Raymond Bonin

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

That is not the issue. The issue is that for a number of years in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada you could buy guns if you owned an FAC. If you did not own an FAC you could not buy guns. That is fine.

What has been happening is that people are starting to think differently about guns. I come from a culture where there was a gun on the wall. It came from dad, a beautiful short .22, a masterpiece. We all wanted to inherit it.

The issue is that people are tired of guns. People who do not use them say that it is too cumbersome and too much trouble to own rifles. They want to get rid of them, have them taken off their hands. Someone with an FAC could take it off the owner's hands for 20 bucks. The person with the FAC bought it, legitimately and legally. The result of that is there are people in my riding who own 250 and 300 rifles legitimately and they are not registered.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

I hear remarks. This does not affect individuals who care not about people but it affects me that this young woman was shot and killed. It affects me that every six days it happens in Canada. When we say it, we hear silly remarks from individuals who do not care about people. They ask whether the gun was registered. If it was registered, would it make it okay? No, that is not the issue.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

"Good idea", he says. Do all these things. One thing we never hear is "do it with compassion". Talk about the individuals. Talk about the families of criminals, because they are victims also. If we do not deal with people everything is so simple.

When I have a discussion with a group it really scares me when one individual in the group has all the answers, when one individual for any problem that one can present has a solution. It is usually a very simplistic solution. I get my share of hearing simplistic solutions when I listen to the Reform Party address the House.

The people representing Canadians on all sides of the House have worked for years to make Canada a safe country, a safe society, a place where people want to emigrate to and contribute to and create wealth.

My two sons are married and I am very proud of that. They married last summer. The next step will be grandchildren. I look forward to it. I spoke so proudly a few minutes ago about northern Ontario and Nickel Belt but there are things that I am concerned about for my grandchildren.

I have brought a newspaper article. I have them by the dozen in my riding. "Former boyfriend shoots single mom then commits suicide in apartment". That was in my riding and there are a number of them.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of northern Ontario have a culture that is unique, and part of our culture is hunting and fishing. My riding of Nickel Belt is a rural riding. I probably have more hunters and fisherpersons than most of the Reform members.

I support this legislation and I have supported registration since we began to speak about it. As a matter of fact, during the campaign we had 12 debates and I made it very clear that our policy was to fight crime. We have presented legislation which will fight crime.

Part of this bill deals with the smuggling, the importing, of arms. It is a very important part of this legislation.

The next package that will be coming is sentencing. The Reform Party would like to throw everybody in jail and throw away the key. That is not the way we want to run the country. Probation is a very important issue for the government. The Young Offenders Act is very important as is the gun bill or the gun and rifle registration.

How can a government that is serious about fighting crime, a government that is responding to requests from Canadians from all over to combat crime, a government that wants credibility say: "We will look at importation and smuggling. We will look at sentencing. We will look at probation. We will look at family violence. We will look at the Young Offenders Act but we will not talk about guns or rifles. We will not talk about this".

How can any politician have credibility and say, we will fight crime but we will not talk about the weapons that kill people?

I intentionally prepared this speech not wanting to use statistics. The reason I am not using statistics is that I do not have to stand in the House to convince my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. Very seldom can I stand and say that I agree with what they are doing. They agree with this bill.

Even though its members want to leave our country-they will not leave-they have the good sense, they have the wisdom and they care enough to want to leave behind a country that is safe, a country that continues to be the envy of the world. In the end that is why they will not leave. They will stay with us and feel good about having supported this legislation.

I will not spend too much time referring to the Reform Party because it is very clear that its view of Canada and my view of Canada differs immensely. I would not spend valuable time in the House trying to compare the views of these individuals who do not care who has guns, who do not care how many guns there are, who do not care what kind of guns they are, who want to throw everybody in jail, who say: "Hang them. Bring back capital punishment if you want to eliminate crime".

[Land Claims Agreement, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day for all residents of the Yukon, indeed for all Canadians. Today the Yukon Land Claims, Self-Government and Surface Rights Board Acts come into effect marking the culmination of a process that began exactly 22 years ago.

For Yukon First Nations this means a secure land and financial base, and greater control over their own affairs. For the Yukon territory as a whole this opens an era of greater stability and opportunity.

Today aboriginal and non-aboriginal Yukoners alike stand in partnership to celebrate this long awaited achievement. I am certain that hon. members will join me in extending congratulations to all residents of the Yukon on this historic day.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition in support of keeping mining in Canada.

In this age of technological transformation, we often forget that mining and natural resources are and continue to be some of the economic forces that sustain our great nation, a nation that is judged to be the best place in the world to live.

The petition asks the government to do all it can to improve the slumping mining investment climate in Canada so that mining will continue to provide jobs for Canadians, continue to be a significant exporter and continue to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity.

I fully concur with the petition.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I must admit there is hope, since the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois has said publicly that he was a member of the Conservative Party. Anyone who has the courage to admit that will certainly have the courage some day to admit his mistake and realize that his separatist strategy will not work. By that time, there will probably be no reason for his party to exist, and to do penance, he may have to join the two members of the Conservative Party and stay in purgatory for a while before he crosses the floor and joins the Liberal Party.

It bothers me to put my question to the hon. member of the Bloc, because I realize the Bloc Quebecois does not represent the majority of Quebecers.

It bothers me, because it is like asking the driver of a limousine to sell me his boss's car. However, since they speak for Mr. Parizeau, I will ask them the question.

Last year, when we were elected as members of the Parliament of Canada, it was a big surprise for members of the Bloc Quebecois when they heard I spoke French, although I come from northern Ontario. An even bigger surprise for most Bloc members was the fact that, in northern Ontario, we have institutions for francophones: we have our own schools, universities, colleges and hospitals.

So I will put the following question to Mr. Parizeau, through his messengers: Since you claim to defend the interests of francophones outside Quebec, will francophones outside Quebec have a role to play? Do you intend to set up another committee consisting of thirteen members of the Parti Quebecois and two others, perhaps a Franco-Ontarian and a Franco-Manitoban, to convince us that this is the way to go? How are you going to defend the rights of francophones outside Quebec? Are you going to say the same thing Mr. Lévesque said when he came to Sudbury, in my riding? He told Franco-Ontarians at Laurentian University: It is too bad for you, franncophones living outside Quebec, but we have too many problems in Quebec to have time to deal with yours. That is what Mr. Lévesque told us in Sudbury.

So do not tell us you defend the interests of francophones outside Quebec but tell us what role you think we will play in this debate?

[Petitions, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition from the same ridings with the same numbers asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

I support both petitions.

[Petitions, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions from the ridings of Nickel Belt and Sudbury with over 600 signatures.

The first requires that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Income Tax, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned about the tax loopholes which make it possible for the rich to invest in order to avoid paying taxes.

My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister tell my constituents what he is doing to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes?