Paul Crête

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would find it interesting, as I begin my speech, to go over the reasons that led the Bloc Quebecois to intervene on several occasions during study of the bill on the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

The Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend the interests of Quebec, and in that sense, faced with this bill, it has shown its complete respect for democracy by making no assumptions about the choice Quebecers will make in the referendum. We wanted to ensure that, in the event that Quebecers voted no, they could continue to have the advantage of the best electoral map possible in their continued representation within the government of Canada. But I am sure they will decide to vote yes, for a number of other reasons.

To answer the member's question, I have no doubt that Quebecers will decide to vote yes, for all sorts of historical reasons. For more than 125 years, and particularly over the last 30 years, they have tried everything they could to change the system and they were never successful. The most recent example was here in this House, when the Liberal majority refused to give Quebec the 25 per cent minimum it was asking for. This 25 per cent minimum, already agreed to in the Charlottetown accord, would have been a demonstration of respect for Quebec, but the present Liberal government, under the direction of the Prime Minister we all know, refused to make this minimum gesture. This is one more reason, symbolic but practical, why Quebecers will opt for full control over their future development.

I have spoken to this bill several times. I participated in debate at each reading and in committee, always to argue that rural regions must have adequate representation.

Unfortunately, I have never at any stage seen amendments that are as out of touch with Canadian reality as those put forward by the Senate. Before talking about the substance of the amendments, I wondered why the Senate was so out of touch with Canadian reality. Why do senators seem to be from Mars rather than from the country in which we live?

My first thought was that it was certainly not for lack of travel since, as we know, our senators travel a great deal within Canada. They travel at taxpayers' expense on a regular basis. There must be a real reason why senators decided, among other things, to demand that the maximum variation from the quota, which makes it possible to determine the number of ridings, be reduced from 25 to 15 per cent.

I found a reason which I think is significant: an amendment like this one will, somewhat insidiously, impose even greater restrictions on Quebec representation. In fact, if we look at the current electoral map as a whole, we see that there are constitutional, historic protective measures for very small ridings, like those in Prince Edward Island. Although I have no intention of depriving the people of that province of their members of Parliament, the Tories' amendment would give Quebec ridings even less weight because lowering the maximum allowable gap to 15 per cent would reduce the total number of members and expand the areas represented by members to an absolutely unrealistic extent.

Consequently, to replace the 25 per cent variation by a 15 per cent variation would be somewhat disrespectful of Canadians and Quebecers, while also showing a total ignorance of geographical considerations, as well as a systematic attempt to promote centralization. Indeed, to define boundaries strictly in

terms of arithmetic would result in an overrepresentation of urban areas, while also promoting a migration to those urban centres, something which, in the long term, would be very harmful to Canada's future. Should there be a snowball effect, it could lead to the situation which exists in some southern countries, where there are very large cities with shanty towns, while the rest of the territory is very sparsely populated and people have access to very few adequate services to ensure their future.

Let us not forget that Canada was not developed by concentrating its population in certain areas. Indeed, it was always felt that the territory as a whole should be populated. However, the amendments proposed by the Senate would go against that historical pattern. I find it quite disturbing that a House of non-elected representatives would come to such conclusions.

Another rather surprising amendment by the Senate provides that a group 20 MPs would no longer be allowed to challenge appointments to electoral commissions. We, as elected representatives, and this is particularly true when we form a sufficiently large group, should be considered a watchdog, for the public, regarding this issue. I think that the Conservative amendment would have an effect opposite to the intended one and could create many more unacceptable situations.

There is another aspect to the Senate amendments which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and I am referring to the different definition it gives of "community of interest". The people in the Senate use the same words as before but provide a definition that restricts the concept of community of interest to demographic and geographic considerations as well as the existing boundaries of municipalities. However, the definition now no longer considers the human factor.

For instance, in a riding like Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup which I represent, there are 55 municipalities and four regional county municipalities I have to cover. Perhaps the senators overlooked this or perhaps some of them are not aware of this because they were never members of the House of Commons, but a member has to sit in the House four days a week in Ottawa, spend day five in his riding and on the weekend participate in social activities and meet his constituents. In a riding like this one where there are 55 municipalities, we get to the point where people are no longer able to meet their member of Parliament.

Narrowing the definition of community of interest and decreasing the quota will lead to situations that make no sense at all. If we look at the draft electoral map the commission used to conduct consultations in my riding, if, for instance, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup were to go on in the same way until the next election, it would include 72 municipalities. From 55 to 72, I do not know whether you have any idea what this means in the way of additional work, but it has the effect of creating an even greater gap between the voter and the individual who is supposed to represent him.

Shutting off communications between constituents and their elected representative has the somewhat perverse effect of strengthening the power of the other House which cannot claim to represent the electorate. Our strength has always been that we can say we are there to represent the people. Even more so when we represent more than 50 per cent of the population, as in the case of most members of the Bloc Quebecois, many Liberal members, but only a few Reform Party members. But in any case, the way the legislation works, we are elected by the people, and as far as I am concerned, that is the principle that gives us the right to have the final say on bills, as opposed to the Senate.

Distancing us from our electorate would help weaken the link between the electorate and government decisions and would give very bad results.

In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the effect that such a decision as reducing the variation from the provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent would have on eastern Quebec. Currently, there are five ridings in eastern Quebec: Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Matapédia-Matane, Rimouski-Témiscouata and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, which is my riding. Keeping these five ridings, even with the current map, would require a decision from the electoral commission. But, if the variation were reduced from 25 to 15 per cent, which is now being called for, it is certain that one riding would disappear, possibly two. This would have the following effects on all of the inhabitants of those areas: it would encourage depopulation and the neglect of their regions and it would take the weight of representation away from these people who are in one of Quebec's resource regions. The same thing would happen in several other regions in Canada.

We have discussed issues like unemployment insurance reform, where the first proposal was quite bureaucratic, which was to create a two-tiered system: one for people who do not use it often and one for people who do. If the representation of the people from these regions is reduced, decisions which are out of sync with their reality will be more readily accepted.

If the human resources development committee had not been able to meet with Quebecers and Canadians across the country, it would not have achieved the result that it did, which was to convince the government that this proposal was not in sync with reality.

It is true for other legislation as well. When it comes to a vote, in the end, if there are fewer members representing these areas, the country's future will suffer. It is not true that Canada comprises only large centres and nothing else. The people who represent these various parts of the country must be given a real

right. If they are not, we will be facing very negative situations in the medium term.

By way of example for the members of the House, I would point out that, when the rural fact is denied in one way or another, the voters always have the last word.

The Conservative government had set up a devastating post office strategy. They believed, in good faith, that a significant number of municipal post offices had to be closed. We saw the results in the election. I do not say this is the only reason for the change in government, I think there were a number of good reasons for it. However, the fact that the people in rural settings felt they would not be properly represented by those they had elected led them to terminate the relationship, because they felt not enough attention had been paid to this detail.

If we do not permit the rural communities sufficient representation, we will find ourselves in the same situation.

It is perhaps understandable that an institution, such as the other House, should be so far removed from the concerns of the public that it does not give the importance of representation its due, but I think it is our responsibility here in the House, because we are elected by the people, to bring things back to reality. The quota is perhaps the most important criterion. In talking of a variation in the quota in defining boundaries, 25 per cent was rightly given as the most reasonable variation. In this regard, the member for the Reform Party preceding me argued in support of the 25 per cent.

If members appearing before the committee representing urban centres felt that 25 per cent was the maximum permissible and those representing rural communities felt it was the minimum, it seems a pretty reasonable choice over the figure of 15 per cent. This figure would mean completely absurd situations and the combining of communities that had nothing in common simply in order to satisfy arithmetical criteria, which should not be the case in my opinion.

To conclude, I want to say that we should take this opportunity to ponder the usefulness of sending bills to an institution such as the other place. In fact, nowadays, in the society we live in we can no longer distinguish, as was done 100 years ago, between members of the Commons and the Lords. We should keep in mind that our system is based on the British one and that a non-elected house was created to advise members coming from the working class and whose real wisdom was in doubt due to their lack of education. I do not believe that this was ever a problem, but more than ever today, one cannot assume that elected members are less educated. In this respect, we can hold our own to the same degree as any senator. This situation no longer reflects today's reality in this country.

Keeping this in mind, this bill shows that we could perhaps find a better use for the $40 million the Senate costs every year.

To conclude, I do hope that this is the last time we will revisit the changes to the electoral boundaries. For my part, I am convinced that the electoral map will never again be used in Quebec, since in the fall, we will decide to take full control of our destiny. After the referendum, we will suggest to the rest of Canada an association which will put an end to the constitutional industry, ensure that neighbours of equal status deal with each other on an equal footing, and eliminate the negative effects, the useless spending and the overlap due to the present system, so that we can debate the real issues, and each of us build our own house as we really want it.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

They are indeed well served, as the member says. In the Gaspé, for example, the anglophone minority has college-level courses in English in Gaspé. For all of the Gaspé, there is a regular service and regular train service is maintained because, for one reason, many of these people have family in Ontario and elsewhere. They are very well served in many places.

I particularly wanted the member to realize that not only improper things had happened in committee, that one person at least learned something.

My question concerns another matter. Does the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster not think that the Senate could have considered many other aspects of the legislation? Including the fact that a little more than half the Reform members were

elected by fewer than 40 per cent of the electorate and that their democratic claims are not really very high.

Could the Senate not have looked at that? While it was doing a superficial job, it could have gone a little further and looked to see if the members in the House representing the fewest voters were not members of the Reform Party?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, who commented rather negatively on the reception given members by the standing committee, that it must have taught him a lot about Quebec. When I made my proposal on the ridings in eastern Quebec, he asked me whether it was to protect the ridings of real French Canadians, to use his expression. He felt that what was happening was self-serving. So, we had an opportunity to give him a good history and geography lesson and show him that there is also a strong anglophone minority in eastern Quebec and in the Gaspé.

We argued that the ridings should be left as they were. One of the reasons was in order to support this section of the population, which is both substantial and historically important. These people are the descendants of the loyalists, who came and settled of their own volition, particularly because they were fleeing a system they could not live with. I was quite surprised by the hon. member's ignorance of these facts. I hope he has learned an important lesson he will long remember, that there is an anglophone minority in Quebec and that it is scattered pretty well throughout the province, in the Gaspé-

[Canada Social Transfer, June 14th, 1995]

Will the minister not admit that everything that his government has done since it was elected, the single window

concept, the rationalization of employment centres and the creation of the human resources investment fund, goes totally and utterly against the consensus in Quebec, which is that Quebec must gain full power over labour?

[Canada Social Transfer, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the real contradiction lies in the fact that it is irresponsible to impose national standards without pledging the corresponding funds.

[Canada Social Transfer, June 14th, 1995]

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

During the year and a half that the federal government has been in power, the reforms it has proposed have had only one purpose: to increase its inefficient intervention in several of the provinces' jurisdictions. More than ever, flexible federalism means that Ottawa decrees and the provinces must accommodate.

Will the minister acknowledge that the Canada social transfer not only offers nothing new or of interest to Quebecers, but also, on the contrary, that it brings the federal government closer and closer to its dream of creating a highly centralized Canada, which is unacceptable to Quebecers?

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when I met the people in my riding, I also spoke to members of the hunting community and people from the department of public health who argued in favour of the legislation. In the case of hunters and all people involved in outdoor activities who use firearms, there will be some changes that will be frustrating. That is quite true.

First of all, they will have expenses they did not have before, and they will have to understand the new rules and how these affect them. In this area, we have to deal with people's perceptions of the bill as well as with the bill itself. In fact, I hope that thanks to the timeframe provided under the bill, the first three years and then another five years to register, the government avoids what happened to the previous legislation, which was never operational mainly because the government at the time did not take the trouble to inform the public and make the legislation acceptable to all voters, to all citizens. I think this is a legitimate change that will require sensitive enforcement of the legislation.

I recall the amendment we proposed regarding criminalization and a number of other aspects, where we wanted to ensure that the minister would be flexible-I am thinking of the minimum sentence of four years. I think the minister will have to give this some serious consideration and perhaps, in the years to come, a number of technical amendments might be considered, because people may end up in the penitentiary system and become criminals as a result of a single misstep.

This morning the Leader of the Opposition gave the example of the young person who breaks into a cornerstore with a gun and as a result will get at least four years. Under the Young Offenders Act as applied in Quebec, under the previous legislation, he would have had a good chance of being rehabilitated. If he is sent to the penitentiary for four years, chances are he will acquire some bad habits before he comes out and by that time it will be too late. So there should be some flexibility on the part of the government to ensure the legislation is enforced correctly.

As for hunters who will have to change their habits, I think we have to look at the benefits to society as a whole.

We also have to be very clear about what the government intends to do about smuggling. If the money people spend on additional registration is used to cover the cost of the system, that is all right, but these people will need tangible evidence that they are not the only ones who are paying and that further action is being taken in society, so it is not just a matter of plugging one hole but making sure all the holes are plugged, like smuggling firearms into Canada across what is perhaps the longest border between two countries. The government has already announced significant initiatives, but I think that we will have to ensure that they are enforced because hunters will be most frustrated if they are forced to pay fees when, ultimately, all of the other measures end up not achieving their intended results.

We come up against the same things in this sector as we do in the environmental sector. The way I see it, to all intents and purposes, the real effects of a law are more evident 8, 10, 15, 20 years after the fact than they are immediately after its introduction. It is important to realize this. We are bringing in legislation today for the sake of future generations. We cannot talk about a piece of legislation like we talk about next year's budget, which can be corrected the year after.

This was one of the considerations which got me thinking and strongly defending the arguments put forth by the inhabitants of rural regions on the issue. All of this notwithstanding, I think that this legislation will allow us to distinguish ourselves, as a society, from the American model, for example, where violence is so widespread that certain states have decided to permit almost anybody to carry a firearm. I am not interested in this model. If I have a choice between the two, I would much rather choose the model proposed here.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer generally first on the matter of the Senate. I believe the Senate is outdated. The other House is an outmoded institution, which reflects the view of the 19th and earlier centuries that elected representatives lacked sufficient education and therefore needed the opinion of wiser individuals, advisers.

Today, with the quality found in the House of Commons, the Senate has become more of a political reward for those who have contributed in some way or other to the party in power. I hope elected officials will have control over this sort of legislation. If voters, in the end, had to decide on the basis of legislation we passed, they would decide on the situation as a whole.

However, as regards the six-month delay, I myself believe and I think the Bloc caucus agrees, I cannot speak for the other caucuses, that we have been very well informed on the entire question of firearms. Lobbying has been very strong from all sides, I daresay even exaggerated at times. We had to examine all of it. I met many groups of voters in order to form an opinion about what should be in the bill and I think I have all the information I need.

As for the matter of training, the bill provides that training courses given by the Government of Quebec will be accepted by the federal government and that hunters who have taken the courses will not have to take them again. In this regard, the Bloc has won a major point by protecting the lives of ordinary people from disruption, and this is one of the amendments that leads me to believe the bill is balanced enough for me to vote for it and promote it. With the support of the vast majority of Quebecers for gun control, this amendment, among others, serves the needs of the rural population, which I represent here, and which I believe will enjoy long-term benefit from this new bill.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, at third reading, of Bill C-68, the gun control legislation. My short experience as a parliamentarian has made me more familiar with the whole enactment process, and also more aware of the importance of lobbies.

There is a lobby in favour of gun control and one opposed to it but, in my opinion, the only lobby that really matters is my constituents. Consequently, my position on this issue, which is also that of the Bloc Quebecois, reflects the discussions which I had with my constituents. I am thinking in particular of the residents of Saint-Médard, in the Rivière-du-Loup area, the community health department official who came to my office to discuss the impact of that legislation, and also those representing shooting clubs and firearms merchants. This is not a black and white issue.

In this case, I believe that the approach is very different from the one used with the social program reform, when the government tried to impose a UI reform on the backs of the unemployed and seasonal workers. In that case we had no choice but to oppose such measure.

This is the first time in 18 months that I have had to really weigh the government's intentions and the real impact of its legislation, including in rural areas, which have the highest rate of accidents related to the use of firearms, even though the use of such firearms, including by hunters, is generally much more in compliance with the legislation.

In terms of its purpose, this bill seeks to reduce the number of deaths and injuries related to firearms, as well as to ensure legitimate, controlled and prudent ownership of such weapons, even though it will not prevent certain uncontrollable, impulsive reactions leading to tragedies. The objective is no doubt very laudable. However, is universal registration the solution? Given the increasing number of acts of violence in today's society, it seems that we have to use a curative approach and see if we get good results.

My philosophy regarding this bill is the same as the one which prevails in the occupational safety and health sector.

The basic principle we must consider is that in order to prevent crimes or accidents involving firearms, an effort must be made to eliminate the problem at the source, as with any accident at work.

Take noise, for example. In certain cases, we can completely eliminate the noise made by a firearm with a silencer or another similar device, and, when that is not possible, people can wear earplugs to protect their hearing. Using this model, the question in the case of firearms is how to cut down on the number of deaths.

The first approach that I think is important and that is not the focus of this bill, but should be taken into consideration, is to eliminate problems at the source. We must have information about the kinds of accidents that are associated with the use of firearms, how criminals go about smuggling firearms, how, in cases of domestic violence, one of the spouses uses a gun with results that are irreparable and final, how many hunting and other accidents take place. This is how we can reduce the number of mortalities from the outset, by eliminating the problem at the source.

This is an area in which Western society has not been too successful. We have an increase in violence, a very high rate of unemployment, a growing need for the services of psychologists and too much violence on television. These are all significant factors that require a systemic approach.

With particular respect to firearms, we have a situation where we cannot solve the problem at the source, but we must try to reduce the negative effects of firearm use. We can say that the purpose of the bill should be to ensure that firearms are not available to someone wishing to take an irreparable step.

In order to achieve this goal, and that is the purpose of registration, we must know who possesses firearms. Are they legally entitled to do so? We must ensure that people with firearms are honest people, in so far as possible, and that they are capable of using those firearms correctly. Will the method proposed, registration, be effective? We shall see.

Plenty of time has been allowed for implementation. There will be no change for three years. After that, there will be a five year period, taking us to the year 2003, during which registration can be carried out. That is when we will see whether values have changed in our society, because that is really what this bill is proposing, a change in values. Because our society views violence differently, a long established practice needs to be changed to ensure adequate control over firearms.

We will see whether or not this goal is achieved in concrete terms. I will remind you that success will have to be determined by taking into account all the actions taken. Last week, I learned that additional resources will be allocated to the RCMP to fight smuggling. Will these resources be enough? I do not know. This measure must be part of an action plan and I think this is an interesting idea.

On the other hand, as you solve one problem, you want to make sure you are not creating new problems in the process; in the case in point, this means not making life impossible for honest citizens who use firearms correctly. In that sense, it is a shame that the government did not see fit to incorporate some of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, particularly with regard to having the legislation apply equally to everyone.

It says that the First Nations, aboriginal peoples can be exempted by cabinet decision from the application of any or all provisions of the act. It seems to me that creating two classes of citizens like that is unfair.

With respect to cost control, we were assured that it would not cost more than $10 to register up to 10 weapons per owner and that this registration would be good for life.

We, however, put forward a proposal to ensure that, for example, the next government would not suddenly be tempted to do what was done in many other registration systems like those in the auto industry and other sectors, to turn this into a cash cow for the government through very substantial cost increases. I think that this would be inappropriate and that the government would have to be accountable for its actions should it do so in the future. We would have liked this to be included in the bill, but it was not.

Another amendment called for a minimum four year sentence, provided for in the bill, for crimes committed with weapons. We think that this will create a double standard and that judges will have a hard time implementing this provision because crimes committed with firearms will have to be treated differently from those committed with other tools or instruments. I think that the government should have spent more time considering this.

In the debate on the firearms bill, the Bloc Quebecois's policy has always been to ensure that we have a balanced bill at the end of the day. Will it be sufficiently balanced for us to vote in favour? In this regard, the amendments deliver a number of gains.

For example, with regard to decriminalization, converting a Criminal Code offence to a statutory offence, which does not involve fingerprinting, mug shots, and entry into the police electronic network for first time offenders, is an interesting gain, because those who forget to register during the five year period would not be considered to be criminals but simply citizens who forgot to do something and who must rectify the situation.

Another element on which gains were made is the decision to issue licences. We do not rely only on reports from other people, we take into account the place of residence of the person. A person will not be kept from owning a firearm on the ground that he or she is in contact with a specific individual. Rather, the decision will be related to that person's place of residence, and whether interdictions apply to other individuals in that residence. That is, in our opinion, a valuable gain.

Another important issue raised by several hunters is the fact that the firearm handling courses which they took under the Quebec legislation were not recognized. Again, an important gain was made regarding this issue and the situation will now be more acceptable to Quebec hunters. That change is a good one. It does not go against the principle which underlies gun control, but it eliminates the frustrations experienced by hunters who use firearms for an honest purpose, their hobby.

I also want to point out that, after a few years, only those who have a valid license will be allowed to buy non-prohibited ammunition. This will surely help avoid accidents which occur, for example, when young people go out and buy ammunition. Indeed, this type of situation often results in accidents, and that is unacceptable.

We are dealing with a bill which, in my opinion, is not perfect, a bill which has been the object of numerous debates. This legislation led us to examine the pros and the cons of an interesting principle, a principle which is aimed at reducing violence as well as the number of accidents and tragedies which we hear about on the news, including violence against one's spouse. This is not to say that all accidents and tragedies will be eliminated. People will still be able to use other means of violence.

We have witnessed this recently, but the use of a firearm has such a devastating and often definitive effect that we hope that implementing this bill will have positive effects.

I would like to conclude by saying that I drew my reflections on this bill today from personal experience, and I tried to see the bill's everyday implications. I still remember a story I was told, like the one about one of my uncles who died in a hunting accident years ago. At the time, no training courses were given to hunters to inform them regarding the proper use of firearms. Courses were introduced to try to remedy this situation. I could also talk to you about one of my friends who was in a corner store when suddenly, in came a gang of robbers. I hope that this law will correct situations of this kind.

The most obvious goal for me is preventing people from using a firearm to commit suicide. Often, access to a firearm is the definitive, deciding factor on the outcome of the situation. Although the Firearms Act will not directly help people who are contemplating suicide to deal with their crises, it will at least save some lives by barring access to firearms in cases where people are refused licences for justifiable reasons.

In conclusion, I believe that this law is not the best firearms bill we could have introduced, but that it is better than none at all. I want to ask those people who have been long-time regular users of firearms to calm down and consider what the actual impact will be on their daily lives.

As I said earlier, for three years there will be no impact as such. After that, a person has five years to register his firearm. We will have plenty of time to find out whether there will be any negative impact.

If firearms registration is done properly and if in eight, ten, fifteen or twenty years we as a society are able to show that our statistics on the number of accidents, the type of accidents and the number of suicides have gone down, then it will have been worthwhile. From this point of view, aside from the constraints on lawful users of firearms, I wish they would think about that other aspect and realize that, in the best interests of our society, it would be advisable to support this bill and provide for adequate supervision.

For instance, the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which were defeated, made provisions for Cabinet to use its regulatory authority with respect to aboriginal people. We need practical applications to ensure that the department is sympathetic to certain needs and to ensure that the bill passed in this House makes our society different from other societies where there is a lot more violence and, in the process, ensures that we have a quality of life and a social model that is far superior.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 33, on page 56, with the following:

"provision of this Act or the regulations applies;".