Barry Campbell

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this motion. I am pleased the hon. member for Red Deer so vigorously supports the principles exemplified by the Access to Information Act that he wishes to see its coverage expanded. Such enthusiasm is to be commended.

I am happy to say that this government remains firmly committed to the principles of openness contained in the Access to Information Act. Such openness assists in debate on national issues, provides background for the development of public policy and allows more in depth explanation of government processes and decision making.

This is why our government is always prepared to look at ways to improve public access to information held by these Crown agencies, this in order to promote government accountability. Currently, the legislation applies to government institutions listed in the schedule to the act. If a department, an agency or a board is not mentioned in the schedule, the legislation does not apply to it. It is that simple.

At the time the act was passed in 1982 there was careful consideration given to which institutions should be included in the coverage of the act and which should not. There are ways in which the act could be updated to reflect the new information age. It may also be that the sorting of the institutions into the categories of those covered and those not covered could also be reviewed and updated. I do not believe that this is something which should be done in a casual or haphazard manner.

In considering the suggestion that the Access to Information Act be expanded to cover Parliament and crown agencies, as with all proposals for amendment to the Access to Information Act, the government is guided by the need to ensure that all amendments to the act and to its schedule are in the public interest.

While on the face of it providing access to government-held information may be seen as obviously in the public interest it is not necessarily the case. If it were the Access to Information Act would contain no exclusions or exemptions. We would just throw the information doors wide open.

There are competing public interests which must be taken into consideration. In the same way that exceptions serve public interest by protecting personal information on taxpayers, or information received in confidence from our government, it may be in the public interest to protect some information held by Crown agencies or by Parliament.

We must consider these competing interests before making such a sweeping recommendation.

When the motion refers to crown agencies it is unclear whether the term should be taken to refer to crown corporations or if it is intended to include a much broader range of institutions. After all many institutions which would normally fall under the heading of crown agencies are already covered by the act. CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, is already covered, as are national museums, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Space Agency, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and so on. On the other hand the act does

not currently apply to Canada Post or the National Arts Centre Corporation. We cannot assume that these were frivolous decisions as to who was included and who was excluded.

When considering expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations the concern for a long time now has been that making all crown corporations subject to the act could for some of them result in harm to their competitive position relative to their private sector counterparts which are of course subject to no comparative requirements for openness. The hon. member for Red Deer alluded to this.

What might be required to mitigate such potential for harm would be additional amendments to the act which would provide crown corporations with an exemption tailor-made to protect information that if disclosed would result in injury to the competitive position of the crown corporation. The private sector corporations have such an exemption to protect commercially sensitive information in the financial information that they are presently required to file and no less protection should be provided to crown corporations.

While expanding the act to cover crown corporations is not a bad idea in itself, it must be examined in its proper context. In fact, the whole framework of the act must be examined from that perspective.

If the motion is intended to cover a broader range of institutions then careful consideration must be given to the implications for each type and for each institution. There is not enough room for that in the motion.

Much the same thing can be said concerning the suggestion that the act be expanded to cover Parliament. While in principle this is a laudable idea there are more than a few practical issues to consider. Just what coverage would the act have? When this issue was considered previously it was generally believed that it would be unwise to cover the personal offices of members of the House of Commons and senators but I think Canadians want to understand why that is.

The problems which could result from a decision to include the offices of MP's in the coverage of the act will have to be taken into consideration before such a measure can be taken. On the other hand, if members' offices are not to be covered by the act, then we will have to define very explicitly the precise scope of the act.

Where would responsibility for the application of the act by Parliament lie? Who would be considered to be the head of the institution for the purposes of the act with the authority to release requested information or deny access on the basis of exemptions contained in the act? If there was a complaint concerning the handling of a request made to Parliament under the act would it be a conflict of interest for the information commissioner as a parliamentary agent to investigate such a complaint? Would Parliament report to itself on its own administration of the act? These are not simple questions.

When considering possible amendments to the Access to Information Act or its schedule of institutions, consideration would also normally be given to the Privacy Act and its schedule of institutions.

Generally speaking, there are more government institutions covered by the Privacy Act than the Access to Information Act since the principle of providing individuals with access to their own personal information is seen as even more widely applicable than the principle of open access to general information.

If we were to extend the application of the Privacy Act to Crown corporations, it seems that there would be less obvious risk of harming the institutions' competitive position.

In the case of Parliament there remains the question of whether the Privacy Act would cover the personnel records contained in the offices of members and senators. It is clear that it would be beneficial for employees of the House and the Senate. Even in relation to the Privacy Act it is clear that expanding the coverage of the act must not be done in a haphazard manner but must be done in full consideration of the public interest in the possible outcome.

To summarize, while the idea of expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act to Parliament and to crown agencies is surely based on a concept of openness which this government wholeheartedly supports, the practical implications of such an expansion of coverage cannot be disregarded.

For now, the most logical solution would be to keep these suggestions in reserve so that they can be considered as part of another process to amend the act for which the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board will initiate consultations.

At that point every member will have the opportunity to make suggestions for amendments to either the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act or both. Possible amendments to these

acts will be open to full debate as pieces of an amendment package instead of as a separate patchwork proposal.

We do not wish to interfere in that process or to prejudge any of its outcome. We want the Canadian people to have input into this process.

All this is to say that while I very much support the principle which I believe lies behind this motion, I cannot support the motion itself at this time.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. That is precisely the kind of example that we are looking at in transportation policy. The Minister of Transport is conducting reviews that are precisely addressing those impediments to business, productivity and competitiveness that I was speaking about earlier in my comments.

These reviews are going on throughout government. We are getting on with regulatory reform. We are getting on with social policy reform. We are addressing this in the context of prebudget consultations. All of that is under way. I know the hon. member is impatient and I do not blame him.

Canadians understand that we do not fix problems overnight. I know he has some colleagues who think it is all simple problems, simple solutions. We will do it, we will wrap it up tonight and it will all work out tomorrow morning.

However, on this side of the House we know things are complex. Canadians want to speak to us. We want to listen and we want to do the best for all Canadians.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got his lead into the question. I do not know if he was listening to the debate or not.

However, on the second part which was the urgency of getting to a zero deficit or balanced budget, clearly that is set out in the documents that I was discussing in my speech earlier. The 3 per cent figure by 1996-97 is clearly stated and has been stated on numerous occasions by the Minister of Finance as an interim target. We are going to hit it. We are going to get there and then we will move on.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's last question, no, and I said as much in the speech. We should pick winning sectors and that is what we are going to be doing.

With respect to the member's suggestion that we are disavowing Liberalism or the Liberal viewpoint or policy of the last 35 years, absolutely not. We still put the Canadian people first and foremost. As we attack the debt and deficit, which must be addressed, we keep the Canadian people clearly in focus.

Unlike members opposite, we know how complex the issue is. We know that Canadians want to have a say in what we are doing. Many have asked to testify before the finance committee in the prebudget consultations-we are oversubscribed already-and I for one welcome hearing what they have to say.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not only acceptable, it is achievable. It is an interim step on the way to addressing what I know the hon. member opposite wants to address, the overall deficit and debt problem. We are starting down that road in the right direction with an achievable target and we are going to get there.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this supply day motion. It allows me to review a very important policy paper concerning the government's economic strategy that the Minister of Finance presented to the Standing Committee on Finance just last week.

Obviously the member proposing today's motion must have been occupied elsewhere when the Minister of Finance tabled "A New Framework for Economic Policy" on October 17. Perhaps the length of the document, 87 pages, was too much for him to absorb. He may still be waiting for the Cole's notes version. I know on their side of the House it is all about simple problems with simple solutions that pop into their heads, so they must be right.

If I appear a little sarcastic, frankly that is the only reasonable response to a motion that calls for the government to table "a clear statement of its vision of the role of government in the economy". That comprehensive statement has already been tabled. It made headlines across the country.

If the hon. member or any Canadian phones the distribution centre of the Department of Finance, the phone number is 613-995-2855, a copy will be provided immediately.

I suspect if the hon. member takes the time to study this document, which he has not apparently, he will appreciate its significance. Canadians have seen only too often what happens when a government implements policies without clear guiding principles. The result is like building a house without a blueprint. It is chaotic, it is costly and the roof leaks.

Canadians deserve to know the principles which guide the Canadian government. That is why this government has set out the framework for the economic policies we intend to build upon. This paper, "A New Framework for Economic Policy", is a clear statement of objectives that will guide what the government will do and what it will not do. It provides the very vision that the hon. member wants Canadians to debate.

Before I get into details, let me set the scene by describing the underlying principles of the framework. This government has one overriding goal: jobs and economic growth. While a strong economic recovery has taken hold, the fact remains that our unemployment rate is too high with Canadians paying a tragic price. That price includes lower government revenues and higher costs, problems that contribute directly to the deficit dilemma they are so concerned about and we are concerned about.

Sound economic policy and good social policy are linked. Sustainable social programs depend on a sound economy. Canadians need more jobs and better jobs. Jobs create dignity and wealth and enable us to sustain our commitment to social justice.

Common sense suggests, and the hon. member must agree, that a country that is to continue to care for its citizens must be a

country that pays its bills. That means living within our means and creating jobs through economic growth.

The fact is the logic and approaches of the 1960s simply are no longer good enough in a 21st century arena. We cannot afford them and we will not succeed with them. Previous generations responded to the challenge of their times by building the physical and social infrastructure of Canada. We have a similar challenge and our own responsibility to create the infrastructure for our times and for that of our children, the infrastructure of ideas and innovation.

It is innovative combinations of people, capital and ideas which will place us at the cutting edge of economic change and growth. Working people harder and making government meaner is not the key. Working smarter and making government more effective is what Canadians want and need. To work better and smarter the very nature of government itself must change. The time is long past when governments can or should do everything.

We need a partnership that gives responsibility to those who are best able and suited to do the job, be it government, business, labour or the volunteer sector. That requires a government that knows where its true potential lies and what its real limitations are.

There is a difference between Liberals and the member who sponsored this motion. We believe government has a role to play as catalyst, as facilitator setting goals and monitoring performance. I believe government should get out of the way but not stand aside. That is Liberalism for the 1990s.

Like countries everywhere Canada must adapt to the powerful trends that are shaping the global economy, the global financial market, the dynamic growth of economies in the Pacific rim and parts of Latin America, South America, and the impact of information technology. Each of these has dramatically increased the competitive stakes. The bottom line is clear, to become more competitive Canada must become more productive.

Productivity is about how well ideas, workers, resources and investment are brought together in a country's economy. Productivity is about ingenuity, about better management, paying attention to the common sense of workers. Productivity growth is the basis for a better standard of living for every Canadian.

Some Canadians fear that productivity is a code word for fewer jobs, greater hardship. They are mistaken. History shows the compelling relationship between productivity and employment. Between the fifties and early seventies productivity growth was high, averaging 2.3 per cent. During those decades unemployment was low and incomes rose at a steady pace. The picture changed from the seventies to the nineties. Productivity dropped by more than half, unemployment soared and the growth in incomes slowed to a virtual halt.

How do we improve productivity? First, we improve skills. We must become more innovative and provide a welcoming climate for investment. We must remove the disincentives we have created for business and individuals, disincentives that hold us back because they encourage dependence or block opportunity.

There is another critically important imperative for a more productive, prosperous Canada, as our framework paper emphasizes. We must get our fiscal house in order.

Let me turn now to the objective for jobs and growth the government has set out in "A New Framework for Economic Policy". There are five key areas which we must focus on. I will be interested to hear if the hon. member opposes any one of them.

The first is helping Canadians acquire skills, the skills to get jobs, keep jobs and find better jobs. The facts are clear. Jobs for people with high school education or less are shrinking while jobs for those with beyond high school education are growing. In fact projections show that almost half the new jobs created during the nineties will require more than 16 years of education and training combined.

I should add that there is a particular element of this challenge that engages small business. They do not have the resources that large firms have to help employees acquire the new skills that the information age demands, much less basic abilities in literacy and numeracy. Small business depends on a public education system that is doing its job.

In terms of education, the challenge in Canada is not money. We spend more on education than just about every other country. What we need are better results. Individuals, employers and government must co-operate and share responsibility in improving education and training.

The second part of our framework is encouraging Canadians to adjust to change. Economic progress depends on a willingness to embrace new opportunities. It is our view that protecting and subsidizing business is almost always the wrong way to go. For that reason the government may change the entire approach to subsidies.

Equally, we believe regional economic assistance should focus on genuine opportunities such as tourism that have great potential to be self-sustaining. Government should focus on winning industry sectors, not specific enterprises. Government has not been terribly good at picking individual winners.

At the individual level the existing unemployment insurance program must be changed. It is bad economic policy today and bad social policy. We intend to take measures to bring it back to what it was, insurance, and to create programs that foster job readiness.

Further, we believe high payroll taxes are nothing more than a tax on hiring. We have taken steps to reduce UI premiums and will do more in the future.

The third element of our framework is getting government right. Our attitude is straightforward. It is time to make choices. We must eliminate or reduce lower priority activities and target scarce resources to the highest priority programs, helping those in need, ensuring that people get the training and the opportunities they require.

We are also trying to drain the swamp of federal regulations which costs Canadian businesses tens of billions of dollars each year. Regulatory reform has the potential to increase productivity, stimulate investment, create more cost efficient government. We have reviewed more than half of the 3,000 regulations on the book. We have eliminated more than one quarter and left another one quarter in place. The rest are in the process of being revised and examined.

Providing leadership in the economy is the fourth objective. While the private sector creates jobs, the government has a clear role in creating a healthy economy which gives the private sector the confidence to add jobs.

In our knowledge based economy success depends on skills and innovation. The government can contribute by gathering and disseminating information and ideas about technology and new markets. As well, it can play an important role in bringing businesses together, something that is critical in an economy where many new firms are small and highly specialized.

One priority is to do more to harness science and technology in order to improve productivity and growth. Government can help by building better links among industry, universities and government labs. It also has a particular role in making sure small business benefits from the latest know-how in the high technology sector in particular.

Trade is another area where government involvement is essential for success. Today more than ever Canada is an exporting nation. It is vital that more companies become exporters and that we look beyond our traditional markets to the emerging economies of Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe. Here the government can help by providing more information and ensuring that small business has access to export financing. We must work toward an end to export subsidies by foreign countries. Until that day we must do what is necessary to ensure that our exporters can compete with foreign competitors.

The fifth and final objective is absolutely essential to the others. We must create a healthy fiscal and monetary climate. If we do not, as the finance minister told the Standing Committee on Finance, we will fail at everything else. That is why we have staked out a firm commitment to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97, effectively cutting it in half from its present level. That is why we have also made it clear that this deficit target is an interim step in meeting the ultimate goal to eliminate the deficit completely.

It would be absurd to claim that a single policy paper has all the answers to secure Canada's economic future. Other papers on specific issues are being completed. I suggest that no government in recent memory has demonstrated our commitment to providing Canadians with factual, accessible information on its economic principles, its strategic agenda and the fiscal situation.

Examples include not only the framework document, but its companion financial update entitled "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate". There is also the first ever annual financial report of the Government of Canada that was released earlier this fall as suggested by the Auditor General. To me and I hope to all Canadians the evidence is clear. Our government has a vision of the role of government in building a more prosperous nation.

The hon. member opposite would better serve his mandate and the interests of the entire nation by providing meaningful alternatives, if he has any. Motions calling for statements that already exist do nothing but pass our time. Let us dismiss this motion and get on with the real business of future building.

[Student Loans, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to debate the motion thoroughly, we should take a moment to reflect upon what we expect from higher education.

Canadians understand that we face tougher competition here at home and around the world. Knowledge based industries are becoming more important. We hear more about concepts like distance education and lifelong learning.

The pace of change is accelerating. Knowledge intensive industries like telecommunications, environmental services, computer technology and biotechnology will provide economic growth now and into the future.

The working world has changed dramatically. Canadians can now expect to change jobs several times in a working career, as the hon. member just said. No one can count on lifetime secure positions with a single employer.

We know that a majority of jobs now being created will require at least 16 years of schooling. Higher education and continuous retraining will be necessary to remain competitive in the marketplace of the future.

While Canadians are being told to acquire more education, tuition fees have been rising and changes to the family structure and the economic environment have been making it difficult for some people to return to school to complete their studies.

Therefore, we take the hon. member's motion to consider the advisability of income contingent repayment quite seriously. Under ICR loan repayments would be adjusted to incomes. Graduates could begin their working lives knowing their student loan debts would not overwhelm their incomes. Such systems could reach potential students who are now deterred by the prospect of large, fixed loan repayments after they leave school.

As the member may know, the federal and provincial governments have discussed these concepts in the past. We will continue to examine them. An ICR student loan system deserves careful consideration. The potential cost implications will be a factor in our assessment because the federal government must reduce spending in all areas in order to address the deficit. The matter is as clear to the hon. leader of the Reform Party as it is to me. Cost will not be the only factor.

The member's motion is an opportunity to elaborate on the discussion of income contingent repayment in the social security reform discussion paper. Every year the provinces receive a higher proportion of their post-secondary education funding as a result of the transfer of tax points. The overall transfer of funds from the federal government is not increasing. This means that while the tax point transfer increases provincial revenues, revenues that are supposed to be used to support educational institutions, the direct cash component of the transfer is declining.

The provinces in the coming years will retain the tax points and they will steadily increase in value as the economy grows. The federal government is asking the provinces to consider shifting the current cash transfers into expanded loans and grants to students. The result would be a permanent $2 billion loan fund for sustainable student aid.

The resource would continue to grow in the future and extend its benefits to succeeding generations of Canadians. This is not the blind and brutal cost cutting that some opponents of social security review fear. Designed properly and carefully administered, we could put in place a resource that would help educate generations of students.

As a proposal for change the hon. member's motion is one more voice calling for creative ways to help every Canadian with ability and the desire to attend college or university. We have already taken measures to increase and enhance student

assistance and to help students make the school to work transition.

We have high expectations of our graduates. We want them to maintain a prominent place for Canada among the advanced countries of the world. Considering our expectations, providing student aid to those in need is more than a commitment to fairness and equality; it is an investment in people. The amount and the conditions of that investment in student loans reflect the confidence we have in their abilities.

We need a climate that encourages both entrepreneurs and investors. We need a highly skilled and adaptable workforce to keep pace with the competition in high tech industries around the world. Now Canadians want clear direction to guide their individual decisions on education and training.

This generation of decision makers must give all Canadians realistic choices because now more than ever we need everyone's skills and capabilities mobilized to build our common future. In creating opportunities the government put its commitment to education and training on the record. We are keeping our promises.

For 30 years the Canada student loans program has reduced financial obstacles to post-secondary education for over two million students. The new measures we introduced this past spring will make education more accessible to students with disabilities. Those students will help build larger, better educated and a more representative workforce.

Other reforms reach out to a growing constituency of part time students by increasing their loan limit from $2,500 to $4,000. Under the new financing arrangement part time students will pay only the interest on their loans while they are still in school. Single parents will face fewer obstacles to their education. The new needs assessment acknowledges the reality of child care and transportation expenses as well as tuition and books.

To address their present under-representation, women in engineering, mathematics and science programs at the doctoral level will be eligible for special opportunity grants of up to $3,000 per year.

The Canada Student Financial Assistance Act reforms are designed to help those who need better access to post-secondary education. Today more than 900,000 full time and more than half a million part time students are pursuing a higher education. They do not just represent an investment in our future, they are the future.

The new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act also enables the federal government to join provinces in pilot studies of income contingent replacement systems. The hon. member opposite might recall that we wrote this specific provision into the Canada Student Loans Act so we could investigate its usefulness.

Income contingent replacement has some very attractive features. It can be designed to meet different categories of need while students are still in school. After finishing school, the graduate who finds employment can pay off the loan at a rate that by definition is affordable.

The student's risk is reduced because the loan would adjust to an unexpectedly low income. We have heard the term offloading from some students who oppose the ICR assistance, because they believe people will graduate with huge debtloads. ICR assistance can be deigned to protect the very small number of students who necessarily take on a high level of debt.

Just as we have made provision for large debts in the Canada Students Financial Assistance Act, we could design a system that eased the burden for these situations. For the average student, the extra burden is estimated at about $2,000 a year. To put that in perspective, two years after graduation, the person with a post-secondary education is making 25 per cent more than someone with only a high school diploma.

If students take out a loan to finance their education, they are the best judges of how much debt they can assume. If they are wrong about their future earnings, they are only required to repay what they can afford.

In effect, borrowers are protected from the risk of being unable to pay and their borrowing relates to their ability to pay rather than that of their parents. We do not intend to bury our students under a mountain of debt, far from it. We will support their efforts to get the education they want. We want them to go on and hold jobs and create jobs. When that happens, the student loans system benefits all of us.

The hon. member's motion and the new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act both address the aim of meeting the challenge of allocating education costs fairly between governments and students.

Some groups oppose an ICR while others believe there will be benefits. The Association of Universities and Colleges has proposed an ICR type system. The Association of Community Colleges is generally in favour. Some student associations are interested in the concept. I note that some institutions have concern with the proposals in the social security review with respect to EPF transfers.

We are in dialogue with these institutions and welcome their active participation in the social security review. Their ideas and support are extremely important for all Canadians.

There are no exact models elsewhere in the world that tell us how ICR would work in Canada, in the Canadian environment. We must evaluate the idea in the Canadian context. We want to know if we can build a comprehensive system to help

students in need without putting a greater burden on the taxpayer.

Social programs save money by putting resources where they belong, training and employment skills for those who need them and protection for those people who need help.

The current system is not doing a good job. It keeps some Canadians in poverty and dependence. Any new system must help people learn the skills, develop the skills they need to get back on their feet.

We hope that the social security review will bring to light more interesting and creative concepts. It is safe to assume we will need flexible and responsive systems to meet the training requirements of the Canadian workforce.

In the final analysis, Canadians want a system that works. We know that success in advanced technologies is the key to a prosperous and caring society. The key to future success is advanced education. Canadians must share in the benefits and costs of academic success.

We expect many more Canadians will enroll in our colleges and universities. Young and old alike will want the skills that keep them employed in well paying and challenging jobs. The social security review will examine anything that could contribute to this success. Together as partners, we can manage our educational resources to meet the needs of every student. When our students succeed their achievements benefit all of us.

The hon. member's motion has illuminated one possible response to the need for fair and effective student loans. Through this debate within the context of the social security review and elsewhere we will continue to seek out, listen to and investigate every possible means by which Canadians can build prosperous and productive futures through training and education.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government made a commitment to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination to the Canadian human rights code. It has already introduced Bill C-41 which would address the issue of sentencing in crimes where hate is a motivating factor.

We have done these things because they are right and decent things to do. Amending the code is a matter of fundamental justice and equality. The goal of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not to confer special rights on anyone but rather to ensure equal rights for everyone. These measures are consistent with our commitment to attack hatred and discrimination and promote tolerance in our society.

In this House where our currency is words, we must never forget their power. They can be used to empower and embrace or

to attack and incite. Words have an impact. Free speech is not free of consequences. I will never use the holocaust as a metaphor but there are lessons to be learned. As Eli Wiesel said of that time: "It began with words".

When we add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act and when we pass Bill C-41 we will be using words to embrace and all Canadians can feel proud of that.

[Gun Control, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians are quite distressed by the attempt of some to distract us from the legitimate debate which must take place about guns in Canadian society.

A large majority of Canadians want tougher gun control because the presence of guns in our cities, our towns and our homes decreases the safety of all of us. I understand the need of hunters and farmers for long guns but gun ownership in this country is a privilege, not a right.

These are the basic facts: Guns kill people and handguns in particular have no other purpose. Registration of all weapons would only be a minor inconvenience for those who need long guns to hunt. Handguns and assault weapons are not needed for hunting or by farmers for pest control.

I respect the right of Canadians to choose their hobbies but hobbies should not dictate public policy. Demolition car drivers do not control highway policy. Sport shooters should not try to dictate gun policy.

I urge the government to ensure that public safety is paramount in our gun policies. All considerations are not equal in this debate. We must address the smuggling of weapons and the use of guns in the commission of an offence, but outlawing handguns and a registration system will contribute to a safer Canada.

[Aids Action Now, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for HIV Research this summer, AIDS Action Now, a Toronto based AIDS advocacy group, organized a demonstration highlighting promising new AIDS research opportunities which are, in its opinion, funded inadequately.

At that demonstration I was presented a petition with over 300 signatures. Technicalities preclude the tabling of this petition, however the message it contains should be made public. It calls on the government to "increase funding for AIDS research so that Canadian scientists can contribute to understanding the disease, improving treatments and finding a cure".

It also requests the government to "make clear a commitment to long term, sustained funding of AIDS research at least proportionate to the HIV population base and Canada's relative wealth".

While members of the House know that the government has allocated significant funding for the national AIDS strategy, we must always strive to do more. We cannot forget that for too many Canadians it is a matter of life and death.