Jerry Pickard

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have to think you would agree with me how incredible it is that a member can stand for four minutes and describe all the different forms that we have after a speech on safety in the communities.

When we start looking at a comparison between the United States and Canada on safety of our streets and we think about what the average Canadian wants and needs for safe communities, the only question he can come to is that we have 100 forms here and we may have to fill them out.

To me it is incredible that is the mentality driving the debate. To me the critical issue is safety. It is lives. It is good community spirit. It is making sure that the use of those firearms by Canadians is still allowed. I would say that once all the guns are registered, once all the forms are filled, once we get that and it is recorded in today's society, we do have the means by which to reduce paperwork dramatically. Everyone knows paperwork can be reduced dramatically if it is organized and presented properly. That is exactly what those forms are doing. Once it is done, once it is in the registry, once we have all the paperwork done then the continuation is very reasonable and can be carried out in a good, appropriate way.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I have noticed here today is that the opponents of this legislation seem to distort, misrepresent and deny the benefits of this legislation.

When I look at and start to think about what this legislation is going to do for the average Canadian, I think it proposes safe streets, a confidence that someone can live in a community without a threat, and many, many things that we should discuss here today.

I would like to look at the positive aspects of this legislation. The law imposes tough criminal penalties. They say “Don't touch the criminal”. That is absolute nonsense.

Even our opponents across the way have to admit that this legislation does a great deal to impose penalties on people who misuse guns in this community. The minimum penalty of four years, in many cases, is a very strong deterrent to those people who would misuse guns in the commission of a crime.

The courts, by the way, have totally supported this legislation up to this day. The statute is about lethal instruments, articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is not about confiscation. Let us be very clear about that.

It recognizes that the vast majority of firearm owners and users are responsible, prudent people. The practices which are embodied in the statutes reflect the prudent practices of responsible people.

The statute strives to encourage a culture that is safe for Canadians, a culture that is well trained in activities and practices for responsible gun owners.

The legitimate practices of those responsible gun owners can continue under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt. Target shooters can continue to target shoot. Buyers and sellers can continue activities that they have done for years. Museums can continue to display the weapons that are displayed today.

The intent and purpose of some is incompatible though. There are some uses of guns in this country that are not for sporting, that are not for the business uses that we have in Canada.

Consequently, several military assault weapons have been banned. Fully automatic rifles have no legitimate purpose in this country. Most handguns are treated with particular concern due to their lethal nature and the fact that they can be concealed.

While we have taken strong measures to deal with such firearms, the statute is focused on respecting the legitimate interests of people and good gun owners.

Many of our opponents advocate a situation respecting firearms such as that which exists in the United States. That is what I have heard opposite pretty well all day today. It is worth noting that there are 30 times more firearms in the United States than there are in Canada.

A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. On average, 65% of homicides in the United States involve firearms as opposed to 33% in Canada. Do members realize that? There are double the number of homicides in the United States than there are in Canada and those members are telling us to look at that country. That is nonsense.

A study for the Centre for Disease Control examined the cause of death among children in 26 developed countries and found that 86% of firearm related deaths occurred in the United States. In the United States, 86% of deaths among children involved firearms. That means there are too many guns for children to access. That means we have to lock these guns up. That means we cannot have children exposed to them. Recent news events describing schoolyard shootings speak for themselves. The United States environment respecting guns does not give a better vision that Canadians want to see.

The Firearms Act addresses only crucial social situations that are created by domestic violence. Required firearms licensing and screening of gun owners will result in specific checking of probation orders, prohibition to orders before licences are granted. Licences will have to be renewed every five years. So there will be an examination of violence on a regular basis. For those who wish to acquire new firearms, the applicants must contact their former spouses or someone involved with them so that if there is a problem they will be able to bring that testimony forward.

When fully implemented all firearms owners will be licensed. They will have taken a course emphasizing safety and safe handling of guns. The guns will be registered. This will assist police in their investigations. It will encourage owners of stores and guns to make sure sales are appropriate. It will assist the recovery of lost or stolen firearms.

Registration together with licensing and other aspects of firearms is aimed at facilitating a continued enjoyment of sport in Canada by responsible safe practices. This will encourage the continuation of free movement of Canadian citizens within a culture that recognizes safety and responsibility. The Firearms Act embraces all these as positive effective contributors to all aspects of Canadian life. The Firearms Act has the support of a large majority of Canadians. It is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities and its fairness will make them much better places to live.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it is an extremely significant one.

The freshwater system in Canada, particularly the Great Lakes, is one that has over the last five or ten years suffered a fair amount of change because of the zebra mussel being brought into Canada in the bilge water dumpings from foreign vessels.

There are questions about other significant changes that can occur from boats entering the Great Lakes system, dumping bilge water and causing ecological change which in many cases could be very negative and problematic in the future.

I have made very clear in the past that I would certainly support and endorse this issue. I had opportunity to meet with several fishing communities and ecologists in our area two weeks ago to discuss it. We talked about legislation that may be significant.

I think legislation should be put into force that the dumping of bilge water from ships has to be stopped in our Great Lakes and in other waterways where it what may cause significant change in our systems. I have no question about that.

The member is pointing out a very clear ecological problem not just for the Great Lakes, by the way. All freshwater systems throughout the country must have some type of protection. I would strongly endorse working at international levels to make sure that other countries with similar pristine areas to Canada's are protected as well as they possibly can be.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I am sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Throughout the House I have heard some very positive comments about the forming of this parks agency. There is no question that it is a very positive step forward. When we think about the national parks system and national historic sites we think about the canals and the conservation areas. We think about all that will fall under this agency. It is a fantastic opportunity to show Canadians and people around the world what Canadians really stand for.

There is absolutely no question that as we look at our parks system it encompasses some of the most imaginative and most characteristic sections of Canada. There is no question that our heritage sites represent very important historic references to Canada. There is no question that we have within our parks system, our heritage system, our conservation areas, a really great story to tell.

That story can be told to young people throughout the land by taking them to those areas. That story can be told to all Canadians. In fact it can be told to visitors around the world to show what a great country we are, what great background we have and what great historical significance there is to this great country.

It is with a great deal of pride that I am able to talk to this issue today. I think it is in essence what Canada is about. The Canadian parks system has been significant over the past. It has grown tremendously in the last several years. There is no question that it must expanded. It must be moved forward as well.

We have some very significant national sites that we must incorporate into the 39 different areas we designate as significant areas. We must make certain that the message to Canadians is that we respect this great country with its land and historic sites, with all this put together.

If we travel through the north we see some amazing river valleys, gorges and mountain sites. We can look at the grasslands in Saskatchewan and realize it is the land of the prairie dog. This is the area where Sitting Bull rested after a traumatic event in the United States.

We can look at Prince Edward Island National Park and realize it is among the finest areas of Canada with the best salt water beaches in the country. Anne of Green Gables, a tremendous significant issue in Canada, is one of our national historic sites.

In my riding we have Point Pelee, one of the best birding locations in the world. People from Europe, Asia and the United States, in fact people from all over the world, come to visit that area to see the significance and celebrate this land itself.

We can look back at our heritage and understand some significant adventures in history. I think of Josiah Henson and the fabulous story of Uncle Tom's Cabin , the black culture coming together in our sites, or I think of other opportunities for Canadians to participate and enjoy what is happening.

Certainly with the agency coming to bear we can see some tremendous changes coming about. We will now have opportunity to move into parks that will have great significance for Canada's Great Lakes and Atlantic and Pacific areas.

Fathom Five National Marine Park protects Niagara escarpment history and work on the Georgian Bay waters. We have conservation marine parks on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast which point out the significance of our flora and fauna, our rich culture and our Indian heritage.

The Saguenay River marine park on the St. Lawrence protects beluga whales, seals, plant and bird life of all kinds. Our national marine conservation area program is new and will remain an ongoing part of the national parks system. The evolution of our national parks system is very significant to our heritage and our understanding of the country.

Historic sites and monuments are another alternative area of education and support that we must make sure is expanded in a wide range of areas. Recently the board undertook initiatives to consider the history of aboriginal people in the country, the history and culture of women and the communities that have brought a great deal to our nation.

We could talk about the Grizzly Bear Mountain area and Scented Grass Hills that have been designated historic sites by our minister. We could talk about our great culture and Portia White, a Nova Scotian with a very rich, vibrant voice, a great concert personality in the area. We are designating sites to recognize great accomplishments of Canadians.

We will move forward with a cultural site for the black cultural centre in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. We certainly need to recognize the races. We need to recognize the cultures that have made the nation come together and great. We need to move forward on the issue of significant Canadians to ensure recognition of such events.

There is no question that the legislation will allow the parks agency to focus upon permanent, forward moving areas which will make the country very rich in national pride and very rich in national culture, one that we can display to the world, that we can exhibit to our visitors, and show our internal pride.

Because we have such good support in the House for the legislation it shows that all Canadians, regardless of political stripe, are extremely proud of the accomplishments of people and of the physical terrain of the country. We look forward to making certain the legislation moves along as quickly as possible.

I am pleased with many of the comments I have heard from the opposition. I am pleased with the comments I have heard from my own colleagues. I have to say for all Canadians that we are looking at something that is truly great for our land.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find the intervention quite incredible because I have never had a Reform member give me time to speak. If that is a practice of the House, it is an interesting practice, but I have some issues that I want to bring forward and I believe I have 15 minutes to bring them forward. Now I am being asked to cut my time to 10 minutes and to give part of my time to the opposition.

Quite frankly, they have spoken all day. They have had all kinds of speakers up. If they have omitted something, I am not going to relinquish my time in order to give them extra time.

Let us look at where we are with our EI reforms. We have modernized the system and we have made it far more fair to everyone. In reality the thrust in this country has to be to create more jobs, to do things to get people to work and not to focus on unemployment totally. We must focus on job creation because that runs hand in hand with EI.

EI premiums have been talked about a tremendous amount today. But let us look at the other programs the government has put in place to support business and to help business down the line.

The new hires program very clearly makes an issue out of what is happening in this country. We have actually given businesses who are going to hire youth between the ages of 18 and 24 a premium year off so they will not have to pay those extra premiums.

We have made benefits available to women who are among the largest number of part time workers in this country and we have extended the plan to 68% of the people who were not eligible for benefits before. We have extended our programs. We have tried to do everything we can to give the worker the best opportunity.

Quite frankly, when we look at programs for youth and the programs that we have put in place to help them, they were not the people who got major support from EI programs, but we are certainly doing what we can to get jobs for the young people of this country.

We have done what we can to make sure that women, who form the major part of the part time workforce in this country, will benefit from the opportunities in the EI program.

We are building a fund which will make certain that there will be stability for those people who will need stability when they are laid off. We have downsizing, company changes and an EI support fund that is in a positive economic position that will be able to help those people in the future.

We have made certain we are not going to take small business down a trail of pumping up its rates when there is a turnaround in the economy. These are the kinds of measures the finance minister and the government have taken to make certain there is stability, a level playing field for everybody and fairness for all those in the system. The fairness issue is extremely important.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I got so caught up in this that I went a little overboard.

However, the hon. leader of the Reform Party suggested that he wanted to unite the party. In other words, he wants to take the old right wing party, the Progressive Conservative Party, put in a new leader in, the present leader of the Reform Party, and call it the Reform Party.

I have some problems with that. I have some problems with how day by day, month by month, year by year the policies of the parties opposite change dramatically. There is good reason that has occurred.

When it comes right down to it, we have been extremely successful at turning the economy of this country around. We have been extremely responsible in our actions toward small business, in our actions toward business in general in this country and in our actions toward preparing for any problems in the future. We are not leaving it to chance, pulling the support out and running at a full run.

Can anyone think of any reason the finance minister of this country would be prepared to do anything that would not be beneficial to the business of this country? Clearly he is working. He is consulting. He is getting input from people right across this country on a regular basis.

He knows that the smoother the ride the better the opportunities will be for business to compete. The better prepared workers are for any ups or downs in the economy, the better off this country will be. Stability is really the key.

Our finance minister has brought stability to this country. He has stabilized our finances so that other countries are now looking at Canada and saying “What a remarkable transition. What a remarkable change has occurred”.

Canada was really at the bottom of the G-7 as far as its economic outlook and prosperity for the future because of its spending. We are now envied by everyone. Canada was struggling, but we now have a positive, well-prepared structure for the future.

The Prime Minister pointed out just a short time ago, before we eliminated the deficit, to all members of the House that governing gets tougher and tougher as we pay down the debt, as we pay down the deficit and move toward the situation where we have positive moneys coming in because quickly the opposition will latch on to spending. That is what I am hearing now. The opposition is saying that we should spend, cut taxes and do things which will alter the whole economic structure of this country.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

The parliamentary secretary points out that it was $3.30.

Had the right wing element of this House been elected there is absolutely no question that the premiums would have increased and the cost of business would have increased.

I also recall that we had a deficit of $42 billion at that time and the Reform Party, more than any other party, was clamouring that we should cut spending and make programs responsible. It said we should do the things that needed to be done to get this country back on a business scale that was reasonable. Yes, that is what it was suggesting. What would it have done with EI? We might not have an EI program in place today if the Reform Party had its way.

The EI program was very much in jeopardy, as well as the social programs in this country, from a to z . The Reform Party was clamouring for the government to cut and chop, cut and chop.

I recall the debate. Mr. Speaker, you were involved in that debate, so you can certainly recall it too. These fellows who are mourning today the fact that we have only cut EI premiums four times were saying we would have to increase those premiums and cut everything out from the support programs to make this government operate properly. They have totally reversed themselves.

I have been in the House for three years watching the Reform in opposition. I heard them say three years ago “Chop and burn. Slash and burn”. I remember Liberal government members saying “It is bad news. The slash and burn policies they are suggesting will destroy the economy of this country”. That was what the the finance minister said. I do not think anything could have been more true than his statement that slash and burn would do no good.

We had to set reasonable targets. We had to look at each program and deal with each program. We had to move the agenda ahead in a proper and orderly way.

In four years we took a $42 billion deficit and reduced it to zero. Why is the government being challenged today? It has had tremendous success. It has taken a program of overspending by $42 billion every year and reduced it to zero. It then, with the EI program, took a $6 billion deficit, turned it around and now there is a surplus. Building that surplus will cushion the unemployed, businesses and people who need support so that in the future when business plans change, when we run into a minor recession or when some other problem arises we will be prepared.

Liberals have always looked very carefully at what is happening in the economy at any specific time and have made certain that in good, solid years of business we do not bring in programs that will hurt people. Instead we plan for the future to guard against the difficulties that will come downstream. That is exactly what we are doing with the EI program. We are guarding against the potential of difficult times in the future.

Clearly it is very responsible to do that because so many businesses suffered so badly during the recession when the Mulroney Conservatives had to jack up the rates again and again because of the tough times.

They are in the House today, these Reformers who were the Tories. There is no question about that. This weekend in London their leader said “Unite the right, but call them Reform. Don't call them Tories”. That is interesting. Call them Reform and make Preston Manning the leader. He wants the old Conservative Party—

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day or a week or a year or four years makes.

I remember not that long ago a government that sat in this House with a $6 billion deficit account in EI. That deficit account was of tremendous concern to every Canadian. Who was making the payments for that deficit account? It was clearly the Government of Canada. Just a few short years before that there was a surplus of $2 billion. What caused the change from a $2 billion surplus to a $6 billion debt? Obviously it is a cycle that does occur from time to time. It is a cycle of good employment, steady growth and then a downturn.

There is absolutely no question that the responsibility of government is to smooth out those tremendous downturns and peaks into some realistic form to make sure workers have fair and equitable treatment whether it is in a difficult time when many are laid off or when we are doing well.

We have established several programs to smooth out the cycle of work and the business practice changes in this country in order to make sure that is done. EI is one of those programs.

When I look back to 1993 and the economy at that time I did not hear Conservative members suggesting reductions in premiums. As a matter of fact, the premiums were at $3.07 and they were suggesting an increase at that time. They were suggesting that the premiums should rise to $3.25 or more.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about unemployed workers and we continue to develop policies to improve their prospects.

However, we realize the problem is more complex than the hon. member is suggesting. For example, labour market changes such as increases in long term unemployment between 1990 and 1994 played a significant role in the decline in the proportion of unemployed who receive benefits.

Simply providing passive income support through regular EI benefits could never be a sufficient response to the problem we are going through. We understand Canadians would not be satisfied with a step backward to an obsolete system. Instead, the federal government is working with the provinces to provide real solutions for unemployed Canadians. We will create more jobs by using a three year, $300 million transitional job fund. That is now in place using general revenues to serve high unemployed areas.

To date the fund has already created 30,355 jobs throughout Canada, 8,067 in Atlantic Canada alone. We will also spend an additional $800 million per year on active employment benefits under EI, bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by the year 2001.

We are co-operating with provincial and territorial governments to deliver these benefits in the best possible way. Labour market development agreements are now in place or are under discussion in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the best way to help the unemployed get back to work must benefit from the knowledge and insights of those who most closely are in touch with local markets.

We have confidence that these measures will be successful in helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls, the ratio of beneficiaries to unemployed should rise again. Nevertheless we are carefully monitoring the recent declines in this ratio. The department is conducting an analysis of the situation and the results will be released in a paper in 1998. We will use that to make decisions for Canadians in the future.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a short memory here. If my memory serves me correctly, $6 billion was the position of the hon. member's party on the Cadillac, submarine-fighting helicopters. The military had requested at that time to buy helmets and flak jackets, but they were turned down. They were turned down on helmets and flak jackets at the same time as that party was asking for $6 billion for submarine-fighting helicopters.

The heart of its election campaign was a $2.6 billion cut in national defence.

Now the hon. member is telling me that we should be spending more money, but his party's campaign rhetoric was that it wanted these huge cuts. I cannot equate the two. I do not believe Canadians can look at that and say they are consistent.

Now that they are in opposition and looking at the positive directions in which we are trying to move, they do not see it the same way as they did during the election campaign. They do not see it the same way as they did during their nine years in government. They seem to be missing the point. Everything does not happen overnight. We have to move the agenda forward, but their whole rhetoric was wrong.

Their whole rhetoric, in very many respects, was demoralizing to the whole military process: tear down, cut dollars, do something different. I question how they can come back today and give that same type of sermon. They missed the boat when they were there and they are still missing the boat today.