Daphne Jennings

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-68. I hope the Minister of Justice is listening to the constructive suggestions which have been advanced in this debate. My colleagues on this side of the House have put forward ideas and suggestions which would make parts of this bill much better. However, we strongly oppose one part of the bill.

Today I want to address mainly the part on a national firearms registration system. I hope when we get into final debate on it that those on the government side who oppose the clauses that establish the regime of gun registration will stand with us to defeat those sections. If this were to happen it would be a great day for freedom in this Parliament and a great day for individual freedom in all parts of Canada.

I have spent most of my adult life in the teaching profession. One thing about teaching is that in order to explain something to others, it is essential to understand it yourself. For me, that means getting back to basics.

Therefore when I analyse legislation I ask myself: What is the problem the legislation is attempting to address or to cure? Once I am able to discern what the problem is, then I can go through the legislation clause by clause to see if the problem is being addressed correctly. This methodology seems to work most of the time. When it does not work, it usually is because I see the problem as advanced by the government in different terms than the government does and then can address it quite differently.

In splitting the bill, crime control I agree is what we need. When I look at Bill C-68 I am puzzled as to what exactly it is that the minister is trying to get at. What harm is he trying to cure? If we take the legislation as a whole there are stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes, anti-gun smuggling deterrents and then a gun registration system for rifles and shotguns. This for me is the meat of the bill.

If the harm or the problem is too many offences being committed with guns, then the first two parts of the legislation, stiffer penalties and anti-smuggling, make sense. I can see some room to make them better but I basically agree. But what about the registration system which this legislation imposes? What is that aimed at? Here again I must support splitting the bill.

Every time I review the remarks of the justice minister when he is trying to justify the system I wonder how he can relate one to the other. He tells us there are pretty scary statistics out there dealing with the use of guns. Every six days a woman is murdered by someone using a gun. Over 1,000 suicides per year are the result of gun usage.

After reciting these statistics we are always told these are the reasons we need gun control. but we are never told two things. First, how will the registration of rifles and shotguns reduce these numbers? Second, what percentage of these acts take place with guns that through this legislation would be required to be registered? Again, I must stress crime control and a national gun registration do not relate.

The justice minister knows very well that the registration system will not reduce the number of murders or suicides by firearms one bit. What he should know is that Canada is a large and diverse country, a country which in many ways starts at the borders of metropolitan Toronto. This country is not metropolitan Toronto.

The justice minister should read the legislation that is presently in place in relation to gun control. He will find that present laws in Canada are among the toughest in the world with respect to firearms. Here is what you have to do if you want to own a firearm in Canada:

Take an optional federal course and mandatory test to qualify for a firearms acquisition certificate. Submit to a thorough police examination of your social history, employment and psychological history when you apply for your FAC. Go through an interview process with police and provide solid references. Wait a mandatory 28 days before your FAC is approved and issued with a photograph.

If you want to hunt you must take a separate mandatory hunting course which also covers firearms handling and safety. Submit to another provincial written and practical test on firearms handling. Abide by strict federal laws that govern dozens of firearms handling and safety situations. They include: storing firearms and ammunition separately and under lock and key; rigid transportation standards; and tough guidelines for using firearms.

These rules are important but their effect has not yet ever been analysed. This was pointed out in the Auditor General's report of 1993. I believe the minister should wait to see how effective the controls put in place as recently as 1991 have been before he embarks on increased controls.

This registration system has many drawbacks and it is important that they be set out and discussed. It is expensive. The lowest estimate for its development and implementation is in the range of $80 million to $90 million. Oh yes, we are told that this money will be recovered from the gun owners who are required to register and we are also told the cost of registration will be quite reasonable to encourage those with guns to register. Which is it, Mr. Minister?

We are told one of the great pluses for this legislation is that it helps police. When they are answering a call at a dwelling place they will know whether there are firearms on site. We are told this will aid police and make it safer. Are we to conclude from this that the police will now enter homes where guns have been registered with their own guns drawn anticipating a gun battle? This will make our lives safer or the homes of our law-abiding citizens safer? I do not think so.

However, all these criticisms of the registration system pale into insignificance when one considers the potential for computer crime as it relates to the registry. This area is so serious, of proportions of such magnitude that we must look at it.

Weekly we are informed of some computer whiz-kid who has broken the code to allow access to highly classified material, government controlled or otherwise. Just a few weeks ago the police in Toronto uncovered a fake credit card ring. One reason given for the success of the criminal venture until it was closed down was the access to corporate computers which the alleged criminals had acquired.

We were told in the summer that authorities in the western world could not stop or prevent computers from being accessed by the criminal element. We are told that the police around the world sometimes do not even have the information as fast as the criminals do. We are very foolish if we think they will not access this information. Now we are going to establish a computer based program which will show the location of every firearm registered in Canada. What a gold mine for criminals and organized crime.

Break the code for this registration system and this will be the home shopping channel for criminals. Imagine establishing a system whereby the location of virtually every gun in Canada is

shown. Is there anything else we can do to make it easier for those who wish to steal guns?

What of the innocent people who register their guns? Are they sitting ducks-no pun intended-for criminals who break the code and enter the gun registration system? Why would we create such a monster if it is not going to do any good, if it is not going to reduce the number of crimes of violence, murders, attempted murders or suicides?

Create the shop at home channel for guns, rifles and shotguns. I do not think so. However, I am certain there is a part of our population that would not object if Rogers Cablevision carried this channel.

There are good parts in this bill which should be studied in committee and perhaps even made stronger. This is a very good reason to split Bill C-68.

First, I agree there should be a separate criminal offence for committing or attempting to commit a crime with a gun. The problem with it is as proposed is that it may very well be bargained away as part of a plea bargain for a guilty plea for some other charge.

Members of the justice committee should take a hard look at this. They should try to determine whether they can legislate that the offence not be subject to a plea bargain or find some other solution. A clear message must be sent to the criminal community in Canada that if criminals carry guns and commit crimes, they will be punished for the crime and for carrying the weapon.

I am also supportive of those parts of the bill which would attack the problem of gun smuggling in Canada. We live next to, arguably, one of the most violent nations on the face of the earth. It is vitally important that those who patrol our borders be given real powers to deal with those who would import guns illegally into Canada.

Again, this is something the justice committee should look at in detail. Should the people who patrol our borders be given powers to be more than revenue collectors? Should the provincial police or RCMP in particular provinces be required to maintain a presence at the borders? A true police presence at our borders would, to my way of thinking, reduce smuggling. I am not saying we should arm our customs agents, but they should be backed up by trained police.

There are other matters which must be looked at in this legislation, for example the position of those who wish to will their gun collections as part of their estate. I believe we should facilitate this. The requirement for those entering Canada to take part in marksmanship contests to obtain a temporary certificate should be looked at to see if it is realistic and workable.

Most of all, I urge members opposite, members from outside metropolitan Toronto as well as inside, to look at Canada and see it for what it is, a vast country where hunting and other outdoor activities are both a way of life to some and a recreation to others.

The registration system proposed in this bill as it sits will not accomplish the goal set for it. Therefore, when it comes time to vote for this bill, or that part on gun registration during clause by clause analysis, vote down those clauses that pertain to the registration system.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I present even more petitions on behalf of Canadian grandchildren to be able to see, talk with and visit their grandparents.

The petitioners ask that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision to help recognize children's access to their grandparents.

[Petitions, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present petitions today on behalf of my constituents asking that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718 as presently written, especially not to include the phrase of sexual orientation.

[Vision Awareness Week, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, next week is Vision Awareness Week in Canada. It is an annual public awareness campaign sponsored by Canadian optometrists. This year's theme is "Hope is in sight. Good vision and literacy: There is a clear connection".

Can you imagine if all of us who wear glasses went without them for a day or even half a day? That would put us in the position of those I am addressing today.

Many Canadians cannot read well because they cannot see well. Children will not learn to read if they cannot focus on the chalkboard or on the words in a book. One in six children has a vision problem.

Not all vision problems are easy to detect, therefore the earlier problems are detected and corrected, the better. Prevention is the key. The fact is that three-quarters of adults with poor literacy skills also have problems with their vision.

As literacy critic for the Reform Party, I join Canada's 2,800 optometrists in reminding Canadians that good vision is necessary to become a good reader.

[Immigration, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister that I have been in constant contact with his office on the matter as well as with the Solicitor General's office. I also stress that I am assured Bill C-44 will do nothing to help this case at all.

I thank the minister for his response. I assure him that today this young woman and her family are listening to and watching these proceedings. Would the minister please notify me as soon as a decision is made?

[Immigration, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on September 24 of last year in my constituency, Catherine Evenson, a beautiful young lady who was confined to a wheelchair, was raped in her home. The man facing rape charges is a refugee and is now trying to cement his stay in Canada by applying for permanent resident status.

Will the minister of immigration intervene in this case and ensure that no permanent status in Canada is considered until the case is heard and the verdict is handed down?

[Deposit Insurance, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I monitored the work of the Senate committee which studied deposit insurance in the collapse of Confederation Life.

In commenting on the white paper tabled on February 9 by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, I

believe the secretary of state missed a great opportunity by not recommending some minor form of co-insurance in relation to deposit insurance.

It is vital that discipline be brought to Canada's financial institutions, but discipline must start with the consumer. If the minister had seized this opportunity, then discipline would begin with the consumer and flow through to the institution itself.

In relation to the changes suggested for life insurance companies I hope those who comment on this paper will ask this fundamental question: If the changes suggested were in place in 1990 would Confederation Life have gone bankrupt? It is against this question that the success or failure of these recommendations must be measured.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would not have thought it necessary to have this debate today. After the October 1993 election I thought the message would have sunk into whichever party formed the government.

Canadians want decisive spending cuts, no net increases in taxes and a smaller, less interfering central government. What has happened? Since taking office the Liberal government immediately inflated the size of the deficit so when it was seemingly reduced it could pat itself on the back, saying job well done.

By doing this Liberals avoided tough decisions. Then we had the costly cancellation of the helicopter EH-101 purchase. Long term, high tech jobs were lost and millions paid in cancellation fees. The Pearson airport contract was cancelled. An airport desperately in need of refurbishing is allowed to decay while the

Liberal government fights it out with developers over the costs of cancellation. Again, jobs are lost and taxpayers' money is to be paid out with no gain whatsoever.

The infrastructure program begins. Billions of dollars borrowed for infrastructure programs by communities that needed jobs but not increased debt. We know that in a healthy economy it is the business sector that creates jobs, real jobs, and not the government through temporary government programs. As the unemployment figures released last week indicate, the jobs are not there anymore but the debt surely is and will be for years to come.

Then in the 1994 budget it is handed down, the great wait until next time budget. Canadians sat in anxious anticipation, hoping at last a Liberal government would make tough decisions. Who were they kidding? The joke was on the people of Canada. The government they elected, this Liberal government, let them down. Spending programs abound in last year's government's budget.

It is hard to imagine a government elected to make tough decisions using the old phrase that losing sports teams use, wait until next year. This is next year and there is still no sign of any willingness to take tough decisions. The government had a chance but really side stepped it.

Canada was going to go through the most massive restructuring of the social welfare system since it was put in place. Studies began. The minister of human resources made grand announcements. Policy and discussion booklets were produced. Two sets of committee hearings were held. This committee of the House of Commons travelled across the country in both sets of hearings.

Four million was given to 159 special interest groups. The people we should have heard from are regular, hard working Canadians who regularly pay their taxes and receive no special grants or privileges. However we heard from special interest groups to ensure that the committee heard testimony. And to what avail?

The minister of human resources announced that the government will have to deal with its budgetary problems before it will be able to get on with reforms. To paraphrase and perhaps combine a couple of old expressions, when the government's fiscal chickens came home to roost, they could not because the field was too full of social welfare sacred cows.

The Liberals side stepped yet another decision to revamp and reshape our social system. It is hard to believe a government so early in its mandate would admit to be fresh out of new ideas.

No one in Canada who has studied our social welfare system believes it needs more money thrown at it. If the government was not going to do anything, why did it spend all the money studying reform? How much did this exercise cost: $10 million, $20 million? Who knows, who cares? Obviously no one on the government side.

We in the Reform Party care deeply. We care about the country and we care about its people. As elected members to this House we realize we owe the people of Canada a duty, a duty not just to criticize but to present alternatives. We believe that the country's financial situation must be addressed in a positive way before the next election.

As a policy the Reform Party believes the solution to our deficit problem must be found on the expenditure side rather than on the revenue side. Presently the government has more than sufficient tax income.

Canadians expect to pay taxes. Canadians expect the government to spend our tax dollars wisely. When the government mismanages our tax dollars as governments have been doing since the 1960s, Canadians get angry. We cannot blame our fellow Canadians for not wanting their hard earned tax dollars to be wasted on grants, unnecessary byelections, make work programs and government to government international aid, among other things.

I recently heard a suggestion that the Liberals might bring in temporary tax increases. Let us not forget another temporary tax measure which was introduced many years ago. It is still with us today. It is called income tax. This tax takes the biggest bite out of our incomes. But it is not the GST, income tax or any other tax that is the problem. It is mismanagement. The problem is mismanagement of our tax dollars.

As Reformers are saying, Canadians fear that the Liberal budget will be the worst of all worlds: spending cuts that are insufficient to lead to a balanced budget and solve the problem, combined with tax increases that reduce disposable income and kill jobs.

As Reformers have said in the past, we believe the first change should come with reform of the MP pension plan. We are not talking about MPs' salaries, which from what I have seen since I have been in Ottawa indicates that MPs work very hard to earn their salaries. Cuts must also come in the institutions of government; the office of the Governor General, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's office.

We must look at excessive travel of senior officials and urge the government to reduce the number of ministers of state and associate ministers. Cut down the size of government. The Reform plan in the end is to have a smaller, less intrusive and more efficient federal government.

We can include the electoral boundaries reform. Cut spending. We do not need 295 MPs in the House of Commons or 300 plus, as the government is suggesting. Each MP costs Canadian taxpayers about $1 million. The country to the south of us has 270 million people to our 27 million. They have approximately 437 in government to our 295. Last week in Washington I met

with American congressmen, congresswomen and constituents who told me their representation was very effective.

Reform is on record for looking at federal funding to multiculturalism and the official languages program. These are just some of the examples where Reform would cut.

We must protect law enforcement, health, education and our environment. We believe we must bring forward alternatives so Canadians can see there is another way other than the Liberal way. We see a need for a fresh, new vision of social policy in the next century, forwarded on the belief that the best guarantee governments can provide of individual personal security is to establish a framework of laws within which individuals can save for or insure against each of the contingencies that life may bring upon them.

We believe in five guiding principles to support our vision of the future. First, build on the Canadian tradition of self-reliance, recognizing the family as the primary caregiver in society.

Second, empower communities and charitable organizations to play an ever increasing rather than a diminishing role in social security.

Third, provide temporary assistance to people who experience short term misfortune while ensuring that long term assistance is reserved for those who are generally incapable of providing for themselves.

Fourth, where government must be involved in social service delivery, entrust the resources and the responsibility to that level of government which is closest to the people.

Fifth, ensure that we can pay for security measures without borrowing more money.

We believe that security must be provided against these types of problems. The first class of security need is for protection against personal catastrophes, such as a medical emergency or the death of a family's chief income earner.

The second class of security need consists of needs that will arise reasonably far into the future but which are predictable. Most people will have such needs at some point in the future. One cannot insure against them but one can prepare for them. Typical needs in this class are post-secondary education, non-catastrophic health care, retirement income and periodic unemployment.

The final class of security need is for intermediate help for those who have not been able to provide for themselves. This is the proper function of charity or, in the absence of it, government transfers.

This is not the cruel and heartless vision of social reform that is attributed to us by the media. It is a system designed to deliver a sufficient level of income to ensure that nobody lives in poverty. Public assistance is to be directed at those who for reasons of physical disability or advanced age are incapable of providing for themselves. At the other end of the scale no one with enough to pay taxes would receive assistance and those who receive assistance would pay no tax.

We must begin to rely on ourselves. We must rely on our families. We can no longer ask the government to provide personal security from the cradle to the grave.

These are some of the ways in which we can achieve a government which is smaller but more effective; spending cuts which eliminate programs that are no longer useful but retain our much needed health care system and our criminal justice system.

I hope the government is listening and will adopt these measures in its upcoming budget.

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in

support of Bill C-224, a private member's bill presented by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

I hope the journalists who cover the proceedings of the House of Commons note that we as members are not always at each other's throats. If the public only watches Question Period and if Question Period is the only parliamentary proceeding that hits the nightly news, a wrong impression of how this House operates can and I submit has developed in the minds of Canadians.

There have been numerous occasions in this Parliament setting it apart from the previous Parliament when members have agreed on the disposition of various subjects. When a good idea is presented it deserves support. This is the view of how the House of Commons should work which my party has tried to get across since all members convened here a little more than a year ago.

While we have not always been successful, politics by its very nature being partisan, I believe we have on many occasions raised the level of debate in the Chamber through mutual co-operation on a number of issues.

The private member's bill presented by my friend from Hamilton-Wentworth deals with an important issue in a way which deserves our support.

This bill proposes that charitable and non-profit organizations that receive public funds be required to declare the remuneration received by their directors and senior officers.

In supporting this bill I want to make it crystal clear that the Reform Party for the most part supports the work of charitable and non-profit organizations in Canada. The Reform Party supports the work of the voluntary sector in Canada. I would like to point out along with the previous speaker of the Bloc that I too thank all of the volunteers across Canada, many of whom give many hours and are not always thanked as they should be.

We recognize the need for volunteers in many organizations and we respect the right of these organizations to exist and to carry out their functions.

However, what we are against, and this is the reason we support this bill, is these organizations not being accountable. If these organizations receive taxpayers' dollars then every penny of every dollar received should be accounted for.

I do not think it will come as a great surprise to many that Reform policy goes further than this bill. It is the policy of my party that no funds should be given by the government to any charitable or non-profit organization. It should be the responsibility of the organization to fund itself. If there is a need or a perceived reason for the existence of an organization then it should be able to sustain itself without the need for government handouts.

I also want to point out here that in my riding over the last year I have been donating 10 per cent of my salary, not because I think MPs are not paid enough or are paid too much, but because I think it was an opportunity for me to show people within my riding that if we are interested in a particular community project or a service group or a food bank then we can show others that it is up to us in the community to support those things.

Reflecting back on the last 15 years it seems to me that with the advent of the charter of rights and freedoms Canada gradually has become a society dominated by special interest groups, each group advocating what it deems to be a worthwhile cause. We all know to each of us the things we are involved in seem more worthwhile than what someone else is doing and it is an understandable feeling.

More often than not these groups receive seed money from some level of government. Because the federal government historically has the most money to give out, most of these organizations end up receiving some handout from the federal treasury.

The problem with this procedure is that the dependence on government grants begins and carries on. It becomes difficult for the organization to function without federal money. For political reasons it becomes difficult for a government, any government, to eliminate that funding.

It is the opinion of my party and it is my personal opinion as well that we can no longer afford to fund these organizations either totally or partially. If there is a good reason for the existence of the organization there should be a good reason for people to support it financially. However as long as these grants continue it is the least we as legislators can do to ensure that there is accountability.

It is shocking to think that not for profit organizations are not required to disclose individual salaries. While I am not condemning any of these organizations, surely the public should know if the reason there is no profit is because a great deal of the money received was spent on salaries or spent on programs. There should be no ambiguity.

The only way to eliminate this ambiguity is for these organizations to report fully on their disposition of funds received. It should, as my friend opposite suggests, be broken down so that there can be no misinterpretation as to which of the organization's programs were funded and how much each particular individual in the organization received as a salary or a bonus.

Full and complete disclosure should also have a chilling effect on any organization that uses the bulk of the contributions it receives on salaries. Perhaps the mere fact that salaries have to be publicly declared may result in more money being put into the programs.

The amounts of money we are dealing with here are not insubstantial. This whole sector of the economy comprises about 70,000 charities, as was mentioned earlier, which spent $82 billion in 1993. There are also 40,000 plus non-profit organizations which probably spent an amount proportional to the amount spent by the charities.

The annual returns required by Revenue Canada are not made public with respect to not for profit organizations. It is important that salaries be disclosed in these organizations because the amount shown will indicate if excessive profits are spent or simply eliminated through the payment of high salaries.

While the public and financial information returns of charities have been available since 1977 they are not policed by Revenue Canada for accuracy or completeness and contain little financial detail. Public accountability requires us to do better than this. The public should be able to know who gets how much.

I believe this bill accomplishes this goal. I am pleased to note that by the wording of this bill all not for profit organizations are affected. Even those administered by the provinces are affected. Therefore, hospitals, universities, research organizations, training schools and other institutions which receive federal funds will be subject to disclosure.

This bill is a good first step in dealing with the issue, however it is only a first step. It is important for us, perhaps in a committee of this House, to review the conditions precedent for having an organization declared to be a charity or not for profit organization. In other words, we should review the conditions an organization has to meet to receive the tax exempt status and to give tax receipts for donations.

Perhaps we may conclude that only organizations which pay their own way should have this status. If they receive a government grant then they pay tax. Such a review could focus on the role and value of purely volunteer organizations in our society, organizations that use all of the money donated to them for programs rather than for salaries.

On the question of grants and contributions by the federal government to these groups, I stated the firm policy of my party earlier. These grants and contributions are to cease.

In my position as the Reform Party's critic for literacy, I have suggested this to my party and will be suggesting it to the minister responsible for literacy, the government leader in the Senate. Most if not all of the literacy budget is distributed in the form of grants or contributions to charitable or not for profit organizations which are involved in the literacy business. These are organizations which encourage literacy through adult training, raise awareness of the problems of illiteracy, or perhaps are involved in family counselling where illiteracy is an issue.

Those are all worthwhile goals. However, it is my contention that they can be achieved without dipping into the public purse. Let us face it ladies and gentlemen, today we have no more money in the public purse.

Private enterprise, the business community, which stands to benefit the most from a high level of literacy should assume the task of training. It should assume this burden because business will reap the benefits.

I have also suggested that in order to treat these literacy organizations in a humane fashion, funding will be phased out over three years. Yes, no government funding to any of these organizations is my ultimate goal, but I appreciate the work done by my colleague for Hamilton-Wentworth. His ideas on this matter of salary disclosure deserve our support and Bill C-224 deserves the support of this House.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour this morning to stand and present petitions. These names add to the thousands already submitted over the last five and six years.

The request is to amend the Divorce Act, to give grandparents a standing in the courts, to ask for access to the grandchildren. It is important we recognize that our grandchildren in this country are the innocent victims in all of this.