Debates of Nov. 27th, 1996

Broadcasting Act

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to enshrine the principle that broadcast licences belong to the communities they serve and not to the CRTC. It makes the CRTC more accountable to the elected members of this House and it increases community input in CRTC decisions that affect them. Public accountability for the CRTC is at the heart of this bill and I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre for seconding this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there were consultations with the parties regarding the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I therefore move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

No goddamn way.

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first comes from Abbotsford, British Columbia.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state than in many cases the families of officers who are killed in the line of duty are left without sufficient means to meet their obligations.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today on behalf of the residents of Simcoe Centre.

The first group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend federal legislation to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are troubled about the lack of definition of the phrase sexual orientation. They have a legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition from concerned residents of the province of Nova Scotia.

They note that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada announced that he would work toward diverting the Sable Island gas pipeline to Quebec City. They further state it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia natural gas without consulting Nova Scotians, and that Nova Scotians assert their right to control the destination of Sable Island gas and demand the federal government cease tampering in this issue.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we seek unanimous consent to revert to Statements by Ministers so we could have a reply by my colleague from Regina-Lumsden?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order, I request the unanimous consent of the House to participate in the response to the minister's statement on behalf of the NDP.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member might wish at the beginning of his statement to retract part of the statement he made earlier which I do not think was parliamentary language.

Gun Control

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I retract what I said. Thank you for allowing me to respond very

briefly on behalf of the NDP with respect to the minister's statement on regulations tabled in the House earlier.

The government and the Minister of Justice will recall very clearly that when this legislation was introduced it was not supported by the vast majority of law enforcement agencies to which he refers. In fact the legislation that has given birth to these regulations was something that in my view and in the view of many Canadians was not a direct or a very positive response to dealing with the rising amount of crime in Canada but in fact was a feel good piece of legislation, something that the Liberals are very famous for in this country.

I want to draw a comparison. Members will recall and so will other Canadians when a great deal of smuggling of tobacco from the U.S.A. was going on, rather than deal directly with increasing resources to support our customs officers and to enforce laws which existed to stop smuggling, the Liberals passed feel good legislation which reduced the tax on tobacco to eliminate the smuggling. While that eliminated the smuggling of tobacco in Quebec and Ontario it cost the taxpayers of Canada $2 billion. The smugglers turned to smuggling firearms and other items.

The Liberals responded to the increase in the smuggling of firearms not by providing resources and money for enforcement so that smugglers could be stopped but by passing yet another piece of feel good legislation which does not solve the problem.

I say that because when the legislation which has given birth to the regulations was before the House, I spoke to many police officers, the chief of police and others in Regina and they said that they would prefer, if they had an option, to have more resources committed to enforcement.

Many of these police officers also said that the problem would not necessarily be cleared up by more money thrown at enforcement. It would help a great deal but what needed to be looked at is what the NDP has been saying all along and that is the roots of the increase in crime are unemployment and poverty. The other thing that is driving crime are the great inequities in our society.

Rather than address these inequities and try to beef up initiatives to eliminate poverty, especially child poverty, to create more jobs, to create more equality in society, the government has done the opposite. We can recall in the last few budgets cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to all kinds of transfer payments to provinces. We have seen as well a knee-jerk reaction with respect to these regulations, tax increases for working and middle class Canadian families, yet huge tax cuts for the very wealthy.

I remind members of Bill S-9 which provides wealthy Canadians with tax deductions for making contributions to American universities while the government cuts funding for our own universities.

With respect to these regulations, these are again feel good efforts on behalf of the government. They are not dealing with the real problems in our society.

There were a number of questions that we wanted to ask the government that it would not answer today. Why did the federal government and Minister of Justice not consult with all of the attorneys general with respect to some of the implications of the act? If the minister did consult, why did he not take some of the advice of three or four of them who are quite concerned about it?

Our view is that this bill and these regulations will not control guns but will increase the red tape and bureaucracy of law enforcement agencies. It will initiate a massive registration program that will not be effective because if it was such an effective tool, why is the government waiting three to five years to register all the guns in the country? I cannot see why these sorts of things are that pertinent at this time.

I will summarize by saying that this regulation initiative on behalf of the government is a knee jerk reaction, it is feel good legislation that does nothing to address the roots of crime in this country and that is good government.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might now seek unanimous consent to move a motion which was previously discussed by House leaders earlier in the week regarding the designation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

If there is unanimous consent, I move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is ironic that the regulations for the new firearms act were tabled today because the question

that I have had on the Order Paper for exactly one year concerns that very matter.

On November 27, 1995, I placed Question No. 252 on the Order Paper and, in accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a), I requested an answer within 45 days.

After 71 days Question No. 252 died on the Order Paper when the government prorogued the House.

I placed the same question on the Order Paper again when the new session opened on February 27, 1996. It was renumbered as Question No. 4. Once again I asked for a response from the government within 45 days. As of today Question No. 4 has been outstanding for 274 days. The question has been on the Order Paper for one year.

Why is it so imperative that we have an answer? The firearms regulations have been tabled. The government is pretending that they are a matter of public safety. The question that I asked was fundamental to that. It is Question No. 4 on the Order Paper. Anybody can look at it. It wants to get from the government information with regard to stolen firearms from the police and from the military. It is really fundamental to all that we are discussing here.

If they cannot safely store their firearms, if they are at risk because criminals know where to access those firearms, the very regulations which the minister is putting forth now will create that same situation but nationwide. Criminals will then know where to access those firearms. If we as common citizens place that information in the public domain, how can we possibly store them any better than the police or the military? That is why my question is so important.

In a democracy, in government as we have it in Canada today, if that information is not readily available and accurate for the public to examine, how can we possibly put forth laws which will improve public safety? How do we know those are the best laws we can have in this country?

That is why it is so imperative that I get an answer to my question. It is not a complicated question. I realize that my frustration shows by the fact that I cannot get an answer. We have to have open and accountable government. That is why I am asking for the government, as quickly as possible, to answer that question. I would even settle for a partial answer. I have appealed to the government to give me any information it has on this matter.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments which have been made by my hon. colleague, but oftentimes when members put questions they think that we can press a button and give them an answer.

Since the hon. member has raised this matter a number of times, it is important that I spend a bit of House time to review exactly what he has asked for and draw his attention to the fact that the question he has put, as he created the question, is very broad. In fact, it is so broad that it is taking, I would suggest, probably hundreds of hours of work by civil servants throughout the country to collect the information he has asked for. It is not that he should not want to get the information. I do not impugn his motives.

I know the hon. member has expressed an interest in receiving the information, but when one looks at the broadness of the question it asks not only about the information being stolen from the RCMP but also from provincial police forces, municipal police forces, individual police forces and military establishments. One can see very quickly that it is such a broad question that the answer obviously has to be as comprehensive. I would suggest that it is going to cost literally thousands and thousands of dollars to get this information.

I am happy to hear for the first time my hon. colleague suggest that he acknowledges that this is a very broad question and that maybe he would like some partial information or a bit of information that might be available based on the breadth of his question. On that basis I would be happy to see if there is a possibility of getting some information.

While I am on my feet, the other question the member referred to is Question No. 52. I am also happy to hear that he is interested in some partial information. However, I would draw his attention to the fact that Question No. 52 asks to go back 10 years. Unfortunately, that information, as my hon. colleague would know, is not readily available. There is no computerized compilation of that kind of information.

Therefore while I understand his frustration, I think he should also appreciate the cost of getting this information and the hundreds of hours of civil servant time involved. Perhaps if he would craft his question a little differently we would be able to accommodate.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows this information should have been in the public domain and the government should have had this information before it even brought the legislation. It begs the question whether it is costing thousands and then could save millions because it could save us millions if we had this information. I really think the minister should seriously reconsider the argument he is putting forth.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick. I do not understand. If the question is simply to institutions of this country such as police forces and the military, why is this information not available after almost a year? The question obviously to the government member is has the request gone forward to these institutions. If it has and there is some problem, that is a

justification. However, if they have not made that request then there is no justification for the delay and there is a dereliction of duty here.