Réginald Bélair

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition containing some 2,000 names on the gun control bill.

The petition deals mostly with the registration aspect of the bill. The petitioners say that if they fail to register their guns they will end up with a criminal record the same as a real criminal who has committed a real crime with a gun. This is extremely unfair, to say the least.

Therefore, it is my duty to present this petition to the House with the hope that the minister will listen.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada unequivocally declared that it is in favour of Canadian federalism.

The FCFA is the second organization of its kind to state that it supports the "no" side. Last February, the Société des Acadiennes et Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick publicly announced its position, and also begged Quebecers to vote no. These two organizations also believe in a dynamic and progressive Canada which is proud to promote both official languages. This outlook on Canada promotes the growth of the francophone culture as a whole.

The fact that francophone establishments and organizations exist across Canada, be they educational, cultural or financial, proves that the French fact in Quebec and in all of the provinces has persevered and is alive.

The federal government has supported the development and growth of the French language and culture in Canada at all times, not just during the referendum debate. It would be a hard blow to the francophone community elsewhere in Canada if Quebec were to leave the Canadian federation.

Therefore, I hope the referendum will be held as soon as possible so that we can get on with solving the real problems.

[Base Closures, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the question under advisement and relay it to the minister. She will get an answer in writing.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the gun control issue heated up last year after a string of gun-related crimes, culminating in the fatal shooting at the Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto, emotion ran so high that it was very difficult in the confusion to properly dissociate the weapon of the crime from the underlying and growing issue of violence in our society.

Responsibility for these crimes was quickly linked to the availability of firearms and to every firearms owner. Under the proposed gun and crime control bill a very high number of my constituents understand the fact that responsibility for crimes involving firearms is being unfairly attributed to the law-abiding gun owner on the same basis as the criminals.

The government is right to introduce legislation containing tougher sanctions against individuals convicted of murder and to step up efforts to deal with the smuggling of firearms. Such measures are necessary if we want to control crime and prevent an increase in the crime rate. We must ensure compliance with existing legislation on the wrongful use of firearms and their proliferation in our society. However, I have serious reservations about some of the points proposed in the bill.

In my riding, being a rural one, almost everyone owns a rifle or a shotgun, yet the incidence of violent crimes involving firearms is practically non-existent. They are responsible and law-abiding citizens including natives, trappers, sustenance and sports hunters, gun club members and gun collectors that have all proven their ability to own and use a firearm. Stricter gun control will not necessarily result in a decrease in the number of crimes involving firearms in this rural part of Canada. These law-abiding firearm owners should not be burdened or inconvenienced with additional gun control measures that will not reduce crime or improve public safety.

Self-respecting firearms owners will not willingly accept a further erosion of their right to privacy. They are afraid that when the data base is complete, it may provide, on request, information on their financial situation, marital status, mental health and mobility, all because of regulations that may profoundly intrude on their privacy, and at their own expense.

My constituents have been asking all along that the bill be divided into two parts: legislation that directly affects law-abiding gun owners and legislation that affects the criminal use of firearms. They have, as I have, also requested a free vote on the issue. We know that this will not be the case and therein lies my dilemma. I am wrenched between the loyalty to my party and representation of the views of my constituents. It will not be an easy call.

Eighty-five million dollars was forecast by the government to implement the national firearms registration system. The federal government has pegged the number of guns in circulation to be registered at 7.5 million. This number differs by a wide margin with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters calculations of 15 million as well as with those of the National Firearms Association. That is why the projection is unrealistic while I find the cost still prohibitive.

The National Rifle Association in the United States has already expressed concern that American hunters who will be required to register at the border will not come to Canada if they have to register their guns.

If we implement tough proposals do we not risk creating a new kind of relationship between the government and law-abiding gun owners, a climate of non-compliance or civil disobedience? We must keep in mind that the legislation is counting on all gun owners to voluntarily register themselves with police and to register all of their firearms by the year 2003.

Anti-gun control proponents could use any illegal avenue to stay out of what has already been dubbed the registration swamp. We must avoid red tape and restrictions on law-abiding gun owners if we cannot yield any evidence that stricter controls would make our communities safer.

The adoption of pro-active prohibition orders has also raised objections from many firearms owners. The penalty would apply to all members of the household if one member is affected by such an order. Should we impose prohibition orders on law-abiding firearms owners because a close relative committed a crime using a firearm? Many people think this is very unfair.

From another perspective on the issue, I hesitate to endorse new gun control legislation before the provisions of the Criminal Code can first be fully applied and enforced. We know that Bill C-17 is still in the early stages. Insufficient time has passed since its adoption to assess the effectiveness of its measures.

Law making, to be meaningful, must go beyond the legislative process and must be enforced. Every gun control or enforcement measure requires resources for its implementation. This will be an extra burden on the RCMP, the QPP and the OPP. If the threat of massive non-compliance is carried out, our federal court system will become so clogged that it will take years to process each individual case.

A number of inquiries conducted in various countries have shown there is no connection between the percentage of crimes involving firearms and the degree of regulation of firearms in that country. In countries with a very low rate of violent crimes or homicide, like Japan and Switzerland, the presence or absence of firearms is irrelevant. However, making young people socially responsible, giving them a good education and warning them against criminal behaviour is a major factor in producing low crime rates.

Countries that have tough firearms legislation have shown an increase in the rate of violent crimes. Countries whose citizens have a healthy cultural life and have very close family ties have the lowest rate of violent crimes committed with firearms, whether such arms are available or not. There is no evidence that more regulations have reduced the number of violent crimes.

Such findings are important. Homicide is a societal problem unrelated or at least marginally related to public access to firearms. The government should therefore concentrate its efforts toward identifying the real causes of crime in our society.

Bill C-68 is not only a registration bill but also a crime control bill. Imposing minimum mandatory sentences of four years for serious crimes committed with a firearm will go a lot further in deterring violent crime. Judges will be given strict instructions to no longer be lenient with the criminal element of our society and not to accept plea bargaining from defence attorneys. Measures such as these will make potential criminals think twice before they commit a reprehensible act.

The anti-tobacco and alcohol smuggling campaign of 1994 has proven to be very successful and the same methods of controls should be applied. The one-year minimum sentence will also send a very strong message that the illegal importation of firearms will be severely punished.

A huge majority of Canadians also agree that military and paramilitary weapons should be prohibited as their usefulness is totally unjustifiable in our society.

In essence, Bill C-68 responds extensively and quite adequately to Canadians' wishes to strengthen the Criminal Code for crimes involving firearms. I totally share this feeling with my urban colleagues. There are legitimate concerns since crimes committed with firearms are in effect concentrated in urban areas.

However I feel that this bill does not heed the concerns of rural Canada. A law-abiding citizen could end up with the same black mark on his or her record as a criminal found guilty of a real crime involving a firearm.

In addition, one must really question the constitutionality of the information that will be stored on the magnetic strip of the credit card style of permit. Canada is a country that prides itself in respecting the privacy of its citizens. Is the federal government not probing too deeply into people's lives? Furthermore, if this bill is adopted as is, it will be most interesting to see how the Supreme Court of Canada will react to this point as this law no doubt will be challenged.

I am reserving final judgment on this bill until I am given an opportunity to study the forthcoming amendments. I owe it to the 6,000 constituents who have taken the time to write, to sign petitions, or to verbally express their views on this controversial

issue. Hopefully the speeches heard in this House will serve to enlighten the members on their final vote.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a group of fellow citizens, I want to table a petition regarding euthanasia. The petitioners would like Parliament to ask Canadian doctors to continue saving lives instead of ending them.

They would also like Parliament to implement an act prohibiting assisted suicide in Canada. In addition, they ask that this legislation not be amended to make active or passive euthanasia legal.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's statement.

I want to be very clear on one point. This government is committed within the current financial climate to social housing for all Canadians in need. This includes those Canadians who reside in the province of Quebec.

In order to fully understand how existing housing expenditures are made, my friend must recognize that in the early years of public housing the province of Quebec elected not to participate. For example, under the old rent supplement program, Ontario began participating in 1971, whereas Quebec only joined in 1978. In those years, Ontario delivered 9,500 units for which it continues to receive subsidies, whereas Quebec delivered no units and as such has no subsidy.

Notwithstanding history, our friend across the way must understand that dollars for new housing commitments in Canada are now distributed according to a formula based on core need, not on population. That important distinction must be recognized. According to these principles, each region receives its share of housing dollars for new commitments.

In 1993-94, some $350 million was spent in Quebec, which provided assistance for more than 140,000 social housing units. Quebec also received additional funds because of special circumstances. I am referring to the $4 million provided under the RESO program established to improve living conditions in southwestern Montreal and promote local development.

I am also referring to the $5 million given to the Montreal owner-occupants whose homes were damaged by the drought.

Finally, on the point of the alleged $100 million that is not going into Quebec, my friend is aware that the number he is using is false. He knows it. It is most regrettable that the member and the Bloc Quebecois are attempting to play separatist games on the backs of those in Quebec who can least afford it. He should come clean with Canadians and Quebecers.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, of course I have considerable interest in speaking today, because my riding of Cochrane-Superior is in northern Ontario, and its survival is at stake.

I would first like to pay tribute to the committee chairman and to all of my colleagues who helped draft this report, which I would call apolitical. I attended a few meetings, and I must say in all sincerity that they have done a tremendous job. It was, however, a job that had to be done; it was inevitable, given the situation. First, the act dates from 1964; it bears no resemblance to the way Canada's current electoral map looks today.

On issues of representation, the report focuses significantly on the quotient, the variance of 25 per cent. This remains something that is very important for me, for the simple reason that, because of this quotient, large rural ridings in Canada will never be safe and will never have equal representation here in the House. I need only point out how far we have to travel to serve our constituents. This is our prime function, to serve people.

For example, if a riding like mine were abolished, according to the recommendation of the September report, the four surrounding ridings would simply become bigger. It would therefore simply increase the already excessive demands on each of these members, or rather on their resources, energy and ability to reach remote communities.

If I may be permitted to speak specifically about remote communities, my riding of Cochrane-Superior includes 21 Indian communities, 16 of which are north of the 49th parallel. For the most part, there are no roads leading to these communities, which means that when I want to go there, make myself available to them, I must charter a flight, which is extremely expensive but must be done. This then contradicts the Reform Party's argument that it is too expensive to have a great number of members in the House. This argument verges on being absurd.

What good will it do to increase, to double the population of such a riding while retaining the same member without giving him the resources, both human and financial, to carry out his work?

And what purpose will it serve to do away with many rural ridings only to increase the size of so-called urban ridings and thereby, as stated, make demands exceeding the members' resources and energy. More importantly, should this come about, it would be a direct attack on democracy, here in Canada, because all Canadians, wherever they live, have the right to be equally represented in the House of Commons.

I would of course like to reserve my main comments for the third reading of the bill once it is tabled.

These are the points I wanted to make at this time. I have not addressed the true substance of the report. I will wait for the bill to be tabled. At that time, I will be able to provide the statistics to back up what I have just said.

This report is not acceptable for northern Ontario, not at all. It is not acceptable at this time. I will therefore certainly table an amendment in the House, first and foremost to restore the schedule of ridings called "special" because of their geography. That has been removed from the report. I definitely intend to attempt to have it included again. I hope my colleagues will appreciate my purpose and will support me in this matter.

[Transportation, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Residents of northern Ontario and rural Canada are concerned that major transportation changes may happen in an ad hoc manner. This creates uncertainty for the future.

Could the minister tell us whether he is developing comprehensive rail, air highway and marine policies? Could he reassure the residents that there will be enough time to adjust to the possibility of the changes?

[Unemployment Insurance, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs.

Statistics Canada has reported a significant decrease in the number of people receiving unemployment insurance in the last eight months, that is 12.3 per cent less than in 1993.

Could the Secretary of State explain this rapid change and its consequences for the unemployment insurance fund?

[Unemployment Insurance Act, October 26th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (university studies after ten years of employment).

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, like the great majority of my colleagues here in the House, I was confronted with the fact that only workers who qualify for unemployment insurance were eligible to go to college. In my humble opinion, I think that discriminates against those who would like to go to university to learn a new trade. That is the purpose of my bill.

It is to extend the application of section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to include full time university courses in addition to college and other training courses as part of the courses or programs designed to facilitate the re-entry of a claimant into the employed labour force.

I hope that all my colleagues in all parties will support this bill, because it is extremely important to give those who want to re-enter the labour market a chance.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)