Gilles Bernier

[Marriage Act, 1997, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines competition as a rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market. Accordingly if the Royal Canadian Mint carries through on its threat to borrow $30 million on the taxpayers' good credit rating and begins its risky venture into the coin blank market, it will become a competitor of Westaim Corporation from Alberta.

Westaim is a successful Canadian business with 110 employees in its coin plating division. For 35 years it has supplied coin blanks to the Canadian mint as well as to mints in countries around the world. However, in keeping with the government slogan that no good deed goes unpunished, the Liberals have decided to put this company out of business and its employees out of work.

This is not the first time the Liberals have interfered in a successful Canadian industry. In the 1970s the Liberal government of the day moved into the oil industry by purchasing Petrofina and setting up an intrusive national energy program. That brilliant scheme cost jobs, damaged the oil industry and wasted millions of precious taxpayers' dollars.

Why can this government not butt out and let the private sector take care of itself? Small and medium size businesses are the backbone of our Canadian economy. Throwing away money may be something this government has perfected, but putting companies out of business is going a little too far.

Experts from the South African and Birmingham mints have estimated that there is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the world coin blank market. They have predicted a reduction in demand in the near future.

Canadians are using cash and coins less and less. Why? Increasingly we are all using our bank cards, credit cards and in the very near future we will begin using electronic cash cards.

I would not want the government to be getting into the coin blank business now any more than I would have wanted it to get into the horse drawn buggy business in the 1900s. This venture would put the government into a start-up business in a sunset industry when there is already a saturated market.

Only two outcomes are possible, neither of which are desirable. Either the mint will bury Westaim and put its 110 workers on the unemployment lines, or the mint's new business will go down in flames and taxpayers will be on the hook for a minimum of $30 million.

Six months ago the mint started construction on its new coin plating plant, yet the minister does not have the authority of parliament to spend this money. Furthermore, the mint does not have the legal right to use the manufacturing process necessary to make coin blanks. Westaim owns the patent on this softening process and still has an unresolved lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mint.

As a government owned crown corporation, the mint could have used the patent if it had bought a licence, but it did not. As a result, the mint cannot legally manufacture coin blanks with this process and it is tied up in a lawsuit that might scuttle the entire project.

In conclusion, I have two questions. How can the minister arrogantly risk taxpayers' dollars on a project that might never see the light of day? If this matter is before the courts, why is the minister allowing the construction of the coin plating plant to continue?

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every first time applicant for CPP disability pension is rejected as a matter of policy according to HRDC staff in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Take the case of Brian Loman. He is on heavy medication for a cranial disorder and has a severe bowel problem causing chronic pain. His family doctor and two specialists say he will never be able to work again, yet CPP has rejected his claim twice.

Will the minister of human resources indicate why a legitimate disability pension applicant is being denied access to the disability program?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about myself. I said that I did own a gun. I had an FAC licence. What more do I need? Why do I have to register the same gun twice? If that is not a tax grab, what does she call it?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member from the other side of the House was referring to. He never put his question forward. I think he was just making a statement.

The only thing I can say is that today we have a supply day which is dealing with Bill C-68. I will vote in favour of repealing gun registration because I believe in it. It is not because of the Reform Party, but because I believe in it.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the member of the Reform Party.

He did not talk very much about gun control. He talked about the waste of the Conservative Party when it was in power. Since I have been a member of parliament we have all criticized the Liberals because of the waste they have created since 1993. I sympathize with all opposition parties.

The Reform Party thinks it is number one because it is the official opposition. It has criticized the government at every chance.

We remember well that during the campaign their leader said he would not move into Stornoway. No, he would turn it into a bingo hall. After the election he moved into Stornoway and wasted $1 million of taxpayers' money to renovate it. This year he is going to waste another $230,000. The Reform Party has nothing to show the Conservative Party.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that a member of the Reform Party would talk like that about the Conservative Party. After all, we are a national party, whereas the Reform Party is just a regional party. When it comes—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to talk about the current Firearms Act, formerly Bill C-68.

When I ran for politics, during my campaign I became very familiar with Bill C-68.

I come from a rural riding in New Brunswick. As a matter of fact, I live in the woods and owned a gun at one time. When I ran for office, a lot of people in my riding, in New Brunswick, were totally against Bill C-68. As I heard and read more about it, I became totally against the bill.

When I ran to become a member of parliament I was very vocal about being against Bill C-68. My party, the Conservative Party of Canada, at that time said that if we formed the government we would scrap Bill C-68. I am now a member of parliament, but my party did not form the government. The people who put this bill forward have formed the government. I do not agree with it, but that is how democracy works.

Since that time I have been bothered by a few questions. I have personally been against firearm registration. I sold my gun because I did not understand why I should have to register it. As I had a licence and the gun was already registered, I wondered why I should have to register it a second time. For me it is purely political and a tax grab by the Liberals.

What bothers me the most is that today is a Reform supply day and all day they have been talking about Bill C-68. The Reform Party also said that if it formed the government it would repeal Bill C-68, but it did not form the government. Since then the Reform Party has been very vocal in the media and outside the House as to what Bill C-68 will do to Canadians.

Sometimes inside this House I feel that the story is different. We know that a subcommittee was set up last December by the justice department, made up of the justice critics from each party. Bill C-68 has now become law. It is harder to throw a law out than to throw a bill out. Now that the law is there we thought it would be easier for us to present amendments to the subcommittee which would help change some provisions within the law to make it easier for Canadians who live in rural areas to hunt. Just because we own guns does not mean we are criminals.

When the time arrived for all parties to meet at the subcommittee, the date was December 2, 1997. The critic for the Conservative Party was there with five amendments. He would have been able to change some of those provisions. The Reform Party went to the subcommittee with one amendment, which was to repeal Bill C-68 and nothing less than that.

I met people who voted for the Reform Party. They told me that the only gun control they want in the country is to be able to go to bed at night with a loaded gun next to their bed. Do we live in Canada or do we live in the jungles of Cambodia?

At the subcommittee, after the Reform Party brought in the amendment to repeal Bill C-68, which was defeated, instead of staying at the meeting to help the Conservative Party with its amendments, Reform members left the room saying that it was not an important issue for them. We had five amendments. On three of them even the Liberal side was split. If the Reform Members had stayed at the subcommittee three of the amendments could have passed, but we lost everything.

Today in the House we spent all day listening to speeches about Bill C-68. Personally I feel it is a waste of taxpayers' money because when members of the Reform Party had the chance to change some of the amendments they walked out.

Today there was a big rally on the Hill. From my office I could see the people. I sympathize with all Canadians because I support them and I am one of them. I do not know how many people there were at the rally. There may have been 5,000 or more. I support them and I will keep supporting them.

I am against gun control, but it is law now. Why can we not work together to try to change some of the provisions within the law to make it easier for people like me and many other Canadians who live in rural areas to own a firearm?

Members of the Reform Party come to the House and advocate one thing, but when they go outside it is another story. They tell Canadians that they are on their side and they are fighting to repeal gun control, but at the subcommittee they walked out, saying it was not an important issue for them.

What is going on here? It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

[Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for one year now, and I am proud of it.

Whenever we put a question to the solicitor general, we always get one of three answers: either it is before a committee, under investigation or before the courts.

My question is an easy one. Did the Prime Minister consult the solicitor general before ordering the spraying of students with pepper gas, or did he simply bypass him because he knew those actions were illegal?

[Apec Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, generally, when the Prime Minister sees fit, in a matter of great importance, to become involved in an area that comes under the responsibility of one of his ministers, he consults the minister in question in order to determine the best way to proceed.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Did the Prime Minister consult him before ordering the RCMP to violate the constitutional freedom of expression and assembly of a group of students during the APEC summit last year?

[Youth Unemployment, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to figures provided by human resources development, the minister has cut funding for summer career placements in New Brunswick by over $300,000 from last year.

On Wednesday the minister mistakenly suggested that the funds were cut because the unemployment rate for youth has dropped in New Brunswick. The minister needs to check his facts. His department's own numbers show that youth unemployment in New Brunswick is up 2% from last year to 21%.

Finding a summer job is the only way many New Brunswick students can afford to pay for the skyrocketing costs of education. Many small businesses, non-profit organizations and municipalities can only hire students with the help of government programs. Unfortunately, because of the minister's cuts to summer job programs there are students across New Brunswick who will not be able to continue their education this fall.

Last year the Liberal Party lost two-thirds of its seats in Atlantic Canada and it seems to me it has learned nothing.