House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Petitions May 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from my constituents in the riding of Comox-Alberni. The first contains 114 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as it is presently written, and in any event not include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".
Petitions April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition containing 303 signatures, the petitioners request that Parliament hold a national binding referendum on capital punishment.
Petitions April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
The first petition contains 607 signatures and deals with section 241 of the Criminal Code. Section 241 makes aiding, abetting or counselling a person to commit suicide an indictable
offence. The petitioners request that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide euthanasia.
Indian Affairs April 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe people from B.C. would float into the Indian reserve and take those trees out. Where is the responsibility of the minister? Where is the responsibility of Indian affairs?
Again, why did he allow this to happen on the Indian reserve when it is his responsibility to make sure it does not happen?
Indian Affairs April 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we hear an awful lot from the Liberal government about sustainable development.
I flew to Stoney Reserve last Friday. The sustainable cut on that reserve was 600 truckloads per year. What went out was 14,000 truckloads per year. Twenty-five to thirty years of sustainable wood went out in one year.
Why did the minister of Indian affairs allow this to happen?
Petitions April 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 209 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament immediately extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to the unborn.
Petitions April 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
The first petition contains 97 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation providing for a binding referendum to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.
Forestry March 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, some of us may recall seeing Stumpy, that large cedar tree stump from the Clayoquot in my riding on Vancouver Island, around Parliament Hill last fall.
The Western Canada Wilderness Committee not only took this stump across Canada at taxpayers' expense, but is planning to take it to Berlin next month to discredit, again, the Canadian forest industry.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he act immediately to cancel all funds to this group, which has not only cost taxpayers $754,000 but continues to cost the Canadian economy millions in lost revenue?
Forestry March 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last November I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs why his department was funding environmental groups whose main purpose was to actively discredit B.C. logging practices in North America and in Europe. Since 1990 the Western Canada Wilderness Committee has received over $754,000 from foreign affairs, environment, human resources development, heritage and natural resources.
Does the Prime Minister support providing federal funding to groups whose main purpose is to undermine our number one industry in Canada, forestry?
Firearms Act March 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Reform's amendment to Bill C-68 put forward by my colleague, the member for Yorkton-Melville.
This amendment proposes to split Bill C-68 into two separate bills, one dealing with the criminal aspects of the bill and the other dealing with firearms regulations. These are two entirely separate and unrelated items. It makes sense that these two issues be separated and dealt with as two separate bills for expediency, simplicity and fairness.
Canadians want the opportunity to examine and debate the firearms sections of this bill openly and thoroughly. Canadians also want to see the crime control sections implemented as soon as possible.
Most Canadians will agree with increased crime control provisions but have difficulty with proposals to increase restrictions and control over firearms ownership. There has been a great deal of public discontent over proposed firearms restrictions which means that this bill is going to be subject to intense public scrutiny.
Our proposed amendment to split the bill allows the crime control provisions to go ahead without delay while the debate on gun control regulation continues. I strongly support this motion because it is practical. It allows government to push forward crime control provisions. At the same time it allows reasonable debate and consideration of the controversial proposals regarding gun registration and confiscation.
Although Canadians would prefer to see more crime control than is contained in this bill, the provisions included are clearly required and should go forward without delay to be reviewed in committee. For example, sections of this bill that I agree with call for stiffer sentences and these items should be imposed as soon as possible. Canadians have been waiting too long for mandatory sentencing of criminals who commit crimes using a firearm. This bill proposes mandatory sentencing with terms
ranging from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 14 years to be served consecutively with other sentences.
This bill also contains initiatives to toughen gun smuggling penalties and mandatory jail sentences of at least four years for the criminal misuse of firearms. I wholeheartedly agree with these proposals. However, we must not forget that sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms have been on the books for years, yet remain largely unused. Reformers have been pushing for enforcement of these laws and I am pleased to see some of our efforts realized in the bill. However, the bill still falls short of expectation, as mandatory sentences for criminal neglect causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, kidnapping and other violent crimes still need to be addressed.
Despite sections in the bill that strengthen the punishment of criminals, there are still many concerns with gun registration proposals which must be dealt with separately. An independent examination of gun proposals should not hold back efforts to address and strengthen criminal sentencing. That is one of the fundamental reasons we proposed splitting the bill.
Canadians are concerned that gun registration will be cumbersome, expensive and, most important, will have absolutely no impact on crime prevention. The justice minister proposes to squeeze taxpayers out of more than $500 million but cannot provide a shred of evidence that this expenditure will help control crime.
Gun owners are simply not comfortable with proposals to sentence law-abiding citizens that fail to register their firearms to prison terms of up to 10 years. These proposals are overly severe and when compared with other laws are inconsistent and do not fit the principle that punishment should fit the crime. There appears to be a complete lack of logic and an absence of justice when the bill proposes to make prison sentences for non-violent gun owners as severe as those for convicted murderers. It is nonsense.
I support the increase in penalties for violent offenders. However, I cannot support such a ludicrous and unjust sentence as contained in section 92 of the bill. How can the minister justify sentences of up to 10 years for failing to register a gun when there is no evidence that registering guns will reduce crime?
The bill would have much more support if the government could provide Canadians with some evidence showing results. However, all evidence from New Zealand and Australia shows that registration will not have the desired effect of reducing crime. Both countries tried gun registration but have since abandoned the idea because it was expensive and did nothing to prevent or reduce crime.
Not only are these proposed laws flawed, they are ill-conceived because they cannot be enforced. Police are already overworked and understaffed. Our prisons are full and are operating at 115 per cent of capacity. It costs over $47,000 a year to house a prisoner. Why is the justice minister on a crusade to put law-abiding gun owners behind bars? Talk about a misguided sense of justice.
Government simply cannot enforce these laws without spending millions of dollars on more police, parole officers and prisons, and the cost of enforcement will be of no benefit to Canadians.
Current storage and transportation regulations should not be punishable under provisions of the Criminal Code. It is nuts. The logic and rationale of this section clearly have to be reworked. The minister has openly stated that he believes the only citizens who should be able to carry guns are those in the army and the police. This bill aims to fulfil that goal by penalizing legal gun owners with registration and confiscation.
Bill C-68 clearly confuses two principles: crime control and gun control. These two issues must be separated in order that they can be dealt with clearly and logically. Gun registration affects law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. Criminals, on the other hand, must understand that severe penalties are or will be in place should they decide to defy Canadian law. The focus of the bill should be on the criminal element, not on punishing legitimate gun owners.
In good conscience, I cannot support ineffective legislation which has as its only measurable function a drain on the public purse. Bill C-68 places members in the unenviable position of having to choose between voting against ridiculous and wasteful proposals such as gun registration or voting for proposals to strengthen laws against criminals. As members of Parliament we must ensure that the laws we pass are fair and just and that they punish the criminal use of firearms, not legitimate gun owners.
Canadians are demanding to live in a safe and just environment, one that protects the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens and punishes criminals. This is the vision of Canada that I will support in legislation. The bill as a whole does not support that vision. I will support a bill dealing with Criminal Code amendments but not one that includes such expensive and redundant measures as those contained in the gun registration proposals.
I would like to have an opportunity to vote for the Criminal Code amendments but I simply cannot support the wasteful expenditures contained in the registration proposals. These measures are not a cost effective way of improving public safety. I will vote against the bill if gun registration is included.
Few bills are perfect. Clearly it is difficult to draft a bill that will meet the needs and concerns of all Canadians. Let's get real. As the bill now stands, as one comprehensive, all-encompassing bill, members of Parliament will be forced to vote against the entire bill because they disagree with the expensive and unworkable gun registration section.
The division of intent in Bill C-68 is obvious. The proposed amendment put forward by my colleague to cut the bill into two sections, one dealing with Criminal Code amendments and another dealing with gun registration, makes good sense. Crime control provisions need to be pushed forward right away. However gun control proposals require serious and careful examination.
Considerations of both cost effectiveness and crime control effectiveness need to be primary considerations. These must be clearly established with solid evidence to back up proposals.
In conclusion, if the government is seriously committed to meeting the needs of Canadians, then it will support the amendment. If on the other hand it is determined to ram the bill through as presently drafted against the will of many Canadians, then it will simply pay the price for not listening, the same price the Conservatives paid after the last election. Only time will tell if the Liberals are listening to Canadians.