there may be a homicide.

We want to make sure there are not undue costs of registration, that the system is not unduly burdensome. We want to put more resources into dealing with violence against women. The leader of my party has spoken out very eloquently on the importance of that.

We want to see more resources for enforcement at the border. The government is cutting back on public service. I am concerned that we not cut back on resources that will help us to fight smuggling. We want to do more in terms of prevention. I am deeply troubled by the cuts in the budget in social programs.

I am proud to stand in the House to oppose the amendment, to support the principle of this legislation. I believe in doing so that I am maintaining a long and honourable tradition of New Democrats who have spoken out for strong and effective gun control, for safer communities and for saving lives. I am very proud to continue in that tradition.

[Turkey, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the very grave human rights abuses committed by the Turkish government, including its history in Cyprus and the current illegal assault in northern Iraq, will the Prime Minister now explain why the head of the Turkish air force was invited to Canada last month, invited to fly the CF-5 aircraft himself?

Will the government finally do the right thing and not only cancel any potential sale of the CF-5s to Turkey but join our NATO ally, Norway, in saying that there will be no arms sales whatsoever to the repressive regime in Turkey?

[Turkey, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Last week I met in an Ankara, Turkey, prison with four respected members of the Turkish parliament, including Leyla Zana, who were sentenced in December to terms of up to 15 years for speaking out for human rights and democracy for the 12 million Kurds in Turkey.

In light of this appalling attack on elected members of Parliament, I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain why his government is sending a ministerial delegation to Turkey on April 23 to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the same Turkish parliament. Will the Prime Minister in these circumstances agree to review this decision which deeply concerns not only these members of Parliament but I am sure many Canadians?

[Points Of Order, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the provisions of Standing Order 53, this is a matter of a very urgent nature in which the normal rules of the House are suspended.

In this instance clearly we are talking about overriding collective bargaining rights and moving directly to a bill. As I understand it, before the question is put on the motion, members of the House should at least be given an opportunity to be heard on whether this matter is of sufficient urgency to should proceed under the extraordinary provisions of Standing Order 53.

This is a very serious matter. I spoke with the president of the Longshoremen's Union Local 514, Doug Sigurdson. He indicated they are currently in conciliation on this matter. The government wants to short circuit the collective bargaining process and move directly.

If that is to happen, the Chair should allow members of this House the courtesy of being heard under the provisions of Standing Order 53. That was not done and I would appeal to the Speaker to reconsider his position and to give us an opportunity to be heard.

[Petitions, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order with respect to the presentation of petitions. I have noticed that a practice seems to have grown in the House of members' indicating their concurrence with particular petitions.

This is a matter of debate. I wonder whether the Speaker might provide some guidance to the House on this matter because the practice has been growing.