Debates of March 28th, 1995

Kanesatake Reserve

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In 1993-94, a lump sum of $640,000 was paid to the Kanesatake Band Council to fund land claim negotiations.

Can the minister tell us why the band council, who had received a $640,000 special grant for negotiation purposes in 1993-94, did not even appoint a negotiating team until December 1994?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the problems at Oka and Kanesatake are longstanding. People did not even want to be there. Mohawks from Montreal Island and Algonquins from the Ottawa Valley were moved to this site. The Abenaikis were moved there. The Attikamekw were moved there.

We now have the housing authority. We signed an agreement in December last year to resume negotiations. There is a good negotiator, a good mediator. We have made progress at the Mohawk round table.

As I pointed out yesterday these people want relationships. They want progress. They want prosperity and we will work with them.

Any suggestion that the Bloc and the hon. member can make on those three subjects that will help me, I am prepared to listen to and implement if it makes sense.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the minister's response that $640,000 of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers' money has disappeared and he has no idea where the money went. In fact, last year, the minister launched an inquiry into the use of federal funds by the band council.

Were the findings of this inquiry submitted to the minister and do they substantiate the disbursement of $640,000 in government funds?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that specific question as notice and give the information to my friend.

Again, what we inherited was a community in chaos. The Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada spent over $230 million. By any standard, by any stretch of the imagination, what is happening today where people are sitting down, talking and reaching conclusion is better than what we started with.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the day that the minister of immigration can show us what decision making and integrity really are.

The minister only needs to follow the advice of his own officials and use existing legislation to immediately deport Laotian gang enforcer, Boujan Inthavong, and overrule the refugee board.

This thug Inthavong helped beat a young 17-year-old to death. He was ordered deported, appealed his deportation and got a refugee decision in 50 minutes.

Will the minister today tell me what his decision is on Boujan Inthavong? Will he declare this thug a danger to the public and use existing laws to deport him today?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me this question some time ago.

I told him then and I repeat again today that our officials have served him notice that they will be recommending action according to section 53 as a result of that. The individual has a certain length of time to respond. Until that time has elapsed the recommendation cannot be made to the minister.

As I told the member then and I tell him today, when the recommendation comes to my desk I know fully what to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why I ask these questions. In case the minister is not aware, the deadline is today, March 28. That is why I am asking the question.

All we are trying to do is help the police forces clean up our streets of thugs like this.

If the minister orders this thug deported to Laos can he actually get him out to Laos? My understanding is that Laos is going to say to us: "Sorry, we don't want this thug". How is the minister going to get him out of the country?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the act provides for the minister to deem individuals dangerous to the public. That recommendation from our departmental officials, according to statute, has not been made. When it has been, the government and this minister will deal with it accordingly.

Turkey

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Last week I met in an Ankara, Turkey, prison with four respected members of the Turkish parliament, including Leyla Zana, who were sentenced in December to terms of up to 15 years for speaking out for human rights and democracy for the 12 million Kurds in Turkey.

In light of this appalling attack on elected members of Parliament, I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain why his government is sending a ministerial delegation to Turkey on April 23 to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the same Turkish parliament. Will the Prime Minister in these circumstances agree to review this decision which deeply concerns not only these members of Parliament but I am sure many Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that possibility. It might be a good occasion for the ministerial delegation to raise the issue of human rights with the government when it is there. One way or the other, I would like the question of human rights to be raised with the Government of Turkey.

Perhaps one way is to cancel the delegation or the other way is to send the delegation with a mandate to talk about it.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the very grave human rights abuses committed by the Turkish government, including its history in Cyprus and the current illegal assault in northern Iraq, will the Prime Minister now explain why the head of the Turkish air force was invited to Canada last month, invited to fly the CF-5 aircraft himself?

Will the government finally do the right thing and not only cancel any potential sale of the CF-5s to Turkey but join our NATO ally, Norway, in saying that there will be no arms sales whatsoever to the repressive regime in Turkey?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has answered the question a couple of times in the last 10 days.

There has been some indication by the Government of Turkey about the surplus CF-5s and there have been some informal discussions. However there is no deal pending.

Our position is well known on the exporting of arms. We want to make sure, if that is done, that certain safeguards are in place. I believe the question at this time is somewhat premature.

Points Of Order

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have Beauchesne with me but I understand that once a minister quotes from a specific government document the document should then be tabled in the House. I call on the minister to table the document with the House.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I sent notice to the Minister of Transport in relation to an answer that he gave in the House during question period with respect to a document from which he clearly quoted in relation to the Pearson affair.

I quote from the French version of Beauchesne, the sixth edition, at page 158, item 4, paragraph 495:

(1) A minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the table.

[The Speaker]

Order. By the minister intervening at this point perhaps he can clear up the matter being raised as a point of order. If it is not cleared up I will return to the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform critic and the hon. leader of the fifth party in the House have both raised a point of order dealing with the issue of the report.

I know the hon. leader of the fifth party is not often in the House and the Reform critic often misses-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I remind members of the longstanding tradition that we do not refer either to the presence or the absence of any member of the House.

I was hoping the Minister of Transport would be able to make a definitive statement, hopefully clearing up the matter. I invite the Minister of Transport to make his point.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I place on the record of the House the document to which I referred.

Just for the record, it was made public in December of last year in the court proceedings.

[The Speaker]

I guess that clears up the matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Firearms Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who has four minutes remaining.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before the break, the Auditor General of Canada advised the government to evaluate the present gun control program before moving on to any additional provisions. I quoted from the auditor general's statement.

It is also interesting to note that the Wade report indicated that police officers across the country have said that present gun control regulations are "a nearly impenetrable maze".

Instead of the federal government taking the time to see if Canada's gun laws are working, and they are already among the most stringent in the world, it has preferred to go after law-abiding people with more laws, more restrictions and more costs. If passed the legislation will result in law-abiding citizens having their legally acquired personal property subject to unprecedented scrutiny and red tape, again unmatched anywhere else in the world.

Law-abiding citizens will face criminal records unless they succumb to the legislation that will do nothing, as we all know, to reduce crime but will cost millions of dollars and will be very complex and cumbersome to administer. It appears members opposite simply do not trust people who legally own and responsibly use guns. The western provinces have taken the lead in ensuring that the government is aware of the widespread opposition across western provinces to the legislation which, as I say, simply will not work.

It is easy to support proposals that deal with the criminal use of firearms which is, after all, surely what gun control should be about. Proposing to clamp down on the smuggling of illegal weapons can be supported as can proposing stiffer penalties for

the criminal use of firearms. We should be dealing with crime as those provisions do and with crime prevention. We should be putting the millions of dollars the proposal will cost toward fighting crime in the streets.

A couple of specific provisions are worthy of note. In particular let us be reminded that all provinces and the country at large are facing extreme difficulties with regard to finance. Instead of tying up enormous police resources in a bureaucratic registration system, police officers should be on the streets dealing with crime in our communities.

I should like to close on the following two points. One is the quite remarkable arbitrary powers provided in the legislation to the Minister of Justice in section 109. The Minister of Justice clearly is of the view that provincial attorneys general will not uphold the law with regard to any legislation that is passed.

That is quite a remarkable reaction when we know that every attorney general has the legal responsibility and will carry out the law as implemented. The arbitrary extreme powers awarded to the federal minister in the legislation are completely unacceptable and should not be countenanced.

I point to one provision that raises the absurdity of the legislation. Clause 35 will make it easier for an American hunter to hunt on Canadian publicly owned land for 60 days than it will for a Canadian to do so. Surely it is absurd and surely it points to some of the major problems contained in the legislation.

I wish the minister would evaluate, as the auditor general and as the western ministers of justice have asked him to do, the proposals to see whether or not they are working effectively. If they are not working effectively and if indeed we could reduce crime and violence in the home by something similar, we could support it. However at the moment there is no evidence to suggest that and I am happy to support the amendment.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to split Bill C-68 respecting the Firearms Act.

As debate progresses on the bill the level of emotional rhetoric increases. We heard from members of the House interests of all kinds represented here. Feminist groups and their representatives in the House have somehow managed to find a correlation between long gun ownership and violence against women.

We have heard from people who claim there is a correlation between the number of guns in the country and the levels of criminal activity, even though they are unable to show us numbers to back up the implicit assertion.

We have heard from anti-gun purists. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration told us that when she walks into a gun club she says: "Gentlemen, I am your worst nightmare". Most disturbing is that the Minister of Justice thinks only armies and police ought to be able to own guns.

Those interests deserve to be represented as do all interests in the House. However, we achieve nothing by clouding Bill C-68 in rhetoric arguing that guns are inherently evil and must be done away with or rhetoric presuming that violence against women is somehow related to whether or not Canadians need to get a licence for their duck hunting shotguns.

I do not doubt the intention of people who say this type of stuff may be good. However their logic is trivial and is intended to cloud an issue that deserves careful, rational consideration because of enormous costs that would be involved in implementing Bill C-68, the implications of the legislation for gun owners and the mandate the bill would give to police to monitor people who legally own guns. The police can barely handle the complaint load they have without being downloaded additional duties to follow up on registration.

There are two intentions buried in the bill. One is crime control and the other is control of guns. They are two very different intentions. It is a profound mistake to confuse the two issues as Bill C-68 does.

As I previously said, some members of the House seem intent on confusing the two issues. They would have us believe control of crime and control of guns are hopelessly intertwined. That is irrational. It ignores not only empirical data but common sense.

In Canada we have a crime problem. No one would disagree with that. We also have gun control laws that are among the most restrictive in the world. The following question begs to be asked: How can it be that we have extremely restrictive gun control laws and a crime control problem at the same time? The answer is there is literally no correlation whatsoever in the developed world between gun control laws of a country and its crime rate.

The auditor general's report clearly gave direction to the government to review all gun control laws that presently exist and the government refused to do anything about it. I ask why.

There may be a correlation between the number of crimes committed with guns and gun control laws. It is not what the proponents of Bill C-68 are trying to convince us of. They are trying to convince us that if we legislate burdensome registration on the owners of hunting guns we will see a reduction in the crime rate. That is absolute nonsense.

If Bill C-68 passes, which the government seems intent on, the Reform Party will be monitoring the crime rate daily, that is if the crime rate is reported accurately. There is some question whether it is consistent.

If there is no drop in the crime rate-I doubt very much if any will occur-the Reform Party will remind Canadians of the intrusion into their personal property rights the government has undertaken. We will remind the Canadian people it was all for nought, just another means to draw dollars out of their pockets.

The only purpose served by this needless and authoritarian expansion of government power and the application of the outdated ideology which still animates the party across the aisle seems to be more restriction or more involvement into the affairs of the average individual.

Like most reasonable and responsible Canadians, the Reform Party understands there is a social good to be derived from controlling access to and ownership of weapons in Canada. That is only reasonable. However, we think the restrictions have gone far enough and need go no further.

Even further than Bill C-68 are the sentences imposed for using firearms in the commission of a crime. We would like to see more emphasis in this area. Members on the other side of the House possibly disagree that the way to control criminal activity is to control criminals. Can the members on the other side of the House possibly disagree that controlling the perpetrators of crime is far more important than controlling the tools a perpetrator uses to commit a crime?

Bill C-68 flies in the face of common sense logic. The government is flying in the face of logic. The government is attempting to foist on Canadians a radical ideology of government intervention veiled in the garb of crime control, obscured by rhetoric that appeals to the common desire to control criminals.

There are two very different intents underlying Bill C-68. One to control criminal use of guns; the other to control and restrict the ownership of guns. One is a criminal office; the other is not. One is an offence which the government and our party want to see made a more serious offence. The other is a legitimate activity-the ownership of property-the government wants to slowly, if inevitably, do away with. That is unacceptable. It is a power grab by the government. It is an infringement upon individual liberties.

The government wants Canadians to pay a very high price in freedom despite being unable to show there would be any reciprocal payoff in social benefits. What kind of deal is that? What kind of government is that?

As a former police officer who served on the Calgary police department for 22 years I can say with no hesitation whatsoever that this bill, if passed without the amended split we are arguing for and for which I seek support of the members of the House, would have unexpected consequences for most of my colleagues in the House, including the Minister of Justice.

Realistically, mixing the criminal and the regulatory enforcement would have the effect not only of allowing for criminal prosecution of people or even farmers who neglect to register a legal or useful tool, but would also give police officers the right and even the obligation to search out owners of unregistered or poorly stored guns. That obligation on the part of the police would not differentiate between those people who use guns to commit crime and those who collect weapons or hunt with them.

As a former police officer and someone who has given his entire working life to law enforcement and who is very much committed to reasonable gun control measures, I can say the consequences of bringing things like gun storage and registration into the Criminal Code will have unexpected and frightening consequences.

It would not assist any police officer to register every weapon and have that so-called list when the record in other jurisdictions of non-compliance is very clear. People would not comply with the law in that respect, given the track record of Australia and New Zealand as examples.

I urge my fellow members of the House to come clean with the Canadian people. I urge them to allow full access to debate on the bill. There are some serious flaws in it. The bill must be split and I urge all colleagues in the House, on the Liberal and opposition sides, to support the amendment to split Bill C-68. To keep it in its present state is not forthright.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-68, an act to restrict firearms and other weapons.

I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for making good on the government's promise to fight crime with tough but fair firearms legislation. The minister is to be congratulated because Bill C-68 is the product of an open dialogue between ordinary Canadians, police officials, people working in the justice system, sharp shooters, legitimate gun collectors and the justice minister.

Last November when the government originally announced the action plan on firearms control a number of people expressed concern about certain conditions of ownership, including the sale, trade and exchange of particular firearms among legitimate owners and collectors. The minister listened to these concerns, demonstrated his flexibility and changed his action plan so that legitimate gun owners are treated fairly under Bill C-68.

Overall, I do not think anyone in the House or any law-abiding Canadian would dispute the minister's efforts to crack down on the criminal misuse of firearms. All law-abiding Canadians welcome harsh penalties for the violent misuse of firearms.

In keeping with the Liberal promise of safer homes and safer streets, Bill C-68 will impose mandatory prison sentences and a lifetime prohibition from gun ownership for anyone using a firearm in the commission of a murder, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and five other criminal offences.

Critics of the current gun control legislation brought in under former Conservative Justice Minister Kim Campbell say that some of the previous legislation is not proving very effective in court. This is true. That is why we need Bill C-68, to win court cases and to justly punish criminal behaviour.

For example, statistics from the justice department show that two thirds of weapon charges were dismissed, stayed or withdrawn due to plea bargaining or problems with presenting evidence in court. To overcome this legal wrangling, Bill C-68 will put in place tough measures to ensure swift and sure punishment.

Let us turn to the traffic of illegal weapons across our borders.

Last year the federal government took organised crime head on and successfully quashed the illegal trade of cigarettes. The same must be done to halt the illegal trafficking of firearms across Canadian borders. Bill C-68 will impose stern penalties against gun smugglers, including the immediate seizure of vehicles, boats and aeroplanes used in the trafficking of contraband. New import and export controls will provide a greater degree of protection to legitimate Canadian commercial interests. Cheap imitations of so-called Saturday night specials which have a propensity to misfire and cause injury will be less common and not as easy for criminals to access. Consequently, all Canadians will benefit.

All told, it seems the main objection to Bill C-68 is the proposed registration system. It does not matter how many times the minister has said registration does not mean confiscation. The purpose of registration is to limit access to firearms, to promote their safe use and storage and to control their movement. Careless ownership does cost lives. For example, the gun that killed Constable Todd Bayliss in June of 1994 was stolen from an Etobicoke widow. The gun was left lying on a shelf in her closet and was easy prey for the thief who stole it.

While there are many responsible gun owners who follow safe storage rules, far too many do not. The registration system will require all gun owners to be responsible. I do not think any legitimate gun owner worth his or her salt would disagree with safety measures which would prevent children from having accidents with carelessly stored firearms or from keeping loaded weapons out of the hands of criminals on a smash and dash, break and enter. The registration system coupled with increased border controls will make it far more difficult for criminals to access prohibited weapons.

The cost of the system, estimated at $85 million, will be entirely recovered through user fees. This is consistent with principles laid out by the federal government's recent budget. These fees are a small price to pay for public safety. The Minister of Justice does not, as some assert, have a hidden agenda to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. The registration fees applied to the ownership of motor vehicles does not prohibit millions of Canadians from driving cars. There is nothing which would indicate that gun registration would be more expensive than any other registration system. In short, we need the co-operation of legitimate gun owners to ensure public safety for all Canadians.

I am curious about the position on gun control taken by my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party. Strangely enough, an October 1994 Reform Party resolution echoed support for the federal government's initiative. I quote from the Reform Party resolution under social issues: "If elected, a Reform government will introduce legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms will be severely punished and the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms will be protected".

That sounds like it is Bill C-68 promised in the Reform platform. What happened since then? Did the gun lobbyists get to Reformers? Are they that weak kneed that they gave into the gun lobbyists? They should stick to their platform as promised. That is why they were elected. Under this legislation only criminals will be prevented from owning a gun and the rights of law-abiding citizens will be protected. Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party might clarify things for us. If he would state his precise position on gun control instead of making vague statements we might know exactly where Reform stands on the issue.

The residents of Parkdale-High Park strongly support the government. I did a poll two years ago in my riding on tougher controls on firearms and 67 per cent said they want and support stronger firearms control. In my town hall meetings today, two years later, that percentage would probably jump up to 80 per cent or 90 per cent. Instead of a weakening position, it is a stronger position for Bill C-68. I hope we can count on all members of the House to protect Canadians by supporting Bill C-68.

Not long ago the President of the United States spoke to a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons in the Chamber. He congratulated Canada because we recognize the legitimate use and ownership of firearms as opposed to the criminals owning them and the guns getting into the wrong hands. The President of the United States is complimenting our country on our way of doing things.

We can take a lesson from that. Let us not go the U.S. route. Let us go the Canadian route. Let us do it the Canadian way. The Reform Party wants to go the U.S. way. If we go that way, I am afraid the crime rate will grow and the cities, especially the inner cities, will be more violent.

That is not what we want for Canada. We want safe communities and safe streets. It has to begin in the families, in the schools, in the municipal and provincial governments, and here in the federal government where we must bring in legislation which is good for all Canadians.