Derek Wells

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

I have two petitions containing a total of 92 signatures opposing assisted suicide.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to table five petitions signed by people from the counties of Lunenburg, Queens, and Shelburne in my riding of South Shore in Nova Scotia.

Two petitions containing a total of 131 signatures oppose the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the extension of the privileges heterosexual couples enjoy to same sex couples.

[G-7 Summit, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is still enjoying the prestige and recognition it has received after successfully hosting the G-7 summit.

It was not only Halifax that hosted the events associated with the summit, both Lunenburg and Chester in my riding of South Shore played host to spouses and daughters of the G-7 leaders last Friday.

They were welcomed by the town crier, William Cluett, treated to a guided tour of the historic town and enjoyed lunch in the scenic village of Chester.

The type of hospitality and scenery to which the spouses and daughters were treated is typical of the entire South Shore. Whether visiting Shelburne County, Queens County or Lunenburg County you can be guaranteed a spectacular coastal view and a warm welcome from the residents of this beautiful part of Canada.

I urge all members of the House to visit the South Shore of Nova Scotia this summer and see and experience for themselves the numerous events this area has to offer.

Once again I go on record in the House thanking the many individuals who gave their time and talents, as well as the well wishers who lined the streets of Lunenburg for making the leaders' spouses and daughters' visit a success.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes on the motion.

[George P. Morrison, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago today Brigadier General George P. Morrison was born in Quebec City. For almost 40 years now this gentleman has resided in the village of Chester in my riding of South Shore.

George Morrison who joined the army in 1915 bears the distinct honour of being the oldest living graduate of the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.

In the wake of the recent celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe, I feel it is important to recognize and honour Brigadier General Morrison, as he served Canada during both the first and second world wars and served with a Canadian artillery battery during the Russian revolution.

The freedom that Canada and many countries throughout the world enjoy today comes as a result of the selfless contributions made by people like Brigadier General Morrison. I would therefore ask those assembled in the House today to join me in wishing Brigadier General George Morrison a happy 100th birthday.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the 1995 budget. I would like, however, to preface my discussion on the specific aspects of this bill with a few general comments about the budget.

The Liberal agenda with regard to deficit reduction was clearly outlined in the red book and has been reiterated by the Minister of Finance many times over the past 18 months.

Unlike the Reform Party we have not made unrealistic promises to reduce the deficit overnight. Rather we have set, and will continue to set, realistic goals until such time as the deficit is eliminated.

There is no denying that some of the measures announced in this budget are tough. However, the reality is that the time has come to make these changes. The Liberal Party campaigned on providing good government, and this budget underscores that commitment by taking on the challenge of reducing the deficit and modernizing government. I acknowledge that adjustments will have to be made, but I believe that this will be for the long term good of this country.

Personally, I was relieved to note that the cuts announced in the budget are fairly uniform from region to region. Unlike last year, for instance, when I had to deal with the closure of two Canadian forces stations in my riding, Atlantic Canada has not received a disproportionate share of the cuts.

That said, I would now like to concentrate on the bill before us. Where possible I would like to discuss the various aspects of this legislation by focusing on the effect that these measures will have on the province of Nova Scotia and, in particular, my riding of South Shore.

One of the most important facets of this legislation is the establishment of the Canadian health and social transfer. This initiative, which converts established programs financing for health and education and the Canada assistance plan into a single consolidated block transfer, is a fundamental structural change that will result in decisive deficit reduction. The result will be a transfer system that is fiscally sustainable and more effective in meeting contemporary needs.

This approach provides real benefits to both levels of government and will reduce a number of longstanding irritants. For example, the provinces will be free to pursue their own innovative approaches to social security reform and will have more control over how they meet their priorities. They will no longer be subject to rules stipulating that certain expenditures are eligible for cost sharing and others are not. As well, the expense of administering cost sharing will be eliminated.

Some people have expressed concern that this change in funding methods will result in the disintegration of national standards. This is simply not so. The transfer will not be totally unconditional, nor, as the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech, does flexibility mean a free for all. The principles of the Canada Health Act will continue to be enforced. There will be no change in the principle that provinces must provide social assistance without minimum residency requirements. Rather a set of shared principles and objectives will be developed in concert with the provinces to underly the new transfer.

It is also important to note that the equalization program will remain intact and will continue to grow. This ensures that provinces like Nova Scotia will have the ability to provide all Canadians with a reasonably comparable level of service regardless of where they live. Overall in the Atlantic provinces equalization growth offsets Canada health and social transfer reductions so that overall transfers will increase slightly to these provinces. In fact, in Nova Scotia the percentage change in provincial transfer entitlements has increased by .09 per cent for 1996-97.

The next facet of this bill that I would like to cover is the elimination of the Atlantic freight subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

These subsidies were provided to rail, trucking and marine companies to defray the cost of shipping goods within the Atlantic region and to central Canadian markets. However, a recent analysis of this program has shown that they are no longer serving their original purpose.

For instance, almost half of the $99 million spent annually goes to ship goods within provincial boundaries. High tariff barriers that restricted access by regional producers to markets in the United States and abroad no longer exist.

Shipments to central Canada represent a small and declining portion of the Atlantic region's market. In fact, only 13 per cent of goods produced are sent to central Canada. Goods are also being shipped further than need be in order to collect the subsidy.

The elimination of this tariff will lead to increased efficiency and, very importantly, will reduce the burden on taxpayers and shift the cost of providing transportation onto those who use and directly benefit from the system.

I was pleased to note that Transport Canada will be providing $326 million in transitional funding to the Atlantic provinces to alleviate shipper hardship, upgrade highways and transportation infrastructure on a cost shared basis.

By turning away from broad subsidization and toward focused and responsible investment in infrastructure and technology, Transport Canada is helping to build an integrated and affordable national transportation system, something that will benefit all of Atlantic Canada rather than just one specific sector.

Bill C-76 also contains amendments to the workforce adjustment directive, the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Sector Compensation Act that will facilitate a fair and orderly downsizing of the public service.

It is estimated that about 45,000 federal public service jobs will be affected by the measures implemented in this budget as a result of program review. Some of these jobs will be transferred to the private sector. Other reductions will be realized through attrition, voluntary departures and layoffs. The impact that this will have on the Atlantic region has not yet been determined, but all indications are that a large portion of these cuts will be made in the national capital region. This is due to the fact that approximately one-third of the total public service workforce is located in this region.

These cuts are the unfortunate part of the transition from a public service that tries to be all things to all people to one that offers Canadians a more limited number of high value programs and services. The approach taken by previous governments of

implementing across the board cuts is no longer a viable solution.

This government is at the point where such a measure would only result in good programs being penalized and working conditions suffering. For too long federal employees at every level have had to contend with heavier workloads and fewer resources. It is now time for government to change, to streamline its operations. As was noted in the 1994 budget announcement, it is time to ensure that government's diminished resources are directed to the highest priority requirements, to those areas where the federal government is best placed to deliver services.

As a result of this review, it has become necessary for the government to enact changes to the various pieces of legislation that govern the public service. These changes are necessary to achieve our fiscal objectives.

Over the next three years there will be major changes to the way government services are delivered. As a result, some temporary measures are required to ensure that where there is no work there is no pay.

Another measure in this legislation will see the termination of payments under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. This program involves the federal government transferring to the provinces and territories 95 per cent of federal income taxes paid by privately owned electrical and gas utilities. In turn, the provinces were to transfer this amount to privately owned utilities. Nova Scotia is the only province that actually utilizes the transfer as it was intended, and I anticipate that Nova Scotia Power and its customers throughout the province will bear the brunt of this budget measure.

I am against this particular cut because it means that power bills in Nova Scotia will increase. However, I realize that other provinces are going to have to deal with the loss of this transfer money as well in one way or another.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my overall support for the 1995 budget. I am very pleased to be part of a government that has the will and determination to tackle this country's deficit problem. It is about time that concrete action was taken.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. I particularly wanted to speak on this legislation because of the great deal of concern it has caused both myself and my constituents.

This legislation is an important part of the Liberal government's broad strategy on crime prevention. It should work in concert with previously introduced pieces of legislation relating to sentencing reform, corrections and parole reform, the Young Offenders Act and the consultation document on the National Crime Prevention Council.

I agree with the overall intent of this legislation as well as the three principles that motivated this government to introduce Bill C-68. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon all members of this House to recognize that there are two sides which must be heard. We must recognize the sincerity with which both sides bring their views to the table.

I have constituents in my South Shore riding who are in favour of the government measures and I certainly have constituents who are opposed. For this reason, I have formed a riding committee which will meet with me on a regular basis to review the legislation in detail. This committee will be reporting to the Minister of Justice and to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on areas of concern with a view to offering suggestions for improvements.

I expect that people on both sides of this issue would agree with the three principles as previously outlined by the Minister of Justice in this House. In essence these principles are: one, that Canadians do not want to live in a country where people feel they want or need to possess a firearm for their protection; two, that if we are to retain our safe and peaceful character as a country, those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime will be severely punished; and three, as a government and as a country, we must acknowledge and respect the legitimate use of firearms by law-abiding Canadian citizens.

The Minister of Justice and this government have acknowledged throughout this debate their respect and consideration for the traditions of hunting, both for sustenance and for sport, as well as the use of firearms for farming, ranching and other legitimate activities. It is not the intention of this government with this legislation to interfere with these rights. As well, we wish to go on record as acknowledging that these rights will continue to exist into the future.

I would like at this time to comment on the various components on the firearms control package as outlined in the legislation.

I believe that increased penalties will act as a deterrent to the criminal use of firearms. A mandatory four-year jail term for the use of a firearm in the commission of a serious crime, in addition to charges for the offence in which the gun was used, is deemed by those concerned with law and order to be much more acceptable than the status quo.

The present law is often criticized as being inadequately enforced with charges too often dropped as part of a plea bargain or otherwise not pursued. This problem is addressed by this legislation.

In relation to the aforementioned, I fully support any change that will see young offenders who commit firearms offences being treated in the same manner as adults. The criminal penalties as outlined in the legislation will also limit access to firearms for felons, including young offenders.

Prohibition orders on the possession of restricted and non-restricted firearms for those convicted of serious violent crimes will range from 10 years to life. People convicted of stalking or drug related charges will be subject to prohibition orders.

Not only does this make good common sense, but it is a crime prevention measure that will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in the justice system. It is clear that the intention of this legislation is to offer more protection to the law-abiding citizen.

Bill C-68 includes border control measures which are directed at curtailing smuggling activities and tightening up importation regulations. In addition, the bill adds a number of new offences arising from the trade in illegal firearms or other weapons. The overall penalty provisions will put these offences among the most serious class of crimes in the Criminal Code.

The most contentious part of this legislation is the registration provision which will apply to all guns, regular, restricted, and prohibited. Many of my constituents have raised concerns or worries about the registration requirement. They are concerned about the cost, both to themselves as individuals and to the country at large. They have concerns that the system will be cumbersome. They have concerns that registration will lead to the eventual confiscation of their firearms. They are concerned that the registration system will not be secure and that others, including criminals, could gain access to the information.

They have asked me how registration will address the issue of crime in our communities. They have asked if the $85 million or more would not be better spent on social programs, thereby attacking the causes of crime.

They are concerned that they will become criminals by not registering their guns. They are also concerned about and wish to have addressed further the question of compensation to the owners of handguns that are being banned.

These are legitimate concerns. We owe it to Canadians to address these concerns item by item. I do not believe we have really done this, but I hope in the weeks and months ahead we are able to ensure that our communities are better informed on these issues. I know I will be reviewing all of them with the committee in my riding and bringing them forward for consideration.

I would like to take a minute now to explain my understanding of some of these issues.

The first issue is on the matter of cost. The Minister of Justice has been quite clear and emphatic that the cost to gun owners in the first year is expected to be zero, or at the very most, a nominal amount in the range of $10. For this fee the gun owner can register up to 10 guns with no further registration being required during his lifetime. I am convinced that the government has no hidden agenda to eventually confiscate guns.

It is also important to explain that when formulating this legislation the government listened to the law enforcement community. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has long requested and encouraged the adoption of universal registration. The chiefs of police cited a number of reasons for this and explained how it would help them in the fight against crime. The following are the reasons stated by the police association:

Tracking guns that are imported to Canada and then sold is critical to controlling abuse. It will be easier to prosecute individuals for possession of illegal and stolen weapons because the police will be able to distinguish between legal gun owners and illegal gun owners.

The police say that registration will assist in high risk situations. The police say that registration will assist in taking preventative action against domestic violence by allowing them to remove firearms from a volatile situation. They say registration is essential for the enforcement of the estimated 13,000 prohibition orders issued each year.

Members of the strategic weapons and tactical units of many forces feel that more information about the presence of firearms is critical. In most cases, guns which are stolen were improperly stored. The police say registration will promote safe storage which will in turn reduce gun theft as well as reduce suicides and accidents.

These reasons need to be explored in more detail.

One facet of this legislation I am particularly opposed to is the use of orders in council to add weapons to the existing prohibited weapons list. I support banning weapons that have no legitimate purpose. I see no reason for people to own assault weapons, handguns with no legitimate purpose, compact or single-hand crossbows, but I object to the process whereby this has been accomplished.

I was particularly pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has asked the standing committee to consider a number of issues that have been raised since the firearms control action plan was first introduced.

My office has received a number of representations from persons concerned with being able to leave their relics and heirlooms as part of their estate. I should also make it clear that there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent an individual from passing on their long arms upon death. I have also received a number of letters from constituents who feel their weapons have been wrongly prohibited. These concerns are ones the minister is going to have addressed by the standing committee and I appreciate that.

Upon reviewing the legislation, I am of the belief that its intent is to control crime and promote public safety while respecting the needs of legitimate gun owners. This legislation acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons for people to own firearms and that firearms are essential tools for many Canadians. This legislation does not set out to inconvenience these individuals.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Minister of Justice has stated that Canadians will have their opportunity to make their views known when the legislation is reviewed by the standing committee. I trust that the concerns of my constituents will be addressed and that answers to their legitimate concerns will be provided.

I also wish to state that I support the objective of the legislation. Its objective is to reduce violent crime in our country, an objective which I think all of my constituents would support.

[Fisheries, March 15th, 1995]

Would the minister inform the House of the significance of the net's mesh size and the accompanying liner in the matter at hand?

[Fisheries, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister just revealed that DFO was successful in retrieving the net of the Spanish trawler, the Estai . Congratulations to the minister and his department are in order.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by 520 people mostly from Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne counties in my riding of South Shore.

The petitioners are opposed to the implementation of further gun controls, specifically registration; further restrictions on the sale of ammunition; and the restriction or prohibition of certain handguns.

They feel the legislation unfairly targets gun owners and will do little to deter the criminal use of firearms.