Lee Morrison

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has been belabouring the Americans again. I do not know what that has to do with our gun debate.

Since he has raised it, I would like to mention the situation where I live in western Canada on the prairie, very close to the U.S. border. We have great cultural similarities and great economic similarities with the people on the other side. We walk back and forth. As a matter of fact, we have more in common with each other than they have with drug dealers in New York or I have with silver spoon lawyers from Toronto.

Is it not interesting that over the last 15 years the homicide rate in the four northern states adjacent to the prairie provinces has been 16 per cent lower than on the Canadian side? It is 3.1 per hundred thousand per year on the Canadian side and 2.7 on the American side. Is that not interesting? Of all the states in the union, these are the four that have the most wide-open gun laws. You can carry anything short of a bazooka down there. But it is not a great big shooting gallery where they run around shooting one another. There is a cultural factor, which this government never takes into consideration, and it should.

I believe the hon. member has a few seconds to respond.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the rest of the Reform speakers will be dividing their time.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my arguments regarding Bill C-68. I would like to begin by reading excerpts from a letter which was read in the House in 1976 during the debate on Bill C-83.

I quote: "The proposal to give bureaucrats the authority to determine who may or may not possess a firearm is an alarming example of the philosophy that "all that is not compulsory must be prohibited". If this measure is to become law, it is not difficult to predict that within a few years firearms in Canada will be restricted to a privileged few and that these arms will all be registered with their serial number. Subsequently it would be easy for a megalomaniac government to seize all rifles under the pretence of emergency measures and therefore secure the submissiveness of the people. If you think that the present government's policy is indeed very moderate and my fears exaggerated and unjustified, or even paranoiac, let me remind you that fascism is like cancer: if they are not restrained from the very beginning, they can completely destroy our system.

"There is no proof that firearm control can effectively reduce the rate of crime except in a totalitarian state. Of course, with a total lack of freedom and with the support of relentless police forces there is not much violent crime".

"But having lived and worked in some of those peaceful paradises I do not hesitate to take the moderate risks and responsibilities involved in living in a free society even if it is armed."

"If my government is not afraid of me, in return I will have no reason to fear that same government. If this moderately repressive measure becomes law, I will start to become alarmed".

I wrote this letter and Réal Caouette, the hon. member for Abitibi, read it. Things have not changed: the Liberals are still proposing repressive laws and I am still defending the rights of individual citizens.

I am, I always have been and I always will be opposed to the registration of firearms used for hunting, searches without warrants, the confiscation of private property without compensation and a minister being invested with the power to issue regulations without the approval of Parliament. A reform government would put an end to all of this; we promise.

Currently, Quebecers in rural areas and in the north-farmers, lumberjacks, trappers, etc.-are not being represented by their MPs.

Liberal, Conservative and Bloc members all refused to support the hundreds of thousands of members of a seven-group coalition from Quebec who are opposed to Bill C-68. Ultimately, the Reform Party decided to represent their interests in Parliament.

Réal Caouette knew that I was not one of his supporters, but he presented my letter here for the same reason that we Reformers are representing the people of rural Quebec. He was a genuine populist and he despised the unnecessary heavy hand of government.

We here are all aware of the threats to civil liberty in clauses 99 to 112 of Bill C-68, even with the feeble conciliatory amendments made in committee. These clauses have been discussed in detail, both in the House and at scores of information meetings and mass rallies throughout the country. And they were at least partly reflected in the recent landslide won by Ontario politicians who came out and strongly opposed Bill C-68.

Instead of further addressing those clauses, I would like to draw the attention of the House to some little-known historical information. I have been studying the weapons laws of pre-war Germany, and they are very closely parallel to existing and proposed laws in Canada. I will read a couple of examples. "Firearms acquisition permits must only be issued to persons of undoubted reliability, and only upon proof of need". Here is another: "Firearms can only be professionally sold or otherwise transferred domestically if they bear the manufacturer's or

dealer's company name or registered trademark and a consecutive manufacturer's serial number".

The legislation also provided for confiscations without legal action and without compensation, for the prohibition of certain types of weapons, and for arbitrary changes in regulations and fees.

In fact, the justice minister could have saved a lot of money by dismissing his high-priced legal help, getting a copy of the Reichtag legislation and running it through a photocopier, except that this document contains no search and seizure provision. Of course, outside of the English-speaking world search warrants are of as little consequence as they are to our Minister of Justice. And the penalties for non-compliance were much lighter than those proposed in Bill C-68. O Canada.

Some friends have suggested to me that I should not talk about these matters because by drawing attention to the recent past I am going to somehow destroy my credibility as an opponent of gun control by being too strident, too extreme. I disagree. After all, I am only the messenger drawing attention to irrefutable historical fact. Anti-gun people, above all others, should not shoot the messenger.

The laws are essentially the same. What I want people here to understand is that governments often chip away at civil liberty little by little by little. A common destination can be reached by many different roads. I am certainly not suggesting that the self-righteous authoritarianism of this government places it on the same level as the Third Reich. In fact I am satisfied that everything the Liberals and Conservatives have done and propose to do regarding guns reflects a sincere belief that gun control will somehow reduce violent crime.

The fact that this is not logical and has not worked anywhere else where it has been tried does not deter them, because they are driven not by logic but by their elitist prejudices. And prejudice is a very weak foundation on which to build the laws of a nation.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

That is the point.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary is already changing the bill. It has not even been passed yet. I wonder if this comes under section 110.

Bring the guns to the door indeed. We know better than that. It is not in the bill and the hon. member should not say things like that.

He talks about the right and privilege question again. I wonder, when did the common law die in North America if what the hon. member says is true. I believe the hon. member is a lawyer. I hope he has read his Blackstone. If he has not, I might refresh his memory.

Blackstone's chronicles state that any Englishman has the right to possess personal weapons. Without those personal weapons, no other rights of Englishmen are effective. They are void. That is very clearly spelled out. It is a long and ancient tradition in the English speaking world.

Now that it has been declared by the Liberal government that firearms, a piece of property, are something we are privileged to own, what other types of property does this government intend to declare a privilege, seditious literature perhaps? Where do we go from here?

The hon. member mentioned the question of veterans and their heirlooms. I do not know how many letters I and other members have received that begin with words: "I carried a gun for my country for three years and now my country does not trust me with a gun. What is happening to my country?" I would like to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments on that. That is a very common observation I have run into. In fact the most vociferous opponents to this legislation or gun control legislation in general actually are the veterans.

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 9th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-7, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 14, on page 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-7, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the following:

"federal bodies will be".

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-7 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-7, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15, on page 4, with the following:

"end of each fiscal year, by the President of the Treasury Board, a report for the year on the application of this Act in respect of all federal bodies."

Mr. Speaker, of these four amendments, the amendment of substance, which required the tabling of the other three, is Motion No. 5, that Bill S-7 be amended by deleting clause 5. The objective is to remove crown corporations from being covered by this bill.

Historically, crown corporations are supposed to act at arm's length from political interference. In recent years they have even in some cases been expected to make money and to run their operations in the same manner as private business. Therefore, although this House can, if it wishes, proceed to pass laws to regulate the operations of federal departments, I suggest that when it starts delving into the minute detail of the operations of a crown corporation it is exceeding its authority. Therefore I have tabled these amendments.

If we are going to talk about what government should and should not do, I would like to elaborate a little more on that. It is not the business of government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. I have received more intense corporate lobbying in favour of this bill than I have ever encountered in the brief year and a half that I have been in this place. Let us be clear about something. I do not have a problem with the practical purposes of this bill. The objectives are fine. The intentions are fine. But we know where the road goes that is paved with these intentions.

The bill is very general in its wording, but it mandates a market specifically for propane and natural gas. There is mention in passing in the bill to ethanol, to hydrogen, to electricity, but let us be realistic, let us be honest: what we are talking about is propane and natural gas. The propane and natural gas companies have been doing the intense lobbying, along with various manufacturers and jobbers who would have a special interest in converting the government fleet.

I do not have any problem with the products of these corporations being used as automotive fuels. Propane and natural gas have a very legitimate place in the energy mix and they have a well-defined applicability for vehicle fleets with high usage rates, especially in urban areas.

In my riding we produce large amounts of both natural gas and liquid petroleum, so I do not believe I can be accused of geographic bias. My objections to this bill are based on technological, economic, and environmental considerations. In other words, I am not lobbying for anyone.

I previously stated that there are certain applications where the use of these alternate fuels makes economic sense. Unfortunately, within the government fleet a very small number of vehicles have a sufficiently high annual fuel consumption or cover a sufficiently high annual distance to make them economically viable for conversion. This has been brought out by one of the government's own studies, the Bronson study, which indicated that only some 10 to 20 per cent of government vehicles are really good candidates for conversion.

However, in this bill the schedule of conversions suggests that by April 1, 1997, 50 per cent of all new vehicle purchases have to be for vehicles with alternate fuel capacity, one year later it is 60 per cent and finally building up to 75 per cent of new vehicle purchases in 1999. Ultimately 75 per cent of all vehicles in the fleet will have to run on some alternate fuel.

An amendment has been presented and passed in committee adding the words "where it is economically feasible". When this was discussed in committee nobody seemed to know exactly what that meant. Frankly, I do not know what it means either because where economically feasible can mean whatever one wants it to mean depending on who is presenting the argument. This muddy bill has been mudified even further with this amendment.

Let us do what we are supposed to do in this House which is to formulate policy. Let us not tell our fleet managers for heaven's sake how to manage their fleets. How nitpicking in detail do we get and for what reason?

I would suggest that the lobbyists who are pressing for this bill want to set a precedent. They want to show that there is an opening for their product. If they cannot sell it in the marketplace or convince people to convert on the basis of sound economics then they say: "Let us have the government mandate a market for us, even if it is just a little tiny one of 39,000 vehicles". If my amendment is accepted, it would be 25,000 vehicles out of some seven million cars and vans. It is not going to make a great deal of difference to them on the spot. However, it sets a precedent of government interference in the normal course of doing business in the fuel industry. That is what I and the Reform Party do not want to see.

I mentioned the environmental aspects. Everything is not black and white on the environmental effects of converting from gasoline or diesel over to natural gas and propane. Some emissions actually are worse with the compressed gas products than they are with gasoline and diesel.

I refer specifically to nitrous oxides. Because of the higher compression ratios of the gas powered vehicles they are produced in considerably higher quantities than they are in gasoline and diesel motors. This has a profound effect on acid rain among other things. Other pollutants such as carbon dioxide are produced in lower quantities than the gaseous fuels. However, it is not entirely black and white.

Therefore, I am stating flatly that these decisions should be left to the experts, the people we pay to operate our motor pools. We as politicians should keep out of it. We are not all mechanics or engineers. Let us let the marketplace decide what will happen here. If the product is good these lobbyists should be out selling it to the people who have to do the buying, not selling it here in Parliament.

I almost hate to admit it but in part of our government we do have some good management, in the RCMP fleet. It has 32 per cent of the vehicles owned by the federal government apart from the crown vehicles. It certainly does not want to be put in a position of being mandated to do a conversion. Can we envisage pursuit cars on the highway powered by propane? The RCMP could change its slogan from "we get our man" to "we sometimes catch him if he does not have a good start".

Propane has its place; natural gas has its place. These places should be decided on the basis of practicality and realism, not on the basis of what some high powered lobbyist wants the government to do.

During first reading there was some comment about ways the government, if it is sincere about wanting to do away with emissions, could solve some of the problems without getting into conversion. I believe my hon. colleague from Macleod suggested the ministers with their big fat limousines could have their chauffeurs turn the motors off once in a while in winter when they are parked out front.

Maybe they could even go to smaller vehicles. I would like to see all the ministers put in very small cars. If the government really wants to cut down on the emission of noxious gases in the precincts of government it could drive the whole bunch of them into the Ottawa River. That would be a good form of closure.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary is using a prop.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1995]

Four hundred and five.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, June 9th, 1995]

Federal?

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, do I have to provide my own hecklers? I know there are not many people on the other side.

The rules of the House do not permit me to name the individuals who will be the top troughers in the new scheme as it is being developed. However, I can read the names of their ridings and the total sums to which each of them will be entitled, and I use the word entitled very loosely.

If the hon. member for Sherbrooke lives to the age of 75, he will receive $4.25 million courtesy of the taxpayer. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte will receive $3.86 million. The hon. member for Hamilton East will receive $2.8 million. The hon. member for York South-Weston will receive $2.75 million. The list goes on and on.

No other class of Canadians has a deal like that; no corporate employee, no self-employed person, no farmer. Who on earth aside from our new aristocracy could ever hope to take home a paycheque like that?

One of the major sources of my case work is disabled veterans, pensioners in this, the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. I am dealing with one constituent now who participated in poison gas experiments at the Suffield, Alberta base. He is now paying the price of that in ruined health. He has a lot of problems. His doctor says there is no question that can be traced to the poison gas experiments. He and his wife draw the magnificent sum of $102 a month for his partial disability-shame, shame, shame.

Hon. members opposite say that for their little bits of service here they are entitled to millions of dollars at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. I am disgusted to the point of regurgitation.

Surely people who pretend they are competent to run a country should be competent to arrange for their own retirement. They make a reasonable salary, as do we. Some of that could be invested to their own benefit. They do not have to take $4 from the public purse for every $1 they put in.

Reformers have put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. We are opting out of this plan. It will cost the hon. member for Beaver River, a school teacher and by no means a wealthy woman, $1.8 million which she would have received if she had agreed to stay in the trough with the hogs.

I opted out of the pension plan the day I signed up with pay and services. I gave a written statement to the effect that I did not want and would not accept it because I felt the old plan was unconscionable. The new plan, the new i

Why are we here? Did we come here to benefit ourselves? I used to live in the Philippines. I remember a famous remark by one of the senators there when he was tweaked for having his hand a little too deep in the cookie jar. He said what are we in power for if not to enrich ourselves. He must have been a Liberal.

Old line politicians maintain perks are necessary to attract good members. What it has attracted is a bunch of professional politicians, people who have systematically over the last 30 years bankrupt the country and now are expecting a massive payout for their services-some reward.

I hope when the bill goes to the other place there will be some sober second thought, although I do not expect it. Some sober second thought could even have helped here; it could have been killed in committee. Committee was not even allowed to handle it properly. It was whisked through committee with indecent haste. No one had a chance to make serious amendments or to work on it at the time. We will make some amendments in the House, to what purpose I do not know. We know what will happen here, the cabinet has decided. The whip will be lashed and everything will happen according to plan and all the Liberals will go home happy and fat with their suitcases full of money.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that the Liberal Party, having decided that Parliament is irrelevant and that parliamentary debate is of no particular value to our society, is also working on a project to redesign the Canadian coat of arms. It will remove the lion and the unicorn and replace them with two fat pigs which will illustrate the triumph of greed over rationality in this country.

This country did not have an aristocracy. People came to Canada to get away from the aristocracies in the old world. However, we have willy-nilly created our own right here in Canada, the political elite, the professional politicians. This is the aristocracy we have voluntarily burdened ourselves with. It is a shame and a scandal.

The hon. Marie Antoinette, the president of the treasury board, tells us that this is the normal thing. This is Canada. This is the future for Canada. There will be this little group of very special people, many of whom have never had a real job in their lives, who somehow or other got elected to Parliament. When they leave this place, through their own machinations they will be allowed to carry away a suitcase full of money. This is wrong. Several hon. members opposite have engaged in the most convoluted rationalizations I have ever heard to justify this massive dip into the public trough.