Preston Manning

[Apec Summit, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is playing dumb on this question. Our complaint is not with the RCMP but with the Prime Minister who gave them their orders.

Our concerns cannot be resolved by the commission. They can only be resolved by the Prime Minister himself coming clean on this issue.

Will the Prime Minister explain to this House and to the students his role, not the RCMP's role, in this fiasco?

[Apec Summit, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is a simple question that has been asked by many Canadians.

Why will the Prime Minister not simply apologize to the Canadian students who were wrongfully pepper sprayed at the APEC summit conference?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comment that we are united in this approach. We are hopeful that we may be even more united in some other approaches, but that is a subject for further discussion.

I agree with the suggestion implicit in the member's question. The dollars that are being invested in the registration of firearms, particularly when the people we are trying to get at, the people who will use firearms in a criminal manner, are the last people to participate in the registry. The justice minister can put an add in the Mafia magazine saying please register your firearms, but it is entirely unlikely that he will get a response that will justify that expense.

I concur with the suggestion of the hon. member that if one is to register it might be better to register the people who are inclined to use firearms in a criminal way rather than to focus on the weapons.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First let me remind him that I also represent an urban riding, so I am not unfamiliar with the concerns of urban voters.

Second, let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. member—perhaps the fact that we have said this a thousand times still has not permeated his mind—that we are primarily concerned about public safety but do not believe this approach to gun control enhances public safety one iota.

The member mentioned what his constituents are concerned about, people who stole firearms and used them against other citizens. Note the word stole. This is criminal use of firearms which is precisely our position: target gun control legislation at criminals. That is not what the bill does and that is what we propose.

Last, with respect to the matter of so-called public support for the bill, I suggest it is exactly in the same category as the Charlottetown accord. The government comes out with a proposal accompanied by all the PR it can muster, all the spin-doctoring and so on.

When that happens the general level of support for that type of thing within the first few months is 60% to 65%. We have seen this time and time again, not just at the federal level but at the provincial level. However, as the public starts to learn what it is about, as the provinces and the municipal officials that have to administer it start to talk about the difficulties, as the costs start to pile up, and as they find out that the public has been misled as to the cost, where does that support go? It goes exactly in the same direction as it did on the Charlottetown accord. It goes down.

At the end of the day there will be more support for the position on gun control that is being put forward by the official opposition than there will be for the bill that was put forward by the government.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on today's supply day motion for two reasons, first because it does articulate a longstanding Reform policy that Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, should be repealed for obvious reasons that are stated in the motion.

My second reason for participating is today a large group of Canadians are assembling on Parliament Hill for what they had styled as a fed up rally in which they will be exercising their democratic rights to protest a government policy to which they object.

I want to address my remarks both to the House and to this broader audience of Canadians who are here today mainly because I think a democratic protest, the right to democratic protest and the necessity of this House to recognize democratic process need some beefing up and some reassurance at this time.

The members on this side of the House have observed since we came here in 1993 that the present Liberal government is weak on democracy. The Liberals permit no free votes in this House on government bills. They continue to permit 25% of the members of this parliament, I refer to our unelected, unaccountable senators, to be appointed by one man, the Prime Minister, rather than to be elected by the people.

Last year the Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister told the RCMP that the rights of an Asian dictator to freedom from embarrassment were more important than the rights of Canadians to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The government is weak on democracy, even hostile to the exercise of democratic freedoms. So the presence of this group of Canadians here in Ottawa today in particular to express their democratic objections to Bill C-68 needs some bolstering, some amplification and some recognition in this Chamber, and that is my second reason for participating in this debate.

With respect to Bill C-68, the government's ill conceived gun control legislation, I was the last speaker on that bill when it went through the House in June 1995. Some members will remember that was the conclusion of a long debate in which members such as the member for Crowfoot, the member for Yorkton—Melville, the member for Wild Rose and others put forward a host of amendments concerning the defects of the bill. Many of those defects have now come home to roost. At that time they were academic, sort of projections of what might happen. Now they are self-evident to many Canadians.

Members, not just on this side of the House but on other sides of the House, put forward more than 200 amendments to try to correct the defects of that bill. It was typical of the government that it disregarded every argument made about the defects of the bill and ignored and rejected every amendment, including amendments put forward by its own members.

The official opposition's position on Bill C-68 has not changed from 1995. We maintain, first of all, that it is constitutionally defective. It infringes on individual property rights. As members of this House know, the one area where our bill of rights is defective, mainly because of the prejudices of the Liberals who put it together, is in the area of economic rights. It contains no affirmation of economic rights and therefore it is easier for legislation to infringe on things like property rights.

However this bill is also constitutionally defective in that it infringes on provincial jurisdiction. Again we have a case of provinces challenging the jurisdiction of the federal government in this area.

Personally I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of confrontations between this government and the provinces. It has infringed on rights of the provinces in the area of health care. It has slashed transfer payments to provinces in that area.

The Prime Minister has a row going with the premiers on the proper distribution of rights and finances with respect to health care. There is a row with the provinces over the administration of gun control. The list of confrontations between a government that professes to be committed to positive federal provincial relations is getting longer and longer and therefore we cannot ignore the confrontation developing over Bill C-68.

We also maintain that the legislation is administratively unworkable and will lead to a wasteful expenditure of public funds which will in no way enhance public safety. No one in this House, certainly no one on this side of the House, believes the estimates of cost that are presented by ministers when they bring forward bills like Bill C-68.

You will note that already, Mr. Speaker, the projected costs of administering the gun registration are three to four to five times higher than the figures that were quoted here by the minister when he introduced the legislation.

The cost figures brought in with government proposals are utterly meaningless. We have to develop a multiplier, look at which minister it is, depending on how soft headed they are, and multiply by five, ten or fifteen to get the real cost implications of what they are doing.

We therefore maintain that this legislation should be repealed and replaced with tough Criminal Code amendments targeted at the criminal misuse of firearms. That has been our position since 1995; it is our position at this time.

I want to conclude by saying that this is our position. I do not think anyone doubts our commitment to it but more needs to be done. I address myself more to the people who are assembling in Ottawa today to protest this legislation. More needs to be done to translate opposition to this legislation into political action that will repeal it and replace it.

If the House actually practised freedom of voting, it would be possible to amend this type of legislation and even replace it without defeating or replacing the government. Unfortunately because of the rigidities of the government, the intransigence of the Prime Minister on getting into the 20th century before it is over and permitting a more democratic exercise of freedom in voting in the House, the only way to repeal a government's position in the House is to get a bigger majority and actually replace the government.

Bill C-68 will not be repealed and other Liberal policies will not be repealed or replaced until there are 150-plus members in the House who are committed to doing so. It cannot be done by 50 or 60 members no matter how sincere we are or how hard we work. To win votes, not just arguments in the House of Commons, we need a majority of 150-plus members.

I therefore appeal to the people who are assembling in Ottawa today. I commend their efforts, those who are organizing this fed up rally, as one of the items on their posters says, to organize those who oppose Liberal policies into a politically powerful alternative voting block.

As Leader of the Official Opposition I have a constitutional duty not just to hold the government accountable for its mistakes but to help create a viable alternative to the government, a united alternative to the Liberals for the 21st century.

This is what my colleagues and I will be devoting much of our attention to over the next year. We welcome the advice, encouragement and support of the people meeting in Ottawa today.

In the meantime we therefore welcome the opportunity to make clear our position on this issue and urge support of the motion:

That this House condemns the government for its refusal to replace Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, with legislation targeting the criminal misuse of firearms and revoke their firearms registration policy that, in the opinion of this House: (a) confiscates private property; (b) contains unreasonable search and seizure provisions; (c) violates Treasury Board cost

benefit quidelines; (d) represents a waste of taxpayers dollars; (e) is an affront to law-abiding firearms owners; and (f) will exacerbate the illicit trafficking in firearms.

[Swissair Flight 111, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today as well to join with the government in extending our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of those who perished on Swissair flight 111.

I think I echo the sentiments of all members that when these tragedies occur what we are primarily conscious of is that there simply are no words to say to people who have experienced that kind of tragedy.

What we can do, as the Prime Minister has said, is try to identify the cause of the accident so that perhaps similar tragedies can be averted in the future.

We would like to express our gratitude also to everyone who was involved in the search and rescue operations at Peggy's Cove. The search and rescue teams showed extraordinary bravery, compassion and professionalism that has made all of us and indeed all Canadians proud of their efforts.

We all hoped on the night of September 2 that survivors would be found. We now realize that the investigation and salvage will continue for some time.

Our thoughts now turn to those conducting the investigative aspects and operations and pray that they will have the strength and courage to carry out a very difficult operation and that they will find out exactly what happened to cause such a tragedy. We admire the investigative people as well for the strength, caring and compassion that they have shown, and not just toward the victims of this tragedy but also toward each other.

I want to thank all the search and rescue and investigative people on behalf of all Canadians but particularly on behalf of the victims and their families whose lives have been so tragically altered by this disaster.

[Apec Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want answers, not evasions.

According to an official in the privy council office working on security arrangements for the APEC summit: “The Prime Minister will want to be personally involved”. Canadians want to know the extent therefore to which the Prime Minister was personally involved in the security arrangements for APEC.

Why did the Prime Minister trample on the political rights of Canadian citizens in order to protect an Asian dictator?

[Apec Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this story has been coming out in dribs and drabs. The Indonesian bodyguards were given the right to shoot Canadian demonstrators. Canadians were arrested for holding up signs which stated such subversive things as democracy and human rights. The protesters were pepper sprayed because they might have been seen by APEC leaders.

The Prime Minister has a chance today to clear the air. Exactly what did he direct his officials to do with respect to APEC security?

[Apec Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, documents, memos and e-mails from the privy council office, the prime minister's office and the RCMP indicate that the Prime Minister was directly involved in the security arrangements for the APEC summit in Vancouver.

Why has the Prime Minister been denying his involvement for almost a year when all the evidence points to the fact that he bent over backwards to protect an Asian dictator not from violence but from political embarrassment?

[Health, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it has a dozen ways to wash these stains from its hands. The Prime Minister blames the provinces. The Prime Minister compares the victims to cigarette addicts and junkies using dirty needles. The Prime Minister uses party discipline to force his own Liberal MPs to vote against the victims.

However, there is only one way for the government to wash this stain from its record and this is its last chance before parliament rises. Will the government agree to compensate all victims of hepatitis C just as Justice Krever recommended?