Harold Culbert

[Carleton Civic Centre, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of Thursday, March 16, 1995 the Carleton Civic Centre will officially open its doors in Woodstock, New Brunswick. It is a wonderful new facility that will be enjoyed by the area's citizens for many years to come.

While this is wonderful news, the even more important component has been the method in which the goal of completing this facility has been realized. It is important to note that the completion of this project was achieved through true partnership. This partnership included groups, organizations, businesses, individuals, surrounding communities, as well as all three levels of government.

I congratulate the Carleton Civic Centre committee and all those who contributed to the success of this most worthy project.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. To be honest, it was an excellent one. Like he I expected my phone to be ringing on the budget. However I can honestly say it did not happen.

Last week we had an opportunity to be back in our constituencies. On Monday I had did an electronic town hall meeting specifically on the budget. The headline in the newspaper the next day was: "First attempt on an electronic town hall meeting" because we had done all the others personally "went very smoothly". There were many questions. Every person in the television studio was very positive about what the government had done in the budget and how it was done fairly and equitably right across Canada for all Canadians.

It was quite different from a radio interview I did on Friday morning. It was supposed to be on the budget. When I arrived at the radio station it was on Bill C-68 or gun control and I was facing a lawyer sitting there debating it from another perspective.

It showed the amount of negative concern there was toward the budget. I found out from my constituents exactly what the hon. member mentioned he heard from his constituents. It was accepted. It was supported. It was tough. It was fair but it was equitable.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should agree with the hon. member across the way in his question. He is quite right. Although we take pride in the fact that we must get our debt and deficit under control, we are not the first government that has set goals for bringing it under control. We certainly will be the first government in this century that will meet those goals. The Minister of Finance has made that commitment. The Prime Minister has made that commitment and the House has made that commitment.

Research and development is a priority of this government. It has been stated time and again. The government also believes private enterprise and commercialization can do, as proven in the past, the best job out there in business. Whether in research

and development or small business or industry, they can do it much better than any government level can.

This government is supporting that. It is supporting a partnership with private business and industry. We will continue that support in the future.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance has tabled the budget Canadians asked for, a budget that is tough but fair, that will allow us to gain control of our deficit, one that has been growing out of control for decades.

We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. Our government has looked to the future. It could be one in which Canadians are told which services they can and cannot afford by foreign creditors or it can be a future in which Canadians decide their priorities and watch them flourish. The government and the majority of Canadians have chosen the latter.

Our government has taken the necessary measures to ensure Canada's future will be bright and prosperous. Tough decisions had to be made and they were. Our government has produced a plan that is viable and attainable.

I would like to quote from the red book which is often used by opposition parties. Where our policy on Canada's fiscal situation was first outlined it says a Liberal government will adopt a two track fiscal policy, matching a drive for jobs and growth with a comprehensive approach to controlling debt and deficits. That is on page 16.

This is exactly what has been done, from our government's agenda of jobs and growth to the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

In producing this budget the minister has taken the time to solicit views of Canadians and all members of Parliament and has reacted to their concerns in delivering a budget that re-established its goal to meet the financial commitments and obligations, the same commitments made during the election campaign and reinforced during the 1994 budget.

The plan outlined by the hon. Minister of Finance will break the back of the deficit and enable us to reach our goal of 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 1997.

Projections indicate that our goal will be exceeded this current fiscal year when the deficit is expected to fall as low as $38 billion, $1.7 billion below our target of $39.7 billion for the end of the fiscal year.

As I listened to the Minister of Finance deliver his budget I realized that it reflected the message impressed upon me by constituents in Carleton-Charlotte. It was the same message impressed upon MPs across the country, including the Minister of Finance.

Canadians want to get their debt under control. They want to achieve this through cuts in government spending. The government has heard this message loud and clear. For that reason we have committed to cutting $7 in expenditures for every $1 in increased revenues.

To ensure fairness in the tax system, the government has closed a number of loopholes that benefit large corporations and banks and has avoided increasing the burden on individual and middle class Canadians and their families by refusing to increase personal income tax.

In 1994 a department by department review of all government programs was initiated in which every expenditure in each department was reviewed. As promised, the results of that review were announced in this year's budget.

The government has redefined its own role to ensure that departments focus on the priorities of Canadians. The new government operations will be smaller but more effective and more efficient.

This government has had the foresight to realise that small and medium size businesses are the future of growth in Canada. For this reason the $500,000 capital gains exemption has been maintained for small business and for farmers. Similarly, only minor changes were made to registered retirement savings plan contributions which benefit many working in this sector.

Government spending has been cut dramatically but in a way consistent with the values of Canadians, protecting the most vulnerable in society and cutting government first.

As I mentioned earlier, the budget also promotes the government's agenda for jobs and growth. In 1994 well over 400,000 new jobs were created, most of which were full time, permanent jobs. The economy grew at 4.5 per cent, the largest economic growth of all the G-7 countries. This type of growth will continue to flourish in 1995 as a result of the measures taken in the budget.

I quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 2:

The boom is back. And, at least temporarily, without inflation. The economy, fuelled by exports and consumer and business spending, steamed ahead at a robust 4.5 per cent pace last year, Statistics Canada said Wednesday.

And growth in the final quarter of 1994 was at a torrid annual rate of 5.9 per cent, the agency said in its latest report card on the economy, which suggests there is more growth to come, the analysts said.

The following quote was also published in the same issue:

The Wall Street Journal , one of the coolest critics of Canada's economic policies, has been warmed a few degrees by the new budget. The influential business newspaper said in an editorial Wednesday that the finance minister's budget ought to be an inspiration to other countries struggling with overextended governments.

The minister has obviously listened to Canadians from Carleton-Charlotte and from across Canada and delivered a budget they wanted; a budget that is tough but fair and will be implemented equitably.

We can now look forward certainly to a better tomorrow for all Canadians in the future as a result of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in the House.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity to comment on Bill C-68, the firearms act, on behalf of my constituents in Carleton-Charlotte.

Carleton-Charlotte, located in New Brunswick, is over 200 miles long. A good portion of it lies along the 49th parallel bordering on the state of Maine. It consists of all of Carleton county, all of Charlotte county, a sizeable portion of York county and a portion of Sunbury county. The economy of these regions is extremely diverse. It is based on agriculture and food processing, forestry and pulp and paper mills, the traditional fishery, aquaculture and fish packaging, manufacturing, tourism and the service industries.

As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are not large urban centres but rather rural areas built around service to the citizens. The towns and the villages have developed over the centuries to provide these services to surrounding rural areas. Hunting and pleasure fishing have been a way of life for the citizens of Carleton-Charlotte since the area was settled in the mid to late 1700s.

Hunting still plays a very important economic role in the region for outfitters, service industries and guides. Almost every farmer and many rural residents own firearms, not only for hunting or sport but also for the protection of their livestock from predators.

Over the past few months I have held several meetings, some large and some small, regarding the firearms proposals which are now in Bill C-68. There has been complete support throughout Carleton-Charlotte for stiffer penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime, including the minister's proposal for a four-year mandatory prison sentence for the use of a firearm in 10 specific violent crimes. Also the initiative for stiffer penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms as well as stricter border controls on firearms is most commendable.

The section dealing with the prohibition of various types of assault weapons is also fully supported. However the 105 millimetre or 4.14 inch or under barrel length handgun ban has been questioned. It has been suggested that the full length of the handgun could have been emphasized instead of the barrel length only.

My constituents appreciate the fact that the minister has requested the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to determine which handguns in the prohibited class could be exempted due to their use in recognized shooting competitions.

To say that they have major concerns with the universal registration system for legal hunting rifles and shotguns would be stating it mildly. Those who have commented to me on this subject rejected this section vehemently. As indicated, I have hosted meetings which were well attended and smaller meetings where I was able to speak candidly with individuals. In all cases the registration system is the portion of Bill C-68 which elicits the most serious concern and the strongest objection.

The general consensus indicates that the proposed universal registration system, which will include the owner's legal hunting rifles and shotguns, will be hard to administer and extremely difficult and expensive to enforce.

Many of my constituents believe that this system will make criminals out of innocent, law-abiding citizens who either do not register their legal rifles or shotguns or those who are unaware of the necessity to do so. These citizens are responsi-

ble, respectable people who enjoy hunting as a sport. They value their rifles and shotguns and take great care to secure them.

However these responsible people could, through no fault of their own, be charged with a criminal act; for example, a person who is unaware that a rifle or shotgun is stored in an attic and does not know that they are required to register it. For many years now handguns have required registration. This is not new for handgun owners.

Currently an FAC, or a firearms acquisition certificate, must be obtained prior to purchasing any new firearm. It has been suggested that the FAC system be upgraded to include full registration for new firearms, instead of trying to initiate a universal registration system for all firearms. As I understand it, a thorough check is required and the name of the applicant, the description and the serial number of the firearm is kept on record at the retail outlet but not forwarded on to a central registration centre. I believe that it would be very useful for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to review this possibility in an attempt to streamline the registration system.

Other alternatives were also suggested, including a program which would include issuing an owner's certificate only to ensure that the holder is a qualified and legitimate owner.

Another point was that although one person may own all of the legal hunting rifles and shotguns in a family, the individual's spouse, sons and daughters, who would use the firearms for hunting purposes, would have to purchase individual firearms licences at $60 every five years. This happens in many cases where the entire family enjoys hunting. I would suggest that the standing committee review the possibility of a family package for these cases.

Finally, hunting plays a very important role in the economy of my constituency and throughout New Brunswick. Many outfitters have benefited from and created employment for others through this tradition. We must ensure that the system adopted is fair and equitable for the responsible firearm owner. We must protect this important aspect of our economy. These assurances can only be provided by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, through its review of Bill C-68, by bringing forwarded the appropriate changes.

I would be pleased to assist the committee in any way possible to ensure that we have fair legislation which will be supported and will achieve the goals for which it was intended, to make our communities and our streets safe for my family, for your family and for all Canadians.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by some 144 constituents of Carleton-Charlotte from the Nackawic, Temperancevale, Millville, Prince William and Dumffries areas.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to request that the government disallow the defence of extreme intoxication as used recently in the courts and amend the Criminal Code accordingly.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been duly authorized by the clerk of petitions and has signatures on it from my constituency in the Woodstock and Hartland area.

Those signing are petitioning Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human life.

[Transportation, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a safe and efficient transportation system is extremely important to all Canadians regardless of the mode of travel.

A proper transportation system will allow our citizens to travel safely and efficiently while providing the tools to enable our goods to reach our various markets.

As our markets become increasingly global, we will depend more and more on transportation systems to stay competitive both in price and delivery. In Atlantic Canada particularly we need a modern highway system that is both safe and efficient in order to compete in the North American market.

I encourage the hon. Minister of Transport and our government to continue to work with the provincial transport ministers to develop a transportation policy that will meet the needs of Canadians today and for the future.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tabled the government's budget yesterday. This budget, along with the one tabled in 1994, established the challenge and goal of the government: to bring the deficit and debt under control.

Canadians have requested and supported a combination of cuts in government spending and the continuation of our agenda of jobs and growth: growth that has led the G-7 countries over the past year and growth that will continue as a result of this strong budget.

The measures taken in the budget ensure we will reach our deficit target of 3 per cent of gross domestic product that was outlined last year.

The minister has produced a fair and equitable budget to provide social programs for Canadians' needs and the spending reductions they require.

Congratulations to the Minister of Finance for his dedication to controlling the deficit and debt and building the confidence of all Canadians.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation of my hon. colleague with a great deal of interest as he discussed Bill C-37.

One of the points that we should recall in that bill quite obviously is the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are moved over to adult court and there is only one way as I understand that piece of legislation for them to even be considered in youth court. They must prove for some reason beyond a doubt and must have

that evidence agreed to by the judge that they would be considered for youth court.

That would happen in very limited situations with extenuating circumstances. As we know also basically this new legislation would double sentences.

Further, I would like to touch on a presentation that I recently had the opportunity to attend by Dr. Fraser Mustard. The presentation indicated the research that he had done over many years. While many in this House would recognize that a few short years ago when we looked at early intervention with children we thought of kindergarten age. Today according to Dr. Mustard we are looking at a much young age. We are looking at an age as low as six months for proper nutrition, for nurturing and for assistance.

My question for my hon. colleague would be formed in this fashion. Does he not believe that community assistance and community help in addition to those changes in Bill C-37 to make penalties stiffer is certainly something that we all have to work for in order to prevent those crimes from happening and the necessity to punish our youth in the future?