Jay Hill

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an occasion for me to completely agree with a member from the Bloc Quebecois. I thank her for the kind comments on this subject.

It is indicative of the difficulty that Canadians and industries have trying to deal with the issue. We agree that we require a neutral third party to look at the issue rather than forge ahead based on the information on one side of the argument.

It is interesting to note her comments about the studies the automobile industry says it has done and yet these studies are a secret. If the studies support their side of the argument, why would they not bring them forward? To me that would be obvious.

I support the position of the Reform member for Comox-Alberni who earlier said that at the very least if the government is intent on forging ahead and ramming through the legislation as it has done with so many others in the past month. I would hope, following the vote at second reading, that the issue would be referred to the environment committee with a mandate to do a very intensive study and hear the various sides.

I certainly prefer, as does the Bloc obviously, to see an independent neutral study done but at the very least the environment committee should be given the mandate to look at this issue.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is my understanding that the OBD systems on these vehicles were requested by the American government, obviously to control pollution.

One of the biggest problems with the whole issue has been the inability of the petroleum industry on one side and the car manufacturers on the other side to get together and develop something that would benefit both industries and all Canadians and Americans. I hope that would be the outcome of an independent study. If the two sides could agree who should conduct the study and to abide by the results of the study, that is the kind of thing Canadians are looking for.

Suffice it to say that the two sides should be brought together, which has not been the case in the past. We have been getting these constantly conflicting statements from one side versus the other.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Even more important for Canada, it appears that as a result auto manufacturers are now considering a joint testing program between the U.S. and Canada because MMT may be on the U.S. unleaded gas market within the year. And note I said "may be".

What will Canada be doing as MMT fills gas stations across the border? Preventing its movement to appease the current whims of the auto industry. While the government commits itself to eliminating internal trade barriers in Bill C-88, the

Minister of the Environment is busy erecting them in Bill C-94. Not only does this demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Liberal commitment to freer trade between the provinces. It also demonstrates the inability of the Minister of the Environment to act decisively and responsibly on an important issue. Lacking the hard evidence to defend the outright elimination of MMT in fuels, she is caving in to the lobbying efforts of one group. Instead of making her decision based on technical information regarding the problems with the use of MMT, she is completely sidestepping the issue.

Bill C-94 means MMT can still be sold and used wherever it is produced. So petroleum producers could produce MMT in southern Ontario, where most cars are driven, and they would not be prohibited from selling it at the pumps. Somehow I do not see how this addresses the real issue of whether or not MMT contributes to pollution or should be used at all in Canada. This merely prevents the transport of MMT across borders but does not prevent its use.

If I were a suspicious and cynical westerner I might question the regional economic impacts of this bill, which seem to far outweigh any environmental concerns the minister might have. I might wonder why the minister refuses to consider studies by petroleum producers in western Canada or the United States. I might wonder if she represents the interests of all Canadians in all industries or merely a select few in Liberal territory in central Canada.

If I were really cynical I might wonder at the timing of the introduction of this bill, during the Ontario election campaign, in the province most dependent on the auto industry. When faced with an ultimatum by the auto companies to ban MMT use by August, what did the government do? Did it get tough and try to determine what the truth is regarding its effects? No, that would be too much to expect.

The government has a very bad track record when it comes to standing up for Canadians in the face of pressure from big industry. Remember the powerful tobacco lobby last year, when the government refused to look at a real solution to the smuggling problem. Instead of raising export tariffs or beefing up our anti-smuggling patrols, it gave the tobacco companies what they wanted: lower taxes to add new teenage smokers to their growing list of the addicted.

Instead of finding out the truth about MMT, the government is acceding to the demands of the car lobby without independent proof of its claims. What is more, possibly because they cannot prove the harmful effects of MMT, the environment minister is not actually banning it, just restricting its movement.

Something is not quite right here. Why is the Minister of the Environment championing a bill that says and does absolutely nothing about protecting the environment? Until we have an independent study, the only things being protected here are the interests of the auto industry.

What will some of the consequences of this legislation be? For one thing, increased pollution from sulphur emissions in western Canada, where the refineries must change their processing. If MMT cannot be moved interprovincially, producers will spend an additional $100 million to switch over to another fuel additive and will have to refine the gas more for higher octane levels, thereby increasing sulphur emissions. Is that increase in pollution included in the minister's calculations?

There will be up to a 20 per cent increase in nitrogen oxide levels emitted by cars if we ban MMT. Of course now the car manufacturers dispute the 20 per cent figure because of the changes they have been forced to make with the new pollution controls.

Kicking and screaming, the auto industry finally started to invest some research and development dollars into eliminating pollution. Suddenly it has found that it can reduce nitrogen oxide levels substantially. It does not dispute that MMT would decrease nitrogen oxide levels further, only that it will not be as much as 20 per cent because it has finally started producing more efficient cars. However, no one has calculated how much nitrogen oxide levels will go up once a final balance is reached between more efficient cars and less efficient alternate fuel additives.

Let us look at the other side of the equation. How much would it cost auto manufacturers to develop a flushing system or technology to deal with the effects of MMT? I think $100 million seems a little steep, but I am not a scientist or a chemist. I do not pretend to understand why research to solve the problem would cost more than $100 million. Either way, it is the Canadian driver who is going to lose.

MMT has been in use in Canada for 18 years. There is no guarantee that it will not be around for another 18 years. If the auto industry had such grave concern about the effect of MMT on emission systems, why was that not built into the original R and D? Why should the federal government legislate a ban on the movement of MMT because the auto industry did not deem the Canadian fuel market important enough to consider it while it was developing its OBD systems?

On the one hand, if we do not use MMT we have the potential for increasing hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other smog ingredients, with their various negative health effects. On the other hand, if we keep MMT no one will know if or when the emission systems fail because the detection systems will be disabled.

I want to turn now to the second part of the debate, which seems to have been buried in Canada but was the reason the EPA initially denied the waiver for MMT in unleaded gas in the U.S. That is the issue of airborne manganese and its effects on the health of Canadians.

We have known for more than a hundred years that airborne manganese is harmful and results in neurological disorders similar to Parkinson's disease. It has been an occupational hazard in manganese mines, where workers breathe in an extremely high level of manganese dust.

One would think that the Minister of the Environment would want to ban MMT if it contributed to unsafe manganese levels in our air. In light of the EPA statements, one would think she would want to conduct tests to see whether Canada should control airborne manganese. Why does she not? Why instead does she go through a ridiculous loop to ban the interprovincial trade of manganese based substances? Should she not as Minister of the Environment be more concerned about emissions?

Although Environment Canada has not conducted studies on this issue, Health Canada has. Its findings are very interesting and refute the EPA administrator's reasonable concerns about the health risks of MMT with hard evidence. The Health Canada study attempted to determine a safe daily intake of airborne manganese. Our bodies can handle ingested manganese much better than airborne manganese. It is an essential part of our diet. However excessive intake of manganese can result in an accumulation in the brain, which will cause the neurological problems I mentioned. Infants and older people are particularly susceptible to the negative effects.

What did Health Canada discover? After establishing a safe daily intake level it studied airborne manganese, particularly that related to MMT. Even garage mechanics fell well inside the acceptable range of manganese inhalation. The major findings regarding MMT are as follows, and I quote from the study:

Levels of respirable manganese in major Canadian urban centres have remained constant or decreased from 1986 to 1992, and do not reflect major changes in MMT use during that time, suggesting that MMT does not contribute substantially to manganese concentrations.

The part of the study I found most enlightening was with respect to why the minister might be reluctant to initiate a study on the effects of MMT related specifically to airborne manganese in particular industrial towns. The study reads:

Inhalation exposure to manganese has been assessed for residents of cities with large manganese-emitting industries such as steel mills. Current mean ambient air manganese levels are at, or substantially above, the acceptable daily intake. Inhalation uptake from all age groups approaches or exceeds the total daily uptake. This raises concern regarding chronic exposure to manganese for residents in these cities and recommendations are made regarding this issue.

If we had an environment minister truly concerned about the effect of emissions on Canadian health one she would be right on top of trying to control manganese emissions from steel plants in towns like Hamilton. Perhaps that is expecting a bit too much.

Obviously we need an independent review or study to determine the truth. Each side has studies supporting its particular view. The petroleum industry has been pushing for such an independent study but the auto industry has balked. I wonder why that would be. Why has the Minister of the Environment not proposed an independent study? A number of reasons come to mind.

One reason might be the power of the auto industry in southern Ontario, a veritable Liberal stronghold. Maybe she does not think we need an independent study because she only believes the studies by the auto industry and not the ones by the petroleum producers.

Before putting this ban in place, the Minister of the Environment must act responsibly and commission an independent investigation into the environmental effects of MMT and its use in cars. This must include pollutants such as the expected increase in sulphur and other emissions at refineries and the increase in nitrogen oxide levels estimated at the equivalent of one million additional cars on the road.

Then it should look at the other side of the equation that might result from the removal of MMT, at the increase in airborne manganese levels, verification of a Health Canada study which indicated there was not a health risk linked to MMT use, the failure of emission control systems and the overall failure rate. Car manufacturers have not provided such numbers to my knowledge.

When all these factors are considered perhaps the government could make a rational decision based on hard evidence rather than just cave in to the auto industry and the jobs and votes they represent in Liberal ridings.

The main objective of the car companies appears to be to standardize fuels in North America. They could not care less about pollution or emissions in Canada. Because they cannot change the American market, they will get their wish by coercing the Canadian government. Do we not have a right to our own standards in this country? Why should any industry be able to dictate terms to us?

In conclusion, the Minister of the Environment by passing this bill to block the interprovincial trade of MMT is not acting in the best interests of the Canadian people. If there are significant health risks and pollution problems associated with the use of MMT, I would be the first to stand behind her, back her up and support her. However she refuses to conduct an independent study.

A reduction in nitrogen oxide levels for every car may far outstrip any potential pollution from a few failed OBD systems. It is time the minister starts acting like the Minister of the Environment for Canada, not the minister of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.

The minister should do the right thing and order an independent study.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, despite the late hour of 11 p.m., it is somewhat of a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act.

For those members who have been told they must vote for this bill and have therefore decided that they do not need to understand the whole issue, I would like to give them a few of the facts surrounding this lobby effort by the powerful auto industry.

MMT has been used in Canada in unleaded fuel since 1977. Contrary to some disinformation in the papers, MMT has also been used in the United States since 1978 in leaded gas. Congress passed laws that said that all additives for unleaded fuels had to get a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency before they could be used-all additives, not just MMT.

In their previous applications to use MMT, petroleum companies were unable to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that MMT should be given a waiver. In the last application the EPA reviewed evidence from both sides. Auto manufacturers contend that MMT should be banned because they believe that MMT gums up the new anti-pollution systems mandated for all cars in 1996. The onboard diagnostic systems, or OBD as they are called, apparently get coated with manganese and the car companies claim this results in inaccurate readings. They state: "Manganese based additives precipitate the degradation and failure of vehicle emission systems".

The petroleum companies ran their own tests and did not find MMT adversely affected the performance of the OBDs. Further, they point out that the auto companies' own tests prove that MMT does not adversely affect the detection of emission failures. When the system detected a problem, the failure light went on.

This finding is important, because now Canadian auto manufacturers are threatening to disable the dashboard light that signals the control system is not operating at optimum. By disabling the detection system, the car companies are deliberately, and spitefully I might add, preventing Canada from achieving pollution and emission targets.

The EPA, with its very strict standards, reviewed the evidence from both sides. It found no reason to refuse a waiver for MMT based on its effects on the emissions control equipment. The EPA administrator first noted that "use of Ethol's product in unleaded gasoline at the specified concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure to achieve compliance with vehicle emission standards".

However, she went on to cover other factors beyond her mandate with respect to the waiver application. She found that "there is a reasonable basis for concern about the effects on public health that could result if EPA were to approve the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline". On those grounds the administrator again denied the waiver. However, on April 14 the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned this decision, noting that the reasonable basis for concern that she applied was not consistent with section 211(c) of the act, which deals with health factors. Specifically there must be "significant risk to public health", which was not found in this case.

I would like to know why the Minister of the Environment has not addressed this aspect of MMT. It would seem to be her duty to protect Canadians against airborne pollutants, which will negatively impact on their health. Instead of pursuing this, the main objection by the EPA administrator, she is passing legislation to ban the importation or movement of MMT across borders.

Why does the government not have the gumption to stand up to blatant threats by the auto industry? It has warned that it would slap an extra $3,000 on the price of all 1996 model cars, void all exhaust system warranties and simply disconnect the new anti-pollution devices if Ottawa did not act by August. I want to know what the $3,000 would be used for. Is it going to research and development to make slightly different pollution control systems for Canada? Or, is it a fearmongering tactic by the car companies?

We have had MMT additives since 1977 in Canada. Why were the effects of MMT not built into the OBD tests over the last several years?

Another reason the auto industry has given for its position is to harmonize the North American market. It does not want to invest in technology to meet Canada's requirements, only those of the U.S.

Harmonizing the North American market sounds like a great plan during this age of NAFTA and free trade, except for one thing: the EPA has been ordered to give a waiver to American petroleum producers to start using MMT in unleaded gas. The appeal date on that decision expired last week without an appeal by the auto manufacturers or the EPA. If they felt their facts were so solid, why did they not appeal?

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, despite the very late hour I will try to return a little sanity to the debate.

Bill C-41, the sentencing bill before us, has some fundamental flaws. It seems the drafters could not decide what is the real purpose of sentencing. Should we base the prison term on the seriousness of the crime or the identity of the victim? Are alternative measures desirable because our jails are full or because it is more likely that criminals in community service programs are less likely to reoffend?

Certainly a structured program in open custody may be a preferable alternative to incarceration for a first time offender, especially if it is more for a minor property offence and genuine remorse is shown.

Is it appropriate for repeat offenders whether against property or people? Section 717 leaves alternative measures wide open. There are no limitations on which types of crime should be excluded. If it is primarily intended to empty our jails of the people who fail to pay their fines then say so. If it is supposed to provide an alternative for first time offenders who do not belong with hardened criminals then say so, but do not leave it wide open.

Who gets to decide which self-admitted criminal will benefit from alternative measures? In section 717(b) the bill only says a person. This means someone other than a judge may decide which criminals avoid court and a criminal conviction.

Why is the government reluctant to exclude habitual or violent offenders from alternative measures? Is it afraid of a charter challenge by murderers who would claim that their rights are being violated? If they are denied alternative measures, will lawyers try to tie up the courts with appeals and challenges to any decision to proceed in the courts?

If the government does not have the courage to restrict eligibility for alternative measures perhaps we must reconsider whether alternative measures should be available at all. As legislators we have a responsibility to society to make the tough decisions about which types of crime or offenders should be eligible.

A condition of people's eligibility under section 717 is admitting to their crime. However, after admitting to an offence, they are henceforth referred to as persons alleged to have committed an offence. There is no trial. They are never convicted of a crime. They are not called an offender and therefore have no criminal record. Furthermore their admission of guilt cannot be used against them in any future court proceedings. Alternative measures represent the ultimate plea bargaining dream for lawyers. Now they can admit to a crime, there is no conviction, and the records are buried after two years.

I quote from section 717.1:

-regardless of the degree of their compliance with the terms and conditions of the alternative measures.

Something is very wrong with the sentencing bill. Section 717 needs to be fixed or struck.

Another seriously flawed section is 718 which outlines the purposes and principles of sentencing. Noticeably absent from the list is the concept of punishment. For example, under section 718(a) one objective is: "to denounce unlawful conduct". What is that supposed to mean? Breaking the law is not nice? Why do we not say that one objective is to punish unlawful conduct?

Under section 718(b) the objective is: "to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences". I find it encouraging that the government considers alternative measures such as raking leaves at the local park deterrents. At the same time it totally denies the deterrent value of capital punishment in the case of first degree murder. Which would give a person greater pause: the prospect of three square meals a day, leisure time and the opportunity to pursue a university degree behind bars, or the death penalty?

The objective of section 718(d) is: "to assist in rehabilitating offenders", which represents a clear indictment of our rehabilitation record. Why not simply say to rehabilitate offenders? Why qualify it? If we admit that they are not rehabilitated, that incarceration alone is not working and that we know they are going to reoffend, why are we letting them out? Is that consistent with public safety?

The drafters of the bill failed to realize that incarceration by itself does not punish or rehabilitate people. Likewise acknowledgement of one's actions is not the same thing as guilt or remorse. Let us face it, the real reason we are trying alternative measures is that the government is finally willing to admit the current prison system is not working. If the government can prove recidivism rates are lower with community service and open custody, why are the same principles of work and restitution to society not being applied during incarceration? What is wrong with making able bodied prisoners work?

The new Ontario government is contemplating workfare for welfare recipients. The bill advocates labour in the community, but the government is afraid it will be denying the rights of hardened criminals if they have to work to help compensate for their room and board in prison. Perfecting their golf swing or learning new safe cracking techniques from fellow inmates is hardly constructive or liable to contribute to rehabilitation or reintegration.

Why can we advocate labour for people in open custody but not for those in closed custody? Society should not fear the concept of punishment. Instead we seem to extend more rights to criminals than to victims. At last count Clifford Olsen had launched 32 frivolous lawsuits at taxpayers' expense. Instead of helping to support the cost of their upkeep and learning the habit of working every day, other felons like him go on strike over the quality of their food.

In section 718.2 the government completely departs from the previous implicit admission that our jails are crowded and incarceration as now practised is not working. Suddenly the government advocates putting people behind bars for longer periods, not based on the seriousness of the crime but on the physical attributes or the sexual preferences of the victim.

I find it ironic that in section 717 the government refuses to list which crimes are eligible for alternative measures, leaving it open to anything from car theft to murder. However when we turn to section 718.2 suddenly the government feels the need to create a list. If the aggravating and mitigating circumstances apply to everyone equally why is there a list of special considerations?

After letters opposing the new gun control legislation, the second highest number of letters I have received from my constituents concern the inclusion of the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the list of aggravating circumstances found in the bill. They do not want special rights extended to Canadians based on their sexual preferences, and that is what section 718.2 appears to do.

If the government caves in to special interest groups and political correctness then it should call a spade a spade.

By including the phrase sexual orientation the government is trying to deter gay bashing by heterosexuals. By leaving it undefined it can also include other sexual orientations such as pedophilia and necrophilia.

Liberal colleagues across the way will say that pedophilia is a crime in Canada. Yes, it is. A recent court decision said that sodomy with a 14-year-old was legal, but under section 718.2 if someone punches a pedophile he could receive a harsher sentence even though pedophilia is illegal under Canada's laws.

Canadians want equality. Sexual orientation has been the lightning rod for Bill C-41. Even if it were defined or removed, the fundamental premise of section 718.2 is flawed. Canadians

should be equal before the law and section 718.2 must be deleted in its entirety.

If we change a basic sentence in principle and emphasize the identity of the victim more than the severity of the crime, we will truly be on that slippery slope. The rule of law requires proof, not conjecture. Regrettably prejudice exists in Canada, but creating false inequalities through arbitrary criminal sentencing will hardly address the problem. If anything, it will increase intolerance by creating the justifiable perception that some groups are getting preferential treatment under the law.

In conclusion, justice is supposed to be blind. We all grew up with the image of the blindfolded woman holding the scales. Why do criminals not receive the same sentence for the same crime based on the seriousness of the offence, no matter what group the victim belongs to? Are some Canadian lives worth more or less than others? Prejudice, bias and hatred must be addressed through other mechanisms. It is not the role of the courts to implement the government's social engineering agenda.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had not chosen to enact time allocation I am sure all of us would have enjoyed hearing the remainder of the hon. member's speech on this issue. He can thank his own party for cutting him off in that sense.

We are talking about effectiveness of this impending legislation. Every time we try to raise concerns about it in this House we are accused of trafficking in fiction. The government says that the people of Canada have to trust it. It will draft these regulations. We have not seen what they are yet. We have to trust the government that once it gets the regulations in place it will effectively address the issues.

I want to briefly read into the record the following:

Registration pertains to things-guns in this case-not people. It records the description, serial number and ownership of each item or weapon. For extremely lethal and easily hidden weapons such as handguns-which in Canada are restricted and of which there are relatively few-it is a workable and relatively effective system that screens owners and weapons alike and inhibits casual purchase. However, for the ten million long guns in Canada I believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in comparison with its potential benefits.

This quote was from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Hansard , Commons debates, page 12627, April 8, 1976, the hon. member who currently sits as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice. This is the very hypocrisy Canadians are concerned about, where members seem to change their opinion. They are concerned that this legislation will be simply one more step in the ongoing erosion of the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. I would like to hear the hon. members address that concern from Canadians.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Or they might come to the home.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was voting in favour of the motion and I inadvertently got a vote ahead. I want to make sure that my name was not recorded twice in error.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on Bill C-68 this evening. I say it is a pleasure because I am one of only three Reform MPs who has had the opportunity to address the House on this very important piece of legislation three times in the past. The first time was at second reading, the second time was on the Reform amendment to split the bill which was also at second reading before the government enacted time allocation and the third time is tonight.

As has already been said by many of my colleagues, we find it absolutely deplorable that on such a crucial piece of legislation which has elicited such high emotions across the land, we find the government has yet again enacted time allocation at report stage and at third reading.

The government limited the debate at second reading and forced the bill to the committee. It gave assurances that all of the pertinent facts, data and arguments could be brought forward at committee. Today in arguments put forward by Liberal members we were questioned why we were bringing forward these amendments at report stage. We were asked why we wanted, in their words, to tie up the House debating this legislation when we could have done it at committee stage. Those of us who participated at committee stage know that the exact opposite happened. There simply was not time to adequately address all of the concerns.

The Liberals limited the number of witnesses who could appear before the committee. Today I heard that while all MPs had the opportunity to appear before the committee they were limited to five minutes to make their points. As anyone who has ever made a public address knows, five minutes goes very quickly, especially when one is trying to make points on as many issues as are encompassed by this comprehensive piece of legislation known as Bill C-68.

Bill C-68 is a very detailed, lengthy and intricate piece of legislation with some 132 clauses in the firearms act and amendments to another 100 sections in part III of the Criminal Code. For the government to suggest we can get through that and bring forward all the pertinent points by concerned constituents and concerned Canadians across this land in a few hours of debate is absolutely ludicrous.

I find it deplorable that the government would enact time allocation and ram this through the House. That is exactly what is happening tonight. It is exactly what will be happening in a day or two when we are limited to six hours of debate at third reading as well.

I would like to speak about our amendment at second reading stage to split the bill. The Reform Party feels very strongly that we are dealing with two completely separate issues in Bill C-68. One issue is further regulation and restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners. The second issue is what to do and how to get

tough with criminals who misuse firearms and actually use them as weapons.

It is interesting to note that one of the Liberal members earlier today suggested an amendment to actually change the name of the act to "an act respecting firearms and other related matters" rather than "an act respecting firearms and other weapons" as it is presently named. I would certainly support that amendment.

As I have travelled throughout my riding, a lot of people have expressed concern that people do not differentiate between a firearm and a weapon. It is an important distinction to law-abiding firearm owners that a firearm is only a weapon at such time as it is used in the commission of a criminal offence. Prior to that it is simply viewed to many people as a tool, or something used in a hobby if they are a shooter. It is not considered by them to be a weapon. It is merely private property. It is an important distinction.

Some of my colleagues have talked about the fact that what we are discussing here is the fourth group of amendments. It is interesting to note that we are being asked to debate in a few short hours some 267 amendments to this legislation. How can we do that justice? How can we adequately debate the pros and cons of those individual amendments? We simply cannot. For the purpose of debate some of them have been grouped. Group No. 4, for example, which we are currently debating has 33 individual motions. How can we do them justice and adequately discuss them in that short time frame?

I am very concerned with the erosion of democracy. The Reform Party feels very strongly that the primary purpose of members of Parliament, which I have spoken about before in the House, is to properly and effectively represent the wishes, concerns and views of the majority of their constituents where that view can be ascertained.

How can I do that? I have made that point as well. How can I do that on this piece of legislation when it deals with two distinctly separate issues?

The constituents of Prince George-Peace River have made it very obvious to me that they want to get tough with criminals. They want to bring in tougher sanctions on the criminal elements in the country. Therefore I support the part of the legislation that deals with the amendments to part III of the Criminal Code.

At the same time my constituents are telling me that they want to have no part of registration. Why do they not want to have registration? We hear ludicrous arguments that we register our dogs and our cars so why should we not register our firearms?

They are concerned for three main reasons. One is the cost and we have talked about that before. They are concerned about the paperwork time and the cost to police forces that are already stretched to the limit. Hundreds and thousands of useless hours will be spent compiling the information.

We pointed out in committee as well as in the House that the mailing system proposal of the justice minister will not work. How can a firearm be identified if it is not actually physically seen and inspected? It is interesting to note that Quebec has indicated that it wants $300 million if the government goes ahead to administer the registration program in that province. Yet the justice minister is still clinging to his $85 million total cost, which is obviously far from accurate.

Constituents are concerned and law-abiding gun owners are concerned about the cost recovery that has been bandied about from the other side. What will that mean in the future? What will the costs of paying an annual ownership fee amount to if they want cost recovery?

The second issue in addition to cost is the security of the list that some of my colleagues have addressed. I spoke about it earlier in the House. Will this not provide a shopping list for criminals? We all know that hackers break into computer systems practically on a daily basis across the nation and around the world. If they can break into IBM and can break into the Pentagon, what makes the justice minister think they will not be able to break into this computer system to get a hold of the list? It will provide criminals with a list of where the firearms are and what types of firearms they are so that they can steal the firearms they want to use. It will also by omission provide them with a list of what homes in which communities do not have firearms and therefore the home owners are defenceless.

The third issue on registration is future confiscation with which some of my colleagues have dealt. Above all is the statement that it will not be effective. New Zealand, Australia and other countries have tried it. I note that draconian gun controls brought into effect in the United Kingdom in 1988 were followed by dramatic increases in crimes involving firearms. They were not effective. It has been proven around the world that registration and stiffer gun controls are not effective.

I will make a point, which my constituents make to me on almost a daily basis, to the Liberals opposite because they will know about it pretty soon. There is another election before registration becomes mandatory and the voters will be there to remind them about this legislation.

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon and support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan.

Twenty-five years ago the first Official Languages Act was passed, as has been noted. Since that time we have never fully reviewed its operation to see if this multibillion dollar ship is taking us where we want to go.

In 1988 the act was revised incorporating three main objectives: first, to ensure the equal status of the two official languages; second, to support the development of official language minority communities; and third, to set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions in this area.

To ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the act, a commissioner of official languages has been appointed. His job is to protect language rights of individuals and groups, evaluate linguistic performance of federal institutions and monitor the advancement of French and English. In other words, the commissioner's mandate is to promote the act, not to evaluate its effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the auditor general has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the act during its entire 25 year evolution. This is a serious flaw.

What we do have is a series of reports, studies and audits of particular aspects of the act. Nobody has looked at the whole thing. Even if problems are identified, no one has the mandate to change aspects of it that are not working.

For example, in past annual reports the commissioner has repeatedly criticized the failure of the government to communicate the basic purpose of the act to the Canadian people. In the words of the commissioner, this has resulted in negative hearsay and durable falsehoods. Despite being over two decades old, Canadians still do not even understand why the act exists. Something is definitely wrong, but the commissioner is not empowered to fix it.

The commissioner's 1993 annual report notes that the Canadian solution to the co-existence of two dominant languages is focused on individual rights rather than the establishment of a territorial linguistic regime. This means the intention of the act is to ensure Canadians can receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice regardless of where they happen to live.

During 1993 the office of the commissioner completed its own study of individual choice versus territoriality in the implementation of language rights. Again I quote: "The study concluded that Canada has struck its own balance between individual rights and territoriality, and has done so as a function of its own history and specific human needs".

Despite the fact that the act is not supposed to be territorial in nature, government services in both languages are not universally available, only where there is significant demand and where it is reasonable, logical and fair to do so. This makes some sense but it does not meet the demands of individual complainants who believe their rights to full services under the act have been violated.

Each province implements the act differently. This means the results are also measurably different in each province. Is this a failure of the act or was this the original intention? If we do not review the act nationwide, how do we know whether the overall objectives are feasible or even desirable?

The 1993 report began with a quote from Montesquieu: "Nothing is just merely because it forms part of the law; rather, it should be law because it is just". The Official Languages Act is the law but if we do not examine it impartially and thoroughly how can we know that it is just?

One example of a perceived failure illustrates this point. Many minority official languages communities are upset because they do not receive services of comparable quality to those afforded to the majority. Perhaps this is neither realistic nor affordable. Perhaps we should be looking at providing services of adequate quality rather than comparable quality. No

one is looking at alternative solutions to these problems. The commissioner's role is to pursue the goal of comparable services, not to question whether that goal is attainable.

The Spicer commission studied Canadians' perceptions of the Official Languages Act. One participant: "Being able to speak both English and French should be a worthwhile personal goal for all citizens of Canada. It is also an achievable goal, if only the politicians had the courage to admit that the language policies they have been advocating for the past two decades failed miserably and left the country deeply divided. It is time to scrap the enforced bilingualism policy and heal the wounds".

As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, another participant in the citizens' forum on Canada's future stated: "Pierre Trudeau's vision of a multicultural and bilingual society for Canada was a noble one, but it is apparent now that it will simply not work".

We are certainly a more bilingual country than we were in 1969, but we are far from achieving the goals of the act and it has been in operation for more than a generation. Surely if the act was workable we would have met most, if not all, of the goals by now.

The list of failures is long. We have failed to achieve equity in the language of work in federal institutions. We have failed to communicate the basic purpose of the act to Canadians. As a result, the act does not enjoy universal support. As I already stated, it has failed to provide comparable quality services to minority official languages communities. It has failed to establish universal access to services in the language of choice resulting in territoriality playing a significant role.

After 25 years why has the official languages policy failed to meet virtually all of its objectives? Without an independent review of the fundamental principles, structure and implementation regimes we will never know. We will merely continue to add to the list of failures because questioning the goals or the means of achieving them is beyond the mandate of the commissioner.

Let us compare the Official Languages Act to a sailing ship under Christopher Columbus. The office of the commissioner has certain tasks to perform, such as investigating complaints, auditing specific federal departments of compliance and ensuring implementation of minority language education programs. These are like the specific tasks of sailors to mend the sails, scrub the decks or feed the crew.

Every once in a while the auditor general comes along and performs an audit on a discreet part of the ship such as his 1991 audit of the translation bureau. This is like lowering a sailor over the side of the ship to chip off a few barnacles rather than checking the integrity of the hull. We fix one or two problems with the sails, replace some lines and bail out the bilge, but no one has looked at the whole ship. We are so concerned with the day to day operations and studying the individual components that no one has looked to see where the ship is going.

Columbus knew his mission was to get to the far east and he fixed the little leaks along the way, but after two months under sail he ended up in America instead. If we do not completely review the act, how can we be sure we will achieve the stated objectives? More important, how do we know our national objectives have not changed?

Right now we do not even know if we are still going in the right direction because we have not done one comprehensive audit in 25 years. Remember, his sails were repaired regularly but Christopher Columbus was not even in the right ocean, let alone on course.

I urge all members to support this motion to conduct a thorough review of the act. We may not all agree on where we think the official languages ship should be headed, but an independent auditor could make sure we are at least sailing in the direction supported by the majority of the crew, in this case the Canadian taxpayers who continue to foot the bill.