Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1998

Supply

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on his speech and I would like to ask him, following on the questions from my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, whether according to his information, he can confirm the rumours about the costs of this new firearm registration program, forecast to be in the order of $80 million, now having risen to $350 million.

First of all, is this rumour correct, and second, if it is, how can the hon. member, with the information at his disposal, explain such a cost increase, and what lies behind such an increase?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision on costs. All that is still being put into place. All we know is that costs have been set for permit charges, and for registration charges. We do not know the exact cost of processing and of the operation as a whole.

As my Liberal colleague who spoke before me pointed out, however, the key element in all this is surely the cost of human life.

That is the key element in all this is. How can we judge the cost of a human life that has been protected by firearm registration and licencing? That is where the underlying principle lies.

As for the overall cost of implementing the system, I cannot give any exact figures.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I have noticed here today is that the opponents of this legislation seem to distort, misrepresent and deny the benefits of this legislation.

When I look at and start to think about what this legislation is going to do for the average Canadian, I think it proposes safe streets, a confidence that someone can live in a community without a threat, and many, many things that we should discuss here today.

I would like to look at the positive aspects of this legislation. The law imposes tough criminal penalties. They say “Don't touch the criminal”. That is absolute nonsense.

Even our opponents across the way have to admit that this legislation does a great deal to impose penalties on people who misuse guns in this community. The minimum penalty of four years, in many cases, is a very strong deterrent to those people who would misuse guns in the commission of a crime.

The courts, by the way, have totally supported this legislation up to this day. The statute is about lethal instruments, articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is not about confiscation. Let us be very clear about that.

It recognizes that the vast majority of firearm owners and users are responsible, prudent people. The practices which are embodied in the statutes reflect the prudent practices of responsible people.

The statute strives to encourage a culture that is safe for Canadians, a culture that is well trained in activities and practices for responsible gun owners.

The legitimate practices of those responsible gun owners can continue under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt. Target shooters can continue to target shoot. Buyers and sellers can continue activities that they have done for years. Museums can continue to display the weapons that are displayed today.

The intent and purpose of some is incompatible though. There are some uses of guns in this country that are not for sporting, that are not for the business uses that we have in Canada.

Consequently, several military assault weapons have been banned. Fully automatic rifles have no legitimate purpose in this country. Most handguns are treated with particular concern due to their lethal nature and the fact that they can be concealed.

While we have taken strong measures to deal with such firearms, the statute is focused on respecting the legitimate interests of people and good gun owners.

Many of our opponents advocate a situation respecting firearms such as that which exists in the United States. That is what I have heard opposite pretty well all day today. It is worth noting that there are 30 times more firearms in the United States than there are in Canada.

A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. On average, 65% of homicides in the United States involve firearms as opposed to 33% in Canada. Do members realize that? There are double the number of homicides in the United States than there are in Canada and those members are telling us to look at that country. That is nonsense.

A study for the Centre for Disease Control examined the cause of death among children in 26 developed countries and found that 86% of firearm related deaths occurred in the United States. In the United States, 86% of deaths among children involved firearms. That means there are too many guns for children to access. That means we have to lock these guns up. That means we cannot have children exposed to them. Recent news events describing schoolyard shootings speak for themselves. The United States environment respecting guns does not give a better vision that Canadians want to see.

The Firearms Act addresses only crucial social situations that are created by domestic violence. Required firearms licensing and screening of gun owners will result in specific checking of probation orders, prohibition to orders before licences are granted. Licences will have to be renewed every five years. So there will be an examination of violence on a regular basis. For those who wish to acquire new firearms, the applicants must contact their former spouses or someone involved with them so that if there is a problem they will be able to bring that testimony forward.

When fully implemented all firearms owners will be licensed. They will have taken a course emphasizing safety and safe handling of guns. The guns will be registered. This will assist police in their investigations. It will encourage owners of stores and guns to make sure sales are appropriate. It will assist the recovery of lost or stolen firearms.

Registration together with licensing and other aspects of firearms is aimed at facilitating a continued enjoyment of sport in Canada by responsible safe practices. This will encourage the continuation of free movement of Canadian citizens within a culture that recognizes safety and responsibility. The Firearms Act embraces all these as positive effective contributors to all aspects of Canadian life. The Firearms Act has the support of a large majority of Canadians. It is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities and its fairness will make them much better places to live.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the comments of the hon. member opposite is a revelation of a thought process I do not quite comprehend and do not pretend to understand. I thought I was a fairly clear, reasonably thinking person. There are a number of discrepancies in what the hon. member is saying. I would like to question him on a couple of them.

I will use an example. This morning on the Internet I found some information put out by the government. It is propaganda on Bill C-68. One of the items is 10 reasons for the registration of all guns. We could go through the argument point by point but we would be wasting a lot of valuable time although they deserve to be looked at. One of the last points is less paperwork. I want to ask the hon. member about that issue. Somehow this is going to put more policeman in service on the streets because we will have less paperwork.

These are the application forms for this law that is going to bring less paperwork, make our streets safer, give us more policemen actually on the beat in our communities. It starts with 669 and goes up to 774. These are the forms that are available for registering guns.

There are applications for a possession only licence under the Firearms Act for individuals who currently own firearms; for a possession and acquisition licence under the Firearms Act for acquiring firearms and/or crossbows, these are for individuals; for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act; for a firearms licence for businesses and museums; for a sponsor of a gun show; for a carrier firearm licence; to register non-registered firearms, long guns for individuals; to register a newly imported restricted firearm for individuals; to reregister previously registered firearms, restricted and prohibited firearms; to register firearms for businesses and museums; for authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and prohibited handguns; for authorization to carry restricted firearms and prohibited handguns; transfer and to register, and there is another full page of applications.

I want to know from the member opposite, after he sits there and gives his head a shake, how we are cutting paper and putting more people on the street. Come on now. I would like the hon. member to explain it.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to think you would agree with me how incredible it is that a member can stand for four minutes and describe all the different forms that we have after a speech on safety in the communities.

When we start looking at a comparison between the United States and Canada on safety of our streets and we think about what the average Canadian wants and needs for safe communities, the only question he can come to is that we have 100 forms here and we may have to fill them out.

To me it is incredible that is the mentality driving the debate. To me the critical issue is safety. It is lives. It is good community spirit. It is making sure that the use of those firearms by Canadians is still allowed. I would say that once all the guns are registered, once all the forms are filled, once we get that and it is recorded in today's society, we do have the means by which to reduce paperwork dramatically. Everyone knows paperwork can be reduced dramatically if it is organized and presented properly. That is exactly what those forms are doing. Once it is done, once it is in the registry, once we have all the paperwork done then the continuation is very reasonable and can be carried out in a good, appropriate way.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have come here today to discuss and debate is a matter of utmost importance. That goes without saying. I have heard comments in here in the last few minutes about whether this is supported, safety and these various issues that come up.

With regard to support, I would like the members in the House, if they have not already done so, to take a few minutes and step outside and look at the Canadians standing out there, average Canadians. They are not people who are looking to break the law. These are average Canadians who have come here en masse with one of the biggest demonstrations certainly that has been seen here for a long time, if not ever.

For every one of those people out there I can assure members that there are hundreds and possibly thousands represented by each one of those. The question of support for this bill, for the abolition of the Firearms Act, is represented by these people, and let us just talk about additional support for abolition of this bill.

I met the other day with the minister of justice in Manitoba, Mr. Vic Toews. If he does not represent one million Manitobans on this issue, I will eat my shirt.

The fact is he will not be appointing inspectors under this legislation. He is saying that this legislation is bad, it is wrong, he does not support it, the province of Manitoba does not support it, the premier does not support it nor do the people of Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal people.

How many more do the Reform Party have to identify as Canadians who are against the Firearms Act to convince the members opposite that they are out to lunch on their exaggerated numbers they claim support this bill? As referenced in the court case which happened in Edmonton, the justice department, on behalf of the Liberal government, took the RCMP statistics and built them up to a point where they were plain untrue. There was a lot of correction over that. They finally got the RCMP to admit that the figures had been misinterpreted or something. That is not true. They were outright changed.

The question of safety is one that has been debated here for some time. I will go back to my experience in life as a police officer. The question of safety with firearms was already addressed fully before the Firearms Act came into place. There was safe storage. There were firearm training programs. I was an instructor at one time. There was registration of handguns. The registration was inaccurate but it was there. I never seized any registered guns from the criminals I arrested.

With regard to safety in family disputes, you did not know whether there was going to be a firearm in the house or whether the fellow or wife was previously known to have firearms. The computer systems the RCMP and the Ontario provincial police had already had the capability of entering and tracking these people as dangerous. There were already provisions for serial numbers of stolen firearms to be entered. Residents and people who were known to be active criminals or who were known to be suspects capable of violence were entered. The computer systems were there.

The idea that this is going to increase safety it wrong. I hesitate to use these words, but the hidden agenda of this government is clearly to make up enough rules that the average law abiding Canadian is going to break some of those rules either in transferring a firearm or registering it wrongly. The government can then take that act and say they have made a mistake. From then on they will be prohibited from owning a firearm. The ultimate goal would be to remove as many or all guns from legitimate law abiding Canadians. That will leave the criminal with the guns. There is one other group of people who are going to have guns in this country, the military and the police. They have them now and it is a good thing they do.

This government is proceeding along the road of arming more of its departments. The question I ask is will this hidden agenda ultimately end up with only the government and the criminals owning guns and the average Canadian having nothing. To back that statement up, the government is arming Canada Customs. The conservation officers are being armed. There are all kinds of these things happening. It all translates into more government control.

Before this act came into effect the Criminal Code indicated that a criminal who used a weapon during the commission of a crime could be sentenced for that offence. The sentence could be harsher. These things were all in place. It is frustrating to know that the only impact of the act put in place by the government will be an increase in costs for average Canadians to own firearms. People who require firearms like me and the rest of the farmers and hunters in the country will have increased costs. It will also cause people to quit a hobby they enjoyed.

I will relate an experience I had the other day. I was attending a clay shoot which involves aiming at little clay targets with shotguns. There were about 60 to 70 people there from my riding. It was a beautiful sunny day. We had a nice time. I am sure we were not hurting anyone. I did not see any criminals. There were none. We are talking about support for this type of legislation. The talk that day was that the legislation would add costs for firearms and ammunition to a hobby that already had costs built into it.

As young people no longer join this hobby there will be spin-off costs. They will not buy ammunition. They will not buy firearms. They will not spending money on gas. They will not be spending money which helps the economy. More than that, what is irking a lot of us is that we have the right to enjoy ourselves. If we are doing it in a lawful manner, why should the government put hindrances and expenses on us which are not needed and will do no good other than for its belief that Canadians should not own firearms and that only governments and foreign powers that come to the country with their security guards should be the ones to have firearms?

I stand by my right as a Canadian to own a firearm without harassment from my government. I intend to fight for that. I support the motion entirely and I invite every member, particularly those on the Liberal side who know what their constituents want, to vote for the motion.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite amazed to listen to the member's comments. I was wondering if some of the people in the House and some of the people watching today were actually listened to what he is doing.

The hon. member is fearmongering. He is promoting fear in Canada. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. He is suggesting that the Liberal government is trying to create a police state. Perhaps the hon. member should visit a police state. He should be absolute ashamed of himself. Enough of the fearmongering and enough of the false statistics. He should simply makes some calculated comments without—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member by his comment has provoked something in the House, but it is very hard for the Chair to hear and I do need to hear what hon. members on all sides are saying. I would appreciate some order.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for quieting them down. They get to be quite a violent lot some times. My point was simply to suggest that the Liberal government is trying to create a police state is absolutely false.

The hon. member mentioned that he was a past police officer and did not see any benefit in the legislation. Let me give him an example. What would he think if he were attending a domestic violence call in a municipality of 15,000 people where he did not know everybody? I am sure the hon. member accepts the fact that domestic violence knows no bounds, not just urban but rural. If he had to attend a domestic violence call and there was no criminal record of the people living at that address, does he not think it might be good use of information, that it might assist him in that call if he knew there were guns there? Does he not think that maybe that information might be pertinent as to how the officer is to conduct himself or herself? I ask that question.

The hon. member should also keep in mind if he walks in and assumes that there are guns there—I am talking about long guns—and quells this domestic situation and says: “Turn over your guns. We are here to take your guns”. Should he take the person's word that there is only one or two guns, or should he not have access to knowing? Is it not fair to say that police officers should have access to knowing there are long arms in there? Perhaps, if the member would take off his blinders, he could help officers to eliminate some domestic violence situations that turn into tragedies.

Would it be useful information to an officer responding to a call if he were provided in advance with the fact that there were long arms in there which could potentially be used in a domestic violence situation?

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. When officers attend these domestic disputes or any other allegation of any kind of criminal activity, they go in there knowing that it is a volatile situation. The very facts of the situation cannot be know beforehand either by some computer, if it is accurate, or by the information they receive. In that area the hon. member is listening simply to chiefs of police.

He spoke also of fearmongering. Let us talk about fearmongering. He can take a look at the city police in Winnipeg and at the courts. In the newspapers the other day there was an article about a gang rape of a 15 year old girl by four bikers. This young girl refused to testify in court. She was terrified of the criminal and refused to testify, and the police could not protect her.

Fearmongering is on the side of those who promote gun registration. The moneys being spent on firearm registration should be spent on working with victims of crimes and fighting the biker gangs. There is nothing being spent on biker gangs, and $150 million would help. Fearmongering is on the side of the Liberal government. It is not on this side.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order please. I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for the hon. member for Wild Rose, but I also know that hon. members would want to hear his remarks. I would hope that there would be some quiet.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Not to worry, Mr. Speaker, I was a school teacher for 30 years and have put up with this nonsense for a lot longer than this. The only thing is the children are a little older now and ought to know better; but they do not have any brains so it does not make any difference.

Let me make an exception. The gun registration under Bill C-68 is to cost $200 million. Let us say that is the case. We have not been told once how it will save a life. We asked the Liberals, lots of times, to please show us how it would save a life.

Let me make a second exception. Probably two of the biggest killers we have in the country are breast cancer and prostate cancer. If we had $200 million and it had to go to one or the other, how many Liberals would pick gun registration over cancer research? I will tell the House how many would pick gun registration: all of them because they listen to the dictators and they do what they are told to do.

The Liberals billed legislation that has almost a hundred orders in council, the old thing they used to put into legislation during wars and real serious activities to protect our land; throughout the War Measures Act there were orders in council. This legislation has in it nearly a hundred times where one person in the House, one individual on that frontline can decide whether or not a certain firearm should be confiscated.

That is the power that exists under the bill. That is the kind of power to which any normal Canadian taxpayer objects. That is the kind of power they have in all these countries that have failed a hundred times under dictatorial power. When will members on that side of the House wake up and smell the coffee? I heard a member over there a while ago saying “smell the coffee”.

Members on that side of the House are a bunch of sheep. They do what they are told because they believe strongly in the will of the party and not the will of the people. That is what they believe in.

Let me give an example. In a week or two they will be reading an article in the

Western Producer

written by Larry Fillo describing the absurdity of the bill. On July 10, 1998, Lorraine Dewetter was informed by two police officers of the death of her husband. Mr. Dewetter apparently died after a heart attack when his vehicle was stuck in a field. The RCMP, however, did more than just deliver the unfortunate news of Mr. Dewetter's passing. While in the Dewetter home informing his wife of his death the RCMP confiscated a .22 calibre rifle and a 12-guage pump action shotgun.

In the pickup that was stuck there was a .410 shotgun which a lot of farmers carry around with them. The RCMP seized a legal .410 shotgun from the pickup, but when they went to inform his wife that he had died in the field they confiscated all the guns in the house.

That is what comes about with this kind of legislation: search and seizure without any particular reason. It contains unreasonable search and seizure regulations. It is unreasonable to do that. It is as simple as that. It confiscates property. It did in this case. Members can read about it in the

Western Producer

in two weeks.

[The Speaker]

After question period the hon. member for Wild Rose has the floor. He still has approximately five minutes left. Right now we are going to Statements by Members and will begin with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

The Late Dave Nicholson

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Constable Dave Nicholson, a 32 year old member of the Waterloo Regional Police Service who lived in Heidelberg, Ontario, recently drowned while trying to retrieve the body of a 12 year old Cambridge boy, Mark Gage.

Constable Nicholson's funeral was held in Kitchener on August 19, 1998. Thousands of police, peace officers and firefighters joined family and friends at the solemn occasion.

Constable Dave Nicholson was an outstanding police officer, a devout family man, a loving father, a wonderful husband and an exceptional citizen of our great Canada. He will be sadly missed by all who knew him, who worked with him and who had contact with him.

The death of Constable Nicholson underscores the courage and bravery of those whose job it is to protect Canadians wherever they may be.

I ask the House to join with me in remembering Constable Dave Nicholson. He was a man of great faith and conviction. He will be greatly missed. He is now in the hands of God.

Housing

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that my parliamentary colleague and my constituency neighbour from Port Moody—Coquitlam was hit in the head by a golf ball when he shared the links with the Prime Minister this summer.

For some reason he mistakenly believes that he single-handedly dealt with the leaky condo disaster in British Columbia. He even believes that the tragedy was not that big of a deal until he brought it up in Ottawa.

If he has resolved the buck passing of this government for the water damage disaster, why are so many constituents protesting with picket signs when he speaks at local events? These concerned British Columbians are pleading for relief, the same relief which I have repeatedly asked of this government through letters, speeches and Order Paper questions.

It is time for the member to stop golfing in Shawinigan and start delivering help to constituents back home. He might remember them desperately waiting for representation, not a yes man from the golf course.

1998 Ontario Summer Games

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last month over 2,500 young athletes from across the province came together in Guelph for the 1998 Ontario Summer Games. It was a wonderful chance to showcase our community. I must say that Guelph—Wellington did shine.

The theme for the games was “Reach for your dreams” and Ontario's best young athletes did just that. With the support of their fellow competitors, families and hundreds of spectators, these athletes broke records, set personal bests and created memories that will last a lifetime.

I would like to congratulate the city of Guelph, the organizers of the games, general manager Tim Mau, and especially the nearly 1,800 volunteers who came from all over our great community.

This wonderful spirit of volunteerism and community involvement is part of what makes Guelph—Wellington the best place to live in Canada.

Hepatitis C

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is totally insensitive to the expectations of Canadians who are demanding fair compensation for all victims of contaminated blood.

Despite this majority request, the government is setting up a system of compensation by category. Some victims will receive financial compensation and specific medical services, others will receive only medical services. This is unfair and unacceptable. As one of my constituents, Jean-Daniel Couture, put it, the government's position in this matter is absolutely disgusting.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada do not intend to give in to this irresponsible attitude. We will continue to fight in the House to ensure that all victims of hepatitis C are fully and fairly compensated.

Canadian Council For International Co-Operation

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Canadian Council for International Co-operation for undertaking an in common mission to Indonesia and Thailand with members of parliament, the native community, the civil society and non-governmental organizations.

As part of the in common campaign for a poverty-free world, the purpose of the mission was to investigate the roots of the Asian financial crisis, the effects of the crisis on the poor and its implications for Canada.

The delegation found that the human and development crises are immense and require an urgent response from Canada and the international community.

I call on my colleagues to join the in common campaign and take action to build greater awareness for the elimination of global poverty. I applaud the CCIC for bringing this important issue to the attention of both the Canadian public and government. Keep up the good work, CCIC.

Gun Registration

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with a delegation of concerned gun owners who have travelled from my riding of Prince Albert to take part in today's Fed Up rally against Bill C-68.

In response to pressure from people like these and with less than 10 days remaining, the minister finally caved in to common sense and postponed the implementation date until December 1.

Now if the government, which has had three years to hear objections to this legislation, remains committed to it, here is what millions of law-abiding Canadians can expect: criminal charges for failure to comply; seizure of private property without compensation; padlocks on the doors of legitimate businesses.

Clearly this piece of legislation is unworkable.

We call on the minister now to commit to withholding implementation until the courts can rule on the legality of Bill C-68.

Big Brothers And Sisters Of Canada

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the month of September is Big Brothers and Sisters month. Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada focuses on mentoring activity by matching a man with the right boy, or a woman with the right girl.

Research shows that having a big brother or sister makes a positive difference to many boys and girls. Just think about it. Young adolescents saying no to drugs and alcohol, improving their school attendance and getting along better with their families and peers. All because they had big brothers and big sisters.

This is not a dream. It is a reality. This is good news particularly at a time when about 23% of all families are led by a single parent and when many people contend that nothing works in reaching teenagers.

You can reach Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada at 1-800-263-9133.

Gun Control

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 1 the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville told Alberta radio listeners that Canada should look to the U.S. for leadership on guns.

I cannot believe that the Reform Party would want Canada to follow the American gun culture. Every day in the U.S. there are firearm tragedies happening in many homes. How many children will have to die before the Reform Party realizes that the U.S. is not an example Canadians want to follow? How long will it take them to realize that these are not Canadian values?

Security System

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here are the top ten reasons why the Prime Minister thinks it is a good idea to spend 80,000 taxpayer dollars on a security system for his summer cottage.

Number ten, it only represents the total taxes paid by four Canadian families for an entire year.

Number nine, it is essential since eventually even the Prime Minister runs out of pepper spray.

Number eight, there are not enough registered Inuit carvings to protect himself.

Number seven, his homeless friend is okay with it.

Number six, it was already budgeted in the price of the Shawinigan canoe museum.

Number five, it costs no more than another unelected senator.

Number four, unlike the senator at least it does not go to Mexico in the wintertime.

Number three, hep C victims will understand his priority spending.

Number two, it is a national unity thing, everyone in Canada thinks it is a stupid idea.

The number one reason why the Prime Minister thinks it is a good idea to spend 80,000 taxpayer dollars on a security system? Heck a dollar is really only 65 cents so it is not that much. Really.