Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Railways June 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the 1800s railroads were given the power of expropriation as they expanded across Canada. Today, as railroads abandon lines everywhere, I would like to know why the new Canadian transportation act contains a similar or parallel power of expropriation?
Firearms Act June 13th, 1995
I really appreciate the question and I would appreciate an attempt to answer it.
They have a localized area and they are trying to extend that to a national number. The member opposite knows that is false and misleading.
Firearms Act June 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the hon. member opposite thought I was only talking about the Americans. I was trying to draw a distinction. However, having regard to his seatmate, I understand why he could not hear me.
It is very easy to take a very localized area and say that the statistics are different. We are not talking about a registry system that applies in the city of Ottawa or in the city of Calgary; we are talking about a national system. It is very easy to distort reality with these numbers. For example, in the city of Washington, where they have very stringent gun controls, they have an extremely high murder rate but a much lower suicide rate. How would they explain that? It is because you cannot take a localized area-
Firearms Act June 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a hallmark of the member opposite that he is locked in time and that new evidence will not persuade him to change his mind. His mind is made up and that is the way it is going to be.
The member would like to ask the question and continue to talk. I know that the hon. member on occasion appeared at committee. I once again commend to him the evidence of the public health experts. I would also commend to him the change
in technology since the hon. member made that statement in 1976.
Would he only deal with a doctor who used technology that was locked in time at 1976? I think not. I would suggest to him that with the change in information systems today, in 1995, 19 years after 1976, he might want to re-examine the statement made by the hon. member in 1976.
Firearms Act June 13th, 1995
Nothwithstanding all the talk across the way, is it reasonable to conclude from the evidence of the police, public health experts, suicide prevention groups and public safety experts that the cornerstone of the bill, the registry system, will cut the rate of crime and suicides in Canada? The unequivocal response is yes, I must acknowledge that there were many witnesses who sincerely denied this to be the case. There are those who cling to the beliefs of the business administrator turned criminologist. Perhaps these people will turn to their accountant the next time they have a medical problem.
Firearms Act June 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for London West.
I express my support of Bill C-68 that has been before the House for several months now. The Minister of Justice has travelled the country in consultation and the bill has been scrutinized by the media. It has been studied by the standing committee of which I am a member. Over 70 groups and approximately 35 members appeared before the committee. The time has arrived for the House to act on the legislation.
Certain colleagues in the House frequently look to the United States to cite examples of public policy which in their view should be adopted in this country. I often question whether certain members opposite are more familiar with the American constitution as opposed to the Canadian Constitution.
Canadians have looked to the United States and at its pervasive gun culture. One need only watch the nightly news on any American station to realize the tragic consequences of the pro gun movement, a movement that shares the common beliefs of many people and parties in the House.
My own riding of Sarnia-Lambton borders on the community of Port Huron in the state of Michigan. Last September just as children were going back to school two individuals who were repairing a roof at a school got into an argument. One went out to his truck, got a gun and shot his co-worker in full view of the children.
In the same city, which is a relatively prosperous community of 100,000, there were seven shootings in schools last year. Children as young as 12 were bringing guns to school in their gym bags so they could settle a school yard dispute. This was all happening in a very middle class prosperous community 400 yards away from my riding. This is terribly anecdotal material but I suggest it draws a distinction between our two countries.
Bill C-68 is an opportunity to define and shape the type of attitudes we as Canadians have toward the flow of guns, the possession of guns and the usage of guns in the country. It is a step toward recognition of the type of society based on our history and our values, one of which is to let other people speak without being interrupted. It distinguishes us absolutely from our neighbours to the south. It recognizes that there are legitimate uses for firearms and that there are concurrent obligations in such ownership.
As someone who sat on the committee I can quite safely say that the quality of the testimony and the evidence was of great concern to me. It was readily apparent that there were doctors appearing before the committee who were quite willing to give legal opinions and there were lawyers appearing before the committee who were quite willing to give medical opinions. Many individuals who appeared as members of responsible firearms groups or gun owners groups offered advice on accounting principles even though they had no background in it. They would offer advice on certain belief systems that bordered on religions.
As a result I suggest to those here and those watching that it is necessary to weigh the probative value of the evidence of an expert, for example in business administration, who because he has a doctorate in business administration transfers his advice to the National Rifle Association and the Fraser Institute, all the time posing as a criminologist.
Similarly one would question the opinion of a medical doctor who appeared before the committee and formed conclusions regarding suicide that fly in the face of empirical research on the subject, as well as the evidence of a group representative who purports to speak for veterans buried in Europe, victims of the second world war.
It is safe and true to say that there was a continuum of opinion before the committee on the bill, some of which quite frankly bordered on the absurd and some of which resembled reasonable, objective and logical suggestions.
Those who belong-and I would suggest there are some in the House-to the show me school, that is those who demand mathematical equations empirically setting out reductions in murder, accident and suicide rates, are demanding a burden of proof that from a logical perspective is false and perverse. We are hearing a lot of it tonight. I am referring to those who demand no registration but implicitly know that locking up one
spouse in jail for shooting the other spouse will somehow deter others from the same behaviour.
If we take the punishment versus prevention logic and follow it through to its conclusion, surely punishment would be a sufficient deterrent to allow banks to transport money without armoured cars. Surely the threat of a sentence for holding up a bank employee transporting cash would be sufficient to prevent such a criminal act and banks could cut the cost of doing business by not spending money on such preventive safety measures as armoured cars.
We know there are still robberies of armoured cars. The fact that banks have taken reasonable measures to prevent acts that are reasonably foreseeable is accepted by society as the prudent course of action.
Similarly we have in the country workplace safety laws that require certain steps to be taken to minimize accidents in the workplace. Such laws are accepted even though there is a cost in implementing safety devices and inspection procedures because certain tragedies are preventable, although by no means can such legislation eliminate unfortunate accidents and occurrences.
If the same burden of proof were placed on the implementation of workplace safety laws or seatbelt laws such as was suggested by members across the way, and if the same quantitative mathematical proof were applied to the laws before passage, obviously none of the statutory provisions would ever exist. We would live in a country without workplace safety laws.
I commend to all opponents of the bill who would prefer to talk rather than listen the testimony of public health experts who appeared before the committee. They recognized that laws such as this one create a change not only in the flow of guns, the possession of guns and the usage of guns, but more important in the attitudes of society toward guns.
Many witnesses who appeared before the committee stated the tired old maxim that we have heard many times: people kill, guns do not. Such simple statements deny the fact that guns are inherently dangerous objects and that in possessing these weapons certain obligations should be imposed.
Is it unreasonable to know who owns the weapons or where they are moving in society? Is it in some way an imposition on someone's inherent right to have some central registry system when the same exists for dogs, cars, houses and securities?
Air-India Disaster May 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that I would share remainder time.
I am pleased to rise today to discuss private member's Motion No. 293. Ten years after, we cannot adequately acknowledge the suffering of those left behind, but we can look to the changes in our air travel safety that have occurred as a result of this very tragic event.
Immediately following the disaster, the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence was instructed to study and report on airport and airline security in Canada. The recommendations stemming from this report have been implemented, resulting in significant improvements to aviation security in Canada.
New air carrier and airport security regulations have been introduced, which establish high minimum standards. These regulations are under constant review and adjustment to respond to the changing situation.
Monitoring and inspection of airport and air carrier security measures have been greatly increased. Also, more stringent security controls on passengers, carry-on baggage, checked baggage, cargo and mail have been introduced on international flights. Air carriers are prohibited from carrying the baggage of persons not on board the aircraft.
The range of enforcement mechanisms has also been strengthened with the introduction in 1989 of the designated provisions regulations, which is an administrative monetary penalty scheme. These regulations were amended in 1993, increasing the number of punishable aviation security regulatory offences and the size of maximum penalties that can be levied.
Additional X-ray detection equipment and explosive vapour detectors have been put into service. A training program for security screening personnel and their trainers has been developed and implemented by Transport Canada. Courses are regularly scheduled. Internal security training programs for Transport Canada security inspectors and other aviation security specialists are also in place.
In addition, new measures have been implemented that require air carriers operating in Canada to carry out a program of initial and annual recurrent crew member aviation security training. All persons employed at major airports who have access to restricted areas must undergo a security assessment to ensure they do not pose a threat to the security of civil aviation.
In 1994 new security standards were legislated for airport restricted area pass systems, which improved the ability of the government and airport operators to ensure that people in restricted areas of Canada's airports have a need and a right to be there.
Transport Canada has been actively pursuing stronger security provisions and bilateral air transport agreements with other countries to ensure that implementation of Canada's high aviation security standards is a mandatory condition for foreign air carrier operations in our country.
I would like to point out that in addition to these enhancements Canada has in place a three-level alert and response system to ensure appropriate security measures are taken in response to specific threats. I understand this system was fully updated in 1992 and is under constant review and fine tuning to ensure it responds effectively to changing circumstances.
In conclusion, the Air-India disaster has been the subject of exhaustive examination by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Transport Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, and the police investigation is ongoing.
Ontario Election May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, with only 24 days to the Ontario election, Bob Rae is getting desperate.
Last Friday in Thunder Bay the premier and his nearly defunct party reached a new low in campaign dirty tricks. In the middle of an announcement by Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, a member of the NDP's own provincial council, Alex Ng, rushed the podium, screaming in protest.
Later Mr. Ng admitted to the media he was ordered to disrupt the event by the NDP's central campaign, which had paid his flight to Thunder Bay.
The premier apologized for the incident and announced that Mr. Ng was withdrawing from the campaign. Mr. Ng's career as a paid protester may well be over but at least he had a good start on Bob Rae, who will start looking for a new job on June 9.
Gasoline Prices April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, certain members of the House are calling for an inquiry into gasoline prices.
With provincial and federal taxes representing about 55 per cent of the price and refineries averaging about a 4 per cent return on their investment for the last several years and gas stations closing because there is no profit, what is left? Might it be combined federal and provincial taxes, or legislative demands unilaterally imposed on the industry or high municipal taxes in cities such as Ottawa?
Clearly any inquiry must start with full examination of the role of government at all three levels in driving up the cost of gasoline. Acting otherwise would be closing one's eyes to the real problem.
Broadcasting Act February 9th, 1995
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy).
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act.
In recent weeks Canadians have made it clear that they dislike intensely the policy of the CRTC in allowing cable companies to demand payment for channels which they have not ordered or authorized. The CRTC in return has said that this is a necessary evil of introducing new channels.
The bill that I have introduced today will amend the broadcast policy section of the Broadcasting Act to ensure that the CRTC no longer has any discretion in terms of necessary evils such as negative option billing. This will limit the control of cable companies over their customers, something about which Canadians have expressed strong opinions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)