Karen Redman

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Orléans. I am extremely pleased personally to add some detail to the extent to which the government is helping municipalities develop infrastructure investment.

The government's track record in this area is something of which we all can be very proud. The Government of Canada has long recognized that investment in infrastructure is vital to the quality of life of Canadians. It is vital to our economic growth and to our competitiveness as a nation.

All of this helps make the case with regard to cities and municipalities across Canada. One of the first steps the government did when it took office in 1993 was to put in place a $2 billion municipal infrastructure program, the Canadian infrastructure works program. This was our largest new spending initiative as a government and we did this in a time of very severe fiscal constraints.

In 1997 the government extended a very successful program by providing an additional $425 million. These resources helped involve partners, mainly the provinces and municipalities, in the Canada infrastructure works program. This program stimulated $8.3 billion in infrastructure investment in over 17,000 local infrastructure projects. These communities spread right across Canada and they created jobs during a period of very slow economic growth.

The next federal investment and commitment to municipal infrastructure was made in budget 2000. That is when we introduced $2.05 billion in the infrastructure Canada program. This is consistent with the priorities of Canadians. The program focussed on green municipal infrastructure, projects such as water and waste water treatment, solid waste management and it also went to improve the quality of our environment as well as contributing to our national goals of clean air and clean water.

Federal investments totalling $1.1 billion have been announced providing funding for 1,500 green projects, again mostly water and waste water systems and to almost 900 projects to improve cultural, tourism, recreation and urban facilities. Local transportation has been invested in as well as social housing. These are particular issues in my community.

With resources from provincial and municipal partners, 2,400 projects which are worth more than $4.4 billion are being undertaken. While there is no doubt that the infrastructure Canada program is having a very positive impact on municipal infrastructure, it has become increasingly apparent that this program may not be the best instrument when responding to very large scale strategic infrastructure needs across the country. This includes those located in Canada's major urban centres or answering the increasing trade pressure that is happening at key border crossings.

To deal with these large scale projects of regional and national significance, in 2001 the government introduced the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund with an initial $2 billion investment in funding. In August of last year the government announced the key parameters in order to roll out this fund. Since that time the government has made firm commitments to a number of projects in cities, most notably new sewage treatment facilities in Halifax and St. John's and the expansion of the Vancouver Convention Centre. Money has gone to support urban transit in the city of Toronto. It has helped invest in ring roads around Edmonton and Calgary and it has added to the expansion of the Winnipeg floodway. There are more announcements to come in the coming months.

In the last Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada committed to an additional 10 year involvement in public infrastructure. Budget 2003 confirmed this commitment and provided a down payment by way of an investment of $3 billion to continue to address strategic and municipal infrastructure needs right across Canada.

In the budget allocation that just passed, the $2 billion committed will go to the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund and will address the large scale infrastructure needs, including those located in Canada's major urban centres. The further $1 billion committed will help meet smaller scale municipal needs.

I know that these investments will continue to make differences in cities, in municipalities, in rural and remote communities right across this country. We have a strong partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities and the private sector. We understand the different needs and priorities across the country. We understand that municipalities need to upgrade their basic infrastructure. That is why we are supporting Yellowknife in replacing sewer pipes and Trois-Rivières in repairing sewer systems and Ritchot by improving the drinking water treatment plant.

Cities and municipalities are places of constant evolution. The needs of those places evolve as populations grow. That is why we are helping Innisfail, Alberta upgrade its water system five years earlier than originally planned. This will allow its infrastructure to keep pace with the growth of the town. It is also why we are helping the residents of Cornwall, P.E.I. to improve their recreational facilities. This is to accommodate the changing needs in the surrounding area. This contributes to the quality of life and helps make those good places great places to live and to work.

We are also funding projects such as GO Transit in the Golden Horseshoe, Highway 30 in Quebec, and the Vancouver Convention Centre in B.C. In these projects we see a federal response to cities' needs to support environmental objectives in mass transit or the national trade corridor--and this applies directly to my riding, even though we are several hours drive from the border--and to support the tourism sector. These are key components of Canada's economy.

Our border infrastructure fund with $600 million in funding is being used to help cities and municipalities respond to their evolving role in the Canadian economy. The importance of our trading relationship with the United States in a post-September 11 world has demanded new responses. We have to ensure that the key trade corridors work efficiently. When those corridors pass through border cities, we have to ensure that they do not imperil the safety of the residents of those cities. That is why we are supporting border infrastructure improvements in Windsor and Niagara Falls.

The government's commitment to infrastructure is firm and longstanding. Through its numerous investments in municipal and strategic infrastructure, the government has shown a strong commitment to cities. This was a position and a commitment that the minister responsible for infrastructure reiterated late last month before hundreds of mayors and municipal officials in a meeting in Winnipeg.

Since 1993 the government has provided over $12 billion in investments in the nation's infrastructure to address local and regional needs and to meet our national economic, social and environmental objectives.

Partnerships with provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as with the private sector in these programs have reached over $30 billion of investment in infrastructure right across the country. These partnerships are crucial, as we need to invest not only in light of our national priorities, but always with a view to local, regional and provincial priorities as well. I speak of this as a former regional and municipal councillor.

It is the kind of partnership that we have formed that has allowed investments in things like the Waterloo Research and Technology Park. It has allowed for a bridge to be repaired in Wellesley, the redevelopment of the Cambridge Riverside Silk Mills and the construction of a new Kitchener market. These are local priorities that were identified locally and we have helped make them happen through participation and through partnership by the federal government. We understand and we have a mechanism that responds to what municipalities and provinces tell us they need.

[International Cooperation, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, each minute 11 people are infected with HIV. One in every 13 people in sub-Saharan Africa between the ages of 15 and 49 is HIV positive.

Canada has been an international leader in the global fund, being a key founder and one of the first countries to actually contribute.

Could the Minister for International Cooperation inform the House what other initiatives her department has undertaken to fight the AIDS epidemic?

[Diabetes, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, juvenile diabetes affects many Canadians. That is why last Sunday over 1,200 energetic individuals and 80 volunteers gathered to walk for a cure.

I was honoured to join volunteers like Christie Schuet, the youth ambassador for Waterloo-Wellington, Christine Bruce who organized families and raised their contribution to over 32% over last year's contribution, and Ball Construction that led an amazing participation on behalf of local contractors.

Great strides have been made in research for a cure. Researchers have found that embryonic stem cell research is critical in beating juvenile diabetes. Scientists have already shown that they may be able to direct the growth of stem cells into insulin producing cells that can produce a cure.

This is an exciting time in diabetic research for juveniles. This walk raised over $132,000 and we are anticipating an equally successful walk this Sunday in Cambridge. I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking the supporters who came out to support--

[Kitchener Rangers, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to invite the House to join me in congratulating the Kitchener Rangers on winning the Memorial Cup to become the Canadian Hockey League champions.

On the road to the Memorial Cup, the Rangers triumphed over Canada's finest junior hockey teams. The Rangers entered the playoffs hungry for a sip from the cup that they had not tasted since 1982. This inspired the team from Kitchener to a hard fought victory over the Ottawa 67s to capture the Ontario Championship. The next to fall were the league's best: the Quebec Remparts, the Kelowna Rockets and the Hull Olympiques. The Rangers entered the championship tournament with one phrase on their lips, “C'est le temps”, and this Sunday past belonged to Kitchener.

I ask all hon. members to join me in welcoming the Memorial Cup back home and congratulating the Kitchener Rangers, Canadian Hockey League champions.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in the House today that has in excess of 500 Kitchener and area residents' signatures asking Parliament to enact legislation to enable businesses and corporations to supply public transit passes to their employees as a tax exempt benefit, similar to free parking space.

Taking advantage of public transit and reducing personal automobile reliance are excellent ways that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a cleaner, healthier environment.

The petitioners call on Parliament to acknowledge that a parking space is an allowable tax incentive for businesses and of comparable value to a tax exemption for public transit passes.

[Elizabeth Fry Society, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to represent the Government of Canada at the grand opening of the Elizabeth Fry Society's new transitional housing in Kitchener Centre.

The Elizabeth Fry Society provides the basic needs and supports for women who have been in conflict with the law as they move forward to rebuild their lives. The federal government is proud to support these efforts by contributing $75,000 to this project, which will address the specific needs of women who risk coming into conflict with the law as a result often of homelessness, poverty and inadequate social supports.

I want to commend the Elizabeth Fry Society for its commitment to provide this home for the women in my community and the work that it does right across Canada. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for their hard work.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that does seem to be a bit of a contentious issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that this has not been a perfect system. That is why we are bringing in recommendations to address some of the concerns of the Auditor General.

Quite clearly the original proposal when we brought in gun control was predicated on the full participation of the provinces. It was also predicated on some revenues that actually were deferred and some of them were not realized. That did change the actual cost but there is no way near the amount of expenditure that the opposition would have us believe.

This is a good system. As a matter of fact, a representative of the Canadian Police Association told me that before 1995 about $30 million a year was spent on gun registry and only $10 million of that was borne by the federal government. After we brought in our legislation, that entire amount was borne federally.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have to acknowledge the passion of my friend opposite. Child pornography is a huge issue and it is one that Canadians care about. I would invite the member on that issue as well as the issue of gun control to work with the people on the ground, to work with the officers across Canada.

Over two million hits have been made on this system since 1998 by police forces. This is a tool that they value. I invite the member to work with me and all members of the House and with people right across Canada. We will battle this issue.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer the issues raised by my hon. colleague opposite. I realize that this is a contentious issue for many members on all sides of the House.

This is something that is in the public good. To talk about $1 billion is so misleading, I am absolutely amazed. It is $785 million that has been spent to date. One of the issues of this entire process has been that we have continued to consult. I ask the member opposite, is it not good government? I contend it is absolutely good government. Not only do we re-debate this issue in the House, and this is not the first time this issue has been debated in the House, but we continue to consult with Canadians. As a matter of fact, we embrace the Auditor General's reports because that is how we improve the system and make it responsive to Canadians.

What the government will not do is abandon the bedrock ideals that this is predicated on, which are a safer community and a safer Canada. That is what Canadians have asked us for. We will continue to work on that. We will continue to consult with Canadians to improve this system but we will not abandon those principles.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in our debate today with respect to Bill C-10A, I think it is important for members of the House to remind themselves of the history of gun control in Canada.

I was interested in hearing somewhat, I felt, a little bit of English, a little bit of politicking going on with an earlier opposition member's comments on the history of how we arrived at where we are today.

We are here today as a result of cautious and considered action by previous parliaments which, over the decades, have put in place legislation that was designed to meet specific needs and specific challenges in the Canadian context.

The law of the land has changed over time. It has changed as our communities, our society and the world around us have changed and evolved.

We are painfully aware of the criminal misuse of firearms and the tragic consequences of firearms violence in our communities.

Some of the issues related to firearms are relatively new, or certainly their magnitude is new. I brought to the House's attention the example of the problems posed by guns used by urban street gangs, including youth gangs in many urban centres.

Some statistics help to tell the story of why it has been necessary to establish more safety standards for firearm use. In the past, there was a historic average of over 1,000 firearm related deaths per annum. Greater numbers of Canadians are hospitalized each year because of firearm related injuries. Among industrialized countries, Canada has had the fifth highest firearm death rate for children under the age of 15. This is truly tragic.

I am certain that everyone present here today, indeed all Canadians and members on all sides of the House, want to see concrete measures taken to reduce the criminal use of firearms and to reduce firearms related violence.

The gun control program is an essential part of this initiative. It is vital to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, for their own safety, for the safety of others and for that of our communities.

Let us look at domestic homicide for example. We know that shooting is the leading cause of death in female spousal homicide. An overwhelming majority of domestic homicide shootings of men and women are with so-called ordinary rifles and shotguns.

In 1998 statistics showed that 63% of Canadian spousal firearm homicides involved rifles and shotguns. Sawed off rifles and shotguns killed a further 21% of Canadian spousal firearm homicide victims in that year.

Those are some of the reasons why a practical response to domestic violence must include a serious approach to both rifles and shotguns.

Internationally there is an increasing concern with respect to illicit movement of firearms to feed criminal markets. Countries have come to recognize that international co-operation is key to combating illegal firearms and stemming firearms related crime. It is a vital part of not only our safety agenda but that of the international community.

If we look a little at the backdrop of the current legislation, we see that the registration of handguns was first required by law back in 1934. Four decades later, the Criminal Code was amended to require persons wishing to own firearms to hold a firearms acquisition certificate.

During the period of 1992 to 1994, the firearms acquisition certificate process was enhanced. A requirement for a person to submit references was introduced, along with a 28 day waiting period before a certificate could be issued. Mandatory safety training was also introduced at that time, along with clearly defined safe firearms storage regulations. These measures continue to be in place today.

Bill C-68 was passed in 1995 and it established the Firearms Act and amended part III of the Criminal Code. It came into force in 1998, setting the stage for the regime that we have today.

Just to remind ourselves, the legislation included, among other things: enhanced eligibility criteria for being allowed to possess a firearm; a requirement for licensing of firearms owners; a requirement for the registration of all firearms; provisions allowing for the regulation of the import and export of firearms; and tougher Criminal Code penalties for serious firearm offences.

Under the current legislation, licensing of all firearms owners became mandatory January 1, 2001. The registration of all firearms became mandatory as of January 1 this year.

Put in context, the current regime is the result of careful progression and of measured consideration. Canadians now have a gun control program that is there to ensure that the public safety is protected and, at the same time, to ensure that legitimate gun owners and gun users are not unduly burdened. We have the balance right.

The issue now is, and this has been reflected in the recent public debate, how to make the program work as economically and as efficiently as it can. This, too, is in the public interest.

The gun control action plan announced by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General in February responds in concrete, practical ways to the observations and concerns that have been expressed by Canadians. We know we need to make the program work in the most effective manner, making the best use of public resources. There is a clear plan of action in place now and it is being implemented as we speak.

That is why Bill C-10A is so very important. It is a vital element of the plan to improve the gun control program. Bill C-10A would allow for important changes to the gun control program, building on the existing legislation. We are on the right track.

The bill includes amendments to the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code that would support and facilitate public compliance with the firearms program. The amendments would also consolidate administrative responsibility for the program, as well as help Canada meet new international obligations. I would underline and stress again that this is an issue that many nations are grappling with.

While the amendments the bill would make respond to concerns expressed about the firearms program's efficiency and cost, I would emphasize that these changes and these economies would be found through the administrative process. The amendments do not change the basic public safety goals and the elements of the Firearms Act, nor that of the gun control program.

Let me also mention some key amendments. Bill C-10A streamlines the process of transferring firearms from one owner to another. This would not only result in the elimination of a step in the approval of transfers saving time for all concerned, but it would also reduce costs.

The bill introduces pre-processing of non-residents who wish to enter Canada with firearms, for example, those who want to come to Canada on a hunting trip. This would also assist in reducing the lines at the border and support businesses that are involved in servicing sport hunters and shooters.

The process for licence renewals will be streamlined. That would include the renewal of the licences in an evenly staggered way, rather than receiving a huge surge of applications every five years. This is a key practical measure and will result in cost savings and better client service.

In addition, under Bill C-10A business licence terms will be extended from one year to three years for most businesses. This again means less cost and a simpler system.

Those and other changes proposed in Bill C-10A are a direct response to the extensive consultations that we have undertaken over the past several years with program partners and stakeholders. It is important to recognize that included the policing community and gun owners themselves.

The changes provide solutions to issues raised by the firearms community. While doing so, the bill will allow for more effective administration without a negative impact on the safety provisions which are fundamental to the entire program.

It is a win-win situation. Firearm owners and businesses will be getting many of the changes that they have told us they are seeking. The Canadian public at large wins by getting a more cost effective program while maintaining the public safety aspects on which they place such a high value.

I note that the government will not be losing touch with Canadians on the firearms front. There is a commitment in the gun control action plan, as announced by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice on February 21, to hold consultations with stakeholders and the public on the program design and the service delivery. I am happy to say that this commitment also includes consultations with parliamentarians.

I personally look forward to participating in those consultations as part of my service to my constituents. I am certain that others here in the House also look forward to that same opportunity to contribute in a positive manner.

We also have the opportunity today to make another contribution. We can ensure that Bill C-10A moves forward so that vital improvements in the gun control program that are important to all Canadians can be made as soon as possible.

A group of police officers was on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. A couple of members of the Waterloo Regional Police were part of that delegation. I spoke at length with them as to what their views were of the gun control act and whether they supported it.

They mentioned to me some interesting statistics, such as that over 2,000 inquiries are made to the gun registry on a daily basis by police forces and that while it is often heard as an anti-gun control lobby tactic that criminals do not register firearms, the firearms registry allows police to track stolen weapons. That is very important to them. They support this legislation.

According to an Environics poll that was done recently, over 74% of Canadians support the spirit and the enactment of this legislation. It is time for the debate to conclude so that we can move forward with this very important piece of legislation that Canadians have said they value and need.