Jay Hill

[Petitions, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition prays that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".

[Petitions, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a number of petitions on behalf of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted suicide be enforced and no changes that would sanction or allow suicide or euthanasia be made to the law.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

He is not listening.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the question.

A concern I hear raised constantly about the payout of the WGTA is that it is the understanding of the producers that it is to be targeted to land owners. In the area I am pleased to represent a big percentage of our land, not the majority, but a big percentage of our land is owned by foreign owners. I would ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker-

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say to the hon. minister that I have paid particular attention to his remarks today and I found them quite interesting. I agree with some of his statements, in particular the assessment of what took place during the debate on the rail dispute and how members of the NDP and the Bloc certainly acted against the best interests of all Canadians, including the interests of Quebecers which the Bloc purports to represent.

I too found it very disparaging that the NDP, the bulk of whose caucus comes from the province of Saskatchewan would act as it did. It certainly, in my mind, was not representing the best interests of producers and constituents.

I agree with some of the statements in the minister's remarks today. I would make a few further comments about his assessment of Canada's debt and the need to address it through spending cuts. That is certainly an area where Reform has taken the lead since the formation of our party in 1987. In fact it was a real driving force in getting our party started and attracting people to the Reform message and the Reform cause.

We agree that cuts have to be made. We are not opposed to that and in fact our cuts would go much deeper. We have already outlined in great detail where we would make the cuts, not only in the department of agriculture and the area of farm subsidies, but also in all levels of government spending.

Another point has to be made in light of the minister's comments. I find it more than ironic that this Liberal government has suddenly discovered the advantages of having a free and open system of trade and trying to capture foreign markets. This is the same party which was opposed to the free trade agreement. It spoke vehemently against free trade when Reform was very supportive of the whole concept of a free trade agreement not only with the United States but also an expanded

one which would include other countries and the benefits which would flow to the Canadian economy because of that.

I find it ironic that the Liberals have such short memories not only with regard to free trade and the benefits of trade in particular for the agriculture sector but also for all the other sectors of our economy. They seem to conveniently forget that it was the Liberal Party that started us down this road of deficit spending. I can recall quite clearly in 1984 when the Conservatives were sent here with a massive mandate. They continually said that they inherited the problem. Now we hear the same thing from the Liberals.

My question for the minister concerns something I hear raised by grain producers in my area. I myself-

[Gun Registry, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, less than three weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice how he could guarantee responsible gun owners that his gun registration system would be safe from computer hackers. He accused me of fear mongering and conjuring up images that frighten Canadians. Then he went on to state that without his gun controls we would end up with a gun culture and would go the way of other countries. We have not had his gun control laws for the last few centuries and we do not have a gun culture yet. I have to ask: Who is doing the fear mongering?

On Friday the Globe and Mail reported the arrest of yet another computer hacker. He has broken into several databases throughout the federal government and at IBM. If IBM cannot defend itself from computer hackers, how secure will the new national gun registry be?

I repeat: How can the justice minister assure law-abiding firearm owners who comply with his new law that they will not simply be providing gun thieves with a computerized shop at home catalogue?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion Canadians do have a right to protect themselves and their families and to use a firearm to help them in protecting themselves. That is not the view shared by hon. members across the floor. A large percentage of them are opposed to that. However, I firmly believe that Canadian citizens do have that right.

I have spoken about this before. The police, no matter how well intentioned, if we look at the statistics, simply cannot respond quickly enough, even in cities, to intervene when the crime is being committed. Canadians have to take responsibility for protecting themselves. Unfortunately the police cannot. Usually when the police respond it is after the crime has been committed and their job is to apprehend the criminal and bring him or her to justice, not to protect the citizens of this country.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amendment to split Bill C-68.

By creating an omnibus bill with two distinct and opposing objectives, the Minister of Justice has made it almost impossible for many members of Parliament to represent the views of their constituents.

In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, the people have made it very clear that they support stronger crime control measures directed at law breakers. At the same time they are opposed to increased sanctions against law-abiding citizens. They view gun registration as an ineffective exercise which will not increase public safety but will waste valuable police time, scarce tax dollars and impose unnecessary and costly restrictions on the people who are already obeying the law.

Because this is such an important issue in my riding I have sought the views of the constituents through a number of means, including small group discussions, local meetings. I have also requested input regarding anticipated gun legislation in two householders.

Last May while the justice minister was still making comments such as banning all handguns in the hands of private citizens, and suggesting all firearms within city limits should be stored at a central armoury, I asked constituents whether they felt gun control legislation was sufficient before the amendments in Bill C-17 came into effect.

I do not know if many people from my riding ever get called when the justice department does its gun control surveys but only 21 per cent thought we need more gun control.

In November I sent another householder to the homes in my riding and asked if there should be a universal registration system for all guns, including shotguns and hunting rifles. Over 80 per cent of the 1,000 respondents answered no. I have already tabled petitions with over 2,500 signatures which do not support the proposed gun legislation. I am assured by people in the riding there are many more petitions to come.

I have also received hundreds of letters from my riding in opposition to gun registration and I might add thousands of similar letters from other parts of Canada. The focus of 99 per cent of these is crime control, not gun control.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities endorsed the following petition put forward by my home town, the city of Fort St. John. It requested that the federal government ensure that legislation with regard to firearms be geared toward the criminal element and not the law-abiding, responsible gun owner. The elected

representatives from our town councils would not have passed these resolutions without the knowledge that the majority of their constituents supported them.

I would like to read a letter from the most popular radio talk show in the B.C. Peace. The host, Grant Mitton says: "I conducted a poll on `Contact' this morning and asked the callers two questions: one, are you in favour or opposed to the gun control regulations introduced by justice minister Allan Rock; two, will you comply with registration requirements for your firearms when they come into effect? The answer as anticipated to both questions was a resounding no".

"During our 40 minutes on air, 65 people said they were opposed to the new measures and 51 said they would not comply with the registration requirements. One caller said he was in favour of the regulations".

"These people are not wild-eyed radicals. They are for the most part normal Canadians interested only in pursuing their lives in peace and enjoying the use of their firearms as they have in the past. Many of those who responded wondered how these new regulations will have any effect on the criminal element and suggested the focus should be on enforcing a mandatory prison sentence on anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a felony".

"The really disturbing part of the survey is the large number of respondents that say they will defy the law. Surely Mr. Rock must see that his proposals will be very difficult to enforce if possible at all".

The people of Prince George-Peace River do not support the bill in its current form and therefore it must be divided. Aside from the widespread resistance to gun registration, the Minister of Justice knows there are a number of other serious flaws in the firearms act. He is trying to slip them by the Canadian population under the pretext of greater law and order. The bill represents a significant attack on the rights enjoyed by the Canadian people.

We believe we live in a free and democratic society. Yet this bill erodes some of those fundamental rights. I am referring for example to sections 99 through 101 which provide police and other designated officers with the right to inspect any place where they have a reason to believe there are firearms, ammunition, a switch blade or even just records pertaining to them.

The police can take samples of anything they find whether or not it is related to a firearm. If the occupant does not fully co-operate with the investigating officers, under section 107 they are subject to up to two years imprisonment.

The minister and other gun control proponents are quick to point out that a warrant is needed to search a dwelling house but that is not what the legislation says. It says either consent of the occupant or a warrant.

When confronted with police at their kitchen door, how many Canadians know they have the right to refuse entry to the officers? Does a teenager home early from school constitute an occupant? Even if the occupant refuses the police entry, officers just have to demonstrate to a justice that they have a reason to believe firearms related records may be present and a warrant is issued.

These powers of inspection are granted to authorities where no crime is suspected. The fact that someone has a registered gun can be used as a pretext to inspect a premises and take samples of anything found. This bill gives them the power to go on fishing expeditions.

Under section 117 of part III of the Criminal Code even more extensive search and seizure powers are granted to police if they suspect a firearms offence such as a non-registration of a gun might be committed.

The police I know will not be going into homes unless they have reason to believe there is a serious offence being committed. If they are not going to use them, why are they giving the police such extensive powers of inspection and search and seizure?

If police suspect a crime they should go through the process of obtaining a proper search warrant. Despite government claims, I am not trying to increase paranoia or inflame anti-police sentiment. It is very important that Canadians fully understand all the possible ramifications of the various clauses of the bill.

Passage of this bill will mean that at least seven million gun owners in Canada will have fewer rights under the charter of rights and freedoms than other Canadians.

Canadians have entrusted the government with the job to protect the rights and freedoms that make us the envy of so many other people in the world. This bill seriously erodes our democratic rights in another area. It represents a growing trend to pass meaningless bills through Parliament, giving all the power of implementing regulations to cabinet.

Under section 110 it takes more than four full pages just to describe all the areas in which the governor in council will have the authority to create regulations. These range from licensing requirements and the establishment and operations of shooting clubs to circumstances such as whether an individual needs a gun to protect their family-clause 110(c).

In section 110(t) the governor in council can make regulations respecting the manner in which any provision of this act or regulation applies to any of the aboriginal peoples in Canada and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.

When will the government realize that all Canadians should be treated equally and we should not be entrenching mechanisms and laws for creating different Criminal Code penalties or rights based on race?

Most of section 112 lets the minister bypass the House entirely without laying certain regulations before the House for review if in his opinion the changes are so immaterial or insubstantial or the need is so urgent that section 111 should not be applicable.

Section 112(6) reads: "For greater certainty a regulation may be made under part III of the Criminal Code without being laid before either House of Parliament". This means that through order in council a cabinet can make regulations that put Canadian citizens behind bars-no accountability, no review, no appeal.

Is this how a democratic society functions? How can the justice minister justify this extreme abuse of democratic authority? Do not deny Canadians the right to have their voices heard when it comes to laws that affect them.

This bill is fundamentally flawed and the principles of justice and democracy on which our nation is founded are under attack. I can support many of the changes to part III of the Criminal Code with some amendments but I cannot support the erosion of our democratic rights under the guise of a harmless gun registration bill.

I urge all members to support the amendment to split Bill C-68 into its two very distinct components.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset of my remarks that I was not prepared to speak today, but after listening to some of the

comments from my hon. colleagues I was impelled to rise and add my two cents worth to the discussion.

I would like to correct the record concerning some comments attributed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He mentioned that the Reformers were disappointed although we opposed Bill C-18 a year ago and I think the phrase he used was that we were weepy about some of the proposed changes. He implied that although we opposed the bill, we actually were not disappointed when it passed and the existing electoral boundaries commissions were subsequently disbanded.

I would like to say for the record that yes, we had some legitimate concerns about the proposed changes. However, we felt and still feel that those concerns could have been adequately addressed through the appropriate process that was in place at the time.

We saw no need to suspend the existing provincial electoral boundaries commissions. We felt that elected representatives in this House should not have any priority over the concerns of the average citizen and that we should make our case either orally in front of the commissions when they travelled around the various provinces or through an appropriate paper trail.

Speaking for myself, I took leave of that opportunity and presented myself to the electoral boundaries commission for British Columbia in Prince George on June 2. I made my case against the proposed changes that it had communicated.

I am pleased to represent one of the larger ridings in British Columbia. It encompasses about 212,000 square kilometres. As we have heard today from a number of members, some rural ridings are very difficult to represent. It is very difficult to get around to all the various areas in one's riding.

I certainly consider my riding one of the more difficult ones in the country to get around. It is the only riding that straddles the Rocky Mountains. Some 60 per cent of the population of my riding is on the Peace River side on the east side of the Rockies and 40 per cent is over on the other side. I had some concerns, as did some other Reform Party members and members from other parties.

I made my presentation at the hearing. Lo and behold, miraculously the commissioners did listen to my presentation. Subsequently, the commission was disbanded and submitted its final report. I was privy to that report when it came out in November. I found that the committee had listened and had responded appropriately concerning the changes it had previously proposed for the Prince George-Bulkley Valley and the Prince George-Peace River ridings. What had actually happened was that the committee had listened to the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and myself and left the ridings as they now exist.

It is also appropriate to mention that even with the existing population of British Columbia which is estimated at some 3.3 million, the number of ridings from the 1991 census will be 34 rather than 32. As I am aware, Elections Canada pegs the number at some 96,531 for the average riding size for a population the size of British Columbia.

The riding of Prince George-Peace River as it currently exists would fall under the 15 per cent variance as proposed in the amendment by my colleague. Therefore, even a large rural riding and one of the more difficult to travel around would still qualify under the reduced variance that Reform is proposing. That should be noted.

One other point I would like to make concerns some comments made by the hon. Bloc members. They seem to have some difficulty understanding how Reform on the one hand supports the concept of a triple E Senate and on the other hand speaks against this larger variance. It is very easy for us to understand. I do not know why it is so difficult for them to understand.

It gets back to what we believe is the fundamental principle of democracy in a two house system. The lower house should be represented as closely and as accurately as possible by representation by population, while the upper house should represent the regions in a geographical sense. I do not understand why the hon. members from Quebec find that so difficult to understand.

I note with real concern that amendments put forward by the Bloc suggest that Quebec should somehow always have some traditional right to 25 per cent of the seats in this House. It goes completely contrary to the defeat of the Charlottetown accord.

As Reformers travelled around the country and particularly in western Canada speaking out against the Charlottetown accord during the referendum campaign, one of the concerns we heard from Canadians was that no area should have a right to a set number of seats in this Chamber and that they should be set by population. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? That was the real reason a lot of people voted against the Charlottetown accord.

In closing, I make note of that for the hon. Bloc members. They should remember their history. Remember that one of the reasons people voted against the Charlottetown accord was that they completely discount this opinion by some Quebecers, not all, that somehow they have an inherent right to 25 per cent of the seats in this House.