Darrel Stinson

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not catch the question. I thought that time had passed and I got on with something else.

I hope it will address the member's concerns. If not, I am sure we will be back before the House screaming and hollering, there is no doubt about that.

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I stand in the House in agreement or even partial agreement with something brought forward by the government. I can say that with regard Bill C-35.

We do not have to look too far to see what is actually going on today with trade. It is in the news. At the border there has been stoppage of some of our produce from entering the States.

Bill C-35, if it were to be implemented, might play a small part in addressing some of the concerns. Dumping is basically when other countries sell their product in our country at less than it costs them to produce it. We have to pay attention to exactly what is going on. Otherwise our financial picture will look bleaker than it is now. I do not think the country could stand that for one moment.

Bill C-35 respecting the Special Import Measures Act governs the procedures under which anti-dumping and countervailing duties are imposed. Under WTO rules all countries are permitted to impose penalties on imported goods if the goods are being dumped into their countries or if their production is being subsidized at home.

That also brings forward the definition of dumping or subsidizing. What exactly is subsidizing? We should be looking at this subject more carefully than we do. Subsidization can take many forms. I am and always will be basically a free trader. More important, I would like to say I am a fair trader. I do not have a doubt that Canadian workers, farmers and manufacturers can compete in any field against any country if we have fair trade.

Fair trade does not necessarily fall into the same guise, unfortunately with the government, as does free trade. Fair trade means that we require a level playing field for our producers to compete. When we have to face higher taxes than in other countries, it is no longer fair trade. When we have to pay more for our electricity and for our heat than other countries do, it is no longer fair trade. When we have to pay more for shipping costs than other countries do, it is no longer fair trade. When we have to pay our own people to collect taxes such as the GST and other countries do not have to do so, it is no longer fair trade. However it may be so-called free trade. If we were to look into those areas we would find that Canadian producers could definitely compete by anyone's standard in the world. I have no doubt about that.

I admit that is getting a bit off topic from Bill C-35, but the government should take heed of this when talking about imports and exports. The first basic concern should be for the producers in Canada and trying to give them a fair chance to compete in the global economy, if that is where we want them to go. It is only reasonable to ask that.

As long ago as 1904 Canada developed the world's first anti-dumping legislation. Over the years since then Canada has evolved into one of the world's leading trading nations. Canada's trade legislation has been changed many times, including changes to the Special Import Measures Act or SIMA that were needed to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT.

We have been here before. We have gone through the hoops. We know we have serious problems and keep on having serious problems. It was only on Friday that I asked the minister about what was happening at the border. His answer to me was basically “Don't worry. Be happy. We have drawn up an agreement and nothing will happen”. It did happen because these agreements were not implemented when they should have been.

As I said, I am basically in support of Bill C-35. The government could be doing a lot more to help our companies and producers but it refuses to look at it. I sincerely hope it will give as much attention to that area as it has to Bill C-35. It has taken the government two years to get the legislation before the House.

In conclusion, basically the government has our support.

[Points Of Order, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. I was under the assumption, as were many people, that the minister was quoting from the document.

[Agriculture, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has done absolutely nothing with regard to this issue.

Will the minister finally do his job, or does he want me to go down there? If I have to, I will take the hon. member for Wild Rose with me and get it straightened out.

[Agriculture, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we know the border is to be closed. You know the border is to be closed. The minister has sat and done absolutely nothing.

[Greenpeace, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The government revoked the charitable status of Greenpeace in 1995. That has not stopped that group's efforts to tarnish Canada's image around the world and destroy Canada's forest industry.

Will the minister ask Germany and the United States to revoke the charitable status of Greenpeace before it can do more damage to Canada?

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the NDP member who spoke to bill has not even read it. That is quite typical.

Bill C-68 was sold to the Canadian public and the House under extreme false pretences. We like to talk about the Alberta court and what happened there. Need I remind the House that four of the five judges said that it was an infringement on provincial jurisdiction. Due to the government saying that it was a criminal act they decided three to two that the federal government had that right to infringe on provincial jurisdiction under a criminal act. Even that was sold as a guise to the Canadian public.

We will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enact legislation that most law abiding citizens who own firearms will probably not comply with in the first place. While we are doing this I remind the government of its responsibility. The government's foremost responsibility is to the safety and well-being of its law abiding citizens.

What did the government do when it was at fault in terms of the legislation to compensate all hep C victims who contacted hep C through the tainted blood system? It said that we had no funds. It said it could not afford to pay them, but it can afford to put hundreds of millions of dollars into firearms registration while those with tainted blood are dying. I have to ask where the government's priorities are.

For years navy merchant marines have been fighting to be duly compensated for their war efforts. These people have suffered, been left maimed and some have died in acts of war in order to feed our troops, yet this government has stated time after time that there are not enough funds to pay these people but it can spend hundreds and millions of dollars on a useless act causing total disagreement across the country.

I have to wonder where the government's priorities are. Government members will say anything to be re-elected, in order to come back to the House, but they think nothing at all of the true victims. Instead they would impose another tax or levy on law abiding citizens of Canada, which is shameful. I hope those people on the other side can sleep at night when they enforce this act after they read the letters of those suffering from hep C. It is a disgrace.

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

moved that Bill C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain amendments to the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to debate Bill C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain amendments to the Criminal Code.

Today I will direct my remarks first to the people who are concerned about their own safety from criminals, especially criminals who misuse firearms.

Hon. members can imagine what it must be like for senior citizens to suffer home invasion at the hands of criminals with firearms. That is becoming a common crime in our bigger cities. It is one that is starting to make everybody sit up and pay attention. It was bad enough when somebody's mother or grandmother was afraid to go out at night and walk to the corner store to buy a little milk for her tea. Now those folks are afraid inside their own homes. Where is this going to stop?

The government and the media like to claim that crime is decreasing. But people I talk to tell me that crime is so heavy where they live that police do not even show up to investigate a break and enter unless somebody has been injured. The police are just too busy.

A big part of the reason for such crime is the lack of teeth in the Young Offenders Act. That is another part of the crime story. It is a fact that no single change is going to make Canadian society safe again. It is going to take hard work by politicians to make Canada a safe place again for our citizens.

We need a new young offenders act. We need a victims bill of rights. We need, as my bill provides, tough penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. Instead of enacting these useful measures, which would produce measurable results, the government chose to require law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns to file papers, jump through hoops and pay fees in another Liberal tax grab.

My private member's bill would repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with real protection against criminals and the misuse of firearms by enacting minimum jail terms that cannot be plea bargained away.

My bill states that using, having or claiming to have a firearm during the commission of or the attempt to commit a crime or in flight after committing a crime would require a judge to impose a minimum of five years' imprisonment or not more than 14 years.

My bill also states that if a firearm is actually discharged, not just waved around or pointed at victims of crime, the penalty will increase to a minimum of 10 years or a maximum of 14 years and that these sentences will be served consecutively, that is, after or in addition to other sentences.

Some people argue that five or 10 years is too harsh and too long a time for the poor criminal to spend in jail. The way many of our prisons are run today it is really like a trip to the country club, not serious punishment. But that is another matter not directly addressed today. Prison reform is one more piece of the puzzle that the government could have enacted to achieve measurable results in the fight against crime, but it abandoned that responsibility and instead decided to target law-abiding citizens.

If my bill were passed at least convicted offenders would be deprived of their liberty and kept where they could not do more harm to society in general. If some people object to this as being too harsh, I remind them to look at the victims of crime. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, it sometimes takes a victim many years, sometimes a lifetime, to recover from the ill effects.

Let us remember the parents all across Canada who have lost a child through the criminal misuse of firearms. Or let us think of those who got shot themselves, sustaining such injuries as loss of sight or even paralysis. Think of the many fine police officers who have been shot in the line of duty. When the criminal gets out of jail their victim or victims will still be serving their sentences.

Even what passes as a small offence today, like the waving around of a shotgun during the commission of a crime, may lead victims to have to change jobs or take medication or even get counselling because they cannot cope with the endless nightmares which result from being threatened with a firearm in the course of their supposedly normal working day.

When we let people out of jail after they have committed crimes like this we send a message if the sentence has not been harsh enough.

In some countries the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is treated as a terrorist act, punishable by death.

Perhaps we in North America have seen too many crime shows on television and tend to take such things for granted. That is unfortunate. The North American society would be much better off if we considered the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime as the terrorist act it really is. It strikes a blow against the very foundation of our law-abiding society when criminals armed with firearms can prey on law-abiding citizens and be released with little or no time in jail.

Society must take a much more serious attitude toward the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. The best way to demonstrate that serious attitude is to demand that significant penalties be imposed on the criminal. That would send a message strong enough to shrink the demand for illegal firearms and to help dry up smuggling. It would be much easier to reduce smuggling if the smuggled items were not in demand. Criminals would soon learn that they cannot use many aspects of the law and loopholes such as using young people in the commission of crimes because those young people are dealt with by the Young Offenders Act.

Enacting serious penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms is a key component of Bill C-236.

Another key component of my private member's bill is the repeal of Bill C-68. Today some of my colleagues will focus on reasons to repeal Bill C-68. For example, it will do absolutely nothing to stop crime with firearms. Its cost is much higher than the government promised. The stats used to support its passage have since been shown to be grossly inaccurate. The funds could be much better used. It gives cabinet excessive powers. It infringes on the fundamental rights of citizens to enjoy private property without government interference. It crosses the line into provincial jurisdiction. It provides police with the excessive powers of search and seizure. And it can hand criminals a computerized list of the homes that have firearms for them to steal.

All of those points are serious and deserving of many hours of debate in the House. However, I will talk about one aspect of Bill C-68 which may be more serious than any of the others. That point is based on the fact that normally law-abiding citizens have not consented to register their firearms and shotguns. When I talk to them most of them tell me that they will not do so. As with the legislation to enact the GST, Bill C-68 will have the rare distinction of turning literally millions of normally law-abiding Canadian citizens into criminals.

When the general public not only does not agree with legislation but believes it to be wrong, that lack of agreement creates a climate which broadly tolerates what some people might describe as civil disobedience. Firearms owners generally view Bill C-68 as bad legislation. I certainly agree with them, as do many of my colleagues, not only this side of the House but also on the other side of the House. I know many people in rural Canada and nearly everyone assures me that they will not comply with the requirement to register their rifles and shotguns.

We are already well aware that millions of Canadians have lost faith in our governmental process to such an extent that they do not even vote. Their parents or grandparents may have shed blood on foreign soil to defend our democratic rights. Nevertheless, millions are ignoring their right to vote because they have lost faith in government.

In addition to the falling percentage of voters, millions of Canadians see themselves as being so overtaxed that they cannot get ahead no matter how hard they work. There is a widespread trend of people doing anything they can to avoid paying taxes, especially the GST. We even have a name for it. We now call it the underground economy.

When I was a child the only underground economy was mining. Those were the days when the average Canadian regarded the responsibility to vote as a primary concern and no law was lightly broken. Average Canadians cared about their country and their government because they believed this country and its government cared about them.

Instead today a broad cross-section of Canadians believe we are politicians who only care about ourselves, not statesmen acting in the best interest of the country. That sad fact has become the source of many jokes. One of the most feared sentences today in Canada is: “Hello, I am from the government and I am here to help you”.

Due to the passage of Bill C-68 soon we will have buried rifles and shotguns in backyards all across Canada. Some people, especially those who suffered under totalitarian regimes in other lands, view their firearms as the last defence against tyranny. Others who learned to hunt with their fathers and grandfathers see firearms as a basic element in their family traditions.

Ranchers, trappers and farmers as well as sport shooters and collectors do not look at firearms as weapons for criminals to use. They look at them as tools and an essential part of their everyday lives. It is not only the first nations people who see Bill C-68 as a threat to their culture. For many, Bill C-68 is the latest example of the urban lifestyle and urban values being crammed down the throats of the people living in rural areas today.

Together with the majority of people who live in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap I see Bill C-68 as a sharp axe being used to hack at the base of the tree of our Canadian lifestyle. It is a solemn obligation of elected members of government to nourish that tree.

Instead we passed Bill C-68 which is helping to kill some of the most treasured aspects of our Canadian lifestyle. I believe every responsible member of parliament should work hard to repeal Bill C-68 to restore the Criminal Code to what it was before legislation was enacted and to pass tough new penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms.

As I mentioned, there are many other reasons parliament should repeal the act respecting firearms and other weapons, which is the formal title of Bill C-68 and which would happen by passing Bill C-236. First it was presented in parliament under false pretences. It was supposedly to reduce accidents by encouraging safer storage, but the fact is safe storage was already required by earlier legislation.

It was supposedly to reduce crime with firearms by requiring law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns to fill out some papers and pay some fees. However the fact is that registration of handguns has been required for many years yet small guns remain the criminal's weapon of choice. It was supposedly to reduce the number of crimes in which firearms were involved. We have since seen RCMP Commissioner Murray write former Deputy Justice Minister George Thomson to take exception to how the 1993 stats of the federal police force were distorted to promote Bill C-68. Commissioner Murray wrote:

We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in violent crime compared to the Department of Justice's findings of 623 firearms involved in violent crime.

Apparently some police forces consider a firearm to have been involved in a violent crime if a drug dealer happens to have firearms and ammunition stashed in his basement when he is arrested. Members of the House did not have such an interpretation in mind when they fell for the government's flawed arguments in support of Bill C-68. I will end on that note and hope everybody considers very carefully where Bill C-68 will take the country.

[Apec Inquiry, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is the top law enforcement officer in the country. What kind of message is he sending to the police officers, prison wardens and judges across the country when he breaks the rules and gets off scot-free? When is he going to resign?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss Bill C-53 and Motion No. 1 moved by the Bloc. I will continue on from where my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands left off in regard to what is happening today with small businesses and so-called small business loans.

The government is trying to infuse more money into a very bad situation. I have listened to some of the speeches today. Some members across the way have said how much they have done for small business, yet in the history of Canada the small business bankruptcy rate has never been so high. How much help has this government given small business? Why is our system not working?

This program is already in place and the Liberals want to throw more money into it. They know full well that it will not create a better climate for small business, that it will not help the entrepreneur go ahead. Canadians are overregulated and overtaxed.

Last winter between Christmas and New Year's Day, I had a chance to get away with my wife for a few days. We decided to drive down to the coast of Oregon. A small business conference was going on there. I met a couple of mayors and a bunch of council people from Lincoln, Oregon. We got talking about the difference in business attitude between down there and up here in Canada. They told me of six new companies that had started during a two-week period. They were started by Canadian entrepreneurs who had been chased out of this country by this government.

Members on the other side ask about the American economy. It is coming from our Canadian entrepreneurs who have been chased out of this country. They have been chased out by those people, the government and its overtaxation and overregulation. Do Liberal members think those entrepreneurs are happy there? Do Liberals think those people want to invest $50,000, $100 million or $200 million in this country? They do not. They have no confidence in the ability of this government to help them survive in this economic climate.

Liberals stand up day after day to say how great they have been to Canadian businesses. Let us take a look. There have been 40 increases in taxation since the Liberals have been in power. I will say it very slowly for those on the other side. That is a four with a zero at the end in tax increases. And the Liberals say they are the great saviours of the Canadian business climate. Shame on them. Shame on them for even standing up and saying that. It is total hypocrisy.

This government is like any government before it, like the Conservative and Liberal governments before it: “We will throw more money out there to make us look good. We will have something to throw out there so we can say this is what we tried to do although it did not work. We are so sorry it did not work”. Governments have been trying this from day one in Canada and who has been paying for it? The taxpayers, those who are sitting outside this House, those who are sitting up in the gallery. They are the ones who pay for it.

The Liberals sit on the other side and think they have money. They think they have their own money but they do not. The Liberals have the people's money. They have the workers' money. Look after it for a change. It is total hypocrisy.

The Liberals campaigned that they would get rid of the GST and they would help businesses. They said they would scrap the GST. What did they do? They came along with a better idea, a bigger scam on the people of Canada. They would harmonize the GST. The cost went up another 3% through harmonization. Nice going Mr. and Mrs. Government on the other side. Shame on them. They cannot justify the 40 tax increases, so they will not mention them. They cannot justify any of them. They would sooner have a bill like this one which adds $1.5 billion more to try and address the problem.

The problem has been there since the day the program started. People come to my office time after time wanting to know how they can access the money that is supposed to be there for small business loans. It is not there. Most of them would be far better off going to their families and keeping the government and its regulations out. What kills business is taxes and overregulation.

If this government really wants to do something for the entrepreneur, for the business minded people, if it really wants to keep them in this country and not chase them across the line or to other countries like it is doing today,—it is called the brain drain—then start cutting the taxes. Get out of their faces and let them go ahead and compete. Get rid of the interprovincial tax barriers. Start treating Canadians as human beings instead of digging into their pockets and taking their money any time it feels like it.