Darrel Stinson

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by adding: a ) after line 9 on page 21 the following:

"(1.1) The responsible minister shall hold at least one public hearing in the area affected by the recovery plan to hear the comments of persons interested in cooperating in the preparation of the recovery plan.

(1.2) The responsible minister shall cause to be published, in the Canada Gazette and in a daily or weekly newspaper in general circulation in the area affected by the recovery plan, at least sixty days prior to the commencement of any public hearing held by the responsible minister in the area pursuant to subsection (1.1), a notice containing a ) a statement that the responsible minister must prepare a recovery plan and hold a public hearing concerning the plan; b ) the time, date and place of the hearing; c ) a statement that any person interested in cooperating in the preparation of the plan must notify the responsible minister, at least three working days prior to the commencement of the public hearing, in electronic or other form, of the person's name and address and of the fact that the person is affected or interested.'' b ) after line 22 on page 21 the following:

"(d.1) any other person or organization that notifies the responsible minister, at least three working days prior to the commencement of the hearing referred to in subsection (1.1), in electronic or other form, of the name and address of the person or organization and of the fact that the person or organization is affected or interested."

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 21 with the following:

"technically, socio-economically and biologically possible and"

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 22 with the following:

"technically, socio-economically and biologically possible, the"

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 23 with the following:

"(7) If the recovery of the wildlife species is not technically, socio-economically or biologically possible, the recovery plan may include measures limited to the prohibition of activities that directly affect individuals of the species or their residences."

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-65, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 44 on page 28 with the following:

"(3), during normal business hours, enter and inspect any place in which the officer believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, there is any thing to"

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-65, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 29 with the following:

"a dwelling-place except with the witnessed and written permission of the owner or tenant of the dwelling place or under the authority of a warrant."

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-65, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 46 on page 29, and lines 1 to 3, on page 30 with the following:

"order, an enforcement officer shall not exercise the powers of search and seizure provided in section 487 of the Criminal Code in respect of a building without a warrant or the witnessed written permission of the owner or tenant of the building."

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-65, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 32 with the following:

"57.(1) The responsible minister must acknowledge receipt of the application and send a copy of it by registered mail to each person alleged in the application to have been involved in the commission of the offence within"

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-65, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 43 on page 33, and lines 1 to 5, on page 34 with the following: a ) the responsible minister has not performed the duties of the responsible minister under this Act; or b ) there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is collusion between the responsible minister and the person alleged to have committed an offence under this Act.''

[Firearms Act, April 10th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain amendments to the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to table my new private member's bill which would repeal Bill C-68, a gun control bill masquerading as a crime control bill, which imposes an unfair and unjust requirement for law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns to pay new fees and register their legal firearms while it does nothing to punish the criminal misuse of firearms.

My new private member's bill will restore the Criminal Code as it was before the introduction of Bill C-68 and replace Bill C-68 with serious minimum penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms.

My bill will amend the Criminal Code to require a minimum sentence of five years for using a firearm to commit a crime or to escape from a crime scene, that penalty increased to ten years if the gun is fired. People convicted of such criminal misuse of firearms would receive a lifetime prohibition against owning a firearm, ammunition or an explosive device.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Yes, it has to be. I can think of no other reason for it.

I wonder what could be the real reason behind Bill C-68. I heard an hon. member say today that maybe it was some form of tax grab. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. They say it will be a one-time implementation fee. I have to ask the people out there when was the last time the government only charged once for anything. I have never heard about it. It is an ongoing thing. Three years down the road there will be an increase. Once people register their firearms there will be an increase.

It is not a crime control bill, no matter what the minister says. It is a smoke screen. He knows it. We know it. The people out there know it. They know the whole justice system has been a smoke screen since the minister got in. His priorities go first to the criminal element. They do not go to the victims. It would only take the stroke of a pen to change that. It should not take 3.5 years or 5.5 years. Most of this garbage was brought in by previous Liberal governments.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, one of the most important things a government is elected to do, if not the most important thing, is to look after the safety and well-being of its citizens.

While I agree the amendment to Bill C-17 does something to to restore the impact statements of victims, I wonder how we lost that right in the first place. I think of what the government has done in its 3.5 years of inactivity with regard to the justice system. I also wonder if maybe what I am hearing around the Hill and reading in the papers is right, that we could be into an election in the next three weeks or so, some time in June.

Finally I wonder if the government has awoke to the fact that justice issues are a concern. The Liberals have decided that in some areas their seats are looking a little bit rocky, their members' seats are a little tippy. They had to come up with something to shore up what they have let fall apart so they brought in Bill C-17.

Let us go back to what I originally said would happen to victim impact statements. Let us go back to a few hours ago in the House during question period. The hon. member for Beaver River said she would almost think there was an election on the horizon. It is ironic but the justice minister who has been terribly soft on crime for 3.5 years all of a sudden is trying to pass himself off as a champion of victims rights. She stated that the people would not be fooled and I believe she is right. She went on to state that she would like to know if the Liberals were really serious about putting victims first. Will the justice minister commit here, now and today to passing Reform's victims bill of rights before the next election? He should not think about it. He should do it.

The hon. minister said there was one reason why the justice committee was devoting time today, tomorrow and later this week to the proposed victims bill of rights. It was because he asked them to do it. The last time the matter was debated in the House of Commons he undertook to direct the matter to the justice committee so that it could look at the proposals in detail. He wrote to the committee. It has kindly taken up his request and is looking at the matter. There is always more to do to make justice systems better and that includes the rights of victims. He did not think the Reform Party or anybody else should overlook what has been achieved by the government on behalf of victims.

I do not know about that, but he went on to say that over the last 3.5 years it introduced more meaningful changes to the Criminal Code for the benefit of victims than any government in memory. He also indicated that the Reform Party ought not to think that it has any monopoly on concern.

He went on to state that a few months later in 1994 they tabled Bill C-41 to provide for the rights of victims. Bill C-41 is before the courts. It has been challenged in the courts of B.C., Ontario and Alberta. I wonder exactly what the minister meant and what he was so proud of. It provides for written statements. We argued unsuccessfully that verbal presentations should be applied too. However the government, which now says it is caring, sharing and worried about its citizens, did not pass that amendment.

That was the great Bill C-41 the minister was so happy about today. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Bill C-45 is the one which actually took away this right. All of a sudden the government is playing catch up. The government was warned time and time again back then that it would run into serious difficulties.

While the minister goes on to say how great they have done, I do not think the public out will be fooled. They have done absolutely nothing.

It seemed awfully strange when we were talking about the rights of victims and their concerns to hear the minister mention Bill C-68 that requires law-abiding citizens to register their firearms. Has anyone read anywhere in that bill where it states that criminals should also register their firearms? Has anybody read that? I think not. Why? People out there have to start wondering why the justice minister is going after law-abiding citizens and not the criminal element.

I know some of the arguments he put forward. Let us look at some of them. It will stop the smuggling of guns in Canada. I do not have to go back too far in my memory, because it has been since I have been in the House, to when I listened to the same government say to me and to the rest of the House that to control smuggling of cigarettes we had to drop the price. We had to take off the taxes.

I now hear a minister say that through Bill C-68 they can control the smuggling of guns. I have to wonder about that. They cannot control the smuggling of cigarettes. That is easier to do than firearms. However that was one of the justice minister's arguments. He said that it would control suicides. I do not know how. If somebody is going to commit suicide they are going to do it with or without a firearm.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Let's talk about you shutting down the hospitals. Let's talk about that.

[Petitions, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to file a petition from residents of British Columbia pointing out that gasoline is a necessity and that most of today's gasoline costs to consumers are made up of taxes.

Nevertheless, two Liberal dominated committees have recommended still another federal gas tax increase added to the incredible 566 per cent increase in the past decade.

The petition requests no new gas taxes and for the government to use existing gas taxes to improve Canada's crumbling national highways.

[Employment, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, after 76 straight months with national unemployment over 9 per cent, the worst string of jobless rates since the great depression, unemployment in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap stands at 10.7 per cent.

Those are not just numbers, they are people: from new graduates looking for their first jobs, older workers laid off because of downsizing, to people in the prime of life who are unable to support their families no matter how hard they try.

Last October bankruptcies were up 61 per cent from October 1993 when the Liberal government took office. Families are also carrying the highest debt load in history.

These figures are a national tragedy. And what response do we get from this caring, sharing Liberal government? Last week it tabled legislation that will sharply increase payroll taxes, making it more costly than ever before for businesses to hire new employees.

Out of work Canadians want to know: Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs this Liberal government promised them?

[Speaker's Ruling, February 5th, 1997]

Yes I will, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to defer to tomorrow at three o'clock.

[Speaker's Ruling, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I respect your request that I withdraw my statements. However, the member for Scarborough Centre has made statements which demean me and my colleagues in this House, as well as millions of Canadians. He has made statements to the same effect-

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

That is right. There is cable colour TV, all kinds of food, exercise, medical and dental programs.