Herb Dhaliwal

[Air-India Disaster, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this long delayed motion. June 23 will mark the 10th yearly observance of the largest mass murder in Canadian history and the most tragic incident in the history of aviation, the bombing of Air-India flight 182.

On June 23, 1985, without warning, 329 innocent passengers were blown out of the sky. They were all killed instantly. There were no survivors. On flight 182, 295 passengers were Canadian and 82 of the passengers were children.

For the past 10 years the victims' families have suffered tremendous grief and endured great pain in virtual silence. They have waited patiently for the killers of their loved ones to be brought to justice and they have looked for answers. To date they have had none.

Air-India's explosion was not an accident; it was a planned and deliberate cold blooded act of violence that took the lives of 329 innocent passengers. It was an act of terrorism.

One decade is an eternity. For the surviving family members the past 10 years have been filled with hollow birthdays, empty anniversaries and missed graduations.

As a compassionate and caring society, as a country that has been built on the tenets of justice, fairness and equality, and as a country that believes in the due process of law, we cannot continue to ask these families to wait any longer. As Canadian citizens they deserve justice. For the sake of the victims and their families justice must be served.

There are two tragedies for these families. First, there is the horrific loss of innocent life. In some cases whole families were lost. In some cases one family member remains while the rest of the family was on the plane. I remember watching a vivid scene where a father wept out loud when he had lost his wife and his two children. As someone who has three children, I can imagine the nightmare that he will have to go through for the rest of his life. We need to give that person and all the other people some answers. It was a horrific loss of life. Second, 10 years after the bombing and $20 million later the murderers are still at large.

While in opposition we called for a royal commission. We promised the families of Air-India victims that justice would be served. We committed ourselves to finding the perpetrators of this brutal crime.

Today, nearly 10 years since the bombing, no charges have been laid. During the first two years there were up to 75 officers on the investigation. Today only one officer is dedicated to investigating this savage crime on a part time basis.

I want to re-emphasize that we do not know. People have not been brought to justice. I know some members have said perhaps it was one group or person. In Canada we are innocent until proven guilty. We need to bring the guilty to justice because we do not know. There are books written on the subject because there are so many questions and people do not know. That is one of the reasons we need a royal commission.

After reading the Security Intelligence Review Committee's report I have many concerns about the existing investigation into the Air-India disaster. CSIS has admitted that prior to the bombing of Air-India it did not regard the threat of violence stemming from extremist groups to be very serious. Few resources were allotted to the investigation.

Translators were not found. There is lots of evidence that CSIS simply bungled up and we need to know why. We need to know what the reasons were. At the time of the bombing CSIS was in its infancy. Its role and areas of jurisdiction were still being defined.

While there was a healthy spirit of co-operation between the two investigating parties differences emerged between the RCMP and CSIS after the bombing of flight 182 in terms of their responsibilities, jurisdiction and methods of evidence collection and retention.

I quote from the SIRC report:

One former senior officer told us that while the role was well understood by senior personnel, he was concerned that some CSIS investigators would conduct their inquiries as though they were criminal investigators and would compete with the RCMP to solve this case-

Once again I quote from the report:

We saw no early instructions from CSIS headquarters that attempted to clarify the CSIS mandate vis-à-vis the RCMP criminal investigation or which set out CSIS policy regarding the sharing of information and intelligence with the RCMP. We consider this to be an unfortunate oversight on the part of senior management.

We need to know what took place between CSIS and the RCMP. We need to have better information, and the royal inquiry will give us that information. We need to know why 159 of the 210 audio tapes with recordings of wiretapped conversa-

tions were erased. Many of these tapes were never heard. Translations were delayed or were not completed and significant backlogs of unprocessed tapes were commonplace. These issues were raised by SIRC in its report.

In accordance with established policies CSIS had already erased three-quarters of the 200 or so audio tapes of the principal targets, conversations before the disaster, so these were not available to the RCMP for its requested examination.

Given the number of inaccuracies, errors and oversights, given the absence of clear direction and a clear delineation of roles and the chain of command, it is difficult to see how CSIS could have done justice to the investigation.

The government has stated that the results of the investigation into the bombing of flight 182 are inconclusive. If they are inconclusive we need to know why. This is a Canadian tragedy. I do not think in any other situation government would not react. Any other government would have reacted. We have seen that in other governments. Why have we not reacted? We need to respond and have a royal commission to look into the matter.

Given this conclusion I believe it is in the best interest of justice to launch a royal commission of inquiry. There is precedence for such an inquiry. I refer my colleagues to past catastrophes, namely the Ocean Ranger tragedy and the Hinton rail disaster.

The issue is justice, justice for the 329 innocent victims of this aviation disaster, justice that has not yet been served. On April 13, 1994 former RCMP Commissioner Norm Inkster stated to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs: "It was my hope that before I retired from the RCMP I could appear before this committee and say the Air-India case was solved. Tragically, this is not yet the case".

We cannot bring back the innocent Canadians who lost their lives. We cannot make their families whole again. We cannot bring back their smiles or laughter but we can bring those left behind some peace of mind. We can bring the criminals who have inflicted this ceaseless pain to justice.

I believe we are on the right track. It is clear from the level of active co-operation between the RCMP and CSIS that a real desire to solve this crime does exist. It is also evident from the continuing investigation that this tragedy has not been forgotten and that the Liberal government intends to keep its word. Our new solicitor general has stated the appointment of a royal commission is under active consideration.

In light of the SIRC report, the continued anguish of the victims' families and the ever growing price tag on this inconclusive investigation, I strongly recommend we launch a royal commission of inquiry.

Once again, given the importance of this issue for all Canadians, I move the motion be declared votable.

[Burmese Refugees, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Burma and Thailand. While making that trip I learned a lot about human rights and some of the concerns the local people have.

I had an opportunity to visit the refugee camps on the Thailand-Burma border, where there are more than 90,000 Burmese Karens on the border. One of the major concerns they had was the security problem of the military government, the SLORC from Burma, attacking them. More recently I have learned that some of the camps I did visit in fact were attacked and more than 200 houses were burned down.

I made these concerns known to the ambassador of Thailand and to our foreign affairs people.

I would urge this House and all my colleagues to continue to put the pressure on to ensure that the refugees along the Thailand-Burma border are secure and that the Thailand government gets the security it deserves.

[Marine Conservation, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to convey to all members of Parliament who donated flags for the Cornish fishermen the sincere thanks and appreciation of Canada's High Commissioner to Britain, the hon. Royce Frith.

According to the High Commission office there was wall to wall press coverage in England: "In all our memory Canada has never had such a positive profile".

Through the combination of a minister of fisheries who was relentless in his defence of Canadian sovereignty and conservation, a Prime Minister with the diplomatic skills to strengthen that position and the cross party support of members of Parliament and Senators, Canada has taken a leadership role in the international community to preserve marine resources.

This was the message that Royce Frith received as he handed out the flags donated by parliamentarians to British fishermen and their families. He told each recipient where the particular MP was from and why they had donated the flag.

On behalf of the High Commission office I have been asked to tell all MPs who donated their flags they would have been extremely proud of the outpouring of affection and support for Canada. It was a moving experience and all who received the flags-

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Delta for his question.

The member opposite has raised two related issues, namely undertaking more inspections as well as the results of an inspection by Canadian fisheries officers of the Spanish vessel, Estai in January. Let me deal with each in turn.

First, the question of conducting more inspections. As the minister told the House last Friday, given the increasing tension between Canadian fisheries officers and the Spanish fleet, unarmed fisheries officers would not be asked to conduct any activities which would pose a threat to their safety. I believe that the member would endorse the minister's position.

Let me also provide some background on the NAFO inspection system. As the member should know, NAFO provides inspectors from contracting parties with the authority to board and inspect vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. However DFO inspections take place in less than ideal conditions. NAFO procedures require that the inspections be conducted in a manner that prevents interference and inconvenience to the vessel's operation.

In the limited time provided for inspections, it is neither practical nor feasible to search for duplicate logs at sea. Searches of the hold are restricted by time, the volume of fish product in the hold and the inability to move product, given the vessel is in motion and the restricted space available in the freezers. It is only too easy to hide illegal catch in areas which would be accessible only after a comprehensive search, accompanied by removal of the product from the hold.

In addition, fishing vessels know that the patrol vessels are operating in the area and can avoid the use of illegal gear during times when inspection may be likely. For example, liners in the nets may be removed during the day when weather permits boarding. Inspectors cannot verify vessel logs against the contents of the hold given the volume of product on board. While inspectors may suspect misreporting, they are often unable to find the proof required to issue a citation.

Despite these limitations Canadians carried out NAFO inspections and issued 52 citations in 1994, 44 of them to European-

[John Oliver Secondary School, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate the students of John Oliver secondary school, a school I once attended, located in my riding.

The students of John Oliver have shown exemplary initiative and leadership through their active participation in the greater Vancouver crime stoppers program. These students have found a responsible and constructive way to take a proactive approach to dealing with the intimidation and harassment that can occur in our schools. By taking preventative measures they are reducing the incidence of crime in their environment and making their schools a safer place.

I commend the students of John Oliver and encourage students across British Columbia to follow their lead. I believe we should learn from our youth. What better example than the leadership shown by these students on crime prevention?

[Cuba, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion. First of all, let me congratulate the member for Burnaby-Kingsway for giving

us an opportunity to speak on this subject. I am going to get right to the major points because time is very short.

We had a great opportunity to visit Cuba in January, myself along with a number of other parliamentarians. We spent a week in Cuba and met with all the major leadership there, including the president, Fidel Castro.

Back on December 5, I wrote to President Bill Clinton and asked him to remove the embargo. The embargo that is put on Cuba by the Americans really does not make sense in the 1990s. What are the reasons for the embargo?

The original reason was security. The Americans said it was for security reasons, but is that still relevant today? Is the superpower of the world, the United States of America, afraid of Cuba? Does it have something to fear? I do not think so. There is no security threat to the Americans from Cuba. That is not a reason to have the embargo.

Is the embargo there because of human rights? Are the Americans concerned that there are human rights violations? If that were the case, surely there are other countries that have serious human rights violations and the U.S. has traded with them and continues to trade with them. Therefore that is not the reason the Americans should have an embargo.

There is no logical reason that an embargo should continue on by the Americans against Cuba. The rest of the world has said that as well. Looking at the UN, 102 countries voted to have the embargo removed and the U.S. has not listened.

In conclusion, I hope we send a strong message from this House that this embargo is unjust, is not necessary and should be removed as soon as possible to help the people of Cuba.

[Income Tax Act, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Hon. members will recall that C-59 will put into law several measures announced in the 1994 budget.

That budget was a first step in a historic two stage process to bring government finances under control. This is essential if we are to sustain the conditions for continued economic growth, especially easing an important source of pressure on interest rates. The budget set out a concrete interim budget to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of our GNP in three years. It made clear our ultimate goal to eliminate the deficit completely.

But last February's budget did more than establish a target. The previous government had deficit targets galore. Instead, this budget took hard fiscal action to set a real deficit cutting process in motion by reducing spending more than any other budget in a decade.

However, given the dimensions of our deficit and debt dilemma, spending cuts alone would not have been enough to meet our target and restore confidence in the fiscal commitment of government. That is why revenue increases were also necessary.

I should also remind my hon. colleagues that for every $1 in revenue gains, we took $5 in action to reduce government spending. We did not take the decision to increase revenues lightly. There is no member of this government who does not recognize the tax fatigue and resentment felt by so many Canadians. That is why our government refused to hike tax rates.

Instead, we felt the better way to raise the necessary revenue was to broaden the tax base and increase fairness within the tax system. This is what Bill C-59 does. In particular, it also makes the corporate tax system fairer and better targets the tax assistance available to certain businesses.

Because C-59 increases the fairness of Canada's tax system in a number of areas, I believe the bill deserves the non-partisan support of all sides of the House. Let me deal briefly with some of the measures in this bill.

Bill C-59 eliminates the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. This action addresses a growing body of criticism concerning the exemption that it distorts the tax system by totally exempting certain gains while taxing others, that it is essentially of benefit to high income Canadians, and that it makes the tax system more complex.

In 1992 thanks to a wide range of allowable tax deductions and credits, some 12,000 Canadians who earned $50,000 or more paid no income tax. Of this group, over 4,700 people used their lifetime capital gains deduction to help eliminate their tax payable. These people did nothing wrong, but at a time when most Canadians feel overtaxed there is little tolerance for measures that help well off individuals avoid taxes completely.

Eliminating the exemption will mean a system of taxing capital gains which will be fairer, simpler and more sustainable. I should point out that the exemptions will be withdrawn only for a gains occurring after February 22, 1994, the last budget day.

Another fairer measure in C-59 is the provision to tax the full value of employer paid life insurance premiums. This will improve tax equity. There is simply no justification why employees with employer paid life insurance should receive a tax benefit while self-employed Canadians who have to buy their own life insurance must pay with after tax dollars.

Currently only the portion of coverage over $25,000 is a taxable benefit. By basing the benefit on the full amount the tax system will be fairer, treating all Canadians equitably. The impact on group plan members will not be harsh. On average, employees under such plans receive about $125 of benefits a

year as a result of employers paying insurance premiums for the first $25,000 of coverage. Under this proposal the combined federal and provincial taxes will increase by some $30 to $50 a year and the increase for 1994 will be half of this amount.

In another personal income tax measure, Bill C-59 will subject the age credit to an income test. Canada's debt and the burden of high taxes and interest rates it imposes on all Canadians, including seniors, demands that government spending be both fair and effective. This measure meets that test by ensuring that assistance goes to seniors who need it, but not to those who have annual incomes hitting $50,000.

Under the current tax system all Canadians 65 and over are eligible for the age credit. It delivers a combined federal-provincial tax credit of about $950 per year. Under this proposed legislation, individuals with net incomes below $25,921 will retain their full credit. For people with net incomes above the threshold, the credit will be reduced at a rate of 15 per cent of their net incomes exceeding $25,921 and the threshold will be indexed.

Let me make clear that fully 75 per cent of seniors, which is 2.6 million individuals, will not be affected. Moreover, most of those who will be affected will continue to receive partial benefits. Only 6 per cent of seniors will no longer receive benefits because their income exceeds $49,134, the threshold at which benefits are exhausted.

I should also point out that the reduction will be phased in over two years. For 1994 the reduction will be one-half of the amount otherwise determined. As well, the age credit will remain transferable to a spouse.

A further measure in C-59 extends on an ongoing basis a program that has become an important part of our social infrastructure, the RRSP based homebuyers plan. First time homebuyers can withdraw up to $20,000 tax free from their own RRSPs and repay the money over 15 years. By last February about 234,000 people had already participated in the plan with an additional 30,000 participants expected each year.

Moving on, Canadians will be encouraged to give more to charities because Bill C-59 enhances the charitable tax credit. It used to be that taxpayers gained 17 per cent on the first $250 of their total charitable donations and 29 per cent on the remaining donations. Now the threshold for the higher credit rate will be $200, not $250. The fact that individuals will now receive a greater benefit when they give more than $200 in a year will further encourage charitable giving.

I would now like to remind the House of the measures in C-59 relating to the corporate sector. There is a perception among many Canadians that businesses receive preferential tax treatment compared to individual taxpayers.

The fact is often overlooked that businesses, while paying corporate income tax, must also pay many other taxes such as provincial corporate income taxes, capital and insurance premium taxes, payroll levies and municipal property taxes. In fact, the total corporate tax bill last year was about $44 billion. However, Bill C-59 does take steps to reduce deductions and eliminate some existing loopholes.

For example, the tax deduction for eligible business meals and entertainment expenses is reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. All businesses large and small will now pay an appropriate share of tax, making the tax system fair.

The element of personal consumption will also be better reflected in these expenses. This measure is consistent with business meals and entertainment expense deductions in Ontario, Quebec and the United States. It will apply to expenses incurred after February 21, 1994.

Another measure in C-59 restricts the use of certain tax shelters where investors in partnership could claim tax deductible losses and/or receive cash contributions which actually exceed the cost of their investment. The amount of losses that may be flowed out to an investor will now be restricted. This will help to limit the erosion of the tax base, ensuring that business pays a fair share in the national deficit battle. As well, to prevent further erosion of the tax base, the use of the purchase butterfly tax avoidance technique will be curtailed.

The Income Tax Act allows for corporate property to be divided pro rata among its shareholders on a tax deferred basis. This helps in dividing up a corporation so that shareholders can carry on separately the corporation's business.

Unfortunately the rules have been used to avoid or defer tax on the sale of corporate assets. As a result the government introduced rules in May 1993 restricting cross-border purchase butterfly transactions. Bill C-59 extends these rules to all purchase butterflies. The tax advantage of structuring a corporate asset sale for this purchase will no longer exist.

The next measure I want to discuss is the elimination or reduction of the regional investment tax credit, known as ITC. It has become evident that regional ITCs are not a cost effective means of attracting incremental investments, nor do they help to reduce economic disparity. Bill C-59 eliminates a special investment tax credit and the regional component of the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. The Atlantic investment tax credit rate will be reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.

While these changes will come into effect after 1994 they will not apply to property acquired after 1994 that relates to a project which was under construction before the last budget date, nor will they apply to property acquired at any time under a written agreement entered into before the budget date.

Another fair tax measure in Bill C-59 makes large private corporations ineligible for the small business deduction. Relief will be targeted where it is intended, just to small business. The small business deduction lowers the tax rate, thereby providing small corporations with more after tax income for reinvestment and expansion.

However, under the current rules some very large corporations are obtaining this benefit. Large corporations with taxable capital of $15 million or more will no longer be eligible for the small business deduction. As well, the rule changes will reduce the deduction for corporations having taxable capital of between $10 million and $15 million.

The last measure in Bill C-59 that I want to discuss allows for a deduction for contributions into government mandated mine reclamation trust funds in the year in which they are made. Under the current income tax rules mine reclamation expenses are deductible only in the year in which they are incurred. This addresses the concerns of Canada's mining industry.

In conclusion, Bill C-59 takes progressive measures to broaden the tax base for fiscal renewal and to improve the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. Those are goals that we can all accept and this legislation deserves the full support of the House.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government has done a very good job in stopping the smuggling of cigarettes. All one has to do is look at the facts.

The hon. member was not listening when I gave an example. I said that in 1977, 39 per cent of the people were using a firearm in robberies. Now it is only 26 per cent. The evidence is there and it is overwhelming. If some people want to ignore the evidence, so be it. Some people do not want the truth and choose to ignore the evidence, as some of the Reform members have done.

However, we are not going to ignore the truth or the facts. We are going to look at this in 20 years and know that we did the right thing in this Parliament. We will have passed strong gun control legislation which I think should be even stronger than it is now. Canadians across this country have shown support for us. In the recent byelections it was three seats out of three for the Liberals. Why? It is because we are doing the right thing, we are listening to Canadians.

It is surprising that whenever we have done consultations the Reform Party has called them a sham. It is not interested in consultation and it is the party that wants consultation.

There are some legitimate concerns out there on gun control and the minister has dealt with those concerns. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I hope the members will strongly endorse and support it because when they look back at it 20 years from now, they will know they did the right thing.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on any given day on any issue I could probably get 1,000 people out in my riding. If a Reformer comes to speak in my riding, I can get 1,000 people to protest against them because of their stance. It is not hard to get 300 people up against it.

However, that is not the issue here. The issue is that overall, the polls coming in show again and again that the majority of Canadians are supporting this. There are going to be some people who oppose it because it will be in their interests to do so. These are the hunters and the people who sell guns. It is in their interests to oppose this.

Some of them have legitimate reasons. I give the minister credit because he has met with people right across the country from coast to coast to talk to them about their legitimate concerns. Some of them are hunters up in the north whose livelihoods depend on guns.

When the polls show that 15 per cent of the people are against this bill, they are going to sign petitions, but 85 per cent of the people want gun control. It is an overwhelming fact that people want gun control.

The Reform Party will pay a very high price for not listening to the Canadian public in the next election. A recent poll has shown how marginalized it is and it will be more marginalized after the next election. It will have less than the two seats the Conservatives got.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is a great opportunity for me to speak on the topic of gun control. I hope to talk about some of the concerns expressed by the Reform Party and go through a whole series of situations in terms of support, some of the statistics that support strong gun control.

Let me start with a basic premise on why gun control is good for Canada. Gun control is not simply about controlling guns. It is about public safety. It is about crime prevention.

Do members think-I have asked this question to people often-if we have more guns on the street we will have more crime? Consistently the answer is yes, the more guns we have on the street, the more crime we will have. If you can go out and buy a gun in a local store, do you think we will have more crime? The answer consistently is yes.

Is that not logical? If there are fewer guns on the street and if the government makes it more difficult for people to get more guns, will we not have less crime? My basic premise is if we have fewer guns on the street and those that are there are restricted and managed, we will have a safer society and safer communities.

The other part of it is just the psychological effect, the fact that we know as a society we do not tolerate people having guns, and the fact people know it is illegal to have guns on the street and that we do have restrictions. That will also help in determining that psychologically there is less fear in our society. That is very important as well.

Let me look at the support that this bill has right across this country, whether it be in Alberta, British Columbia or anywhere else. There is tremendous support for this bill. For example, from October 5 to October 25, 1994 Environics Research Group Limited conducted a national survey of Canadian public attitude

toward various gun control measures. The survey reported that 90 per cent supported a law requiring all firearms to be registered.

In British Columbia 88 per cent of the people support strong gun control. In Alberta 83 per cent of the people support gun control. Virtually all Canadians, 96 per cent, support increased penalties for the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Part of that bill also increases the crime whenever a firearm is used in the commission of a crime.

Seventy-five per cent wanted restricted access to ammunition. Sixty-seven per cent supported a law preventing civilians from owning handguns.

There is a whole list of the polls done. It goes on and on. I could probably go on. There was a survey done in Alberta recently which said that 64 per cent of Albertans support a national firearms registry.

This was a poll done by Alberta's minister of justice, Mr. Evans, who said that he was surprised by the results of this poll. An Angus Reid poll was done in the fall of 1994 in which 70 per cent of Canadians favoured tougher gun controls.

I can go on and on and cite more polls but it is pretty evident that Canadians support strong gun control. If one looks at the groups that are supporting gun control, there are incredible groups that are saying they want gun control.

For example, on August 25, 1994 at its 89th annual conference the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed six resolutions that support strengthened firearms control measures. Mayors of B.C., mayors of some of the people in the Reform Party, said they want stricter gun control. Eighteen mayors throughout British Columbia representing 1.7 million people said they want stronger gun control. This is coming from the mayors of municipalities.

It is quite evident that groups right across Canada, whether it is the mayors, the Canadian police chiefs or other groups including community groups, have said they want stricter gun control. As the Reform Party always says, we are listening to those Canadians. We are listening and we are responding. We believe we need to listen. The difficulty for Reform Party members is that if they do not support this bill, they will be against the majority in their own ridings that wants stricter gun controls.

I know we have to be careful in using statistics because they can be used in misleading ways. I want to share some statistics with the Canadian public. A recent survey showed that guns were used in 42 per cent of murders of women by their spouses. One woman in Canada is killed with a gun every six days. Most often she is killed in her own home and almost always she is killed by someone she knows. That is quite a revealing statistic.

There is another statistic that we should look at closely. Over 80 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned at the time of the shooting. Is that not an incredible statistic? The members of the third party say: "It is the criminals that are committing the crimes". It shows that over 80 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned by those people at the time of the shooting. What does that tell us? It sends a very strong message when 80 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned at the time of the shooting. We have to take action.

In 1991 there were a total of 1,445 deaths involving firearms. Of those, 19 per cent were homicides, 4 per cent were accidental deaths and 77 per cent were suicides. In 1992, 26 per cent of all robberies involved firearms. This represents a gradual decline since 1977 when it was 39 per cent, the year before stricter gun control measures were passed by Parliament.

As the result of stricter gun controls we have cut robberies down from 39 per cent to 26 per cent. We heard the same arguments in 1977 when the Liberal government, proposed by Minister Ron Basford, passed legislation on stricter gun control. The same arguments are coming out. In looking back the statistics show we did the right thing. In 15 or 20 years we will look back and say we did the right thing now as well.

In 1992 there were 732 homicides. Of those 732, 34 per cent were committed with firearms. That is a serious problem.

We can compare our gun laws with those in other countries. Unfortunately we do not have a comprehensive study that compares countries that have stricter gun controls and those that have less restrictions.

We do have one very comprehensive study that took the example of two cities which were within a 100 to 150 mile radius. The study looked at what happens in crime in those two cities. The two cities were Seattle and Vancouver, the city which I am from and represent, Vancouver South. It looked at these two cities because there were a lot of similarities in geography, climate, make-up and population. It was a study done between 1980 through 1986 in order to investigate the associations among handgun regulations, assaults and other crimes, as well as homicides.

The two cities are similar in many ways. They share common geography, as I said, climate history and both cities have a comparable level of schooling and have almost identical rates of unemployment and ethnic diversity.

Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a much more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, it is quite relevant that both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery.

In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver. However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. That sends a very good message. Despite similar overall rates of assault the relative risk of death from homicide was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8 fold higher risk of being murdered with a gun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. That is very revealing.

The conclusion of this study was that restricting access to handguns will reduce the rate of homicide in a community. That is the basic premise I started from. It is logical that if we have more guns on the street, we will have more crime. If we have fewer guns on the street, it is logical that we will have less crime.

That is a very simple way to look at it. Unfortunately the members of the Reform Party still do not see that. It is very simple. The average person should understand that. If we let people buy a gun whenever they want with no restrictions or rules, we will have higher crime. If we restrict firearms, we will reduce the crime.

Another example is Indianapolis. Its police wanted to stop vehicles to have a real, active approach on gun control, like our drinking program. They said they would stop cars in a certain area where they had problems; they would search cars, looking for guns. They set up a proactive approach to this.

The police actively sought out and confiscated illegal firearms in high crime neighbourhoods. The result was that gun related crimes were reduced by almost 50 per cent in the relevant areas. Homicides and drive-by shootings also went down significantly. This is a very good message.

Even with this information, the Americans have been unable to put forward stricter gun controls because of the national riflemen's lobby association. Strangely enough, we hear members of the Reform Party talking about lobby groups. They say their favourite subject is lobby groups and how they are against lobbyists and lobby groups. However, when the lobby groups support their position, they are holding hands. They do not mind going to bed with the lobby groups that support their position, as they have done with the gun lobby group.

We always get the argument that we should punish those people who cause the crime. Here is another statistic that will interest people. Eighty per cent of all homicides in Canada occur between people who know each other. Most homicides occur as a result of assaults during arguments or altercations. A small minority occur during the commission of a robbery or other felony.

If there are more guns in the homes, there will be more homicides. If there are fewer guns in the home, there will be fewer homicides. It is very simple.

What is the cost of this program? Prove that it will reduce crime. If everything we did to prevent crime had to be proven first, we would not have very many crime prevention programs.

We have heard from major groups that have said that this bill will reduce crime. Common sense tells us that it will reduce crime. However, members of the Reform Party want evidence, proof now, on crime prevention programs. The proof is already there if we look at past legislation and at the gun control bill of 1977. It shows that stricter gun control reduces crime. We do not need any more proof. The government will take action whenever a crime prevention program shows it reduces crime and helps public safety.

Once a crime is committed there are incredible costs. I know members of the Reform Party have mentioned costs. But what does it cost once a crime is committed? What is the cost to a family? What is the cost to society? What is the cost of losing a family member? There are huge financial costs, for the courts, for the legal system, for the pleas. To keep someone in jail costs $60,000 a year.

Yes, the program will cost something. The registry system will cost approximately $85 million. But it is not a cost, it is an investment because it is going to reduce crime. It is an investment because it will ensure there are fewer tragedies, whether it be a suicide or a murder. Hopefully as parliamentarians we can attempt to reduce those kinds tragedies. That is why I am supporting this bill.

The Reform Party strongly opposes any preventive gun control measures. Its arguments are primarily based on defending the interests of gun owners, not in public safety. Reformers ignore the facts about the use of firearms in domestic violence, suicides and accidental deaths. Although Reform claims to put a high priority on crime prevention, the only action it advocates is to deal with criminals after lives have been lost. We want to prevent the loss of lives. That is our goal.

The costs of registration have been exaggerated by the Reform Party with allegations that the registration system will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Concerns about the design and the cost of the system are being dealt with by taking time to develop it carefully.

I have to congratulate the Minister of Justice who had the courage to tackle this issue and to make sure that it is done right. Too often politicians do not want to tackle tough issues. They do not want to tackle issues where there is some resistance. The

minister saw resistance to gun control. It took a lot of courage for him to bring in this legislation.

With today's technology it will also be cheaper than it would have been 15 or 20 years ago. We think those figures are correct.

I know that I am running out of time. My colleague from Edmonton Southwest said his survey showed that 69 per cent of the people in his riding support stricter gun control. In a lot of ways Canadians are ahead of politicians on this one. However, as a government we recognize that we must do this. The Canadian public wants us to do it. The police forces want us to do it. Let us do it for our children. Let us do it for the youth so they will face less crime.

I have three children and I want them to live in a safe society, where they do not feel threatened by someone having a gun. I want them to build a stronger society. We do not want to be Americanized as do some Reform Party members. We want to have a safe country. We do not need guns.

If there is any message I can send today it is that everyone, including the Reform members, should support this bill and give support to the minister. If anything, it should be a tougher bill than what it is now. I hope in the future we can make it more tough because the fewer guns out there, the less crime. It is only logical.