Debates of Nov. 30th, 1994

Native Peoples

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought forward a question that is of great concern to public health and to the Ministry of Health.

We have been spending a million dollars a year so far to curb tuberculosis in aboriginal communities. We have now added $2.8 million extra per year over the next three years to try to eradicate tuberculosis so that by the year 2000 there will only be 20 per 100,000 affected and by the year 2010 we will have eradicated it completely.

Electronic Surveillance

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Press has reported that an interdepartmental working group co-ordinated by the PCO is studying the issue of electronic surveillance by federal authorities.

The group is concerned with the development of a clipper chip that would ensure that government agencies like CSIS, the RCMP and the CSE are able to intercept telephone, fax and computer transmissions despite attempts to encrypt them.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm the existence of this working group and explain why, if CSE does not have a mandate to spy on Canadians, it is concerned about ensuring the ability of government agencies to spy on Canadians when the CSE is supposedly prohibited from doing so?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, one of the tasks of the CSE is to advise the government on the protection of the data in its computers because of the issue of cryptography.

It is quite normal that the CSE would be on a working group within the government where the working group is looking at developments in the United States and has been asked to give advice to government of what measures we may have to take to protect the privacy of information in our data banks from possible questionable intrusion.

Trade

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

It has to do with the stated intention of the government to expand NAFTA to include first Chile and perhaps other southern American countries. Recently the government opposed an attempt by the NDP to inject a social dimension into the legislation having to do with the Uruguay round.

I ask the Minister for International Trade whether in the Canadian negotiations leading to the expansion of NAFTA it is the intention of the government to continue to shy away from introducing a social clause or a social dimension into these treaties or whether he could say today that in those negotiations leading to the expansion of NAFTA the government does intend to insist on a social clause, charter, dimension, whatever you want to call it so that we have a truly level playing field in these agreements.

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA agreement includes two side accords, one on labour and one on the environment. Those will be an integral part of the negotiation with Chile with regard to its accession.

On the broader question of social policy and trade, that issue is being addressed in the International Labour Organization and indeed to a degree in the OECD. The recommendations and the findings of the ILO will come in time before the World Trade Organization.

[The Speaker]

It being 3 p.m., I have a point of order from the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Points Of Order

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and to the point.

When the leader of the Reform Party questioned the Minister of Justice regarding the leak of his statement on gun control, the Minister of Justice suggested that confidential material concerning his statement on gun control may have been leaked by the opposition.

This is not only entirely untrue but it is impossible because this material was broadcast on television last night and is in the Globe and Mail this morning. Our party and the Bloc received the information only after eight o'clock this morning.

I would ask that the minister retract this statement and clear the air so that there is no condemnation and no unfounded charges against this party.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that I said no such thing.

I make it clear if there is any doubt that I was not suggesting that. Rather, I was responding to the statement that I was preferring interest groups and journalists to the House of Commons. I was making the point that I gave no information to journalists. I do not know who did. The people I gave it to were my colleagues in the House and in accordance with the time honoured practice on a lock-up basis for those who are particularly in the issue.

I did not suggest nor do I say that hon. members opposite breached the terms on which I gave them the documents. I make no such statement.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to certain petitions.

Gun Control

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, one of the defining characteristics of our country is its deep commitment to order and to civility. It has been that way from the beginning.

Ours is a nation created by consensus, not by revolution. Our domestic history is a chronology of quiet accommodation rather than dramatic conflict. We are known throughout the world for our distinctly peaceful character. Our proudest international symbol is the blue beret. Our most valued asset at home is the safety of our cities and of our streets.

Canadians firmly intend to preserve and strengthen the outstanding civility that has always distinguished them. The political and legislative program on safety in public and private places shows this government's commitment in this regard.

It is in the context of that unconditional commitment to public safety that we undertook and have now completed a thorough review of Canada's laws in relation to firearms.

I rise in the House today to announce the decisions that we have arrived at and to table a document that sets them out in detail.

Let me first report to the House on the process that I followed in preparing the decisions that are being announced today. Since May of this year when the Prime Minister asked me to take on this challenge, I have worked with the caucus of the Liberal Party to meet with Canadians from all walks of life who are interested in this issue.

During the past five months I have visited for this purpose all 10 provinces and both territories. I have met with more than 150 national and regional groups of firearm owners and users: with farmers for whom the rifle is a tool in their daily work, with hunters, with gun collectors, and with sports shooters, some of whom have achieved international distinction in their sport.

I have visited aboriginal communities and I have spoken with families that hunt for sustenance. I have also met with police, doctors, nurses and victims organizations. I have reviewed the research relating to firearms safety and public health. I have listened and I have learned. I now wish to report on this extensive process of consultation.

In the first place there is of course no doubt that the entire subject of the regulation of firearms is controversial, but I can also report that there are broad areas of consensus. First, Canadians believe strongly that they do not want a country in which people feel they must own a firearm to protect themselves. That is simply not the way we wish to live.

Second, Canadians want above all to have a lawful and safe society in which the criminal misuse of firearms is dealt with severely. Canadians do not want to follow the approach taken to firearms by the United States. They want this government to chart a different course that will lead us to a different destination.

Third, I have learned that the firearms question is not a rural-urban issue. Canadians who live in the rural environment are just as concerned about their safety as are the rest of us. Indeed, they have reason to be concerned. Studies have shown that the homicide rate in rural areas is almost twice that in the urban environment.

Fourth, Canadians want our firearms laws to acknowledge and respect the legitimate interests of hunters and of farmers. They too are an important part of the Canadian way of life. Hunting is a long and valued tradition in Canada. It is a pastime enjoyed by many Canadians and, of equal importance, it is a very significant economic activity for many regions of this country.

Therefore our goal must be to strengthen and safeguard our Canadian approach, which allows people to own and use a weapon only for purposes that we as a society consider to be justified. An approach that ensures a fair and reasonable control on the possession and use of firearms. An approach that provides safety standards for the use and storage of firearms throughout the country. An approach that severely punishes any criminally negligent use of firearms.

With the careful consultations now concluded, the time has arrived to act. I wish to table in the House a document which describes the approach that the federal government will take through legislation.

Let me be very clear in doing so. The process of consultation leading to legislation is now over. As I have said, we have listened and we have learned but now we will lead. We will lead with the support I hope of this House. We will continue to work with the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal communities to ensure that our proposals are implemented in the fairest manner possible.

The areas in which we will act follow the three broad categories: First, criminal sanctions for the use of firearms in crime; second, controls over firearms in private ownership; and, third, efforts to reduce firearms smuggling.

Let me turn first to the question of criminal penalties. There is a disturbing trend particularly in urban areas toward violence with firearms. Five Canadians each week are victims of homicide by guns. The increased use of handguns in crime is particularly troubling. To strengthen the law and to provide real deterrents in sentencing we will introduce new strong penalties for 10 specific serious crimes.

Where firearms are used for robbery, attempted murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, and six other serious offences, there will be mandatory minimum penitentiary terms of four years together with a lifetime prohibition against the possession of restricted firearms.

Those who choose to use a firearm in such a way must know that they will surely incur severe consequences. We will also propose minimum mandatory prison sentences for the possession of a stolen firearms and the possession of handguns without permits if they are loaded or if the owners have ready access to ammunition.

Our second theme deals with the controls over private ownership of firearms in Canada. There are two measures here. The first is our proposal to ban most handguns and a wide variety of military type weapons. The second is the proposal for a universal registration system for all firearms.

I will deal first with the banning of military type weapons and most handguns. I say at the outset that we start from the principle that only those firearms that we agree as a country are appropriate for legitimate purposes should be available for private ownership. Hunting rifles and shotguns of course are in that category.

But there are also several types of military and paramilitary firearms that are designed to imitate weapons used by the army and the police and are intended not for hunting or farming but for combat.

I am able to tell the House today that we will prohibit effective January 1, 1995, 21 types of such paramilitary firearms comprising more than 200 individual models. When the laws we propose are in place we will also ban, among others, the Ruger Mini-14 used in the murders at l'École polytechnique.

We will also ban the further sale of most handguns because we have determined they have no legitimate sporting purpose. Almost 60 per cent of the handguns currently registered to Canadians fall within that category, some 553,000 handguns. With respect to those handguns that remain, we will strengthen the controls over access and use and we will require their owners to prove each five years that they continue to qualify or they will lose the privilege of possession and use. We will also ban the import, the manufacture and the sale of replica firearms.

Let me turn to the subject of universal registration. We will introduce such a system for all firearms. Indeed such a system is the foundation for all three strategies that I am describing today, criminal sanctions, controls over private ownership and efforts to reduce smuggling.

For years, the chiefs of police and medical community in Canada have been asking the federal government to adopt such a system. They believe that such a registration system can contribute to greater public welfare without imposing excessive constraints on hunters, farmers and target shooters. Our government agrees with them.

During a reasonable period of transition a registration for all firearms will be introduced in order to identify the owners of firearms and to record all firearms they own. Registration will

encourage compliance with safe storage requirements. It will allow police responding to emergency calls to know the firearms that are present before they arrive. It will allow police to seize all firearms owned by someone who is the subject of a prohibition order in the criminal court.

I ask that the House not underestimate the importance of that last point, of enforcing prohibition orders in the context of domestic violence. The House must bear in mind that on average one woman every six days is shot to death in this country, almost always in the home, almost always by someone she knows. Almost all of the firearms used for that purpose are legally owned. Almost all of them are rifles and shotguns. The people who pull those triggers become criminals by that very act.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that 1,100 Canadians commit suicide with a firearm each year. Too many of them are young people who act on an impulse. We must also remember that in the years since 1970, 425 children have died because they were accidentally shot and killed in Canada.

Increased compliance with safe storage, encouraged by universal registration will make it more difficult for these young persons to get access to a firearm either in a moment of torment or by tragic accident.

Registration will also be the key to ammunition controls. Once the system is in place only those persons who are 18 years of age or over and who can produce proof of registration will be entitled to purchase ammunition.

May I pass now to the control of Canada's borders and emphasize at the outset how large a task that is. I need not tell anyone how vast the frontier is we share with the United States. In terms of preventing the illegal entry of firearms the challenge is extraordinary.

We share the border with a country where guns are readily accessible. There are 130 million border crossings a year. It is simply impossible to open every trunk and glove compartment, but there are ways in which we can and will do better.

Further to the vigorous measures already taken by the revenue minister, we are announcing additional strict measures today to control the importation of firearms and to reduce illegal imports and gun trafficking.

First, we will end the practice of using Canada as a transit point for deliveries of weapons to countries that would not allow their direct entry.

Second, all shipments of firearms arriving in Canada will therefore have to be accompanied with a permit issued in advance.

Third, inspections and enforcement at the borders will be enhanced.

Fourth, new criminal offences and stiff penalties for smuggling will strengthen our hand.

Fifth, every firearm entering Canada will be registered. This will allow guns that disappear from bulk shipments to be traced and will permit us to follow every firearm to the point of sale.

May I finish as I began by talking about the kind of country we want to live in. The laws we will introduce are for all of Canada. They are sensitive to the concerns and the lifestyles in both the rural and the urban environment but they are also designed to achieve a single national purpose: safety in our homes and in our streets.

It has been said that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. Today we propose a way to invent a Canadian future that will reflect the best about us and to preserve what matters most.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice deceived us, fooled us, took us for a ride with the help of the Prime Minister himself. He had been promising a new gun control act for months, instead we get lip service from the minister.

In September, the minister said that he would table a bill in November and today he has the nerve to tell this House that it will be delayed until February. And we are supposed to trust him!

We will not, Mr. Speaker. We took his word for it, but we will not be caught a second time. We no longer believe the justice minister's promises.

There is nothing before us today, but good intentions. A ministerial statement does not commit the government to anything in particular. The justice minister may very well change his mind again tomorrow morning, and we will not be any further ahead, we will be at a standstill. Since the past is an indication of the future, the minister will probably change his mind and postpone the tabling of his bill till kingdom comes.

I find it very suspicious to see the minister wriggle out of it. Obviously, even if he takes the trouble to deny it, he yielded to the gun lobby to which several of his cabinet colleagues belong. A vocal minority easily won him over in spite of his supposedly strongly held beliefs.

On September 22, the minister stated in the House that the Liberal government was "going to deal with illegal firearms in this country, toughen the criminal law in its response to those who use firearms in the commission of offences, and deal with the regulation of firearms in the hand of lawful owners in a

manner consistent with safety in our society". When, Mr. Speaker, when?

The same day, the justice minister stated that he had spent the summer consulting with Canadians. In response to one of my questions, he said, and I quote: "I spent most of the summer consulting Canadians throughout the country and I listened to what they had to say". Either he is hard-of-hearing or he listened only to what the pro-gun lobby has to say. Apparently, nothing positive has transpired from these consultations. We are still dealing with good intentions.

Today, the minister tell us that now is the time to act. What is stopping him? It seems that action does not mean the same thing across the way as it does on our side of the House. On this side, when we say the time has come to act, it means that appropriate action is being taken and, in the present case, it should have taken the form of a gun control bill. But for the Minister of Justice, now means three months down the road, maybe.

The minister quoted disturbing statistics: "on average, one woman every six days is shot to death in this country". How many more will have died three months from now?

Does the minister need a better reason to act? He should realize that the longer he waits, the worse it is. With its action plan, the government is sitting on the fence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if can you hear, as I do, the noise coming from the back, but I must admit it interferes with my concentration.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, hon. colleagues. I give the floor back to the hon. member.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that the government action plan is best characterized by fence-straddling. It reflects in part the position of citizens requesting gun control and gives in to the pro-gun lobby by postponing indefinitely the universal registration of firearms.

The minister has no intention of seeing universal registration implemented during his mandate. He expresses concern for the number of victims of homicides by gun, but tables no bill and puts off until 2001 the requirement for gun owners to obtain firearms certificates. They will have until the next millennium to comply with the minister's action plan.

As for firearms registration per se, owners are given until 2003 to register their firearms. How can the Minister of Justice think that he can be taken seriously when he says that the time has come to act and, in the same breath, tells us that weapons currently in circulation will not have to be registered for nearly ten years?

On the subject of penalties, the government action plan proposes a number of improvements regarding maximum sentences for crimes involving the use of a firearm. The list of offenses, however, includes neither assault with a weapon nor confinement.

The Minister of Justice also promised us tough measures on the smuggling and importation of firearms. Strangely enough, his action plan suggests stiffer penalties for owners of hunting rifles without registration cards than for those who import or own smuggled weapons.

While the hunter will be liable to a minimum sentence of one year in prison for a second offence, the smuggler may not even have to go to jail. Today, the minister tried to cover all bases of gun control, except perhaps when it comes to issuing registration cards for cannons, without biting into any of the real issues.

The Liberal government's lack of action does not take into account the realities faced by gun owners. In this regard, the regulations already in effect are inconsistent and difficult to enforce, even by police officers, who often are not familiar with them. On November 15, the minister replied to me in this House, and I quote: "We will make every effort to simplify (the regulations)". This does not seem to be among his priorities today.

Nowhere in the paper tabled by the Minister of Justice do we see an attempt at regulatory reform. The minister has failed to ensure that the existing regulations, particularly on the display, storage and transportation of firearms, are consistent and easy to enforce. These regulations are not published in an equitable manner. For example, the Minister of Justice is currently distributing among police forces throughout Canada an information booklet with different French- and English-language versions. It is this booklet I am talking about.

The inconsistency can be found in the chapter on the transportation of restricted weapons. Francophone and anglophone readers do not have to transport the weapon in the same way to conform to the regulations. In fact, the English-language version specifies that restricted weapons must be locked and stored individually, while the French-language version stipulates that these weapons only have to be stored individually. Does the minister promise to withdraw this misleading booklet from circulation?

The Minister of Justice is quite aware of the investigation conducted this month in Montreal by coroner Anne-Marie David. For his information, some 20 witnesses representing various organizations told coroner David how inconsistent and confusing these regulations are. Their lack of clarity leaves room for interpretation and its attendant dangers. In addition to promising new measures attempting to plug all the holes, he should have revised the faulty regulations already in effect.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of gun control legislation in a democracy places an obligation upon the government to balance the right of the individual to own property, in this case firearms, with the responsibility of the state to protect members of society from the dangerous or illegal use of firearms.

Like many Canadians, Reform members support gun control legislation based on common sense. In fact we fully support any and all gun regulations that will enhance public safety by reducing the criminal use of firearms. However, the onus is on the Minister of Justice to prove to us and to Canadians that current regulations have reduced the criminal use of firearms and that his proposed restrictions will be successful in this regard before we support the final product.

In his 1993 report the Auditor General of Canada expressed some concern about the effectiveness of Bill C-17. He questioned the motivating factor behind it, concluding that Kim Campbell proceeded for reasons of public policy and without a statistical base.

The Auditor General stated: "Our review of the new regulations indicated that important data needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness of the regulations were not available at the time the regulations were drafted. Because of this, we believe it is important that the measures chosen by the government be evaluated at the earliest opportunity".

Although we had asked the minister whether he had taken the advice of the Auditor General we never were quite sure of the answer until today. Given the proposals the Minister of Justice has introduced, I suspect he may have ignored the recommendations of the Auditor General and proceeded to implement his own agenda for gun control.

In November of last year the minister stated that only police officers and the military should have guns. In respect to the minister he has clarified that remark to me since. Nevertheless, I see this sentiment still reflected in some of the proposals presented today.

The minister has proposed the banning of certain handguns from society without statistical justification for doing so. He is saying to law-abiding Canadians that if you do not use your handgun the government will take it away from you. I think this is wrong and we will stand opposed to this if it appears in the final legislation.

The minister has introduced mandatory minimum sentences of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition against the possession of a restricted weapon when committing any of the ten specific violent offences with a firearm. He has introduced a new mandatory minimum jail sentence for possession of a stolen firearm and possession of a loaded restricted weapon without a permit. The use of imitation or replica firearms in the commission of an offence will draw a minimum mandatory sentence of one year in jail under section 85 of the Criminal Code.

It is good to see that the efforts of the Reform members have not gone unnoticed by the justice minister. It is indeed encouraging to see the Minister of Justice following our lead.

On June 15 private member's Bill C-260 of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley was read for the first time in the House. That bill expands the present offence of using a firearm in the commission of an offence by including replica firearms. It also increases the penalty for a first offence from one to fourteen years to five to fourteen years and for a second offence from three to fourteen years to ten years to life.

That same bill establishes the theft of a firearm as a new offence with a penalty of three to fourteen years. It also creates a new offence for the unlawful importation of a firearm for the purpose of selling it or using it in the commission of an offence. This offence would carry a penalty of three to fourteen years.

Finally, a person who sells a firearm other than by the process proscribed by law would be deemed to have aided in an offence later committed by the purchaser of the weapon.

Reform's position on justice has been very clear and consistent from the start. We firmly believe that the justice system should provide for harsh punishment as a deterrent for committing crimes and for just punishments once a crime has been committed.

The minister's position with regard to deterrence is however questionable. In debates on the Young Offenders Act, the minister has stated that he does not believe harsher penalties to be a deterrent to preventing youth crime. It seemed he had to be pushed to raise the maximum penalty for murder from five to ten years. This was the only area under the Young Offenders Act where the penalties were increased to any substantial degree.

Therefore, I place this on the record. The justice minister has been inconsistent in his support of a deterrent principle in criminal justice.

As well as supporting the criminal sanctions created by this proposed legislation, we also support the efforts of the government in regard to smuggling and the stiffer penalties created for illegally importing and trafficking firearms. However, we will remain sceptical about whether or not the government will be successful in catching gun smugglers.

To date, the government has not been successful in catching drug and alcohol smugglers. In fact there has been an increase in smuggling activity in this country which I have reason to believe in some cases is a result of the prohibitively high taxes and prices found in Canada.

The only way the government was able to stop the proliferation of tobacco smuggling into this country was to reduce the taxes, thereby making it an inexpensive item that was not as lucrative on the black market. In other words, it was not able to deal with the criminals who were involved in that illegal trade. It simply reduced the taxes on cigarettes and was able to reduce the smuggling by using that means.

We also have some concerns regarding whether the border controls will be effective, given that Bill C-34 has granted the Yukon Nation self-government. From statements the Minister of Justice made on October 4 while in Yukon, we have reason to believe that special legislation may be granted to reserves.

Since a number of reserves are on the Canada-U.S. border and the minister of revenue has stated that the U.S. is awash with weapons, how does the minister propose to deal with smuggling and black market activities that is already so prevalent on reserves adjacent to the international boundary? In this regard the proposals of the Minister of Justice do not go far enough and we have some concerns in this area. What use are the penalties on border controls if there are other areas that may be left wide open?

Reform does not believe in tinkering and amending only parts of the system. We believe in full reforms which are aimed at the total picture, not just one small aspect of the problem. This is true with our policies on immigration, deficit cutting, social policy reform, and other matters.

I now turn to the area which poses the greatest concern to me, my colleagues and constituents and that is the registration of shotguns and rifles.

A confidential report commissioned by the research section of the Department of Justice clearly points out the defects in the current handgun registration system. In fact it identifies approximately 30 problems with the registration system. The system has been in place for 60 years and it has failed to work. I cannot see how the minister can justify extending this failed system. How can he honestly tell Canadians it will reduce the criminal use of firearms when the criminal use of handguns has been on the increase?

The statistical justification for the registration of rifles and shotguns has not been made available to us in these proposals. How can we and how can Canadians in the absence of such information be confident that universal registration will in fact reduce the criminal use of firearms and thereby make society safer? We cannot.

We cannot afford ineffective legislation, particularly in the area of criminal justice. We must have sound and proven controls in place that ensure public safety.

On the banning of handguns, where is the information and where are the statistics that the Minister of Justice used to justify such a draconian measure?

It has been proven by various sources that gun controls do not prevent criminals from getting firearms on the black market. They do however make it more profitable for individuals to deal in the black market of these items. Repeatedly governments in this country have learned that prohibitive or restrictive measures lead to an underground market where people thrive on the challenge of obtaining something illegal and where ruthless entrepreneurs profit tremendously.

We witnessed this years ago with the prohibition of liquor and we have seen it for years with the trafficking of cocaine, speed, marijuana and other narcotics into our country. Guns are not immune from the underground economy. In fact trade in that market has not been diminished but rather enhanced by government action.

I observe the minister has outlawed hand-held crossbows and the registration of other crossbows has been put into place through these proposals. What is the justification for this? Does this not indicate an unrealistic degree of fear or apprehension underlying this legislation? I think it does. More murders are committed with knives than with handguns. Are we to see the justice minister move to the registration of these weapons?

We look forward in the coming months to the minister tabling the legislation. We assure him and the people of Canada that we will support legislation that is aimed at the criminal activity involving firearms. The case for such action has been evident far too long in this country. However, we will be closely scrutinizing that legislation which is a further encroachment upon the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

In closing I would like to quote from a letter written to me by a loyal and dedicated Canadian. He stated: "The people of Canada will not accept the suppression of our rights and freedoms by criminals and they will not accept the suppression of those same rights and freedoms by our government".

Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the Canadian delegation to the fifth annual meeting of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group which was held in Vancouver from October 15 to 18, 1994.

The agenda at Canada-Japan meetings is always extensive and wide ranging. The Vancouver meeting was no exception. The delegates dealt with bilateral topics such as trade and the

political situations in Japan and Canada. On the multilateral front reform of the United Nations peacekeeping operations and the environment dominated the discussions.

The range and depth of the discussions that took place in Vancouver went a long way in allowing Japanese and Canadian parliamentarians to better understand the issues. The opportunity to put forth the Canadian viewpoint was critical and the Canadian viewpoint was effectively expressed.

Committees Of The House

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The report tabled today in this House concerns program evaluation. In his annual report for 1993, the Auditor General reviews program evaluation in the federal government.

After spending two meetings hearing witnesses, the public accounts committee is convinced of the need to publish an annual performance report on program evaluation.

The committee therefore recommends that Treasury Board Secretariat produce a report on the departments' performance with respect to evaluation no later than October 31, 1995 and annually thereafter.

Several other recommendations are also in this report. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.

Petitions

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition which states in part that the justice minister is proposing anti-firearms legislation that will do virtually nothing to reduce violent crime but will severely restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of innocent firearms owners, contrary to the very principles of justice upon which this great country of ours is based. The petitioners insist that he bring forth legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of approximately 300 petitioners from in and around the city of Calgary living in the Wild Rose riding, I present this petition today.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase, sexual orientation.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in this petition the petitioners point out that there is now easier and greater access to capital for small and medium sized businesses. They point out however that there needs to be more done to remove red tape and impediments to business. They underline as well that the GST is cumbersome and costly to business. They note the government is currently studying options to replace the goods and services tax. They want the government to consider the needs of business as it goes forward with the various options.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from the Carleton-Charlotte riding to be presented today. They are signed by many citizens from such areas as St. Stephen, St. Andrews, Moores Mills, St. George, Rolling Dam, Back Bay, Deer Island, Pennfield, Blacks Harbour, Beaver Harbour, Mace's Bay, McAdam, Harvey, Grand Manan, Dipper Harbour and Bonny River.

I am certainly pleased to present the first petition regarding societal approval of same sex relationships. The petitioners encourage the Parliament of Canada not to take any action that might be deemed as approval for same sex relationships. The petition is signed by 313 citizens.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by some 312 citizens residing in the same areas I previously noted.

They would like Parliament and all members to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

They petition the House of Commons to take action.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

The third and final petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 307 persons in the same areas. They request that the House ensures that the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced and that Parliament makes no changes in support of euthanasia.

The petitions have all been duly checked by the clerk of petitions and I am pleased to present them to the House.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present to Parliament a petition signed by constituents in the riding of Red Deer.

These citizens express their sentiments and great concern with respect to the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament ensures the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced and that Parliament makes no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to Parliament today two different petitions from residents of my constituency.

First, the Union of B.C. Municipalities urgently requests the federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act to strengthen sentencing provisions for young offenders who commit serious crimes. I concur with the petition.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

The second petition prays that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.