Warren Allmand

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosedale. As I said there is no quick fix for increasing criminality. If we delude our citizens into believing there is a quick fix we deserve condemnation.

If we suggest to them that we can solve the problems of crime in the streets in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver simply by amending provisions of the Criminal Code or by making the sentence 20 years instead of 10 years which they have done in certain American states, if we suggest that is a solution and five months later there is even more crime, we are not serving our public very well.

We must show leadership in the House on these issues. We must deal with the causes of crime. We must make sure that we have child protection acts that intervene at an early age when children are being abused or when they start going wrong, whether it is eight or nine. They have such an act in Quebec called the Child Protection Act. I am sure they have one in Ontario which deals with children under 12 who are lower than the age for the Young Offenders Act.

Whether these are children going from foster home to foster home, whether they are abandoned by their families, or whether they are caught up in drugs or whatever, we have to intervene quickly to try to prevent these things. We also have to make sure that we have proper educational systems, employment policies and so on that help turn people to productive ways of life and not criminal ways of life. That is the model I suggest but it is not a quick fix. It means we have to spend some money but it is money that will show dividends. If we have safer communities in the long run it is money that pays off.

There may have been some terrible crimes in Toronto in recent years but I have looked at the statistics. Toronto had somewhere between 50 and 60 murders last year. It is a city of over three million people. If we compare it with Detroit, Cleveland or New Orleans, those communities have over 500 or 600 murders per year. Toronto is a safe city compared to those others.

I do not show any sort of toleration for the terrible murders that took place in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or wherever, but the rate of crime is much lower than it is in the United States, maybe because we have traditionally taken an approach that was not simply a criminal justice approach.

We have had broader social programs and better educational programs. When we talk about the United States, criminal law is a state matter unlike here where it is a national matter. Some states in the United States have much better programs and systems than others. I referred to the ones that were very punitive and did not take a preventive or rehabilitative approach. There are some states that do and do much better, by the way.

If we look at states like Minnesota, some New England states and some other states there are much lower rates of crime per 100,000 than some southern states with very tough, long sentencing policies.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder whether we all are speaking the same language even when we are speaking English. I thought I said-and I have said it over and over again-that I am opposed to automatic parole. There is no such thing as automatic parole in the country. I never suggested at any time in my entire life that anybody be paroled automatically.

What I was saying and what I continue to say is that I believe at a certain date people should be eligible to go to the parole board and present their case. They would have to show they were totally rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. If they cannot demonstrate it then they are not paroled. The last thing I would recommend would be releasing into society on parole people automatically, simply because they had reached a date.

At the end of a sentence is a different thing which I will deal with in a moment. I have never recommended automatic parole for murderers and I will not. I assure the hon. member of that. He may have read things like that, but I have never recommended that.

I have recommended the right to apply for parole at 15 years, just as they have the right to parole at one-third of sentence. For example, if they have a six-year sentence they can apply at two years. It does not mean they are going to get it. The parole board will hear their case but it may say no.

We hear of certain cases where people have gone before the parole board six times and were turned down six times because they were still bad actors. All the evidence that comes in on them with respect to their case before the parole board is that they are not ready for parole. I support that. I do not believe in automatic parole. I want to put that to rest.

The member raised a good point when he said that some people have demonstrated by committing their crimes that they are not good and need some time in prison. I agree with him.

Violent individuals who committed crimes of violence should be kept in prison, but they should be given a system of treatment or correction which, when they go back on the street, will mean that they will be safer. They will be less likely to commit the crimes that they went in for.

There are provisions. We find, for example, that the rate of literacy in prison is very low. People have a very low rate of literacy, very low education. They do not have trades. If we can help them in prison to learn trades, learn how to work, learn to live like ordinary people who get up in the morning, go to work, save their money, and learn the skills of ordinary people who live in society, we will be doing a great deal.

If we have a system of release whereby they are released with support when they go back in the community, whereby they have parole officers who will help them get jobs, get settled, reintroduce them to their families and so on, we will have less chance of crime when they return to society.

I believe in keeping people in prison, but when they are in prison they must be given a program that will help them do better when they get out.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing.

While this bill has several good provisions, it also has some that concern me. It is evident that it is difficult to properly consider Criminal Code provisions with respect to sentencing without also considering the substantive provisions of the code or even to consider sentencing without relating that to the prison system or the parole system.

In other words, if we are deciding on whether to change our sentencing procedures and our sentencing policy, we have to ask ourselves how these changes will impact on our prison populations, on how they inter-relate to our parole system and how they will affect our treatment programs in prison.

If the sentencing provisions, if they are provisions that will lengthen sentences, will result in more people in prisons, then there will be an impact on prison populations. If there is an impact on increasing the prison populations, then it will also relate to the level of programs that we have in prisons to treat inmates, whether there are enough resources for those programs, enough spaces, enough teachers, enough counsellors, enough psychiatrists and so on.

My concern is if we adopt a policy of lengthening sentences and at the same time become tougher on parole, make parole more difficult to get-I refer members to some parts of Bill C-45, which was before us yesterday-and if at the same time we provide fewer resources for our correction and prison systems as a result of our campaign to cut the deficit, then we are going to have a situation in which we have more people going into the prison system for longer periods of time where those

people will stay in longer because parole is becoming more difficult to obtain and at the same time fewer resources to provide accommodation and programs for those inmates.

At the present time our prisons are extremely overcrowded. During the summer I had the opportunity to visit prisons in the Kingston area. There were prisons that were built to accommodate 450 inmates which now have well over 650 inmates. There is double bunking and even triple bunking in cells that are narrower than I can stretch my arms, and I am not a big man. There are very small cells in which there now is double bunking.

There have been reductions in the educational programs available to inmates and a reduction in recreation programs available to inmates. This goes back to the previous government from which there were continual cuts over the last nine years. I raise it now. We have come to government recently but I raise this very important matter that must be considered when we are considering sentencing and parole.

We have to ask ourselves what the result will be if we continue on that policy line where inmates go in for longer periods of time and do not have the same access to parole or who are not prepared for parole, and there are no programs to occupy and help those inmates when they are in prison because we are overly concerned with the deficit and we are cutting here and there and everywhere.

We can look to previous periods that had similar situations. There were hostage taking incidents. There were riots and there were higher rates of recidivism.

We must remember that the great majority of inmates who are sent to prison are there on limited sentences. They are not there on life sentences. They are there for armed robbery or assault or fraud or theft and so on for which they get sentences of five years, seven years, ten years. Sooner or later they have to be released. If we are truly concerned with the safety of the public surely we want them to be released in a situation, in a state where they are of less danger to the public than when they went in.

If we continue on this drift which is being suggested by some quarters in our society and which is principally put forward by the Reform Party in this House, I must ask whether we should simply have longer and harsher sentences and tighter parole and cut the moneys available for our prisons. What is the result with respect to the protection of society when the great majority of those inmates are released into society?

I suggest that this will leave us with a much more dangerous situation for our citizens. Inmates will be released into society without education, without training, without treatment, who have been through an experience of tension, violence and so on. We just have to look at the American experience where they have adopted those kinds of policies. Look at some of the southern states, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia where they went ahead with such policies. They had longer and harder sentences. It was more difficult to get parole and they cut back on resources.

I read recently of a situation in which a judge in a particular community had no prison space to send an inmate to because there were no places available. The prison was so full and there were so few people coming out, so many people had gone in, that here was an inmate who was convicted but there was no place in the prison for that individual. The lawmakers had not considered when changing their provisions with sentencing and parole that maybe they have to also provide resources.

We may have to build new prisons if we keep on lengthening the sentences and cutting down on the parole. We may have to build at a much greater expense than we would otherwise have to to accommodate these individuals.

Where they have done this in the United States, where they have pursued those policies, they have not protected the public. The rates of violent crimes are much higher than they are here. In those states that have brought back capital punishment, for example Florida, they are executing people in the morning and in the afternoon somebody is killing an innocent citizen simply to get his car. There was a citizen from Montreal who flew to Florida. He rented a car at the airport and was murdered simply for the automobile when there had been an execution that very same day. We hear the same thing with respect to other individuals.

Let us think out our policies on these matters very clearly and examine the interrelationship between sentencing, our correctional system and our parole system.

This bill also deals with certain amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 is the article that I am in part responsible for because it deals with the review of parole eligibility for convicted murderers at 15 years. This bill would allow for certain victim information to be provided at those hearings which are meant to determine whether parole eligibility should be reduced from 25 years to 15 years.

I certainly agree that we must have more programs to help victims, that we must consider victims more in our criminal justice system but I have some doubt if this is the right place to provide for victims' statements.

I say that because section 745 says that upon receipt of an application under this section the appropriate chief justice shall designate a judge to empanel a jury to hear the application and determine whether the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct-that is, the

inmate's conduct while serving his sentence-the nature of the offence and such other matters as the judge deems relevant.

I have to ask myself whether the information of the victim's family-it will have to be the victim's family in this case, the parents, the wife, the husband of the person who has been murdered-put on the record would relate to the character of the applicant because that is what the judge has to consider, the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the offence. I ask how the victim's family might have something to say after 15 years about the character or the conduct of the inmate applying for early parole eligibility.

In any case, I presume that the victim information statements would have to be relevant to the matter that is before the court and not to matters that are irrelevant.

Let me explain the background of these provisions. Prior to 1976 those convicted of non-capital murder or whose sentences were commuted from the death penalty who had committed capital murder were eligible for parole at 10 years. I should point out that we have had no executions in Canada since 1962. Until 1976 when we had parole eligibility at 10 years there were very few errors. I think at the time we introduced the bill in 1976 in the history of the country there had been four individuals who had been released on parole and committed murder again. The 10-year parole eligibility experience had not been one which led to disaster in this country.

When capital punishment was abolished in 1976 we provided a life sentence for first and second degree murder with parole eligibility at 10 years for second degree murder with the possibility of the judge and jury increasing that up to 25 years at the time of the trial or the judgment. For first degree murder it was a 25 year parole eligibility period but with the opportunity of applying at 15 years for a reduction of the parole eligibility date from 25 to 15.

Some commentators and some members of this House have referred to that 15-year provision as a loophole. It was not a loophole. It was in the bill. It was debated in this House. It is clearly in the legislation. It is expressly provided for. It is not something that the government or the authorities have found and dropped between the boards, so to speak. It is there positively. It is a positive statement in the law that one can apply at 15 years to have one's parole eligibility reduced from 25 years to 15 years. If the court reduces your parole eligibility from 25 to 16 or 17 years you still have to go to the parole board and argue in favour of your parole.

You cannot be paroled unless you prove to the parole board that you are completely rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. This is not automatic before the parole board or before the court on the 15-year review. As a matter of fact, most applicants on the 15-year review have been turned down. Even when people get before the parole board many of the cases are rejected. They are not granted parole because they are not able to establish that they are totally rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society.

I have proposed that we do away with the 15-year review and have parole eligibility at 15 years. Some people have misrepresented that proposal and have said that I am proposing that the sentence for murder be 15 years. That is totally false. The sentence for murder is and was a life sentence and should remain a life sentence.

One must also remember that when you are on a life sentence even if you are on parole the sentence continues. You may be serving the sentence outside the institution, outside of prison, but you are still under that life sentence. If you break the conditions of your parole-you do not even have to commit a crime-you can be sent back to prison to continue serving the life sentence. If you commit a minor offence of criminal negligence, theft or whatever, you can be put back into prison not only for the minor offence but also to continue serving your life sentence for murder.

It is not a question of changing the sentence for murder. The sentence for murder is life. I am not suggesting that it be otherwise. What we are talking about is the eligibility for parole, whether it should be 15 years or 25 years. We are not suggesting that the sentence be changed. It is a question under our system of whether you serve your sentence in a maximum security institution, in a medium security institution, in a minimum security institution or outside an institution altogether but under supervision in the community, which is parole.

There are various ways of serving sentences but you are still under sentence. For murder it is always a life sentence and nobody has suggested changing the sentence.

I simply want to say I was pleased that the minister did not do away with the 15-year review in the case of convicted murderers. I have some concern about how the provision he has put in the bill will apply and be relevant to the question to be decided at 15 years. My preference would have been that we get rid of the 15-year review and have parole eligibility at 15 years. Not everybody would be granted parole. They would still have to prove that they were no longer a danger to society and were totally rehabilitated. Therefore, people who are dangerous would not be released. They would still be kept in prison. It would give an opportunity to those who have served 15 or 16

years who were totally rehabilitated, who are ready to work and support themselves and their families to go back into society under supervision, serving their sentence in society, in the community.

I want to say again that any policy on sentencing must have as its principal goal the protection of the public. The purpose of criminal law is to protect the public from that behaviour which we categorize as criminal. That is the goal. If that is the goal of course then once we have people within the prison system our goal there has to be to rehabilitate or correct those individuals because the overwhelming majority of them will be on limited sentences and returned to society. If they are going to return to society the goal of the system has to be to rehabilitate, to correct.

We cannot expect the Criminal Code or the criminal justice system or our sentencing policy to be the principal means of preventing and reducing crime. Those policies can only relate to individuals once the crime is committed, once the damage has been done.

If we are really interested in reducing and preventing crime then we have to direct our attention to the causes of those crimes, whether they are social or economic, whether they are psychological. We have to ask ourselves why these individuals whether they are young people or adults are committing those crimes, and what can we do to prevent them.

Maybe we can have better gun control. I fully support more gun control and will support the minister when he brings in his bill because the fewer guns available the fewer crimes we will have with guns.

It could be that we have to do something about children who are abandoned or mistreated, whose parents are alcoholics or drug addicts who have abandoned their children and they grow up in a system of complete neglect without belonging to any family or group and who become very anti-social.

My point is those people who think that we can simply make amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing or the substance of a criminal offence will solve the problem and give the public the impression that will bring about a safer society are deluding society, are fooling society. They are not being honest with society.

We could amend every section of the Criminal Code. We could make it as hard and tough as we wish. That would not solve the problem. We have seen that, as I have said, in certain states of the United States.

If we are truly serious about protecting the public from crime, reducing crime or preventing crime, we must address the causes of crime. It is not simply a question for the Department of Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. It is also for health and welfare, human resources, employment and immigration, provincial governments, school boards and municipal governments. We all have to play our role in dealing with society and the causes that give rise to crime.

I will bring my remarks to a close. As I said, the bill contains some very good provisions, some better alternatives for sentencing. It sets out a charter or a goal for sentencing policy. However there are a few provisions in the bill with which I have concern and I will be pleased, with the permanent committee on justice, to examine the bill to see if it can be improved in committee.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-34 which implements self-government for First Nations in Yukon, an extremely historic agreement.

It is a particular pleasure for me to do this because as Minister of Indian Affairs in 1976-77 I was involved in the original negotiations with respect to these matters. At that time the claim made by the Council of Yukon Indians was entitled "Together Today for our Children Tomorrow" and was presented by Elijah Smith, an outstanding leader with the Yukon Indians. Soon afterwards I dealt with the new president of the Yukon Indians who was known as Daniel Johnson.

I supported this claim at that time which is a long time ago and I am pleased today after many ups and downs that it is finally settled and being ratified at this time by the House of Commons. I should point out that part of the delay over these many years has been due to the fact that the Yukon Indians to their credit not only put forward land claims in the traditional way but also wished to have aboriginal self-government as part of their claim and that held up the negotiations for many years.

It is also interesting to note that some of the people who were active with the Council of Yukon Indians back in 1976-77 when I was negotiating with it are still active today. I saw in the balcony last night people such as David Joe, Harry Allen and Vic Mitander. I must congratulate them all, along with Judy Gingell, the new chairperson of the Council for Yukon Indians, for their tenacity and their commitment to their claim and for having stuck with it over the years despite some very tough negotiating situations.

It is interesting to note that when we started the process back in the seventies very few Canadians understood and supported what we are doing here today. There was very little understanding and support for aboriginal land claims and especially for aboriginal self-government. However over the years there has been great progress and great advance in public education to the extent where today there is overwhelming support for these claims.

A certain amount of the success in advancing this public education was due to the aboriginal nations and to the work of the special committee on Indian self-government in the 1980s under Keith Penner, a former member from northern Ontario. I was also a member of that committee. The process that led up to the Charlottetown accord included provisions for aboriginal self-government which by that time had achieved a great deal of support among Canadians. Despite the fact that the Charlottetown accord was rejected by Canadians, the clauses with respect to aboriginal self-government had a lot of support.

As Canadians we have come a long way in understanding and supporting aboriginal self-government. Unfortunately that support is not yet unanimous. I am sad to say that we still have in the House a number of members, those in the Reform Party, and others in the country who still do not seem to understand this important concept and who still bring up the old myths and stereotypes with respect to aboriginal people. I ask these members with great sincerity to take a new look at it. There is still time for them to vote in support of this very important measure.

We must remember that the aboriginal nations in Canada and in North America generally were here for thousands of years before the Europeans came. In that time they had their own lands, their own governments, their own languages, their own cultures, their own laws and their own economies. They were nations and they lived on the lands we now occupy.

When most of us as Europeans-and some of us came from other lands-first came here the aboriginal people thought they were sharing the land with us. They certainly were not transferring it to us. They never agreed to give up their rights and their sovereignty with respect to these lands, their cultures, traditions, governments and so on. Regretfully our people, the descendants of the Europeans, gradually took it away from them.

It is only justice that today and in other land claim settlements and through the treaties these demands have finally been recognized, that these rights are finally recognized, and that we have agreed to settle with these nations as we are doing today with the Yukon First Nations.

We are now on the third and final reading of Bill C-34 which is the Yukon First Nations self-government act. The self-government agreements to which this legislation pertains are in many respects the most complex self-government arrangements we have ever attempted in the country. For one thing they are unique in that they are the first such agreements tied in directly with a comprehensive land claim agreement that is ratified at the same time.

This legislation will be passed together with the Yukon land claims settlements act, Bill C-33. That means the administration of both the claims and self-government aspects will begin simultaneously in these First Nations that have signed self-government agreements.

It is also the first self-government legislation to cover all the First Nations within a single province or territory. Previous self-government arrangements have been made with a single band such as with the Sechelt band of British Columbia, or with a regional group such as was the case with the Cree and Naskapi in northern Quebec.

The Yukon settlement, which was initiated by the Council of Yukon Indians, covers the vast majority of aboriginal people in the territory. It includes almost a quarter of Yukon's total population.

The legislation is also the first self-government legislation to include several different aboriginal cultures and communities under a single piece of legislation. Yukon has some seven distinct native language groups. There are 16 communities in

Yukon, virtually all of which have a significant aboriginal population.

Finally the Yukon self-government legislation is the first under which the First Nations will be empowered to provide certain programs and services not only to residents living on settlement land but also to First Nation citizens living off settlement land. This is another first.

Given these unique features, it is not surprising there were fairly protracted negotiations before the final agreements were reached. Because of the complexity and diversity of Yukon's aboriginal communities, the government agreed to negotiate and sign individual self-government agreements with each of 14 separate First Nations. Four such agreements have now been finalized. Active negotiations are currently being pursued with five others.

The government is confident this process will be completed satisfactorily over the next few years. While each agreement will have certain unique provisions reflecting the particular characteristics and needs of individual First Nations, there are certain common areas covered in all the agreements negotiated to date.

These include first, the recognition of First Nation governing structures. Unlike the previous band structure under the Indian Act that they will replace, First Nations will have broad powers similar to those of other governments to enter into contracts, acquire and hold property, and form corporations. These powers are vitally important if the First Nation is to effectively administer self-government and develop initiatives to improve the economic and social conditions in its communities.

Second, these agreements will replace the Indian Act. Under the agreement the Indian Act will no longer apply to a Yukon First Nation, its citizens or its land, except for some minor provisions which deal with for example the question of which citizens are Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, how reserve lands are to be treated under a self-government regime, and provisions respecting the treatment of trust moneys for minors.

Third, the agreements provide for an ongoing process for transferring programs to the First Nations, that is transferring programs from the department of Indian affairs to First Nations. It is inherent in these agreements that First Nation governments will assume responsibility for administering a number of programs and services now provided by either the federal or territorial governments. These will include social services, health services, and educational responsibilities.

This will be done on a transitional basis in which the First Nation will take the initiative in determining which programs it is prepared to take on and in what order. Annual meetings will be held between government and First Nations to review priorities and agree on the timing and financing of these transfers.

Although this process will take time, the government is confident that over the next several years the minister will be able to downsize the department of Indian and Inuit affairs operations in Yukon by some 75 per cent from present levels. Only a small staff will remain to handle responsibilities and obligations directly related to the implementation of federal responsibilities emerging from self-government. I want to congratulate the minister on the actions he has taken in that respect.

Fourth, the legislation provides for the establishment of law-making authority of First Nations over their citizens and settlement land. Although federal laws of general application will remain paramount, First Nations will have authority to pass legislation dealing with internal management, the provision of services, taxation on settlement land and similar matters.

Fifth, with respect to the funding of Yukon First Nations, self-government will be by means of new five-year comprehensive financial transfer agreements which will replace current funding agreements. These will give First Nations much more scope and flexibility within which to set priorities and plan for the orderly development of their communities.

These are the key general provisions in the legislation that will be common to all the self-government agreements in Yukon. However, some differences will exist from one First Nation to another in Yukon, for example, in procedures established for ratification of the agreement and in the specific provisions dealing with the application of self-government powers within community boundaries.

The most compelling aspect of self-government is the opportunity it provides for economic development within aboriginal communities. Both aboriginal leaders and the government are seriously concerned about the continuing high rates of unemployment among aboriginal Canadians. This is clearly one of the major stumbling blocks to improving the economic and social conditions among Canada's aboriginal population. As the government has stated, this is a matter of national concern. The untapped potential of aboriginal people is untapped potential for all of Canada.

Yukon's aboriginal population is young with more than half of that population under 24 years of age. Like the aboriginal population as a whole, it is growing at a faster rate than the national average. Compounding this situation is the fact that young aboriginal people in all parts of Canada, including Yukon, are seeking greater educational opportunities in recent years. Across Canada, the number of young aboriginal people staying in school until grade 12 has doubled in the past decade. The

number going on to post-secondary institutions, universities and colleges has almost doubled in the past five years.

This is an extremely positive development and one that reflects well on the leadership of aboriginal communities and the governments that have supported their efforts. It also means there is a growing generation of job-ready young people coming to the employment market with higher hopes, higher aspirations and higher expectations than ever before. Unless these hopes and expectations are reasonably met, they will quickly be replaced by despair and disillusionment.

The very fact that these land claims and self-government agreements will come into effect will create an environment of greater certainty and stability in Yukon. This in turn will have a positive effect on investment, particularly in the important resource sectors of mining and mineral development. An upsurge in activity in these key areas will certainly have a ripple effect throughout Yukon's economy and will create improved job opportunities for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

Our government, the Liberal government, is convinced that aboriginal economic development must be largely a bottom-up exercise. Aboriginal controlled community enterprises and effective community development institutions will be the main engines of economic growth for them and for the entire communities. We are further convinced that the combination of the powers inherent in self-government taken in tandem with the funding provided in the land claims agreement will create a climate in which such development and institutions will have a much better chance of succeeding.

Self-government can work to provide wealth and jobs, provided the arrangements have been carefully worked out and provided the First Nations concerned are willing and able to take maximum advantage of the opportunities presented to them. This is certainly the case with regard to Yukon's First Nations. The self-government agreements have been painstakingly worked through negotiations spanning many years.

The leadership of Yukon's First Nations are ready and willing to take on the job of governing and rebuilding their communities. There is no reason to delay. There is every reason for us to give speedy consideration and passage of this self-government legislation so that the work can begin. I think the government did the right thing in putting forward the motions last night to ensure this legislation would pass before we adjourn this House for the summer recess.

I must say as well that self-government is not the be all and end all. As several aboriginal leaders have pointed out recently, simply signing a document cannot make the problems of their people disappear overnight. On the other hand, this government is convinced that all these problems of housing, social services, education and economic progress can be more effectively advanced and dealt with within the environment of greater local autonomy, a sound financial framework and equally and mutually respectful relations among governments at all levels. That is what self-government is essentially about. It is why this government has brought this legislation before the House.

I conclude by urging all members of this House, including my friends in the Reform Party, to support this legislation.

[Committees Of The House, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee agreed to recommend that, with reference to the provisions of the Privacy Act governing use of personal information, the continuing disclosure to members of Parliament of the names and addresses of new citizens for the sole purpose of forwarding a one time congratulatory letter with the optional enclosure of information relating to the constituency, constitutes both a purpose in the public interest and a benefit to the individual new citizen, as envisaged by section 8(2)( m ) of the Privacy Act and should be recognized as such by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Black Watch Regimental Band, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to protest the proposed cuts to the Black Watch Regimental Band stationed in Montreal. In effect these cuts would kill this renowned Canadian institution.

The Black Watch Band is 132 years old and is the last remaining highland band in Quebec. It represents an outstanding regiment which distinguished itself in both the first and second world wars.

This band has been a significant symbol of Canadian valour, culture and social commitment. Every year the Black Watch Band appears at a wide variety of community and social functions, including the Canada Day parade, the St. Patrick's parade and many others.

It seems strange that in the same month where we honoured our Canadian troops for their D-Day contribution and the Black Watch Band participated in these ceremonies, the government is now taking steps to cut the band.

Since it is only a matter of $28,000, which will not affect our deficit one way or another, I ask the government to reconsider this decision which would kill a great Montreal institution, one that contributes much to our heritage and to our community.

[Nuclear Weapons, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in May 1993 the World Health Organization asked the World Court to declare nuclear weapons illegal under international law.

As a result the World Court asked all member states, including Canada, to submit their positions by June 10, 1994.

I want to urge the government to make such a submission. At this time there are six known nuclear weapon states and there are 15 other states that either have or are developing nuclear weapons capacity. If this proliferation continues and nuclear weapons are held by irresponsible leaders in the world, the entire planet is in grave danger.

In 1995 the 25-year old non-proliferation treaty will come to an end unless there is political will in the world to have it continue and make it work. We have banned chemical weapons. We should do the same with nuclear weapons.

I urge Canada to support this World Court project before the June 10 deadline.

[Petitions, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 800 residents of Quebec requesting effective political action to stop the violence and genocide in Bosnia.

The petitioners point out that despite numerous UN resolutions and ceasefires, there are still excessive cases of atrocity and violence against Bosnian civilians: rape, murder and ethnic cleansing.

The petitioners ask Parliament to support measures to stop this inhumane conflict and bring justice and peace to the Bosnian people.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I simply want to say how much I support the motion of the hon. member for Nepean.

As other members have pointed out, in other countries including the United States, there is no tax on child support payments to women who receive them. Yes, there is taxation on alimony payments to former wives, to formers spouses, but not on child support that is sent to a mother. If they can do it in the United States certainly this is one area where we can copy them.

I also simply want to make the point that fathers who are still in the family have the obligation in the family to support their children. There is no special tax break of the same nature that they have under the present law.

I simply as another member want to fully support the initiative of the hon. member for Nepean and hope that the court appeal will in no way impede in the long run what she is attempting to do.

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 27, I put a question to the Minister of Justice asking him what action he would take to ban handguns as a result of a meeting he had earlier that week with a group which made that proposal to him. The group in question consisted of representatives from Concordia University, the Canadian Safety Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ottawa chief of police and others.

In answer to my question the minister said that the government is committed toward more effective gun control, but he was not able to give me much detail at that time in his answer. As a result I am putting the question once again today.

Since that time several important things have happened. We have had two drive-by shootings in this area recently, one by a group of minors who were able to obtain weapons, guns and ammunition illegally and without much difficulty.

The second happening was a very important resolution passed by the Liberal convention here in Ottawa just a few weeks ago. In that resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the convention delegates, among other things they asked that the private possession and ownership of handguns be severely restricted.

As many have pointed out and as I have pointed out in this House before, handguns are not used for hunting. They have no legitimate purpose with private individuals and therefore should be banned or at least severely restricted. They are now restricted weapons but they are still available too loosely and much can be done to tighten that up.

Among the other subclauses of that resolution is one which would ban the sale and ownership of ammunition to those under 18 years of age. The sale of such ammunition would only be made to adults if they were in possession of the appropriate documentation.

For years I have been proposing that no one should be permitted to buy ammunition unless they present the firearms acquisition certificate. In this way all those who want to use and/or own weapons would have to get a firearms acquisition certificate because in order to shoot the gun and to be effective in one's shooting of the gun, one needs both the gun and the ammunition.

If we can put more obstacles in the way of those who want to use weapons in a criminal way or illegally, the better off we are and the better chance we have of reducing crime with guns. To oblige people to have a firearms acquisition certificate or other appropriate documentation, as the resolution points out, the better chance we have of preventing incidents such as happened in Ottawa and other incidents across the country where people have committed crimes with guns.

I repeat over and over again that there is considerable evidence from Canada and around the world that where guns are less available and where ammunition is less available there are fewer crimes with guns. That is an absolute fact that has been shown over and over again.

Once again I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his answer to me and also the response of the Prime Minister following the convention. If the parliamentary secretary could give us more details with respect to this important matter, we would appreciate it very much.