Ian McClelland

[Gun Control, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to advise members opposite that I was elected by 100 per cent of the people who voted for me for three very distinct reasons. The first was to get our nation-

[Gun Control, February 15th, 1995]

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

Many Canadians feel that the Achilles' heel of the gun legislation is the registration of long guns, not of handguns nor the other aspects of the bill but the registration of .22s and shotguns.

The justice department considers that the cost may be as much as $85 million and others have said considerably more over five years. Could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether this money would not be better spent in cancer research or, better yet, not spent at all in so far as this is money we have to borrow from future generations for registration and there is no proof that it will do one iota of good?

[Labour, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.

The right of management to employ replacement workers balances the right of employees to withdraw their labour. The effect of tipping this balance through legislation in favour of employees will destroy the balance between management and labour.

Is it the intention of this government to drive business and investment out of Canada to jurisdictions without such legislation?

[Interest Act, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to compliment the member for Chambly on the intent of the bill. There is no question that his heart is in the right place.

Many people in this House and most Canadians felt the shock of the greatly increasing interest rates about 10 years ago. I certainly did. Unfortunately while the intent of this bill is noble, when we get the past the intent to look at the effects of this bill and what would happen in the marketplace, the results may not be quite as noble.

Before I get into my short comments about this I would like to respond to a couple of comments that the mover of the bill from Chambly brought into the debate. First was the notion of there being some sort of ne'er do well doing in that this bill is not votable.

I think there are 30 bills brought forward. Of that I believe about six or eight are votable. The decision on whether a bill is made votable is based on the content of this private member's bill as tested against all other private members' bills.

Sometimes they are found lacking and sometimes they are not. My private member's bill was not votable. I felt badly about it but that is the way the cookie crumbles. We have to deal with it. Another item was brought into this debate. The banks are hugely profitable and therefore we should change this. The banks make all kinds of money and therefore nobody likes banks. I do not like banks any more than anybody else but banks are a part of our life. They are a necessary evil.

Banks have had an increase in taxes over the last few years of something in the region of 40 per cent. In fact they pay a fairly hefty bite of their profits as taxes.

As we all know banks have been increasing their service fees for everything because they are trying to get out of the cyclical nature of recovering all of their cost by interest as well.

The whole notion of the profitability of banks in this debate is a moot point. It does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. Banks make a contract to lend money to a client, the client makes a contract with the bank to repay the money.

If people wish and are in a position to prepay a loan for whatever reason, then it would be nice if the lender would be in a position to make it easy for them to do so. However for the number of people who would like to renegotiate loans when interest rates go down probably does not match the number of

people who would like to renegotiate a loan when interest rates go up. I do not think I have heard of anyone going into a bank and saying: "I understand that interests rates have gone up. Therefore I want to renegotiate my loan so I can pay more money".

A contract is a contract. When depositors put money on deposit and buy interest bearing certificates at a bank, the bank generally matches those deposits with lending.

Perhaps we should consider letting the marketplace decide. If it is in the best interest of the bank, and some do, to ensure that their customers are able to have more flexibility in their mortgage loans, then they could advertise that they will be prepared after one year to allow the customer to collapse the loan, prepay three months interest and be out of the contract.

Most banks have open mortgages, one-year mortgages, six-month mortgages, five-year mortgages and ten-year mortgages. The Home Builders' Association would like to see much longer term mortgages so that people would be able to lock into a mortgage, perhaps even over its life, until it is totally amortized. This is done in the United States. Then when someone buys a home they know what their payments are going to be from the time they make their first payment until the time they make their last and the vagaries of interest rates will not drive people out of their homes. That again is another debate and another story.

Some lending institutions will lend money for mortgages in this country this very day that consider their mortgages fully open and will allow people to prepay without penalty at any time.

We should allow the natural competitive forces in a healthy marketplace make these decisions. We have many fish to fry in this Parliament. We should let the private sector do what the private sector should do and not further involve the government in more details that should be handled by the private sector. We should be getting out of business, not getting into business.

While the member for Chambly brings to the House a well-intentioned motion perhaps it also contains a bit of quicksand. I would suggest that if people are looking at this and we absolutely must do something about it as a Parliament, we might consider this. When a mortgage institution or a bank lends money on a mortgage expecting to get a spread of 3 per cent between the people who are lending money to the bank and the people who are borrowing money from the bank, their profit is included in that.

Perhaps the banks might consider giving up their portion of profit. Certainly their expenses should be covered.

We are getting very complicated in this debate; at least I am getting very complicated. It is not really our decision and our job to decide what banks should do and how they should do it. That is a job for a free, competitive and open marketplace.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like for a few moments to add a few thoughts to the debate.

Much of what I would add has been said in the previous readings of the bill. However I would like to illustrate something that has been brought to my attention by a number of very interested parties and that is the desire of the federal government to begin to compete with private enterprise at the very time it is ostensibly getting out of business or privatizing.

The illustrations that I would use today will probably deal most directly with the post office but I would also like to bring in the example of Canada Mortgage and Housing and its appraisal process. I would also like to speak briefly about the impact of the bill and the ability that it gives the minister to compete in the private sector with the engineering fraternity.

Ostensibly the bill is a routine housekeeping bill that has the effect of consolidating the department. When we are considering the intrusion of the federal government into private enterprise or into areas that could be better served by private enterprise, we have to keep in mind that the government brings an enormous weight and an enormous amount of sway to the table whenever it decides it is going to get into a business.

Before I entered the political realm I was in the photo finishing business. I can remember being absolutely appalled when some years ago the post office was trying desperately to recoup some of its losses. The thought perhaps never occurred to the post office that one of the ways it could increase the use of its product was to provide a faster, better and more efficient service. It decided it was going to expand its product line. I believe it was Consumers Distributing products that were going to become available in post offices.

There I was, a small businessman, paying taxes to support the post office and finding myself in a position where I would be competing with the post office. Fortunately this did not come to pass.

Recently it was brought to my attention, and I am sure to the attention of other hon. members present, that the post office once again, as it was privatizing and becoming a crown corporation, was trying to increase its revenue rather than trying to decrease its expenses. It had announced a 2 cent price increase in the cost of a stamp. The post office had made, I think, a $26 million profit that year.

The post office was increasing the price of a stamp because it had to have more money. However, there were many sceptics who thought that perhaps the reason it was going to increase the first class postage rate was because it wanted to cross-subsidize and get into other businesses.

The post office started with a tremendous advantage as a crown corporation. It had a distribution network coast to coast. Imagine the situation, if you will, of someone being in the instant printing business, as has happened right here in Ottawa. They wake up one day, open their mail delivered to them through the post office, because of course the post office has a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail, and it is a survey from Canada

Post saying that it wants to be in a position to better serve its customers.

What is it going to do, folks? It is going to offer services such as typesetting, small run instant printing, the kinds of things that as one comes to the post office it would be kind of convenient to have right there. The trouble is the world does not need another instant printer. Instant printers are all over the place and they have, by and large, got themselves into business at their own expense.

Now they find themselves in a situation where they are competing directly with a crown corporation that has a monopoly on first class postage and can raise prices so it can compete with the private sector.

Another instance that has come to my attention concerning the post office has to do with it purchasing a courier company, I believe it was Purolator, and then going into competition with other people in the courier business. If the post office feels that it has the right, the purview and the privilege of going into competition with existing businesses, then should not existing businesses and other courier companies have the same right to go into competition with Canada Post? If Canada Post can compete with small business why then can business not compete with Canada Post?

It would be absolutely reasonable and fair that if Canada Post intends to continue down this path, it should find itself competing for the first class postage delivery.

If the post office finds itself in competition when delivering first class mail, what will happen? I bet the mail will be delivered faster. I bet it will be delivered on Saturday and I wager it will be delivered for less. Usually when there is competition the consumer benefits.

Now we have the reverse situation where a crown corporation with a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail is able to use the profit generated by the monopoly situation to cross-subsidize its ambit into other areas of business.

I submit to hon. members this is not right. It is not fair and it is counterproductive to the notion of free enterprise and privatization which is absolutely essential as our country moves down the path toward becoming self-sufficient and not becoming a sinkhole for taxpayers' money.

The third example I would like to raise is the question-this is part of the broader, more general intrusion of government into business-of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the practice of agents who work for Canada Mortgage and Housing to do appraisals on real estate in competition with the many competent people in private business who are licensed to provide that service.

Does this not have the potential for conflict of interest? An employee of Canada Mortgage and Housing is going out and doing an appraisal on a property that would be financed by Canada Mortgage and Housing. Is that not the same kind of one hand feeding the other dealsmanship that got us into a problem in some of the other financial institutions? Would it not be better if Canada Mortgage and Housing were required to have third party appraisals?

I suggest this kind of creeping intrusion of crown corporations into the sphere of private enterprise is not only counterproductive, but it is unhealthy for our economy because it does not bring in the discipline of the marketplace.

The last and final example I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that Bill C-52, at least according to the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, would give the public service the mandate, the free rein, to set up in competition with professional engineers. As a matter of fact "the bill's loose wording gives complete power to bureaucrats. The sections read that the minister may incur expenditures or perform or have performed services or work in relation to any federal real property, or any other non-crown property with the consent of its owners".

As the government devolves from the sphere of private enterprise as we are wont and forced to do, in my opinion it would be a very good precedent for this Parliament to set to say that if private enterprise has the ability and the desire to compete in any sphere, then the government through a crown corporation or directly will not compete as a matter of principle.

I would ask that hon. members present give thought to these concerns and whenever the opportunity arises, to give private enterprise the advantage over public enterprise.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to present a petition on behalf of 458 citizens who ask that the Parliament of Canada protect and take care of human life and human dignity; that physicians should not be working to end lives but to save them.

The petitioners do not want the Criminal Code of Canada changed in any way to suggest that assisted suicide be made legal or countenanced by the state in any way.

I concur with my petitioners.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 7th, 1994]

With respect to those individuals who have already been compensated by the Government of Canada because they contacted the HIV virus as a result of tainted blood transfusions, ( a ) what is the government's policy concerning the spouses of individuals with HIV and ( b ) is the government considering compensation for the spouses who unknowingly contracted HIV from their partners?

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate and to follow the very moving and eloquent words of the member for Halifax. I am sure the House was moved in a very real and a very positive way five years ago when this tragic occurrence took place.

It is particularly timely to reflect on that. We are exploring violence in our society as we begin to discuss the impending legislation, Bill C-41, which is the hate law and the legislation to come on gun control.

All of these things are intermingled and mixed with the violence that seems to be pervasive in our society. When we turn on the television and see children's programs that are one violent scene after another, when we go to movies and see that they are based almost exclusively on violence can we wonder when it happens in our midst what causes it?

This incident was horrible to a degree that we in Canada had not ever seen previously. It was aimed not randomly but specifically at women. The action was taken by someone who could have lived next door to any one of us, by someone who could have been one of our children, someone who otherwise seemed to be normal and just like everybody else.

This happened to ordinary people who were identified specifically because they were women and the killer thought they were a threat to him. They were engineering students in an occupation that traditionally has not had a lot of women.

My wife and I have a daughter who is an engineer. We understand that females who are engineers are unique because there are not that many of them. This touches so many of our lives because of the very ordinariness of the people who were affected by it and by the fact that it happened in Canada. This kind of thing just does not happen in Canada.

It does happen in Canada. It happens all over our country. It happens with alarming frequency. It happens with randomness. Here in Ottawa we had a young man who had just finished university shot and killed by a random act of violence in a drive-by shooting by a young offender.

When we compare that to the horrific events of the l'École Polytechnique five years ago, we have to speak to all of the people who are victims of violence, not just those who were tragically killed that night. Barb Danelesko was awakened in her home. She is just as dead, just as gone from her loved ones as anyone else.

As a society and as a legislative body we need to get beyond the superficial and see if we cannot find out what are the underlying problems in our society that cause or will allow this

kind of tragedy to happen. Violence against women is usually a domestic situation.

One thing that has puzzled me is that when there is violence in a domestic situation it is the women and the children who end up leaving the home and going to a shelter. The perpetrator of the violence is given a warning but usually that is about it. It is usually a male and he is usually allowed to go to work and lead a fairly normal life. What happens to the children? They end up being shunted about, torn from their home, torn from the things most familiar to them, torn from their friends and perhaps even torn from extended families if they are being stalked.

Why can we not throw the husband in jail? It is because the husband has rights. Society does not have rights. The children do not have rights. The wife who may well be dead does not have rights but the husband has rights.

The member for Halifax mentioned in her dissertation when she alluded to the question of gun control that sometimes in the greater good the rights of others need to be trampled. I believe in this reference she was speaking about firearms, and perhaps the rights of people to own and use firearms for the greater good have to be in some way restricted.

If we accept that as being true, surely in the interest of the same greater good the rights of husbands should also be curtailed. It makes absolutely no sense to me that society would have a situation where we protect the rights of an abuser or a husband, take the wife and the children from the home and put them into a shelter because we cannot in any way interfere with the rights of the husband. It makes no sense whatsoever. Why can we not throw him in jail for 90 days or 120 days, for a cooling off period?

Statistics show the vast majority of women are injured or killed as a result of domestic situations. However also in a vast majority of cases neighbours or friends know a disaster is about to happen. If we as fellow citizens, neighbours or relatives know that, why can we not intervene? Why can we not tell the police?

One of the underlying factors in domestic homicide is violence. If people are not getting along the chances of them being shot are greatly enhanced. Therefore it would be a good idea if the police very quietly and very gently said: "We know you are having problems. We do not want them to get worse. We know that you have guns. We want to remove these guns from your home for the protection of society and for the greater good. When the problems abate we will return them".

These laws are on the books right now. It would not require one new law. The police have the right to confiscate weapons if they feel and have good knowledge that there is the possibility of a crime being committed with the weapons.

We need to be cautious when we are promulgating laws that deal with violence in homes, violence in general or violence in society. We have a situation in the country where violence is really endemic in society. In my view we are now trying to put politics ahead of principle. The principle we as a nation should hold dear is that we will not condone or in any way allow violence to become the way to resolve disputes in our society. Whether it is father and son, husband and wife or brother against brother, we are not going to use violence as a means of solving disputes in society.

We all agree on principle. I am sure every member of the House would disagree with the statement of principle that we do not want violence to be the means by which we resolve differences. What happens in a society when we say that some forms of violence or violence directed toward some people is more reprehensible than others? In my view that happens when we start to introduce penalties associated with a defining characteristic of the victim rather than the principle that we should not be doing it. It is almost as though we make allowances for some forms of violence or violence toward some people because they do not happen to fit in to a protected category.

I know this is not the intent of the legislation. I know this is not the intent of the government. However it is the reality of the legislation and the government if not the intent. We have abrogated the principle of evenness and fairness to all and replaced it with the notion that crimes committed against a person of a particular gender or with a particular defining characteristic are more heinous than crimes committed against the norm. That just does not make sense.

It does not speak to the root problem in society, that we tolerate ever increasing levels of violence as a means of resolving disputes. We see that in our grade schools. We see that on television when we turn on the TV. I wonder how many people have ever seen "Power Rangers", the children's program that was banned in many places.

When children grow up watching an ever increasing level of violence that is accepted, tolerated and condoned, is it any wonder that we end up with a society that uses violence to resolve disputes? I am speaking directly to the question of domestic violence, which is the vast majority of violence in our society.

Another form of violence I would like to spend a few minutes speaking to this afternoon is the violence directed toward children. That violence is the passive violence of neglect. In Edmonton there is a home called the Youth Emergency Shelter which is pretty much run by a few professional, very capable staff members and a lot of volunteers. It is pretty much supported by donations. It has a tremendous reputation within the community.

In 1983 in a nine-month period the Youth Emergency Shelter in Edmonton comforted around 200 young people around the ages of 14 to 16. Last year it was 200 and some or about a 15 per cent increase in the number of people helped by the Youth Emergency Shelter. We talked to the people at the shelter and asked them why people came to them and what their success rate was in salvaging young lives.

If we are to use a prophylactic approach to violence in our community, it would make great sense to be far more interventionist in support of agencies like the Youth Emergency Shelter so that children and young people 13 years old, who certainly could not be called children, have a place to which to go and be welcomed without question. They do not have to go to the door, knock on the door and ask to come in because they have done this or that. All they have to do is show up. When they are there they have to abide by the rules. They are welcomed. They are fed. They are given warmth and love. An attempt is made when possible to reunite the young people with their families.

What often happens is that a situation between a parent and a child becomes desperate and reaches a pivotal moment. Words are said and perhaps even blows are exchanged. One thing leads to another and the child leaves the home. Even if it is not the case, many young people feel they just cannot go back, that they are not welcome.

In many cases all that is required is a cooling off period, an opportunity for the young people to give it a second thought and the parents to speak to someone who has had some experience in this regard. As parents we all perhaps think we are inventing every situation as it comes along, but I have learned through my association, limited thought it is, with the Youth Emergency Shelter and my long experience with the youth programs of the Rotary that none of us are going through a unique occurrence. It has always happened to someone else before and many of us are in exactly the same boat.

It requires someone with some skill, some compassion and motivation to be an intervener and to build a bridge between the parents and the children to get the children, where possible, back into the nurturing environment of their homes. As we know that is not always the case. From time to time the only hope for a young person is to get out of an abusive situation.

We could make a tremendous return on our investment in society if we were to ensure that those young people who could not go back to their homes had another place to which they could go where they would feel safe and secure. We could keep them out of jail and perhaps they could become productive members of society.

I have had an opportunity to share in the debate today. I did so recognizing that violence in society directed toward women is something that all of us, men and women, have a role to play in preventing or in some way ameliorating. As well we need to look at the complete and the broader picture of violence as a part of our society, in particular the passive violence of neglect and abuse of children at home.

[Small Businesses Loans Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be rocket surgeon to figure out that if you increase the rate, if you lower the amount that is available, if you make it easier for the banks to roll over their delinquent or their poorer loans, people are going to take advantage of it. The problem is that we are making it easy for the banks to get rich.

Canadian taxpayers now subsidize the Small Businesses Loans Act up to $100 million a year. The government proposes a 1 per cent fee to offset anticipated future losses. However, the industry committee recommended that small business loans guaranteed under the act carry an interest rate commensurate with risk.

What specific safeguards has the minister implemented that will ensure this does not become just one big subsidy program for the banks?

[Small Businesses Loans Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government plans to increase the lending ceiling under the Small Businesses Loans Act to $12 billion. This money is available for fixed assets, not working capital.

The industry committee report "Taking Care of Small Business" identified working capital as the problem, not asset capital. In fact suppliers of funding for asset financing asked that the government not compete with them.

Why did the government not follow the recommendations of its own committee and address the working capital needs of small business particularly exporters, rather than increasing competition with the existing sources of asset capital at significant expense to taxpayers?