Jim Abbott

[Department Of National Revenue, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of revenue. Access to information documents revealed the Department of National Revenue spent $250,000 in order to fly bureaucrats to Victoria during the Commonwealth Games last August. In a written response to me on September 28 the minister advised me that a total of only $76,000 had been spent, a far cry from $250,000.

Could the minister explain the discrepancy?

[Forestry, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my constituency, Kootenay East, and the companies and the loggers in my constituency consumed about 60 per cent of the logs that we are talking about.

They have a moral responsibility, but this minister has a legal responsibility for the fact that there was $35 million paid to the Indian band. Why will he not own up to that responsibility? I suggest that the minister's department has shown gross incompetence.

[Indian Affairs, April 5th, 1995]

We are talking about Alberta.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the comments of the preceding speaker. I suggest to him that he seriously consider what we are debating today, which is an amendment by the Reform Party to split the bill into the parts that he and I agree are workable and necessary.

I also refer to the comments of my Reform colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. He spoke about the amendment to split the bill as being a practical solution.

For the benefit of the justice minister and his staff, I would like to set my speech around some things that have been in the public domain that his staff should have brought to his attention. However, I assume they have not, otherwise he too would be inclined to split the bill.

I would like to identify the real problem. Referring to documents that are in the public domain, I would like to read briefly from one. It is an article referring to Project Gun Runner in the Kingston Whig-Standard Companion of April 9, 1994 and I read in part:

A total of 86 charges were laid during Gun Runner, which ended last April. Of the 17 guns the team bought on the black market, one came from a break-in. The rest were smuggled into Canada.

That is one out of 17. It goes on:

Of the 243 other firearms that participating police forces seized during the operation, the vast majority came into the country illegally from the United States.

"The project certainly opened our eyes to the fact that stolen guns from B&Es aren't the problem. Smuggled guns are the area of concern," says Detective Sergeant Wayne Moore of the Hamilton-Wentworth police criminal intelligence unit.

Gun Runner helped open a lot of people's eyes.

It is unfortunate that many of the eyes belonging to the backbenchers and the Liberals were not opened by this information. Perhaps they should review it.

Metro Toronto firearms expert, Detective Paul Mullin says:

It's a lucrative business-On the streets of Hamilton and Toronto a handgun is going to sell for $300 to $500.

And when it comes to smuggling, handguns are an easily concealed commodity.

Let's face it, 10 handguns don't add up to a carton of cigarettes in size. And at $500 apiece, that is $5,000 to be made.

Further on in the same article it describes how they are getting into the country. You name it: trains, planes, boats, trucks and cars. Last year Canada Customs seized 1,681 guns at border crossings with the U.S., an increase of 124 over the previous year. But 98 per cent of those firearms were seized from American tourists who were simply not aware of Canadian gun laws.

There are a lot of areas and ways and means of getting into Canada without coming through customs. "There are lakes and backroads and rivers and unmanned locations," says a director of intelligence services with Revenue Canada and Customs.

And when a smuggler comes across he is usually carrying more than one or two guns.

He's going to be come back with a quantity-10, 15, 20 guns. He's going to make the run worth his while because he's going to get into as much trouble for one gun as he is for 20.

A Davis .380-calibre sold to a licensee for $70 may be sold to a first-level street dealer for $90. The dealer then sells it to a Canadian importer for maybe $120 and then the importer or his mule will drive it across the border and sell it for $500.

This article clearly delineates the fantastic profits that can be made.

Again, for the benefit of the justice minister and his researchers, they might want to take a look at a January 7 article in the Montreal Gazette , headlined ``Illegal guns pour in from U.S.'', detailing a number of illegal importations. I will cite two here:

Toronto, September 13, 1993. Three Armenian jewel thieves enter a downtown jewellery wholesaler, pistol-whip the owner with a 9-mm Sigarms and escape with $90,000 in merchandise. Where did the gun come from? From Vermonter Wayne D. Reed.

Vancouver, October 15, 1993. Five men, three of whom are jailbreakers, steal $500,000 worth of jewellery from a Birks store. They are armed with a 9-mm Cobray Mach II with the serial numbers drilled out, a .25-calibre Sundance and a 9-mm Glock pistol. Where did the guns come from?-Wayne D. Reed.

Wayne D. Reed, 49, lives with his wife and four children in a lower-middle-class housing development in north Burlington.

The article continues:

From this modest home Reed has fed since 1991 an ever-expanding hunger for guns in Canada's criminal underworld. According to his own estimates given to The Gazette , he has sold about 900 firearms, mostly high-powered pistols, to Mohawk Indians who smuggled them over the border into Quebec and resold them to criminals across Canada.

The same routes developed for cigarette and booze smuggling-river crossings at Akwesasne on the St. Lawrence River, and Walpole Island on the St. Claire River north of Detroit-are now being used for the more lethal commodity, firearms.

Further on in the article it states:

With a U.S. federal dealer's licence, Reed can legally buy and sell any firearm except machine guns. He waits for the orders to pile up so he can get a cut rate from the wholesaler by buying in quantity.

Criminals place their orders through various Mohawk gun dealers who in turn place the orders with Reed or dealers like him. The Mohawks fill out U.S. federal firearms transaction forms (referred to as "yellow sheets") with false names taken from the Vermont phone books.

We have seen from Project Gun Runner and other documentation that the problem is one of illegal importation or smuggling. The fundamental problem here, although it does occasionally relate to guns that are stolen from private owners, is illegal guns.

What is the response? As the revenue critic I was very interested to read the fact sheet put out by Revenue Canada on the government's firearms control initiative. It reads in part:

New firearms control measures. November 30, 1994. An expanded commercial permit system. All commercial import, export and in-transit shipments of firearms will require a permit in advance issued by the Solicitor General, with the approval of Foreign Affairs;

I think that Mr. Reed will shake in his boots.

Revenue Canada will verify that every firearms shipment, import and export, is accompanied by an approval permit.

I am sure that the criminals that are bringing them in illegally will be concerned about this.

A National Firearms Registration System. Under this system, which will be implemented by January 1, 1998:

all firearms entering, leaving and moving through Canada will have to be registered in the National Firearms Registry;

Again, I am sure that Mr. Reed will be complying with that, along with the rest of the people who are smuggling guns into Canada.

Firearms Control Enhancements: Summer, 1994

Enhanced verification of the accuracy and integrity of documentation accompanying shipment of firearms;

Implementation of a more rigorous inspection program at all land border crossings-100 per cent of firearms shipments are now examined;

That certainly gives me a lot of confidence that all of Mr. Reed's firearms are now going to be examined. Perhaps he might not care. What does this have to do with the problem? Absolutely nothing.

The enforcement activities contained in the bill are bogus in light of the fact that the government is bringing down penalties in Bill C-68 while at the same time it is loosening restrictions in a bill that was just passed through the House, Bill C-42.

These restrictions are supposed to help when there is domestic violence and in the illegal use of weapons. I have in my hand a document from the provincial court judiciary, provincial court of British Columbia where it explains that the act that was just passed will be changing assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm from an indictable offence to one that could be treated in a summary fashion in court.

How serious is the government about gaining control? We know that the Saskatoon police officers are not in favour of this. We know that there is presently a meeting of the Canadian Police Association and its members may or may not be in favour of this. We know that Saskatchewan will not be enforcing this.

I conclude by drawing to the attention of the House something I raised with the justice minister last Tuesday with a question.

The environmental extremist, Paul Watson, who allegedly was attacked by concerned residents in the Magdalen Islands was widely reported as saying that he held off his alleged assailants by using a stun gun and his fists.

I asked the justice minister this. Stun guns are prohibited weapons under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Watson admits to having this prohibited weapon in his possession. Would the minister confirm if the gun was confiscated, if Mr. Watson was charged for having an illegal weapon in his possession. If he was not charged, why not?

In part, the justice minister answered: "I commend the member on his knowledge of the Criminal Code but I also remind him that enforcement of such provisions is entirely a matter for the provincial authorities to which I invite his attention".

I asked, if that is the case, are we going to have two sets of laws, one for people outside of Saskatchewan and one in or is this whole thing bogus?

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by 33 of my constituents.

They pray and request that Parliament be fully aware and that we strongly oppose any initiatives to sell or merge CN or CP Rail or dismantle CN Rail by way of disguise of the commercialization of CN Rail.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

The CBC can.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the member as she spoke about the responsibility of the CBC generating the quality of programming that Canadians want.

I was also interested that the hon. member is continuing with the age old idea the Liberals have had that if anything is good it is going to have to be created by the government, that there must be government intervention into the creation of the Canadian identity and that there must be government intervention into creating a feeling of connectedness. These are wonderful terms but at a cost of $1.1 billion, I wonder how connected Canadians really feel.

I wonder if the hon. member could help me understand this concept. We are spending this gargantuan amount of money to create the quality of programming Canadians want and at the same time, the number of viewers, particularly of English language television, is dropping through the floor. Does she really feel we are getting the kind of value for the taxpayer's dollar we should be if she is after quality of programming that Canadians want yet the CBC is dropping viewers by the bucketload?

[Gun Control, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of enforcement, my question is for the revenue minister.

In his view is the anti-smuggling initiative working when a publicity seeking, U.S. based environmental extremist admits to having an illegally smuggled, prohibited weapon in his possession when he clears customs and the weapon remains in his possession one week later?

Could he explain to law-abiding Canadians who will be required to register guns what the use of registration is if this environmentalist can walk around with absolute impugnity?

[Gun Control, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, environmental extremist Paul Watson who allegedly was attacked by concerned residents in the Magdalen Islands was widely reported as saying he held off his alleged assailants by using a stun gun and his fists.

Considering that his fists were probably not lethal weapons, my question is for the justice minister. Stun guns are prohibited weapons under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Watson admits to having the prohibited weapon in his possession. Would the minister confirm if the gun was confiscated and if Mr. Watson was charged with having an illegal gun in his possession? If he was not charged, why not?

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was coming to that. Why is the Bloc motion dealing only specifically with the issue of Quebec? If it is the official opposition, why is its motion not more encompassing with respect to the question of CBC?