Debates of Nov. 27th, 1996

Interest Rates

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Bank profits are soaring over last year's record profits while consumer credit card debt has soared to 20 per cent of personal debt. Some credit card holders are paying up to 25 per cent over the prime rate while interest on savings accounts is paid at 3 per cent below prime.

Last week when I asked the minister if he would consider bringing back the Usury Act to outlaw interest rate gouging by banks, oil companies and retail stores on credit card accounts, he said that he would look into it.

In view of these record bank profits and in view of record low interest rates will the government now take action to protect consumers from this outrageous interest rate rip-off and bring the credit card interest rates and interest paid on savings accounts more in line with the Canada prime rates?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the hon. member that every one of the large Canadian banks has a low interest rate credit card which is available to consumers. Indeed, I might also mention that in the past few days two of the major banks have lowered their interest rates on their low interest rate cards and they are below 10 per cent.

As far as the other issue of bank profits is concerned, we make sure that the banks pay considerable taxes to the federal government. I might add that a conference board study a few years back indicated that the banks paid taxes to federal, provincial and municipal governments amounting to $6 billion annually. This year, with higher profits, they will pay more taxes to the federal government.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Canada

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians sometimes purchase excess amounts of frozen food such as poultry while in the United States. Upon entry to Canada these are taken from them if the individual refuses to pay the excess duty in accordance with agriculture Canada regulations.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. Why is the department insisting on filling our Canadian landfill sites with frozen American turkeys while it steadfastly refuses to allow them to be donated immediately to community food banks and kitchens?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman raises a point which I will be happy to investigate further.

The critical issue that we must be very careful about is food safety. We had an issue arise a number of years ago with respect to surplus food being brought into Canada and used by certain British troops who were training at the Suffield station in Alberta. They brought their own rations with them. There were surplus rations. We were asked if we would allow those rations to be donated to a food bank. It seemed like a good idea. However, upon reflection we refused to give that permission because of the risk of contaminated food being transferred. As it turned out, that judgment in that case was absolutely correct because of the subsequent BST fiasco in the United Kingdom.

While I do not mean to link that case to the one referred to by the hon. gentleman, I use it as an example to illustrate the very high standards of food quality we maintain in Canada, not only in the commercial sector but also in the food bank sector.

Privilege

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a very grave matter relating to a deliberate attempt by the minister of fisheries to deny me information. I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 25, citation 97:

-"While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances would ever exist for a prima facie case of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member-.

I also refer you to citation 24:

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the execution of its powers".

I have a copy of a directive from the minister of fisheries that involves my personal privileges as a member of Parliament and the privileges of all members of Parliament from British Columbia. The directive states:

We have been instructed by the Minister's office to report to them all telephone calls from MPs and Senators. The report is to include the name of the individual, the office they are associated with, phone number and the issue along with a summary of what information was given to the caller.

The messages are to be e-mailed or faxed to me within 24 hours of the call having been received. Attached is a form which is to be used.

Please ensure all your staff are advised to report all such calls to you immediately.

This directive went to all regional directors in the Pacific region of the department of fisheries. As the fisheries critic for the Reform Party in this House, there can be no doubt this directive was aimed to discourage public civil servants from talking to me as a member of Parliament.

As a member of Parliament I will have less access to public information than a member of the general public. How can I work on its behalf? How can I carry out my job of representing my constituents if public servants are discouraged from speaking with me?

This is an obvious attempt to stifle the work of a member of Parliament. If a general member of the public makes an inquiry to the department of fisheries, they are normally given a courteous reply. Public servants are paid with taxpayer money. They are public servants, not political servants of this government. It is not their job to spy on members of Parliament.

If public servants at the department of fisheries in the Pacific region, that is British Columbia, are required to record the nature of the conservation with a member of this House within 24 hours it will discourage public servants from speaking with members. If public servants at fisheries speak, they will have to explain to the minister what they said and be prepared to explain why they said it. Why would a public servant risk the wrath of the minister by even having a conversation with a member of Parliament?

This directive by the minister of fisheries will have a chilling effect on the normal flow of public information to members of Parliament. The public service is not the military or the police. I recognize that members of the military may not be able to respond to questions from members of the House. But is the minister of fisheries turning public servants into his own regiment that is required to snitch on conversations with members?

Should members of this House be named on such an enemy's list? Are public servants required to inform the minister of their conversations with representatives of foreign governments within

24 hours? Are members of this House being treated worse than possible foreign spies and possible enemies of the country?

The actions of the minister of fisheries have impaired my privileges as a member of this House. The minister's action prevents me from doing my job. Members of Parliament should never be treated as enemies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter and give me your ruling.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, any question of privilege is listened to with great attention by your Speaker. As the hon. member knows, I was given notice. I was given a newspaper report.

The hon. member refers to a communique of some kind that came directly from the minister.

The minister is not in the House today. I wonder if the honourable member could wait until the minister is here. Perhaps there is a clarification but I would like to hear a little more information before I make a ruling on this.

I would prefer to hear directly from the minister before I hear additional evidence, keeping in mind that I will hear additional evidence after I hear from the minister.

Would that be acceptable to you, my colleague?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to make a copy of the directive which I quoted from available to you.

[The Speaker]

I would appreciate a copy of the directive but I hold everything in abeyance until the hon. minister of fisheries is here so that I can get something to go by. Perhaps there is an explanation to this. We will return to this when the hon. minister returns to the House.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, 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 responses to six petitions.

Gun Control

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

Mr. Speaker, the key elements of this government's gun control policy are now well known. Last December 5 legislation was adopted and given royal assent, which acts on those elements.

That law imposed tough criminal penalties on those who choose to use firearms in the commission of crimes. It banned several military type assault weapons. It banned most handguns. We have taken strong measures to deter the smuggling and illegal movement of firearms, and all of this while respecting the legitimate interests of law-abiding firearms owners who use their guns for hunting, sport shooting or collecting.

We have introduced a process by which everyone with firearms will be licensed and all firearms in Canada will be registered to their owners.

In the period since the adoption of Bill C-68, the government has been at work in preparing regulations to give effect to its framework.

The process of preparing those regulations has involved the broadest consultation with interested groups and parties, particularly with aboriginal people and other firearms users.

Today, in tabling the regulations under the Firearms Act, the government marks another critical milestone. It is determined to advance toward achieving tough, sensible and effective gun control in Canada.

I should mention that among those with whom we have consulted are members of the User's Group on Firearms, 15 persons from across Canada representing firearms owners, sport shooters, sustenance hunters, recreational hunters, dealers, collectors, police chiefs and police officers.

The User's Group on Firearms has brought to my attention some unintended consequences arising from Bill C-68 for a small group of firearms owners and dealers. I am looking into possible solutions and soon hope to announce a plan to deal with those unintended consequences.

I would like to take a moment in tabling these regulations today to acknowledge and to express gratitude for the remarkable work done by the dedicated professionals within the Department of Justice. The excellence of their work, the depth of their commitment and, frankly, the extent of their patience has really been quite extraordinary. On behalf of the government I express both gratitude and admiration for their efforts.

Let me deal in a summary way with certain of the subjects dealt with in the regulations that I am tabling today. First, licensing for firearms owners will begin early in 1998. Individuals will have until January 2001 to obtain a licence.

A major goal of this legislation is to prevent an escalation of violence in already difficult or abusive domestic situations. Before someone is issued a licence to acquire a gun any current or former spouse or common law partners, within the last two years, will be

notified. This will ensure that those persons have the opportunity to voice any concerns about their own safety or the safety of other persons. This provision responds to a key recommendation from the Vernon inquest, people who sat and looked at the evidence as opposed to sitting in a political seat and judging which way the wind is blowing.

In terms of registration we remembered that the guns most commonly used in crime in Canada are non-restricted rifles and shotguns. That is a fact. Many are illegally obtained from the rightful owners. And that is a fact. The registration system is the foundation of the government's efforts against gun theft and trafficking. Registration will help police track stolen guns and will act as an incentive for owners to store them properly in accordance with laws already on the books. It will also be an additional tool to ensure the safety of police officers responding to domestic violence or other potentially dangerous calls.

The recent and very tragic events in Winnipeg on the weekend, and in Courtenay, B.C. some weeks ago, demonstrated once again, as though more evidence were required, the importance of complying with safe storage if tragedies and random crimes are to be prevented.

Registration of firearms will begin at the same time as the licensing of owners, resulting in a simpler process for firearms users. Individuals will have until January 1, 2003 to register all their firearms.

With these regulations, the government has confirmed its commitment for reasonable fees for firearms users, business owners and industry. For example, the fees for a five-year possession licence in 1998 will be $10 rising to $60 in the year 2000. That is $10 for a five-year licence.

As previously announced, in 1998, individuals will pay $10 to register all of the rifles and shotguns they own as long as they are registered at the same time. By the year 2001 that fee will rise to $18 to register as many rifles and shotguns as they own, provided they are registered all at the same time. Those are more than reasonable fees.

Commencing on January 1, 2001, every individual will be required to have a firearms licence in order to buy ammunition. Until that date, the proposed regulation will allow individuals who do not have a licence to use another approved form of identification. This change will make it more difficult for people who have stolen guns to get ammunition.

For example, this change will make it more difficult for people with stolen guns to get ammunition, such as those convicted in the tragic Battersby murder here in Ottawa a few years ago.

Let me briefly touch on the way these regulations apply to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. First of all, the principles in the Firearms Act apply to all Canadians. Everyone, including the aboriginal peoples of Canada, will be required to licence themselves and register their firearms. But the regulations, as we have always committed, adapt those principles to the reality of the aboriginal way of life and the traditional rights that aboriginal people possess.

These adaptations respect existing aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. Sustenance hunters and trappers, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will be exempt from registration and licensing fees.

In addition, the regulations will reflect the reality in the aboriginal communities of communal ownership of firearms, of the lending of firearms, the use of firearms by children below the age of 12, of the sometimes great difficulty that aboriginal people have in taking proficiency tests, particularly if it is in a language which they do not speak, and the particular challenges that aboriginal people sometimes face in terms of safe storage if they are using their firearms in remote locations in the exercise of aboriginal hunting rights.

We have learned also during consultations with aboriginal people that aboriginal communities are anxious to administer the Firearms Act locally within their own communities. Therefore we are embarking on discussions on community administration of the Firearms Act by aboriginal communities.

Let me touch on one other matter before I conclude. Members of the House will know that three provinces and two territories have chosen to opt out of the administration of gun control as it now stands. Others have chosen to join with those provinces and territories in challenging the constitutionality of the new law.

The decision by these provinces and territories to abandon their role in the administration of gun control is nothing less than a shocking abdication of their responsibility. The governments of those provinces and territories pretend that their objection is to the registration of all firearms. The reality is that they have abandoned their role not only with respect to registration but with respect to gun control as a whole. They have shown that they oppose gun control. They will not take any further part in the issuance of FAC, they will take no further part in the administration of safety courses. They have walked away from their responsibility in relation to gun control.

Up to the present time the responsibility for ensuring community safety through gun control, especially in those provinces and territories, was the joint responsibility of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. As of the moment when they walk

away from those responsibilities, the Government of Canada is going to take up the responsibilities that they are abandoning.

I look across the way and I see fellow travellers, I see the Reform Party and the NDP who voted against gun control, people who are in the grip of the gun lobby, people who have riding associations, such as the Reform Party, where the president is David Tomlinson, the national executive officer of the National Firearms Association; hardly a source of objective views.

I want to assure Canadians, and particularly Canadians in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the two territories, that despite the irresponsible decision of their provincial and territorial governments, this government takes its responsibility seriously. We will stand up to the gun lobby. We will stand up for Canadians.

Let the New Democratic Party kneel before the gun lobby. Let it betray its principles of decades. Let it walk away from its former reputation as the party of principle. Let the Reform Party solidify its position as the party of the extreme, the party in the grip of the gun lobby, the party incapable of taking a position in favour of community safety if it means that they have to offend Mr. Tomlinson and his National Firearms Association.

We shall meet in court the arguments put by those provincial and territorial governments. We have every confidence that we shall prevail. We shall stand up for gun control in those provinces and throughout the country for the safety of Canadians in large urban centres but particularly in the rural communities where most of the guns are found.

In closing, let me say that the regulations that are tabled today, and the gun control law itself, illustrate this government's commitment to do everything possible to keep homes and streets in Canada safe. We believe that the laws of this land should reflect the peaceful, civil and tolerant heritage that is so much of what Canada is all about.

The government rejects absolutely the vision of the gun lobby for the future of this country. Canadians have made clear by their overwhelming support for this law in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia and throughout this country that they want the government to choose a path different from the one the Americans have chosen so that our children can inherit a Canada which is peaceful and civil.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we are seeing today, the firearms issue has stirred up a lot of emotion and animosity between hardliners and those who want no controls.

Much was heard from the latter group, but also from the federal government, the Liberal government before me, whose caucus is divided on this issue.

The Bloc Quebecois, however, has always taken a realistic approach, avoiding exaggeration and theatrics. Our sole goal is to defend the legal rights and obligations of Quebecers in this regard. As a result, all of English Canada has benefited.

We were, and we still are, in agreement with the principle that all owners of firearms should obtain a permit and that all firearms should be registered in the name of their owners. We support this principle, but not at any price, and certainly not in the face of intolerance and arrogance and threats to constitutional jurisdictions.

The Bloc Quebecois has succeeded in getting the government to make a number of amendments to its gun control legislation, and we are proud to have done so. These amendments in no way alter the purpose of the bill, which was and still is to protect the public.

This bill and the regulations tabled today in the House will not prevent all tragedies. There will always be negligence in this area of jurisdiction regarding the use of firearms. But the purpose of the regulations and the legislation is to at least try to reduce the number of unfortunate incidents.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois who, through their solidarity, succeeded, where the Reform Party failed, in getting the government to take a more moderate approach, in accordance with the wishes expressed by a great many Quebecers. We would, however, have liked the minister to be more receptive to the amendments we proposed. But we understand.

We understand that the firearms lobby is extremely powerful. We understand that there were certain difficulties within his caucus, and, in the circumstances, we are still very pleased at what we have achieved with respect to this legislation.

Today, in tabling the gun control regulations, which we shall examine with the same serious and professional approach as we did the bill, we can boast from now on that the Bloc Quebecois has made some considerable progress. I must take this opportunity to thank the minister for this. He has responded to some of the demands made by us in this House.

Firearms owners will have three years to obtain a permit, that is from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 2001. The cost of this five-year gun ownership permit will be $10 in 1998 and $60 in the year 2000, very reasonable amounts which we ourselves proposed to the minister during his appearance before the standing committee on justice and during discussions in committee or in this House.

The Bloc Quebecois made sure that the government set fees that were reasonable, and that took regional realities into particular consideration.

Another point we have gained is the individual registration of firearms. Owners have until January 1, 2003 to register all of their firearms. The charge in 1998 will be $10 for all firearms belonging to the same person, without restriction, provided they are all registered at the same time. Starting January 1, 2001, the fee will be $18.

This is a great victory for all hunters, trappers, collectors and sports enthusiasts in Canada and Quebec. There was a great deal of insecurity and ambiguity in this area. Now, with these regulations, we know that the minister made a wise decision. But this is not the only victory we have won for these hunters, these trappers, these collectors, these sports enthusiasts, with respect to the regulations.

The government is bowing to our demand for recognition of the Quebec and even Manitoba firearms handling certificates and courses for provinces with such courses and certification. This is a very considerable gain because, here again, there was no certainty. We made these gains through the Bloc Quebecois' perseverance and insistent questioning.

The regulations will apply equally to all, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens. Public safety makes no distinction, and there was no need to make a distinction in the regulations. I am glad this was changed.

Sustenance hunters and trappers, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will have to obtain a licence and register their firearms but will be exempted from registration and licensing fees. The safety objective has been achieved, but there is also a recognition of the rights of sustenance hunters and trappers-both aboriginal and non-aboriginal-in the way registration is handled. We insisted on this point, and we got what we wanted.

The Bloc Quebecois will remain vigilant in its analysis of the regulations as regards the storage, display, handling, transportation, possession and sale of firearms, to ensure the regulations are fair, applicable and, whenever possible, reflect local circumstances.

However, there are not just positive points in this ministerial statement. There are also negative elements. I feel I must point out certain discrepancies between what the Minister of Justice said in his statement this afternoon and his government's throne speech.

In the throne speech, there was talk of flexibility, withdrawal from areas under provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government showing some understanding of the powers of the provinces. Today, in his statement, the minister made it clear that in this respect at least, the throne speech was meaningless, because the minister has unilaterally taken on the responsibilities of the legislatures of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the two territories which refuse to accept the legislation on gun control.

On the other hand, I deplore the refusal of these provinces and territories to implement the legislation, but I cannot tolerate that our federal big brother should style himself the great protector of the citizenry, at the expense of the legislatures.

In fact, gun control comes under the administration of justice and is therefore exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no business taking on this constitutional authority which belongs to the provinces. I urge the government to keep its word, respect its own Constitution and initiate discussions with the provinces and convince them to act responsibly.

Furthermore, there is some ambiguity as to how the federal government will apply the regulations with respect to costs. Will this be one more instance where Quebec is disadvantaged because it immediately agreed to implement the regulations with respect to costs? Quebec will pay the initial administration cost for its own territory. Am I to understand that, as a result of the federal government's action vis-à-vis the provinces which refuse to implement the gun control legislation, Quebec and the other provinces which were willing to implement the legislation will be charged part of these administration costs a second time? I wonder.

The minister will have to answer these questions in the course of our analysis of the regulations. Instead of taking on powers that are not his, the minister should use his powers of persuasion to convince the dissenting provinces and territories.

Quebecers may rest assured that we will stay the course on the regulations and the legislation. We will, of course, be guided by a concern for public safety, common sense, fairness and respect for regional differences. We will be extremely vigilant.

In concluding, I would like to announce to the House that my colleague from Portneuf will take part in the consideration in committee of these regulations. I am confident he will be as vigilant as the caucus has always been.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we finally have the regulations. They were tabled once, they were withdrawn and now they are back.

I will pick up on the comments the justice minister made with regard to his shock and alarm over the provinces that are opposing the bill and refusing to administer various aspects of the bill. What I find shocking and alarming is the fact that the minister would bring forward a bill that he expects the provinces to administer without first gaining their approval for the bill's contents, approval

for their duties and responsibilities. Why did the minister not first gain their approval?

The minister told this House that he was in continuous consultation with the attorneys general of the provinces. Yet when three of them appeared before the standing committee, they told us there was minimal consultation. That is an explanation as to why he is now in this position.

The aboriginal justice minister from the Northwest Territories appeared before the committee. He told us very clearly that it was impractical to enforce the FAC requirements because there is no access to facilities to get things, such as passport photos, which are required to obtain an FAC. Therefore that regulation was not being abided by.

The minister speaks about gun control. This is not gun control. This is the registration of firearms. There is no one in this country who is not in support of reasonable, common sense control of firearms. In fact, we hear this expressed all across the country. The fact of the matter is the bill does not do that. There are portions of Kim Campbell's Bill C-17 that are not being enforced or at least if they are, they are not protecting people's lives.

The examples the justice minister gave of the incident in B.C. and the incident in Winnipeg have nothing whatever to do with this bill. They have to do with safe storage which was contained in Bill C-17.

Neither the justice minister nor the member from the Bloc nor anyone from the government has explained how the registration of a rifle or a shotgun is going to reduce the criminal use of firearms. We asked the police chiefs and the representatives of the Canadian Police Association how this is to be done. None of them could tell us how this was going to be done. In fact, one of the criminologists who appeared before the committee said that we would not see any results from this bill in terms of safety for 15 years. Is that not wonderful. And this is being touted as a safe tool by the justice minister.

The minister is in the grip of the coalition for gun control. He is in the grip of those who would support a lack of common sense in the expression of legislation.

The justice minister claims the majority of Canadians support this bill. If that is the case, then why is that in the last three provincial elections, those in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, all three parties which made this the central issue in their campaigns and opposed the registration and licensing portion of the bill returned to power? In fact in Ontario it was the third place party that formed the government.

Do not give us this nonsense that the bill has a high percentage of support. The best poll we can have is an open election wherein the matter is an issue and the people have an opportunity to vote on it.

We have what may be a constitutional crisis. It is certainly a crisis in federal-provincial relations because the minister failed in his duty and responsibility to consult with the elected representatives of all the provinces and the territories in order to gain their support. He did not gain their support. He ploughed on with a piece of legislation that they are not prepared to support. The people of those provinces are not prepared to support it as well.

Politicians are not foolish. They are not going to oppose something that has 75 per cent or 80 per cent support of the people. They are not going to oppose it as the justice minister would suggest. This is nonsense. There is not a single individual I know who will buck the safe, proper and wise control of firearms. This is not control of firearms. This bill is simply an imposition upon the law-abiding people of society who happen to own, collect or use firearms in recreational activities. This bill is directed at them.

There are other matters. What about the smuggling problem? The MacKenzie Institute submitted a report indicating that if the bill went through there would be an explosion of smuggling into this country. What has the justice minister done about the smuggling problem? What actions has he taken and what are the results of those actions? We have heard nothing from the justice minister on that issue.

The government talks about making society safer yet it introduces bills like Bill C-41 which allows violent offenders access to alternative measures. It invites the courts to use matters such as conditional sentences where violent offenders do not see the inside of a prison after committing rapes and other serious personal attacks upon individuals.

We saw where the minister stood in relation to section 745 of the Criminal Code. We saw whom he voted for. Did he vote for the safety of society or the safety of individuals? Did he vote against putting people like Debbie Mahaffy and other victims of crime through hell one more time? No, he did not. No, he did not. He voted in favour of the criminal. Certainly he did.

When we look at what the minister has done with what he calls gun control legislation, I am concerned about certain aspects of his exemption. He says now that sustenance hunters will be exempted. What does that mean? Does it mean only aboriginal people can hunt all year round, or does it mean anybody? If that is the case, then how do we interpret Assistant Deputy Minister Mosley's comments to the Senate committee when he said that the regulations cannot exempt anyone from the bill? How do we explain that? He said that the regulations cannot override the contents of the bill which requires all Canadians to register their firearms.

I wonder if the justice minister is now taking on the additional responsibility of administering these regulations and the act in the three provinces and two territories. What is the additional cost going to be? That was not contained in the proclamation that attended as he tabled the bill. How much is the cost going to be? How much is it going to cost the federal government to fill the role of administering this bill in the three provinces and the two territories as he said today he would do? What is the cost going to be?

Would that money not be better used in other areas? There is no question in the minds of thousands of Canadians that it would be. We need to strengthen our police forces. We need to strengthen the law enforcement agencies and place more of their members on the street to protect our society from the kinds of people that the minister's Bill C-41 allows to walk free after committing very personal and serious crimes against individuals.

I listened to my Bloc colleague talk about a bill which he does not seem to know very much about. Under section 103 or 104 at least there is the appearance of an imposition or encroachment upon the provincial jurisdiction to enforce the Criminal Code or at least enforce this bill. The onus is still on the justice minister and the government to tell all Canadians, gun owners and non-gun owners, how the registration of a rifle and shotgun is going to reduce the criminal use of those firearms.

The government has not told us. We have asked them repeatedly. The gun coalition could not do it, the chiefs of police could not do it. When talking to frontline police officers they will tell you they are the ones who have to knock on the doors and answer complaints. They are the ones who will tell you whether this bill is going to be of benefit to them. We have talked to them and they have told us why in their opinion this is a bunch of nonsense. That is different from their chiefs. We got their answers, we heard what they had to say.

My time is up. We will examine these regulations in depth. Again we wonder why the justice minister had to pull the regulations back in June. The stories we have heard is the minister pulled them back because he got trampled in a stampede by his own backbenchers when they had a look at them. We will see whether there is another stampede coming from his backbenchers.

I do know this, in the next election there will be a stampede and it is going to be over some of the Liberal backbenchers who have fought hard to have common sense entered into this bill. I hope all hon. members and the people of this country will take a serious look at these regulations.

[An hon. member]

Including the justice minister.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Including the justice minister, of course. It is a bad bill and regardless of the regulations that are passed it cannot make a bad bill a good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that when the bill was first introduced in the House many police officers in this country were very-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is perhaps not aware of the fact that in the present circumstances he has to have unanimous consent of members to speak on behalf of his party. Perhaps he would wish to ask for that consent before or if we hear from him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to say a few words with respect to these regulations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, is their unanimous consent to permit the hon. member to speak on behalf of his party?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent. Accordingly, the hon. member will not be able to speak on this matter.

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame.

Broadcasting Act

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (protection of community interests in programming) He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. The intent of this bill is to enshrine the principle that broadcast licences belong to the community-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think I heard the Speaker say with permission we will have this member introduce his bill. I am not giving permission because he declined permission for me to speak on the regulations of the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately the hon. member did not hear correctly. The Speaker did not say that. There is no permission required for any member to introduce a private member's bill in the House.