House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the legal base that the hon. member laid out. I thank him for placing that on the record. I am sure it will be the subject of consultation and examination.
Would the member give the House a view on the question of the fee simple aspect of this agreement? Does the member concur that fee simple transfer on such a broad basis as is undergone in this agreement goes beyond any legal precedent we have seen in Canada?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I have to say I am not familiar with all the legal precedents, but it does seem to me that one of the bases of these claims negotiations is that there are groups of people who have variously occupied very large areas. It seems to
me logical that when the settlement is made there is some agreement or jurisdiction over a very large area which reflects the fact that over long periods of time they have occupied those areas in a particular way. There are much tighter agreements over other areas in which, particularly in recent decades, people have lived in a much more non-migratory way.
Therefore it seems to me the fee simple part of these agreements has to do with that. There are rights to wildlife management over large areas and more controlled rights the closer we get to the areas presently occupied by the native people.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would care to comment on the whole nature or the whole question of precedent. There are some very good things in this settlement and there are some things we are questioning.
While we recognize that these lands are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, I wonder if there is any notion of precedent. We will have further land claim settlements in provincial territory. There are pending land claim settlements in Albert with Metis, for instance. Would the member speak to the issue of precedence?
Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, unlike many members of the House I am not a lawyer. In using the word precedence as a more general term, this is a precedent. It is an indication of the fact that the government and the people of Canada want to move on many of these settlements.
With regard to precedence in the more technical sense, it relates to the question I answered of the member from the Bloc previously, that when such negotiations are made in provincial jurisdictions provincial governments will be fully involved. To that extent the precedent of involving the NWT government is a very good and a very healthy one. It is very proper to involve provincial governments in their areas of jurisdiction.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-16.
I have particular interest in the proposed legislation, having lived and worked among the people of this area. Perhaps I have a better understanding of this part of Canada and its people than someone living in suburban Ottawa, Toronto or Edmonton.
As I have repeatedly said, I strongly support the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-determination and self-reliance. Therefore when representatives of the Sahtu Tribal Council first presented the agreement to me I was supportive. There are many elements of this proposal that moved the aboriginal people of the Mackenzie Valley toward the objectives I support. I am referring to the rejection of the objectionable apartheid principles of the reservation system of more southern parts of Canada.
The co-operative approach to resource management and free access to their traditional lands for traditional purposes is positive. The requirement to contribute to the tax system to help support their own government and the preservation of the social safety net system so essential to all Canadians including aboriginals is also a positive step. In my view the taxation provisions of the agreement are very complex and no doubt will be the subject of legal interpretation.
On these points and in the hope the cash payment and the share of the resource revenue would end the devastating cycle of welfare dependency which has robbed these once independent, hardy people of their self-esteem and initiative, unfortunately the closer I examined the agreement the more I came to realize these positive things would never be achieved through the agreement.
More and more I began to question the motivation and objectives of those negotiating on behalf of the people of Canada. When I contacted public affairs of the department of Indian affairs and Northern Development and inquired as to the objectives of this process, I was told it was to right the injustices of the past and to supplement rather than replace the provisions of treaty 11.
Immediately I have to ask what injustices are we trying to right. If one is familiar or cares to study the history of the area north of the 60th parallel, one would discover that there is a substantial difference from the history of more southern neighbours.
To begin with, life for aboriginals in the land north of 60 has traditionally been a subsistence existence, harsh and unforgiving. From the earliest encroachment into this land by European settlement, the federal government has recognized its responsibility to the people living there and made efforts in spite of the vast wilderness and harsh climate to provide, where possible, help through RCMP outposts and local missions.
I will not accept the popular myth spread by certain self-serving interests that the encroachment of European settlers constitutes an injustice against the aboriginal people here or anywhere else in Canada.
At the turn of the century western and northern Canada was a vast, mostly uninhabited land in real danger of being annexed to the United States. The aboriginal people living in this vast territory were eager for the technology which the Europeans brought with them, in spite of the problems that came with them.
It was under these circumstances that the then Government of Canada, through a series of grossly distorted and overly optimistic ads, invited Europeans from all parts of Europe to come to western Canada with the promise of 160 acres or a half square mile of land for the sum of $10 and a freer, richer lifestyle, but
all the time having the real objective of asserting sovereignty over western and northern Canada.
It was under these circumstances that my grandfather along with thousands of others came to Canada, not to perpetrate an injustice upon the aboriginal people but to accept the opportunity being offered.
In spite of the great disappointment upon arriving in a bush covered, swampy, fly and mosquito infested homestead in northern Alberta, my grandfather and grandmother built a home with the trees on the land, cleared the land with only an axe and a team of horses, and built a farm in spite of the injustices of hail, frost, depression, injury, disease and government misrepresentation. That is how to build self-esteem and self-worth.
I cannot and will not be held responsible for the actions of the past political leadership of this country any more than the aboriginal people can be held responsible for their past leadership. Therefore I will not accept the guilt or support compensation for my being here or my helping to develop industries which now support us in the best standard of living in the world. However I would support any agreement or effort to help the aboriginal people of this area to participate and enjoy the benefits of life enjoyed by all other Canadians.
I believe this agreement entrenches in the Constitution commitments on the Government of Canada that may not be in the best interest of all Canadians or responsibilities that Canada can no longer afford.
The richness of this package should shock even the most liberal Canadian. The agreement gives $100,000 in financial entitlement over 15 years plus title in fee simple to eight square miles of land per capita counting children, plus a share of resource revenue amounting to somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 per year.
In my view the settlement would be acceptable if it would then cause to end the financial responsibility of the federal government to these people. The truth is far different. Clause 3.1.5 clearly states that the participants in the agreement shall have full access to all present and future programs for aboriginal people as well as programs available to all other Canadians.
These programs now include not only a share of the $4.5 billion budget of the department of Indian affairs and Northern Development but also a share of the proliferation of government programs for aboriginals provided by at least 29 specific programs in 15 other departments of government, costing at least another $5 billion. All this is being offered at a time when our country is bankrupt and our most treasured social safety net system is decomposing because of the financial restraints being imposed on it.
On top of the aforementioned benefits the agreement also calls for the establishment of no less than nine separate boards funded by federal money and a written commitment to negotiate a self-government agreement with the institution of this government agreement also presumably funded by Ottawa.
This brings me back to a question that I raised earlier. What could possibly be the motivation or justification of such an agreement? In my opinion there have been no great injustices perpetrated on the people of this area above those imposed on all our lives by the advancement of technology and our consuming lifestyle.
The government is already redistributing tax and resource dollars in a major way to help these people catch up. The Canadian government 73 years ago at the request of these aboriginal people entered into treaty No. 11 and has more than met its obligations. In fact the text of treaty No. 11 states: "The said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King and his successors forever all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits and also the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territory or any other portion of the Dominion of Canada".
Where does this initiative for the land claim settlement come from? In my opinion the initiative comes from the real root of the aboriginal problem in Canada, the insidious parasitic Indian industry. That group of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats and Indian leaders year after year swallow up the vast majority of money designated to solve the problems of poverty, illiteracy, substance abuse and suffering among our native people.
This agreement does nothing to solve that problem and in fact greatly reinforces it. Instead of continuing to feed this selfish parasitic monster, let us break the cycle by making available to aboriginal Canadians programs available to all Canadians and then providing an affordable amount of the $10 billion plus now spent on aboriginal services and programs to grassroots aboriginal people in the form of a guaranteed annual income.
We will then give the power to tax to the proposed aboriginal governments. These aboriginal governments will then be truly accountable to their people. The people will decide what programs they are willing and able to pay for. They will also decide if their tax dollars should pay for their chief or band administrator to spend in one year $130,000 on travel, as was the case of a band chief in Manitoba, the very birthplace of self-government proposed by the minister of aboriginal affairs. There would still be those selfish, greedy people who would try to exploit these people but at least it would provide a much greater accountability if combined with regular, fair, democratic elections than the system now provides.
In conclusion, I would urge hon. members to re-examine the whole agreement and its implications. I ask members to consider what it means, when in spite of the fact that only 73 years ago the Canadian government entered into treaty No. 11 and the fact that this land claim is in clear violation of the terms of this treaty, we are repeatedly reminded that the rights gained by aboriginals through these treaties is a binding contract on Canada forever.
I also ask members to consider whether we have the right to commit future generations of Canadians to this extremely generous package, considering Canada's financial situation and our doubtful ability to maintain our current social safety net system.
Last, I ask members to question the real motivation behind this agreement and who stands to benefit most. Look at the Indian bands in Canada that have accumulated great wealth through resource revenue and it is obvious that money will not solve the problems we are trying to solve. These problems can only be solved by the people regaining their self-esteem and self-worth. We are providing enough wealth that 982 adult aboriginals need never work or strive to meet goals again in their lifetime. However it will not accomplish this any more than it did for others.
I ask that members not buy into this guilt trip so skilfully put on us and not enter into another binding contract based solely on racial origin that is to last as long as the sun rises and the rivers flow.
Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement ActGovernment Orders
Nunatsiaq Northwest Territories
Liberal
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Madam Speaker,
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Listening to the two members from the Reform Party one would think we were invading and taking over the land they have always occupied.
After listening to what they are saying it seems we are going in as aboriginal people and saying that they should excuse us but we are taking over the land. They never quite point out that the people they are talking about, the Sahtu, whose land claims we are discussing today, have been in that neighbourhood for 36,000 years.
One would think after listening to the previous speaker-I will get to the question-that the aboriginal people were just there to invite the Government of Canada to take over our land and say it is all yours. It was not quite like that. There were losses imposed whether it was renewable wildlife loss, or social loss like custom adoption or mission schools that were imposed on the aboriginal people.
We did not ask for any of that. We did not ask for a lot. Somebody told us that we could not hunt geese in the springtime which we have always done. We could not hunt muskox or whales any more because they were almost extinct because some hunters and whalers came along and hunted all the muskoxen, whales, and whatever else.
The member talked about mosquito infested areas and the hardships that his grandparents went through. We think it is a beautiful land. We do not talk about the mosquitoes infesting the land or cold and hardships. It is our land. We like it. It does not matter whether there are 10 million mosquitoes around. It is a beautiful land. We do not describe it as mosquito infested or cold and harsh.
The attitude of people like the member who just spoke and the other Reform member who spoke earlier, I repeat, is unbelievable. We are not asking him to accept the guilt. All we are doing through this legislation is trying to right the wrongs that were done to the aboriginal people of that area, in this case, the Sahtu. Words fail me because it is too unbelievable to even contemplate the attitude of the Reform Party.
I would ask a couple of questions. If we look back far enough, we will find that the lands that were occupied for the last 30,000 years were occupied by the Dene. If the member wants to trace his history in that area, he would go back no more than a couple hundred years, if that far.
Should there not be some justification in settling a claim with the people who have occupied that land and who can trace back their occupation in tens of thousands of years? Second, would he not agree that the right thing to do would be to recognize the aboriginal people's inherent right of self-government and that the aboriginal people deserve to have that recognition?
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member opposite drew such bizarre conclusions from what he heard myself and the other Reform Party member talk about. The fact is the Canadian government resisted entering into a treaty with the aboriginal people of this area for some time, choosing to leave them live a traditional lifestyle and to not disrupt that way of life.
If one examines the history of the area, one also notes that it was the aboriginal people who on a number of occasions requested that the Canadian government enter into treaty with them. In fact, the leadership of the very communities that we speak of in this agreement put their signatures to treaty No. 11.
Therefore we had the situation where the federal government had no responsibility to the aboriginal people. It was the choice of the aboriginal people themselves. They chose to enter that agreement.
Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
It being two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
Joe Comuzzi Liberal Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON
Mr. Speaker, we hear today that Canada's recovery and renewal are based on the new electronic highway. That may be so but we cannot forget that Canada was built by our farmers, by our miners, by our fishermen, by our forestry workers and by our manufacturers mainly in the automobile business.
That is where the majority of jobs were, that is where the majority of jobs are today and that is where the majority of the jobs will be in the future.
This government can assist all of those industries by getting their products to the global market by a fast economical and Canadian transportation system.
Is it not time that we develop a transportation policy for Canada that will change these goals and get all Canadians back to work?
François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, recently we heard that Mary Anne Kirkby accepted the position of director of communications with the Assembly of First Nations.
Although Mrs. Kirkby is to be commended for deciding to work in an area that is so rewarding, where she will be most useful in improving relations between aboriginal people and non-natives, I would like to draw the attention of this House to some problems around this appointment.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Kirkby's husband is the hon. member of Prince-Albert-Churchill River in this House and chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which is responsible for voting on government subsidies to the Assembly of First Nations.
To avoid a potential conflict of interest, I think the hon. member of Prince-Albert-Churchill River should step down as chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Canada's own Ironman Triathlon takes place every August in the city of Penticton, British Columbia. This year's race is scheduled for the weekend of August 27 and 28.
It is the only sanctioned Ironman race on the North American continent. The competitors compete in a gruelling course which includes swimming, biking and a marathon run. The 1994 race will attract over 1,300 athletes from every corner of the world to the Okanagan valley.
The event is staged almost entirely by volunteers. On race day thousands of volunteers busily man race routes, transition zones, first aid stations and perform a myriad of other tasks. They do their jobs so well that virtually all the world's top triathletes come to compete in this world class event.
I call on all members of this House to recognize Penticton's Ironman Canada Triathlon for its contribution to placing Canada on the international sporting stage.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
In Canada we have beautiful rivers which are the envy of the whole world. Among them are the Nahanni, the Alsek, the Kicking Horse, the Athabasca, the Churchill, the Mattawa, the Grand, the Jacques Cartier, the St. Croix, the Shelburne and the Main.
In January 1984 in order to protect these rivers and to retain their beauty for future generations, the Canadian heritage river system was formed under the auspices of Parks Canada. This is a national system of protected rivers from sea to sea to sea. It consists of 27 rivers totalling almost 6,000 kilometres. This number will hopefully grow in coming years.
The heritage river program deserves support. Canadians can generate it by writing to Parks Canada and to their federal elected representatives suggesting the names of additional rivers that require protection through this imaginative and unique initiative aimed at enriching our heritage.
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON
The New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology located in my riding of Timiskaming-French River is a state of the art agricultural learning institute. Unfortunately the Ontario government is bent on closing the college on May 1, 1994.
Over the past few months I have been working with the Coalition for NLCAT and CIDA to secure a block of students from eastern Europe to come and study at the college.
The idea is simple but the benefits are many: Canada would make better use of our foreign aid. The Canadian economy would benefit through all the spinoffs. It would enable foreign students to return to their homeland with the ability to feed their own people.
I want to thank the Minister of Human Resources Development for approving funding for a study into the feasibility of my idea. I call upon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to push forth this project. We have a chance to show the world what Canadians can do. It would be a shame to let this opportunity pass us by.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, during a recent public meeting a presentation was made regarding generation x, the lost generation, referring to young people between the ages of 20 and 30.
The message was that these young Canadians had done all they could to educate and promote themselves. After four or five years of university or college, graduation day arrives. The reality of visiting the local employment centre then sets in. They are told to check the job boards, check the computer for jobs and are given the telephone number for job lines.
This government and this House must continue to put the plight of these well-educated youth at the forefront of every decision. Instead of providing tax incentives for buying furniture, equipment and computers, let us look at tax breaks for hiring people.
Let us invest in humans and make these young people productive again. They are our future.
Maurice Dumas Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Société des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec appeared this morning before the Copyright Board to ask that royalties paid to songwriters whenever their works are performed be raised from 2 per cent to 5 per cent.
After reversing its position on this question, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada agreed with the Copyright Board on a very scant increase over five years.
We ask the Copyright Board to respond favourably to the request by the Société , and perhaps we may recall that in France and Italy, royalty rates are, respectively, 8.8 per cent and 10 per cent, while today in Canada, the rate is 2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that copyright and neighbouring rights were clearly and fully recognized in this country.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, on January 24 in this House the Minister of the Environment said that the site for the NAFTA environmental secretariat would be selected and I quote: "with no politics involved".
On Friday the minister changed her tune and admitted that the site of the environmental secretariat was chosen based on political criteria. Also on Friday ministers of the government defended not only the environment secretariat but also the Shawinigan patronage park, not on the basis of economic feasibility but on the basis of politics and patronage.
Perhaps the government can provide a list of the projects that are motivated by economic benefits and a list of those that are motivated by politics and patronage so that we can see which list is longer.
This is not a good government. This is an expedient government, a gutless government.
George Proud Liberal Hillsborough, PE
Mr. Speaker, the national infrastructure program which was promised by the Liberal Party in the election last fall promises to be a catalyst in the fight against unemployment. At the same time it will provide much needed improvements to our basic facilities and will prepare our towns and cities for a more prosperous future.
In many provinces of Canada, mine included, the municipalities, construction companies and the unemployed are eagerly awaiting the approval of projects so that planning and construction can begin. We must always be mindful of the fact that we live in a country which has a relatively short outdoor construction season. We must, to use an old farm term, make hay while the sun shines.
The infrastructure program which is just one component of the program to make Canada work again will surely give our economy a kickstart.
I am sure all hon. members look forward with great anticipation to the day in the not too distant future when the infrastructure projects are under way in every part of this country.
Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, today the hearings on the Irving Whale open in Charlottetown.
These hearings could not have happened without the combined efforts of the population of les Iles-de-la-Madeleine and P.E.I., and the Minister of Transport. In addition, I wish to single out my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, who played a pivotal role in bringing about today's hearings.
Mr. Speaker, we will finally eliminate the environmental threat represented by the Irving Whale . There is no doubt that the Gagnon-Easter committee played a major role in the decision to refloat that wreck. I want to tell this House that before taking action we consulted the public and listened carefully to the representations made, as is the custom with our government.
In conclusion, I thank the residents of the Magdalen Islands, as well as Prince Edward Island, for supporting the Gagnon-Easter committee in its efforts to solve the Irving Whale issue. This should be a lesson for the opposition.
Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the minister of agriculture for his commitment and resolve to protect the Canada agri-food industry in light of the recent request by the U.S. to renegotiate agricultural products under article XXVIII of the GATT.
The minister has assured the country the government will continue to negotiate in good faith but will not support a deal unless it is good for Canada. This means it must be a good deal for grains, food processing and the supply managed sectors.
I am confident although Canada regrets the U.S. intends to attempt to increase its tariffs on barley and wheat, that cooler heads will prevail and a good result for both countries will be reached.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, South Africa will have a non racial election this week, four years after opposition political parties became legal. However, the democratic forces in South Africa are still the target of violent attacks. Bloc Quebecois members deplore the politically related attacks of the last few weeks, including those which took place this morning and the one which occurred yesterday, close to the ANC offices, in Johannesburg.
Members of this House, as well as several other observers from Quebec and Canada, are presently in that country to bring their support and ensure a smooth election process. For the millions of Black voters in South Africa, this is a first opportunity to participate in a democratic election.
I am sure that all members of this House will reiterate their strong support for a free and democratic election in South Africa.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canadian youth today are faced with the prospect of an unhappy future. They recognize they are going to have to pay off the massive debt that weak governments have left them. Youth unemployment rates are higher than ever. Youth crime statistics are soaring.
Constituents tell me that on an average Friday or Saturday night numbers of young people can be found in the parking lots of my riding of Calgary Southeast partying and sometimes vandalising. There is little fear of being caught. Many know if they are caught the punishment will be easy to handle.
Members from all areas of society, including youth groups, have been calling for the government to make changes to the Young Offenders Act. Does this government have the strength to show Canadian youth it cares about them, that it is willing to make the tough decisions to guarantee their future?
The two big signals this government can send to Canadian youth to show it cares about them are to balance the budget and reform the Young Offenders Act.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, fairness and equity within our tax system are not optional but necessary characteristics which we must strive to achieve. Accordingly, when inequities are identified Canadians should expect prompt attention from their elected representatives.
One such inequity has to do with child care expenses. Under the present income tax law one spouse cannot pay another spouse to provide direct parental care and receive a deduction for the expense. However, in the case of same sex couples who have custody of a child, one can pay the other for child care expenses and deduct the cost on their income tax return. This
effectively provides for income splitting not available to married couples.
In the full spirit of fairness and equity, we should extend the same tax benefit to mothers and fathers as is given to same sex couples. This serious inequity demands prompt attention.
Dianne Brushett Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, the ice is gone from the Northumberland Strait. The lobster traps are neatly lined on every small wharf from Barachois to North Port and the fishermen are ready to begin the lobster season in Nova Scotia.
The fishermen look forward to a good season and have voluntarily agreed to increase the size of the lobster carapace to two and three-quarter inches, that is, a larger lobster. They will toss back the smaller lobster to grow to a more desirable size. What this means is better conservation of the lobster fishery and a long term sustainable lobster fishery.
For many years researchers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have recommended the increased carapace size. Now that our fishermen have voluntarily agreed to comply I implore the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to legislate the increased size in lobster carapace to ensure conservation in the lobster fishery.
Jag Bhaduria Liberal Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada has an immigration system that is well respected throughout the world. However, mistakes are made by some officials on the application of the law and the result can be devastating.
One example is the application of 89 year old Mrs. Arora, who has been denied a visitors visa to visit Canada. She is the mother of one of my constituents, Paul Arora, whom she wants to visit. She was a landed immigrant in Canada, returned to her home country and now wants to visit her son for a few months.
Another example is Miss Matharu's application on behalf of her relatives who want to come to Canada to attend her wedding on May 7. They were refused because of their close ties to the family here.
To classify these examples as deceitful is an unfair assessment and application of the immigration law.
I request assurances from the government that the visa application process for honest applicants be given fair and just treatment.
Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK
Mr. Speaker, in June 1975 the following remarks appeared in an MP's report to constituents.
"Very strict regulations governing the sale and possession of handguns and automatic weapons and the prohibition of sawed off guns have not deterred the criminal element from obtaining them for use in the commission of crimes. The standard rifle or shotgun is sometimes used in murder, but a registration card would not save the victim. It would be a mistake to initiate legislation in this area which would impose unnecessary red tape upon law-abiding citizens. All governments are faced with the primary challenge of dealing with the root causes of violence, the disease rather than its symptoms".
These words were written by the Hon. Otto Lang, a prominent Liberal who actually believed in classic liberalism.