Nelson Riis

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, some days this place reminds me of Yuk Yuk's, the stand-up comedy headquarters. We listen to speaker after speaker and sometimes we just have to shake our heads.

When the Liberal Party of Canada votes at its national convention that we have a serious problem with our shipbuilding policy; when we have workers from coast to coast to coast, who know the industry, saying that we have a serious problem with our shipbuilding industry; when the owners and the administrators of the various shipyards are saying that we have a problem and when every expert in the country on shipbuilding is saying we have a problem, we probably have a problem.

People have been standing in the House saying that we do not have a problem because a policy is in place. I would like to issue a challenge to all my friends sitting across the way on the Liberal benches. I would like them to jot down on a piece of paper what they think Canada's shipbuilding policy is. Can anyone imagine the kind of hodgepodge we would come up with?

We would have a few people saying that our R and D credit is one of the best in the world. That is fair enough. Some people would say that some EDC programs are concerned about funding some of our exports. Yes, that is good. Some members would mention the people who are doing very well in a particular yard or agency. However, what is our strategy? What is our policy? What is it that we are trying to accomplish as a country?

Let is look at the records of the other countries that are involved. Let us look at the United States of America which has a policy and articulates clearly what that policy is. All members of the congress, if asked, would indicate what they understand their national shipbuilding policy to be. They would not be 100% correct, but they would at least be in the ballpark.

I again challenge my friends opposite to articulate today what our shipbuilding policy is? The answer would be an embarrassing no. That is nothing new.

We are the second largest country in the world but do we have a transportation policy? No. We are the second largest country in the world with water from coast to coast to coast. We have one of the major reservoirs of freshwater in the world but do we have a water policy? No. We are one of the major trading nations in the world and, historically, always have been. One would think that if there was a single country that had a shipbuilding strategy it would be Canada. Do we have a shipbuilding strategy? No. The answer is no, no, no. We do not have strategies. We do not have policies. We do not have programs and plans because we believe in the liberalization of the marketplace. That is our plan. It is called free trade. We are the free traders of the world. We do not like government encumbrances. We do not like tariffs. We do not like things that are limiting. We do not like the Jones Act in Canada. We are a free trader. We are the global marketplace. We are the free marketplace and that is our mantra. If we do not believe in the free market then we cannot believe in plans. We cannot have strategies. The market is the strategy.

No one else believes that stuff. If there has ever been a collection of boy scouts, we have to be it. Probably, if we looked back at the backgrounds of all of the men and women of the House of Commons, we must have been girl guides and boy scouts at one time because that is how we act. We are really nice people who like to help people around the world. We will just abandon all of our tariffs and everything, but nobody else will. We will just abandon any strategy we have or any support program from the government, but nobody else will.

I give my Liberal friend who just spoke a great deal of credit. He talked about Taiwan. If there is supposed to be a free trading nation it is Taiwan, but it is not a free trading nation. It has huge subsidies in its shipbuilding sector. It has huge infrastructure subsidies. It probably has subsidies in every single sector there is.

The banks and the governments are all involved. One of the reasons Taiwan has done so well compared to other countries is that it actually has a strategy. The banks know what the strategy is, the investors know what the strategy is, the unions know what the strategy is and the managers know what the strategy is. Everybody knows what the strategy is, but not so in Canada.

Canadians were quite hopeful a few years ago, particularly those who were knowledgeable of the shipbuilding sector, because they received a letter from the Prime Minister. It said, “It is safe to say that most people recognize that something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry”. The government should now, as it should have long ago, and indeed as it promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problem.

The people working in a shipyard and receiving a letter like that from the Prime Minister would probably think that once the Prime Minister got into office and got a nice majority government behind him, they would actually see some significant changes such as employment in the shipbuilding sector going up and some long term strategies coming into place. This would be a natural assumption for a voter to assume.

Here we are now, some eight years later, is there a strategy? No.

I always listen to what my Liberal colleague has to say because he actually has some very useful observations. He said there is no level playing field when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. So here we are, the level playing field enthusiasts, playing the game with no other level playing field enthusiast to play with, but we went out there and levelled it all off to the point where we now do not have much of a shipbuilding industry.

This is a very frustrating debate. I want to congratulate my hon. friend from the Progressive Conservative Party for at least bringing the issue forward. I know we have all been listening to the various groups that have come from the various shipbuilding sectors explaining what they felt ought to be done, that we ought to have a clear strategy in place. They do not necessarily want subsidies, but they do want a plan.

What would that plan look like? Most of the shipbuilding initiatives we take, we take either because we are embarrassed into something or it becomes so acute we have to sort of say that we will need to have a fleet of ferries, or we will need to build a whole number of frigates, or we will need to do this or that. It is sort of a last gasp decision.

It would be nice to have a plan in place where we could say to the various shipyards on the coast that we will start building this number of ships over the next 10 years, these kinds of ships over the next 15 years and these kinds of ships over the next 5 years. Every shipyard could then plan and know that some of the government programs would be coming.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister for International Trade is here. He would be delighted that in spite of what he had to say earlier, these constituents from Kamloops do not agree with his assessment of the contribution that the North American Free Trade Agreement has made to the Canadian economy.

[Youth Summer Employment, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two and a half weeks tens of thousands of young Canadians have left colleges, universities, technical schools and other institutions across the country looking for summer work. A lot of them depend on the federally sponsored summer study work projects. However, one problem is that the moneys have not been allocated. Many of the programs are supposed to start today and many started last week, but no funds have been allocated, at least in the western part of Canada.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why these funds are so late in coming? When will the funds be allocated?

[Summer Work Program, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, every year at this time, hundreds of thousands of young Canadians look forward to the summer work program where they can begin working for the summer. Small business operators, non-profit groups and so on, also look forward to it. Everyone benefits from the program.

The problem, at least in British Columbia and the Yukon region, is that the funds have not been allocated yet. They have not been announced. All sorts of programs which should be starting today are in fact not starting today nor tomorrow. They are going to start some time in the future.

All of the programming and planning that has gone into this is now being sort of tossed out the window. Students are frustrated. They are calling to ask us what is going on. They want to know if the programs are being approved.

On behalf of British Columbians and the people from the Yukon, I would urge the minister and the staff to make these allocation announcements as soon as possible.

[Wayne Gretzky, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is Wayne Gretzky day in Canada.

Today all eyes are on the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, the most outstanding hockey player ever, as he agonizes as to whether he should continue to play professional hockey for another year or not.

We, as representatives of the citizens of Canada, wish to acknowledge that no single player has done so much to elevate the status and quality of Canada's national sport as has Wayne Gretzky.

Wayne Gretzky symbolizes what is best about hockey and about sports generally. Not only is he an outstanding hockey player and athlete, but he is also an outstanding citizen of Canada.

As he deliberates on his future at this hour, we wish him well. In the event he decides to retire, we urge the Government of Canada to consider appointing Wayne Gretzky as Canada's permanent ambassador of hockey.

[Points Of Order, April 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the various political parties.

It is fair to say that this is Wayne Gretzky day in Canada. We recognize the Great One is agonizing over what he should do in terms of his future. In light of this moment, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion. I move:

That, this House recognizes the outstanding contribution that Wayne Gretzky has made to Canada's national sport.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is a rather unique moment in Canada's history. As a follow up to the initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday in calling up the greatest hockey player ever and encouraging him to stay on, I would like to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion.

I would move that, in the opinion of the House, Wayne Gretzky should not retire but should play one more season in the National Hockey League. However, in the event that he decides to retire, then consideration should be given to appointing Wayne Gretzky as Canada's ambassador for hockey.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-484, an act to amend the Criminal Code so that any individual who uses a firearm in the commission of certain criminal offences will receive an additional sentence of incarceration.

What is behind this legislation? The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who introduced the bill made reference to old Bill C-68 with which there is a lot of concern particularly in the regions of Canada that a lot of innocent people who use firearms are being asked to jump through a lot of hoops unnecessarily and the criminal element is in a sense overlooked.

As we speak today thousands and thousands of people who perhaps would seldom use firearms for anything other than the occasional hunting trip or the occasional trip out to the shooting gallery or the gun club are being asked to go through a process in an effort to make our country a safer place.

I suppose one could make the argument that another way to approach it would be to say to people who use firearms to participate in some kind of criminal activity that we will come down extremely heavy on them. The misuse of a firearm is something we simply do not want to tolerate. We are not particularly concerned about people who use firearms for recreational purposes, for international competitions and so on. We are concerned about the people who misuse firearms.

My friend has introduced a private member's bill as a way to say to individuals that if they use firearms to participate in a crime the penalties, if found guilty, will be much more severe. That is how we could summarize this legislation.

It also suggests the whole issue of consecutive sentencing of 10, 20 or in some cases 25 years. If individuals are found guilty of committing a crime while carrying a firearm, whether it is a pistol, rifle, shotgun or whatever, 10 years would be added to their sentence.

This sends a signal to people that as a society we will not tolerate this behaviour. If individuals participate in criminal activity while carrying a firearm and the firearm is discharged not necessarily causing any harm but to shoot at a person or shoot to frighten or whatever, their sentence will be increased to 20 years after the time for the original offence has been served. If they happen to actually cause bodily harm the sentence will be increased by 25 years.

We could argue about whether these terms of 10, 20 or 25 years are appropriate. We are trying to send a very clear message to people that we do not appreciate their participating in criminal activities, but if they use a firearm to assist in carrying out a dastardly deed we will be particularly hard on them.

What are these offences? For greater certainty the sponsor of the bill has included a number of offences. I will name them because I think it is important. Murder is included as are manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. All these are dastardly crimes.

As a society we have clearly said we do not tolerate robbery or kidnapping. For various reasons people participate in these activities. A whole other element is added when a firearm is carried while the crime is being conducted. This tells individuals being kidnapped or robbed that if they do not behave as the criminal wants them to, their lives will be taken. They will be maimed. They will be shot. Very serious bodily harmed will be caused. It adds another dimension to the process. It is one thing to rob a person but it is another to hold up a person with a firearm.

I like the legislation. I do not know if these are the appropriate terms. I do not know if there should be other additions to the member's list. The purpose of this debate is to move the legislation forward. If it were to move forward we would go into committee where we would hear witnesses and perhaps fine-tune the legislation. This is sort of a first draft or a first run through. For that reason I am generally in favour of the legislation.

I have tried to come to grips with the whole issue of firearm control in Canada. I know we have all been lobbied hard by representatives on both sides of the issue. I am convinced that the legislation we used to refer to as Bill C-68, the firearms control act, will not have any appreciable effect on reducing the amount of violent crime in society. It will not have much of an impact on reducing the misuse of firearms.

When we look at the deaths caused each year by firearms, very few are the result of a person actually shooting somebody. It is the result of somebody's gun going off. It is the result of a domestic dispute. It is the result of a hunting accident. We have to ask ourselves if that firearm were registered would there not still be that homicide. If you are in a domestic dispute and your firearm is registered, are you going to say that you probably should not kill that person because it is registered? You have lost control and you are probably going to misuse that firearm.

We are not talking about whether firearms should exist or not. We are talking about the whole process of Bill C-68 and the registration of firearms. Having looked at that carefully, I do not think it will be very effective.

However, will this be effective? What if we were to tell people that if they misuse a firearm while participating in a crime the penalties will be significantly increased? We would all agree that 10, 20 or 25 years in jail is a very serious penalty. I might add that is a consecutive penalty. It is added on after the first penalty. I would question whether it would act as a deterrent. I suspect it probably would. I would like to hear evidence on whether it would or would not, but I guess we will have a chance to debate that in the future.

In 1995 Statistics Canada indicated that 33% of violent crimes committed with a firearm resulted in the victim being injured. In cases involving assault and sexual assault that number rises to over 50%. We are talking about this legislation having very serious implications.

When people participate in or are involved with extortion, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and so on, it often results in bodily harm and often leads to death. It is something we have to take a lot more seriously. I would like to seek unanimous consent to have a vote on this bill.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend. I always enjoy his presentations. I find I agree with much of what he says, but not all of what he says. I will not focus on what I do not agree with.

The member talked about prevention and the program he had in his school that was so successful. Could the hon. member give some thought to the causes of crime? I know he is an educator and has a lot of experience in the field. In his experience, why is it that certain young people go afoul of the law? Is there any commonality in their backgrounds? Is there any commonality in their experiences that he has been able to identify so that we can begin to focus on not only the crime itself but the fundamental causes of crime?

[The Late Edmund Tobin Asselin, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I rise today to pay tribute to Edmund Asselin. I am sure that all those who knew him were saddened when they heard the news on Wednesday of his passing.

Mr. Asselin was no ordinary individual. Those who knew him, and I had occasion to meet him a couple of times in the city of Montreal, knew him to be a very dynamic and dashing individual. I think those are good words to describe him.

I never heard anybody call him Mr. Asselin. He was always known as Eddy. He went about his business in a way which demonstrated a true love for life and a very generous heart for his friends and acquaintances, and certainly his family.

He was a dynamic city councillor in the city of Montreal for 12 years and then he came to Ottawa in 1962. He left a few years later, obtained a law degree and eventually set up his own practice. He was also called later to be a judge.

He will be missed by all who knew him. He leaves a great blank in the city of Montreal and in Canada. He will be truly missed by his friends and his family.

Today our hearts, our prayers and our condolences go out to his sons, his daughters and his wife Carmelle.