Raymond Bonin

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to present. The first is from the war pensioners of Canada in regard to basic service pensions.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, some rail union leaders in my riding have expressed serious concern over the rail legislation, especially clause 12.

Although there seems to be differing opinions in the membership, it is important to note that back to work legislation is far from our first choice. We prefer a negotiated settlement within the collective bargaining process but the shutdown of operations is crippling the economy.

I would ask that the union leaders prevent this legislation by telling CN, CP and VIA that they will go back to work tomorrow with a guarantee of no work disruption for a set period of time and that CN, CP and VIA be directed by the Minister of Labour to negotiate in good faith.

After all, the best guarantee of job security is good labour relations and a strong and competitive rail industry.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I object to the remarks made by Bloc Quebecois members to the effect that for francophones outside Quebec to oppose Quebec's separation constitutes interference. Such remarks clearly show the Bloc's policy of discouraging debate and silencing any opposition to separation. But the Bloc is ignoring an inescapable fact: you cannot silence a majority.

Francophones from across Canada-Quebecers, Acadians, Franco-Saskatchewanians and Franco-Ontarians-have always actively promoted and preserved their language and culture on this continent where we form a very small minority.

Our efforts have paid off and will continue to pay off because federalism and our political system are responsive and encourage the development of francophone communities. A majority of French Canadians recognize the Canadian federal system as a flexible system that promotes our development.

At the opening of this Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois said it was going to-

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to see the knowledge that my colleague opposite has cultivated regarding the situation of francophones outside of Quebec. When I first came to Ottawa, at the same time as he did, his party thought that I was one of their own when they heard me talk.

Most of these people have never ventured outside of Quebec. Most of these separatists were oblivious to the fact that there were any francophones outside of Quebec. My riding is 40 per cent francophone. I represent such a riding, and our separatist colleagues from Quebec do not even know we exist. At the end of 1978, René Lévesque came to Laurentian University in my riding in Sudbury and said to francophones outside of Quebec that Quebec had enough problems and had no time for us. That is what he said.

My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are surprised and moved that there are francophones outside of Quebec. I will give them a little background on northern Ontario. There were nine children in my family, all francophones. I organize family picnics for the Lefebvre family in my riding, and we invite all of the descendants of my grandmother and grandfather. I recall one year where 750 people registered, all francophones. So, come out of your shell! Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I meant to tell them through you to come out of the shell in which they have been hiding.

It is never adviseable to propose to separate from something you do not know. Go see the rest of Canada. Go see whether it exists, get a taste of it and you will conclude that it is worth keeping Canada together. Yes, if I rise in this House today and am so proud to speak to you in my mother tongue, French, it is because I had the opportunity to live it, to be raised in it and to speak it at university. My son is registered in a family medicine program in French in northern Ontario and my wife teaches at a French school.

Before being elected, I taught French in a French college; the new college is under construction. I was the president of a French-English school board, the majority of whose members were francophones. So do not try to tell me that francophones outside Quebec have no rights and that our rights are being taken away from us daily. We had our problems in the past, but we got to know one another instead of deciding to separate. We decided to sit down together and learn to work with one another.

I played hockey with the anglophones and I enjoyed it. They are good people. I also played in another league where everyone was French and we spoke French on the ice and in the locker rooms. We learned to work at overcoming problems, to respect one another. The respect of one person for another is very important for a federation.

The message is not complicated. For the separatists, if you wish to separate, at least know what you are separating from, because you run a very great risk of hurting the people you represent. This is not right, because the members of the Bloc Quebecois in this House do not represent the majority of Quebecers. They are playing a dangerous game and those of us from northern Ontario know it.

With reference to Radio-Canada, I am going to tell you about one of the problems we have in northern Ontario, because I think something needs to be said. Most of our programming comes from the province of Quebec, but we would like more local programming. The propaganda we get on the television and the radio is driving us to switch to our other francophone stations in northern Ontario.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this question has been asked so many times in the House. I will attempt to answer it differently because it seems that Reform members do not understand.

There is a balance to be offered when there is such a huge problem as we have in this country. We inherited the problem.

I like to compare it with a program I saw on TV. In New York City the underground infrastructure of the water system is so old and rusty that they cannot check to see if a valve is working. There is so much rust that the valve will break if they turn it. I like to make that comparison.

The people I share this with, the people of my riding and other ridings and the people from my party and other parties, except for the Reform Party, seem to relate that there is a danger in overkill.

Definitely, Canadians and the Liberal government would like to say let us slash and burn and there is no more debt. The only serious difficulty is it would affect human beings. That is the part the Reform Party cannot associate with. We include it in our answers and try to explain to them that they have to have some compassion. That word is used often by a good many members in this House but it is never used by members of the Reform Party.

A society with compassion is often judged by the way it treat its seniors. Taking $3 billion out of the seniors' pockets is not my idea of compassion. I have answered the question for the people who understand. I feel like the minister or the priest who preaches to the people who do not practise. They sit there having heard the answer so many times and still they do not understand.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my support for an innovative budget that sets the Canadian economy and Canadian federalism on a new course, a budget that at the same time remains faithful to the most fundamental Liberal principles. I commend the Minister of Finance on presenting a budget that strikes a balance between the need for a quick return to fiscal responsibility at the federal level and the need to maintain what identifies us as a people, the compassion of our social programs.

Since the pre-budgetary consultations began, the message from my constituents has been clear: we must tackle the deficit, but at the same time, we must be fair and equitable.

My constituents have told me unequivocally that, like each household, the government must learn to live within its means. It must concentrate on reducing the deficit by significant cuts in government spending, not by increasing the burden on the middle class.

They have also told me that they wish to see increased fairness in the taxation system and a continued protection for our most vulnerable by way of efficient and modern social programs. Those same constituents conveyed to me their belief that our social programs are in need of reform to modernize them and make them more efficient and pertinent to the realities of the 1990s.

I am pleased to state that I believe this budget to be a significant first step in achieving the delicate balance requested by my constituents. However, I must say that balance is only achievable because Canadians want and are ready to support real change, a new policy direction and a new approach to governing in Canada.

Getting government to live within its means is our first challenge. Not unlike a household, a government that lives above its means eventually faces hardship.

There can be no doubt that the accomplishments of Canada and Canadians, a nation with a small population base, are unprecedented. Canadians have banded together to build the best nation in the world. Our resource base is abundant. Our population is well educated and hard working. Our private sector is dynamic and entrepreneurial spirit abounds.

Last year we led the G-7 in growth. Our inflation is low, exports are booming and jobs are being created. Our economy is on track. The fundamentals and basic ingredients for guaranteed economic success are in place.

However, our interest rates and the currency are at the mercy of the international financial markets that speculate on our ability to control public debt and deficits. Those markets have us living under a microscope and any rumour can send our interest rates upward and our dollar plummeting. Under those conditions, Canadians live under a perpetual cloud of economic uncertainty which affects personal financial decisions as well as business decisions.

Year after year governments have spent more than they have taken in. We have borrowed to the point where our ability to repay is in doubt. We are now at the mercy of lenders that monitor our every move. It can be said that public policy is now judged by its impact on Canadians and on our creditors, who are more concerned with our ability to repay than our aspirations as a people. In a true sense, because of the rising debt and persistent deficit we are losing control of the public policy agenda.

The budget is unprecedented in scope and comprehensiveness. It builds on last year's initiatives and sets the stage for regaining control of public finances and the public policy agenda, signalling the eventual return to our traditional focus of building a fair and just society.

The budget significantly reduces the deficit. In three years the government will have saved $29 billion. We will have reached the target of 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 and if private sector forecasts are correct, we will even surpass it. As the Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated, we must meet the deficit reduction target or risk remaining vulnerable to the speculation of the international financial markets.

The budget does more than set out a deficit reduction plan. It also defines a new approach to government, a new approach more in tune with the needs and challenges of the nineties.

When the government accepted the challenge of deficit reduction it rejected the slash and burn approach or the notion of across the board cuts. Across the board cuts of 20 to 30 per cent are not the key to deficit reduction for the simple reason that a 30 per cent cut in a bad program still leaves 70 per cent waste, whereas a 30 per cent cut in a good program just does not make sense.

A slash and burn approach to deficit reduction may achieve results, but more often than not at the expense of those most vulnerable. That is not our way. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We also believe in fairness. The government knows that in addition to deficit reduction, the machinery of government has to be renewed to better serve Canadians in a new economy.

The budget makes the federal government smaller while it lays the foundation for a government that is smarter, more efficient, more responsive and more focused on renewed priorities. That is the essence of a program review. Under program review the departments started with a simple question: In the nineties, what should a federal government do for the people? Those things a federal government should do are being analysed to determine the best way to deliver them.

The things a federal government should not do were either discarded as something that no government at any level should do or were determined to be best achieved by a level of government closer to the people. The end results are smaller departments, $16.9 billion in cuts from program review alone, but smarter departments with renewed mandates, a tighter focus and new priorities that will better serve the taxpayers and better support an innovative economy.

The process of reinventing the role and the machinery of government clearly demonstrates that Canadian federalism is flexible and continues to evolve to meet the changing needs of Canadians and of the new economy. We all know that well-publicized constitutional conferences at which little is produced but disagreement and divisiveness are not a viable source of change.

Change in our federation occurs incrementally, through discussion, through dialogue and through negotiation on practical issues of concern to everyday Canadians. It is at this level that Canadian federalism is flexible and responsive to the needs of all their citizens.

As a francophone from northern Ontario, I have witnessed this change. It is because of Canadian federalism, flexible federalism, that I am able to stand in this House today and speak in my mother tongue to talk of my heritage, which I have kept and enriched, and of my pride in being a French Canadian.

The road has not always been easy, and there have been struggles on a number of occasions. However, without Canada, without federalism, the battle would have been lost from the start.

A critical component of program review has always been that the level of government best positioned to deliver a service should do so. Such a bold statement clearly demonstrates that the federal government wishes to actively promote the evolution of federalism because it is in the best interest of Canadians. Federalism in Canada is not about the status quo.

That federal wish is inherent in the new transfer system to the provinces. The block funding system discards the cost sharing roles to give the provinces more flexibility in delivering programs funded in part by the federal government. This measure acknowledges the need to tailor social programs to meet the specific needs of Canadians living in different parts of the country. The 4.4 per cent reduction in transfers to the provinces is a necessary measure to help the federal government meet its deficit reduction target.

However, it must be emphasized that in 1996-97 the federal government will be transferring to the provinces $35.3 billion. I know that the majority of Canadians will agree that transfers in the order of $35.3 billion per year confirms the government commitment to equalization payments and the support of provincially run social programs. In addition, the government is always prepared to meet with the provinces to establish prin-

ciples which govern the distribution and the use of those transfers.

My experience at the local level has clearly demonstrated to me that much of the funds targeted for social programs are consumed by administration. The money directed to the poor is not reaching them because of the high cost of administration. With flexibility I am hopeful that the provinces will be in a position to lower administrative costs and get more money out of the hands of administrators and down to the people who need it. If properly managed, savings could even reach the 4.4 per cent of reductions in transfers.

Some provinces or provincial governments may try to characterize the cuts and transfers as a personal attack or downloading. I would remind those people that we have three levels of government, including the municipalities, but we only have one taxpayer. In the end, that one taxpayer does not draw any benefit from a provincial budget that is balanced by way of transfers from a debt ridden federal government.

Deficits and accumulated debts are common problems throughout the federation at all levels of government. We must learn to work together to solve them in the best interest of that one taxpayer.

As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, the budget is unprecedented in scope and comprehensiveness. It puts us on the right track for deficit reduction. For every $1 of new revenues the budget will generate, there will be $7 in cuts.

No government likes to cut but we were left with limited choices. We proceeded in what we believed to be a rational and fair way. We did not cut blindly. As I mentioned earlier, we began with non-priority areas and also sought to renew the role of the machinery of government to bring about significant savings of $16.9 billion. We applied the principle of shared responsibility to the concept of deficit reduction. To protect the more vulnerable, we asked those who could afford it to shoulder a larger part of the burden.

For example, the budget sets out massive cuts to industrial programs, business subsidies, regional development agencies, transportation subsidies. There are also significant cuts to defence, natural resources and Canadian heritage. All in all, there were significant cuts in varying degrees in the vast majority of departments.

On the revenue side we have moved decisively to introduce new fairness into the tax system. We have sent a clear message to those able to pay that they will have to shoulder an increased responsibility for deficit reduction. For example, we have set temporary limits on RRSPs at $13,500, affecting only those who earn in excess of $75,000. There will be a new tax on investment income of private corporations. We will eliminate deferral of tax on business income. We will limit some incentives. We will tax family trusts. We have increased tax on large corporations. There is a new corporation surtax. We have a new capital tax on banks. Finally, there is the gasoline tax.

Looking at the overall picture of the revenue side I am sure the majority of Canadians will agree that we have met the criteria of fairness. I am sure that in the future we will move again to close more loopholes.

I would like to take a few seconds to tell the House what the budget is not about. The government has demonstrated the courage to open the budget process to let Canadians in. Throughout the process we emphasized that we would use a balanced and fair approach.

The opposition has used this consultation process to falsely suggest that the government would impose additional taxes on the middle class. Members said we would overburden the middle class with the budget. We have not. They said that there would be a health tax. There is none. They said that there would be a dental benefit tax. There is none. They said there would be a tax on RRSPs. There is none. They said there would be a tax on lotteries. There is none. Finally, they said there would be income tax increases. There are none. I would also add that there are no increases in UI premiums.

In the end, I believe we have achieved a fair distribution of restraint among all Canadians in all regions of the country.

Madam Speaker, some individuals and groups tell us we have gone too far, while others say we have not gone far enough. I answer them by saying that we have done what we said we would: we have formulated a budget that will meet our objectives and targets for deficit reduction.

We have chosen the best route. Our budget is carefully balanced. It balances the need to control government expenditures with the need to provide the protection of social programs to our most vulnerable. Cutting too much in order to satisfy the financial circles would mean too great a cost to the disadvantaged and would weaken Canadian confidence in the economy. Cutting too little, on the other hand, would threaten our ability to pay our expenditures and make us more vulnerable to control by foreign markets.

In hard times, the provinces turn to the federal government for leadership. Unfortunately, during the last nine years, the provinces turned to the federal government for leadership, and the Mulroney government failed to provide it.

I would like to repeat the quote given by the Minister of Finance in his speech: "Government must not live in the past- Every day there are new needs to be met. If inflation is to be

fought, unemployment countered and something done, and soon, to get Canadian prosperity back into its stride, the government must begin to plan ahead-not timidly, not tentatively-but boldly, imaginatively and courageously".

It is no coincidence that the person with the Prime Minister is the son of the individual who made this statement. He is the person, the son of Paul Martin, Senior, who will return stability, confidence and prosperity to Canada.

Furthermore, Canadians may be assured that their federal government will provide the leadership sought by the provinces. If we are now facing a new opposition consisting of two parties, the Reformers and the Bloc Quebecois, it is because the Mulroney government did not meet the provinces' call for leadership.

For this very reason, the Liberal team will respond to this call by the provinces and these new parties will inevitably disappear.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to the attention of the House another issue in the budget. I would like to offer the services of my riding and my region to help the Minister of Finance fulfil this commitment. Sudbury and the region of Nickel Belt have rich mines, skilled workers and all the skills and institutions in place to provide to the Government of Canada the new $2 coin that is referred to in the budget. We would be pleased to provide that service for the rest of Canada.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister travelled to Alberta on at least five occasions. Possibly the hon. member opposite was misled when I said that, as a back-bencher, I had asked the minister to come and visit my riding. I think he heard somehow that I was the Minister of Justice. He heard wrong. Mr. Rock is the Minister of Justice and I am the back-bencher.

I would like to address the first question, as I am told it was not answered. How will registration help reduce crime? Already, I have widows phoning me to say: "I have rifles here and I do not know what to do. Can you help?" Already, people in my riding are starting to say: "We have rifles at home and we want to get rid of them."

People who own between 200 and 300 rifles will take them out, women will make sure that men get rid of rifles, and vice versa, and the problem will be solved.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge is accepted. I will be running in the next election and I will support this bill.

I am here to do a job. I am here to do what is good for Canadians. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, everything that I do in politics is not measured by the number of votes that I will be getting. I am here to do an honest job. I swore an oath. I told people about the way that I do my politics and my politics are done for the good of the people I represent, not to be re-elected.

It is fascinating that people who question every simple statistic presented by reputable companies, who have disputed every poll done by credible, reputable companies are saying show them statistics. We know already they will say they are all wrong, only their statistics apply.

My hon. colleague who asked the question said that he was a police officer and that he had never heard of such hogwash. When I said there were 250 to 300 rifles in some of my constituents' basements, it is because a crime was committed in one of those homes, the wife was killed and suicide occurred. I do not make up these stories. They break us up when we think about them, when we think of their children and their neighbours. It is not hogwash. If that is the type of police officers in his community, I am very pleased he was not a police officer in northern Ontario. I will leave it at that.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Last summer was when the debate first started and I remember full well. It has been a good debate. We have served our constituents well. We have met with them. Many times my constituents were misinformed and they disagreed with me. I met with them anyway and I took my bumps.

Last summer when we met for the first rally, here is what was distributed. It is very interesting that many of the lines that are used in the presentations by the Reform members are lines that are used in the documents of propaganda. It may be a coincidence.

This is how the debate started: "To all firearms owners, the federal Minister of Justice wants to ban all firearms in Canada. Contact your member of Parliament immediately and tell him or her the following: This is unacceptable. Firearm owners are tired of being punished for the acts of criminals. Members of Parliament who advocate gun control or the banning of firearms and ammunition banning are attempting to deceive Canadians into thinking that gun control will prevent or reduce crime. Banning of firearms and gun control will not prevent or reduce

crime. Criminals do not obey laws", and it goes on to talk about polls. When I heard these things at the beginning I said no.

The media called me and asked whether I supported the banning of all guns, arms and long rifles. I said that I did not support that as it is part of our culture. I still have guns. Every year my brothers phone me and ask: "Are you coming hunting with us this year? You have not been hunting with us for a number of years. You are so involved with your politics you never have time to come hunting". But I will go back. Someday I will retire and I will go hunting. I am a legitimate gun owner and I will be the first one lined up to register my guns.

But then there was a debate. People call it a rally. There we were, as we usually say, two against a thousand. But it was two against about 250. It was amazing. The information that came out of that room was scary. When it was over I moved through the hall talking to individuals. I asked one individual: "What is the problem for you?" The answer was: "It is going to cost a lot and it is not going to work". I asked: "If it does not cost a lot and it is an efficient and effective system, can you live with that?" The answer was yes.

Do you know what? One of the organizers stepped in and said: "Do not say that. That is what Hitler did. He registered all guns and then he confiscated them all". That is the fear that was put into them. Some of these people were senior citizens. The reason they were concerned about the cost is because it is difficult for them to make ends meet. These organizers put that fear into their minds. They said: "That is what Hitler did". I heard Hitler's name so many times it was scary.

My answer to them is that in Canada we have more boy scouts and girl guides than we have soldiers, so we cannot go in and confiscate all those guns. We have no intention of doing it and we do not have the capacity to do it.

We kept getting the calls. Getting the calls is very difficult because everyone agrees that we work long hours and it takes time. However, that is the best way to deal with the issue. I would rather get 100 phone calls than meet 100 people in one hall because I know I can give the correct information and mail out documents.

Canadians are reasonable when we pull the individuals away from the people who try to influence their way of thinking. They understand common sense. They tell me that if it is cheap and reasonable, there is no problem and they will register them. That is what is happening and it will be cheap.

We continued the debate and the fear mongering kept happening. Now we are here with a document. We had a document before Christmas which I mailed out to many people. Some people will never agree with anything that is said. Maybe they were former Reform Party candidates, I do not know, but they will never agree. It is impossible to discuss common sense with them. Now we have a document so I am calling them.

If I have a few minutes I call them and say for example: "You are a target shooter and you are the first group I went to see. I went to see you at the range on a Sunday morning". Like the minister, I was impressed at the seriousness of these people and how they are careful to check their members. I remember being asked for a letter of reference for a person who wanted to become a member. They go through the whole thing. It impressed me. That was at the time when it was being said that we would confiscate all these things. The media was saying it and the Reform Party was saying it.

I said to them then: "No. The Liberal Party does not do it to the people; we do it for the people. We are being asked to do it and we will do it for Canadians". Now I call them and I say: "Tell me what the problem is with the bill in the way we have presented it. Does it prevent you from practising your sport?" One of them said: "Well, the .32". I said to him: "No, in the legislation you will find that all guns and rifles that are used in legitimate competitions will be permitted". They had no problem with that.

Some will have a problem. When I go back they will have heard this and they will say: "Ray, you said I would have no problem and I have a problem". I agree that some people will have problems.

Before talking about the collectors, just before I left home I saw a sad thing on TV. I cannot even begin to tell you how many rifles, guns, grenades, rounds of ammunition, launchers and machine guns that someone turned over. The discussion was bringing people out of the woodwork. This was in a private home. It scared the heck out of me. We do not know who the individual is. For all I know, it could be my neighbour. I do not think so but it is somebody's neighbour.

I called the legitimate collectors and asked them if they had a problem. They do not have a problem any more. They have intelligently and reasonably brought their comments to the Minister of Justice either directly or through us and their concerns have been addressed. Their investment can now be sold to other collectors of the same nature and the estate can sell them. Brokers eventually will sell them outside the country, the illegal ones. Eventually they will be gone and I will be glad when they are.

Some people said: "Well this gun came from my great-grandfather". When they told me that I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Justice because I had to agree with them. It is not a gun that will be used even for target shooting. It is just great-grandpa's gun or rifle. It is something that you do not sell, there is no value in that. Now we are going to find a way for people to pass them on.

We are left with registration, the only other problem we can have now. The minister has repeatedly told us today that it will be cheap. It may be free. I am talking about registration. It may be free and will be very reasonable. I am talking about people. I am talking about the gun owners.

It is difficult for the Reform Party to relate that I am talking about individuals. It is talking about the 85 million, because it does not know how to associate an issue with individuals. That is what we are talking about here today. The cost will be very reasonable. It will be efficient.

After we had our discussions, our rallies, the pro-gun groups were still not satisfied. I understand it was because there was so much wrong information going around. On their behalf I asked the justice minister to come to our region to talk to the people who are against him.

As backbenchers they say we do not count in this House and cannot do a thing. We, the backbenchers, were able to ask our Minister of Justice to come to our communities to talk to the people who are working against him. Tell me another country where that happens. That does not even happen in the United States, a democracy. However, in Canada it does because we have a Minister of Justice who cares about people, individuals. He covered six ridings.

It was suggested that we invite four individuals in each riding. I invited the president of the local gun club. I did not try to dodge the issue, did I? I invited the president of the local gun club who was against the legislation and probably still is. I will have to phone him when I get back home.

I invited the president of the fish and game association, who is adamantly against it. He bought a membership in my riding and he was going to the annual meeting in Toronto, and we did not try to stop him or railroad the meeting. We welcomed him. To balance the load, I invited the crown attorney because they meet the victims.

My fourth candidate was Dr. Bota who works in emergency at Sudbury General Hospital. This is the individual who meets the victims, sometimes teenagers who try to commit suicide with these long rifles lying around uncontrolled in their homes. They blow off half their face. He works on them for hours and hours. He saves them and tries to rebuild their features. These young people are still alive. They are discouraged individuals. If we can save one of them, it is worth it. One in a hundred years is worth it.

Let one go. It is just an individual. That is what I am hearing-embarrassing. The hard core individuals said the figures were all wrong in Dr. Bota's study, who had just marked real cases, a real scientific poll.

Canadians have asked us to do something for them. They have asked us to make Canada safe. The women of Sudbury who are walking one night a year to take back the streets that are too dangerous are saying do it.

I say to the minister let us do it fast, in spite of the members from the Reform, because we know the people they represent want us to do it too.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

The so what is that come June, junior boy or girl graduates from high school and throws a party. There are 300 people in that house and a fight breaks loose. Members are laughing. We are talking about possible victims and they are laughing. When the fight breaks out and the police are called they say: "Give us a break. Give us a chance. Before we knock on that door we want to know if there are 300 guns downstairs". And these members laugh.

This legislation is just a small piece of a large puzzle. All members of Parliament take their jobs seriously, even my colleagues from the Reform Party. I know they take their jobs seriously. I do not think their motives are correct, but I think they believe in them so they are doing the best they can.

I take this very seriously. Gun control is very serious. Guns are serious. However it is not the most pressing problem in my life. I want to deal with this, I want to pass it and I want to get it done.

Then I want to move on to senior citizens who are losing their ability to support themselves, some of whom are lonely and addicts dying alone. I want to deal with people who cannot find jobs. I want to deal with children who go to school in the morning with cramps in their bellies because they do not have food. I want to move on. When we deal with these issues I hope my colleagues will have the same vigour they have when they take so much pleasure in talking about guns. What a fun thing to talk about.

I want to deal with family violence. I want to deal with the deficit. I want to deal with the debt. For Canadians to be part of a democracy, if the price they have to pay is to register their guns and their long arms then I am prepared to do it. I will be the first to line up to register mine.

Reform members say that registration will not eliminate all serious crimes so we should not do anything about it. They do not worry about how many guns people have. They do not worry about the kinds.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police say that we need gun registration. The police association says: "We support registration. Help us do our job". The Reform Party says: "They do not know what they are talking about". The police officers want it. Their associations do too.

The Reform Party spoke of motions that were presented by towns and municipalities. The FCM represents all municipalities in this country and it supports this. But the Reform Party says: "They do not know what the heck they are talking about". The list goes on. I will not name them all because it will take up my 20 minutes.

Nobody knows anything about anything, only the few members of Parliament here on the Reform side who do not even agree with the majority of people in their own ridings.