House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Wild Rose.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

My apologies, Wild Rose. He is wild, I must say.

I am happy to talk about this because it is such a simple issue. Although maybe it is not. If it was, maybe they would understand it. The reality is that I am not willing to stand here and take this member's challenge. His challenge is for me to prove that this will save one life. Does that require a death? Does it require that kind of activity?

The common sense of this is so clear. We have hundreds of thousands of weapons that are not registered and, in many cases, not cared for in this country and nobody should be adverse to registering them. No one should object to this. As I said before, we register our vehicles. We register ourselves. We register most of our animals, at least the four-legged kind.

I do not understand where these people come from when they say we should not register guns. We absolutely must follow through with this. It is a commitment to the people of Canada and the people of Canada spoke in the last election on this issue very clearly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker made comments earlier concerning debate. In debate the first person up is the person who is recognized. The rules that apply in question period are not the same rules that apply in debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In debate it goes back and forth. In questions and comments the Chair will see members on the opposition benches before the Chair will see members from the same party in debate. It just makes sense and that has always been the case and will continue to be the case.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously the House was really enjoying the question and answer session with the hon. member for Mississauga West, so I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue the question and answer session with the hon. member for five or 10 minutes, whatever the Chair sees fit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and comment period up to 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

There is not unanimous consent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, speaking on justice, the member on the government side was asking what the definition of justice is. My first reaction was getting rid of the Liberal government. We are working on that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

How interesting, we get a reaction once in a while. They appear to feel threatened, and they have every reason to.

I welcome this opportunity today to speak on justice. There are problems in this respect. We often disagree with the Reform Party, which claims that this country's judicial system is a mess. This seems to be a very serious problem out west, where the Reform Party got many members elected. I cannot help but wonder if there is connection there.

In Atlantic Canada, we know that the top priority, especially in New Brunswick, is job creation.

There are certainly serious problems with justice. As a woman, I must also point out that women may have particular grounds for concern about justice. Many women are involved in violent situations and our system does not respond properly to their needs.

I speak about women because of my own experiences. But men have the same experiences sometimes, and children often do. I shall speak mainly of women, however, because we know that there is a serious problem of violence against women, whether physical, mental or sexual.

What is sad is that the process a woman has to go through to try to get the abuser stopped is a very long one and one that can cost her her life.

For instance, a woman takes her partner before a judge and there it is acknowledged that violence took place, that he stabbed or shot her, if she is still around to testify. Sometimes it is a matter of threats. If threats are involved, the judge issues a a restraining order. This is just a piece of paper. The judge signs it, and hands it over, saying “Don't try to kill her next week”.

There is a problem here. There should be a system in place for when a woman is in acknowledged danger, a process of counselling for these individuals. Just handing over a piece of paper saying “Don't try to kill her next week” does not solve the problem. The person who wants to do harm to this woman feels justified in doing so. This must be acknowledged and efforts must be made to determine why he thinks that way and convince him that he is not justified.

There is no justification for attacking someone. There is no justification for raping someone.

When judges have these people before them, there ought to be laws forcing them into therapy. As things stand now, once they leave the courthouse, there is no follow up.

That is what happened about two years ago in Toronto, and there have certainly been other incidents since then. Every week, we hear stories on the news about domestic violence resulting in death. Often, children are involved and are also victims. We must work and make resources available to try to stop this vicious cycle. It is a cycle that is costing people their lives, a cycle in which children learn from what they see, and our institutions end up full of criminals, and people wonder why.

I must say that I was pleased to learn that our solicitor general had announced funding for prevention. That is a start. I must congratulate him. We will see how the $32 million is used, because there are serious problems. And throwing everyone into jail will not solve the problem. Locking them up is not the answer. The majority of inmates in our institutions will eventually be released and an effort must be made to see that these people are better and not worse when they get out.

The solution to the problem is prevention with our young people and assistance to families that need it. That is how we will lower the crime rate in this country. We must make sure that the government's decisions do not make the problem worse. I am not prepared to say that the increase in the poverty rate will help, because when people are poor and have nothing to eat, they will perhaps rob the corner store. They lack the necessary resources and perhaps did not have the access they should have had to post-secondary education. All this adds to crime in this country.

It is a crime there is poverty in this country. There should be none. So long as we do not try to eliminate poverty here, we will not be dealing with prevention. First we need good, healthy people. We need people who are comfortable with themselves to make good choices.

To return to the judges, they too need education. I was reading in the paper this morning or yesterday about a man who may have raped his partner because he did not understand that no meant no. He thought she did not mean it, because he had already had sexual relations with her. He was found not guilty, because he did not know the difference. I did not hear the case, I have reported what I read, but it is food for thought. Even if we said yes yesterday, it does not mean we will say yes tomorrow. No is no, yesterday, today or tomorrow. We cannot have judges in this country who think it is all right for the accused to think the other person said yes.

For sure there are big problems in rural communities, where the level of unemployment is even higher. The solicitor general announced the appointment of 1,000 more prison guards in the country. We could call that positive right off, but we might ask ourselves why. No doubt the guards already on the job in institutions are happy to have help, because with the cuts in this area, help will certainly improve things. Poverty is on the rise in this country, the number of prison guards is on the rise. Is anyone looking at the whole picture? This worries me, because I see many decisions being taken.

If I look in my riding, the family crisis resource centre in Shediac is working very hard to eliminate family violence and family crime in general. They are all volunteers who work very hard. These centres are well organized, offer good service and help people in trouble. They will find sources of assistance for people. Money is not pouring into these organizations and yet, they should have more assistance.

Many volunteers get involved in putting together a half-way house, a family crisis centre or a crime prevention centre, but it takes assistance and money. Yet the will is there. There are many volunteers raising money here and there. Where I come from, people may not have a lot of money, but they give generously. They deserve to be congratulated. But the government must not rely on these resources alone.

I think it is too bad that there are such capable people, willing to do something, very dedicated to the cause, who are always scrambling for money. There are many of them. The riding of Kent apparently needs a half-way house. All ridings need them. There is a need for a very safe place where people can go. The vicious cycles must be stopped. This is only possible through prevention and resources.

I needed a half-way house a number of years ago. There was one in my area in those days. I was able to stay there for three weeks. I was able to get therapy. My son was well treated because the resources were available. Had they not been, I would probably not be here today, because I would not have been able to get out of the situation I was in, without the necessary help.

So, when I speak of family violence, I know what I am talking about, believe me. I know how important it is for these women to get help free of charge, because not everybody has money set aside in case they have to get out of the house. Services have to be there for these people.

They can be teenagers too. There are lots of young people who turn up every Tuesday. It is nearly always the same ones we see in court. But they are salvageable. Priority must be given to this, because no child is born bad. Society makes them bad, the society we as a government create.

If we create a society, an environment that is not good for our youth, we must accept the responsibility and go back in time to see what we did that had a bad outcome. This must be dealt with, or we will create a world that will not be a nice one.

That is a pity, in my opinion, because often, the resources are not available. I have often spoken to people in schools, to teachers and principals. They say “We have loads of kids who need help, but no resources”. These are young people that can be helped.

It is very rare for a 6, 7 or 8 year old to have decided to be bad for life. There are reasons, and often we need to really get inside these children to find out where the problem lies. Having a part-time counsellor in a school with 500 students is not the way to find out the child's problems. Not in the least. There must be people in the schools who have the time and the expertise to work with these young people and their parents.

The governments of this country will one day have to establish the priority. Is it to ensure that major corporations continue to make profits? Is it to believe things are going well because the economy has improved, while neglecting social programs? Poverty and stress are increasing. Think of the stress with the cutting of 45,000 federal jobs.

Not only are the poor affected, so is the middle class. There is violence in the middle class. There is violence everywhere. Family violence is not limited to the poor. Violence can be found at all levels.

It is the same with young offenders. They do not come just from poor families. They come from all walks of life. Work needs to be done with them. Until it is, we are missing the boat and by a long shot.

I would also like to talk about registration of firearms. Our constituents are wondering about this too. There is a need to control firearms. But we should not forget that people who kill their partners do not always use guns. Controlling firearms will not resolve all the problems in the world. It will worsen things in certain situations.

In a rural riding, no price is set for registering firearms. It keeps going up and up. In the regions, cuts continue to be made. That means that hunters have a problem. Things are out of balance. It is a problem for the people in our ridings.

I do not want to put all my eggs in one basket and say that everyone is safe in the country because the Liberals passed a bill on registering firearms. That is not true. There are a lot of disturbing factors there. Responsibilities must be assumed.

It is very important that we look at the justice system, at what works and at what does not work. It can put someone in jail. If people commit crimes that is their punishment, but have to look at why they are there and what brought them to that. What is the percentage of people in jail today who had a terrible past, who never worked out their past? It is a very large majority. If we had caught on to that before they committed crimes we would not be paying $75,000 or $85,000 a year for one person in jail. It is a lot of money.

That is why we have to look at prevention, not only prevention once they are 16. We have to look at the whole picture: the family environment and the policies of governments that perhaps make it more difficult, and many policies make it very difficult.

We have to make prevention a top priority and provide funds for it. It should begin in the the schools starting at kindergarten. All kinds of children may be physically abused or sexually abused. It does not only start at the age of 10 years. We need resources available for them if we want to make sure they become a benefit to the society. Until we do that I have no doubt that crime will increase.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech by the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, which gets us thinking about domestic violence.

It is true that there are many volunteers doing some really good work right now. They have the expertise and often work long hours during the day and even late into the night to prevent suicides and help people in our society, in Abitibi, in her riding and in many areas of Canada.

I raise my hat to the member and say to her that we took due note when she said that prevention is really necessary and that there must be more family-oriented policies. Much work must be done, even though the Minister of Justice has introduced a multi-million dollar plan for Canadians and families. I congratulate the member. The speech she gave this evening has made us think about Canada as a whole.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague. When one has experienced difficulties oneself, one understands.

As I said, I have a 12-year-old son who went through some difficult times and he had access to resources. My son will do well in life, I have no doubt, because he had access to resources, as did I. That is the key to success. That is why this deserves our attention.

I thank the member for his comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are talking at this point about Motion No. 1 in relation to spending in the area of justice. I will try to relate to how much society and government resources are committed to the area of justice and then relate that to our lack of satisfaction.

I did a quick addition of how much we will be spending under the justice and the solicitor general ministries. My addition might be incorrect but I came up with $2,889,701,564 that we are about to vote on. That is a tremendous amount of money. Yet it does not represent the money that may be hidden incidentally in other departments such as defence, foreign affairs, the environment and whatnot.

That justice spending does not reflect all the provincial or municipal budgets for crime prevention and other service programs or all volunteer organizations that do fundraising to provide general justice services. That is a tremendous commitment of the resources of Canadian society to justice, peace and public order. Yet we have tremendous dissatisfaction and discomfort with all the services that are delivered.

I would like the member to respond to this inequity, to respond to how we can have greater value for the dollar and greater accountability for what we commit as a society to the judicial area so that the public can have a renewed sense of confidence that all the resources we spend in this area could not be spent wisely in other areas.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are happy with the money we spend on justice when we are spending it the right way. Spending it only once a crime has been committed is not spending it the right way. It is not by taking funds away that we will fix it. It is not by privatizing the institutions as I know the Reform Party wants to do that we will fix it.

What we need is prevention. We need to give the dollars necessary to make sure we have the resources available when someone is in need, when we think someone needs counselling and there is a need for a teacher to say “I believe this child is having problems”. We need counsellors in the schools and places for the kids to go in the evening to play a game or something where it is healthy, where there are no cigarettes or alcohol.

That is all part of crime prevention. How many communities do not have a community centre and if they do have one cannot afford to pay a co-ordinator for the centre? Those are important factors in our daily lives and our children's daily lives. It is important they have a healthy place to go to instead of just hanging around a nice place that may not be nice to hang around.

I believe the Canadian public will not mind that its tax dollars being spent like that because they are being spent in the right way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a success story when it comes to the economy and how we as a government handle the finances of the nation. This success is not only recognized as such within Canada but is certainly recognized in international circles as well.

To achieve this there had to be and has to be balance between federal services, deficit control, debt management, economic growth and other factors. I was quite amazed to note the motion of the opposition member to reduce justice estimates.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough proposes to vote down the operating expenditures of the Department of Justice. If the House approves that motion it would prevent the Department of Justice from conducting its statutory responsibilities.

The $193.8 million in operating expenditures required in 1998-99 will allow the department to carry out its responsibility for the legal affairs of the government as a whole and to provide legal services to individual departments and agencies. More specifically these funds will enable the department to continue to meet its responsibilities under three lines. The first is the provision of services to the government. The second is the policy development and administration of the law and the third is administration.

There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has lead responsibility. They are criminal justice policy, family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce, and human rights policy. The department also has a lead role in constitutional law, administrative law, aboriginal justice, access to information and privacy law, official languages law and the government's mandate for courts and judges.

The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for more than 40 statutes, many of them with major policy ramifications. The department must anticipate future legal and societal trends in order to provide timely strategic and effective responses, to provide leadership both to the government and the public in understanding the changing legal world, and to provide guidance in achieving governmental objectives in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness, equality, accessibility, and effective and efficient legal policy.

The justice department provides a range of services relating to the planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and implementation of justice related policies. The justice department is moving forward with a balanced and focused policy agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have identified as being important to them.

Some of the areas the department is working on includes the crime prevention strategy, youth justice, victims and the rights of victims, conditional sentencing, firearms control and many others. I will elaborate on firearms control. I want to point out that effective implementation of the firearms control program is among the Department of Justice's highest priorities. The regulations required to implement the system have been made following scrutiny of both houses of parliament and the system will be functional by October 1, 1998.

Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of the Firearms Act is aimed at facilitating the continued enjoyment of sport by responsible owners using safe practices. This will decrease the risk of gratuitous violence and will promote a culture which recognizes safety and responsibility.

The new firearms legislation is a positive and effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by the government to further a safe and secure society. The gun control legislation has the support of a large majority of Canadians as we all know and is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

The Firearms Act is legislation which its opponents seem determined to distort and misrepresent in addition to denying its many benefits. Certainly that is most unfortunate. The law imposes tough criminal penalties on those who choose to use firearms in the commission of crimes. Even the opponents of the legislation endorse its strong crime prevention aspects. The minimum penalties, four years in most cases, inserted into the Criminal Code for offences committed with firearms send a strong deterrent message, a message which has been upheld at every state to date by the courts.

This statute is all about regulating lethal instruments, articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is not about confiscation. It recognizes that the vast majority of firearms owners and users are responsible and prudent people. The practices embodied in the statute reflect the prudent practices of those responsible people.

The statute strives to encourage a culture of safety in Canada, a culture which is well ingrained in the activities and responsibilities of firearm owners.

The legitimate practices of those responsible owners can all be continued under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt, target shooters can continue to shoot targets, buyers and sellers can continue their activities, collectors and museums can continue to function and thrive, and responsible owners who carry out their activities safely have certainly nothing to fear in the new gun control legislation.

Many of our opponents advocate a situation representing and respecting firearms such as that which exists in the United States. It is worthy to note there are 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada. A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involves firearms. On average 65% of homicides in the United States involve firearms as opposed to 33% in Canada.

Firearm homicide rates per capita in the United States are 7.6 times higher than in Canada. This is unacceptable. The United States environment respecting guns does not correspond to the vision of Canadians.

The Firearms Act addresses another crucial social situation, domestic violence. The Firearms Act requires licensing and screening of gun owners and will result in specific checking of probation orders and prohibition orders before licences are granted.

When fully implemented, all firearms owners will be licensed. They will have taken a course emphasizing the safety and safe handling aspects of their sport. The guns they use will be registered and this will assist the police in enforcement functions and in tracing the illegal movement or transfer of firearms. It will encourage owners to store their guns carefully and it will assist in the recovery of lost and stolen firearms.

The new system will reduce by half the paper work and administrative tasks which are today performed by police, and this will put police back on the streets where they belong.

The Firearms Act embraces all these things and is a positive and effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by our government to further a safe and secure society. The Firearms Act has the support of a large majority of Canadians and is reflective of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

By way of conclusion, I believe the department is managing its resources responsibly and the department's policy will have an impact on Canadians' confidence in their justice system.

In addition, the role of the Department of Justice in advising the government on legal issues and in conducting litigation on behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole.

The department therefore should be given the means to conduct its responsibilities and I urge all members of the House to vote accordingly on this measure.

SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 1998 / 6:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member speak on the merits of the government's gun control Bill C-68 I have a question. We are going to speak shortly on our own party's position so I do not want to get into that. It is obvious to me the hon. member has a certain amount of information in front of him but I do not think he understands any of the differences between Bill C-17 and Bill C-68.

The effective and important measures and the measures that will work in this country to prevent crime were all incorporated in Bill C-17. When this government brought in Bill C-68 it was simply a tax on ownership of firearms. It had nothing to do with gun control.

I would like to ask the hon. member how a responsible member of parliament can consider for a moment that registration of firearms of law-abiding owners of this country is going to prevent crime. I would like to know that.

There are literally thousands of guns on the streets. It is obvious that not one criminal in Canada is going to stand up to register their firearms, so how do we go to the people who are not abusing the firearm? Bill C-17 looked after anyone abusing firearms. There is no sympathy from the Canadian public for anyone abusing firearms. There is not one iota of sympathy for that person.

The only people who are going to pay the tax on ownership of firearms are the honest people who admit they have the firearms to begin with. How is that going to prevent crime?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

I understand only too well the issue with respect to firearms and the Firearms Act. I sat for 10 years as a member of the Waterloo regional police commission. As chairman of the Waterloo regional police we were very much in favour of having this type of legislation in place which would prevent and assist in terms of prevention of crime throughout not only our community with approximately 500,000 people but across Ontario and across Canada.

What amazed me was that the member's party during the last election would try to out reform the Reform Party on this very contentious issue. Instead it should have been leading with us in the vanguard to ensure that the streets were safe, criminals were put away and firearms were protected in a manner consistent with the values and norms of society.

The Canadian people do not like that, do not want that and do not respect that. What the Canadian people would rather see is our society as a safe and caring one with caring communities in a manner consistent with what we as Canadians value.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from the member for South Shore. I noticed there was not an answer given to that question. I think it deserves an answer.

We have had hand gun registration in Canada since 1935. We have a long gun or rifle and shotgun registration system based very much on that same principle. We know there are more hand guns used in the commission of crimes than ever.

Looking at that model I am wondering if the member for Waterloo—Wellington can tell us how registering rifles and shotguns will improve that situation based on the knowledge we have that it has not improved the situation by having hand guns registered all this time. I think the member for South Shore made a very important point.

We know criminals are not going to register their long guns. They did not register their handguns either, we know that. In rural areas like I represent, it is a real inconvenience. It is a high cost for people to register their guns.

It is not going to be as simple as some member suggested, a postcard style registration mailed back in. We know over 20% of guns do not have proper serial numbers or duplicates. It is going to be much more expensive.

The question bears repeating. How is Bill C-68 going to cut down on crime by causing the registration of riffles and shotguns?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Anything we as a society, anything we as a government, anything we as a country can do to ensure there are not firearms on the streets in whatever form will make our society a safer place. I and most Canadians do not want to go down the path of the Americans in this regard. We do not want the kind of crime that exists in the United States. Our values and system of norms and what we hold dear as a society are very strong.

As a society we need to ensure we take weapons out of the hands of people who commit crime. In doing that we have put in place the kind of laws which enable us to do that. They ensure Canada remains distinct in this area, rightfully so, and in the process allows police to do the kind of work they are best charged to do, to get back on the streets and make sure our communities are safe and sound for everyone. Canadians deserve that and we owe that to our young people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, once again the member has not answered the question. He said he wants to take weapons out of the hands of people who commit crimes. The people who are registering these guns are law-abiding Canadian citizens. They are not committing crimes with these guns.

Why can the member not understand the question? It is put about as simply as we can possibly put it. The question is how will this expensive registry get weapons off the streets and make Canada safer.

This program originally was to cost $85 million or $87 million, whatever the magic number was that the justice minister of the day happened to invent. We now know that it is going to be at least double that number just for the registration program itself.

There is terminology. It is called GIGO, garbage in equals garbage out. It is a terminology of slang used in information systems. If you put in garbage, you get garbage out. If you go with an imperfect registration system such as proposed by this minister and by this government, there is no way the registration system will work.

Furthermore, in my constituency the RCMP has had to try to impose fees in order to cover its cost of doing the extra work caused by Bill C-68. These are realities and facts. We are talking about millions of dollars, much inconvenience. The question remains specifically can the member tell this House how we will have safer streets and fewer guns on the streets as a result of this very expensive multimillion dollar registration system?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

I reject outright the premise that the registration system will not work. It will work. It will be a very effective one which will be for the benefit of all Canadians.

Perhaps the hon. member was not listening when I said this in direct answer to his question. We are not about to penalize legitimate people in terms of gun ownership, farmers, hunters and others.

For example, I live on the family farm. We have those kind of things that are required from time to time. We are not after those kinds of people. They will be licensed and we will keep track of what they have. That is a reasonable thing to do. From an overall macro point of view what we are doing as a government is ensuring that the streets will be safer and police will have the capability to do their work. Ultimately, we as a caring community and by extension a caring society will have a far, far better place and a far, far better Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. member was asked a specific question on three occasions and was not able to respond, I would like to ask for unanimous consent that we extend this question and comment period for another three minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked for the unanimous consent to extend the period of questions and comments for three minutes. Is there unanimous consent?