House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registration.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to ten petitions.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by grandparents who as a result of death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians.
Legislation in several provincial jurisdictions, including Quebec and Alberta, contains provisions to ensure the right of access of the grandparent to their grandchildren.
The petitioners would like parliament to support private member's Bill C-340 regarding the rights of grandparents to have access to or custody of the children.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, today, as thousands of law-abiding, responsible gun owners are congregating on Parliament Hill, I am pleased to present 605 pages of petitions with 13,933 signatures of concerned citizens from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, B.C. and the Yukon calling on the government to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.
My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of the repeal of Bill C-68 petitions. This year I have introduced 744 pages with 17,342 signatures.
These Canadians are very concerned that this billion dollar licensing and registration scheme will do nothing to curtail the criminal use of firearms, is not cost effective in addressing the violent crime problem in Canada, is putting tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy and is opposed by the majority of police on the street and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Yukon.
Therefore, they request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, and spend their hard earned tax dollars on more cost effective, crime fighting measures such as hiring more police to fight organized crime and more crime prevention programs.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who spoke before me, I too have a petition to submit with respect to Bill C-68, the gun control legislation.
The petition comes from my constituents in Brandon—Souris who also disagree with the legislation put forward by the current government and feel that the gun registration will not provide what this government believes it will provide to the Canadian public.
I would like to table this petition on behalf of the constituents of Brandon—Souris.
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present calling on parliament to impose a moratorium on the ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the treaty are held across the country so that Canadians have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege on this particular day, as we have a large number of citizens across Canada coming to protest the gun law, to be able to present on behalf of 100 members of my constituency of Nanaimo—Cowichan a petition expressing their opposition to Bill C-68, the gun registration law. They feel that it is nothing more than an illegitimate tax grab of their money and that it will do nothing to really curtail crime on the streets.
They indicate that criminals do not register their guns.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table before the House a petition signed mainly by citizens of Stornoway, urging the federal government not to consider average family income in the calculation of seniors benefits.
I strongly support my fellow citizens of Stornoway.
Eugène Bellemare Liberal Carleton—Gloucester, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians requesting that the Divorce Act be amended.
They are concerned about grandparents, who are often cut off from their grandchildren after a divorce, death or separation.
Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to stand on behalf of my constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster to present petitions on their behalf regarding Bill C-68. With the big rally here today it is very timely.
The constituents are very concerned that their federal government is going down the wrong road on this issue. They pray that the government will rescind Bill C-68 and really take a harder line on criminals.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present four petitions today. The first petition requests parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to increase the minimum and maximum penalties for the offence of joyriding, since joyriding, which is a misnomer, is car theft and people want it treated as such.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, other petitioners call upon parliament to amend the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between young people and an adult from 14 to 16 years of age.
There are some very sad cases in British Columbia where people have been wooed into prostitution at a very young age.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, other petitioners call upon parliament to amend the criminal code to increase surveillance and supervision of those convicted of sex offences against children.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is a larger petition which calls upon parliament to significantly amend the Young Offenders Act, including but not limited to reducing the minimum age governed by the act from 12 to 10 years of age, allowing the publishing of violent offenders' names, increasing the maximum three year sentence for those convicted of murder, ensuring parental responsibility and giving the parents the right to raise their children.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 62 and 66. .[Text]
Question No. 62—
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Can the government provide a detailed outline of the process used by the Pest Management Review Agency to determine how levels are set for cost recovery?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Cost recovery is a federal government policy established for deficit reduction. For the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the level of cost recovery was set at $22 million by cabinet when the agency was created in 1995.
The government process to determine how cost recovery levels are set is a Treasury Board policy. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency implemented this Treasury Board policy under the supervision of Treasury Board officials.
Treasury Board Secretariat analysts provided input to costing of activities and different options on fee collection protocols contained in the Discussion Paper: Cost Recovery Analysis that was released on March 1, 1996. They confirmed that our proposed fees were based on cost of providing the service.
Representatives from Treasury Board Secretariat, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada participated fully in the various impact assessments. Treasury Board Secretariat was involved in the planning of the business impact test conducted on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency cost recovery proposals. Treasury Board Secretariat and Industry Canada representatives attended the April 22, 1996 business impact test meetings with stakeholders. Representatives of the above departments attended the May 29, 1996 meeting of the Interim Canadian Pest Management Advisory Council to discuss the impact assessments. They also attended the September 23, 1996 stakeholder meeting in Toronto where the results of the impact assessments were presented and participated in the September 30, 1996 consensus-building process to develop a fee structure with stakeholders.
On September 20, 1996, Treasury Board Secretariat called an interdepartmental meeting, attended by the Privy Council Office, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in preparation for the September 23 and 30, 1996 meetings with stakeholders.
Re-engineering processes established by the new Agency provided savings which reduced the cost recovery portion of the budget to $15 million. This amount was further reduced by another $3 million for the next six years through grants from Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The total amount to be cost recovered as delineated in the regulatory Impact Analysis Statement of April 16, 1997, is $12 million.
Question No. 66—
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Concerning individuals and businesses who have to pay fees allocated by the Pest Management review Agency, can the government please provide a list of all user fees these individuals or businesses have to pay?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
There are two types of fees:
Application fees to be paid for an examination of an application in respect of a pest control product (PCP). The fee payable for applications received after April 15, 1997 is determined on the basis of the data component(s) included in the application. The fee for the various data components range from $150.00 to $98,248.00. The fee payable for one application is equal to the sum of the applicable fees for all the components included in the application. The fee payable for a new technical active and an associate end-use product could amount to $228,832.00. The regulations also provide certain exemptions. As well reduced applications fees are offered to facilitate access to the Canadian market for low volume, niche products. To be eligible for a reduced fee, a registrant's revenue from sales in Canada of the pest control product(s) during the three years of the sales verification period must be less than ten times the applicable application fees.
An annual maintenance fee of $2,690.00 is charged per registered product (per PCP number) for the right to manufacture or sell a product in Canada. There are reduced fees for products with sales of less than $89,667.00. The reduced fee is 3% of sales. However, there is a minimum fee of $75.00.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
moved:
That this House condemns the governement for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearm registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a) confiscates private property; (b) contains unreasonable search and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury Board cost/benefit guidelines; (d) represents a waste of taxpayers dollars; (e) is an affront to law-abiding firearms owners; and (f) will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in firearms.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to let the table and the Speaker know that Reform Party members will be dividing their time today into 10 minute speeches each.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move the motion before us and to speak in favour of it.
It has been said that bad laws are the worst form of tyranny. What we have in Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, is legislation that violates the property rights of Canadians and is a colossal waste of our money.
The intended purpose of Bill C-68, quite frankly, is an insult to the three million firearms owners in Canada. The reason for what I have just said will become evident as we listen to the course of debate throughout the day.
Allow me to begin by explaining the motives of the Liberal government in pursuing a firearms registry.
It was the current health minister and former justice minister responsible for this legislation who said that it is his firm belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms.
Let us analyse that statement. What we have is a Toronto lawyer with no concept of what life is like in rural Canada. The minister is trying to lead Canadians to believe that criminalizing the legal ownership of firearms will somehow reduce crime.
Let us be clear. We are talking about hunting rifles and shotguns, not handguns. We have had a handgun registry since 1934 and we all know the extent to which crime has been reduced by that measure, do we not?
I would like the minister to explain what intellectually stunted logic he is using by making a farmer in Saskatchewan register his .22 rifle. Will that somehow help him to sleep better at night? Will it somehow reduce crime? How will that affect the criminal misuse of firearms?
The minister may not be aware of this fact but criminals do not register their guns nor do they break into people's homes and decide not to steal a gun because it is registered. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the criminal who does steal a firearm is not going to decide whether or not to use it in the commission of an offence based on whether it is or is not registered.
Not only does the former justice minister believe that Canadians should not be entitled to own firearms but Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs said that registration of hunting rifles is an important first step in socially re-engineering Canadians. The absurdity of that statement is self-evident. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from. They do not understand that to a farmer in Saskatchewan a .22 rifle is a tool. Toronto lawyers do not usually face rabid skunks walking on to their property. Then again many farmers in Saskatchewan would argue that a Toronto lawyer is a rabid skunk. In any event, the usefulness of a rifle as a tool to rural Canadians is very important. However, that fact may not be readily apparent to those who are trying to socially re-engineer Canadians.
What do they mean when they say that registration is a first step? Under Bill C-68 the justice minister can by order in council, in other words without coming before parliament, declare any firearm prohibited. What we have is a slippery slope. The minister can declare 10 gauge shotguns prohibited and they can be confiscated without compensation to the owners. Then it could be 12 gauge shotguns, 16 gauge, 20 gauge and eventually the elimination of all legal firearm ownership in Canada.
The motion we have put forward today covers an extensive list of deficiencies in this bill. I will speak to one aspect of the motion, Treasury Board cost benefit guidelines. According to Treasury Board policy when the government is preparing to establish new regulations it must provide a cost benefit analysis of those regulations. The policy states specifically: “When regulating, regulatory authorities must ensure that benefits outweigh the costs to Canadians, their governments and businesses, and the limited resources available to government are used where they will do the most good”.
The new gun registration system established under Bill C-68 has failed the Treasury Board test. In particular, the government has left a number of important questions unanswered. For instance, what is the approximate number of individuals to be licensed? The government does not know. What is the approximate number of firearms to be registered? That is undetermined. What will the impact on businesses and the economy be? It is Yet to be seen. How many jobs will be lost? How many business closures will there be? Again we do not know. Will these regulations improve public safety? Clearly the evidence before us which we will see today is very strongly in the negative.
With these questions unanswered it is impossible to determine the cost effectiveness of registration. Despite this, the government is pushing ahead with its registration plan. The reason is that it is the government's first step in eliminating legal firearm ownership in Canada.
Registration was supposed to begin October 1 but that date has been pushed back to December 1. The registration system was originally projected to cost $85 million. Cost projections are now well over $120 million. Some are estimating the system will actually cost over $500 million. Considering these huge sums of money I think we could agree this money could be better spent on areas such as health care, education and tax cuts to lower and middle income Canadians who are burdened excessively by the high spending ways of this Liberal government. The government did not do a cost benefit analysis of this legislation because it did not want to impede its efforts to eliminate legal firearm ownership in Canada.
I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has seconded my motion. I urge all members of this House to listen very carefully not only to what I have said and not only to the analysis of the legislation that we are about to hear from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville but to all hon. members who speak in support of this motion today.
Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the presentation by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt today on Bill C-68.
The one thing he did not touch on and the way the government is selling this is on the proof that there will be tremendous criminal reduction in activity there. There will be fewer suicides. Domestic violence of course will be toned down and so on.
Does he have any thoughts in that regard? Does he know other jurisdictions where this has been tried? What were the results?