John Maloney

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the government's commitment to tougher gun control has been the subject of some controversy. I wish to explain in some detail the position I have taken on this issue after talking with numerous gun owners, attending many meetings with gun enthusiasts, and giving this matter lengthy and serious consideration.

The debate on gun control ranges from those who would ban all guns, with which I disagree, to those who feel they have the right to bear firearms unrestricted and unregulated, anytime and anywhere, with which I also disagree. Gun ownership is a privilege and carries with it certain requirements and responsibilities which can and must be regulated. Most gun owners would acknowledge this. The argument then becomes one of degree.

It is fair to say that gun owners and gun control advocates can agree on some of the desired results: reduced crime, reduced accidental death, and reduced suicide. The passionate disagree-

ment seems to stem from the methods being used to achieve the desired results.

Police across the country have been crying out for tough gun controls to help fight crime and protect the lives of their fellow officers. Victims of crime, health professionals, mayors from across Canada and many other groups have demanded tougher gun controls.

An average of 1,400 Canadians die each year in gun related murders, suicides and accidents. Many others are seriously injured. Of the 732 homicides committed in Canada in 1992, 34 per cent or 246 people were killed in accidents committed with a firearm. Suicides account for 77 per cent of the 1,119 firearms deaths in Canada in 1991. A recent survey showed that guns were used in 40 per cent of murders of women by their spouses. Many deaths are by depressed youth acting impulsively with a weapon easily had and in their home.

How can anyone ignore this situation? How can any government ignore this situation? In many of the cases, impulsiveness was a factor. Ready access to a firearm allowed a dispute to escalate to a murder, or a depression to a suicide. In some of these cases, firearms presented a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Many of these lives would have been saved if the gun had not been readily available.

There are few who disagree with three of the principal aspects of the gun control legislation: criminal sanctions, smuggling or illegal importation, and assault weapons.

The most controversial aspect of this gun control issue is unquestionably a new computerized national registration system for all firearms and firearms owners in Canada. The government asserts that universal registration of firearms is a cornerstone of our strategy to target criminals, tighten border controls and enhance public safety.

Opponents of gun control argue that registration will not reduce crime. I ascribe to the opinion of the president of the Association of Chiefs of Police who states that without information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun control. A cost effective registration system will help control smuggling, gun theft and misuse of firearms in many important ways, some of which are as follows.

The illegal gun trade is a serious problem. Presently, firearms are not registered when they are imported into the country. The type numbers and serial number of each gun are not recorded. A recent newspaper article underlined the fact that guns imported legally can be sold illegally. Unless illegal firearms can be distinguished from legal registered firearms, it is impossible to curb the smuggling problem. Registration will help stem the theft, diversion and smuggling of firearms from legal shipments.

Registration will also help in the enforcement of court ordered firearms prohibition orders. It is estimated that 13,000 prohibition orders are made every year to take away firearms from individuals considered a danger to society. Unless the police know what firearms are registered in the names of those persons, they are limited to searching the premises, or to hoping that all firearms will be surrendered voluntarily. This is not sufficient.

The inquest into the suicide of Jonathon Yeo, who is believed to have murdered Nina de Villiers while out on bail for another violent offence, recommended the registration of firearms.

When the police prepare to intervene in a dispute, a registration system will determine if firearms are present, the type and numbers. Inspector Park whom I may quote from the Niagara Regional Police in my riding of Erie said: "The more information about what you are facing, the better you can deal with it".

While police officers always presume that a suspect is armed, they often discover more than they bargained for. In one example given by police, what looked like a .22 calibre rifle turned out instead to be a more lethal Lee-Enfield. The firearm was loaded with military ammunition that was capable of penetrating the bulletproof vest of a police officer.

Firearms registration will ensure that people are held responsible for their guns. The current firearms acquisition certificate allows individuals to buy as many rifles and shotguns as they wish over a five-year period and these guns cannot be tracked to the original owner. Registration will help ensure that gun owners do not sell their firearms illegally or give them to individuals without proper authorization.

Registration will also encourage the safe storage of guns. Canadians have heard enough accounts involving children and guns to know that some gun owners should take more care in storing their weapons. More than 3,000 firearms are reported stolen every year. They are falling into the hands of criminals.

Studies have shown that many firearms used to commit crimes were originally acquired lawfully, in many cases stolen from their original owners because they were stored improperly. The semi-automatic pistol that was used to kill Constable Todd Bayliss was stolen from a widow who had inherited the second world war relic when her husband died. The gun was left lying on the shelf in her clothes closet as it had for years. The gun was stolen and Constable Bayliss is dead.

Registration will further assist the police in high risk situations. Despite the emphasis on the criminal element, most murders involve people who know each other. Almost 40 per cent of women killed by their husbands are shot mostly with legally owned firearms. Spousal violence generally surfaces

gradually and the police are often aware of the problem before a life is threatened. Gun registration will allow for preventive actions such as temporary removal of the firearm from the premises.

Registration will also help in the enforcement of the law in prosecution of offenders. One can appreciate that it is difficult to prosecute someone for possession of a stolen weapon if the identity of the lawful owner cannot be ascertained.

Gun owners feel that registration of every shotgun and rifle would place a heavy and expensive bureaucratic burden on law-abiding gun owners. In fact the registration system is hardly onerous. The proposed registration system for firearms will replace existing FACs and other permits with new possession certificates and registration cards. It will simplify the system.

The registration system has two components. A possession certificate will begin in 1996 to register the gun owner and to acquire new firearms in the future. The registration card will begin in 1998 to register individual firearms. Possession certificates will be similar to drivers' licences, are valid for five years and can be renewed simply by filling out a form. Registration cards for firearms are a once in a lifetime exercise with no renewal required.

For example, someone already owning long guns will only have to register their firearms once for as long as they own them. The process is expected to have a minimal charge estimated at approximately $10 for up to 10 guns. It will be as simple as licking a stamp and mailing a form. A registration card or possession certificate will enable people to buy ammunition and hunt or target shoot the same way they have been doing for years.

The costs of registration to the gun owner are as comparable or less than that of other registration systems we are involved with such as cars, boats, drivers' licences, et cetera. On balance there are some who will consider registration a hassle, but it is a minor one when set against the benefits referred to earlier.

There are no further restrictions on ammunition save and except that one must be 18 years old to purchase ammunition and it must be stored properly. Restricting ammunition sales to those 18 and over makes sense. Young people under 18 cannot legally buy cigarettes now. Why should bullets be any less restricted? It will ensure that if a youth wants ammunition at least an adult will be in the know and able to ask questions or provide supervision if it is deemed necessary.

Gun owners make a good point that the vast majority of them are responsible law-abiding citizens. This is true. Although the gun laws may make small time criminals think twice, gun registration will not deter professional criminals or drug dealers. This is also true. Unfortunately there cannot be one law for the crooks and another for honest citizens. There must be one law applicable to everyone.

Some opponents to gun control feel it is a threat to democracy, an infringement of their right to bear arms, a right I suggest they never truly had in the sense in which it is uttered. Despite popular belief it is a right American citizens do not have with their constitution granting only the right to bear arms for the purpose of army and militia.

Canadians have a country founded on the principles of peace, order and good government. Gun control fits this expression. There is nothing undemocratic about ensuring that ours is a safe and peaceful country.

Registering guns does not remove the right to exercise one's privilege to own or use them, but it does make it easier to ensure they are owned and used responsibly. It does make it easier to remove the privilege when it is abused.

Opponents often tell me that responsible gun owners are being penalized when criminals are not. All gun owners are responsible until they do something wrong. Marc Lépine had no criminal involvement until he massacred 14 women at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique with his Ruger Mini-14.

Moreover it is difficult to imagine how a responsible gun owner could object to a law designed to ensure that others are also responsible. What do Canadians think of responsible gun owners who are now vowing to ignore the law and refuse to register? Is that responsible? Is that law abiding? Hefty fine for such action is a poor alternative to the small gun registration fee.

Suggestions that gun registration is a prelude to confiscation by a Hitlerain government are unfounded. There is no evidence to support fears that someday somewhere the federal government will seize all firearms.

If the gun lobby would look at the legislation objectively and responsibly it too would support the bill. I encourage it to do so.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to speak to a bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge. The bill seeks to make it illegal for anyone, employee or employer, to cause any cessation of work at any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.

It should be obvious that the bill would affect a large number of Canadians, indeed everybody who comes near the grain, from the farmer who grows the grain to the trains and ships which carry the grain. It would directly affect my riding of Erie whose economy includes the entire spectrum from grain production to the marine industry.

I wish to focus on one aspect of the bill and what it brings to the labour relations atmosphere with the government's own employees. That is the provision in the bill which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act by adding new criteria, limiting the right to strike.

The bill seeks to add to the Public Service Staff Relations Act in section 2 and subsection 78(1), words which have the effect of prohibiting employees from engaging in any strike activity in areas related to "the orderly progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export".

When the Public Service Staff Relations Act was introduced almost 30 years ago, legislators included a unique concept to labour legislation. This was the notion of designating employees as essential and denying them the right to strike. That is to say that employees whose duties included functions which were performed in the interest of the safety and security of the

Canadian public, those employees could not engage in a strike. If one was to search the Canada Labour Code or other labour codes, one would not find many examples of such a concept.

In my opinion, this is a good, reasonable and justifiable concept. Employees of the federal government and numerous other federal institutions should not be in a position to withdraw services which would cause harm to the safety or security of Canadians.

This provision has stood the test of time. When public servants engage in strike activity, a number of their colleagues continue to work and provide essential services to the public. The last public service strike provided us with many examples of this provision.

Both air and marine search and rescue operations continued. Ice breaking continued. Mariner's charts and maps continued to be produced and updated, and the all important function of providing notices to shipping carried on. As well, the fisheries patrols were maintained and employees involved in this function continued to provide a service to the public.

Air operations continued and airport facilities were maintained. Weather observations continued. Forecast were prepared and communicated to users. Of great comfort, notification bulletins affecting aviation safety continued to be produced and disseminated.

Naturally prison guards and correctional services are deemed an essential service and continued to perform their tasks. All those employees, including those who provide care and security for inmates, medical care, food, heating and all those functions necessary to maintain the system, continued to perform their duties.

Health care was maintained by designated employees in such areas as poison control, hazardous product identification, medical support at federal hospitals, ambulance drivers and dental and chronic care in isolated areas. Also designated were some employees who were involved in research related to health care which used laboratory animals.

Essential to Canadians, income security programs such as UI, family allowance and the Canada pension plan continued. This included the processing of new claims as well as issuance of benefits.

Employees involved in customs and immigration control remained on the job. Included among these essential jobs were employees responsible for the primary inspection of meat and fish products imported to Canada.

Not surprisingly, the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act also preluded those involved with national security from striking. Included among these were the civilian and federal employees who provide support to RCMP operations.

Of interest to members, parliamentarian operations were designated an essential service. Hansard continued to be printed, along with commission reports and other parliamentary publications. As well, simultaneous translation services continued to be offered.

These are some of the examples of services considered essential for the safety and security of the public, and for which the public service employees could not withdraw services.

The central theme throughout this list is: these services are essential for the safety and security of the Canadian public. It is evident that the current provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act have by and large served the Canadian public well. By tinkering with these provisions and including the notion of economic hardship in the grain industry, are we trying to fix what is not broken?

It is an unfortunate but accepted reality that strikes will cause inconvenience and maybe even economic hardship to some. If we are to accept that employees have the right to strike to put pressure on their employer, then we must accept the results. If it is our view that strikes should not cause hardship to anyone, then it is my suggestion that all strikes be declared illegal.

This bill starts along this road. It is heading toward a destination that can only bring grief to employer-employee relations in the country. I would not argue that the movement of grain is not important to Canadians. Obviously it is. However, I do not believe that the production or movement of grain is essential for the security of the public. The movement of grain is, like many other commercial activities, an important economic activity in the country.

If we were to introduce the idea that there can be no strikes or lockouts in the grain industry which sector would be next? Is it the auto industry? Is it the shipping industry? How about forestry services? In certain sections of the country ore production is extremely important. Should we consider banning work stoppages there? If we are to use economic criteria I am confident that every member of the House could cite an enterprise worthy of consideration for a bill such as this.

I would like to remind members that in many jurisdictions police are given the opportunity to withdraw from their jobs. Medical practitioners and teachers also have this ability.

As I mentioned, if we accept that employees have the right to strike and to exert pressure on their employer, then they must be permitted to do so. The introduction of a provision in the Public Service Staff Relations Act prohibiting strikes in one specific area, be it grain handling or some other industry, begins to erode this right. Employees either have the right to strike or they do not.

The provision restricting the right to strike in the federal public service to those performing services essential for the safety and security of the public is a restriction but I think it can be reasonably argued. In addition, this provision has been in place for almost 30 years and still allows the public service employees to withdraw services. As we saw during the last public service strike, employees still have the ability to exert considerable pressure on the employer.

Seeking to expand restrictions to cover economically important services, first one and then many other industries or activities, will ultimately remove the right to strike effectively.

I can envisage the time when any strike which puts any pressure on any employer or others will then be proposed for exclusion under public service staff relations and the Canada Labour Code. Legislators will slowly and painfully remove the right to strike from any employee as a means of exerting any pressure at all. Is this what our country has to offer its workers and its representatives? I think not.

The introduction of further restrictions to the right to strike will, without any doubt whatsoever, worsen labour relations in the country. As we all know, these relations are already strained. It is my personal belief that after a number of years of difficulty it is time for all parties to labour relations to bring a positive and constructive approach to them for the future.

Times are changing and everybody must change with them. I do not feel that the way to begin a positive and co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which begins to erode what labour considers a basic right. If we are going to give labour the right to withdraw services in order to exert pressure in collective bargaining, then we must allow this withdrawal of service to have some effect. We either fish or cut bait. To carry the analogy further, we cannot tell employees that they can fish but they cannot have worms.

I am sure the member for Lethbridge did not intend anything sinister but was simply advancing a proposal which would protect the interests of the grain industry and this is to be commended. However, I believe the results of considering this bill cannot but lead to other interested parties looking to protect another and then another and no doubt an important industry through labour legislation. While the reasons for desiring protection from strikes or lockouts are noble in themselves, we must look at how we propose to do this and the results such a proposal would bring.

In conclusion, while I agree with the member that the grain industry is important to Canada, as are many other industries and activities, I cannot accept the notion that Parliament legislates protection at the expense of the rights of other Canadian citizens. Despite what I believe are good intentions, the results would be inappropriate and I cannot support the bill.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 70 senior citizens from the Fort Erie area of my riding.

The petitioners ask Parliament to consider that many senior citizens have difficulty living on their current incomes. They ask that their voices and concerns be taken into account when we initiate federal policy.

The seniors ask that we as parliamentarians prevent cuts to the social benefits of senior citizens.

[United States Border Crossing Fee, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concerns on President Clinton's budget proposals to charge a $3 per vehicle and $1.50 per pedestrian border crossing fee to enter the United States. The proposal has not been withdrawn as we were led to believe but has been altered to put undue pressure on U.S. border communities to encourage implementation.

These proposed fees violate the spirit and intent of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. These proposed fees would stifle economic development and economic integration of communities and regions on both sides of the border to the detriment of us all.

These proposed fees would seriously discourage tourism and open travel between our respective countries. They would hamper visitation between families who in a literal sense straddle the border.

These fees are questionable economics and questionable diplomacy in an era of increased trade and goodwill with our friendly neighbour to the south.

I strongly urge the Prime Minister to advise the President of our strongest objection to this unwise, counterproductive and unacceptable tax.

Retaliation is not an answer. Friends do not treat each other this way. Withdrawal of the proposed fees is the only solution. The constituents of Erie riding, of the Niagara peninsula and indeed of the whole country deserve and demand nothing less.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the third annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum which was held in Acapulco, Mexico, from January 12 to 15, 1995.

The Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum, which was inaugurated in January 1993, is quickly becoming an important voice in dealing with political and security matters, co-operative economic arrangements and other key regional interests and issues.

At the same time the Asia-Pacific region is becoming increasingly significant in the achievement of Canada's goals in terms of trade, technology acquisition in job creation, in sustaining a global environment and in managing the demographics of immigration.

These forums provide parliamentarians of the subject regions the opportunity to express their own views and those of the people they represent in a frank and open manner. The opportunity to meet and discuss issues with fellow parliamentarians from 20 other Pacific rim countries was a positive experience. In effect it was an international discussion at the grassroots level and this is to be encouraged.

In 1997 Canada will host the heads of government and the ministerial meetings of the Asia-Pacific economic co-operation, APEC. The government is considering that 1997 be declared the year of Canada in Asia-Pacific.

I am pleased to add that Canada has also been asked to host the fifth meeting of the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum in January 1997. This is an honour and an indication of the high regard in which our country is held in the international community.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition representing the views of over 290 constituents which I wish to present to the House.

The petition states that public safety is the number one priority of the criminal justice system and that the target for all gun control laws in the Criminal Code of Canada must be that criminals are a danger to that public safety.

These petitioners make three requests to Parliament. They ask Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals. They ask Parliament to recognize the right of all law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms. They ask Parliament to support legislation that would repeal or modify existing firearms legislation that does not improve public safety.

[Japan, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on January 17 of this year a massive earthquake ripped through central Japan, killing nearly 5,000 people, leaving 25,000 injured and 300,000 people homeless. This is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

I would like to offer the sympathy and support of the people of the Erie riding to the people of the Hyogo Prefecture.

Like all Canadians I was glad to hear that Canada was sending assistance and I commend the Prime Minister for acting quickly to lend support to Japan, a good friend and trading partner.

Canada has helped to set up short term housing and provide basic necessities. Canadian engineers are aiding in the assessment of damaged buildings to help the Japanese and other governments to put forward building codes and regulations which might ensure the survival of buildings and structures during future earthquakes.

I believe the Canadian government has shown the true heart of Canada in its quick response to this disaster. This true and honest desire by all Canadians to help those in real need is something that we as parliamentarians should never forget.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC has made an application to televise the proceedings of the Paul Bernardo trial, a motion that is strongly opposed by the families of the innocent victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

One must question the motives. Ratings, sensationalism and profit quickly come to mind. We have open court rooms. We have a jury of our peers to represent society. Surely this is enough.

The people of Niagara knew these victims and we know their families. These two unfortunate teenagers have become children of our nation. Let us protect their dignity in death.

It is time to deal with this situation in a judicial and responsible manner and to respect the rights of the victims not to be exploited further. There is no need to glorify these tragic events. There is no need to satisfy the perversion of tabloid journalism. There is no need to bring the O. J. Simpson circus to Canada.

I implore the CBC to withdraw its application. It is simply not the Canadian way.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is on the issue of same sex benefits.

The petitioners request the government not to consider any amendments to the human rights act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the phrase "sexual orientation".

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions, representing the views of over 163 Erie constituents which I wish to present to the House today.

The first petition calls on the government to enforce the existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. It also asks that no further changes be made in the law that would sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.