John Duncan

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs raised the expectations of aboriginal people to the point where his departmental officials are now asking him "to bring high expectations of the aboriginal community to manageable levels".

What will the minister do in his statements and in his processes to reduce expectations upon which he cannot possibly deliver?

[Lightstations, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the coast guard lightstation services project went to 28 B.C. locations and cost $202,000. Its report is now more than one month old and will be released today.

I hope the current minister responsible has read it and will conclude what the B.C. public has concluded. Public consultations with 1,397 residents, mariners and aviators, representing hundreds of thousands of users, indicate that opposition to destaffing B.C.'s lightstations is widespread, often vehement and overwhelming.

The rationale is solid. Public safety, drug interdiction, science and sovereignty are paramount. The only minister from B.C. stated he would support keeping staffed lightstations if coast guard consultations said the public wants them.

The people have now spoken.

[Indian Affairs, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it would be refreshing to have the minister stop attacking the Reform Party every time he is asked a question. He could start being a professional manager.

The minister has given conflicting reports as to when he knew about the overcutting at Stoney Reserve. Did he know when the department knew one year ago? If not, why not? If he did, why did he not do something?

[Indian Affairs, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister of Indian affairs clarified his conflicting answers on the series of events on the Stoney Reserve. It is now evident the minister did not seriously investigate this ongoing situation until after yesterday's question period.

I have now heard reports that there are five other locations in Alberta where logging may be exceeding DIAND permits: Gerard, Sturgeon, Hart Lake, Boyer and Eden Valley. What is the minister doing about this?

[Indian Affairs, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs displayed petulance and obfuscation which has forced him this morning-

[Indian Affairs, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the timber removed from the reserve in the last 12 months conservatively exceeds $35 million. The minister's department knew logging at Stoney Reserve exceeded the permits last April, one year ago.

Can the minister tell the House who is liable for these lost revenues?

[Indian Affairs, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question follows the question from my leader and is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I would like to quickly say that we foster sensible dialogue, and in our aboriginal town halls in British Columbia offered a very welcome and refreshing point of view.

I would like the minister, in response to the question about the Stoney Reserve, to tell the House the current market value of the timber removed in the last year and how he intends to collect revenues lost to the band plus the reduced stream of future revenues accruing to the band, which has now been lost.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this first debate of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I am sure the member for Kamloops initiated this bill with the best of intentions, borne out of concern for recognition of the contribution of native cultures to the Canadian mosiac. Canadians are proud of the uniqueness of native cultures and their contribution to what we call Canada. From coast to coast, respective Indian tribes have brought their own specific background and history to what we have built in this country. We in Canada are all unique as a consequence of native cultural contributions and from those cultural contributions brought by others over the past centuries. That understanding and respect for many cultures is why Canada stands as a beacon of tolerance, compassion and stability.

Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have met and visited with aboriginal people from every region of Canada. The diversity among aboriginal peoples is obvious and they are the original Canadians. Their cultural legacy is a major contributing reason why Canada is different from the United States. Canadians enjoy this distinction.

I do urge caution in playing politics with the dynamism of native cultures. Our native people are a sensitive, intelligent and proud people who, despite years of inequities, outright discrimination at times and at other times criminal mishandling of their affairs by others, have continued to carry on their cultural pursuits and have developed a community of interest.

My party supports native peoples' independence and full-fledged partnership in this country, we support their self-sufficiency, and we support the removal of the albatross of the Department of Indian Affairs from their necks. We support their advancement, not a reinforcement of the past.

As I said previously, theirs is a dynamic culture that deserves to grow and flourish no less than any other in this country. The tremendous cultural contribution native peoples have brought to this country stands on its own merit. It is a rich and endearing culture, not one to be isolated and ghettoized, as we did under section 91.24 of the BNA Act and then again under many aspects of the Indian Act. This is what our native cultures are trying to shake off. The surly bonds of colonialism must be relinquished.

As I understand it, recognition by this Parliament of a day of recognition is innocuous in that there is no statutory holiday or out-of-pocket expenses associated with this recognition.

Is it necessary to talk about national solidarity for aboriginal peoples? This has connotations of Poland climbing out from under the yolk of communist oppression. Surely, we can celebrate aboriginal culture without calling it Solidarity Day. This sounds confrontational. Let us not build walls. Let us nourish without singling out or separating our aboriginal peoples from the mainstream. Let us build on our strengths, our consensus, the very thing that has been the strength of Canada in the face of adversity.

Canadian consensus, more than any other government action, has protected the minority against the tyranny of the majority in modern times.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, for the past 16 months the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been consulting with

native leaders and native groups across Canada on the issue of native self-government.

To date the minister has provided funding to national and regional native organizations in the amount of $5 million to assist these groups in preparing their briefs and input on the consultation process. The consultation was to last six months and culminate in a report on self-government.

Last week, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, called a press conference to protest the minister's procrastination and to ask him to release a document that he said the minister was using in his meetings but keeping secret from the Assembly of First Nations and others.

Chief Mercredi released copies redone from memory of the minister's document that Chief Mercredi was allowed to read and that the minister allowed to be read to a meeting with Alberta chiefs in Calgary.

I am concerned with the minister using and allowing the contents of this still secret document in meetings and not being forthcoming with the House and Canadians on an issue that affects us all.

On March 23 and again on March 24, I questioned the minister on the contents of the document. I asked him the nature of the document and why parliamentarians had to rely on the chief of the Assembly of First Nations to shed light on this undertaking and make the process public. The minister told the House on March 23 that it was not a secret document. If it is not a secret document, the minister should release it today.

My further concern was with the delay in completing the projected six-month undertaking which has now run over 16 months. I am concerned that the consultation on the inherent right to self-government does not become another aboriginal royal commission. That is now two years overdue and over budget with spending at $58 million from an original projected cost of between $8 and $12 million.

I am not satisfied that my question of March 24, taken as notice by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on behalf of the minister of Indian affairs, will prompt the minister and government to finalize its consultation on self-government and to release the contents of what the minister has called "not a secret report" to Parliament and the Canadian people rather than only to individual chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in debate on a Reform amendment to split Bill C-68 and thus bring the real issue of safety and security of Canadians into focus.

The amendment presents the Minister of Justice with a real opportunity to protect Canadians and prosecute and punish those who break the law.

As the bill is currently structured, the legitimate issues concerning firearms control are clouded and confused. This obfuscation was no doubt conceived, cultivated and foisted on the minister by select individuals of the Coalition for Gun Control and some stealthy, arrogant, policy counsels within justice. Like a rock these beacons of virtue and public service are telling Canadians what is good for them. If these same people are so concerned for the welfare and safety of Canadians and fairness in laws, then any rational thinking bureaucrat would have seen this major deficiency in handiwork.

Anyone can see that splitting the bill will focus the wrath where it should be, at those individuals who use firearms in the commission of crimes and who continue to make our streets unsafe for law-abiding citizens.

As Bill C-68 is currently constituted we are being asked to deal with two separate issues. Let us try to remove some of the emotion from the debate. Let us deal with the issues in chewable chunks. If the minister believes so firmly in firearms registration, then let him stand up and debate his notion of fairness. If he is so concerned with criminal justice let him stand up and debate his notion of fairness. Let the issues stand on their own merits and not on stealth.

Recently the Minister of Justice during a speech in Montreal was quoted as saying: "More than anything else Bill C-68 is about the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of society we want as Canadians". He went on: "We are willing to have it out right now. Let's decide who is running this country. There's no room for an American style gun lobby in this country".

I want to tell the justice minister that Canadians run the country and there is room in this nation for all kinds of people representing many points of view. Comments about gun control like the ones he made in Montreal are intolerant. Debate is dissent according to the minister. What is he afraid of? If he really wants, as he said, to have it out, then level the playing field. If he feels he has such support, deal with the legislation in Bill C-68 upfront, each issue at a time without the rhetoric.

Let us take a look at some of the statistics and at the real issue. Last year roughly 3,800 firearms were either lost or stolen by those who lawfully own them in Canada. Some of these would have been from police and from the military. During that same period 375,000 firearms were smuggled into Canada. That is one hundred times as many.

The onus and emphasis of the minister's legislation is registration which impacts on lawful citizens. Why does he not beef up security at our borders and crack down on the gun smugglers and runners?

The minister says he wants to take this issue on. He thinks establishing a national registry at likely cost estimates upwards of $500 million to implement is taking the issue on. Tying up police resources in software programs and registration verification is really getting tough on crime. The criminals are shaking in their boots. One does not have to go two miles from Parliament Hill as recently as last Thursday when three parolees shot it out with police, wounding two officers because of better fire power. I am sure those three, who will be out on release shortly because of our revolving door justice system, will be the first to run out and register their illegal guns. If anyone is playing politics with emotions, it is not the Reform Party on this issue.

The minister conveniently uses the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs to make and carry his message on gun control. This is the same organization that receives federal funding and which has never done any polling of its members. How weak.

I can make a case for the other side based on my conversations with real police officers who are fighting crime. It is backed up by letters and calls. I even received one petition from Sault Ste. Marie with 5,000 signatures, demanding that their point of view be heard. These are responsible, law-abiding citizens who may not meet the minister's social standards and are thus dismissed as not worthy of a point of view.

The whole issue of registration is a red herring in my books. New Zealand has had universal registration and is abandoning it with the blessing of the police because it is time consuming, expensive and is not accomplishing anything.

Australia is considering abandoning its universal registration with the blessing of police. Police in Australia estimate that only one firearm in four is registered due to non-compliance. Criminals for sure do not register their firearms. For heaven's sake, they do not even register their cars.

The shootout in west end Ottawa last Thursday night involved a stolen getaway vehicle. The answer to all this is Bill C-68, an issue the minister says he wants to take on.

A national firearms registry does not meet the views of the majority of Canadians who are seeking less government, less intrusion into their lives, and reducing the cost of government.

The legislation and the minister's bill will impose a 10-year jail term for failure to register firearms and includes the right to search and seize without a warrant. This is the minister's view of how Canadian should be governed, by a police state. After everything is said and done, the criminals will be running the justice system.

Bill C-68 is a complicated, convoluted attempt to shift the focus of the real debate. If it is left in its current form we will fail to tackle the real issue, which of course is crime control. This is bad law. The justice department argues that registration will make gun owners more accountable.

As a firearms owner, I already store my firearms according to the rules, as do the majority of gun owners. I can tell the minister that no registration system will force gun smugglers, gun runners and criminals to be more accountable. It is misguided and focused on the wrong premise.

This is the easy thing to do and the way one would expect a bureaucrat to deal with an issue. In their perfect, self-contained world, any gun owner is a criminal. We are all lumped in the same category. It is convenient, easy but dead wrong. This is bad law.

I therefore support the motion to split Bill C-68 and get down to the business of solving crime.