Jay Hill

[Gun Control, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the justice minister for the answer.

I do not know whom he has spoken with but over past months I have spoken with and listened to a number of police officers both in my riding and across the country. I have yet to find a police officer below the rank of superintendent or chief of police who believes universal gun registration will do anything to prevent crime.

For the minister's plan to work it must have the support of rank and file police officers whose lives are on the line. Could the minister provide the House with evidence of their support?

[Gun Control, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last June I asked the justice minister to undertake a national study to determine the source of firearms used in criminal activities. Despite assurances by his parliamentary secretary eight months later Canadians are still waiting.

Three months ago I put a question on the Order Paper asking how many registered gun owners used their guns in the commission of a crime anywhere in Canada.

My question for the Minister of Justice is simple. By its own admission the government has no comprehensive statistics on which if any of the more than 1.2 million registered guns in the country were used for criminal activity. Therefore how can he defend spending millions of dollars on gun registration as a solution to crime when he has no proof that the legal owners of firearms are part of the problem?

[Petro-Canada, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1988 Petro-Canada entered into an agreement with Daly Enterprises of Saint John, New Brunswick. Four years later Petro-Canada, whose motto is "committed to Canadians", reneged on its commitment, saying: "If you don't like it, take us to court".

In a blatant attempt to force Daly to sell its prime locations, Petro-Canada is demanding a 24 per cent interest charge on money it claims Daly owes. This is not an isolated case.

Many Canadians are appalled by this insensitive loan shark behaviour from a company that is still 70 per cent government owned.

Last Thursday in response to a question about the bullying tactics of Petro-Canada against the Curtis family, the Minister of Natural Resources seemed surprised and said she would look into this situation.

On behalf of all Petro-Canada dealers who believe they have been shafted, it is incumbent upon the minister responsible to launch a long overdue investigation into its questionable business practices.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Not in this bill.

[Criminal Code, December 13th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Criminal Code (summary conviction penalties).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to summary convictions.

Earlier this year the Minister of Justice introduced sentencing reforms but he did not go far enough. Many charges that should not be are all too frequently plea bargained down to summary convictions.

This bill provides for the maximum imprisonment on summary conviction to be increased from six months to two years. For minor offences a judge could still hand down a short sentence but for more serious crimes he or she could give up to two years.

Criminals need to be sent a message that the judge has the discretion to send them up the river for a two year stay at the Crowbar Hotel.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said Canadians should look at the quality of people that he has appointed. The one thing all his patronage appointments do have in common is their close personal friendship with the Prime Minister.

LeBlanc, Gauthier, Bryden, Nixon, Carstairs, Wright, Longstaffe and Stevenson. Mr. Speaker, it is like a roll call for Santa's reindeer. In fact Rudolph would probably get a patronage appointment because of his red nose.

My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the continued use of partisan patronage compatible with the red book promise of integrity in government?

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal gravy train is still chugging along. Its latest stop is at the Rene Cousineau station. The former Liberal MP

and close personal friend of the Prime Minister has just been appointed to the Canadian Pension Commission. For this privilege Canadian taxpayers will now be paying Mr. Cousineau a paltry $86,000 a year.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said that all his appointments would be based on merit alone? If so, how is Liberal patronage any different from Tory patronage?

[Northern Tax Allowance, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the solution to our growing debt is not to increase revenues but to reduce government expenditures.

Northerners use a greater percentage of their disposable income for the bare essentials of food, shelter and clothing than do Canadians living further south. Northerners must pay more for food because it has to be trucked over longer distances. They pay more for fuel to heat their homes over the longer, colder winters. They pay more for medical care and education when they send their children south to specialists or universities.

We know the Minister of Finance is looking for easy tax grabs to fund continued overspending. Although it does not begin to compensate for all the differences, the northern residence deduction helps offset some of these additional costs.

On behalf of all northerners I ask the Minister of Finance to carefully consider the positive impact this tax deduction has provided toward assisting northerners to meet their basic needs.

[Criminal Code, December 5th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code (use of a firearm in the commission of or attempt at an offence).

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley West for seconding introduction and first reading of the bill.

Today it is my pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. It will increase the minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime to five years.

Canadians are demanding stiffer sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms but the recently proposed four-year mandatory sentence of the justice minister is only restricted to 10 offences and is not consecutive.

He is merely introducing a minimum sentence for four years for these crimes, and with parole it may be less. Although the tougher sentences in his reaction plan are a step in the right direction the bill would go even further. It would make the minimum five-year sentence consecutive to any other sentence and would apply to any accomplices who had access to the firearm during the crime or attempted crime whether or not the gun was fired.

Canadians want deterrents and I believe the bill would provide some.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Firearms, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a young man in my riding had his .22 stored under the seat of his truck as the current storage regulations call for. When he lent his truck to a friend who was stopped for speeding the young owner was charged with lending a firearm to someone who did not have a valid FAC. This can be an indictable offence punishable by up to two years in jail.

While it seems harder to get a straight answer from this minister than it is blood from a stone, would he care to comment on the gross inequity whereby a criminal possessing stolen or prohibited firearms receives a slap on the wrist yet this young man is facing a criminal record because he lent his truck to a friend?