Charlie Penson

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 88 people from my riding. The petitioners believe they are already overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.

Therefore they request Parliament reduce government spending instead of raising taxes. I endorse that petition.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present today.

The first petition is signed by 788 people and deals with the subject of young offenders. Canadian citizens from coast to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. They want an act that is serious enough to deter young people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament undertake a complete and thorough review of existing legislation to address their concerns.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it seems they are starting to feel a little heat on the other side from some of their constituents.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus we are hearing from this side of the House. The Reform Party is opposed to Bill C-68 because it makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who are responsible gun owners. We would like to separate the criminal use of firearms from the ownership, transportation and storage of firearms in the bill.

We heard the chief government whip give us all of the legal procedural reasons why this cannot be done. People in Canada are sick and tired of the Toronto big city lawyers trying to define what can be done. The minister knows we can separate the bill if he has the will to do it. He is not willing to do it. He is trying to give us an omnibus bill incorporating two things, the protection of Canadian citizens and registration. They are not linked.

We say strengthen and enforce the law dealing with criminals who use guns to commit crimes. That is a reasonable alternative, but leave responsible gun owners alone.

This bill will place unnecessary restrictions on us. It will limit our freedom. It will waste our time and it will put a dent in our pocket books. I do not care what the minister says. It will be significantly higher than what he estimates.

In my riding of Peace River the lawyers who write the laws concerning firearms are known as those out of touch eggheads from Toronto. I live in a northern riding. These are fancy lawmakers who have no idea what it is like to live and work in the north. These are lawyers who have never had to worry about bears or wolves killing their livestock. Come up north with me

and maybe I can paint a picture of what it is like. I encourage the minister to do that.

Several years ago a rancher in my riding saw a black bear approaching his young child playing outside. Being a crack shot, he grabbed his rifle and pumped two shells into the animal. He assumed the bear was not coming over to make a polite introduction. Had this incident occurred today the child probably would be dead.

Talk about saving one life, is it worth it?

With the law as written today the rancher first would have to go from one room to get the gun and into another room to get the ammunition. He would not have had time to get that bear before it got his child.

Many people in my riding voted against the Conservatives because they hated Kim Campbell's Bill C-17. Now they are finding out this government is even worse. Maybe there is a lesson there to be learned.

How will one store ammunition in another room if one lives in a one room cabin? Who lives in a one room cabin? Trappers and outfitters do. They have lots of them on their trap lines. That is what Kim Campbell's law demanded. Hunters and trapping guides who depend on their guns for a living do not have fancy multiroom houses. They have one room cabins. They would have to store their ammunition in one room and their guns in a separate one. They would have to build a separate cabin to store their ammunition. How ludicrous this gets.

If a person is moving around their property to fix fences, as ranchers do in some parts of northern and western Canada, does it make any sense to unload the firearm, put the ammunition under the seat and get back into the truck? It does not. Bear stories are not as frequent as they used to be but there are still parts of the country where bears are a menace to livestock. We still have the occasional tragic incident. I encourage the minister to listen.

Six years ago two tree planters were replanting some cut blocks in a reforestation project in my riding. They were unarmed and they were charged by a large black bear. One managed to climb a tree high enough to get out of trouble. The other tree planter was not as lucky. He was killed. Five years ago an unarmed timber cruiser had the misfortune of running into a grizzly. He did not live to tell his story. If we talk about one life being saved, those are a couple of examples.

Let us talk about a different kind of hardship, money. In most rural areas people cannot afford to register their firearms even if it did make any sense. When we start telling a young couple with little children struggling to make ends meet who have already lost a cow to a wolf or a bear and some calves to other misfortunes that they must shell out $300 to $400 to register their firearms, we have to wonder from where that money is going to come. It will come straight from the mouths of their children.

Please do not tell me that it is only going to cost $10 or so to register a firearm. To properly register anything we need an inspection. I believe the minister knows this. When we are talking about inspecting distinguishing features such as serial numbers and calibre we are going to run into costs.

The minister knows that up to 20 per cent of long guns do not have proper identification at the moment. Is the government planning to run a deficit in this area as well? The cost of registering handguns is approximately $75. It is difficult to understand how the registration of rifles and shotguns is going to be any cheaper. The government estimates the total cost of registration at around $85 million. It will probably be a lot closer to $500 million, almost six times as much; seven million long guns multiplied by $75. Members can work out the math.

We have had a handgun registry for some 60 years. Has it reduced the incidence of store robbery or domestic violence? No, it has not. It has probably increased. How will long gun registration improve that balance? If there were any solid proof that domestic violence would be reduced as a result of more gun control, in rural areas this law would be easier to swallow. There is no such proof.

The real red herring here, the one I resent the most, is when the minister talks about how it will reduce suicides. This is the worst case scenario I have ever heard of. My nephew committed suicide. It was the most tragic thing that ever happened in our family. Did he use a gun to do it? No, he did not. When people are in that state of mind they will use whatever they find necessary to get the job done. Whether a gun was there, whatever was there to get the job done, that is what he used. That is the worst possible case the minister put forward.

In situations of domestic violence it is much the same. A distressed person will use whatever is handy. They will use their fists, they will use knives, they will use egg beaters or any item they happen to find. Suggesting these items should be registered is as ludicrous as registering rifles and shotguns.

If there were any solid proof that murders would be reduced by requiring registration, tougher gun laws would be more palatable. Again, there is no such proof. A retired RCMP sergeant wrote recently that in his 27 years with the RCMP he was directly involved in investigating 14 murders and attempted murders. In only three of those were firearms used. The murders involved fire, axes, fists, two-by-fours, strangulation and kitchen knives. Registering the few firearms used would not have prevented most of those crimes from occurring.

Our fancy lawmakers say that cars are registered, so why not rifles and shotguns. Has car registration reduced the carnage on

our highways, prevented cars from being stolen or used in the commission of crimes? Obviously not.

Most of the people in my riding use their guns only occasionally. This is very important. These guns have been handed down from grandfather to father to son. Most people, including myself, use their guns very infrequently. It really bothers people that they will have to go through this whole process when it is not going to be effective.

Mark my words, it is not going to be effective in reducing crime. There will be a big cost involved and it will be a big inconvenience. These are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who do not like to have their freedom limited without a good reason. If it could be demonstrated that there is going to be a reduction in the criminal use of firearms, that would be a different matter.

Many have guns which are heirlooms having been passed from father to son and so on. Putting all the rules and regulations in place to limit the use of these through registration does not make any sense. The government will be forcing people to break the law in many cases. Many people in my riding have said they are not going to register their guns.

I urge the government to reconsider this ill-conceived bill. Punish the criminal use of guns and do not make criminals out of peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Should your father have registered his gun?

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Waterloo. I know he has a keen interest in this area which actually precedes my interest. We have been working together to try to stop the kind of waste that has been going on.

However, it has been a year. I have asked the minister of defence three or four questions over the last year. If change is coming, I certainly welcome it. I would like to remind the minister of defence and the parliamentary secretary that this is a perfect example of where we can save some money with no cost in service. The service can be handled quite well by the independent companies. I believe we should see a change here shortly and I certainly welcome that.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. What it does is it raises a concern. It is another area I was not aware of. I think it is symptomatic of the serious problems that exist at DND. If the hon. member's example of these household moves with the transfers and the cost of mortgages is symptomatic of what goes on in the defence department, we have bigger problems than this $10 million to $25 million.

This is a time when we cannot afford these kinds of excesses any more. Even if money were to be had, it could be better allocated in areas such as in peacekeeping to give our peacekeepers better equipment. We simply have to cut out this kind of waste. I do know whether we could ever afford it, but we certainly cannot afford it now. The Canadian public does not have patience with this any longer. It needs to be cleaned up.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak about defence department policy and priority.

I have risen in the House before to talk about defence department household moves. Somewhere with the bowels of the defence department there are some 200 military men and women who are performing a function that has absolutely nothing to do with their training. They are not peacekeepers, not ace pilots or tank mechanics. They are not sophisticated radar specialists. These fine men and women are immersed in the management details of packing dishes, moving couches and not scratching the coffee tables.

Is this what Canadians want their military to be doing? Is this a function the government should be handling because the private sector cannot or will not handle without government handouts? The answer is no. The private sector has been crying out to get a crack at managing the household moves of Canada's military.

Newspaper reporters have written about the horrendous waste of taxpayers' money. At least $10 million occurs because these military men and women are not much good at managing household moves. Television crews have documented the gross inefficiencies and ridiculous regulations that hamper the smooth move from one home to another. Even the government's own Competition Bureau has warned against the dubious tendering practices which could cause the major van lines to breach their 1983 prohibition order against collusion.

It is not that no one has heeded all these cries. The last government finally got its act together and disbanded the interdepartmental committee responsible for all this waste. It timidly agreed to try a pilot project to see whether the private sector could, in fact, manage household moves better than this decorated bunch of brass.

The interdepartmental committee for household goods removal services to which I am referring, the IDC, has representatives from the RCMP, public works, government services and defence. Together they preside over all government funded moves.

Did this project ever get off the ground? Did the private sector have a chance to prove it can move the military pots and pans cheaper and in a more timely fashion than a group of war heroes? The answer is no. When the government changed hands these heroes did an end run and somehow convinced the minister of defence that it had been beyond the previous government's competence to approve the project.

The United States military has announced that it is turning its moves of over 200,000 households per year over to the private sector. Why is it that Canada, with 20,000 military household moves, cannot do the same?

The time is more than right. The finance minister has stated that the government should only do what government does best. The private sector has already shown that it was good enough to move the MPs when the government changed hands a year and a half ago. Savings of at least 20 per cent to 30 per cent can be achieved for the military as well. Does it really cost three-quarters of a million dollars to move military family pets? That is the number. The last time I checked it cost $50 to fly a cat from Halifax to Vancouver. How are we running up these horrendous costs?

Here is another item. Does interim lodging and meals really need to cost $28 million? When the private sector manages a move it asks its clients being moved what day is convenient to load and what day is convenient to deliver. That is the criteria used when a private moving company is phoned.

Anyone who has taken the morning off from work to wait for a delivery or a repairman knows how frustrating and costly inexact timetables are. If we know our household effects are being delivered on Tuesday we do not need a two-week vacation at the Hilton to accommodate it. On the other hand, if we are told that packing will occur sometime during the first week of June and delivery will happen sometime in the third week, as happens with defence department moves, then maybe it makes sense to plan a nice taxpayer subsidized vacation around a vaguely timed disappearance of our television set and slippers. It is a practice we simply cannot condone.

These inefficiencies end up costing all of us more. Government is by far the largest household mover client. Government makes up to 30 per cent to 35 per cent of all of the household moves in Canada per year. When poor management permeates that large a portion of an industry, the effects pervade the entire industry.

I call on the government to finally end this practice and to stand up to this little empire of colonels. When the Minister of National Defence is deciding where to make cuts in his department he should start with the IDC. I would not be at all surprised if he is fed up with that little bunch over there anyway.

The minister should then move to privatize the management of all military and all other government household moves. Consulting and Audit Canada, along with the Competitions Bureau and Public Works and Government Services should be asked to prepare a tender according to treasury board guidelines.

By acting this way, the minister will be doing the taxpayer and himself a big favour. He will be stating forcefully that no longer will move management operate outside the normal parameters of government. No longer will move managers thumb their noses at elected officials and no longer will move managers be accountable to no one.

The taxpayer will save between $10 million and $25 million. The Reform Party will support the government for a wise and excellent decision. As a matter of fact, even a lot of Liberals will applaud this long overdue move. At a time when we cannot even afford decent peacekeeping equipment for our peacekeepers, it is appalling that we are wasting taxpayers' money in this fashion.

Our peacekeepers in Bosnia could have used better land vehicles. It is also well known that our Sea King helicopters and our submarines are in desperate need of replacement. We know this will not provide too many, but it is an example of government waste that has to be cleaned up.

I call on the government to act now and quickly to privatize the household moves that the IDC is currently conducting.

[Labour, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the governing party is having trouble handling the situation but the Canadian people do not have any patience with it. We have had 15 strikes in 15 years.

My supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. Forty per cent of Canadian exports depend on railways to move to market. The government's inaction on the issue last week led to significant financial losses for exporters.

Will the Minister for International Trade impress upon his colleague, the Minister of Labour, that Canada cannot afford further damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier?

[Labour, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a one-week shutdown of our railways means an immediate short term loss of $3 billion to $5 billion including $1 billion in exports.

Canada's international reputation is damaged yet again by the 15th strike in 15 years with long term costs. At a time when Canada faces a credit downgrading by Moody's, will the Minister of Labour commit to a permanent solution with a final offer of settlement for essential services?

[Communications Security Establishment, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. For a moment I thought I was still in question period. The report that was commissioned by the House of Commons special committee entitled "In Flux But Not in Crisis" dated September 1990 said that this technology has important implications with respect to individual rights and freedoms.

The report states that it is likely that CSIS uses this technology in its operations. The CSE is capable of employing it as well and that it shares information with CSIS. The report questions whether these intrusive techniques are used against Canadians and landed immigrants. There is even some question whether electromagnetic eavesdropping technology constitutes an offence under the current provisions of the Criminal Code. People

using this technology can go undetected because there is no need to break and enter or trespass other people's property in order to use it.

The report goes on to state that the committee believes the CSE should get a judicial warrant before using electromagnetic eavesdropping. Does the CSE do this before beginning its investigations of foreign governments, foreign companies or foreign individuals? Who knows?

There are a lot of things we do not know about this taxpayer-funded operation. We do not know how much it spends because its budget is buried somewhere in the Department of National Defence expenditures. We do not know how many people work there because those numbers are not published. We do not know whether the CSE is doing what it is supposed to do because it has no mandate. All we have are educated guesses.

In a background paper entitled "The Communications Security Establishment: Canada's Most Secret Intelligence Agency" dated September 1993, a parliamentary researcher concludes that in 1991 the CSE's budget was in the $100 million to $125 million a year range. This figure did not include an additional $150 million in personnel and other support provided by Canadian forces.

The same background paper places the number of employees at 875 in June 1993 although that does not include the 1,100 persons assigned from Canadian forces to operate in various monitoring stations in Canada, Bermuda and Germany.

The cold war is over. We may be involved in some minor external skirmishes over fish and some major internal battles over who stays in Canada and who does not and what stays in the federal budget and what does not. The rationale for keeping the Canadian public in the dark about this secret agency no longer exists, if it ever did in the first place.

The bigger danger is that this agency gets involved in something that it has no business in, like spying on Canadians, or that it does something illegal.

Right now the CSE is accountable to no one. It is true that the Minister of National Defence approves the major capital expenditures of CSE and its annual multiyear operational plan and its major initiatives that have significant policy or legal implication, but the CSE reports to the deputy clerk of security intelligence in the Privy Council on policy and operational management. The right hand cannot be held responsible for what the left hand is doing and vice versa.

No government agency should escape review. Every government agency should be accountable to someone or some body that is accountable to the Canadian public. Canadians have a right to know whether the CSE actually spent $125 million or even $275 million in 1991. Right now we do not know that. Furthermore, they have the right to know how much was spent last year and what the budget will be for next year.

The CSE has 875 listeners on its payroll who are intercepting communications of foreign government, foreign companies and foreign individuals. Someone should be watching and listening to the listeners.

My colleagues and I will support the motion made by this member on Private Members' Business and any amendments that will make this body more accountable to the Canadian public. My understanding is there are two amendments to this motion. The first is by the member for Bellechasse which asks the CSE to table an annual report in the House on its activities.

The second is by the member who proposed this motion in the first place. The second amendment changes the motion so that an independent body rather than SIRC reviews the Communications Security Establishment. This amendment serves to further strengthen the motion. I commend the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River for putting forward this motion and I hope he gets the support from all of his colleagues in the House.