Debates of June 9th, 1998

Supply

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have 20 minutes to address the estimates. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the justice minister refused to answer my question regarding the position that Manitoba is in right now.

Is there more money placed on the table to keep that government on side in terms of administering the Young Offenders Act? I asked that question very clearly. I repeated it and she refused to answer it. That is the type of response we get from this government on very vital issues. Yet she can stand in her place and criticize, scorn and mock the opposition, all opposition members, including the official opposition, that we have nothing good to say, nothing good to offer. There is nothing over here worth consideration.

Yet when we ask her a straightforward question about a province struggling to administer a key component of the justice system what do we get from her? Her answer is on the record. My question is on the record and her non-answer is on the record. She ought to be ashamed of herself.

To the motion we are debating now, Motion No. 1 moved by my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I cannot support this motion because if passed it would mean that all funding would be eliminated within the solicitor general's department.

If these motions were to pass we would effectively shut down the RCMP, the DNA databank, the RCMP external review committee, the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada. Although we have some serious concerns and reservations about these departments and the expenditures within, we cannot support completely shutting them down.

I appreciate this motion put forward by the hon. member because it does open the avenue for the debate I think is very necessary in this whole area of justice.

We do not support certain expenditures under the solicitor general and we do not agree with particular expenditures of this government under justice.

Justice is one area the Reform Party believes funding should remain constant in, with priorities being shifted. The Reform Party would increase spending in areas such as community policing. Our police forces are slowly diminishing to the detriment of public safety. Thus we would propose increased transfers to the provinces to provide for more police on the streets.

We moved 200 RCMP officers to an international posting but we did not replace them. Imagine the positive effect of having 200 RCMP members wisely deployed across this country and the enormous deterrent they would have on the streets.

We are making these types of decisions and expending this kind of funding to help internationally while at the same time reducing the effectiveness of our police forces and law enforcement agencies at home. We question that.

I have proposed to reduce spending by $20,390,330 within the Department of Justice under grants and contributions. This money has been allocated as a contribution to the provinces and territories for the firearms program. Under the supplementary estimates I proposed the $87,467,000 allotted for the Canadian firearms registration system be reduced to $1. It is no secret that the Reform Party is opposed to the expenditure of scarce dollars for the registration of riffles and shotguns.

For years we have been fighting long and hard to repeal Bill C-68 and its ill conceived firearms registry. We are adamantly opposed to the costly bureaucratic registry because to date the government has failed to provide any statistical justification for registration. The statistics used by the Department of Justice have caused significant controversy and concern among firearm owners, Canadians in general and specifically the Canadian Police Association since the release of a letter from the commissioner of the RCMP to the deputy minister of justice regarding his concern over the bogus use of RCMP statistics.

I have a copy of that letter from the RCMP commissioner's office dated July 21, 1997 to Mr. George Thompson, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada wherein he expresses his grave concern and the grave concern of the RCMP over the misuse of RCMP statistics.

In spite of that, these statistics were placed in a document called “The Illegal Movement of Firearms In Canada”. One example is on page 10 of the document, and there are many other examples in this document. On page 10 is table III. The top of the table states “Firearms Involved in Crime. Type of Firearm Removed According to Offence”. Then there are categories such as violent offences, rifles and shotguns, 915.

When this first came to the public's attention we met with members of the firearms section of the justice department and also with a member of the RCMP. It was admitted to members of parliament that this creates an erroneous perception that all the 915 riffles and shotguns recovered in violent crimes, according to this table, was not accurate. Many of those rifles and shotguns had never been used in the commission of a criminal offence. They had been seized by police in other matters. For example, they would stop a drug dealer and conduct an arrest. He would have a rifle or a shotgun in the trunk of the car. It had not been used in the commission of a crime. They would seize that.

Another example given was they would attend a domestic dispute. Although the spouse had not been threatened by a firearm she felt that she had been threatened. For safety reasons the police would seize the firearm in the house.

They are using those kinds of statistics to justify what amounted to be an erroneous and false perception of the number of firearms used in the commission of criminal offences.

The worst part about this is that this letter expressing the concern of the RCMP was dated July 21, 1997. The Alberta court case, the constitutional challenge to Bill C-68, proceeded I think in November of that same year, a number of months afterwards. In spite of the concerns raised here there were six affidavits filed by justice officials containing these same bogus statistics, creating a false representation of the number of firearms used in the commission of a criminal offence. There we go. In the letter from the commissioner's office, concern is expressed that there was an improper and a false basis created to justify the creation of Bill C-68.

It is clear there is not anyone in the House who does not support firearms control. We have asked the former justice minister, now the health minister, we have asked all the proponents of that bill to please tell the House and the people of Canada how the registration of a rifle and shotgun will reduce the criminal use of those firearms. Of course they were never able to do that. If they could have shown us something that we were unable to see of course they would have had our support.

The fact is that is a myth. The registration of a rifle or shotgun will not reduce its criminal use. The weapon of choice for the street criminal is still the handgun, which has been registered in this country for the last 64 years. It has not reduced the criminal use of that firearm, because the use of that firearm, by their own statistics, is on the rise, certainly over the 64 years since registration was put into place.

When we look at the enormous cost contained within these estimates simply to administer, to set up the software, to get things ready for October 1, 1998, it is an unacceptable cost that ought to be going to crime prevention or it ought to be going to our DNA databank where it will have an impact on the commission of crime and there is a chance of reducing crime in certain areas.

Look at the polls. They quote the polls to support this erroneous, ill conceived piece of legislation. After this bill came into effect we had the province of Manitoba go to the polls, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Ontario. In every case the party that formed the government came out strongly and publicly against the registration and licensing portion of Bill C-68.

If we want to talk about polls, the most significant poll we can get is a poll where the issue is debated and the people have a vote. That is exactly what happened in all three of those provinces. To suggest that 80% of the people support that portion of this ill conceived bill is utter nonsense. If that were the case we would not have Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta risking their political future by taking the most obnoxious portion of the bill, the licensing and registration portion, to court on a constitutional challenge. We would not have the two territories saying the same thing.

We have here a needless and useless piece of legislation and we are spending millions on it.

What we are saying is that there are other areas in justice crying out for these types of resources which are being ignored. Why? It is because the government has set itself on a path and will not change it in spite of evidence to the contrary.

What is the government going to do? The registration and licensing portion of that bill is not aimed at the criminals who use firearms, it is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner. If someone deliberately and knowingly refuses or neglects to register their .22, what is the penalty they will pay under the bill? The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. Is that not wonderful? They will have to do that simply because they failed to fulfil an administrative requirement.

When we look at the legislation that has come forward since the Liberals formed the government in 1993, it is unbelievable that they are allowing conditional sentencing to continue. Convicted rapists and people who have been convicted of manslaughter have been allowed to walk free, and yet they are saying to the law-abiding rancher, farmer, gun owner that if they do not register their firearms by the year 2003 there will be a series of penalties, the most severe of which can be a 10 year jail sentence. However, the rapists are walking free. Violent offenders can walk free. It is a gift from the Liberal Party.

We have examined what is happening in our country in this particular area and at the economic impact. We had witness after witness appear before the standing committee, not only on the bill itself but on the regulations, who told us about the enormous negative impact it is having on the economy in certain areas of this country.

When we asked the justice officials if they had done an economic impact study on this bill and what impact, negative or otherwise, it would have on the economy, they said they had not done an impact study. They do not seem to care whether they drive people out of business or shut down gun shows, shooting ranges or gun clubs. They do not care.

When the witnesses appeared before the committee that was what they told us. Their testimony is on the record. They were saying that with the implementation of these regulations they may not be able to function as a gun club, as a shooting range or as a gun show any longer. The government is threatening to destroy the social events in the firearms community, those social events where people get together at a gun show to display their collections. They buy and they trade. It is much like a garage sale.

When we asked the witnesses from these shows who appeared before the committee if their activities over the past 20 years of running these gun shows had ever created personal or public danger to anyone, they replied that they had not. We asked them why they thought the government was regulating something that was not causing a problem. They had no answer for that. The minister has no answer to that question either.

The government is simply regulating many of these law-abiding organizations out of business, possibly through the increased insurance they are going to have pay.

This bill and the money that we are spending on this bill is wrong. It was wrong-headed at the beginning and the government has never been able to admit that it is wrong.

In spite of the fact that evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, it still continues with its mantra: gun control. Bill C-68 and the registration of rifles and shotguns is not gun control at all.

Everyone is in favour of the common sense control of firearms. The registration of rifles and shotguns does not contain the capacity to do that, nor does it contain the capacity to reduce the criminal use of the firearms.

The legislation will allow the confiscation, without compensation, of thousands of firearms. Bill C-68 will prohibit over 500,000 handguns. Why? The barrels are too short.

This is property which has been lawfully acquired and legally held for years. It is going to be confiscated, ultimately, without any compensation. Again, this is wrong.

We are saying that it is wrong to spend money on an ill-conceived bill like this and the government is not fully disclosing the cost to us.

The firearms group has said that it is the greatest boondoggle this country has every seen.

We will see. We will watch to see whether it comes into effect on October 1 and what kind of mess occurs. There are 20,000 to 30,000 of these handguns under this specific category that are going to be lost by the firearm owners themselves, the dealers. There is no law covering them. Therefore, they will lose them, apparently without compensation.

We will watch to see this ill-conceived piece of legislation as it moves into effect to see whether it brings safety to streets and homes or whether it continues to be an unmitigated mess.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that I do not pull figures out of the air.

In a recent Angus Reid poll, 82% of Canadians supported a system of universal registration of rifles and shotguns. There was 72% per cent approval for that same system in rural communities.

Those members just do not get it. This government was voted in after it adopted that piece of legislation, which had the support of this side of the House but was opposed by the opposition parties.

The hon. member keeps referring to a letter which he says distorts the facts. In fact, he is distorting the facts. The minister herself tabled a letter right here in the House which stated that the facts and figures represented in the first letter were true, but that they were based on a different system of calculation.

The hon. member refused, both in the justice committee and here in the House after it was debated on numerous occasions, to make reference to the second letter which was tabled in this House.

Constant distortion of the facts continues on this issue because the hon. member and his party refuse to accept that Canadians do not want children killing children, as happens elsewhere in the world, but in fact want to know that if somebody has a gun in their house the police know about it.

The RCMP and the Canadian Police Association endorse our policy of gun control.

Would the hon. member like to tell this House why he refuses to make reference to the second letter that was tabled by the hon. minister in this House which in fact says that the statistics are true?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. She is asking me a question after she refused to answer mine. I will do what she did not do and answer the question.

I have looked at both letters. The RCMP is saying that our statistics are true. Those statistics that we gave represent firearms used in the actual commission of a crime. What the deputy minister said was that their group looked at it from a broader point of view. They looked at firearms seized by the police in any type of investigation, not necessarily those used in a crime.

But that is not what is in this book of theirs. That is not in the “Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”. Chart No. 3 is found on page 10 of that book. At the top of the chart it says “Firearms Involved in Crime”. Under the violent column it says that rifles and shotguns were used in 915 crimes. When we met with the firearms officials, as well as a member of the RCMP, they admitted to us that the figure of 915 did not accurately represent firearms used in crimes, but that is the perception created there. They admitted it could very well create a false perception.

The point that we have been making is that this false and bogus piece of information was filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal in six different affidavits in the constitutional court challenge of Bill C-68. The figures are wrong. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions for the hon. member.

I have watched the estimate of the cost of this firearms control effort rise from an estimated $85 million to what it is now being estimated at, which is $133.9 million just for this year alone. That estimate was made by the spokesman for the new firearms centre. It will be $133.9 million for this year alone and it has not even begun yet.

I wonder if the hon. member has had any indication from the government what the total cost is going to be? Or has he been able to conclude a cost himself?

My second question refers to the $32 million crime prevention initiative announced by the government, which a newspaper article cites as another $32 million down the drain. It says that the minister's crime prevention initiative is more of the same mollycoddling that has made a joke out of the Young Offenders Act. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with that comment which appeared the Toronto Sun .

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cost of the firearms program, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough asked the minister that very question when the minister appeared before the committee on April 20 of this year.

Of course the minister, with the deepest respect, mugwumped around that question and did not give us a clear and decisive answer as to the exact amount of money that had been spent up until that time, that is, April 1 of this year. What the minister did say was that they had spent $66 million, but that also included the administration of Bill C-17. We do not know the cost of Bill C-17. Therefore, we do not know how much had been spent up until that time.

Mr. Valin, who was reported by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa Sun , claimed that we just did not ask the right question of the minister and that the total cost for this year was the figure that my hon. colleague mentioned, which is $133.9 million.

It is such a confusing mess. We do not know if this is on top of the $85 million or on top of the $20 million that the estimates are going to send out to the provinces. We just do not know.

Mr. Speaker, if you are only going to give me 90 seconds on that question, then I will have to sit down and beg my hon. colleague's pardon for not getting to his second question.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, many witnesses who testified at the standing committee on justice with regard to firearms registration said many times that a registry of firearms is certainly not going to prevent crime in any substantive way. The Conservative Party supports proper control of firearms and their proper use, but we think this expense of $85 million referred to by the government is low. We hear rumours of a potential for maybe $500 million.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe what we are reading we will spend another $133 million on top of whatever has been spent before a single firearm is registered.

If we look at the process to register a firearm or simply to get a licence to hold one, it is the same process or almost identical to the requirement for an FAC. The Toronto police board estimated the cost to process a single FAC requirement in 1994. I think it came to $181 to do that.

If Ontario is high and we knock it down to $100 and if there are three to six million firearm owners and we have to spend $100 to process a licence application, we will spend $300 million to $600 million before we register a single firearm. The cost has never been honestly declared by the government, either because it does not know it or it does not want us to know it.

The former minister of justice is on record as saying that if it came anywhere near half a billion dollars he would withdraw and not proceed. The government is hiding the cost and I dare say for that very reason.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough if it is a serious motion. If the motion were to pass it would literally handcuff the Department of Justice and the important work it has to do.

It is quite clear to me as a member of parliament in my second term that Canadians want an improved system of justice. This is a priority concern of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Obviously it will be necessary to invest some taxpayer dollars into priority areas. To pass a motion like this one would prevent the department from carrying out its existing duties and would certainly make it impossible for the Department of Justice to move into new priority areas of the Canadian public.

I will address the heavy responsibilities the department executes. There is service to the government itself. There is the matter of policy development and the administration of law, and there is general administration.

Regarding service to the government, we well know that the Department of Justice drafts all legislation and provides legal advice to all departments. The department has the lead role in criminal justice policy in the areas of family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce and of human rights policy.

I have heard very clearly from my constituents in London—Fanshawe that they are looking for new initiatives from the government. The government is responding and I support those initiatives.

One that comes to mind very readily is the area of crime prevention strategy. The minister is embarking on a national strategy for community safety and crime prevention. These lofty words are not just words but are being backed up by an important expenditure of funds. There is an increase in funding from $3 million a year to $32 million a year. That is a very real commitment to the important area of crime prevention.

I well know from my conversations with the chief of police in London, Ontario, Chief Fantino, that the chiefs of police understand the importance of preventing crime in the first place. It is the old analogy of the Fram oil filter we have all seen on TV, pay me now or pay me later. For every crime we can prevent through investment in people, particularly young people and families, the savings later on will be much greater than the necessary investment. Chief Fantino and other police chiefs and social agencies across the country have made that point repeatedly.

I was a member of the municipal council of London, Ontario, for 11 years during which time I spent several years serving on the Children's Aid Society. Over those years we repeatedly heard of the need to invest in families and in children which leads directly to preventing youth crime. It is very simple. We know a very high percentage of young people in Canada who get into difficulty with the law or who break the law come from problem families described one way or another.

Such initiatives will also involve other levels of provincial and municipal governments, NGOs, community experts such as the Children's Aid Society and the private sector in a very important partnership with this government to do much more in the area of crime prevention.

I know colleagues throughout the House heard the following concern from their constituents as I do from my constituents in London—Fanshawe. They are very worried about the issue of youth justice. They are concerned about youth crime, particularly the increase in violent youth crime. I share that concern as a Canadian and as a member of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I know you do as well.

The minister is trying to respond to those concerns. She proposed a justice strategy to replace the Young Offenders Act. It is clear to me and to most Canadians that the confidence of the Canadian public in the Young Offenders Act has been badly shaken.

It is important, however, to draw the important distinction between violent and non-violent youth crime. The input I have received from the people of London is that they have very little if any tolerance for violent youth crime, particularly by repeat young offenders. They expect the government to implement tougher penalties in this area.

We have done that since being elected in 1993 and we intend to go further in the area of violent youth crime particularly when we are dealing with repeat violent young offenders. In this instance public safety must and will come first.

I hear from social agencies, the chief of police and others in London that when we are dealing with non-violent youth crime incarceration is not a panacea. This is where the majority of my constituents and I as a member of parliament perhaps disagree with some colleagues in other parts of the House. Throwing these young people into institutions and thinking that will solve their problems and that they will not repeat these offences when they are let free is not realistic. It is incredibly expensive to put them in these institutions. More to the point, it is not an effective way to deal with non-violent criminals.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

And we agree.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I am very pleased to note the agreement of my colleague from Wild Rose. We draw a distinction between violent and non-violent criminals particularly when we are talking about young offenders. We could say that for any offender. I believe and my constituents recognize that when we are dealing with violent and non-violent crime we need two different strategies. The answer is not to lock them up and throw away the key. We have to be more analytical and realistic than that and try to take the best action in whichever situation we are dealing with, violence or non-violence.

Earlier I alluded to the well known fact that the vast majority of young offenders, a shockingly high proportion of young offenders or criminals of an age, come from families with serious problems of one type or another. I know that is so from 22 years in the classroom in the field of education.

Perhaps there are more people from the field of education in this parliament than ever before in the history of the Canadian parliament. These educators know. They have seen it. When a young person acting out and getting in trouble at school unfortunately slides into youth crime, in a shockingly high percentage of cases we are dealing with a young person who comes from a “problem family”.

It is extremely important as a government to support Canadian families more effectively. I am very proud of the fact the government has made several steps in that direction. It needs to go further and I hope it will. I for one intend to encourage that so that we will do even more to promote healthy family life as a way of preventing and minimizing the chances of young offenders being involved crime and crime in general.

I can speak specifically to several important initiatives undertaken in the past and previous budgets. One initiative was increasing the child tax credit for families that wish to have one of the parents stay at home with the children. They wish to exercise the option my wife and I exercised as a mutual decision. There ought to be recognition that those families are making a very important contribution to society and to raising good children.

The increase in the child tax credit and the increase in support for poor families by removing them from the tax rolls in the last budget are very real and tangible ways the government has tried to support families. We need to and will do more.

Another initiative is the increase in the child care expense deduction for families that choose not to have one of the parents at home or through whatever situation cannot have one of the parents at home with the children. There is also the case of a single parent family where the single parent must work to support the children. Increasing the child care expense deduction was a important improvement in supporting those families.

I may be considered old fashioned, but if so I proudly say I think many of the problems in Canada begin with problem families. That is not to be simplistic. To me it is quite obvious. I am proud of the initiatives the government has undertaken to improve support for Canadian families. I look forward to even further increases over the next three budgets during the time we intend to be in office and hopefully for many more thereafter.

A third area that has come to my attention repeatedly in the town hall meetings I have held on a regular basis with my constituents and in many calls and letters I receive as all members receive is the need to be more cognizant of justice to victims, better treatment for victims. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too much toward being so concerned about the rights of the accused that we have failed to take proper care of victims and to respect their rights.

I am pleased to see the initiatives the minister is undertaking to begin to do more to improve the treatment of victims. Specifically what? Better access to information for victims. The notion that the minister has put forth for discussion with other governments of a central victims office for victims who are trying to obtain information so that they are not tied up in a bureaucratic maze. They could get the information and the legal protection they need much more quickly and much more readily and could deal with their situations much more effectively.

The whole idea needs to be explored. The minister is committed to exploring the necessity of having victim impact statements play a much greater role in court cases and in sentencing convicted persons. We have seen more of this in the last few years. There is much more room for it. I am pleased the minister has indicated she is moving in that direction.

I sensed a fair bit of support from some of my colleagues opposite of a number of my comments. I suspect at this point we may digress.

I want to move to the area of the firearms debate, the Bill C-68 debate we all lived through. I thought it had begun to wrap up, but I am hearing some points raised from hon. members opposite. I have a number of concerns about some of the statements I have heard. I do not purport to be an expert on this topic. I never did. I will simply state the following.

I know what the officials in my community think. I was pleased that the Reform Party held a convention in London, Ontario a couple of weeks ago. They were very welcome and they have been a nice economic boost to London, Ontario. I had a lot of good feedback from the Reform members of how impressed they were with our community. We were pleased to hear that.

Let me share with my colleagues opposite the views of the people of London, Ontario. They expressed them without any reservation to me and my colleagues in the past term.

First of all, the well-respected and nationally known chief of police in London, Ontario, Julian Fantiono, came on my monthly show which I hold on cable television for my constituents. He obviously was not going to be partisan supporting me, but in a very non-partisan, clear and effective statement he outlined why he as the chief of police of London, Ontario fully, totally and completely supported the registration of firearms. His explanation was not at all nebulous. Let me share the key point of it with my colleagues who question the value of this.

Chief Fantiono and other experts across this country have said that registration of firearms will improve the safety of the public, particularly front line officers working for the chief who attend at a crime scene or a potential crime scene. Registration of firearms will lead to more effective police work in tracking down weapons used in the commission of crimes and in the conviction of criminals using those weapons.

This is interesting. As soon as we quote experts who disagree with some of the members, they do not want to hear those opinions. That may be the case. What I am putting forward are not my personal explanations about the necessity of registration of firearms. I am putting forward the views of Chief Julian Fantiono, that I have on tape and which I would be glad to share with my sceptical colleagues opposite. I have heard these views shared by chiefs of police coast to coast to coast.

There is a very real value in the minds of the chiefs of police and front line officers in the registration of legal firearms. To me it is nonsense to say that criminals are not going to register their firearms and therefore no one should have to. The chief simply said his word for that was “nonsense”.

The member for Crowfoot has raised some very important points about the validity of this whole action by the government. Let me share with him some other facts from London, Ontario and my riding of London—Fanshawe. These are based on hundreds of inputs by phone calls, responses to a questionnaire that went to every household in my riding, meetings which I attended specifically on Bill C-68 and general meetings throughout the term where this topic came up. Seventy per cent of my constituents clearly supported the government in its action. Despite the heckling of the members opposite, those facts do not change.

Reference was made to election results somehow questioning the validity of Bill C-68. I would point out that in the province of Ontario in the last federal election certain colleagues of mine on our side of the House were targeted by the opponents to Bill C-68. They were targeted specifically for their support of that bill to try and have them lose the election. The reality is that every single one of those people who sought re-election is back here and where the people did not seek re-election, the Liberal replacement candidate is in this House now.

I would suggest to my friend from Wild Rose that you have to be careful when you draw results of elections, be they provincial or federal, highlighting one issue and drawing conclusions. There is evidence on this side that Bill C-68 did not defeat any Liberal MPs in the province of Ontario. I think that evidence is very clear for anyone to see.

Madam Speaker, subject to your ruling I have some facts on the estimates in terms of the economic performance of the government that I would be quite happy to move to if that is in order at this time. Could I ask for your guidance on that now? Could I move to the area of economic performance of the government as it relates to the estimates?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

At this point I am afraid that the debate must remain on Motion No. 1 on justice.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, at another time I will be pleased to highlight the outstanding economic performance of the government and remind Canadians and the members in the House of that.

In conclusion and I say this with respect, if it really is a seriously intended motion of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, obviously I cannot support it. It would literally handcuff the Department of Justice in the duties it now has to carry out. It would also make impossible a number of very important initiatives that I have tried to outline today. With those remarks, I say I cannot support the motion.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, who is also the president of the Canada-Ireland committee.

The hon. member introduced himself earlier as a teacher of 22 years and a councillor in his lovely town for 11 years. To become a teacher, one must have one essential quality and that is fairness.

Had he had favorites in his class, our colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe would certainly not have had such a long career because, as he knows, there is nothing that students hate more than unfairness.

How can this member explain that Ontario and Quebec have their own police forces, namely the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and the OPP in Ontario, while in the other provinces, police services are provided to municipalities by the RCMP?

The federal government bills the other provinces, or the RCMP, for only a fraction of the actual costs. As a result, with 60% of the population, Ontario and Quebec pay 60% of the costs incurred by municipalities and provinces served by the RCMP. That is one example of unfairness.

Had he been this unfair as a teacher or city councillor, he would have been kicked out. When hit with a claim from Ontario and Quebec, which pay for part of the police services provided outside these two provinces, his government refuses to pay up.

Douglas Young, who used to sit over there, did not care about poor people. He unilaterally abolished POWA, a program designed to help older laid-off workers. He abolished it unilaterally, without consulting any province, simply stating he would come up with another program, a superior program of course, to replace it with. We are still waiting.

In my riding, the average age of the 305 workers who were laid off at the asbestos mine is over 52. A good number of these workers contributed to employment insurance for 25, 30 or 32 years. Now they are only being given 55% of their insurable earnings.

Worse still, Clermont Bégin, a 63-year-old former asbestos mine worker, has seen his EI benefits cut off by the human resources development office in Thetford because he did not tour the riding every day to look for a job. How can you expect the Liberal Party of Canada to instil a sense of justice in this country?

I now go back to my main question to the distinguished member for London—Fanshawe. Does he find it fair that Ontario and Quebec pay for 25% or 30% of the costs of police services in municipalities and other provinces without compensation from the federal government? Better yet, if the federal government charged municipalities and provinces for every dollar spent, then the money demanded from the Treasury Board for the justice budget would be much lower than the current $193 million.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic for his important questions.

He has noted my involvement in the Canada-Ireland interparliamentary friendship group and I thank him for that commercial.

I will not belabour the point other than to simply say in the most serious way I can that if there is a country in the world perhaps where we can see the results of there being no control or very inadequate control over firearms and other dangerous weapons, I think that unfortunately the country of my ancestors is a very ready example of where the problem can lead to whatever the motivation is behind it.

The most relevant question my colleague asked was that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have their own police forces whereas in other provinces those services are provided by the RCMP. That is quite true, but of course as we know, the other eight provinces contract for the services. They pay for the services by the RCMP.

La belle province du Quebec and the province of Ontario choose to have their own police forces. They would not have to have their own police forces if they did not choose to. They could apply for the same service to be contracted with the RCMP. I think it is a reflection of the size of the two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, that they wish to have their own police forces.

As for municipal forces, my friend again mentioned my involvement in municipal government. While I well know there is no requirement for my city of London, Ontario to have its own municipal force, it chooses to have it. The taxpayers of the city of London fund it and are prepared to do so on a priority basis. There are smaller communities near my riding such as the town of Exeter just to the north of London. A number of those communities are now saying that perhaps they cannot afford their own municipal force any more.

The decisions my colleague refers to really are choices in my view that the municipalities across Canada make, be they in Ontario or Quebec. In the example he cited, the choices of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to have their own police forces are choices the people and their governments have made provincially.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.

I understand the compassion he has for people who are suffering in our land. I understand the member quite clearly on those things. I know he is concerned about the poverty that exists in this country. He also suggested that a lot of these problems can lead to crime.

I agree that possibility exists.

In 1993 it was quoted in this House that there were approximately a million children starving, living in poverty in this land, and that we needed to do something. The latest figure I heard is a million. Evidently we are not making much progress.

When I look at the public accounts I do not want to support this motion either, but I have a fear that this money is going to go for a golf course or other ridiculous things. Are we going to spend money on transition to adulthood, $105,00; sexual dissidence in historical context, $23,000; infants understanding how people act, $75,000; institutional change in household behaviour in rural China, $55,000; sexual behaviour of senior citizens, $116,000. I feel good about that being a senior. That is what this government has spent. Then we talk about the billions of dollars given to companies like Bombardier or a $25 million free flag giveaway. This spending is going on.

Does the member agree that is good spending or should we redirect that money to those poverty ridden places and give a chunk of that money to the children's societies of Ottawa and Toronto and every city and stop this foolish spending that goes on? Believe me it exists. Sell the charter jets that these members in the front row fly around in. They should sell them and take economy flights like the rest of us try to. Save bucks and help these people. When is it going to stop on that side?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are important questions.

I agree with the member for Wild Rose that a priority of our government spending ought to be poorer families and children in poorer families, to assist them for a number of reasons, one of which is to reduce the likelihood that some of these young people would find themselves in a criminal situation.

I concede readily as an MP, and I am sure any colleague on my side would, that I do not support every single dollar spent by this government on every single project.

Madam Speaker, you ruled me out of order to tell the very good economic story, so I will have to wait for another time to do that. I know the member will be anxiously waiting for that.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the Main Estimates, within this debate on supply.

As we know, the President of Treasury Board intends to allocate $194 million to the Department of Justice for the coming fiscal year.

I have examined the estimates presented by the President of Treasury Board with great interest and great care. I have just recently discussed them with a few of my colleagues, including the hon. members for Châteaugay, Frontenac—Mégantic, Rosemont and Champlain. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was unable to join in our discussion on this vital issue.

Looking at the government's proposal with great interest and great care, one can see that this $194 million budget allocation to the Department of Justice shows just how much this government lives from day to day, without any road map or compass, and practically without giving its actions any thought.

They move from one slapdash policy to another without an overall plan, and this is unfortunate.

I could give numerous examples to illustrate this, the first being of course the reference to the Supreme Court. As we know, in 1980 the Government of Quebec and all the people of Quebec voted on a rather specific question concerning sovereignty-association. The federal government of the day, led by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, accepted the rules for consultation of the people of Quebec. They said at the time that it was democratic and that it was accepted. Trudeau's participation implicitly validated the referendum process in Quebec.

Although at that time the question also concerned Quebec sovereignty, another consultation was held after 1992, again in accordance with the Quebec referendum legislation. Again the federal government took part, at Charlottetown, and validated the Quebec referendum act.

In 1995 there was a referendum campaign. The debate was fierce, fair, and intense, but it was always serene. This is the great quality that Quebeckers have. They had a calm and peaceful debate on the future of a country to be, Quebec, and therefore of an existing one, Canada, which shows that the Quebec society is a perfect model of democracy.

Of course, the federal government took part in the process. The then Prime Minister, who is still the Prime Minister—although I do not know for how much longer—also got involved by organizing rallies and appearing on television to discuss the impact of sovereignty. The result of the vote was so close that neither side can really claim victory.

In light of this, the federal government said “Since I almost lost, I will change the rules of the game. I will deny Quebeckers the right to decide their own future, as they did in 1980, 1992 and 1995”. What did the government do to achieve this? It asked the supreme court to rule on the issue.

This is like having a problem with the fence between our property and that of our neighbour and telling him “Listen, we have a problem with the fence. I will ask my best friend, whom I will pay, to make a decision”. This is what is happening with the supreme court. The judges are appointed by the federal government. They are paid by the federal government. Not only that, but they are interpreting a document, the Constitution of Canada, which was never recognized by any Quebec government, whether federalist or sovereignist. So, the decision is removed from the hands of the people of Quebec and handed over to an unelected authority, the supreme court.

It is sad to see that this unilateral action by the federal government takes us back 150 years. Back then, in the 1830s, the elected assembly, the people's democratic representatives, wanted to wrest power from an oligarchy appointed by the Imperial government in London. It was this debate that led to the rebellion and that later, much later, led to responsible government.

By going back 150 years, this government is deciding to take away Quebeckers' right to decide on their own future and giving it to nine individuals it has appointed, who are interpreting a document it produced without Quebec's consent.

As the current Minister of Justice herself has said, this reference will bring absolutely nothing new to the debate from a constitutional point of view. We can even tell you what the court's ruling will be. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money, all for the purpose of hijacking democracy in Quebec.

I will give another example of how little the government—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member. All Speakers of the House have always considered references to magistrates and tribunals unparliamentary when they took the form of a personal attack or blame.

I will therefore ask the hon. member to choose his words carefully and to be careful about attacking the court.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this point of order, members will recall the Reform Party motion of not so long ago in which they debated the position of the judicial arm vis-à-vis the legislative and executive. Numerous questions were asked about the nature of supreme court appointments. The Prime Minister even appointed some of his former law office colleagues to the supreme court. These debates were allowed by the Speaker of the House. As democratically elected representatives, we are therefore perfectly entitled to speak about appointments and the operation of the supreme court.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. You are right, we can speak of such things, but at some point there is a limit and we have to stop there.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order—and I do hope this time will not be subtracted from my speaking time—I would like someone to tell me where I went overboard, because I have followed the rules of debate ever since I was elected to this House on June 2 last.

Its handling of the young offenders issue is another example of how completely out of touch with reality this government is. The Liberal government plans to spend huge amounts on reforming the Young Offenders Act. The intention is laudable; we are always in favour of fighting crime.

Unfortunately, as mentioned repeatedly by stakeholders from various communities, the problem with the Young Offenders Act is not the act itself, but rather its enforcement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who is unfortunately not in the House, even stated candidly on national television that the main purpose of this reform was to placate public opinion, especially in western Canada, and give the impression the government was taking charge in this matter. But the fact is no policy can be worse than a policy guided by petty politics and by the desire to court public opinion in any given part of the country.

Everyone in the community agrees that the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act by Quebec is exemplary. Many stakeholders in Quebec and even outside Quebec have said so.

Not only does the Quebec government understand and enforce this legislation designed to rehabilitate young offenders, but it has applied the provisions of this act better than anybody else.

The Bloc Quebecois criticized this reform, because it is a reform for Reform's sake or worthy of Reform. The new bill on young offenders aims to brand young offenders. It thus runs counter to the objective of rehabilitation that is, that should be and that was at the very heart of the legislation on young offenders.

Rather than implement rehabilitation or education programs for young offenders, the Minister of Justice is capitulating to western pressure, in favour of sentences and their reinforcement and the hardening of the attitude to this problem, which affects us all.

In this regard, I must denounce in the strongest possible terms the attitude of this government, which penalizes the province, namely Quebec, applying its own legislation in the best way possible. The federal government owes $77 million for the application of its law in Quebec, and it has yet to pay one cent.

I find that unspeakable, and there is no shortage of words to criticize this attitude, which is totally unacceptable on the part of this government. True to form, the federal government is refusing to pay and it is logical to think that this matter will drag on, proving once again that the federal government does not honour its commitments.

I have given an account of the useless reform to the Young Offenders Act. Once again, there are a lot of other things to talk about. Now, I would like to move on to discuss Bill C-37, the Judges Act.

Without Bill C-37, what is the status of judges' salaries? On April 1, 1997, judges were entitled to an increase of 2.08%. On April 1, 1998, they had another increase of 2.08%, which is pretty good, given that many officials and public sector employees did not get such an increase. So that is something already.

The government decided to give the judges, with Bill C-37, a 4.1% increase effective April 1, 1997, retroactively, and another 4.1% effective April 1, 1998, also retroactive. This means an increase of over 13% in the salary of this country's magistrates.

At the same time, there are cuts to health, forced hospital bed closings, cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, and a surplus of $20 billion in the employment insurance fund. What happens? Instead of returning these funds to the most disadvantaged members of our society, to women and children living below the poverty line, they decide to turn it over to people who, important as they may be, are not necessarily in need of a 13%-plus raise.

This is not to say that the judges do not deserve a raise in salary, nor that they do not do a good job. What we are saying is that, in today's economic and budgetary context, it is high time to make some enlightened choices, it is high time to make some fair choices. The duty of all parliamentarians, of all governments, is first of all to give priority to the most disadvantaged members of society, and this government has steadfastly refused to do so, ever since 1993, when they were first elected as a majority government.

It is a matter of societal choices. We have seen all this. What are this government's priorities? The money goes to the judges, rather than the disadvantaged. Money is spent on denying Quebeckers the right to determine their own future. Instead of respecting their commitments and the very logic of the Young Offenders Act, which is the rehabilitation of delinquent youth, it has been decided to brand them as criminals.

Those are three examples of the lack of direction, of the lack of wise choices, and the lack of judgment demonstrated by this government in the area of justice.

In closing, let me say that this is proof of how much this government is out of touch with reality. I hope that, when the time comes to make choices, and to vote on this, all of my colleagues in this House will realize that this request for appropriation absolutely must be turned down.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak when you are in the chair.

I thank my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. I am sure you will not mind my pointing out that he is certainly one of our more talented members. I think my colleagues would give him a boisterous round of approval.

Two points must be made. As the member for Beauce is apparently not up to it, I will make them myself. First, there is a concern that must be noted, and that is the concern over organized crime. We have spoken about this on several occasions. The member for Berthier—Montcalm pointed out how, somewhere around 1995—you were already in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker—we fought for anti-gang legislation.

We got it, not only because of our perseverance and our powers of persuasion in those days, but because we convinced the government that it was not possible for us to win this war without the help of lawmakers.

I will tell you one thing that could be done, and I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of this. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is a fairly neutral group—the member for Beauce will agree that we are not talking about a pocket of sovereignists or a breeding ground for indépendantistes—has asked the government to take one thousand dollar bills out of circulation because this denomination encourages money laundering and is obviously of no use to the average citizen.

If I did an informal survey and asked those hon. members who have $1,000 in their pockets to raise their hands, it seems to me I will find few Conservatives, no Bloc Quebecois members and probably no government members either.

All this to say that we made a very reasonable suggestion to the government to fight organized crime and the underworld, but the government did not act on it. I think the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who is quite familiar with this issue, will agree that there are no concrete measures.

Why should we agree—and this is the real issue—to support the budget proposed for a department that did not have the courage to take the necessary measures to fight organized crime?

I want to ask my nice, attractive colleague from Charlesbourg whether he agrees that the government could, among other things, have acted on the proposal made for the past two years by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and withdraw the $1,000 bank notes. If the hon. member has other ideas, I wonder if he could share them with us.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question.

I would like to start by mentioning why the previous legislature passed anti-gang legislation. It was thanks to the perseverance and the initiative of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was one of the first to raise this important issue in this august Chamber. This is the perfect example, one of the examples, of the situation where a member decides to push an issue and succeeds in changing things.

As to the withdrawal of the $1,000 bill, I am sorry to say I have never had one in my possession. A number of my colleagues opposite have no doubt had a few in their pocket, but this is unfortunately not true in my case.

Perhaps one reason the government is refusing to take $1,000 bills out of circulation is that one day, in the quest for visibility, the Prime Minister might put his face on the bill.

That said, this question obviously warrants consideration. I take note of the proposal by the Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police and I am eager to meet with them to discuss the terms of such an operation.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on the Estimates, especially the $193 million allocated to the Department of Justice. That is a lot of money.

It reminds me of the surplus in the EI fund, which will apparently top $20 billion by the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year. I wonder whether we could not have the Department of Justice pay for itself, the way EI is expected to.

As my colleague so aptly pointed out earlier, in reference to young offenders, I have always thought that this was an investment that could yield dividends. If the government invested wisely and judiciously in solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency, there would surely be fewer inmates being housed at government expense, for it apparently costs over $80,000 to keep one inmate in jail.

I now come to my main question for my distinguished colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. How does he think the government is being fair when it penalizes those who must resort to EI, when fewer than 43% are eligible, but must still pay $2.70 for every $100 of insurable earnings?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can indeed talk about justice in general. It is incredibly wrong and unacceptable to be accumulating a $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund while the justice department is making all sorts of wasteful expenditures like the ones I mentioned earlier, to the tune of $194 million. The government will not use this surplus to help workers, the asbestos mine workers who are asking for a POWA assistance program, for instance, because we must realize that on average the 305 workers at the BC mine, which has closed down, are over 52 years old.

It is morally wrong for the government to accumulate billions of dollars in a surplus transferred into the consolidated revenue fund while refusing to provide the assistance they need to workers who have worked hard all their lives, working day and night in mines to put bread and butter on the table for their families.

It laughs in their face and says “We have a $20 billion surplus in our coffers. Never mind you, workers over the age of 52 on average. You will not get any help from us. You can die, we don't care”. That is what the government is saying. This shows that the government does not know the first thing about being fair.