John McKay

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that particular question would be addressed by the commission itself.

I want to speak to the issue of the level playing field.

I cannot, under the circumstances, imagine a more structurally level playing field. First, a complainant is just that, a complainant. The complainant is not accused of anything. Their liberties are not at risk. A complainant has a complaint about a police officer or the police. They are then afforded an opportunity to bring forward that complaint to a panel. The panel is able to waive normal rules of evidence and listen to that complaint in full. Even after the complaint they will be asked if there is anything else that the complainant would like to speak about.

When they bring forward a complaint about police officers or a complaint about any other matter, they will be subject to an examination by government counsel and by RCMP counsel because the person is complaining about the behaviour and the careers of these particular individuals and they have every right to be very careful in their response to the complaint.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this issue.

I would like to refocus the debate on the motion at hand which says in part that the government provide separate funded legal representation for complainants at the inquiry.

Some members of the House and some of the complainants appearing before the PCC panel in Vancouver have complained and the media has demanded that legal fees for the complainants at the APEC hearing be paid. They say that it is unfair for the government to fund counsel for its own officials and for the RCMP members but to deny it to the complainants.

When addressing the issue of funding for complainants, it is important to remember why the PCC was created by parliament. It was created by parliament just so that these complaints can be dealt with in a fair and open process. It was created in 1986. The member for Burnaby—Douglas is quoted as saying that it takes us out of the dark ages. With that I agree.

Since its creation it has developed an international reputation for fairness. It is a proper dispute resolution process. It is observably impartial. It is not adversarial. I would argue that it is a far better forum to resolve a dispute of this kind than is this House. This is not the place to conduct a trial.

When the question of providing funding for complainants first came before the PCC panel, it noted that it could not read into its enabling legislation this responsibility. The PCC chose to seek guidance on the question of providing funding for complainants from the Federal Court of Canada.

In her decision of July 20, Madam Justice Reed noted:

It seems reasonably clear that the commission does not have such authority. This follows in large measure from the terms of subsection 45.45(13) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act—. That subsection provides for payment by the commission of certain expenses incurred by complainants in certain circumstances. The payment of legal fees to allow them to be represented by counsel before the commission is not among these.

The presence of authority to pay for some expenses with an absence of authority to pay for legal fees leads to the conclusion, by implication, the commission does not have the authority to pay for the latter. In addition, the authority to pay amounts from the public purse is usually not a power that exists unless expressly conferred.

It is clear, as the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has stated, that the Commission has no jurisdiction and no authority to fund the complainants. Madam Justice Reed suggested in her decision that a panel could choose to recommend that the government provide funding for the complainants' counsel. The panel did approach the government regarding the granting of funding and the solicitor general, after serious and careful consideration, turned down that request.

In his letter to the panel the solicitor general said that the government is of the view that the panel can address all the complaints before it in an open and thorough manner without need for the government to provide funding for legal counsel for the complainants.

The PCC is already vested with broad authority. It can, under the terms of the RCMP Act, do the following: Summons any person before the board and require the person to give oral or written evidence under oath and produce such documents and things under the person's control as the board deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of the matter.

I remind members opposite that there are no limits on who can receive a summons. To summons any person includes any member of the government, including the solicitor general and the Prime Minister. There are no limits on the availability of witnesses to the commission.

In addition, it can administer oaths. It can receive and accept, on affidavit or otherwise, such evidence and other information as the board sees fit, whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law. The rules of admissibility are waived. Therefore, this can be far beyond the limitations that are imposed upon a court by the rules of admissibility and materiality.

It also specifies that any person whose conduct or affairs are being investigated by a board of inquiry or who satisfies a board of inquiry that the person has a substantial and a direct interest in the matter before the board shall be afforded a full and ample opportunity, in person or by counsel or by representative, to present evidence and make representations as needed. I would respectfully suggest to members opposite that the media have questioned the role of the government and that that, in and of itself, is sufficient reason for the government to retain counsel.

Therefore, it is clear that the complainants have considerable leeway to make their own views known. In this they will be assisted by counsel of the panel who has explained publicly that, in accordance with the PCC mandate, all efforts are being made to ensure that relevant evidence is heard by the panel and that unrepresented participants at the hearing shall be comfortable with the process.

May I suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that if he goes to the Sparks Street mall today and is assaulted, the accusation will be dealt with in a court of law. It will be processed through the court of law by a crown attorney. It will be subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be limits on the evidence that can be presented; limits on materiality and relevance. He will be vigorously cross-examined by a defence lawyer.

If, however, the same member has a complaint about the police in the same incident, he will be accorded a hearing before the commission. He will be afforded commission counsel, two additional counsel and three additional investigators. Evidence will be allowed that would never be allowed in a court of law and he will be able to state his complaint freely and fully.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a person who is a victim of an assault should receive independent counsel. It is equally ridiculous to submit that a complainant to a process such as this also have independent counsel.

The commission counsel will take all participants through the evidence. They will be asked in advance of and after their cross-examination if there is anything else they wish to bring to the attention of the panel. If so, the participants will then be given another opportunity to speak.

I would suggest that this honourable House is, in some respect, missing the point by focusing on this motion.

The first point is that there has been no comment on the tragedy befalling ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. There has also been no comment upon Canada's role and relationship with countries that routinely abuse human rights.

The opposition wants to talk about pepper spray, but the government wants to talk about its proper relationship in these deep and troubling circumstances.

I would suggest to hon. members that they reject this motion. This is not a motion that is appropriate. There will be a full and fair hearing. The rules of evidence are wide open and there will be a full and complete hearing of this matter.

[Government Of Ontario, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario were justifiably outraged recently when the Government of Ontario lowered the minimum age for hunting with a firearm to 12. As soon as the reformatories realized this was a terrible mistake they blamed the federal government.

Would the Minister of Justice please give this House and the solicitor general for Ontario an elementary lesson in jurisdiction between governments?

[William Hancox, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite you and my colleagues in this House to pay tribute to the late Detective Constable William Hancox who was killed on duty August 4 of this year.

Billy Hancox was not a man the world would call a hero. He was not a famous general, a superior athlete or a noted statesman. He was our neighbour, a decent man whose wife Kimberley and daughter Sandra will remember his kindness and happy nature. His son Sean, born after his death, will tragically never know him.

Billy Hancox wanted to be a police officer to serve and protect the rest of us in the community and he lost his life doing so. Every time he went to work he knew there were risks but he accepted that responsibility.

We should expand our understanding of the word hero to include Billy Hancox, his wife and his family who represent everything that is honourable in Canadian society.

[Canadian Executive Services Organization, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my statement may I say that you said it well this morning on behalf of us all. Surely Nelson Mandela will take his place among the greats of the 20th century.

I rise in the House to recognize two of my constituents who have made their contributions to the 20th century. These two individuals, Stan Judd and John Mackillop, have made contributions through the Canadian Executive Services Organization.

Stan Judd spent a month in Panama to help a company engaged in the purchasing, classification and distribution of specialty grains. Among other things, Mr. Judd designed a better cleaning and classifying process, developed a new faster cooking grain and designed effective packaging. Because of Mr. Judd, this company expects to increase production, reduce costs and improve product quality.

Mr. Mackillop went on assignment to Sri Lanka to assist in the production of artificial limbs. He helped prepare study material and training for a company.

Stan Judd and John Mackillop are to commended for their efforts.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

This is so patently obvious that the members opposite are unable to grasp the point. There will continue to be an effort on the part of the government to control trafficking in firearms.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the first point with respect to the proliferation of guns. It is my view that a great number of homicides are committed by people who know each other; in fact something in the order of 90%. They are either business partners, spouses or family. The registration of guns will diminish that level of homicide and that level of violence.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble explaining this issue to my hon. friend because he simply does not understand.

This is the issue. I could have a pile of firearms in my home and feel it will be too much hassle to get rid of them so I dump them at 50 cents on the dollar or whatever. I recommend that my hon. colleague speak to those who think that way because they are being absolutely foolish. They are blowing out an inventory which they should not. All they have to do is register. It is a fairly simple system. Suddenly they will have preserved their asset at 100 cents on the dollar. I cannot understand why anyone would discount their assets on that basis.

On his second point about police officers looking into a computer, I do not know how many times the hon. member has been in police officer's car but there are computers in the car. They punch up the name of the person, see whether there are guns, whether the individual is a registered firearm user, and then appropriately approach the residence. This seems to be fairly fundamental. If I were a police officer, I would like to know what was behind that door.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some considerable interest in this issue as it is a matter of great interest to Canadians and to my constituents.

The motion deals with two issues: Bill C-68 which was passed in the last parliament and the proclamation of the attendant regulations scheduled for October 1 and now postponed to December 1.

The principles behind Bill C-68 were quite eloquently stated by the president for the Coalition for Gun Control. They are the significant costs of not acting now in terms of victimization, years of life lost and economic impact. The remedy is understood, available, feasible and at a reasonable cost. Guns, crime, injury and death is a problem which will likely escalate if not addressed now. Finally the longer the proliferation of unregistered guns continues, the more difficult it will be to contain. In other words, gun registration addresses current problems and it invests in the future.

The single most important motivation behind the bill is public safety and the safety of police officers. I frankly have trouble understanding the position of the members of the Reform Party. Are they in fact against public safety? Do they wish to put the lives of police officers at risk? Do they prefer to see what we see in the United States of America?

I will direct their minds to certain rates. There are 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada. There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada. There are 222 million firearms in the United States of which 76 million are handguns. There is a much higher portion of homicides in the United States that involve firearms. On average there is 65% of homicides in the U.S. compared to 32% in Canada. Firearm homicides are 8.1 times higher in the United Stated than in Canada. Handgun homicides are 15.3 times higher. In the face of such startling statistics the government cannot simply stand by, ring its hands and do nothing.

I have trouble believing that the hon. member who proposed the motion wishes to go in that direction. This is a piece of legislation which is broadly supported by the Canadian public and the constituents in my riding.

I would draw the hon. member's attention to a recent Angus Reid poll in which 82% of Canadians approved the universal registration of shotguns and rifles. Contrary to the thesis of the member previous to me, interestingly there was 72% support in rural communities.

In addition, to give statistical response to the member's previous statement that this was really people in Toronto who do not know what they are talking about, may I suggest to him that he refer to the analysis done which says that in populations of one million the firearm homicide rate is 422 per 100,000. For communities less than 100,000 it is 427. For other homicides it is 768. In communities of less than 100,000 it is 804. Virtually identical rates for cities in excess of one million and for cities and communities of less than 100,000. There is no urban or rural divide on this issue. This is broadly supported by all Canadians.

The Reform Party and their kissing cousins, the reformatories in Queen's Park, are not responding to the public demands for public safety. Last week the reformatories proclaimed legislation enabling 12 year olds to be licensed. One has to wonder what they are thinking about by putting guns in the hands of children. In my community destroyed it absolutely destroyed their credibility on their big issue of getting tough on crime.

Canada has not been nor, if this legislator has any say about it, will ever be a country in which the right to bear arms is a constitutional, legal or moral mandate. The philosophy of Bill C-68 is sound and enjoys wide public support among many segments of the community, including those most likely to be victims, namely police officers and women.

Turning now to the regulations, I am curious to know if the mover actually has read the regulations or read the original regulations which I have in my hand. If he did, he would know that the government has moved miles in responding to quite a number of legitimate regulatory issues. This set of firearm regulations is a substantial change from that which was originally presented to us on the committee. I congratulate the government, as I do not often do, on its willingness to be flexible and not impose unduly bureaucratic regulations on Canadians.

Representations were made to the committee by manufacturers and changes were made; by the entertainment industry and changes were made; by shooting clubs and changes were made.

At the end of the day when the regulations were presented for a vote the only opposition on the committee came from those who fundamentally do not believe in Bill C-68. This gun control bill will never satisfy everyone no matter how reasonable, measured or balanced the regulations might be.

Turning now to the motion, the first issue is the confiscation of private property. If the mover thought about that for more than five seconds, he would realize that a proper registration system gives security of ownership and enhances value. Far from confiscating, it does the exact opposite and legitimizes the owning of firearms.

Certainly property registration does wonders for land titles and land values as it does for motor vehicles and other forms of property. Why would it not be true with firearms?

The second point is that it contains unreasonable search and seizure. With the proclamation of the law, the police will know if the occupant is licensed to own arms and what they might expect to find behind that door. If I were a police officer responding to a call I would sure like to know.

If individuals choose not to obey this law on some misguided point of philosophy, they derogate from the rule of law. This is not the advice the hon. member should be giving to Canadians. I urge him to rethink his position.

The third point is that it violates Treasury Board guidelines. These are conclusions rather than arguments and need no comment. Given the more casual approach to public safety, I would not expect him to say otherwise.

The fourth point is that it is an affront to law-abiding firearm owners. As of October 1, now December 1, all owners of firearms are law abiding, but in the days following those dates they put themselves beyond and outside the rule of law. Until April 30, 1999 I am a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen, but if I do not file my return I cease to be a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. So also will it be for those who fail to register their guns.

The fifth point is that it will exacerbate the trafficking of firearms. This is indeed a strange argument. Licensing will enhance property values, facilitate the processing of insurance claims and legitimize the owner. If anything, trade in illicit firearms will be carried on at the fringes. After a number of years those without proper licensing and registration will be marginalized and unable to acquire, dispose or trade. The police will know who they are, what they are doing, and will not have to unduly intrude into the lives of law-abiding gun owners that this motion purports to defend.

This motion deserves strong rebuke from the House as it defeats itself.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition to present with respect to Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, which would define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.