1990-11-22

[Stage Direction]
39 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 22,1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fifty-Fifth Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages. This report concerns the membership of legislative committees and, pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), shall be deemed adopted upon presentation.


BILL C-82-PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-82, an Act to amend an Act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and an Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal, and to validate certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto, without amendments.


ENVIRONMENT-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment.
I should report to members of the House that I believe the difficulties which have existed have been overcome
and that we anticipate the minister appearing before the committee at four o'clock next Tbesday afternoon.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops who are well known environmentalists.
The petitioners point out the fact that the most environmentally friendly way of travel is by passenger rail. They as the government to reconsider the decision to curtail a number of VIA Rail routes and to invest in this environmentally friendly way of transportation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On an unrelated matter, Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition again on behalf of a number of British Columbians who oppose the government's goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that a recent referendum in the city of Vancouver found that 85 per cent of those participating in the referendum oppose the goods and services tax and are asking the government to listen to Canadians, respond to the wishes of Canadians, heed the concerns of the small business community, in particular, and back off the GST.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 wish to table a petition in which residents of Val d'Or and Barraute, in the Abitibi area, call upon the Government of Canada to scrap the so-called Hill project that would spend $68 million on building an underground parking garage and shopping mall under the Parliament Buildings, and ask the gov-

November 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
ernment to recognize the need to preserve the site and historic character of the Parliament Buildings and Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners also ask that members of Parliament continue to park outside in the spaces behind the Parliament Buildings, like factory workers do in this country, and they maintain that the Government of Canada has more important priorities than building an underground shopping mall on Parliament Hill.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I join with many colleagues on this side of the House to condemn the putting in place of the goods and services tax.
I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by Canadians from across Ontario and, more specifically, from my riding of Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold.
This ignoble bill is possibly going to be read into effect before the end of this year, but we as Canadians will be paying the price for it for many years to come. Once again we ask the government to reconsider and to kill this bill.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of rising in the House to present a petition on behalf of residents of Tahsis, British Columbia.
Virtually every resident of Tahsis has signed this petition, urging the government to reinstate the northern and isolated area tax benefits. Tahsis is a single industry community which is in desperate economic shape.
If the government were to provide the northern and isolated area tax benefits, it would be of immeasurable help.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the obligation or the duty this morning to table five petitions dealing with the government's intention of imposing a tax on all goods and services purchased by Canadians.
The people who have signed this petition claim that the government has increased the existing federal manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent over the last six years, that it will now impose a 7 per cent tax on all goods and services which will be hidden, that the imposition of this goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians, and that the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business.
I could go on, but I will just say that these people ask Parliament, plead with Parliament, pray that we do not proceed with this very bad tax.
The British had its poll tax, and we know what happened to Madam Thatcher. This government has its GST tax, and we know what is happening to this government.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition in which the undersigned residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically citizens from the town of Manitou-wadge, respectively requesting the federal government to reject the task force report on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
If the report were adopted by this government, it would be another blow to the residents of Cochrane-Superior. The loss of $5 million in revenue to northerners would seriously impair the efforts of the people to improve the quality of life in their remote areas.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I have the honour and the privilege to submit seven petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36, wherein the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax.
In their petition they make specific reference to the goods and services tax which is planned to be implemented with regard to books, particularly those petitioners in the province of Ontario as well as those elsewhere across this country.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I remind members of the House that Britain had the poll tax and we know what happened to Madam Thatcher. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if this GST goes through the same will occur in Canada as occurred in Britain.
November 22, 1990


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions under Standing Order 36.
The first one is signed by a large number of Canadians from many different parts of the country, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario. The petitioners join many other Canadians who have signed petitions calling for an end to low-level flight training in Canada. They support the Innu of Labrador and the Assembly of First Nations in that request. These people also ask Canada to redirect its NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal population to regain control of their lands and livelihood and to promote sustainable development for all Canadians.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, this petition which I have the honour to present was signed by virtually every resident of the community of Pine House in my constituency in northern Saskatchewan.
These petitioners, as well as millions of other Canadians, are calling on the government to reconsider its goods and services tax. They point out that this burden will fall heaviest on those who can least afford to pay, particularly those in northern areas of our country.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to submit petitions from the people of Saskatchewan who take exception to the fact that the GST will be applied to reading material.
They state, and correctly so, that books, magazines, and newspapers are free from tax in this country. Now the government is going to be subjecting these materials to the GST. Reading material has always been a foundation of the democratic process.
The petitioners move to reaffirm historic principles embodied in the tax free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate of the GST legislation and regulations as they apply to books, magazines and newspapers.
Routine Proceedings GASOLINE ADDITIVES


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions containing some 300 names, the first of literally thousands. Residents in southwestern Ontario are demanding that the government ban the use of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, a gasoline additive; the manganese part of which is an insidious neuro-toxic substance which attacks the brain cells, particularly in young children whose immune systems are not fully developed.
We ask the government to move immediately to ban this substance and replace it with environmentally friendly ethanol as an octane enhancer in the gasoline of Canada.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour and privilege to present a number of petitions. These petitions are signed by members of my family, relatives and some of my friends and neighbours from the village of Sarsfield, in Ontario, where I live. They are all unanimous in their opposition to the GST proposed by the Conservative government. They ask that the GST be withdrawn before the government loses its Prime Minister because of a tax measure, like what happened in England.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition in the House signed by numerous residents of the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, like those put forward by my honourable and distinguished colleague, are opposed to the goods and services tax.
These people recite that the tax will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment. They and all other Canadians have more than enough of that already without the additional impositions that the goods and services tax will make on them. They call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and present petitions in the House of Commons. About 300 petitioners, over 200 of them from my city of Nepean and

November 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
the city of Ottawa, the rest being from Oxbow, Shauna-von, and Silton all in Saskatchewan. They are protesting the imposition of the goods and services tax on books and reading.
This is the first time in Canada that this has ever been done. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
-k *k *k


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Raymond John Skelly: On
November 19 Your Honour commented on the House order to the aboriginal affairs committee on the Oka matter.
The committee meeting last night would indicate that the committee, for whatever reason, is incapacitated and unable to deal expeditiously with the House order.
I wonder if Your Honour might ask the members of each party sitting on that committee to meet informally with the Speaker to explain how they intend to go about carrying out the wishes of this House.
I wonder if Your Honour might also review the minutes of that meeting to determine whether the expertise of your office and yourself might be of assistance in launching this very important inquiry, that really cost Canadian taxpayers $60 million and tied up one third of the Canadian army.
The matter is important for every member of this House. I know that Your Honour at this point might want to be appraised of the situation in a formal way and offer whatever service that might assist the committee to carry out the wishes of the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I had a brief note passed to me earlier this morning about the events of yesterday. I understand there are a series of motions that have been prepared by different members of the committee.
I also understand that there was a tendency on the part of the opposition yesterday, which perhaps could be characterized as a filibuster, so that they were only able to deal with one of the motions that was available to them.
There are some other motions that might settle the situation if members would talk a little less and get on with the job of voting. I think then we might very satisfactorily come to a resolution and get on with the inquiry. The opposition has to bear some of the responsibility for their decision to deal with their motions only, and not be willing to deal with motions presented by other members.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a number of days ago I had the opportunity of talking about this issue privately with the Speaker for a few brief moments after the issue was raised in the House of Commons.
Might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the proposition brought forward by our colleague this morning is an important one. Although committees generally operate with their own mandate, it is not true of a special committee. A special committee operates quite otherwise and it can only operate on the premise that it is a creature of the House, and not that it has its own mandate under section 108 because it does not apply to those special committees.
Therefore, I think it is incumbent on the House to ensure that its directions are followed. Of course you, Sir, are the servant of this House and one on whom we count in order to ensure that those things happen.
I refer to Beauchesne's citation 621, as well as Standing Order 116 of this House to back up the claim that I am making. Perhaps the best way to ensure that the House order is followed would be for Mr. Speaker to have an informal meeting, which was mentioned by our colleague from the New Democratic Party. In this way we will not delay the House unduly this morning, or any
November 22, 1990

other time for that matter and get the committee to do what the House has ordered because the committee does not have the choice to do anything otherwise. That is quite clear in both Beauchesne's citation 621 and the Standing Orders of our House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am slightly confused by that presentation. At page 16 of last Wednesday's Hansard you will find a list of special committees. It does not include any committee dealing with Oka or any issue of native affairs.
We are dealing with a standing committee of the House, which has all of the powers that apply to standing committees according to our Standing Orders, plus a reference to that committee from the House.
It is a bit premature to conclude that anything about that standing committee as being different to any other committee. Any of the standing committees of the House can be charged by the House with a specific responsibility at any time. It is my understanding that they are taking the responsibility which was handed them-relating to the Oka situation-very seriously indeed. They are trying to develop an approach and a pattern that will be truly productive in terms of providing the House with good, solid advice for the future. That is what they are after.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to get on with the business of the House.
I would like to emphasize what my hon. colleague raised earlier. No one is impugning motives. It is an important committee. The work is extremely important. There is $60 plus million of taxpayers' money and about one-third of the Canadian army involved in one way or another. It is a major issue to consider. It would appear for whatever set of reasons that the committee's work is not functioning as it ought.
Mr. Speaker, you mentioned, in your comments of November 19, on page 15393 of Hansard, that "I", meaning yourself, "of course assume, having said that, that the committee is working". The point being made this morning is that it would appear that the committee has ground to a halt and is unable to proceed. I do not think this is a major problem. I think it needs to have further discussion. We are asking, Mr. Speaker, if you
Routine Proceedings
could not facilitate that discussion to ensure that it takes place.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been very patient in hearing the submissions. We know what the general procedural law is, and the strictures against the Speaker interfering where the Speaker ought not to be.
From what I hear there is disagreement in the committee as to a motion or certain motions that have been proposed. I also hear from the government side, as the hon. member for Calgary West has asserted, that the committee is dealing with the matter. It is not closed. The committee has not walked away from the House order of reference.
The better thing to do at the moment would be to continue the discussions within the committee and perhaps that will resolve the matter.
It is fair to say that the issue, which I think is accepted on all parts of the House, is an important issue. Members on both sides, I think, are in agreement that it is. It is also an issue which has been placed with the committee as a consequence of a consent order of this House. There does not seem to be any argument about the importance of this issue. There seems to be still some disagreement as to how to deal with it. I would hope that those disagreements could be worked out as soon as possible.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
I would like to remind the House that Standing Order 621, subsection (2) says very clearly:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the
Order of Reference.
This issue has been referred to that committee. The debates in committee as to whether or not the committee should follow the order of reference of the House is out of order. That debate itself should not, and cannot, take place in that committee and it is. That is the contention this morning, the fact that the committee is debating whether or not it should follow what we, as a House, have ordered. It does not and cannot have that mandate, according to our rules. That is the other point I wanted to make.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
I refer to Beauchesne's 621, the fifth edition, in order to remind the House and the Speaker of that particular rule.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think perhaps the deputy House leader on the other side misspoke himself slightly. There is no rule 621. In the latter part, he said it was a citation from Beauchesne's. In fact, we have only 159 rules, which some days seems like quite a lot, and others may be not quite enough.
The committee is trying to move through a series of motions to set their agenda and set the work pattern to meet the terms of reference of the House of Commons.
There was a motion yesterday which was defeated. There are other motions on the table that need to be discussed and then decided upon. Then they will be able to get on with their work. That is all we are dealing with.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has brought a matter to the Chair and to the Chamber. It is clear that there is some disagreement in the committee, but I have to accept the assertion of the hon. member for Calgary West that the committee is trying to deal with that matter. I think as long as that is going on, that is where the discussion here today should end.
I am mindful of the citations which the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has raised and the comments of the hon. member for Calgary West, but I am looking primarily at the comments raised by our colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. What he has in effect said-although it came as a point of privilege, it is more probably a point of order-is that he is asking the Chair if there is some way the Chair could help to facilitate the ongoing work of the committee. I think that is the very calm and reasoned way that the hon. member put the matter to the House.
It just might be that, because we have had this discussion, it might in itself help facilitate the working of the committee. The hon. member for Calgary West, who is the Whip for the government, seems to be of the view that the matter can be resolved. I think that at least for today that is where we should leave it.
I hope the hon. members can make the committee work, because, as I said before, it is seized of an order from this House, which was a consent order, and there was complete agreement in it. As both sides of the House have clearly indicated, it is a matter of very great concern to the House and to the country.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to study the subject matter of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof;
That the said Special Committee shall have all the powers of a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1); and
That the said Special Committee be composed of eight members, to be recommended by the Striking Committee.


Mr. Waddell:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, and it is this. There is a motion by the government to refer Bill C-80, the proposed gun control legislation, to a committee for pre-study. There is also on the Order Paper Bill C-80 itself, as a government bill, for second reading, which is approval in principle.
On behalf of my party, I say to the minister we are prepared to put up one speaker on Bill C-80. We will deal with the real thing, the bill. I cannot speak for the Liberal Party, but I noticed before that the Liberal Party was prepared to proceed with the matter. We could proceed with the government bill, refer it to committee, and then any amendments or any witnesses can be heard in the committee.
I know the minister has committed herself. She said right after the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal last December 6 that she was committed to improving gun control legislation in the country. The government did bring down a bill, which is this Bill C-80. I want to say to the minister on behalf of my party that we are prepared to deal with the bill. We can deal with it

today and we can get it into committee so we can study the real bill in committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, there is total confusion in the government in regard to this very important and serious matter.
Members will recall that we have Bill C-80 which deals with the gun control legislation. We also have Motion No. 13 which dates back to June 20, 1990.1 guess the government was getting cold feet at that time and wanted to refer the whole thing to a committee during the summer. It never proceeded with that motion, of course.
Now we have another motion tabled 48 hours ago which calls for a standing committee, or a committee with standing committee powers, composed of eight members. So, we have three items: a bill and two motions.
The Projected Order of Business today called for the bill to be called at 11 o'clock. That is second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof. We find now the government has changed its view and is going to call the motion.
We do not order Business of the Elouse. The government does that. What we are trying to find out is exactly what is in the government's mind here. If it wants to debate a motion that sends the subject matter of gun control to a committee, because it cannot handle it, because its legislation is faulty, or because it cannot take the heat on the issue, then I think the House must know. If the government proceeds with the motion, then we will all know that what it is trying to do is pawn off the issue to a standing committee of the House.
However, it cannot call Motion No. 13 any more, Madam Speaker, if it calls this Motion No. 23 today. I hope it will give us an undertaking that it will not call the principle of this whole issue, that is Bill C-80. If it did that, we would have a committee looking at the subject matter and we would have the House of Commons looking at the principle of the bill.
I have a difficult situation here to resolve, Madam Speaker. If the government gives me the undertaking that it will not call the bill, then fine, it can proceed with
Government Orders
the motion. However, if it is going to give the committee to be struck the object of the bill, that is the whole subject matter, to study if Motion No. 23 is adopted, then it cannot, in my view, have it both ways. It must give us an undertaking that its bill is dead. Therefore, it will not be called back to the House and it will be withdrawn.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I would just like to follow up on what my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam and the member for Ottawa-Vanier have said.
This is a very peculiar situation. As the member for Ottawa-Vanier said, the government brought forward a motion on June 20 to have a pre-study on this question of gun control. Then on June 26 it brought forward Bill C-80, the bill to deal with this question of gun control. It has been sitting without action until the present time.
Yesterday, the government brought forward a second motion where it wants to refer the matter to a special committee. The Order Paper this morning stated that we were going to be dealing with second reading of Bill C-80. Now, we are back to Motion No. 23.
The government wants to kill its own legislation. It wants to refer it to a special committee which will not be able to finish studying the bill, and have it printed and translated until well into the new year. It is not going to be able to bring forward the legislation before the government's own intention to prorogue the House.
This is absolutely unprecedented. It is absolutely unnecessary. It is incredible that the government would make such a botch of its own procedure and destroy what is basically a fair bill. It is perhaps not perfect, but it is a bill that can be amended at second reading and in committee, and one which the House wants to get on with.
As the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has said, we are prepared to give swift passage on second reading to get the bill to committee, so we can hear the views of all concerned, instead of delaying it and, as the government wants to do, killing it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have been a party to some of the discussions that have gone on in a secondhand way in terms of the justice committee and in a direct way in terms of House leaders' meetings.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
I think it is wise for the House to recall the reality that cabinet moved very swiftly in the spring to present the House with a bill prior to the summer recess so that there could be input for all members of Parliament of all parties in all parts of the country as to whether or not the proposition was going to get the job done.
That, Madam Speaker, was accompanied by a motion to refer the subject matter of the bill, in a pre-study sense, to the justice committee so that that committee could have the resources, in terms of research and help from the House of Commons, to conduct in a more formal way that examination during the summer. That would have passed in a moment with the concurrence of all members of the House or even with the three parties. It was not forthcoming.


An hon. member:: Don't let the facts get in your way. You never did before.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The government would have preferred to have that committee up and running during the summer,
but there was no way to get concurrence.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, it would be useful to the Chair if hon. members would allow the Chair what is being said on the floor. That courtesy was given to my left, and I think it should be given to my right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
There was a suggestion made at a steering committee of the justice committee, with representatives from all parties present, close to two weeks ago that the justice committee set up a subcommittee for the purpose of studying the subject matter of this bill so it could get on with the job of calling witnesses and making public presentation from knowledgeable people about what is right and what is wrong with this bill.
The opposition indicated that it felt that the workload of the justice committee was such-


An hon. member:: That is not true.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -that it could not handle this assignment in this particular timeframe. Therefore, the government has created a new motion, Motion No. 23, which will set up a special committee of the House.
We will be able to identify eight members of the House who will make it a priority to get on with the business in a formal way of receiving public input from knowledgeable Canadians about what is right and what is wrong with this bill. We hope we can then get on with the process quickly-if we could come to a concurrence in this House-with a piece of legislation that will get the job done the way that Canadians want the job done.
All that is happening is that we keep getting blocked by the opposition.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Every time we try to create action on this situation to get on with the protection of Canadian society, we get blocked by the opposition.
We could put it to a test this moment. I make an offer to the members on the other side that we simply accept, without debate or amendment, Motion No. 23 right this instant which sets up the special committee and we will get on with the job. We would then be in a position, if the opposition wanted, to debate for the balance of the day second reading on Bill C-80. Let us pass the motion without debate or amendment so that the action is in place and then get on with the issue of debate in terms of the bill.
There is a proposition that accomplishes what I believe Canadians want to accomplish. It is on the table, and all it takes is unanimous consent of this Chamber to adopt this motion right now. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask for that unanimous consent.


Mr. Allmand:: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. What total incompetence and disorganization.
First, we look at the Order Paper for today, Thursday, November 22, and the order listed is Bill C-80. When we arrive at the House, we then find we are asked to debate Motion No. 23, which is to refer the subject matter of Bill C-80 to a special committee.
Now, the House leader of the government is asking us to approve Motion No. 23 without debate, but he says we can debate Bill C-80 at second reading after that is done. I might ask, for what purpose, if we have already referred the subject matter to a special committee without debate. Does this mean that we are going to proceed with
November 22, 1990

the debate on second reading of Bill C-80 and then have a vote?
The reason the government is not proceeding with the second reading of Bill C-80 is that it has now lost the political will to proceed with that bill. It knows it cannot even win a vote from its own caucus on the bill.
The minister went to the Ecole Polytechnique in April where she received 25 boxes of petitions containing 500 names. She promised legislation before the end of May. We never got the bill until the end of June. Now, they are so confused over there, they do not know what the hell they are doing. They are incompetent and disorganized.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are now discussing the possibility of putting this motion to the House. I would not want us to get into debating the subject matter, talking about petitions being or not being written on the subject.
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I raised the point of order and the government's acting House leader got up and made an offer.
I see the Minister of Justice sitting there, silent. I just say that I offered on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we would put the bill through today, in principle. That is second reading of the bill.
We have heard from the Liberal critic who offered the same thing. So we have a case of the opposition offering to put forward the gun control bill, and we have the government apparently filibustering its own bill.
The minister is sitting there, quiet and gutless. She has, in fact, lost control of her own bill to the gun control lobby. That is very tragic.
I see the member for Calgary West. I say to the government again that we are prepared to offer that we deal with second reading in principle of the bill, rather than this motion. The bill can go to committee and it can be studied in committee.
I think that is a pretty good offer. This will be the first time I have ever seen a government turn down an offer to pass its own legislation. Could we please hear the reply from the member, preferably from the Minister of Justice.
Government Orders


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I refer to what the deputy House leader has said about what is right and what is wrong. What is right is proceeding with second reading of Bill C-80. What is wrong is the way this government is managing its legislation.
I would like to correct the member who was not at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Justice and Solicitor General. He was not there. He misquoted a meeting he did not even attend.
The chairman proposed a pre-study Bill C-80.1 would ask the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam to speak for himself, but as far as I was concerned there was not going to be any pre-study. There was not going to be anything but second reading on Bill C-80. If the government was to withdraw Bill C-80, then it would have to take responsibility for that. But under no circumstances was anything going to proceed except second reading of Bill C-80 as far as this party was concerned.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, if I may be helpful in this debate. I think that the message we want to convey to Canadians is that this is a most important issue with which this House wants to deal.
The government has already put, and the Clerk has already read the Order of the Day, for today. It is Motion No. 23. I would recommend to the government that it withdraw that motion at this time, give us notice that it will withdraw the motion and go to second reading of that bill. We will then co-operate with the government, but we need to have some direction from this government as to what it wants to do in terms of procedure. They propose: We will dispose. We cannot dispose of something when it is so flim-flam and so confused.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the difficulty in terms of clarity. We are very clear. By calling Motion No. 23, we are setting up a special committee of the House with the powers of a standing committee, the investigatory powers, the budgetary underpinning and everything else to thoroughly investigate the issue of gun control.
What the opposition is asking for is the House to pass at second reading Bill C-80, which would restrict the legislative committee. The legislative committee does not have the mandate to look into the entire situation. It is bound by the principles inherent in Bill C-80 itself.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are they good?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Those principles may be right or they may be wrong. Certainly members from all three parties are on both sides of that issue. Some believe the principles are correct. Some believe the principles are flawed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Put it to a vote.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The only way, Madam Speaker, for this House to be satisfied about a good, solid recommendation for the future for gun control of this country is to have a committee with the powers of a standing committee, rather than a legislative committee so that the entire situation can be assessed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think I have heard all that is needed to be heard at this time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member on a point of order. Is it on the same point of order? I think we have heard all sides on this one. The government has called for Motion No. 23. The government has the right to do so. The only thing that the Chair can do right now is put the motion to the House and let us debate it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it is a further point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a further point of order. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I understand what you are saying, but I want further clarification to end the point. The hon. member for Calgary West is now saying that the government wants to propose the motion to send the subject matter of gun control to the committee so there will be a broader look at the whole subject matter, rather than just the narrow look that he claims is contained in Bill C-80. This is the first time the hon. member has said this, so that is his position now.
My question then, and further to this point of order, is what then will happen to Bill C-80?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may want to answer, but my feeling is that the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is really now debating the motion which I am about to put to the House.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, what I find completely unacceptable is that the hon. member for Calgary West stood up and said that this bill had to go to a special committee and not a legislative committee. Under the rules of the House, when a bill passes second reading, it goes to a legislative committee. The hon. member is saying that a legislative committee is not suitable to deal with the government's own legislation which the government has brought before the House.
What the hon. member is doing is condemning his own proposed legislation, yet leaving the proposed legislation on the Order Paper. It is a complete mish-mash. This government is a disgrace. This government does not know what it is doing; it is against its own legislation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If we are to be into debate, I will recognize the minister. On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend leading off the debate on this motion. I wonder if I could put a question, through you, to the Minister of Justice. Since we are going to start on this rather creative course to deal with a very important matter, normally the government's first speaker would receive an immunity in terms of questions and comments. I want to ask my good friend, the Minister of Justice, whether she would agree to at least a 10-minute question and comment period at the end of her presentation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, let us proceed with the normal course of events, unless we have unanimity in the Chamber to accept this motion. You have not asked whether there is unanimous consent to simply accept the motion and then move to second reading debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, may I plead with the minister to give us an occasion to ask her a few questions in this House. We have had a bill, before committee, pertaining to young offenders on which she has refused to appear to answer questions of members of Parliament. We are just asking her now: will she please answer questions dealing with this important proposed legislation on this very important subject matter? Ten minutes is not much.


Mr. Crosby:: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, to depart from the normal rules of procedure would require the unanimous consent of the House. What the member for Kamloops should have asked for was the unanimous consent of the House to have a question period following the minister's speech. Had he asked for unanimous consent, I would have denied it.
November 22, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I guess that settles the argument.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity to finally enter the debate on this motion. I look forward to the appropriate procedural opportunities to discuss this with members of the House at the committee hearings. I think that is the appropriate occasion to do that. What I want to do is to put on the record a number of propositions and discuss to some degree what it is I would like the committee to deal with.
I have been wanting to get this legislation into a committee since before we rose for the summer because, as members of this House and I think of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and others who have served in this House for a very long time will know, this is probably one of the most contentious subject matters with which Parliament will ever deal. My colleagues, who go back to 1978 when the previous package of gun control legislation came before this House, have told me that it was, without question, the most contentious issue that the House ever dealt with and in terms of their own ridings whether people were for or against the legislation. It roused an enormous amount of public controversy and interest.
That is why, on our side of the House, there is not a disposition to have a very quick second reading debate because on all sides of the issue on this side of the House members want to-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: I wonder if the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam could even consider in his wildest dreams offering the same kind of courtesy that he is regularly granted from me in the course of debate in this House. I am minister and he is my critic and I think we have a responsibility to try and debate the issues in this House-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to call the House to order. I am sure the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will eventually talk on this motion and he will want to be given the courtesy of speaking quietly. He will
Government Orders
please allow the minister to do the same. The hon. Minister of Justice.


A. Kim Campbell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is really interesting that what the hon.
member calls shameless, or shameful and gutless, is in fact the essence of democracy because when we have issues in this society that are highly divisive, it is important to ensure that we move forward with support of the public and, more important, with the understanding of the public.
I have spent a lot of time since the tabling of Bill C-80 and even before talking to people in Canada who are concerned about the question of gun control, and listening to them. What we need is a process that will move this legislation ahead. I have been wanting to get into a committee, a public process, since before the bill was tabled, and certainly since the bill was tabled.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You offered us a bill.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about offering a bill. The point is that the members on this side of the House regard this as one of the most important issues they will deal with and they want to have a full second reading debate. They all want to get their views on the principle of this bill on the record. It is not, in their view, a subject of legislation that should have a perfunctory nod of the head, go through a committee process, and come back for third reading when it is too late to discuss the philosophy of the bill. Third reading debate is generally a slow debate.
It is because of my respect for their concerns and my concern to move the legislation ahead and get it into a timely public process that this motion has come forward.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are killing the bill.


A. Kim Campbell: We are not killing the bill, Madam Speaker.
So, Madam Speaker, I want to have the opportunity today to explain what it is I would like the committee to address. I think it is, as I say, one of the most important issues we will deal with in the House during this session, an issue absolutely fundamental to the question of public safety in this country.

Government Orders
I have met, as I say, with people across this country on the issue, not just the students at Ecole Polytechnique who, as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace pointed out, did present me with their petition of 500,000 signatures. I might say about the students at Ecole Polytechnique that in attempting to make some kind of sense out of the tragedy which they experienced, it was very deeply moving to be there. My first career was as a university professor. There is something about being in the company of these young people, young students, who are the future of our country. I guess at my stage in life, I am touched by their youth, seeing them trying to make some kind of sense out of the tragedy they experienced. I was struck by the very sensible, pragmatic, reasoned way in which they tackled a very otherwise emotional issue, the extent to which they, in fact, met with people in Canadian society who are interested in using firearms for sporting and hunting purposes and how their recommendations to me were very much influenced by a sense of fairness and a recognition that in Canada there are people who use firearms in responsible, law-abiding ways. That is why their brief to me and their meeting with me was so helpful. They really did attempt to look at the broad issue of policy.
It is important that Canadians have an opportunity to discuss this issue and to have input into a parliamentary committee that will come back and recommend.
I am very confident about Bill C-80. I think that the committee process will reconfirm what we are attempting to do with Bill C-80, in fact the package that I have put forward because the package is more than just Bill C-80.
I also think it is terribly important that where we have contentious issues there be an opportunity for public participation. In this issue as in no others, I think there are people who want to have the opportunity to speak. I have been frustrated at the lack of a public process.
We may in fact complete second reading before the House rises. I think it is unlikely that we would have the opportunity to bring it back for third reading and a final disposition, which is why I do not want to delay any longer. The last time this subject matter was before this House, interestingly enough it was brought forward by
one of my predecessors as member for Vancouver Centre, who at that time was the Liberal Minister of Justice, Mr. Ron Basford.


An hon. member:: He lost his seat over it.


A. Kim Campbell: The hon. member says: "He lost his seat over it". It is a contentious issue.
I think Bill C-80 is an excellent one but, for those who will remember, the last time it was before this House it took 70 days to deal with that legislation after a quite extensive public process.
I want to get this legislation through in the most timely way possible, and that is why I do not want to wait for a long second reading debate to get it out in a public process. If we complete second reading on this before the House rises, that is fine.
My colleagues have advised me that they want to participate in second reading debate, but they are uncomfortable with a perfunctory second reading debate. It is too important an issue. If there ever was an issue on which the members of this House want to discuss the philosophy of legislation, want to have their views on the bill recorded, it is this one, and they will do so.
I welcome the opportunity, in the course of debating this motion, to outline for members of the House some of the elements in the government's bill to amend the Criminal Code gun control provisions and why I think it is so important to have these before the public for discussion.
I believe that the measures contained in this bill will significantly enhance the existing gun control system in Canada.
It is a very important occasion for me, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in this House for their valuable suggestions and contributions to the development of this package.
I might say that contrary to the assertions of the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, first of all, after the very tragic events at Ecole Polytechnique last December I was not in fact the Minister of Justice, so I did not make the comments that he attributed to me. However, the development of this package long predates that. My predecessor as Minister of Justice, after those tragic events, pulled the package back for a further review because he recognized that in light of those
November 22, 1990

events it was perhaps important to make sure that the package was as responsive as possible.
When I was appointed Minister of Justice at the end of February, because this was to be my legislation I wanted to give it a thorough review as well and in fact made some changes to the package before it was brought forward. But the genesis of this package of legislative changes quite considerably predates the events at Ecole Polytechnique. That is why, there having been a considerable amount of consultation and input by colleagues in this House, I am anxious to move forward in the most timely way.
The legislation has been improved by representations made by members of this House through the discussion that has surrounded private members' bills, by proposals of members, and by proposals made on behalf of constituents.

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the unfortunate and tragic incident at the Universite de Montreal last December, and the recent events at Akwesasne, Kahne-wake and Kahnesatake, all of the evidence suggests that the current legislation has been effective in reducing the number of deaths and injuries from firearms in Canada since it was enacted in 1978.
I believe, however, that there is still room for improvement. The measures I have introduced will effectively combine with the existing law and address the very real concerns of all Canadians about public safety and the place of firearms in our society. Canadians are veiy concerned about violence and the misuse of firearms.
I am convinced that the combined effect of the enforcement of the existing law, the amendments I am proposing, and non-legislative measures such as the implementation of firearms safety education programs, will significantly reduce firearms incidents and increase public confidence in the law.
I challenge Canada's firearms community to assist us in building public confidence that firearms have a legitimate place in Canada and that they will be owned and used safely.
I know that all members of this House share my belief that Canada's firearms community is prepared to support a balanced program to encourage the responsible owner-
Govemment Orders
ship and use of firearms and to protect the safety of all Canadians.
Public safety is everyone's responsibility and we must all work together to preserve it.

Bill C-80 is part of a larger package of proposed changes to Canada's gun control system. It is because of that larger package that the context of a special committee is appropriate to look at it, rather than a committee that is confined to the terms of the actual legislative draft.
Many of the existing elements of the system are based on regulatory measures or Order in Council powers based on legislative authority. Others are based strictly on statutory provisions. Bill C-80 will continue this two-track approach.
It makes a number of changes to the Criminal Code itself, but many significant changes will be made by regulations or Orders in Council based on either the existing law or the proposed amendments.
I have received a great many representations from firearms owners who feel that regulations or Orders in Council are an attempt to circumvent the normal review of Parliament.
As hon. members of this House will understand, the purpose of regulations and Orders in Council is to enable Parliament to delegate authority in areas where frequent or urgent changes may have to be made in a time frame that will not permit normal parliamentary scrutiny.
The provisions allowing the Governor in Council to designate prohibited and restricted weapons by order, for example, enable the government to respond quickly and effectively to new devices that come on to the world market. Using this power, it is possible to prohibit importation and possession before large numbers have entered the country.
Many of the provisions that cause members of the firearms community the greatest concern are actually proposed regulations for Order in Council provisions. As I suggested, it would perhaps be out of the framework of discussion of Bill C-80 itself because they are not in the bill itself.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
This is because the provisions that deal with the status of specific firearms must do so in a very detailed and specific manner. Such language is not well suited to statutory provisions.
I must emphasize that there is no hidden agenda. It is not our intention to enact overly restrictive measures, either by Order in Council or by amending the statute itself. Nor is it our intention to bring in the various supplementary measures without giving Canada's firearms owners a fair and reasonable opportunity to review them and make their views known. I would point out that it has been very much the policy of this government to make our regulatory process as fair as possible to give ample prior warning to members of the Canadian public to allow their input. In this way we have in many ways revolutionized that process since 1984.
It is also important that there not be a blithe assumption on the part of Parliament of the wisdom of always giving the Governor in Council a blank cheque. The concerns raised by firearms owners about the use of regulatory power are interesting ones and force us to reconsider some of our what I call legislative reflexes. It is always the instinct of legislative drafters to attempt to give to the executive the broadest possible discretion. But where there are issues and subjects of legislation that are contentious, it may in fact be more appropriate for Parliament to be as explicit as possible in legislation in order that those who are affected by these regulations are confident and feel comfortable with them.
That is one of the issues that I would like the committee to look at: the extent to which perhaps some of the things that I am proposing to do by regulation could perhaps be incorporated in legislation. What we must do is not be arrogant about the use of the regulatory power of Orders in Council and listen genuinely to people who are of the concern that perhaps orders will be made without taking into account their views.
There is a perception in part of the country, for example, that gun control is an issue that is an urban-rural split and the fear that regulations will be made by urban people. I am not sure that is true. In fact it is my observation that there is an enormous effort made to be sensitive.
If further review by Parliament would give some sense of security and confidence to people who are affected by these regulations, then I would not want to make a strenuous argument on behalf of the right of the Governor in Council to make these regulations if it was not necessary. I would like to have a system in place that people are confident of and feel comfortable about.
That is a very appropriate subject for the special committee that we seek to have created by this motion to deal with, to look at the balance of how we use the very extraordinary powers that we have as government. I really hope to get some sensitive and well thought out advice from the committee on that subject.
For example, one of the most contentious proposals, the size limits for cartridge magazines, is not contained in the bill. It depends on the expansion of one of the existing Order in Council provisions made by the amendments. Once the necessary power is placed in the statute, Orders in Council must still be developed and evaluated before they are enacted.
The provision in Bill C-80 is the provision which would allow the Governor in Council to designate certain devices as prohibited weapons. The power already exists to designate weapons, in other words those that are self-contained. Devices would be those which are accessories or parts of a weapon, and high powered cartridge magazines are what we are looking at.
The proposal to prohibit or restrict specific types of military or paramilitary guns by Order in Council does not depend on the amendments at all. That statutory power is there now in the Criminal Code. The Governor in Council already has the power to enact such orders under existing legislation, provided that the firearms involved are not commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes in Canada.
I would like to reassure the legitimate gun owners of Canada that it is not our intention to use any of these powers to prohibit or confiscate large numbers of commonly used firearms. Every attempt will be made to keep the firearms community informed about proposed changes to the law and to obtain their views before changes take effect.
November 22, 1990

I might just mention with respect to my proposal concerning magazines and cartridges that we consulted broadly with the sporting and hunting community and were advised that our proposals for a limit of five for long guns and ten for handguns was appropriate.
I am now advised that there is another category of competition shooting where people use registered firearms. These are people who are working within the firearms system in Canada. They are known to the authorities. These are not people who are outside the law but who use firearms that have built-in magazines of perhaps 12 or 15 cartridge capacity. These are Brownings or Colt 45s, and there is a certain kind of competition shooting that uses that.
It is precisely to get the input of the firearms owning community into the proposals I put forward that I want this before the committee, a committee with the broadest possible mandate. Our desire is not to harass people who are doing perfectly lawful activities and, as I say, who have firearms.
Those who are registered and in the system have never traditionally been a problem in Canada, barring the concern we have that such firearms not be stolen. There are provisions in Bill C-80 to make more stringent requirements for storage and satisfying those storage capabilities for people who are private owners of restricted firearms as opposed to the gun sellers.
This is the kind of thing I would like to get input into. It has been a source of frustration for me that I have been doing consultation but I have not had a process in place, broadly based, and with the opportunity of advice from members of Parliament on how this should be done.
The measures contained in Bill C-80 itself will improve many aspects of Canada's gun control system. I believe they will reduce the accidental misuse of guns. They will help to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them or who might use them for criminal purposes. They will encourage the responsible ownership and use of guns by all Canadians.
I believe that these measures, with strong support, will help alleviate the personal sense of fear and vulnerability that many people experience in today's society. One of the most poignant insights that was made in the brief to me by the students at Ecole polytechnique was the notion that freedom from the stress of the presence of
Government Orders
unregulated firearms or high powered firearms in society is a right of people. People have a right to live free of that kind of stress and pressure. That is why we have an obligation to put into place a system of firearms regulation that addresses that concern.

Madam Speaker, one major focus of the legislation is a number of measures intended to place effective limits on certain types of high firepower or military-type firearms.
High firepower military type guns were a concern before the Montreal shootings and concern has greatly increased since then. They have been used repeatedly and in many countries to commit terrible acts of mass murder.
Just last week a man armed with a Chinese version of the AK-47 assault rifle shot 16 people in a small town in New Zealand, killing 13 of them. The standard magazine for such a rifle holds 30 shots.
Our police officers and soldiers were confronted with a veritable arsenal of these weapons during the disputes at Kahnawake and Kahnesatake this summer.
Many Canadians have shown sympathy for some of the Mohawks' claims, Mr. Speaker, but the use of violence or military weapons to achieve them is another matter.
I share the view of all Canadians that the use of such weapons for any such purpose is totally unacceptable.

Earlier this year the Federation of Canadian Municipalities unanimously endorsed a resolution calling for the prohibition of military and paramilitary weapons, and I have received some 100 municipal resolutions and petitions demanding the same thing.
I have also met with representatives of the students, as I said, at the University of Montreal to receive their petition which included the signatures of over half a million Canadians.
I was impressed by the presentation, and all of us should share the concerns that effective action must be taken against high firepower guns in Canada.
Since Canada prohibited fully automatic firearms in 1978, there has been an increase in the traffic of fully automatics which has been altered to semi-automatic mode. These guns are dangerous because they have

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
large ammunition capacities and military designs, and because they can be converted back to machine guns.
This bill will make fully automatic firearms that have been converted to semi-automatic prohibited weapons. They will also, I might add, make such conversion a criminal offence.
These firearms have been a source of growing concern, particularly over the last decade, and prohibiting them will put a stop to their importation into Canada.
The package includes a provision that would permit genuine gun collectors who already have these weapons to keep them, subject to strict limits on transfers. The RCMP will create a special registration category to track these guns and ensure that they are subject to effective controls.
The effect of these measures will be to place a ceiling on a number of these weapons and their owners in Canada. Eventually, as owners dispose of their guns, this number will be reduced and the guns will be taken out of circulation.
My colleague, the hon. Mr. Jelinek, who is responsible for Canada customs, has made it clear that these weapons will be stopped at the border, and he has already done so on the authority of several recent court cases involving the legal status of these guns.

I further intend to deal with other para-military or high firepower firearms, many of them semi-automatic, by developing criteria to distinguish between these guns and firearms commonly used for hunting or civilian sporting purposes in this country.
These distinctions would be developed to enable the government to declare specific types of firearms prohibited weapons or restricted weapons using Order in Council powers that are already contained in the Criminal Code. I believe that these standards will make it clear to everyone in Canada which types of firearms are acceptable in Canadian society and which are not. I believe that we can, and should, develop clear standards that will enable us to make this distinction.
A number of criteria have already been identified, and I hope to be in a position to begin preparing specific
Orders in Council soon. I will also refer this matter and some proposed criteria to the new Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms for their consideration.
Dealing effectively with these firearms will give voice to the belief of Canadians that firearms which are exclusively designed for warfare have no socially acceptable purpose in this country.

The amendments will also permit the government to prohibit cartridge magazines that have unacceptably large capacities, if they can be used in semi-automatic firearms.
There are many semi-automatic firearms in Canada that have found legitimate use for both hunting and target shooting in the hands of responsible gun owners. It is the addition of a large capacity cartridge magazine to one of these guns that can transform it from a hunting rifle into an assault weapon, capable of the tragic mayhem seen in Montreal, Stockton California, Hunger-ford England, or just last week in New Zealand.
Clearly, some degree of restriction on this kind of firepower is called for, and the proposed size limits for cartridge magazines will allow the government to set up effective limits with a minimum of interference for those who have legitimate uses for the guns themselves.
A 30-shot magazine is not necessary for either hunting or target shooting.
At the time I introduced this bill, I proposed some specific limits for magazine capacities. As I have said, I had proposed limits of 10 shots for handgun magazines and five shots for centrefire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
Since that time, I have received a number of representations from members of the firearms community suggesting that there may be legitimate uses for a few types of magazines that exceed the limits I had proposed.
I am willing to listen to suggestions for change, and I am aware of the need for some degree of flexibility in preparing these restrictions.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, that is one reason for using Orders in Council to set the limits instead of the amendments themselves.
November 22, 1990

I anticipate that the committee hearings into the bill will consider this matter in some detail and will receive input from those who have interest in the outcome. That is why I am very much looking forward to receiving the committee report.

The bill also contains measures that will make it possible to tighten the process for screening firearms owners.

Canadians who wish to obtain guns must first have a firearms acquisition certificate, or FAC. Several of the new measures will take concrete action to improve the screening of those who want to obtain these certificates.
The new stricter screening measures will require a minimum 28-day waiting period before the issuance of the FAC. It will require applicants to provide the names of two references who can furnish information to local firearms officers. It will require the new FAC document to include a photograph of the holder to prevent use by unauthorized persons.
I am also convinced of the need to encourage a high standard for the responsible ownership and safe use of firearms. Therefore, I intend, with provincial co-operation, to make it mandatory for all FAC applicants to pass a firearms safety course or test. These courses are already provided for in the Criminal Code, but were never proclaimed in force. They were part of a package of amendments introduced in 1978.
I am now prepared to take immediate initiative to remove the obstacles that prevented them from being implemented sooner.

The implementation of this measure will extend the scope of these programs to all parts of Canada and to all classes of firearms owners and users, and we are prepared to work with the provinces in launching them.
We are also prepared to contribute to the important development and start-up costs for this project.

We are also prepared to contribute to the important development and start-up costs for this project, as I said. We will be developing national standards and curricula
Government Orders
for the programs that ensure knowledge of the law, the responsibilities of firearms ownership and safe practices for using and storing guns.
I also want to ensure that the new measures will be as close to self-financing as possible. The current FAC fee has been unchanged since the law was last amended in 1978, and falls far below the actual costs incurred by even the current screening process. The amendments will place the authority to set the future of FAC fees in regulatory provisions.
We do not believe that high costs should be used to deter legitimate gun owners, but we are committed to maintaining cost recovery in the future. This will permit further adjustments without amending the Criminal
Code.
The new FAC fee will be set at $50 for a certificate that is valid for five years. This should bring the new programs close to complete cost recovery by the end of the initial five year period.
I believe that it is important to involve all interested Canadians in developing a more effective firearms control program. For this reason, I am establishing the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms to draw together a broad range of expertise and interest in the field of firearms and gun control, and to represent the widest possible range of views.
I have been receiving nominations for this body throughout the summer and I expect to be able to announce a number of appointments in the very near future. This new advisory council will give Canadians with many perspectives on the role of firearms in society a real voice in the development of new gun control laws and policies.
The council will be asked to consider some of the most difficult issues raised by the screening of gun owners and the guns themselves. They will be asked, for example, to consider the role of medical or psychiatric information in the FAC screening process. We need to know whether it is possible to identify persons such as Marc Lepine beforehand.. We also need to know what sort of information to look for.
There are also difficult questions of confidentiality and access to information that must be addressed. Is the safety of the public better protected by preserving the confidentiality of psychiatric treatment, or by ensuring that information is disclosed to the police.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
The advisory council will also be asked, first of all, to consider the questions relating to the use of safety training programs for FAC applicants. What should be taught? Who should teach it? Should the same thing be taught to all applicants or should the subject matter reflect the use for which the person wants the gun?
Perhaps the most valuable role of the council, Madam Speaker, is that it will serve to bring Canadians with a wide range of views on firearms together into a single forum. This will ensure that issues are considered fairly and thoroughly, and that the interests of all Canadians are taken into account in the development of new policies.
I want to just emphasize again that the first mandate of the committee will be to bring to me a blueprint for the implementation of the training provisions that have been in the Criminal Code since 1978.1 am sure that members of the previous government will recognize that it is a complex matter to implement these provisions and will require a considerable amount of federal-provincial co-operation.
I believe that bringing those training provisions into place will be a very important part of creating a climate of public trust. Those very many Canadians, who are uncomfortable with the presence of firearms in our society, will have the confidence of knowing that those who purchase firearms in Canada have satisfied a requirement of competence and training, and that they have been vetted much more carefully by those who issue the firearms purchasing authorization.
As I said, I would like the committee to look into even a more stringent form of vetting. We have discussed this before. I do not want to hold up the legislation pending a resolution to that issue because I think it is more complex and raises, as I have said before, some interesting privacy and charter considerations.
I have spoken to the House about changes to two of the three major elements of Canada's gun control system: the screening of those who own guns and restrictions on the guns themselves.
The third element is the use of offences and sentences to deter the criminal misuse of guns. I have heard the views of many Canadians, especially members of Canada law-abiding, responsible firearms community, on the question of deterrence. They are of the view that responsible citizens are being asked to pay the price of maintaining public safety while criminals go unpunished. They are concerned that too much emphasis is placed on
crime prevention and not enough on deterrence or
punishment.
I believe that the present Criminal Code measures provide for adequate deterrence and punishment, but I share the concerns that these provisions are not always applied as perhaps they should be. As the hon. members of this House will understand, criminal law enforcement, prosecution and sentencing for firearms offences are matters left with the provincial authorities and the judiciary under the Criminal Code.
I will, on behalf of the Government of Canada, undertake to urge my provincial counterparts to do everything in their power to ensure that firearms charges are laid in appropriate circumstances, that they are prosecuted vigorously and that appropriate sentences are sought.
[ Translation]
I further intend to make every effort to inform Canadians about the changes in the law and the role of our existing gun control system. Steps will be taken to make this information as available as possible, especially to firearms owners and users.
A communications, public legal education, and information package will be assembled and disseminated over the coming months, leading up to the implementation of the new measures.
I am also discussing with my provincial counterparts the options for a general firearms amnesty program that would coincide with the proclamation of the new measures.

This would be intended to encourage Canadians to dispose of unwanted guns safely, to register handguns and other restricted firearms and to allow those who have guns that may be affected by the new changes to clarify their status without fear of prosecution.
I hope to be in a position to announce the details of this amnesty program in the very near future.
Madam Speaker, I hear grumbling from the other side of the House. There is a legislative basis in Bill C-80 to provide for an amnesty for that new category of firearms which is being designated as prohibited weapons. I hate to think that the hon. member would actually listen to what I am saying to get a clarification. These will be designated as prohibited weapons under Bill C-80, but in terms of a broader amnesty, lack the statutory authority. That may be a recommendation of the special commit-
November 22, 1990

tee, that such an authority be put in the Criminal Code on a general basis.
As I have indicated previously, such amnesties can be put in place any time by provincial or local authorities. They very much depend upon the ability of those authorities to deal with the logistics of such an amnesty; in other words, to have the person power available to administer the program and have the storage facilities to store safely what may be an unanticipated quantity, or find it difficult to determine in advance firearms that may be turned in by the public.
I would like, in terms of the amnesty that I promote, one in conjunction with the implementation of our legislation because I think it is an opportunity to combine such a program with a broad public education campaign to make Canadians aware of the new regime, their responsibilities under it and the extent to which it addresses their concerns. If it is the view of the committee that such a broad power ought to be incorporated into the Criminal Code, I would be very interested to get their recommendations.
There is a growing concern over the role of firearms in all parts of Canadian society, particularly in the wake of the Montreal tragedy and other incidents in recent months.

Our present system has greatly reduced the threat of firearms in Canada, but the situation in the last decade has changed and this government has an obligation to respond. We have a duty to restrict opportunities for the careless and criminal misuse of guns as far as it is possible for us to do so.
It is for all of these reasons that I ask the House to support this motion in order to put in place a process to respond to those public concerns in the most timely and effective way and ultimately to support these legislative proposals.
Government Orders
I think I have stated very clearly the reasons why the particular breadth of the firearms package that I have put forward. Those provisions which are outside the strict terms of Bill C-80 and the kinds of concerns that Canadians have raised on this issue make this a subject matter uniquely suited to the kind of treatment that is envisaged in this order.
I hope that we will be able to move ahead on second reading of this bill. As I have said, my colleagues on this side of the House are very keen to make it a full second reading debate, not a truncated one.
I also recognize the very real possibility that the bill would not be concluded with even if we proceeded with second reading debate today by the time the House rises. I am very anxious that this subject be given full public consultation, not simply as a way of getting input on the measures that I proposed, but as an opportunity to inform Canadians about what we are proposing and perhaps to counter some of the misperceptions that Canadians have about the level of gun control in Canada.
Research on public opinion shows that the view of Canadians on the level of violent crime in Canada, for example, is that it is at a much higher level than it in fact is. The fact that many Canadians watch a great deal of American television leads them very frequently to be of the view that the kind of gun control legislation-or the absence of gun control legislation-that prevails in the United States prevails here.
This is really an issue which ought to be quite non-partisan. In fact, the Liberal government in 1978 showed a great deal of courage in tackling this very difficult issue. It was built on a legislative tradition that began, I think, in 1892. I believe handguns were restricted in the 1930s and 1978 was a major change. The fact that the training provisions were not proclaimed does not mean that they were not good provisions. It is very comforting to have them already in the code and now be able to consider whether this is the time and whether we have the opportunity to implement them, notwithstanding the problems of jurisdictional differences and making sure that people in remote areas have the same access to meet the criteria, et cetera.
It is a very important opportunity to inform Canadians of where we are now and of the fact that we do have in Canada a very good system of gun control legislation, and that what we are proposing is a fine-tuning, an

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
improvement, and a response to some of the concerns that have been raised by people on all sides of the issue. Some of the proposals in Bill C-80 in fact address concerns of the firearms-owning community about some of the red tape and inconveniences that they face in using firearms for what are otherwise legal and accepted uses.
It is a very important opportunity to put this issue before the Canadian public to reassure them that we have in fact in place a good system of gun control legislation and that we wish to make it better. We can also focus attention on something which I see particularly in my own city of Vancouver. It is a large urban area with a port where we have a drug trade and a lot of crime. Very often these crimes are accompanied by the use of firearms and many of those firearms that are used are firearms that are prohibited under the Criminal Code. They are firearms that are not readily available to the public whereas the perception that is given to Canadians is that anyone can go and buy these guns. That is not the case and we do face a very serious question of law enforcement. I hope the committee may want to make some comments about the question of penalties, et cetera, and whether we in fact have a regime in place that meets the needs of Canadians.
On that note, I will conclude my lengthy introduction to debate on this motion with the very sincere plea that the House will respond to this motion to get a public process in place to address what may be one of the most serious and most contentious issues that the House will be asked to deal with in this session.
I have said to people across the country on all sides of the issue that my goal is to have a regime of gun control legislation that enables those great many Canadians who are uncomfortable with firearms to be confident that those who have them are using them correctly, that there is a process of vetting, and that they are competent to use them. That other group of Canadians wish to use firearms for sporting and hunting purposes, which are a longstanding part of our culture, and I will not even get into the question of our aboriginal people who have hunting rights protected by treaty, for example. Those Canadians who wish to use firearms in a law-abiding and responsible way will be able to do so with confidence as well.
That is the most we can ask of a legislative framework-a sense of balance and a sense of sensitivity that enables us to proceed as a civilized society with a concern for public security and a respect for all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I have a veiy short serious question, which I think could advance the debate, that I would like to put to the minister.
I know the member for Halifax said that he would not agree to a question, but I am wondering if he would reconsider. I could put a very short question to the minister which I think would help in the debate. I ask for agreement to put the question to the minister.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent? Will the hon. minister agree to respond to one question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the question is this. In the comprehensive package of measures that the minister announced on June 26, there are many items that are not in Bill C-80, as she admitted.
However, the motion before us today simply refers the matters in Bill C-80 to the committee. Would the minister give us an assurance that, as far as she is concerned, the committee could look at all the measures that she put forward on June 26 and not simply the measures in the bill? I think that is her intention, but I would like to make it absolutely clear. I would hate to see the committee bog down on some strict rule of interpretation that we could only look at the bill and not her entire package.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, yes, I would be very pleased to give that assurance to the hon. member.
My understanding was that this wording would encompass that. That is certainly the intention on this side of the House because it is a comprehensive package. I do think it is an important opportunity.
The hon. member who asked the question is a veteran of the previous engagement with this subject in the House, and will recognize how important it is to look at it from all aspects. Yes, I am looking forward to a comprehensive response from the committee on all aspects of the package that I have put forward. That is my anticipa-
November 22, 1990

tion of what I understand this means, and we support this motion.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, you will be surely forgiving if we seem cynical about the motives of the minister and the government.
The minister says that she is serious and that her party looks upon this as one of the most important issues to come before this House in this Parliament, but the government is obviously not treating it as a serious measure.
The minister, as she admitted herself, received the petition from the students in Montreal. She brought forward a motion on June 20 to put this in a pre-study. Then she brought forward the bill on June 26. Nothing was done on the bill. This is the first day of debate on the whole question of gun control since June 26. This is following yesterday when we were told that there was going to be a second motion. Then, last night, we were told that, no, we were going to proceed with second reading of Bill C-80. Then this morning, after the second reading of Bill C-80 was stated on the Order Paper, we were told that, no, we were going to go ahead with Motion No. 23, asking ask for a special committee study on this question.
If this is a serious issue to the government, why has it treated this issue so cavalierly? Why has it delayed in bringing this motion before the House? The bill to privatize Petro-Canada, Bill C-84, was introduced around the same time. That was brought forward as soon as we came back. That has almost finished committee hearings. Yet, we have not had even second reading on this bill. It is obvious that the government was serious about privatizing Petro-Canada but it is not serious on getting new gun control legislation.
For the minister to say that this is a serious issue with the government, it is really stretching the point of the true belief of the government. She says hopefully that Bill C-80 will yet come to second reading. We have made the offer.


A. Kim Campbell: I offered to pass it today.
Government Orders


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Good, that is great. This is going to be really something. We will have two committees at the same time studying the same question. That is going to be peachy-keen. Talk about a boondoggle. The government is digging a deeper hole for itself by the minute.
The minister said that she hoped that second reading will come. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam and myself offered to put this through second reading today so that it could get to a committee. The government turned that down. Now the minister wants to bring this to second reading, presumably, to have it before a committee and yet we have the special committee which is starting before second reading.
Obviously, the minister is not going to have a speech at second reading because she read it today. In her speech she defended Bill C-80, yet she is now in the process of killing Bill C-80. That is exactly what is going to happen.
We all know the worst kept secret in Ottawa is that the government wants to prorogue. Of course, it wants to prorogue. It wants to get the Opposition out of the House of Commons. It does not want any flak. The problem with the government is that it is so bad that Question Periods are backed up for both parties until some time in February. The fact is, if it did everything right, that there would still be enough material for Question Period into March. But the government wants to prorogue.
Let us look at this situation, this special committee. If the special committee is set up, we have to advertise it. We have to set up the committee. We have to give people a chance to prepare their presentations. Presumably, the very earliest that this special committee could report back would be probably the end of January. It must prepare the report. The committee's report must be translated before it can actually be tabled in the House. We are talking mid-February before this committee could finish, presumably, at the earliest.
Is the minister prepared then to give us the undertaking that we will go through second reading, report stage, third reading and introduction into the Senate before the House prorogues? I think not. I would be interested to hear whether or not the minister will give us that

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
undertaking. If not, then it is obvious that what the government is doing is trying to kill this bill.
The minister has not given any terms of the committee or when she expects the committee to report back. She has not given us any undertaking that there is going to be passage of a bill on gun control, be it C-80 or whatever, before the House prorogues.
What has happened is that she has complaints from people in her party who do not like the bill. The government has thrown its hands in the air. It has backed away completely from the subject and said that it is turning it over to a special committee. Let them grapple with the subject. It has backed away. It cannot handle it. That is what it is saying. It is saying it cannot handle it.
Perspective members of the committee should be flattered that the government is saying that it cannot deal with this, that it does not know how to deal with it, and it wants the committee to deal with it. The government is in fact turning over the legislative authority to a special committee. It is saying that it does not want to deal with this particular subject. I think it is incredible that the government has taken this position.
The minister herself said: "-if second reading takes place before the adjournment." There is no intention of the government to have second reading on this bill. We have waited two months and still this is the first day we have had to deal with this very important subject.
The minister also said that Bill C-80 was part of a bigger package. She had proposals in her release on June 26 of other matters, yet, they were not included in Bill C-80.
It is a very, very sad trick that the government is playing on the people of Canada in this very important issue, not to deal with it and to back away from it as it is doing. The minister makes some pretension, as did the hon. member for Calgary West, that this is a more complicated subject. It says that, even though it has been introduced and all other legislation goes to a legislative committee, this bill should go to a special committee. Why should this bill go to a special committee when all legislation goes to a legislative committee? Why can possible amendments not be introduced at a legislative committee? There is no reason at all, other than the fact that the government does not want to proceed.
Certainly, there have been complaints about Bill C-80. There is no question. No one would say that Bill C-80 is perfect.
How many people would say that any legislation that comes through this House is perfect? How many members of Parliament agree on every piece of legislation that is more than three sections long? How many? Very
few.
That is the reason for a legislative committee, to hear witnesses, complaints and to get ideas from all concerned on a possible subject, on particular legislation.
Bill C-80 is no different than any other piece of legislation. In fact, Bill C-80 is a better bill than Bill C-58, which is another one of the member's bills, which is an unmitigated disaster. At least with Bill C-80, we can do something with it. We can make the amendments in the legislative committee.
With Bill C-58, it involves almost rewriting the whole bill.
This is an important subject. On that point, the minister is correct. As an important subject, it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
I am not going to go into the problems of the 14 innocent women who were killed in Montreal and the problem that that created. That will be dealt with by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I will say that the person who committed that atrocity was an abused child.
If we are looking to the question of prohibiting and stopping killings of this kind in this country, then we have got to do more. This government has got to do more in addressing the problems of youth who are abused, mistreated and who have not had the benefit that we would not like to see young people in this country receive.
Until the government recognizes the need for treatment and rehabilitation of young people who commit crimes, to take them off the streets, to deal with them, to work with them until they get on the right track, this government is not going to be addressing the problem.
There has been a lot of unanimity on Bill C-80. A lot of the groups which object to some of the control mechanisms in this bill, some of the rifle associations,
November 22. 1990

some of the people who hunt and some of the people who deal in guns a lot agree that there is a great deal in this bill that should receive complete agreement across this country.
The fact that there should be firearms acquisition certificates is agreed to by all groups, even the supporters of changes to this bill who want to have a more widespread utilization and not as much control of the use of firearms. They agree that this is a good thing.
In fact, gun clubs have been advocating these kinds of courses for years. When the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was in cabinet actually advocated-it is there, it is passed-that firearms acquisition certificates be issued only after a course or an exam.
It has been there. It just has not received Royal Assent. It has never been brought in. All we need to do is to give Royal Assent to that particular provision. It has not been done.
There is also the fact that the firearms acquisition certificates should be preceded by a course or a certified examination. No one disagrees with the minister on that. In fact, everyone agrees that a certificate should have a picture of the person who is licensed on the certificate. There is no disagreement with that whatsoever.
There is no disagreement that a waiting period should exist for the period from the time that the person applies for a firearms acquisition certification until the time the certificate is actually granted.
The minister, in the legislation, recommends 28 days. Maybe it is 28 days. All people who are gun proponents say is: "If it is 28 days, be absolutely sure that you are going to use the 28 days and that you are not just taking an arbitrary figure." A very reasonable request.
I think that is something that will have to be studied and I think perhaps we could fine tune that in a legislative committee, or as the minister suggests, in a special committee.
There is also general agreement that before the certificate be issued, there should also be an inspection of the storage facilities where the guns are going to be located. A very realistic request.
Government Orders
This is advocated by people who are gun users and are hunters. They realize that these safety requirements are very important. In this country, there are approximately 1,400 deaths by firearms a year.
Of the 1,400, 1,100 are suicides. Approximately 15 per cent of deaths by firearms are actually homicides. The fact that we have a safe place to store guns is very important. It may not mean a lot to some people, but when you look at that statistic, it is very important.
I agree with the minister that our gun control legislation in the past has been helpful because only 15 per cent of our deaths by arms are homicides. It shows that the gun control legislation in the past has been working.
I also agree with the minister that it is time for some changes in this because things have changed dramatically in the last couple of years. For example, in 1989, in one year the total number of violent crimes among adults increased by 7.9 per cent. Among young people, the violent crimes in this country from 1988 to 1989 increased 20 per cent, for an average nationally of 9.3 per cent. That is a significant increase and not a very good indication of where we are going as regard to our attitude toward violence in this country.
This is why we have, particularly with the young people, to be able to deal with this question, to look at treatment. We have to spend money on that. There is no question about that. I ask the minister to come before the committee on Bill C-58 and to discuss this question because it is very important if we are to deal with the whole question of violence in this country.
We are not going to outlaw guns. It is not even feasible to consider that. There are six million guns in Canada, and there are approximately 10,000 outlets where guns are sold, so guns are going to remain.
What we want to do is have a law which will serve the country in the best possible way, taking into consideration people who would abuse gun laws and commit crimes. We must also take into consideration those who use guns for sport and recreation, and who pose no threat, but who through their common sense and stability have actually increased the awareness of good gun control and good gun usage in this country.

We have to be able to restrict guns to people who cannot possibly handle the responsibility. We have to be able to weed out, wherever we possibly can, people who are unable psychologically to deal with the responsibility of having a gun.
We have to deal with the benefit and the over-all responsibility as parliamentarians in bringing before Parliament and into passage gun control laws which are going to be in the best interests of the people of Canada.
People in Canada are just becoming aware of the increase in violent crimes. A recent poll by the government's own pollster, Decima, has stated that people in Canada are becoming more concerned about the increasing rate of violence in this country.
If we are to address that concern, we have to come forward with gun control and we need to have perception. The government has to provide the perception that it is seriously interested in bringing forward good legislation as quickly as possible, and not to delay, as has been the case up until now, when dealing with this very important question.
We have, of course, to fully address the question of fully and semi-automatic automatic weapons, as well as the people who would convert those semi-automatics to fully automatic. I think that Bill C-80 deals with that. It also provides a good penalty for those who would convert the weapons in that way.
Bill C-80 is not perfect, but it is basically on the right track. This is why we, in this party, object to the fact that Bill C-80 may not see the light of day. That is wrong. The minister will have to admit, if she is to be straightforward with this House, that this special committee is going to take a long time. We have lost very valuable time. We cannot continue to lose this valuable time.
We have to look at putting in every possible means of acting in the best interest of the people in this country. I hope that the government will reconsider, proceed with second reading of Bill C-80, withdraw this motion, and we in our party will certainly agree to passage of second reading today. I feel that is in the best interest of everyone.
We can deal with the committee. If the government will give the undertaking not to prorogue until after we deal with the second reading committee stage and perhaps report stage, but certainly third reading, as well
as introduction in the Senate, which we hope would give quick passage to the bill, we can have this bill passed into law by the time the government prorogues and starts a second session. It is of vital interest.
Although we disagree with this motion on the basis that I have stated, it being counterproductive to this party's interest in gun control, I would still like to make an amendment to the motion for the consideration by this House. I move:
That the motion be amended by changing the final period to a
semi-colon, and by adding after the semi-colon, the following:
and that the said special committee make its final report to the House no later than February 15,1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There being no questions or comments, I will recognize the next speaker. I imagine it would be a member from the hon. member's party.
May I call it one o'clock and then allow the hon. member to start after Question Period?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Am I allowed to speak now, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No more.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will just take one minute.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is one o'clock p.m.
It being one o'clock, I now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, November 18 to November 21 has been proclaimed National Drug Awareness Week.
This week is being used to draw attention to the tragic economic and social costs of alcohol abuse and other drug problems. Organizers also hope to encourage individuals in communities to co-operate to solve these problems.

This kind of individual and community involvement is critical to eliminating drug and alcohol abuse, and it looks as though it may be working.
A recent survey by Addiction Services in Prince Edward Island shows a decrease in drug and alcohol use among Island high school students. We still face significant challenges in this area, but the kind of positive feedback found in this survey shows that we seem to be making progress.
I want to commend all individuals, organizations and communities that are working to make drug awareness a success this week and throughout the year.
4* -k 4*


BILL C-80
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Among other things, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 will provide better control over gun owners and the way firearms are used. This kind of legislation has become imperative.
Indeed another massacre took place earlier this month in a small New Zealand village where a mentally unstable man wielding an AK-47 assault rifle shot and killed 13 people and wounded 16 others.
This tragedy is one more like the incident involving Montreal polytechnical school students or the rampage in Stockton, California, where an individual-again armed with an AK-47 assault rifle-walked into a school yard where he killed six children and injured 30 more. Or again in the village of Hungerford in England where a disturbed man firing an AK-47 assault rifle killed 15 people and wounded 15 others.
Hardly a year ago we thought we were safe from massacres such as these.
As a society we have to pass appropriate legislation to strengthen control over gun ownership and use. We must endeavour as well to educate people on dangers involved in the unchecked firearm proliferation and the attendant violence.
Mr. Speaker, protecting the priceless value of human life is our responsibility.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, is the GST credit fairly allocated?
Jean McGrath of Nanaimo has an income of $10,240 and a payment of $68.37. She has friends with higher incomes and higher payments. She says that is not fair.
Mrs. Buckingham of Lantzville writes that her disabled son's income is $8,046 and his payment is $57.40. Another son has an income $10,098 higher and his payment is $15.10 more. She says that is not fair.
It gets better. In each of these cases the payment grows with income up to a total income of $24,355. Then the payments start decreasing. However, a person with an income of $1 per year gets $47.50, exactly the same as one with an income of $26,355.
It is fairness as practised by the Tory government. It is fairness as accepted by the Liberals as they allow the GST legislation to pass through the Senate.


RAINY RIVER BAND
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to provide evidence of this government's failure to address its inadequate specific land claims policy properly.
The Rainy River Band located in my riding submitted a Statement of Claim in 1983. The claim seeks damages and land compensation, as well as a declaration that the surrenders by the six reserves involved were illegal.
From 1983 to 1985 the band, Canada, and the province of Ontario held meetings to discuss the land claims process and to review historical evidence. Since 1985 Ontario and the band have continued to hold discussions without Canada's participation.
The Minister of Indian Affairs told me in July 1990 that he was awaiting advice from the Department of Justice on whether the band's response establishes the grounds for entering into negotiations under the specific land claims policy.

November 22, 1990
More than eight years have elapsed since the Rainy River Band began its work on this claim. How much longer will it have to wait: 10, 20 or 30 years? When will we hear about the details to speed up the process?
I suggest the minister speed up this process before the Human Rights Commission slams him and his government further.

[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Guy St-Julien: Admitedly, Mr. Speaker, self-imposed budget restraints will create difficulties for me, but I must do my share because the federal government is strongly committed to cut down its own expenditures.
My riding of Abitibi covers 553,837 square kilometres and is located 425 kilometres from Ottawa. Between September 1984 and March 31, 1990 my travel expenses in Abitibi and elsewhere in Canada amounted to $180,804, or $32,382 a year on average.
Mr. Speaker, if I did use the 64 points of my air travel budget-Ottawa to Northern Abitibi round trips, and assuming I had the time to travel that much-I would be spending $2,500 each time, which amounts to $160,000 a year.
[DOT]i*	^	^


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the Fonds Biocapital, offspring of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarity, has appealed to the public to invest $8 million in research and development through a Corporation for the Development of Quebec Business. It is the largest CDQB ever established in Quebec and will finance four companies that are starting out in the biomedical field, namely, Medi-Force-RD, Canaster-RD, Polychol and Lipopharm.
To be successful in these undertakings, the government must be able to count on the full support of the private sector and the general public. This is absolutely essential.
Once again, the FTQ's Fonds de solidarity has shown leadership and demonstrated that it is aware of the need to involve all economic partners in these industries of
the future that will ensure that Canada will continue to play a leading role on the international scene in the years to come.
In the past, Quebecers have shown that they can deliver the goods, and I am sure this project will be another brilliant success.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, arts and cultural organizations across Canada await the grim details from this government regarding yet another round of cuts to their already inadequate budgets.
Even as the CBC, the Canada Council and the Canadian Council of Arts plead for adequate funding, they will now have to pay for this government's foreign policy.
The news comes from a government that did not consult with these agencies about the cuts and did not consult Parliament or the people of Canada about the wisdom of sending Canadian men and women to a potential war.
Arts and culture in Canada are already crippled by a made-in-Canada recession, consistent underfunding, and the proposed GST. Why is this government once again punishing our cultural industries and their important contributions to our Canadian way of life?
The very fabric of this land-our national unity and our cultural identity-is being rent asunder while our Secretary of State for External Affairs, G. I. Joe, dreams of becoming Saddam Hussein's worst nightmare.


TRIBUTE TO JEAN-CLAUDE MALEPART
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the fact that our former colleague, Jean-Claude Malepart, died nearly a year ago. I wanted to say a few words in his memory today because I know that Jean-Claude and his social conscience, his awareness of the needs of senior citizens and his enormous energy as a member of this House, left a gap on these benches that has proved difficult to fill. I know that his family, his widow and his friends, want to
November 22, 1990

continue Jean-Claude Malepart's work in the riding and at the centre he founded for the poor and the elderly.
I think it is particularly appropriate to remember him because every day we should be mindful of the fact that the neediest are also those who will probably suffer most as a result of legislation we pass in this House. I think it is also appropriate because it is clear in these eventful times for a Quebecer, Jean-Claude Malepart, who had his heart in the right place, would probably be sitting with us on the Bloc Quebecois benches. I also want you to remember him because we all miss Jean-Claude very much.


SOCIALIST AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of this House and
Canadians in general the weekly socialist awards of excellence. The nominees are:
First, in British Columbia it is a standard practice for those following the NDP doctrine always to stand up for the little guy, except of course when the little guy is a small printer who this B.C. resident owes money to.
Second, in Ontario it is a common practice for NDP self-appointed champions of the underprivileged and homeless to continue to live in housing subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada, yet receive a benefits package worth some $100,000 per year.
Third, an NDPer in Alberta who follows the example of the Ontario NDPers and also continues to slurp at the trough of public housing while making four times the average Canadian salary.
And the winner is: The envelope, please.
The person from British Columbia who, when discovering that the shield of special legal privileges would not protect his ample hide, decided finally to pay off his debts so that the tactics that were tried to avoid paying what he owed would not come to light.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Now, Mr. Speaker, for the real awards.
Today our nominees for corporate welfare bum of the week are: first, Xerox Canada, with $75 million in profits in 1988 and zero taxes paid; second, American Barrick Resources Corporation, with $30.5 million in profits, American dollars, and no taxes paid in Canada; and, last but not least, our new kid on the block is Amex Bank of Canada that went into business on Canada Day in 1990 and had profits in 1989 in the United States of $23 billion.
Now for the winner. The envelope, please.
Thank you very much. The winner is Amex Bank of Canada. Congratulations to this American non-bank bank that has proven once again that it pays to have friends in high places.
In exchange for assisting the Conservatives on the free trade agreement, Amex received its reward in the form of full bank status in Canada, with the privileges of the Schedule I banks.
American Express has proved its motto, that when it comes to getting a good deal and a special deal from Michael Wilson, don't leave home without it.


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in Queen's Park, the New Democratic Party once again showed it is tailor-made for the opposition benches where it excels in high-flown speeches and promises of largesse.
Faced with the pressures of government, the NDP has suddenly become vague and evasive about its commitments. Franco-Ontarians will not easily forget last Tuesday's Throne Speech, when Bob Rae's government refused to make Ontario a bilingual province. In addition, this Throne Speech did not contain a single commitment to Franco-Ontarians. What an about-face, what a betrayal of Ontario's Francophones who were promised so much during the last campaign!

s. o. 3i
And to add insult to injury, Bob Rae argued that the time was not ripe. What lack of leadership, what lack of courage and political will! Franco-Ontarians will not forget this slap in the face, and Bob Rae may rest assured they will keep up the pressure until they get what is rightfully theirs.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


BILL C-21
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago, the Minister of Employment and Immigration urged this House to pass Bill C-21. In fact, she warned us that any delay in the passage of this bill would keep in limbo about $800 million that were to be spent on training programs.

In case the minister has yet to notice, the bill has been passed. Why is she not producing the money? When will it be made available? Why the threats? Did the minister not have the time to prepare for the passing of the bill?
Projects and training programs are being held up, not only in my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, but across the country. Bill C-21 has been passed, but where is the money? The minister should come through on her promise and put the $800 million in the programs today.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, early in December the GATT talks will resume, and these talks will be very important for our farmers.
The Canadian position protects supply management programs that control imports and thus support national farm product production and marketing programs. The Canadian position has not changed since the beginning of the GATT talks, and this position will be maintained. Canada intends to pursue its efforts to have article XI clarified and reinforced, and I am convinced that our representatives at the talks will act in the interests of all Canadian farmers.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in just over five weeks the GST will come into effect, having a major impact on consumer prices. Some prices will go up. Others will go down. It is important that consumers know in advance what to expect.
The government is playing a role in educating consumers, but what we need is a more co-operative effort between the public and private sectors.
I rise today to congratulate the Retail Council of Canada for developing a series of brochures detailing exactly how the GST will apply to prices in each province. This is an example of responsible corporate citizenry, and every member of the House should congratulate the council for these nine million brochures. They will help make the GST more understandable, and wipe out some of the misinformation and apprehension now in the marketplace.
We all have a role to play; governments, business and consumers, if Canada is to modernize its tax system and build its economy. We have too many walls and not enough bridges between these groups. Today I congratulate the council on helping find a better way.


THE MEDIA
Mrs. Pierrette Venue (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 17, Mediawatch awarded its merit award recognizing improvement in the portrayal of women in the media. This year, the prize was awarded to Raymonde Provencher, a Radio-Quebec journalist, for her three-part series entitled "Femmes en peril".
Mr. Speaker, it is only too easy sometimes for the media to succumb to the temptation of treating women as objects. Therefore, it is all the more important to recognize media productions that go against the mainstream of portraying women as objects.
November 22, 1990

I wish also to point out the work of Mediawatch to promote public awareness to the problem of the portrayal of women.
Thanks to such initiatives, it may one day no longer be necessary to praise those who portray women as reason-nable and regular people.


PUBLIC SERVICE 2000
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Public Service 2000 would alter the face of an institution which has served Canadians with dedication and excellence for years. While true reform can be healthy, it is unacceptable that the government wants to make sweeping changes without fully consulting those who will be most affected, all Public Service employees.
Public Service unions feel that senior management, Treasury Board, and Privy Council offices are controlling the entire process, and that the concerns and ideas of frontline workers are being ignored. Morale among Public Service employees is low. Why is the government no taking advantage of this invaluable source of experience and innovation if it really wants effective reform?
The government is trying to stifle debate by silencing the potentially powerful voice of frontline Public Service employees. Our Public Service has a history of excellence and dedication to Canadians. To propose any change, much less radical change, to this institution without consulting all Public Service employees is not only a cruel exercise of power, it is counter productive.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the United Kingdom, dozens of government MPs have deserted Mrs. Margaret Thatcher because she would not listen to Britons, she would not listen to her
Oral Questions
own MPs nor even her own cabinet. She persisted in imposing a devastatingly unfair tax.
Here in Canada, government MPs are quitting or are being forced out of the Conservative government caucus for many of the same reasons. In fact, only 4 per cent of Canadians think that the policies of the government have helped the economy.
When will this government drop the "my way or no way" approach that has brought about the political demise of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher? When will the government drop the GST and bring in new economic and tax policies that will help Canadians get out of the mess created by the economic policies of this government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising to hear that question from the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that Canada was an independent, sovereign country with its own political system and its own political institutions. Is he suggesting that we revert back to the old way of doing things? I would have thought that, even in spite of his 30 years' service, he would be more modernistic in his approach than that.
The fact of the matter is that the economic agenda which is enshrined as a part of government policy was articulated in 1984, in the economic statement of 1985 and again in the election campaign of 1988. It clearly outlines the structural changes that need to be implemented. It requires that Canada be competitive in a globalized marketplace. What we are trying to do is put in place the kind of programs and policies that will prepare Canada to be a full participant in a modem globalized economy.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the policies which the minister talked about have created the first made in Canada recession, according to the Conference Board of Canada. In these times of recession the President of the Treasury Board is about to announce substantial cuts in government assistance, allegedly to finance the military operations of Canada in the Persian Gulf.

Oral Questions
Can the President of the Treasury Board assure Canadians today that these cuts will be no more than is actually necessary to finance these military operations. Will he assure Canadians that these cuts will not be carried out at the expense of less advantaged Canadians and regions that, in this time of recession, need the help and the assistance of government, more than ever?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I will be introducing supplementary estimates tomorrow at 12 o'clock and he will have all the information he wants.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the President of the Treasury Board confirm today that the cost of having our forces in the Persian Gulf is $3 million a month and not the $50 million a month which officials have been suggesting is the case to journalists and others in the country?

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Treasury Board refuses to assure Canadians that the cuts he announced will not affect the programs they depend on the most. I ask the minister, the President of the Treasury Board-and I am referring to Health and Welfare Canada-how he can assure the Canadian people that the quality of our health services and medical research will not be affected by those cuts?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the opposition leader, in the other official language, that I do intend to table at noon tomorrow Estimates that will reflect the responsible decisions this government always takes.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. He will no doubt be aware that yesterday's bankruptcy figures confirmed Canadians' worst fears: the largest number of bankruptcies in the history of Canada. The government must know that the GST will be the final nail in the Canadian economic coffin. The poll tax crushed the iron lady. The GST will kill this government. Will the Prime
Minister not learn from Margaret Thatcher's mistake and today kill the GST?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, over the past 50 years there have been four royal commissions and numerous committee reports, including one from the Senate of Canada chaired by the Hon. Allan MacEa-chen, which recommended that this country get rid of the antiquated manufacturers' sales tax and bring in a modem sales tax, a consumption tax, like the goods and services tax. That has been the recommendation for over 50 years.
No other previous government had the guts to do it. We may understand today why they did not have the guts to do it, but they did not have the guts to do it. It is a necessary change. It was campaigned on in the election of 1988. The answer is: "No, we will not stop the goods and services tax. No, it is not going to defeat the government". If the hon. member came to her senses, she would take a walk down the hall and convince her friends to pass the goods and services tax so that business communities of Canada can get on with the job.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister no doubt will be aware that the current GST bill is so badly drafted that the Department of Finance is already working on retroactive amendments which they intend to introduce shortly after January of next year.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House that there is currently a list of retroactive amendments being drawn up by the Department of Finance and will he in fact table those amendments today so all Canadians can see how flawed this GST bill is and will he withdraw the GST?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess I did not say it slowly enough the first time. No, we will not withdraw the goods and services tax. It is necessary for the economic well-being of this country. We have not said that. Outside organizations have said that. Any number of them have, including the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and I can go on and on. As a matter of fact, 17 of them appeared recently before the Senate and made a very strong recommendation that the Senate pass the goods and services tax immediately, so that they can get on with the business of creating employment and wealth in this country. The goods and services tax is going to make it fairer for them to do business in this country and throughout the world. That is what this is all about,
November 22, 1990

making us more competitive and creating jobs. Let's get on with it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, let me just say: first, Margaret Thatcher, next Brian Mulroney.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Several departments confirmed that they are required to cut their expenses. The government claims this is made necessary by the additional expenses related to sending troops to the Gulf. Here is my question. How much are the operations in the Persian Gulf costing Canada? The government must be candid about this.


An hon. member:: Impossible!


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have always attempted to tell the truth and so has the government, and if the hon. member would do the same, we would get along a lot better. I can confirm for the hon. member that the truth will be out tomorrow when my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, presents the supplementary estimates.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried that this government is going to use the gulf crisis as an excuse for damaging cutbacks which will hurt people right across this country. As the CLC has pointed out, the government will gain-


An hon. member:: The CLC?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, the CLC has pointed out that the government will gain at least $1 billion in extra revenue from the gas price increases which the gulf crisis has caused.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the government, first, if it is prepared to see that this extra income, which it will receive from these gas price increases, goes to pay for the costs of our action in the gulf and, second, will the government make a commitment to see to it that the Auditor General gives us a fair accounting, as quickly as possible, of what our real expenses in the gulf are for this military intervention?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would be more comforted if the member and his party would be supportive of the actions that have been taken by this government to bring about peace and stability in the world.
The actions taken by this government provide for the men and women who serve the people of Canada in the task in which they are involved. If the member and his party would make a commitment to assure us of their support in providing the necessary equipment and the necessary sustainability for those men and women who are serving that member and all members in the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


HOUSING
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister will know that this type of budgetary adjustment has ramifications much closer to home. Many are worried that in the non-profit and co-op housing sector, there will be cuts made. At a time when the metro Toronto Homebuilders' Association is reporting 72 per cent unemployment, more than 55,000 people out of work in the normal course of home construction, which is more than enough to fill the Skydome, is the minister prepared to explain why his choice is to do his budgetary matters in this way, even though it might put more than 55,000 people out of work and deny those who need reasonable, affordable housing a chance to have it?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is getting over-exercised about something which will be made clear tomorrow. I can only repeat that tomorrow, at noon, I will be tabling Supplementary Estimates (B) and he will have all the answers. Then he can possibly discuss them with us.

November 22, 1990
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner released a scathing condemnation of the government's aboriginal policies. Is the minister prepared to admit the failure of this department and announce new policies to address the serious circumstances facing aboriginal peoples in Canada today?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the points brought forward by Mr. Yalden yesterday were addressed by the Prime Minister in the House on September 25 when he announced the new approach and the new relationship with Indian people in the country.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I will still address the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has failed in its fiduciary responsibilities to aboriginal Canadians.
Considering that Mr. Yalden recommends that the paternalistic and patronizing Indian Affairs department be dismantled, will the government take his advice and announce plans for a full scale inquiry, totally devoted to aboriginal issues?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. member across whether or not that indeed is her party's position, to abolish the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The department acknowledged a long time ago the need to change the paternalistic approach of the Indian Act and of the department.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Particularly under that government.


Shirley Martin: Yes, under that government.
We have been working towards that. Today, 70 per cent of the funding that goes to our aboriginal peoples in the country is administered by the aboriginal people, not by the Department of Indian Affairs.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the last week in my riding, in one week, one manufacturing plant moved to the United States, one company closed, one plant went into receivership, three companies announced lay-offs, and one company is winding down its operations. That is 330 jobs lost. There are several hundred part-time jobs gone and 120 workers laid off.
Will the minister change the free trade agreement in the agri-food industry? Will he change Tory financial policies and stop punishing Canadians with high interest rates and high dollar?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the solution probably lies not in changing the free trade agreement, but in changing the member.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can get up in the House and read-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is this a beer garden or is it the House of Commons?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can get up, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
November 22, 1990


An hon. member:: Beer gardens are more orderly.


John Carnell Crosbie: When I look across the aisle I see the answer is obvious. It is a beer garden.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister has the answer that is being sought.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can get up and read a list of expansions of companies. For example, Polysar Rubber Corporation is spending $120 million at Sarnia-not far from the hon. member's area-over three years to modernize and improve environmental standards in its business.
B.F. Goodrich (Canada) Incorporated is expanding its Niagara Falls polyvinyl chloride plant. It is the start of a major capacity expansion which will double its polymerization capacity at the plant cost of $75 million. I could go on and on.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, there is no compassion, no fairness, and no concern for Canadians.
In my riding, Tory policies have hit 600 jobs in one foul swoop this week. There were nine at Heinz Corporation; 20 at Peterson; 95 at Omsteads, with 120 more on December 7; 60 at Hunt Wesson; 87 at Nabisco; and 40 at Allegretti.
When will this meaningful plan come forward, instead of nonsense rhetoric and condemnation put-down? Why will the government not come up with meaningful policies?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no amount of theatrics proves anything.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: In Cambridge, Ontario, for example, the first production of household trash-compactors rolled off the assembly line at the Inglis plant on September 19. I suggest the hon. member had better watch out or he will be compacted with the rest of the trash.
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in her capacity as Attorney General for Canada.
She has indicated that she intends to appeal in the case of Elizabeth Weir, the New Brunswick NDP Leader, against the Attorney General of Canada and the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench which ordered the creation of an extra Commons seat for New Brunswick. The minister will be aware that there will be a long delay in appealing to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. She will also be aware that under the Supreme Court of Canada Act, with her consent and with consent of the parties, they can go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In view of the fact that I have here a letter from the solicitors for Elizabeth Weir who have agreed to go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, will the minister, in the interest of justice, fairness and clearing up these matters, agree now to take this case directly to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will agree to give the case and the issue considerable attention and to make the veiy best possible decision.
There are the other issues with respect to the appointment of the senators that are before the courts. It is not clear how quickly the Supreme Court of Canada could hear the case and if in fact the procedure outlined by the hon. member would be the most expeditious to get all of the importance elements and issues before the court. But I am giving it careful consideration and will announce my plan of action as soon as possible.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that. I can tell her that I have checked the docket of the Supreme Court and it is free now. Perhaps she might consider that.
If a higher court upholds the judgment of the trial judge in New Brunswick, would the minister not agree as well that there would be a cloud over all the laws that this very House has passed since the appointment of the GST senators? Would the minister then look at this and

November 22, 1990
Oral Questions
give her commitment that, before the B.C. case goes ahead on December 17 and before the Ontario case is appealed, she takes all three cases, as Mrs. Weir has agreed, directly to the Supreme Court of Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that makes it very difficult to discuss this issue in a sensible, rational way are the death-defying leaps in logic of the hon. member in interpreting the significance of the judgment of the New Brunswick court.
Whatever the ultimate decision with respect to what flows from section 51A of the Constitution Act, there is absolutely no legal basis for suggesting that the decisions either of this Elouse or of the Senate would be under any kind of cloud. I wish the hon. member would do credit to our shared profession and stop making those ridiculous interpretations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
# * *


PERSIAN GULF
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried with regard to resolving the Middle East crisis. Members of the Gulf Western Alliance, such as Germany, France and the Soviet Union, request patience allowing time for UN-supported sanctions to bite. Today, Canada is not seen as a member of this group, nor as actively pursuing our traditional role as a negotiator for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today why we are pursuing the war option in the gulf, instead of the peace option?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously has not been following what has been happening both in the United Nations and in the discussions that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have had with counterparts while in Europe.
The Government of Canada has been pursuing consistently, through the United Nations and through every other option, a peaceful and diplomatic settlement to the Gulf situation.
As the hon. member referred to the U.S.S.R., I would like to read to her press reports of Mr. Gorbachev's comments while he was in Paris. He said: "The most important thing is we have to act. We have to be resolute and firm. There is a need for a meeting of the Security Council without delay to discuss the situation and take a decision. The situation continues to be dangerous. We cannot just leave things the way it is without giving them closer attention. Therefore, we have concluded that the Security Council should act without delay."
Those are exactly Canada's feelings. I am pleased that they are shared by so many leaders in the world.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the perception is not that Canada is pursuing the peace option.
It has been recorded that the Gulf operation is costing $50 million a month and that this figure could quadruple if hostilities break out. In a recessionary period certain cutbacks are not acceptable.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us today that the burden of these costs will not be borne through cutbacks in funding to nationally recognized essential services, such as health and welfare, security, and communications?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the time for the Liberal caucus meeting has passed, but the hon. member should confer with her House leader, the hon. member for Windsor West. She has said there is an allegation of $50 million a month cost. Just prior to her statement, her House leader said $3 million. Maybe they could join and come out with a medium or some balance of the answer.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, child care is exempt from the GST. However, the centres that offer care are consequently not eligible for GST rebates on, for example, toys, cleaning supplies, and of course books. It is just another example of the insanity of this tax.

Oral Questions
Will the Deputy Prime Minister relieve the anxiety of Canadian child care centres, nation wide, and will he today undertake to axe the tax?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that moving to a broader based tax gives benefits to many areas which previously would have been paying the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax. In the long run, the change from a manufacturers' sales tax to a broader based value-added tax is going to make our industries more competitive.
There are areas for zero rated products that will benefit as well. There are areas where input tax is not included which will release $9 billion of new economic activity and will benefit all Canadians as a result.
On top of that, the change will make Canadian manufacturers, producers, and exporters more competitive, thereby benefitting all Canadians as a result.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if the hon. minister did not understand my question.
As bad as the GST is, if child care services were placed-and I will say this very slowly-in the zero per cent category instead of the tax exempt category, the centres could at least get a rebate on their supplies.
If the minister will not axe the tax, will he at least be sensible and change child care status-I will repeat it again-from tax exempt to zero per cent? Clear?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, every time one of the opposition members gets up on the GST, they take out of context one little element of the GST.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: The bottom line in the hon. member's province is that every man, woman and child is paying over $700 per year in federal sales tax. That is true right across the country. On top of that, in her province, once the GST comes in there will be a reduction by some $10 billion of tax being paid by people from her province.
On top of that, low and modest income Canadians are going to be getting GST credits.
The hon. member, if she is honest with herself, knows that this is a long overdue tax which will benefit the people of her province and all people across the country.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The Conservative government and the Conservative members of the aboriginal affairs committee have done everything possible to prevent that committee from investigating into the affairs at Oka.
The Conservative member for Delta, on the other hand, has proposed that this matter be investigated by a commission similar to the Dubin commission that investigated into the use of drugs in sports.
Will the Minister of Justice agree that this is an excellent suggestion and order a judicial inquiry into the affairs at Oka this summer, as the NDP has called for time and time again?


A. Kim Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister.
Canadian taxpayers have paid $16 million in relation to that crisis at Oka with no debate in this House. The government refuses to co-operate with an inquiry.
Will the minister indicate to this House when the government is going to stop covering up this issue and get on with an effective judicial inquiry into this matter?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, unless I am gravely mistaken, that issue was in fact debated very fully in front of this House in a motion, which if I am not mistaken is still before this House.
The standing committees of the House of Commons have control over their own agendas. There is enormous leeway and scope for members of this House of Commons to be involved in such a discussion or inquiry, and I invite the hon. member to take that opportunity.

Oral Questions HOUSING


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. It concerns a very tough situation with respect to new housing construction in Canada's most populated city.
As luck would have it, it follows up on the concerns of the hon. member for Oshawa.
The number of housing starts in metropolitan Toronto this year has dropped by more than half. Employment in the industry is down by 71 per cent. The value of building permits has fallen by over $1 billion.
My question to the minister is simply this: How can we house people in the Toronto area when new housing construction has ground to a halt at the same time as
60,000	people a year are flocking to the city? Is the minister concerned about this? What steps would the government contemplate to keep this industry alive?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for the situation with home building in the metropolitan Toronto area.
One of the main reasons is the fact that for the last several years, Toronto home builders have been concentrating on building very expensive homes for the move-up market rather than concentrating on homes for first time home buyers.
Actually, the vice-president of the Toronto Home Builders was quoted last week as saying that new home sales last month hit their highest level in a year. It hit the highest monthly total since last November.
He went on to say that modest detached homes and basic housing with few bells and whistles actually dominated the market in October, and that what the industry needs is municipal help in clearing some of the rezoning hurdles in order to put land on the market.
The federal government's housing agency, CMHC, has a rezoning application currently before the town of Vaughan. I hope it will get on with rezoning the land so that we can help the situation there.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forestry.
A few weeks ago, senior federal officials were successful in reducing Quebec's softwood lumber export surtax from 8 per cent to 6 per cent effective immediately, and subsequently reduced to 3 per cent next year.
Can the minister indicate to this House and to the lumber manufacturers of northern Ontario why he could not negotiate such a deal for the province of Ontario?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it is true, as my hon. friend points out, that officials of the federal government assisted with an initiative of the province of Quebec to negotiate a reduction in the countervail tax to be self-imposed from 15 per cent to 3 per cent in another year. This is an initiative that was launched by the province of Quebec and provides an avenue that is available to every other province to launch. I would assume that my hon. friend would encourage the province of Ontario to look at a similar initiative.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, considering that two more saw mills shut down because of the softwood lumber surtax and high interest rates which result in thousands of Northern Ontario workers being laid off, it has become imperative that senior federal government officials get together with their Ontario provincial counterparts with a view to developing a strategy and cancelling the agreement.
Can the minister tell the House what representations he made to Cabinet to abolish this tax which is driving the Northern Ontario industry into the ground?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell my hon. friend that the revenue from the tax accrues to the province of Ontario, as it does to every province where the product is produced.

The industry, together with the provincial governments, has launched an initiative. It is my understanding that the province of Ontario has reluctantly agreed to participate, which will hopefully result in the termination of the tax altogether.
I would like to tell my hon. friend as well that the difficulties that the industry is facing right now have in the main to do with the decline in our major markets, particularly in the United States. Perhaps the exchange rate is another serious problem. Nevertheless I will take the hon. member's comments into account as will my friend, the Minister for International Trade, and work with the province of Ontario to alleviate the problem.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State for Agriculture.
The minister has remained on the sidelines while supply management has been attacked by editorial boards, foreign governments and misinformed consumer groups. Why has the minister responsible for consumers and for farmers remained so silent on this issue? Will he tell Canadian consumers today, in this House, that they are not paying too much for the supply managed products?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting to know where the Liberal Party stands on supply management, if it is in favour of it or if it is against it.
This government supports all Canadian farmers across the country, those who are under supply management and those are working on the export market. That is where the government of Canada stands and will stand for a long time.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party stands right behind Canadian farmers and supply management.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Robert (Bob) Speller: This is just the latest attack on supply management in the past few weeks. All the while this
Oral Questions
minister has done nothing while people take pot-shots at supply management. I ask the minister, is his vow of silence self-imposed or has he been instructed to do so by his Conservative colleagues?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the record of this government speaks for itself and we need not take lessons from anyone.
This was supposed to be a government which upheld the interests of farm and dairy producers, yet it did not even have the courage to maintain a long-term dairy policy at the time we took office. You had left the issue pending for five years. The first thing we did was to implement a long-term dairy policy to defend Canadians farm producers and consumers. As a matter of record, dairy products rose barely 5 per cent in recent years while the cost of living went up 17 per cent.
I am not worried, Mr. Speaker, and the agricultural producers know this government supports them.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday at the Belanger-Campeau hearings in Quebec City, a Montreal economist, Pierre Fortin, who has worked for both the federal government and the provincial government in Quebec, said that the Bank of Canada is now working on a possible scenario for monetary union with an independent Quebec and that the Department of Finance is working on scenarios to divide up the debt between Canada and an independent Quebec.
I would have thought the federal government might have found it more worthwhile trying to work on plans that unify this country instead of contemplating separation.
That being the case, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that these studies are going on, how extensive they are, and what the role is of the Prime Minister's office.

Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, obviously, by the hon. member's question, he has come to a conclusion before he has heard the answer.
If the hon. member remembers back to November 1, the Prime Minister told the House that this government is committed to a strong and united Canada, one which is great enough to ensure Quebec its full place. I can inform the hon. member that no such studies are taking place.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the economist in question, Mr. Pierre Fortin, this morning. He confirmed that indeed those studies are taking place.
In light of that conversation, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will make a statement in the House to tell us what studies are taking place, what plans the government is now contemplating and why it cannot be more forthright and honest with the people of this country over what is a very sensitive issue about the future of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, Pierre Fortin was a representative of the Association of Quebec Economists. He was not with the Bank of Canada, or working for the Department of Finance.
My answer to the first question sticks. There are no such studies.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who confessed this morning being totally helpless on the immigration issue and a possible Cana-da-Quebec agreement. I wish to touch upon another area of her jurisdiction, namely, that of vocational training. She has received a letter from the Quebec Minister of Manpower to the effect that the $350 million she will be saving through the unemployment insurance tax reform on the backs of the Quebec unemployed
should normally be used to support vocational training. Would the minister agree to transfer these $350 million to the Quebec Government which has exclusive jurisdiction in the area of vocational training?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that vocational training is a shared responsibility between the two levels of government. I have indeed received Mr. Bourbeau's letter, but the figures quoted therein pertaining to the amounts involved in vocational training and unemployment insurance benefits respectively are not clear. In Quebec, there are other expenses associated with training and unemployment insurance, and I do not agree with him concerning the payments.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In other words, for the second time today, the minister has turned a deaf ear to Quebec's quite legitimate request. Under what constitutional authority can she claim to have legislative power in the area of education, since vocational training and education are one and the same, and on what basis does she feel she is empowered to appoint a national commission on vocational training against the province's will? Under what authority could she use such powers which are beyond the federal government's exclusive powers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Last Spring, Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations between the provinces and the federal government concerning bilateral and multilateral agreements in the area of training, and Quebec was one of the provinces which signed the agreement. It was their idea that there should be an agreement to benefit the Province of Quebec. It was the Province of Quebec that was the one at the time which conducted the negotiations for all the provinces and not only for Quebec. The Quebec Government signed it.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
November 22, 1990

Two recent developments have cast doubts on the successful completion of the GATT Uruguay Round. The European Community refuses to lower its massive agricultural subsidies. More recently, the United States has said that with regard to trade in services it prefers to deal outside the GATT.
Will the minister tell the House whether these two developments are linked? Is the Canadian government seeking to encourage concessions from the European Community in agriculture in return for U.S. concessions on trade in services?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have a serious question at least at the end of Question Period.
The position is that these developments are not linked. As the Cairns Group has made clear again today in a statement just issued in Europe, in Geneva, the European Community offer on agriculture is unacceptable as an outcome of the round.
It has offered only modest and ill-defined reductions in internal subsidies by 1996, from what is an historically high base in 1986. Those reductions would not apply equally across agricultural products.
It is not offering substantial reductions in border protection, nor assured increases in market access. In fact it is seeking increased protection in some levels. Nor is it offering any specific commitments to cut its export subsidies which are today ravaging agricultural markets. Therefore the present European Community offer is not a satisfactory basis for negotiation.
With respect to services, there will be no agreement in services unless the United States proves itself to be more flexible in the services negotiation, but a good result there will be very helpful for all countries, certainly including Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a correction to an answer that I gave to a question earlier in Question Period.
In the answer in respect of the change in the tax system across the country from the federal sales tax to
Business of the House
the GST, particularly as it relates to the province of Nova Scotia, I pointed out that there would be a savings of $10 billion to the people of Nova Scotia. In fact I meant to say it would be a savings of $10 million.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: As is customary, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader as I do every Thursday what legislation he intends to call for consideration by the House over the next few days, namely, Friday, Monday and Thesday.
While I am on my feet, Madam Speaker-

Given the announcement that the Supplementary Estimates will be tabled tomorrow by the President of the Treasury Board and given that these estimates will be tabled at twelve o'clock, in the interest of open government and in the interest of accountable government, especially, I wonder if we could find, Madam Speaker, unanimous consent to have those estimates tabled at ten o'clock when the House resumes tomorrow morning, instead of at twelve o'clock after Question Period, so that the opposition may have a chance to look at those estimates and maybe question the government on them.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, tomorrow it is my intention to call Bill C-92, having to do with Northwest Territories laws. Hopefully we can pass that in three stages. I understand there is some acceptability to that suggestion on all sides.
On Monday I would propose to call Bill C-91, Financial Administration Act amendments. Perhaps we could finish second reading debate on that.
On Tuesday I would like to continue report stage of Bill C-40, respecting the Broadcasting Act.
I will be discussing with my colleagues in the opposition parties further business for Wednesday and the rest of next week.

November 22, 1990
Business of the House
In answer to the second question, of course one knows that the information and knowledge that Canadians gain from this institution is enhanced when there is adequate time to understand, to do the research and the proper background studies to pose questions that are sensible and appropriate.
Providing members of the opposition with the weekend to read the estimates allows them to think about the more substantial issues and come forward on Monday with properly posed questions to which answers will be promptly and fully provided. This is serving the people of Canada in a far superior manner than that suggested by my hon. colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party in the House.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point that was raised by the House leader of the Liberal Party and responded to by the government House leader.
I think it is entirely appropriate that this House have the Supplementary Estimates tabled at ten o'clock. As we saw today during Question Period, every question that we asked in relationship to rumours that are out there were answered with: wait till tomorrow. If we do not move the tabling to ten o'clock tomorrow morning, the answer will be: wait till Monday to ask those questions.
I think it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the information is out there in a timely fashion so that we can question the government and that over the weekend the people of Canada can decide what exactly it is that the government has done.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to suggest to the government House leader that what we are after tomorrow morning is to be able to analyse the information in question and to hold the government accountable, which is the role of this House. It is our duty as members of Parliament to do that.
What we want from the minister is quite clear. He can, if he would like, with our consent, table those documents at 10 a.m. and give us an advance briefing in the morning. Members of Parliament would be very much prepared to have that kind of briefing if the government
would offer it. If not, members will be left to conclude that the government would like for the Canadian public to have the weekend to forget about the issue in part, before being accountable to it late Monday afternoon.
Why not get the information tomorrow morning and have the government stand up and be held to account for the actions that it takes? Surely those cuts are not that offensive that the government does not want us to ask questions about them?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the procedure for handling estimates is laid out in the Standing Orders. It provides that the estimates are tabled in the House and then referred to appropriate committees of the House so that careful, responsible, detailed analysis of each and every item can occur.
What we have here are declarations by the opposition, in essence, that the way in which we have careful, full, detailed analysis of government expenditure plans is through Question Period.
Surely anyone who watches this today or any other day would be horrified by the judgment that Question Period is the appropriate vehicle through which careful, thoughtful analysis of government programs or expenditure plans should be made. It clearly is not.
We discussed, I will concede to the opposition, whether it would be appropriate to bring in the estimates on Monday or bring them in on Friday. In fact some of us, myself included, thought that perhaps as an experiment we would see if providing a weekend for some more thoughtful analysis might result in a little less cheap shots, cheap accusations, and the kind of partisan debate that goes on which distorts what is happening and does not serve the people of Canada well.
Work on it over the weekend. Ask some sensible questions on Monday.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I think the government House leader does himself and the House a disservice. He is fully aware that the Standing Orders have always been changed for such matters as the budget, but the Standing Orders have always required that the House obtain unanimous consent in order that the Minister of Finance can deliver his budget at a time when the government wishes, and we do so.

The Supplementary Estimates should be treated in the same manner, because what in effect is happening, especially this year, is that the government is altering in a significant way its budgetary appropriations.
In addition-and I wish the government House Leader would stay-he is fully aware that the government is not allowing some of the standing committees to operate. I use the Standing Committee on Transport as an example.
If the Supplementary Estimates are tabled tomorrow and they are automatically referred to the appropriate standing committees, and if the Standing Committee on Transport is not allowed to meet, how does Parliament have any process to review the government's estimates? We are denied the very reason for our existence, because we are here to supervise the estimates of the government.


Mr. Benjamin:: We do not even have a chairman.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, if the government is unwilling to table the estimates in a manner that the opposition can reply, if the government is unwilling to allow committees to operate in such a way that they can review in detail these estimates, then we have to question the intent of the government.
I would also say, not in the way of a threat but in the way of recognizing the way things happen here, that if the government is not willing to co-operate with the opposition it cannot expect us to co-operate with it on other matters.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that by refusing to allow the opposition to raise questions on the tabling of the estimates tomorrow, the government is once again riding roughshod over the opposition in this House.
The Prime Minister and cabinet met and committed Canada to the Persian Gulf without recalling Parliament. Now, when they are bringing in estimates that are supposed to arrange for the payment of that project, they are again refusing this House the right to question the government in Question Period tomorrow.
It is just another example of the dictatorship we are seeing across the floor of the House.
Business of the House


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, my point in connection with the refusal that we are faced with on the part of the government today has to do with the rules under Standing Order 81.
As hon. members know, the final day for dealing with the Supplementary Estimates is December 10. That is the day on which the last supply day of the period must be held. On that day the supply bill will be introduced passing these estimates. They are deemed to be reported at least three days before that day, not less than three sitting days before the final sitting or the last allotted day in the current period.
If the government calls the allotted day of the current period before December 10, three days before that date, whenever that is, these estimates will be deemed back from the committee. They are going to be referred to the committee tomorrow. We know that, but we are not going to be able to ask questions on them tomorrow. They will go to the committees, and sometime next week some of the committees may meet to consider these estimates.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: May. That is the shocking thing. There will be only two weeks left then effectively for the committees of this House to study these Supplementary Estimates.
We have been asking for these estimates to be tabled in this House for weeks and weeks. The government House leader has twiddled his thumbs and done nothing. Now he will be bringing them in tomorrow and does not have the decency to present them to the House at ten o'clock so that we can ask questions on them at eleven o'clock.
He makes up this phoney excuse that we need time to prepare our questions. We are quite capable of preparing questions in an hour, and very sensible questions. He may not like them. We usually make extremely good questions, and the hon. member knows it. It is the ministers who have difficulty giving the answers in this House. That is the problem. We can make up perfectly proper questions by eleven o'clock and be ready to deal with these estimates tomorrow in a fair and reasonable way.
I ask the government House leader to show some reasonable co-operation on this point.

Tributes


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I would like to support my colleagues by saying that the estimates should be tabled tomorrow before Question Period and, if not, maybe the government should do what it has done in the past and table them late tonight in the press gallery like it did with a budget not too long ago.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, the Chair has been quite patient in listening to comments from all sides.
It seems to me that the government House leader has heard what the opposition had to say on the subject, and that the answer which he gave previously is to stand.
I think it would really be better for the House to move on to other business. I notice there is another point of order. I know that the hon. minister has asked to be recognized on a special tribute.
If we want to debate the motion which is now before the House, I think we should proceed.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I listened to your words carefully, and I listened to the words of the minister. He has said no.
The House wants unanimous consent tomorrow to proceed through all three readings of a very important bill. If this government is not prepared to co-operate with the opposition when we want to get information tabled in this House one hour earlier, then Madam Speaker, we will have to consider whether we co-operate to allow legislation to proceed tomorrow through all three readings.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the air quality in the West Block.
I would like to table some documents that I wrote to Mr. Cloutier, the Sergeant-at-Arms in December 1989.
I asked for quality control, especially concerning asbestos.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair to investigate the quality of air in the West Block and in the Wellington Building as well. I am going to table the documents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. This is a question that is being taken very seriously by the Speaker and by members of the House. It will be proceeded with and investigated as it should.


THE LATE ROBERT SIMPSON
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence, and that of our colleagues, to say a few words in tribute to a former colleague in the House of Commons whose 15 years of service left an indelible mark on our countiy.
I speak of Robert (Bud) Simpson, member of Parliament for Churchill from 1957 to 1972, who died last week at the age of 80.
Before his death, he had the satisfaction of seeing much of what he had advocated in this House become reality. After winning six elections, he decided not to run for re-election in 1972, when I was first elected to Parliament.
At that time, the name of Bud Simpson meant something to us freshmen who arrived here, because he had charted a course of parliamentary conduct which all of us would have liked to follow.
Like myself, he represented people of a vast and far flung region of our countiy, larger than many European countries. He was sent to Parliament in 1957 when travel in the riding and in parts of northern Canada were very difficult and required great sacrifice.
The sacrifice he made and the hardship he endured in his travels were shared by his family. He had a profound sense of duty and commitment. In fact, his daughter followed in his footsteps. She served as my constituency secretary for 15 years.
Bud Simpson was a highly principled man as those who know him would attest. He represented his constituency well. He called for airports and landing strips in The Pas, Thompson and throughout the north.
He never let an opportunity go by in this House to remind decision-makers that Churchill was as much a port on an ocean as those on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. He made us mindful of the vigour and the strength of new Canadians as residents in the northern region.

He insisted Canada should not speak of a national broadcasting system until the people in isolated areas and villages also could be part of it. He thought it was unjust for urban dwellers in our country to have colour TV before his people even had black and white television.
He advanced and defended the Roads to Resources concept for the development of infrastructure which it brought to the north. He called for the decentralization of government to the north.
As we all know, Bud Simpson's riding contained 17 Indian reserves, a significant Metis population, and the Inuit of the territories which was then part of Churchill. He represented their interests with passion and compassion here in Ottawa. He asked that a Claims Commission be established and eventually, it was.
He argued for better education, health care and electric power in native homes. He advocated recognition of treaty rights long before recognition was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
Equally ahead of his time, Bud Simpson used his last years in this House on what are now known as environmental issues. He called for a national park at Churchill and wildlife reserves on the Nelson River. Even then he warned about the damage of pesticides, mercury pollution and DDT. That was 30 years ago. Bud Simpson would also like us to remember him as one of western Canada's most avid and active participants in the sport of hockey.
Madam Speaker, I know you will want to join me and our colleagues in this House in celebrating perhaps, the life of Bud Simpson and in expressing to his wife, Phyllis, his daughters Jackie and Geri, our most sincere deep sympathy.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I would like to join the hon. minister in paying tribute to Bud Simpson.
He was first elected to this House in 1957, re-elected in 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968. That is a very good record.
Coming from the large riding of Churchill, he was often very active in the House of Commons and was obviously a good constituency representative. He also added a great deal to his community. He was president of the Flin Flon Community Club for some time. He was
Tributes
very active in recreation with young people and for some 35 years was very much involved in organized hockey across western Canada.
Today we in the Liberal Party join with others in this House in paying tribute to Bud Simpson. The minister put it very well. It is a time to celebrate his life and to remember that people who go through this House make a great contribution in many different ways to Canada. Bud Simpson was one of those people. We extend sympathy to his wife and four children.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party and as the member from Churchill, I wish to rise and extend my condolences to his family.
I knew Bud Simpson only briefly when he was elected for a number of years and I was still teaching in the community of Thompson. I know that he fought hard for the constituents of the Churchill riding.
As I listened to the issues that were mentioned by the minister I thought, some of those issues are still being fought for today. We are still looking for airports in part of the riding. We still have communities in the remote part of the Churchill riding that Bud Simpson would recognize that still do not have local Manitoba television. They are not in a position to receive television from the province of Manitoba. As a result, they cannot get any local coverage of what is happening in the province in which they live.
The issue of land claims for native people is yet to be resolved. There are still many communities in the riding, especially native communities, and the port of Churchill, that do not have roads going into those communities.
One of the other issues that was raised by the minister is the requirement for adequate hydro service. In many of those communities there is still an ongoing struggle by the people of that region.
Having talked to constituents, they believe that Bud Simpson was a very dedicated man. He worked very hard and he travelled throughout the riding. He was well known, especially in the community of Flin Flon where he resided. He was active in the Community Club, and was a very enthusiastic hockey fan and manager of the Flin Flon Bombers the year they won the Memorial Cup, beating out the community team from Ottawa-Hull in the finals. He will certainly be very much remembered by the people of the Churchill riding.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a personal plea. I would like to point out that, by the peculiar nature of the pension plan that members of the House of Commons have, his widow, whom he married in 1977, after the death of his first wife and to whom he was married for 13 years, will not receive a pension because he married her after he had ceased to be a member of Parliament. I would hope this House, recognizing the injustice that is being done, would take the appropriate steps to ensure that the survivor's benefit is given to his wife because they were together for many years.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the House to join me in a moment of silence while we remember our former colleague.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence for one minute.]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Scarborough- Agincourt (Mr. Karygiannis)-Refugees; the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell)-Indian Affairs; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken)-Bill C-69.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) (p. 15566); and the amendment of Mr. MacLellan (p. 15584).
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to address this motion. Let me just recap where we are on this matter.
You will recall that we were talking about gun control and, as a reaction to the terrible tragedy on December 6, 1989, almost a year ago, and also after some pressure from other sources, the government brought in Bill C-80, to amend the Criminal Code to stiffen the control of guns in Canada.
This bill was given first reading in the House of Commons, and we were waiting to consider it in principle. Normally what happens is that the bill is tabled, then we have a debate at second reading on the principle of the bill, and then it goes to committee. At committee, we hear from numerous witnesses who make suggestions for changes in the bill, amendments are made, the bill is brought back to the House for third reading and then the bill goes to the Senate and, after Royal Assent, it becomes the law of Canada.
What has happened today is really quite extraordinary. The Minister of Justice stood up in the House and said that she was not going to bring in Bill C-80. She said that instead she would bring in a motion stating that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a committee for pre-study. That is extraordinary. I rose, on behalf of my party, and the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys rose, on behalf of the Liberal party, to say that we were prepared to have a short debate today. We would adopt the government's own bill and send it to committee, but the government refused our offer. The government is in fact filibustering and rejecting its own bill.
Let there be no doubt about it that this represents a major defeat for the new Minister of Justice. She has lost a major battle in cabinet. It means in fact that she has been defeated by the gun lobby.
There is a group of people in Canada that does not like gun control and does not want gun control. They are like the American gun lobby and are now being more and more effective in blocking gun control. That does not include not all people who possess guns. There is also a group-I think the majority-of people in rural areas, in gun clubs and in hunting and fishing clubs, who accept gun control. This is very important. But they want a workable system of gun control that is not too bureaucratic but makes sense, and they have made a number of suggestions as to how that can be done. I will come back to that a little later in my speech.
November 22, 1990

I found it extraordinary, a sad and humiliating sight, to see this minister rise and in fact filibuster against her own bill by bringing in this ridiculous and farcical motion. What are we doing? We are sending the material to a committee, when we see on the Order Paper that we may later debate Bill C-80. If we pass that, it will go to another committee.
I do not know why the minister just did not say that she lost the battle and does not have support among her colleagues for her bill. I half expected the minister to get up and offer her resignation, but she did not do that. As a matter of fact, she did something worse.
The Minister got up and made reference to her meeting with the university students in Montreal. On April 10, 1990, she was at the engineering school at the Ecole Polytechnique, the place where 14 women were gunned down by Marc Lepine last December. She was given 25 boxes of petitions. Here is an article about it by David Johnston in the Montreal Gazette and a picture. Those petitions bore the names of 516,487 Canadians calling for tougher gun control laws. It is now up to
700,000	people calling for this law and, as she mentioned in her speech today, she took the petitions and said she sympathized with these people. Such hypocrisy, Madam Speaker. Such hypocrisy on behalf of the minister.
Why did she not just tell the truth? Why did she not just go down to Montreal and to the other parts of the country and tell people the truth? If she had been honest, she would have said: "Look, I lost this battle in cabinet. I cannot get the support of the Conservative back bench on this bill and, therefore. I cannot proceed with the bill."
Instead, the government tried to cover it up to try to make it look like it was making progress in this bill. She said: "I am frustrated by the lack of progress in the bill." Well, the government controls the agenda. It could get a Hibernia bill through like that. It got the GST through- at least the House-like that.
The government controls the agenda and she comes forward saying: "I am frustrated at the lack of progress." The government then takes the bill, rejects our support of the bill, and puts a motion to committee that we will examine the substance of this bill. But we will not have voted in principle on the bill.
Government Orders
It is one pure incompetence on the part of the government, and my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys outlined perfectly how there are two motions and another bill on the Order Paper. There is incompetence here. But, worse than incompetence, there is a lack of political will.
The minister was faced with her first tough problem and she collapsed. I feel very sad for her. I feel very sad for the people she talked to in Montreal and for the
700,000	people who signed that petition.
I had hoped that this minister would be different and a different sort of person than her mentor, the Prime Minister. I thought she might be somewhat more honest and somewhat more straightforward. The first big test comes and she is just a mini-Mulroney. She has taken after the boss. I guess that is the price one has to pay to be in the Prime Minister's favour.
She says she wants her members to speak on this. Well, bring them in and have them speak. We are waiting. Bring them in. We were prepared to let Bill C-80 go through. I find that extraordinary. The opposition offers that the bill will go through in principle and then the government says: "No, no. We want to bring in our members to filibuster our own bill."
I know it is not an easy problem. The minister said that. It is a difficult issue because rural Canada has some difficulties with gun control, but the answer is not to cave in completely. The answer is to take the bill, the real bill, the real stuff, get it into committee, and amend the bill so that it is workable and so that we can have a workable system of gun control.
I challenge the minister to go back to the engineering students in Montreal and tell them: "I copped out on you. I did not have the guts and the political will when it came down to it to really press for my bill. I put a farcical procedure. I sent this thing off to committee where it will disappear, a special committee hearing on to the infinite future. The House will be prorogued and it will be gone."
The minister seems to think that she can bring it back. She has given her opposition a tremendous victory here and it is a real defeat for the minister. I say that sadly because I had hoped better for this minister and I think the country was expecting better.
I just want to give a little bit of the history of firearms control so that we can put it into context. In 1978 the current gun control law was passed in amendment to the Criminal Code by the House of Commons. There were

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
provisions enforcing mandatory firearms training in that bill, and the minister mentioned this, but this has never been enacted to this day. The gun clubs and so on, who have legitimate concerns about gun control, have always said we need courses so that people can get properly trained in using guns. They say if people are trained in the guns for hunting, trapping, and for shooting purposes in gun clubs and so on, then there is no danger. They have always been in favour of that.
Has the minister proclaimed it? No, but she wants to speed it along quickly. She wants to get moving. She has not done this. The government's package says that it will have the program in place by April 1991, that is 13 years after the act passed the House of Commons. A snail would make it look fast on this one.
In Januaiy 1989, in Stockton, California, a man with a military hang-up, he claimed, was armed with an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle and two pistols. He fired 110 rounds from his rifle, killed five children, and injured 29 others. As a result, the state of California responded to the tragedy by banning the sale, possession, or manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons.
On March 14 last, President Bush announced a suspension of the importation of assault weapons. So, even the Americans, who have a stronger gun control lobby than we have, took some action. The incident provided a new impetus for calls for tougher laws in Canada. That was in January, 1989.
In June 1989, the government announced its intent to introduce in the fall legislation controlling the importation, possession, and sale of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. It got an agreement from the federal-provincial ministers, so it was making progress. Of course, it did not introduce it in the fall of last year.
On December 6, 1989, as we know full well, there was the great tragedy at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal where 14 women were gunned down.
On April 19, 1990 a petition was presented to the minister with 516,000 names, and it now has 700,000 names.
On June 27, 1990 the minister introduced Bill C-80. She said: "We're going to push this bill through". She called it a modest proposal. Well, if it is a modest proposal and if she intended to push it through, why is she, in effect, ditching her bill today? Why? It is really incredible. This represents a substantial defeat for the minister. She should consider very seriously whether she can continue being Minister of Justice.


Mrs. Browes:: That's nonsense!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not nonsense at all. It is a major piece of legislation, a major constituency, and the Tory track bench revolted.
We have a notion of confidence in this Parliament. What confidence means in Parliament is that the Cabinet has the confidence of the House of Commons and has a majority in the House of Commons. A minister must have confidence behind him or her. This minister got up today to speak on a bill and she does not have the confidence of her own party with respect to her own bill. It is extraordinary. It seems to me that should be grounds for considering a resignation.
Now, I do not want to see that. This is a new minister. As I said, a promising minister. She comes from British Columbia. Vancouver is a good place to come from. There is lots of promise there, but this represents a substantial defeat for that minister. I hope that she can somehow bounce back from that.
The government has lost its political will and has caved in to the gun lobby in Canada. I feel sorry for the minister, but that was her choice.
I want to point out something about Bill C-80. People say that Bill C-80 is too difficult or too controversial, although the minister did not say that it could not be passed. Let me just list the problems with Bill C-80. I have a letter I received from the B.C. Wildlife Federation. From my own riding there is The Barnet Marksmen, a publication from Port Moody, B.C. There is a gun range there. There are all kinds of other submissions that have come to MPs. They have seen them all. I have another submission from the Mission and District Rod and Gun Club. Here is a magazine from Alberta, Fishing and hunting, in which the complaints were set forward. Let me just go through some of the difficulties.
People say: "We have problems in rural Canada with the cooling off period on every renewal of a firearms' acquisition certificate. Will we need to keep doing that every time it is renewed? Will that not make it more difficult for us to trap and hunt?" Well, yes, but the way
November 22, 1990

to deal with that is to tighten up the bill and perhaps consider an amendment so that in a renewal there is not a cooling off period by the same person. They could renew it instantly, for example, at the same time that it expires. We could look at better regulations, a better way of dealing with people in rural areas. That is one complaint and one possible amendment or areas of amendment.
Second, they are worried that, under the bill, you have to have guarantors. What is the liability of these guarantors who sign the application form? Well, we could consider that. We could consider some sort of limitation of liability or a better setting of the liability of the guarantors. That could be done by amendment.
Third, people say that five and ten shots in a magazine really limits what they can do. It will be lead to people mutilating their guns. I think we can have a look at that, and if necessary, the government could come up with a program to buy out certain guns. It would cost money, but it could do it if it is really serious about having a workable gun control system.
The fourth area of concern that I have picked out of this is that they are worried about having to get a picture on ID. It is like getting a passport. They have to get people to sign for them and so on. I think we might be able to deal with that in terms of less bureaucratic regulations, less red tape. Maybe there could be different regulations for rural areas as opposed to cities. That would be an intelligent way of dealing with it.
They are worried about the grandfather clause in the bill, that it would not allow the inheritance of some part of a gun collection. Maybe you are to inherit a gun collection, some of which may be semi-automatics and so on. You cannot in fact inherit that. You would have to give that back. There might be ways of dealing with that in the bill.
You will notice that all the legitimate gun clubs and gun people support mandatory firearms training. The Mission people I referred to before clearly set out in their letter to me that they favour a mandatory system and firearms training so that people learn how to use guns.
Government Orders
These are difficulties, but they are not fatal difficulties. A government which really knows how to govern and a minister who really has the political will could have faced this and brought in the bill.
My friend for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has also met with the people in Montreal. I hope and trust that he will be speaking about that later as well as about this notion of political will. I recall a speech he gave in the House some time ago under his private members' bill in which he dealt with some of the arguments. For example, only criminals have guns.
We should be going after criminals, not people who get guns. In fact, two-thirds of homicides in this country are not committed by professional killers. They are committed in families. They are committed by people who in a rage or who are temporarily or permanently insane- not insane in law-but who are deeply uncontrolled and upset; disturbed like Marc Lepine was and others have been. They grab a gun and they use it.
The intent of Bill C-80, as I see from a realistic reading of it, and which everybody agrees with, is that we need a bill that will make people pause before they buy a gun; that the people who get a gun know how to use a gun and are sane. That is what everyone wants.
I do not want to go into the terms of the bill. I have suggested some amendments. Let me conclude by saying that this is a dishonest, disreputable move by the government. This committee is going to be a farce.
One will have to consider whether one should even sit on the committee. Why did the government not have the political will to proceed with the bill, to listen to people in rural and other areas who have legitimate concerns, and amend the bill properly in committee? That would be the best way to do it and that is how we would get the end that we want. We want a system of gun control, but one that is realistic for everyone in the country.
The government and the minister really copped out on this one. I think this represents a substantial defeat in cabinet for the new Minister of Justice.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity to listen to some of the comments by the hon. member. I am most concerned about some of them which has really moved me to stand today to ask a few questions and to put a few things on the record.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
This is an area of gun control which, when legislation was brought forward in the late 1970s, really stimulated a lot of emotional debate. Bill C-80 has also stimulated a great deal of controversy.
Some months ago I made a recommendation that a firearm manufactured as an automatic weapon, converted to a semi-automatic, brought into the country and then very easily converted back to automatic, should be banned from the country. I am very pleased that in this legislation, Bill C-80, concerning military weapons, that has been included as the major point of this bill.
I am concerned that the hon. member would say what he has about putting this to a special committee. I happen to think that it is an excellent idea to have this go to a special committee, that we have an opportunity to discuss it now and not wait until it is past second reading because I had a chance to visit with a number of gun clubs this past summer to discuss some of the details of this of concern.
I have spoken to a number of policemen, including the chief of police for metro Toronto, and they are most concerned about the proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals in metro Toronto. I think that it is an excellent idea to have this sent to a special committee now.
I want to know if the member is at the point that he does not want to listen to anybody out there. He just wants to talk about it here. We think it is a good idea to get to a special committee to talk about this now, listen to the people, and if there are some amendments that need to be made, indeed they will be made.
It is an opportunity to discuss it now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the member says we do not want to listen to people.
I precisely said that we want to put the government's bill in a committee, listen to witnesses and get evidence. That is the real process.
This is a sham. This is not the real process.
I would like to ask the member: Is she going to tell the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto that she has effectively sabotaged the gun control bill which he favoured? That is exactly what she has done.
What is she going to tell her constituents in Toronto when they ask her why she stopped gun control, even a modest proposal? What is she going to tell them? How does she feel about the first woman Minister of Justice who voted against choice and, second, is unable or unwilling to fulfil her promises to Canadian women who learned last December that it is women who are the greatest victims of lax gun control and violence in our cities in this country?
I would like to know what she is going to say. I think she is going to have a little bit of hard swallowing to do.
Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I had inadvertently forgot to introduce this. This sometimes happens when one gets in flight. I forgot to introduce a subamendment to the Liberal amendment. I would ask
permission to do that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would need unanimous consent for the hon. member to present an amendment to the amendment at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent.
We will continue with questions or comments. [Translation]


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. Like my colleague, I felt obliged to rise in the House because what the hon. member said was entirely at odds with the practice of his party, the NDP. Our socialist friends are normally terribly keen on all kinds of committees, but now that this government wants to appoint a committee to study all aspects of the question, the hon. member of the New Democratic Party tells us this would be one committee too many and that it would be a waste of time.
Madam Speaker, when the government makes a decision, those same members tell us, now listen, you are making decisions without consulting the people, without consulting Canadians who want to make their views
November 22, 1990

known. So in the circumstances, it is very difficult to take seriously what was said by the hon. member from Port Moody-Coquitlam because tomorrow he will say the exact opposite about something else.
The Canadian government wishes to consult Canadians because this question is very controversial, for instance, in the riding of Saint-Maurice, and has given rise to three or four different trends. I think it is quite reasonable for the Minister of Justice, who has the full support of members on this side of the House, to proceed in this way.
I cannot say the same for the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, Madam Speaker, who has been a member of this House since 1979 but failed to receive the confidence of his party colleagues at the NDP convention. He was soundly defeated, despite his experience, by someone who was a newcomer to politics.
So before criticizing our confidence in the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam should consider the total lack of confidence displayed by his colleagues and party militants.
Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for us in this situation to realize that Canadian citizens are very much aware the question is not as straightforward as the hon. member for the NDP would have us believe. In concluding, I would like to say that this kind of legislation is not cut and dried. The situation is complex. Hunters are involved, people who collect firearms and, of course, criminals. And there are also our police forces and the Armed Forces. Firearms exist in this country.
The easiest solution would be to abolish them outright, but I don't think we have reached that point yet. I would ask the hon. member for the NDP to give very serious consideration to being an active participant and to decide not to boycott the committee proposed today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a cheap shot. In my election campaign I got more votes for less money than all the other candidates of both leadership contests in the last year. That must be worth something.
Government Orders
The Minister of Justice ran for the leadership of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. I think she came about where I came on the pecking order, and she went on to become the Minister of Justice. That is not too bad.

Furthermore, the hon. member should realize that what we have here is a bill that concerns firearms. Today, we agreed with the Liberal Party to adopt this bill, and it was the government that decided to appoint another committee. I want to ask the hon. member this: What is he going to say to the young women at the Ecole polytechnique in Montreal? He voted against the firearms bill, although he supports the government that tabled the bill. The minister promised students in Montreal a year ago that the government would support this kind of legislation. What is he going to say to the students in Montreal?

Instead we have another committee. They have rejected their own law. It is a victory for the gun lobby. That is pretty sad, is it not? What is he going to say to these students in Montreal about that?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I could say it goes without saying, but in this House it seems that nothing ever goes without saying. I do not accept the conclusions that were arrived at by my hon. predecessor. However, I was very interested in his comments, as I was interested in the comments by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the minister earlier this morning.
Every thinking Canadian has to agree with the objective behind this legislation. Every one of us wants a safer, saner society where no one has to fear unduly for their own safety.
I support many of the provisions that are in this bill. I know very well and I have heard first hand that many people have serious concerns.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend, but we are not debating the bill. We are debating a motion to refer to committee. If we were debating the bill, the government would have called the bill.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member shows a little bit of patience, I would imagine that his colleague would make this quite relevant to the motion which is before the House.


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, my intention will become veiy clear very quickly. I know very well that people have concerns. They have been expressed to me, as I am sure they have been to every member of this House. Some of the concerns that have been expressed to us are valid. Some might have been exaggerated because of lack of information or perhaps misunderstanding. However, these concerns deserve to be expressed and deserve to be responded to before we proceed any further with this bill.
I am very pleased for the opportunity, on behalf of some of these individuals and myself, to speak today to the bill and to the motion to refer it. I want to encourage this House to allow the establishment of a committee that will hear from concerned Canadians and responsible firearm users before proceeding any further.
I was also encouraged this morning to hear the reply to the question offered by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace by the minister when she said that the committee would not be restricting itself to the narrow confines of what is included in the bill but can look at the regulations in a broader picture. I feel that is important.
There are many responsible firearms users in Canada who can help us. Many of them were solicited for input prior to the drafting of this legislation. I asked the minister for a list of those consulted, and I have been informed that the previous minister had conducted extensive consultations from July through September of last year. Major firearms interest groups had the opportunity at that time to make submissions outlining concerns and suggestions. Meetings were held with representatives of police departments, the Shooting Federation of Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Canadian Chiefs of Police, Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, the National Firearms Association, and the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association. All these groups were consulted.
Now that we have a legislative package together, I feel they deserve the opportunity to respond. They want as
much as we do to ensure the safety of Canadians. They have a vested interest in their sport in promoting the safe use of firearms. They deserve to be involved, and they deserve to be listened to again. I am sure that every member of this House who represents a rural riding has already heard from many of their members.
Since the bill was introduced in June, I have received numerous representations from several constituents. My riding includes a large urban area, the city of Red Deer. It is surrounded by hundreds of square miles of open productive farm land which leads into the foothills of the beautiful Rocky Mountains. It is an area of incredible scenery and beauty. It is also an area of good, natural hunting. It would be an exaggeration to say that absolutely everybody hunts and is involved, but it would be quite accurate to say that everyone knows those who do, and there are a lot of them.
I have received some letters from hunters and gun club members who live in the city, but by far the largest proportion of my mail has been from the rural area: from farmers and ranchers who use firearms for predator control, from legitimate hunters who have pursued their sport safely for many years, and from members of gun clubs and people who pride themselves in the safe handling of firearms.
The fact that the bulk of my mail comes from the rural area illustrates a problem. The problem is the same as we have with many other issues in this House. In this large and diverse country of ours perceptions differ between groups, between cultural groups, between regional groups, and sometimes between linguistic groups. Here I see a difference in perception basically between the rural and urban perspective. Legitimate gun owners are not restricted to rural areas, but there are more of them in the rural area. Problems and abuses with firearms are not restricted to the urban areas, but they occur more often there.
When it comes to drafting legislation, the drafters tend to be the urban folk, those who do not always have the experience they need to understand the rural position. Because of the large rural population of my riding, I have received a great deal of mail. Their concerns have been expressed to me, and I feel it is my duty to represent those concerns both to the minister and to this House.
November 22, 1990

I appreciate being recognized and allowed to express these concerns this early in the debate on the motion today. I should add that the minister is well aware of my concerns. She does not share all of them, but she has been available and she has listened. I am very conscious of the intense feelings that exist toward the abuse of firearms. I am also aware that there are intense feelings toward the abuse of many substances, such as alcohol, drugs, and anything else that could cause potential disruption in our society.
The minister and this House are under intense pressure to legislate on the matter that is before us today. It is important that the legislation accomplish what is intended. It is important that it be understood and accepted by members of the general population. If it is not understood and accepted, they will not respect it. If there is no respect for the law, people will find a way to avoid it and get around it.
We as a country do not have the resources or the inclination to run a police state. We cannot go into every household in the country' to enforce the law. Like all other concerned parliamentarians, I have relayed the concerns and questions that have been given to me to the minister. I know she has met with me and several others who like myself have legitimate concerns with the bill. I also know that she has heard from other people who support complete abolition of firearms.
I understand the difficulties and the questions, but we need to have legitimate, honest, law-abiding owners and users of firearms understand and accept the law if it is to work. It is true that some of the concerns they expressed might be exaggerated, but others are real.
In addition to specific items that I will get into in a few minutes, the major concern that I have heard is the amount of power that this act would give to regulation. People want to know who will be writing those regulations.
Those of us in the House who are more involved in this system and have got to know it, who understand how regulations are drafted, would perhaps have confidence that those regulations will be well balanced and well written.
However there is a lot of mistrust of politicians. Many people are resentful of regulations that are imposed on them to address a problem that they do not see as their
Government Orders
own. That is what they see us doing in this case. We are regulating good, honest, law-abiding citizens to prevent a problem that they see happening somewhere else.
This gets more complicated when we state that the power of regulation is going to be delegated to another body. Most people have enough trouble with us, and now they are concerned that some nameless, faceless group of well meaning people who will be given the power to set regulations that will affect their hobby, possibly their employment, and definitely their own legally purchased property.
I will get to some specific examples that my constituents have shared with me. In addition to letters from constituents, I am sure we have all received regular mailings from groups like the National Firearms Association. It is quite interesting that although in one of its recent publications the National Firearms Association says that it was not consulted when the act was drafted, the department says that it did meet with the National Firearms Association in August 1989 prior to drafting the legislation. That fact aside, the legislation has now been drafted and presented, and I think the National Firearms Association does represent people who deserve to be heard.
In reading some of its publications, it tends to be what might be called inflammatory. Perhaps it overstates some things and exaggerates its argument in certain cases. Some people seem to think you have to do that to make a point with politicians.
Debate in this House often leads itself to overstatement and occasionally even exaggeration. When dealing in this House, we have learned to look beyond the overstatement, beyond the exaggeration, and occasionally accept that within the rhetoric and overstatement there is often a grain of reason and a valid point. I think that holds for the National Firearms Association. It has some good suggestions. If we can get beyond some of its rather forceful statements, it is worth listening to.
One interesting fact gleaned from its pages is that members of the organization can get $1 million in liability insurance to cover them while shooting for only $4.50. At first it was just to cover them while shooting at ranges, but their positive experience allowed them to extend it to hunting as well. The fact that they can get

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
that much insurance at that low a premium rate reflects very well on its members as responsible firearms users.
In addition to some of the exaggerated language it uses, I did not like an admonition that it recently gave its members not to write to us as members of Parliaments with comments and suggestions but rather just say that the National Firearms Association spoke for them. I am very thankful that many of my constituents ignored that advice and wrote. After I received the first large batch of letters I, along with several other people, met with the minister to discuss them.
I wrote back to the constituents soliciting some further factual data. I have been very impressed with the response with the exception of one, and I only had one, I guess I would call, belligerent, obnoxious correspondent. The rest replied with very serious, well thought out letters. They gave me specific examples and detailed legitimate concerns.
Included in the consensus I received was one basic one: their concern about the right of Canadians to own and enjoy property. Previously the Government of Canada has legislated rights and freedoms, but we missed what most of my correspondents and I consider to be an essential element.
This Parliament should recognize the right of Canadians to own property. It is not right that a government, or worse yet regulatory body, can declare a legally purchased article restricted and demand that it be surrendered without compensation.
Generally the correspondents all had a problem with the thrust of the bill. Most of them are willing to accept the need for firearms control, but they are not convinced that this bill yet achieves what it is intended to achieve.
One of the people wrote: "Violence and gun control are two separate issues". Several put forth the proposition that the firearms acquisition certificate should be treated like a driver's licence. Safety and competency tests would have to be passed in order to obtain an FAC. We could even have classes of licences.
It was suggested by another that an independent regulatory licence granting body would be better than the present system where it comes down to some arbitrariness on the part of a clerk. This would fit in with
the ideas suggested by another writer, that rather than looking at what firearms people should own we should look at who should own firearms.
I rather like the idea of a licence as opposed to the firearms acquisitions certificate. In order to issue a licence, people would have to qualify for it; something similar to a motor vehicle licence today. In this case one would have to qualify for it in order to purchase or handle certain types of firearms. With further experience, one could add on another classification.
I would have no problem with someone retaining a licence unless he or she abused the privilege or there was some reason to revoke it; similar to what happens with our automobile licences. I think it is worth considering and is something, no doubt, that is going to be put forward to the committee.
Just to give a further idea of some of the suggestions that I have received from my constituents, I would like to share a few quotes. One person suggested: "I think you should address in particular areas of compensation for guns that are seized and would suggest that you propose a reinstatement of a collector classification". The minister today commented on that, and I commend her for including a provision to allow genuine gun collectors to keep their collections.
Another one of my writers said: "This bill threatens financially legitimate gun owners. I question whether legislation could deter a determined individual from committing an atrocity".
Another wrote: "Doug, you have to understand that many of us still suffer from the reaction to previous legislation and we fear further firearms legislation. We do not trust any government that tries to limit legitimate freedoms to own and use firearms. It is important that you look not just to complaints, but also at solutions".
Another person wrote: "The key word should be responsibility, not restrictions. Many people today gain their complete knowledge of firearms from televisions and books where guns are depicted as awesome instruments of destruction. Education is a far more progressive approach to take".
Another person wrote: "Range and shooting clubs should be encouraged where new members would be expected to complete an education component before being allowed to participate".

Another one indicated: "My plea is that the government examine the growing roots of violence in all forms in this country and work to minimize it at the starting point".
Among my correspondence there was very little support for limits on magazine capacity. Many felt it would have its greatest effect on antique gun collections, particularly those older models with integral magazines. I had about 12 to 14 different examples of guns that would be restricted or prohibited under the legislation. Many of the correspondents felt that there was no problem putting limits on military, assault or fully automatic weapons. To quote one person: "There is no reason for anyone to own a fully automatic".
There are good features of this bill that will come up in committee discussions, such as a firearms safety course and the national standards that are proposed to ensure that only qualified people can obtain the firearms acquisition certificate.
Most people do not have a problem with a waiting or a cooling off period before getting an FAC. After all, as someone said, the purchase of a firearm should not be a spur of the moment decision.
Other good features that were praised by people in writing is the fact that return of lost firearms could be expedited and the fact that it is going to allow individuals with an FAC to transport a handgun owned by another person, possibly a family member.
I have been critical of the bill. There are things I would like to see improved. I think I am speaking for a large number of legitimate hunters and sport shooters. They understand the problem that we are facing in this country. They understand the concerns, and they understand the objective of the minister and the government. They are even more concerned than many others about the abuse and misuse of firearms.
They have a direct concern with the legislation. They deserve to be heard before we proceed any further. As users, they can offer constructive suggestions. They can help us design training courses.
They can probably suggest better controls for firearms than legislators or bureaucrats. They have expressed concern about what might be lost under the bill. They also have the most to gain by offering constructive suggestions and by helping. By helping, they can enhance
Government Orders
their chosen sport and possibly improve our legislation and contribute to a safer country.
Madam Speaker, let's approve this motion. Let's establish the committee and let's listen to Canadians before we proceed any further with this bill.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member for his straightforward remarks on this subject. I found it useful to listen.
Most of us in the House have heard a number of those perspectives earlier. My comment then, going right to the reason for the motion that is in front of the House, is that the government appears to have made an error at some point, likely following the Marc Lepine tragedy in Montreal.
Whatever the reasons, the Minister of Justice appears to have been compelled to come forward with a bill which reflects government policy. It is what the government wants to legislate. Now the government appears to realize that the bill is not a good one, that there are some serious flaws in it.
There is a need for a bill but there are too many flaws in the present one. The bottom line here is if the bill is too bad to continue, and the government does not have the guts to withdraw it, then it must have the need to show that it is taking some action.
Is that not the reason why it is referring the matter to a special committee? Is it not really admitting that it made a mistake here? Is that not why we have to go back to square one and rehash all of these issues? There are many, some addressing the bill and some not addressing the bill.
There is no reference to amnesty here. I just noticed a statistic today from Toronto that this year from January to August 31, the metro Toronto police have seized 1,506 illegal guns. That compares to about 1,200 guns in 1980. That is 6.2 guns per day taken from the streets of Toronto.
There are a lot of issues that are not being addressed by this bill. I would like to ask the member if he would not acknowledge that the government started off on the wrong foot so that we all can start off on the right foot very quickly to address the many needs that this legislation must address.


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
I do not agree with either of his questions. He said himself that there are a lot of issues that are not addressed by the bill. That was the question raised by his colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace this morning when he asked the minister if the committee was going to be restricted in its hearings to the narrow confines of what is in the bill.
Her answer was no, that it would be given a broader mandate to hear concerns of Canadians relating to the whole issue of the regulations and the bill.
I think the minister is not backing off. If she wanted to, she could quietly let this bill sit in the back comer and not mention it. It would die on the Order Paper eventually. That is not going to happen.
By setting up this committee, Canadians are gomg to be heard. If the hon. member thinks we are making a mistake by reacting to concerns expressed to the minister, I would suggest that he is wrong. There have been legitimate concerns expressed. There have been questions raised.
In answers to those questions and concerns, the minister and her motion say: "Let's listen to Canadians." I think that is what democracy is all about. Let's hear what Canadians have to say. We are going to end up with a better bill for doing it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, the minister is on the hook because she made a promise to the students at Ecole Polytechnique in April.
She said she would bring forward a bill. She said she would push for extended gun control. December 6 is the anniversary of the massacre, and she knows she will be subject to questions in the House of Commons on why she has not done anything. She is now going to say it was sent for study in committee. It is dishonest and it is pathetic and the students at the Ecole Polytechnique and other Canadians will hold her accountable for that. As I said before, it is the first failure of this minister in her new portfolio.
I want to let the hon. member off the hook by asking him if he would confirm a newspaper report not too long ago which said that 30-1 notice the member today said: "Don't take instructions from the parliamentary secretary. He is liable to lead you astray".


Jim Karygiannis: Get your runs in there.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Get the runs in there. Would he confirm that 30 Conservative MPs have indicated that they would not support the bill? If he cannot confirm the number, could he tell us how many of his colleagues do not support the bill and could he explain his own position, does he or does he not support Bill C-80?


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat amused by the question because the most common criticism we are getting at home in the media is that we blindly follow the leader and do not think for ourselves. Now we are being criticized because some other reporter says we are not following blindly.
I cannot confirm how many members over here said they would or would not support it. I said in my speech, if you were listening and I am sure you were, that some serious problems have been expressed to me by a large number of constituents. Yes I have a problem with this bill in its present form. I am very pleased that the minister is going out to listen to Canadians to hear their concerns.
The senseless tragedy that happened last year in Montreal affected all Canadians. It could not help but do so. I am almost tempted to accuse the hon. member of exploiting that but it would be a terrible charge and I do not want to do it. I was going to refer to it in my speech but I do not think we should be drafting regulations and laws specifically as a result of one tragedy. We owe it to those people, and the families of those victims, to come up with a law that is going to be effective in the long term. We would be wrong to push something through hastily rather than make sure it is well thought out and has the support of people who can make sure the law works.
I think it is better to take a couple of extra months, do it properly, and make sure we have support of firearms groups.
There was an amendment introduced today that tried to put a time limit on a committee. I am quite prepared to support that because I do think we have to get ahead with this. We have to get this committee working, we have to get the report in, we have to act on it for the very reasons that have been stated.
November 22, 1990


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and put a question to my hon. colleague. As a member who, quite frankly, could not support the bill as it is presently drafted, 1 have no hesitation in putting forward a couple of reasons why.
I wish to point out a couple of fairly straightforward things. First, it is the user and not the weapon that is the cause of the damage. Second, it is the criminal element mainly that has access to weapons and will continue to have, regardless of what the law of the land is.
I am a little tired of these nonsensical references to Montreal. There is nothing in this bill, or in any other bill, that could conceivably be brought forward that could guarantee that an incident such as the one in Montreal would not occur. It is fact, Madam Speaker.
I am glad the member for Red Deer has pointed out the concerns of many citizens, especially in the regions of the country. I do not know if this is a Toronto-type bill or not, Madam Speaker, but certainly there are concerns in the country.
I hope that the reference will include some travel to regions of the country outside the major cities. I want to ask my hon. colleague from Red Deer, while I am thanking him for his outstanding contribution to this debate and for pointing out some of the concerns that I and other Canadians have, if he feels that the special committee ought to solicit the opinion of the people in the rural areas, people who own and use firearms in a very regular and lawful basis and who could be very seriously affected by some of the proposed provisions. I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on the possibility of such a special group travelling.


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, it is not my decision whether the committee travels or not.
I would certainly encourage this House to make sure that it did. I mentioned in my speech, and my hon. colleague just mentioned that there is a difference in perception between rural and urban areas. That goes both ways. I think the committee should get out into rural Canada. We should talk to legitimate, honest, law-abiding firearms associations in the rural areas so that the urban members who sit on the committee can understand where those people are coming from and
Government Orders
what their thoughts and feelings are. It is equally important to go into the urban areas so that the rural members have a chance to understand the concerns that are being expressed by those people.
It is also important that we involve the police associations. They have some very serious and legitimate concerns as well. It is important that this committee talk to as many Canadians in as many different locations as
possible.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, this Conservative government's actions today to virtually kill their own bill on gun control, that is Bill C-80, is just another example of their excessive weakness and lack of political will. It is also an indication of their extreme incompetency and disorganization.
The government introduced a bill in the month of June to accomplish certain legislative goals. Ibday it has said that it does not want to proceed with its own bill, but wants to refer the subject matter, that is gun control, to a special committee for study.
Members on the government side have said this is a good thing because we should study the subject. If we had voted on the bill and passed it at second reading, it would have been required to go to a committee where it would have received study. The government could have amended the bill at second reading so it would have gone to the justice committee or a special committee. It need not have gone after the vote on second reading to a legislative committee. That did not happen. The reason it did not happen is because the government has lost the political will to proceed with the bill. It cannot get enough support in its own caucus. It probably cannot get enough support in the cabinet. If it had proceeded with the bill, the bill would have been defeated by their own members perhaps.
People watching this debate today must be very amused. Here we have a bill presented by the Conservative government that has more support from the opposition than it does from the government members. The member from Swift Current who just asked a question admitted that he is opposed to the bill. I know many members on the government side are opposed to their own government's bill. The reason the government is not proceeding with the bill at second reading is because it does not have enough support in its own caucus. The

Government Orders
result is that we are going to refer this matter for study to a special committee. Sooner or later, this session will be prorogued and Bill C-80 will die. We will have no bill on gun control, we will have no government legislation and we will have a committee which will come up with a report.
I have been on so many of these committees that study matters where there has been a Conservative majority, and we have had unanimous reports. We have had them in the justice committee, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and we had them on the external affairs committee.
Just the other day we dealt with the unanimous report from the Standing Committee on External Affairs which recommended certain action by the government on international debt. The government did not accept one recommendation of that committee which had a majority of Conservatives on it. Therefore, the whole matter goes nowhere after months and months of study. That is what is going to happen here and it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because the momentum which led to this bill was the massacre, almost one year ago, of 14 young women engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. It was found that a deranged young man by the name of Marc Lepine used a Ruger semi-automatic rifle to kill these women.
What was really horrible about this whole case is that he set the men aside and decided to kill only women. He did it with a gun that was too easily available. The Canadian public recognized that and said that there is something missing in our gun laws and they must be tightened up. How is it a young man like this can easily acquire a semi-automatic Ruger weapon? It is not, by the way, an ordinary semi-automatic. This is an assault weapon that has been used by SWAT teams on police forces. It is not a weapon that is usually used for hunting. It has got an extra powerful apparatus and fires a very deadly bullet. It was that incident which led to a campaign to tighten up our gun laws, with a view to preventing this kind of incident.
The minister herself went down to the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in April and she met representatives of the students. They presented her with 25 boxes of petitions containing over 500 names of people who
wanted a toughening of the gun legislation. On that occasion, and it was reported in the press, she promised to bring in legislation to meet their demands before the end of May. We did not get it before the end of May.
I put questions in the House asking when the legislation was going to be presented several times. Finally, we got the legislation on June 28, I believe, the last day the House sat before the summer recess.
While the legislation was not perfect and it has some weaknesses, it definitely was a step in the right direction. There are many things in Bill C-80 which I myself had in my own Private Member's bills and motions. For example, the minister has accepted the idea that there must be a mandatory delay between the application for the firearms acquisition certificate and the granting of the firearms acquisition certificate. I had suggested two weeks. She went even further and I congratulate her on that. She went to 28 days.
That is very important because we have had incidents in Canada such as the one in Montreal where a young woman went in in the morning to buy a rifle. She was told by the owner of the sporting goods store that she needed a firearms acquisition certificate. She went to the police station, applied for the firearms acquisition certificate, got it the very same day in the afternoon, went back, bought a gun, and shot her boyfriend.
If there had been a mandatory delay in this particular case, and in many other cases, it would have given the police a bit of time to investigate the situation, as they are supposed to do under the legislation. It would have also provided a cooling off period. Very often, individuals in that situation are under an intense emotional pressure and, if given some time, they will cool down or other things might happen which might prevent the killing or the attack with a gun. Bill C-80 had that provision, that there be a mandatory delay of 28 days.
Bill C-80 also provided for a measure that I had in my Private Member's bill, that the application must be accompanied by two references of people in the community, references with respect to the responsibility of the individual applying, and also it required a photograph. All these things I think were improvements with respect to the screening out of dangerous, imbalanced individuals who might apply for a firearms acquisition certificate in order to obtain a gun.
November 22, 1990

As I said, the momentum for this bill came as a result of the massacre on December 6, 1989, at the University of Montreal. It appeared that we were going to get some legislation, but now we are not going to get any legislation. We are going to have a study. We will not oppose the study, but I must express my extreme disappointment and my extreme regret. I personally know some of the parents whose daughters were killed in that incident and, I will tell you, they are not going to take this lightly. They are going to consider it a betrayal by the government in carrying out what it had promised to do. This is not radical legislation that the government has presented. It is an improvement on what we have now, but it is not a radical departure.
By the way, on this side we agree that the subject matter of the bill should be studied in committee, but we think it should have been done after a vote on second reading. Once the bill was in committee, then, of course, we would hear witnesses. Perhaps the bill could be modified in some way and made better through amendment in committee, and maybe modified in other respects where certain people had concerns. The bill might be improved in the directions of both public safety and bureaucratic red tape, and so on, about which many hunters and sports shooters are concerned about. The bill could have been improved by a good study in committee after second reading. But what is going to happen is that we are just going to get the study and, likely, nothing at all. I hope that is not the case, but I have great fear that that is what we are going to get.
What is the paranoia suffered by the various gun lobbies in respect of gun controls? We have had gun control in the country since 1892 and it has been continually improved upon over the years. The loopholes in the legislation have been closed. That is what we are attempting to do again, but there is a paranoia suffered by some people. They are in the minority because, every time there is a Gallup poll on the subject, the overwhelming majority of Canadians wants the strict control of the acquisition and use of guns. Even in the prairie provinces, the majority wants stricter controls on guns. But, for one reason or another, the minority, the lobbies, are very active. With their flood of letters, they have upset certain members of Parliament who get flaky and back off from what should be good legislation.
Government Orders
What is this paranoia? Nobody, in any political party that I know of, is suggesting that we should ban all rifles, shotguns, and hunting weapons. We have three classes of weapons in this country. We have prohibited weapons. These are weapons that are banned, outright, such as machine-guns and fully automatic weapons permitted to the police and the Armed Forces, but not to ordinary citizens, and sawed-off shotguns. They are prohibited weapons which cannot be obtained by anybody. I think, everybody agrees with that.
There are restricted weapons which are mainly handguns and revolvers. They are only permitted to individuals if they can show cause, in accordance with the legislation. For example, in the case of a private detective or if there has been an attack on a family, a handgun can be applied for and the police have the discretion in giving the permit necessary for a restricted weapon.
All the others, which I would call regulated, are in the third category. Regulated weapons are the customary long guns, rifles, and shotguns. Until 1978, there was no control over those weapons whatsoever. One could walk into any sporting goods or hardware store and buy a rifle or shotgun, without any screening whatsoever. However, in Canada we found that too many murders were taking place with these long guns. In 1978, we said that, in order to buy a long gun, a shotgun or a rifle, one had to get a firearms acquisition certificate. There was to be a screening process in which one was checked for a criminal record, mental stability, any record of violence in the community, and so on. When there was indication that the individual was not responsible, then the police had the right to refuse the firearms acquisition certificate.
Nobody is suggesting that we should ban, outright, ordinary rifles and shotguns which are used for hunting and sporting purposes. Why should Canadians object to a control over a weapon which is manufactured and designed to kill? I am not talking about pop guns, guns which shoot plastic or rubber bullets, or guns which fire tear-gas. I am talking about rifles and shotguns that are manufactured to kill either animals or individuals. Why is there an objection to having at least the same control over these manufactured objects that we have on automobiles? An automobile is manufactured for transportation but, because it proceeds at great speeds, we have the licensing and the testing of people who want to drive. Nobody can just buy an automobile and drive, without taking a test, passing it, and getting a driver's licence. If

November 22, 1990
Government Orders
someone has a history of reckless and careless driving, their licence is taken away from them. All automobiles must be licensed.
What we are suggesting for guns is not even as serious as with automobiles. Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. Why should people, for their own public safety, object to the simple regulation of these weapons? It is no more complex or bureaucratic than it is for automobiles.
There are other substances that are dangerous as well, which we put controls on. Nobody can sell over the counter certain drugs and pharmaceuticals. They can only be sold by licensed pharmacists in drug stores and a prescription from a doctor is needed to get them.
It is for the public's safety that we are trying to screen out the acquisition of guns by dangerous people.
We hear all the same time-worn arguments against gun control in general. I just heard it expressed on the other side that it is not weapons that kill, it is individuals who kill. Statistics show that it is five times easier to kill with a gun than it is with any other weapon. While it is true that an individual must take the gun and use it, it is much easier to kill with the gun. Again, if one wants to restrict and cut back on the number of murders and homicides with guns, then it should be made more difficult for the irresponsible and those individuals who have criminal backgrounds and so on to get guns.
By the way, there are studies done by the Solicitor General's department which show that in every instance when we have tightened our gun control laws the rate of crime, homicides, and armed robberies with guns has declined. We all know that in the United States there is very little control over guns. If we compare the United States with Canada, in the United States 70 per cent of the homicides are committed with guns. In Canada, only 30 per cent of homicides are committed with guns because it is much more difficult to get a gun in Canada. Furthermore, the rate of murder in the United States is approximately 9 per 100,000, whereas in Canada it is 2.5 per 100,000. We have a much lower rate of crime with guns in Canada because we have tougher gun laws right now. We also have a much lower rate of homicide in
Canada than in the United States because guns are difficult to obtain.
We also hear this old argument about banning guns. Nobody is suggesting that we ban guns. We are simply suggesting that we regulate them to make them more difficult to obtain. People argue that if guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. As has already been pointed out in this debate, two-thirds of the homicides in this country are committed by first-time offenders. They are committed by members of the same family or between friends and acquaintances in a state of anxiety, alcoholism, narcotics, or in a severe argument of one kind or another. One party will go out to try to obtain a gun. If he gets it, he kills the other party. Two-thirds of our homicides are that type.
We know that we will not keep guns away from professional killers or organized criminals. They will always be able to get guns, but we can make it more difficult for those husbands who kill their wives, or people like Marc Lepine who are deranged and for some reason or another have a mania against feminism. It is the non-professional killer who commits the majority of the murders in Canada and, if we can make it more difficult for them, we will be doing something. We have accomplished some success in the past by closing some of the gaps in our gun laws, and we can continue to do that.
Before I sit down, I simply want to say that gun laws, of course, are no panacea. They are not going to eliminate totally crimes with guns. They are not going to eliminate totally homicides with guns, but they can substantially reduce crimes with guns, especially with those people who are not professional criminals. That is what we are trying to accomplish. We can do it without unduly interfering with the right of our hunters and sportsmen to carry on their hunting and their sports. It has been done in the past.
I was responsible as Solicitor General for developing and introducing the last gun control legislation in 1978.1 switched to another ministry after I prepared the legislation. It was finally passed under a different Solicitor General and Minister of Justice. I can recall at that time all the same arguments that we hear today were thrown up in our face by the different lobby groups in the country, that if we passed the legislation in 1978 it would virtually destroy hunting and sports shooting in the
November 22, 1990

country. But history has shown that to be complete nonsense. Hunting is still a sport.
I am not a hunter and I am not attracted to it. There is still a lot of hunting in the country, especially in the rural and northern areas where there is a long tradition and it is in the culture of these people to hunt. They have not really been interfered with. As I pointed out, we have had gun control legislation since 1892. It has been consistently toughened and tightened and has been done in a way to allow our legitimate hunters and sport shooters to carry on with their sport. As a matter of fact, many Canadians have won Olympic medals in shooting because they have been able to do that.
Madam Speaker, my time is up. I simply want to say this. We would have supported this legislation. Here we are in the opposition giving more support to a government bill than it is itself. It is backing off it. It is sending the matter to study. We hope the study is a success. But we will push hard for legislation to deal with the matter. We do not want to let down those families in Montreal whose daughters were killed and massacred a year ago.


Denis Pronovost: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech we heard just now by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the former Solicitor General, who is celebrating his 25th year in Parliament this year. Congratulations are indeed in order, because it is quite an achievement nowadays to have been part of this august assembly for 25 years.
However, I also took this opportunity to rise in the House because there are at least two aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on which I would like to expand because I do not agree with the implications.
First of all, I would say that like my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was somewhat contradictory in what he said. When the government makes decisions, it is accused of failing to consult the people. When we want to form a special committee to study a question, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace says: The committee is unnecessary. It is just a waste of time.
Government Orders
If the hon. member is so concerned about the efficiency of the operations of this House, perhaps he could speak to the Liberal senators in the other place who have been holding up several bills and obstructing the parliamentary process for nearly a year now.
I am getting to the second point. Hon. members opposite, both the Liberals and the NDP, often complain that rural residents are overlooked by the government, and they make all kinds of grand speeches and give us a lot of rhetoric on the subject. We now have a wonderful and, in fact, extraordinary opportunity, Madam Speaker, to consult rural residents, whose specific concerns differ from those of city dwellers. Why not take advantage of this opportunity?
My third point and, in fact, the gist of my question is: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace referred to Canadian statistics and these will be my concluding remarks that prove that Canada has fewer murders and less violent crime per capita than the United States. However, we must remember that Canada and the United States are two entirely different countries. We cannot compare Los Angeles with Quebec City or New York with Montreal. The bigger the city and the bigger the population, the higher the crime rate, whether or not firearms are allowed. So it is unfair to compare the two.
Whether or not we have legislation-and this is my question-doesn't the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace think we will never be able to prevent people like Marc Lepine from committing this kind of crime, despite the legislation tabled by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace when he was Solicitor General of Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to deal with the three points raised by my hon. colleague. I thank him for his remarks with respect to my 25 years in Parliament.
His first point suggests that we are against consultation because we would prefer to proceed by way of the bill than with this motion. We are not against consultation. I thought I pointed out very clearly in my remarks that we could have debated the bill at second reading, voted on

Government Orders
it, passed it at second reading, and then sent it to committee-which has been done for years and years in this House-to either the justice committee, a special committee, or a legislative committee, and then hold hearings.
I agree with him. We should hold hearings. We should hold hearings with city people and with rural people. I am not in disagreement with him. We could have held the hearings by proceeding with second reading first. By proceeding with second reading first, we could have amended the bill. As he knows, if he has participated in legislative committees, you hold hearings, people suggest you amend this article, or that article, and you make amendments. You come back to the House with an amended bill. That could have been the result of the committee hearings.
By proceeding with the bill, you would have kept faith with all those people in this country who want the government to do something about gun control. The government had responded to that demand in the first place by presenting the bill. It was your government that came forward with Bill C-80.1 looked at it and said that on the whole, it was a good bill. Now it is your government, having done that, that decides to proceed in a different way. I believe in consultation. It could have been done by voting on the bill at second reading and then proceeding to the hearings as we have done time and again.
I have been here for 25 years. We have done it over and over again that way. It could have been done again. We could have heard rural people and taken into account their views.
With respect to rural people, as I pointed out, we amended this twice in my time in Parliament, in 1968 with the famous Criminal Code omnibus bill, and again in 1978 when we tightened our gun laws. On each occasion people said: "You are going to destroy hunting. You are going to destroy sports shooting". We did not. We brought in amendments and tightened the law.
Can the hon. member say to me now that there is no hunting going on in rural Canada? Yes, there is hunting. They have to get firearms acquisition certificates, and most responsible hunters get them. I would say that almost 90 or 80 per cent-I do not know what the figures are-get automobile licenses because they show they can
responsibly drive automobiles. The great majority of hunters show that they are responsible and get their firearms acquisition certificates.
He says it is not right. He says that Canada and the United States are two different countries and we should not compare them. He is right. They are two different countries for such reasons as our attitude to criminal justice. In Canada we have always had an approach which believed in gun controls, whereas in the United States they did not. That is one of the major differences between us which has led to lower rates of crimes with guns in Canada and which has led to lower murder rates. Canada is a safer society-not safe enough, but away safer than the United States. In the city of Toronto, a city with nearly 3 million people, last year they had 50 murders. In Detroit, a city of the same size, they had about 400 or 500 murders. Everybody is carrying a gun in Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo and these cities.
I agree there is a difference between Canada and the United States and part of the difference is our whole approach to criminal justice.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise with the hon. member by way of comment the suggestion that this government's bill on gun control simply fails to deal with one of the real issues we are concerned with in this country. It pointed out that in 1988 almost the same number of Canadians were murdered by stabbing as by shooting, 167 for one and 169 for the other. One hundred and thirty-eight people were beaten to death. I think there were 22 strangulations.
In the murder rate in 1959 of 657, 80 per cent of the people were killed by somebody they knew, and in about half the cases it was an immediate family member. Quite often it was women murdered by their husbands or their partners with whom they shared a domestic relationship.
This government has cut the funding for the status of women. It has cut the funding for transition houses. It has cut the funding for women's organizations. It has absolutely ignored the case of violence against women in Canada. We have two very important cases in the riding I represent where RCMP officers, after domestic violence where an individual has been charged, have taken the individual back home the next morning to create further violence against the people they have lived with. It is like
November 22, 1990

Government Orders
taking the criminal back to the scene of the crime so they can complete the task.
Crown counsels have failed in the area. It is my understanding there have been 200 charges against individuals for family violence and in that case, only 90 convictions. Of those convictions, often there was a suspended sentence with the agreement that the person not beat up or commit violence against their wife.
I might just finish with the question. What is needed is not per se gun control. We have to get to the bottom of this issue of family violence and violence against women.
Does the hon. member concur that a major failing on the part of the government on this issue is failure to address one of the real issues in this?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, yes, I do. I think that gun control legislation can be only one element in the prevention of violent crimes in Canada, but we cannot forget about gun control. I pointed out that each time as we tightened out gun laws, we have been able to reduce the rate of crime with guns. So gun laws are important.
The hon. member is absolutely correct that if you stop with simply tightening your gun laws, you are not going to do enough. A lot of the violence is against women by their partners, spouses, or other types of partners, and there are not enough shelters for these women. There are not enough programs to deal with the men who are abusing their wives and their partners. There is a whole realm of social policies that could be advanced and put into operation that would deal with the causes of this violence. We are not doing enough there.
Governments at all levels are not doing enough, so I agree with the hon. member. That having been said, I still believe that we have to do more to control those instruments of violence, the gun, which is used more than any other weapon in killing. Thirty per cent of our homicides in Canada are committed with a gun, but the gun, different than all the others, has as its sole purpose to kill. You can cut bread with a knife, and sometimes it is used for killing, but I would rather have someone chasing me with a knife than with a semi-automatic.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Denis Pronovost: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to a subject that I would say is extremely important.
One of my constituents died last year on December 6, 1989, in the course of events that caused emotions to run high, not only among Quebecers but also among Canadians across the country. The events that occurred at the Ecole polytechnique have made people in this country think about the serious consequences of social disruption and psychological trauma in some individuals. In this respect, I may recall the sad case of a young man in Montreal, Marc Lepine, who achieved his unfortunate notoriety in such sad circumstances, and in doing so shocked us all very deeply. Why, Madam Speaker?
Because we tend to think that most people on this planet are reasonable and normal and act with the judgment instilled in them by their parents from childhood. Unfortunately, our society is evolving very rapidly. Not all students in Canada are successful in their endeavours. Today, 30 per cent of our young men and women are incapable of finishing high school.
Madam Speaker, for many young Canadians, this causes problems when they start looking for a job, and as a result, there may be social and psychological problems may be extremely traumatic.
We all judged Marc Lepine very harshly last year, and this House was unanimous in announcing its awareness of a reality for which no short-term solutions can be found. However, that does not mean we should not be concerned.
Madam Speaker, I have always felt that abolishing firearms outright-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the hon. member for Saint-Maurice who, I am sure, would wish to continue his speech at some other time.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

November 22, 1990
Private Members' Business


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   THE ELDERLY AND THE HANDICAPPED
[Stage Direction]
ACCESS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take steps to convince the provinces and municipalities to encourage owners of reception halls to provide washrooms on the same floor as the reception facility for the use of the handicapped and the elderly.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to a motion that was suggested by my constituents. Because of our system, it took several months before we could discuss the motion this evening. Although my riding covers a residential area, I believe it has the largest number of reception halls of any riding in the Montreal area.
On various occasions, when I attended certain events, a number of senior citizens and disabled persons drew my attention to the inconvenience they were exposed to in certain establishments. Some of these have a banquet or reception hall on the second floor, while the washrooms are on the first floor, with no elevator or escalator between the two floors. This creates a serious problem for the elderly and disabled persons who have to go down to the first floor during the event. That is why they asked me to make representations to persuade provincial or municipal governments to adopt regulations that would require these establishments, when construction permits are issued, to provide washrooms and bathrooms on the same floor as the reception hall, or else have an elevator or escalator accessible for the disabled.
Madam Speaker, at the federal level we have the National Building Code, published by the National Research Council, and I have a copy here of certain sections of the latest version, printed in 1990. I noticed that they mention designing barrier-free access, to enable disabled persons to enter a building. They refer to entrances and routes, floors serviced by escalators, equipment controls, areas where a barrier-free route is required, and parking areas for the disabled. There are special provisions for washrooms, for instance. The number of toilets depends on the number of people. The code also specifies the size of rooms, windows, ventilation and plumbing. There are various sections in the
National Building Code, but to my knowledge there is nothing in the Code or in our provincial and municipal regulations that could be used to deal with a situation I find unacceptable.
I realize that the owners of these establishments, because of relatively high costs and limited space, have to make the best possible use of the space available, but I feel this is an absolute necessity.
Imagine elderly people who during a banquet or reception have to go downstairs for quite some distance to go to the washroom, and imagine the kind of situation this creates for people in wheelchairs!
I think our National Building Code should be amended accordingly and that the provinces and municipalities should follow suit. Madam Speaker, I hope hon. members will be able to support the motion this evening so that the government can take the necessary action.
I know that my colleague from Winnipeg-North, who is very familiar with this issue, intends to stand up and speak on this motion. If there are others who wish to take part in the debate, they are all welcome to do so. I hope that once the time comes to vote, this motion we will be adopted.
Before concluding and giving the chance to others to speak, I want to add that a recent report-it was tabled in June 1990; as a matter of fact this second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons was one of the last ones to be tabled- makes six recommendations to make life easier for disabled people. One of them, goes along the same line as my motion. It is recommendation number 5 at page 35 of the report, which reads:
5. That the Government of Canada undertake, in cooperation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, to develop a federal-provincial-municipal plan of action for disabled persons that will ensure ongoing consultations, cooperation and coordinated action. This plan of action should be initiated at the forthcoming meeting of federal and provincial first ministers on the economy.
In closing, Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, my constituents in Saint-Leonard, especially the elderly and the disabled, have requested on a number of occasions that this issue be resolved. I raise it in this House on their behalf and as the member of Parliament for Saint-Leonard, so that we can take the necessary steps.
November 22, 1990
[Stage Direction]
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues who will speak on this subject today and give me their support so that this motion is passed.
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the hon. member's motion that the government persuade provincial and municipal governments to encourage reception hall owners to provide more accessible washroom facilities for persons with disabilities.
I can heartily support this motion because I believe it is something that fits in with government policy. This government is constantly striving to improve access for disabled persons to all facilities. I quote the Prime Minister:
Individuals with disabilities shall be assured access to fundamental
elements of daily life that are generally available in the community.
This principle, taken from the Prime Minister's Declaration on the Decade of Disabled Persons, is the principle that guides the Department of Public Works in its continued effort to make barrier-free design a reality in all buildings under its custody.
Madam Speaker, allow me to tell my hon. colleague and other members of the House some of the things Public Works is already doing in this regard. It is the department's policy to ensure that all its facilities are accessible to people who have disabilities. All new buildings are designed so as to be accessible to disabled people. Information and standards on barrier-free design are regularly updated.
This government is committed to improving accessibility. The aim is to make facilities usable by a wide range of people, and we most certainly welcome input from the disabled community to guide us in this endeavour.
In accordance with Treasury Board's revised accessibility policy, Public Works is currently undertaking a five-year plan for making improvements to accessibility. Treasury Board policy on accessibility is unequivocal. Its policy objective clearly states that it will ensure that people with disabilities can gain access to facilities throughout the federal government.
Private Members' Business
All new government buildings are designed to be accessible to people in wheelchairs. Public Works' barrier-free design standard sets out requirements for door widths, ramp slopes, handrails, and washrooms, among other things.
Of course I realize the hon. member's motion addressed the question of access outside federal responsibility. Nonetheless, this government is not reluctant to confront the matter just because it does not have direct control over access standards outside federal jurisdiction. We are working with other organizations in their efforts to improve accessibility for the disabled.
For example, the government has helped the Canadian Standards Association produce a 13-volume catalogue of building products useful in making buildings accessible. It has supported the CSA in developing a national standard that was published only two months ago in a document entitled Barrier-Free Design. My hon. friend will be pleased to know that Barrier-Free Design is an excellent resource for governments at all levels. It will assist them in creating environments that will meet the needs of all individuals, including persons of disabilities. Yes, in reference to the hon. member's motion, the Barrier-Free Design document includes a section on washrooms. In fact the publication contains 13 pages on these facilities.
Governments at all levels, as well as the private sector, are strongly encouraged to adopt the national standard found in the CSA publication. With that in mind, the National Building Code has been revised to reflect the new CSA standards. Just think, Madam Speaker, how much better it will be if across the country one standard is used by architects, engineers, and others involved in building design.
It would give all of us, and especially persons with disabilities, increased access to a wide range of facilities. This government is determined to see that happen. It is really what National Access Awareness Week is all about.
Madam Speaker, 1990 marked the third year for this grassroots project. It is a most successful partnership. National Access Awareness Week brings together governments at all levels, as well as educators, business, labour, volunteer groups, and organizations of people with disabilities.

November 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
We come together and, thanks to the co-ordination, funding and support of the Department of the Secretary of State, we are attracting more community involvement and media attention each year. The week's basic goal remains the same. That goal is to change not only physical barriers but attitudinal barriers as well. That goal is to make Canada accessible to all its citizens.
We are forging partnerships that will do just that. The National Access Awareness Week committee includes 23 national groups and organizations working in every part of Canada on behalf of persons with disabilities. Thousands of Canadians help to plan the innovative activity that made the week such a resounding success.
Hon. members will know that one of the key areas on which the National Access Awareness Week focuses is transportation. Canada has had international recognition for its leadership in transportation.
That global profile is the result of new provisions in the government's 1987 National Transportation Act, which requires carriers and terminal operators for air, rail and ferry services to provide access to travellers with disabilities. As well, the special report on intercity bus accessibility commits the federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop an implementation strategy to increase access in that area.
We are already making progress. Hon. members will know that Transport Canada has funded development of a mechanized lift for intercity buses at a cost of $250,000. The department has also agreed to provide $1.2 million toward purchasing six lift equipped buses. They will be used in a three-year demonstration project in the corridor that takes in Kitchener, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, and Buffalo.
I know that hon. members will be pleased to know that the government is making every effort to ensure that persons with disabilities will not be subjected to an embarrassing loss of dignity when travelling. In that regard, between 1980 and 1988 Transport Canada spent approximately $17 million to improve accessibility at airports.
Parking, curb cuts, washrooms, and water fountains have been improved so they are more easily accessible. Other improvements have included everything from talking signs to aid people with visual impairment, to handrails and access ramps for travellers who have
difficulty moving about. Transport Canada has contributed $145,000 toward a joint program with the Ontario government to operate four mini-vans in the Ottawa area. The vans which are operated by two taxi companies, are easily accessible to disabled passengers. This experiment is evaluating the potential of a taxi company as a viable alternative to para-transit services or perhaps as a complementary service.
This government has not overlooked the needs of disabled persons in small urban and rural areas. More than $3 million in grants have been put toward retrofitting 130 vehicles to transport people in smaller communities.
I am sure my hon. colleagues will agree that many persons with disabilities are perfectly capable of driving their own vehicles. This government certainly believes that. Transport Canada will spend nearly $675,000 testing vehicles adapted for drivers with disabilities and will assist them in driver training. This is definitely an appealing option in a disabled person's goal for greater autonomy.
After soliciting the views of more than 1,200 parties with an interest in transportation services for the disabled, the National Transportation Agency has submitted regulations for approval by Governor in Council, which will abolish additional fares for disabled persons travelling by air in Canada.
The agency has determined that some persons with disabilities have no choice but to travel with an assistant. Also, some disabled people require additional seats to accommodate their disability. Initially, the proposed regulations will only apply to aircraft with 30 or more seats.
To measure the impact of these regulations, the agency will review data filed by the carriers annually. At a later date the agency will develop regulations for carriers with fewer than 30 seats. I am sure hon. members will agree that the proposed regulations will make it easier for persons with disabilities to travel throughout Canada.
So, as I am sure my hon. colleagues can see, this government is doing everything in its power to give an equal opportunity to give full access and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities. After all, these are fundamental rights of Canadian citizenship, not privileges to be enjoyed only by the majority. We all experi-
November 22, 1990

Private Members' Business
ence difficulties in life but Canadians with disabilities are often faced with additional hurdles. We have the power to remove these hurdles and we are committed to removing them.
Governments, industry, community groups and disabled persons' organizations will continue to work together to enable people with disabilities to fully enjoy their rights as citizens. Considerable progress has been made, but there is still much to be done. Together we will do it. We are very pleased to support the motion.


Mr. Rey Pagtaklian (Winnipeg North):: I am certainly delighted to speak to this Motion 526:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take steps to convince the provinces and municipalities to encourage owners of reception halls to provide washrooms on the same floor as the reception facility for the use of the handicapped and the elderly.
The motion sounds very simple in its request but is very profound in its implications. I congratulate my Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard for introducing this motion. This is a very important initiative for it addresses a very important group in our society.
Thirteen to fourteen per cent of Canadians do not enjoy the same kind of mobility that most citizens are blessed with. Our society has been designed for the able-bodied.
The Ottawa Citizen recently reported on a project called "Trying on Disability". The project was aimed to raise awareness of what it is like to live in a world built for people who have no trouble getting around. Volunteers in the project who were sent to do their grocery shopping wore yellow swimming goggles with black specks on the glass to see how it felt to have cataracts. They wore slippery surgery gloves on their hands and put diving weights on their arms and legs to experience arthritis. They wore ear plugs to learn what it was like to be hearing impaired.
The reporter, Mr. Jeff Heinrich, wrote on their vivid
and revealing experience, and I quote:
We may look have looked comical, but our impersonations were deadly serious-and what we got was a vision of ourselves in old age, a sobering vision of a difficult life deprived of our basic senses and skills.
The project illustrated a significant point. Many of our senior citizens face a lot of problems doing ordinary things in our fast-paced society.
It is clear that our population is growing older. It is also clear that we are going to have to take a good look at how we are servicing our senior citizens. I believe that our disabled elderly citizens face too many barriers in our society, and are denied access to essential services and amenities of life.
One important place where disabled seniors face problems is at recreation halls that do not have washroom facilities on the same floor as the reception facility. Seniors who have arthritis in their knees see the stairway as a daunting hurdle. Eventually, these seniors will avoid going to places where they have to climb up the stairs to access the washroom facilities. This means the elderly will miss out on important social and recreational activities.
This is simply unfair. Why should they, in effect, be denied access to a building only because of their disability? Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees each of us freedom of movement, freedom of association and many other freedoms that are infringed upon when disabled people cannot attend functions in reception halls that do not have accessible washrooms.
In total, there are 3.2 million disabled people in our country, people who have reduced basic senses and skills. This statistic includes young people who do not have the use of most of their bodies, but who are able to get around in wheelchairs. Again, one of the problems is the stairs.
Reception halls must be equipped with elevators or ramps in order for a person in a wheelchair to get from one floor to the next with dignity and without having to suffer the inconvenience and embarrassment of having to ask others to lift them up and down the stairs.
Disabled people have the same rights as able-bodied people do. They should be able to attend the same functions as we able-bodied can. We should, therefore, strive to encourage that all buildings be made accessible to them by having, at the very least, wheelchair accessible washrooms on every floor.

November 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
The government has established explicit guidelines about how to modify buildings to make them accessible to physically handicapped people, but there is no mechanism to ensure the rights of disabled citizens are honoured. There are no sanctions.
When a disabled person's rights are infringed, one recourse is to take the complaint to the Human Rights Commission. But this process is time consuming and emotionally draining. It can be very expensive.
These people do not have to face yet another inconvenience. We should be ensuring that their rights are protected and respected at all times.
I have seen one positive step recently. The committee on human rights and the status of disabled persons recently released a report on the plight of the disabled. I am glad that the Secretary of State accepted the whole report in principle. It supposedly will be used to amend acts like the Canadian Human Rights Act and design federal programs for disabled people.
We should not forget that this government must admit it has also failed in the very issue of accessibility. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission examined 32 federal programs this summer around the country to see if they meet barrier free design standards. Very sadly, all 32 failed.
Disabled people do not only face barriers in privately owned reception halls. They face it everywhere, including in federal buildings, buildings that are paid for by our tax money. The government must learn how to act on the issue of accessibility and encourage the private sector to do the same.
This past spring, the United States enacted a very important piece of legislation for its disabled citizens, the Americans with Disabilities Act, which forces employers to accommodate disabled employees unless the employer can prove physical changes to his or her operation would be too expensive or disruptive. Madam Speaker, we should adopt this type of program. There needs to be regulations on the construction of new buildings in Canada.
I realize that modifying buildings to make them accessible is a very costly venture, especially for owners of older, and smaller reception halls. But we must do it.
The government declared its intentions to make Canada accessible to all Canadians a long time ago. It is time to deliver on those promises. An excellent way to start is to convince provinces and municipalities to encourage private owners of reception halls to provide washroom facilities on the same floor.
At the same time, the government must seriously consider the recommendations of the committee on human rights and the status of disabled persons. We must develop goals and effective strategies to make all buildings accessible to everyone. We must enforce these standards.
Many other rights depend on them, including the right to have a reasonable employment.
In conclusion, I would like to say that indeed the hon. member for Saint-Leonard has the foresight and sensitivity in caring for the needs of the disabled and the elderly. He introduced his private member's motion a year ago and the standing committee of our House did present its report this June and in essence supported the intention of my hon. colleague.
I now challenge fellow members to support this particular motion as an important first step to achieving our goal of equality for all Canadians, including the disabled and the elderly.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, last week I received a letter from friend of mine who is in Vancouver. He is a handicapped man. He is in a wheelchair. But he is also the Social Credit member of the legislature from Vancouver-Little Mountain. His name is Doug Mowat. That letter reads as follows. It is addressed to myself and it says:
Your indication that the entrance to one bathroom in all future social housing will be accessible for persons in wheelchairs as well as walkers is a major breakthrough and demonstrates the strong commitment of your Ministry and the Government of Canada to physically disabled persons.
Every time you see a person in a wheelchair, you'll know that you made it possible for them to use the bathrooms in C.M.H.C. sponsored buildings! Seriously, we highly commend you for this step. It will not be a costly modification, but one that will mean so very much to both disabled and elderly citizens.
It is signed by Doug Mowat, the member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
The modifying of entrances to bathrooms in social housing projects is certainly one way in which we can break down the physical barriers which keep handi-

capped people and frail, elderly people, for that matter, fully participating in Canadian society.
The motion that was put forward by the hon. member outlines another way in which this can occur, to ensure that the handicapped and elderly people are able to fully participate in social events, family events, community events and all kinds of events and activities.

In the 1990s there is no reason why people should be denied access to these events or feel ill at ease because such facilities are lacking.

I am very pleased to be able to advise the hon. member that the National Building Code for 1990 has provided significant improvements to ensure that future construction of buildings designed for public events meet the basic needs of those who have mobility problems.
Approximately 300 people, including representatives from the disabled, industry, governments, and of course, users devote their lime, free of charge, to this kind of a consultation exercise involving updating the National Building Code.
My own department, the federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is a part of this process. This year this group, devoting its time free of charge, has seen to it that the National Building Code has been revised so that all regular washrooms in a building to which a barrier-free path of travel is required will be barrier-free to all persons with disabilities. Buildings equipped with elevators must be barrier-free and all washroom facilities in these buildings will be barrier-free. Where several washrooms are provided on a large floor area, not all washrooms need to be barrier-free, provided that a barrier-free washroom is available within 45 meters and the location of that barrier-free washroom is clearly indicated.
A barrier-free washroom is required on the entrance level in buildings less than four storeys which are not equipped with elevators. This requirement will avoid situations where washrooms are located in the basement or on the second floor of a small building which is otherwise accessible.
Private Members' Business
It is my hope that the provinces and the municipalities will readily adopt these sections of the National Building Code. They are well aware of the changing mix of the population and that governments at all levels must move to meet the increasing demand of a rapidly aging population.
As a society, we have to be very sensitive to the fact that at the moment 10 per cent of the population is 65 years of age or older. By the end of the century, the percentage will have climbed to 13 per cent and, by the year 2031, seniors will account for an estimated 25 per cent, a full one-quarter of the Canadian population. This is a phenomenon that we never faced before and we have got to begin to deal with it now.
Almost one-half, or in fact 46 per cent, of Canadians over the age of 65,1.2 million people, have some form of either mental or physical disability. That compares with about 13 per cent in the general population. More than 80 per cent of disabled seniors have a mobility or agility disability and a great many of these Canadians are on fixed or low incomes.

The hon. member is right, Madam Speaker. We have to find every possible means to open the doors of community living to seniors and handicapped persons. But it is just as important to redesign their living accommodations.

You are aware, Madam Speaker, that in 1985 the federal government undertook some consultations with respect to housing policy. At that time the government announced its new directions in housing. There was a complete review of the housing policies and programs. They involved extensive consultations with the provinces with a full range of groups that were active in housing. Among the groups that were consulted at that time included the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled and the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped. Their input at that time was very valuable in the development of the government's new directions in housing. As a result, at least 5 per cent of the units in non-profit and urban native housing programs must be accessible and designed as mobility units.
A mobility unit is one in which space is provided for manoeuvring wheelchairs. The actual number of mobility units in each project is determined by demand. Further adaptations of mobility units can be included in the project costs that are eligible for assistance. Up to 12

November 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
per cent additional to the maximum unit price which governs the cost of units in assisted housing is provided for adaptations in the case of non-profit and co-operative housing programs.
Since the changes were made in 1985 in the non-profit and co-operative housing programs, of the 65,400 housing units that have been built since that time, some 9,300 have been designed for the disabled. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subscribes, of course, to the independent living concept and one of the major steps, during the International Year of the Disabled, in 1981, was to ensure that existing housing becomes more accessible to disabled persons.
During the consultation process, which took place in 1985, groups representing disabled persons criticized the inadequacy of the limited assistance of the $1,500 that was available at that time to make barrier-free, liveability modifications, under the existing Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP as we call it. These groups suggested that a separate program for disabled persons should be put into effect.
In response to that, the government introduced a new program to meet the needs of disabled persons who were occupying existing housing, not just for new housing projects. The RRAP for the disabled was first implemented in 1986. It provides financial assistance to the owners of housing accommodation to improve the accessibility of rental and ownership units, occupied or intended for occupancy by disabled persons. The program is geographically universal and there is no age limit on the properties involved.
For home owners, the assistance is in the form of a loan of $10,000, of which $5,000 may be forgiven depending on the income of the applicant. There is full forgiveness at $23,000 of adjusted income, reducing to zero at $33,000. For landlords, as well, there are forgivable loans that are equal to the cost of the modifications, up to a maximum of some $5,000 for each self-contained unit and $25,000 for each bed unit, but the landlord has to enter into a rental agreement and that limits rent increases for five years.
I see, Madam Speaker, that you are giving me the high sign. I want to close by indicating that I applaud the hon. member's motion. I think it reinforces actions that the government has been taking in the last five or six years. I want to assure the hon. member that he has my full support and the government's full support for going forward with more improvements to help disabled, handicapped, elderly or frail people.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced on September 27, 1989 by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard concerning easier access for the handicapped.
Ever since it came into office this government has shown outstanding leadership with respect to the integration of handicapped people. It has made concerted efforts to promote the unrestricted participation of disabled Canadians in every activity in the life of our society.
As early as 1985 the Prime Minister made a statement marking the Decade of Disabled Persons and announced a series of principles which were to be the mainstay of his government's policy.
With a view to making all federal buildings readily accessible, the government steers and supports all such initiatives taken by the Department of Public Works.
DPW officials have taken steps to make sure that federal buildings are easily accessible. Indeed all new construction must be in accordance with public works architectural standards.
In addition, specifications on unobstructed structures are updated on a regular basis. Structures specifically mentioned in these regulations include doors, access ramps, ramps generally and washroom facilities.
A visit to Canada's Museum of Fine Arts and to the Canadian Museum of Civilizations will convince you that the standards are respected. Disabled persons experience no problems at all when going through these magnificent buildings which have been adapted to their needs.
But the federal government has gone one step further, acknowledging that we have to help disabled persons to lead a more satisfactory and more productive life within
our society.
November 22, 1990

This is why the government has spared no efforts to make Canadians more aware of the physical obstacles standing in the way of the handicapped. It has been seeking the active co-operation of others-provinces and municipalities especially-to promote similar initiatives from coast to coast.
The Secretary of State was among the many organizations which responded favourably to the call to action. In 1988, the department launched the National Access Awareness Week, a golden opportunity to make Canadians appreciate the kind of obstacles a disabled person faces every day and to urge them to do something to facilitate the active participation of their less fortunate fellow citizens.
The result of co-operation by federal-provincial governments, municipalities, unions, agencies that support the disabled and the private sector, this initiative has also helped spotlight the needs and expectations of these Canadians in the five main areas that are the focus of the week: transportation, housing, the workplace, recreation and education.
This week also initiated the Five-Star Community Award Program, whose purpose is to give Canadian communities an opportunity to show their commitment to integration of the disabled. The program also pays tribute to achievements by municipalities in this area.
The quality of facilities and services made available to persons with a disability in Canada depends largely on municipalities and communities, and the Five-Star Community Award, sponsored by the National Access Awareness Week Committee, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and the Department of the Secretary of State, offers an incentive to consider how they can improve the quality of life of disabled members of their communities and take the necessary action to achieve that objective.
From year to year, this program has become increasingly popular. In 1990, about 15 municipalities across the country received Star Awards, and for the first time since the program started in 1988, a Five-Star Community Award, the highest award for access awareness, was given to the municipality of Redvers in Saskatchewan, and to Ottawa and Kitchener in Ontario.
Private Members' Business
In Quebec, a Star Award went to the municipality of Saint-Louis-de-France, which organized a special transportation service covering ten neighbouring municipalities.
Calgary, Alberta, has also received a Star Award. The city has taken a number of steps to guarantee access to its buildings and facilities. In fact, the city has had a parallel transportation system for 19 years.
Actually, the Five-Star Community Award Program is only one of many initiatives taken by this government, in conjunction with its partners, to make this country more accessible to all citizens.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons which was tabled not long ago.
In line with its commitment to promoting full and complete integration of disabled persons, the present government intends to act on the committee's recommendations to a very considerable extent.
It will undertake a detailed analysis of federal legislation as it relates to disabled persons; it will conduct a post-censal survey in 1991, to update the national data bank on the disabled; and it will establish a committee of deputy ministers that will be asked to improve co-ordination of federal activities in this area.
Every citizen has a contribution to make to its community and the right to participate in its life. So, whenever we remove obstacles for the handicapped, we increase their potential to make such a contribution and we build up a pool of skills for the benefit of our communities and the general wealth of the nation.
We have recognized that reality, Madam Speaker and that is why this government is determined to pursue its goals with the co-operation of his partners, the provinces and municipalities, in every area under its jurisdiction so as to allow the handicapped the opportunity to become full-fledged citizens.
In conlusion, Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Saint-Leonard who raised this issue which will continue to be a priority for Canadians as a whole and particularly for this government.

Private Members' Business


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Saint-Leonard on the resolution he has placed before the House this afternoon and to say to him that the spirit of his resolution is one which we all support. It gives us an opportunity to speak once again about the plight of the handicapped and the disabled in our society and of the steps that we must take to accommodate and help them.
Every member of this House recognizes that the 13 per cent of our population with disabilities, some 3.2 million Canadians, have a long way yet to go before they achieve the same rights to access and participation in the life of our society and country that most of us take for granted.
Nowhere is that more evident than when it comes to the question of economic integration. Persons with disabilities are among the poorest members of our society. Sixty per cent of the disabled in the 1986 census reported incomes under $10,000 per year. Their participation rate in the paid labour force is only slightly above half that of adult Canadians without a disability.
Without economic integration, very few Canadians with disabilities will ever know economic independence. Without that independence, participation in our society or in any society will seldom be realized.
Not so long ago the traditional attitude toward persons with disabilities was to exclude them from the productive sectors of our society because they were thought capable only of dependence. Our laws and our policies were directed in effect to limiting their self reliance with the result that regardless of abilities, they were effectively isolated from the mainstream.
Today, we know better. We know that within the disabled community of Canada, there is a resource of talent and ability that, given the opportunity, can not only improve the lives of persons with disabilities themselves, but also contribute significantly to society's growth and to society's prosperity.
These are the beliefs reflected in the recommendations of the standing committee's report. When the government tabled its response to that response on November 8, my colleague, the Secretary of State wrote in his letter to the chairperson of the committee, the hon. member for Oxford, the government's clear and emphatic acceptance of the committee's recommendations.
Let us look at the standing committee's recommendations and the government's response to them. Recommendation one of the standing committee calls for the Government of Canada to work with the committee, the voluntary sector, the private sector, labour, and with the disabled community itself, to bring forward a national strategy to achieve the economic integration of persons with disabilities.
What was the government's response? In no uncertain terms, the government pledged itself to the objective of economic integration. It pledged that not only would the minister responsible for the disabled work in partnership toward this goal, but that the Ministers of Health and Welfare, Employment and Immigration and Finance would be partners in that work.
Going beyond that, Public Works Canada is another major government department which makes a commitment almost daily on behalf of the disabled. The decade 1983 to 1992 has been termed the decade of disabled persons, so declared by the Prime Minister. We participate the first week of June each year in National Access Awareness Week to underline that commitment. This participation is particularly important, as I have said, to Public Works Canada.
Those of us who are fortunate enough not to be disabled do not usually appreciate the barriers faced by others. We do not have to phone a restaurant beforehand to find out if the door is wide enough for our wheelchair. However, most of us have, at one time or another, tried to find an office hidden in a poorly designed maze of corridors. Laden down with packages or a briefcase, we have tried to open heavy doors. Those occasions should help us to understand the plight of disabled persons.
All of us have a stake in barrier-free design. The rate of disability increases with age, to the point that today two out of every five Canadians aged 65 or more will live to be disabled in some way or another.
It is not only physical barriers that must come down. Ramps are being built, doorways are being widened and employment equity is moving ahead. But there are many other invisible barriers which Public Works Canada and all Canadians are endeavouring to address. These include inadequate understanding of what disabled people can do.
November 22, 1990

There is a myth that society has an obligation to take care of disabled people. Too often we remain ignorant about their capabilities and hence think only in terms of caring for them. Rather than providing them with opportunities to live their lives in dignity and to fully contribute their skills to society, we make them dependent upon others.
It might be useful for employers to realize that 79 per cent of disabled workers have attendance records equal to, or better than, those of non-disabled employees, or that disabled people have greater job stability and less turnover than non-disabled workers.
We should also remember that a disability does not always present a handicap. Often it means that a disabled person may do something a little differently than a non-disabled person, but with equal success.
We have had some great champions in Canada for the disabled. People like Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo and Rick Hansen have demonstrated that in the Canadian spirit, there are champions, disabled or not.
Public Works Canada, as the nation's largest construction agency, is concerned in that spirit with removing physical barriers to the free movement of persons with disabilities. Indeed, the department has been actively involved in barrier-free design since the 1970s. Since 1982, all new federal government buildings must comply with Public Works Canada's barrier-free design standard. Our newest museums-air, art and civilization- were built according to this standard. Another major program is to make existing buildings accessible. That program is nearly complete.
Items in this standard will include maximum permissible slopes for wheelchair ramps, the prohibition of projections in passageways which would be dangerous to people with visual problems, the development of specifications for accessible parking spaces to be used by disabled persons, and specifications for telephones to be used by hearing-impaired persons.
Recently, Treasury Board revised its policy on accessibility by calling for improvements to be made over the next five years at other federal government facilities besides offices, such as laboratories, hospitals and our national parks. Public Works Canada will be called on to
Private Members' Business
respond to the challenge of making these significant changes and improvements across the country.
The Canadian Standards Association was contracted by Public Works Canada to develop a national building standard for accessibility which we hope will be used by governments and private organizations across the country to accomplish some of the objectives described in the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Leonard.
This standard is very important. It is easy enough to design a doorway wide enough for a wheelchair before a building is built, but not so easy once the building has been constructed. The point is that if a consistent national design standard is in place which recognizes the importance of accessibility, we could eliminate the extra construction costs of having to go back to renovate structures for accessibility afterward.
In closing, Public Works Canada initiatives include the provision of way-finding tools to help people, including the visually impaired, find their way around federal facilities, to construct meeting rooms with specially-designed acoustics for those who cannot hear so well, and especially measures to assist disabled people during an emergency, such as the outbreak of fire.
Public Works Canada has a proud record, not only in barrier-free design but in developing procedures that ensure the security of disabled persons and eliminate barriers to employment.
I believe that Public Works Canada set a standard and an example that speak well and fully to the spirit and to the objectives of this motion.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, how could you forget the riding I come from, Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is the home of Rick Hansen, who comes from my home town of Williams Lake. He attended school with my daughters. He grew up as a normal, healthy, fairly athletic young man. He, of course, did not know what was going to happen to him. In his late teens he was in a tragic automobile accident and became paralysed from his waist down. That young man took a totally new situation and transformed it from one that could have been so tragic into one where he is just starting to build a life with much meaning.

November 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Obviously he is well known now around the world, not just across Canada. Every time I meet him and talk to him, I am thrilled with what he has shown, not only to the handicapped but to the rest of us, can be done when a person either grabs the opportunity or, as in many cases needs to be done when he is offered the opportunity.
I tend to look on people with a handicap in a different way because of my association with Rick Hansen. I do not think of it so much as what we can do for the handicapped. It is a tragedy of the resource that is there, a Canadian resource that we are not fully utilizing.
Everyone recognizes that in many cases there are special efforts that have to be taken if we are going to be using this special resource. It may require modifications to facilities, obviously access to buildings and washroom facilities. Those have to be done. They take money, some thought and consideration.
There are other factors, for example, the normal equipment in a place of work. Let us take the example of an office. One business in my riding in 100 Mile House is quite small but it was determined that it was going to take advantage of this resource and do what it could to fit them into the work scheme. Not only did it have to modify the facilities as I described, but obviously the normal office equipment had to be modified. It took pains to do this on its own.
In many cases special training is required. For example, people without full utilization of their limbs are able with proper training and proper facilities to take advantage of and use computer equipment as effectively as the rest of us.
The office I refer to in 100 Mile House actually has handicapped people using typesetting equipment. After a short period of time they were able not only to do the job as well as someone we think of as not handicapped, but the employers valued them as being superior.
I have been impressed by only a few examples I have seen in my riding, which is a rural riding. We do not tend to have as much exposure to handicapped people as in a larger riding. Therefore, it requires more effort on the part of citizens, businesses, and everyone who lives in these centres to make sure we are taking the effort, that we are opening our eyes to the opportunities that these Canadians deserve, and the resource they provide to our businesses and communities that should be taken advantage of.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
I do want to apologize to the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is the end of a long day, and I drew a blank when it came to remembering his beautiful riding in British Columbia.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I am rising today on a very important issue, especially for the greater metropolitan area of Toronto and for Ontario.
We have a backlog of over 80,000 refugees who have come seeking refuge in our country. Most of them are here because they could not have peace in their own countries. We have close to 44,220 English speaking refugees who we categorize as group four. They arrived before December 31, 1988.
For those members who do not know, the government has four offices in Ontario: Ottawa, London, Toronto, and Mississauga. The workload is extremely heavy, especially in two offices: the one in Toronto, which is called Davisville, and the other in Mississauga. At present the government is trying to find a solution to this problem and it is failing completely. Like I said, there are 44,220 English speaking refugees waiting to be processed. In the Toronto office alone there are 22,000 such cases that the government will have to deal with before September 1991.
I telephoned the department and spoke to department officials. I asked them: "What are you doing?" They said: "We are dealing with English speaking cases. The other ones, we are putting on the back-burner". It is tough luck for someone who has been waiting for four to six years, does not speak English and is not in the group four
November 22, 1990

category, which is mainly people from the Caribbean Islands. Someone from Pakistan, South Africa, South America or the Middle East who does not speak English is going to have to wait.
I have people coming to my office who have been waiting to be reunited with their families for four, six, and eight years. Yet this government is doing nothing else but saying: "Tough luck. We are going to put you on the back-burner".
The Toronto office will be able to handle 7,000 hearings over the next year. That is working full tilt every day, working straight ahead and that is dealing only with English speaking cases.
The minister's officials are overworked. They work late in the evening, on weekends, on long weekend and on holidays. They say: "We are trying to do whatever we can in order to cope." They are human beings and they can see clearly that these other human beings have to be united with their family. They have within them some humanity, but the humanity should be with the minister and her officials.
Clearly the department has failed. It has failed Canadians and it has failed these people who are coming to Canada seeking refuge.
In the summer of 1987, when a boatload of Sikhs landed on the coast, the Prime Minister declared it an emergency and recalled Parliament. These people were doing nothing else but seeking refuge in Canada. We have 80,000 of them in Canada right now. Departmental officials scrapped the old legislation. They said that it was not working. They introduced new legislation which was supposed to clear this backlog by September 1991. Then they extended it to January 1992. This practice or what this department is grossly unfair, especially to the people who do not speak English, the non-English speaking refugees. A lot of them have taken up different methods. They are depressed. They have contemplated committing suicide. A lot of them are saying: "I cannot stand it any more. I am going to go back home." I know cases of Ahmadis refugees from Pakistan who came to this country. I spoke to the minister's officials and warned them that a man was going to leave and go back to Pakistan. Do you believe, Madam Speaker, that they did not react? They could not care less if somebody was
Adjournment Debate
going to go back and face uncertainty or prosecution. Clearly they could have moved up his hearing. This man was at his wit's end. He was ready to commit suicide. He had not seen his family for eight years, and he went back.
I found out that he ended up in jail as soon as he went back.
It is not only that, but we clearly see from the Auditor General that this department is abysmal. I quote:
The system was extremely prone to large-scale abuses and became
overloaded by a growing number of claims that compounded existing
delays.
It continues:
Changes had either not been implemented or were not operating as
intended. The number of claims greatly surpassed the capacity of the
system.
The Auditor General clearly states:
The backlog clearance program will cost more than estimated.
When will this minister finally realize that the system has failed? When will she do something about it? We need results, and we need them today.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on the reply given by the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration to the member for Scarborough-Agin-court on October 12, 1990.
As of October 26, more than 54 per cent of the backlog of 85,000 cases had been opened and 31 per cent had been decided. The time has now arrived, as everyone knew it would, to begin processing claimants from Caribbean countries. Any suggestion that this or any other group has been singled out for special attention is simply wrong.
Any grouping of claimants from a single language group is made purely for reasons of efficiency. It is not a departure from the principles guiding the backlog process. For example, to maximize operational efficiency, sometimes panel hearings are scheduled according to language based upon the availability of interpreters. If the hon. member wants us to forget about efficiency, he should say so. His party has had a long history in that regard.

November 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Employment and Immigration Canada has given a mandate to clear the refugee claimant backlog within two years. Immigration officials are administering the backlog clearance program in co-operation with independent adjudicators and members of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
These officials must cope with constraints such as adjournments, scheduling problems related to panel hearings, and clients who do not attend scheduled interviews.
Program officials have been making and will continue to make every effort to streamline operations to maximize operational efficiency.
One thing that is being done by these officials is voluntary overtime. They are working very hard to do this. The hon. member and all other members of the House should be joining with me in congratulating them on their good work.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this adjournment debate in reference to the question I put in the House on November 8, 1990 concerning the Oka crisis. I have been badgering away, trying to get the government to reveal what it knows happened in the Oka crisis last summer.
As a country we have become sort of like Bourbon kings were. The Bourbon kings in history were known for people who learn nothing from history. A smart country learns from its past and from its mistakes.
Let's go back to 1970 when the army was called into Quebec. It was under the War Measures Act and the National Defence Act of Canada. I think in retrospect historians are saying now that using the War Measures Act was an over-reaction. In fact having the federal arm lock up innocent Quebec nationalists increased Quebec nationalism rather than decrease it.
What did Parliament do? Parliament came back with a new government, and the government got rid of the War Measures Act, the old Liberal act, and passed a very progressive emergencies act. The emergencies act had provisions for Parliament being consulted when there is a crisis, controls on the armies called out, full reports, debate and so on.
It happened again. It happened in Oka in 1990, 20 years later. What did the government do? It forgot about the Emergency Measures Act. It used the National Defence Act and called in the army.
Right now under the National Defence Act of Canada-and this is what happened last summer-a provincial premier can unilaterally call in the Canadian Army for as long as he wants the army there, and the federal government pays the whole shot: $60 million.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, no.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, that is right, my friend. The act has been amended. The federal government pays it.
In this case we should go to Quebec and we should say we want $30 million of that back. Better still, we should look at what has happened and what should we be looking for. We need, as I suggested in my question a full inquiry into the Oka matter, not just to make cheap political points but to really learn something from this crisis.
First of all, let me refer to the Surete du Quebec. Claude Ryan, a Quebec minister, submitted a report to Ottawa. I have a copy of it here, it was two pages and it said nothing really of the breakdown in control over the Surete that led to the causes of Oka.
Why did the Surete du Quebec storm the roadblocks in Oka that caused the death of one officer? Who gave the order? It was tragic circumstances, but we really need to know what happened. This could be important for the future. What if there is another confrontation at James Bay, for example, in the big hydro project that is going to be developed there? We could learn with a full inquiry as to why the Surete was called out and why it really messed up.
We also want to know how the federal government was involved? Did it know about this beforehand? Why didn't it take steps to solve this land claim instead of allowing the municipal council to make a golf course when Indians claimed it was their land? Apparently they have a good claim. It is so good the federal government has paid $3 million or $4 million to deal with it. It could have saved $60 million had it done that before.
Finally, turning to the native people as well, where did the warriors get all those guns? How did the warriors get control in Kahnawake and Kanesatake? Maybe we should look into that so that it does not happen again, so that we have a fair and full land claims process in
November 22, 1990

Canada, and so that we can have real justice and democracy for native people in the country.
I think these are lessons that we could learn from Oka. The government has stonewalled mostly all our attempts to have a full inquiry, so much so that in the Indian affairs committee the other day it was blocking out an inquiry. I suggested it in my question that we need a full public inquiry into the affairs at Oka. Why? Because we can learn something as a country from that and we may not make the same mistakes again.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised this issue of a further inquiry into the stand-off at Oka on a number of occasions, but this issue has been referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The committee should be allowed to do its work and reach its own decision in its terms of reference.
The need for the type of inquiry called for by the hon. member requires careful consideration. There is no question but that the actions of the Canadian Armed Forces at Oka were in conformity with the law and in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The chief of the defence staff responded to a lawful requisition from the Attorney General pursuant to Part XI of the National Defence Act. The army units involved acted throughout with a commendable degree of professionalism. The inquiry called for under the Act was undertaken by the province, and the resulting report was recently made public by the Secretary of State. In this regard it is also worth noting the Federal Court on two separate occasions has concluded that the actions of the Canadian Armed Forces did not result in any violations of the Charter. In my view it is important to look forward rather than back with regard to the government's relationship with aboriginal people. The events at Oka ended with a minimum of violence.
Rather than examining every detail of these events, we should move forward, building on the agenda outlined by the Prime Minister in his speech to the House on September 25, 1990. In that speech the Prime Minister
Adjournment Debate
set out an agenda with four main pillars: land claims, economic and social conditions on reserves, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments and concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.
The goal for this agenda is to create a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Its purpose, in my view, is to create a relationship with aboriginal people where Oka-type confrontations will not only be irrelevant but also unthinkable. Much can be achieved by focusing our efforts and energies in proceeding with the government's agenda. Little will be achieved by continuing to look back at the events that are passed and given the government's agenda, need not be repeated.


BILL C-69
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on the third of the brief debates this evening to expand on a question I put to the Minister of Justice last June. It has taken awhile to get on the Adjournment Debate. In fact, when I got the call that it might come up, I had forgotten the question, but I have reviewed it and I now recall the question and the most unsatisfactory answer the government gave on this occasion, which is not unusual.
The question that I put to the minister was, what was the Minister of Justice going to do now that the Court of Appeal of British Columbia had decided that the government had no authority to cap its obligations under the Canada Assistance Plan, as proposed in Bill C-69, which I believe is still before the other place.
The minister indicated that she was just going to appeal this decision. She did not like it and so she was going to appeal it. I submit that what we have here is the government acting in considerable contempt of the law of the country in tearing up and avoiding its obligations with the provinces. These are solemn obligations.
The government has certain taxation powers conceded by the provinces in exchange for payment of certain programs. The Canada Assistance Plan is one of those programs. What the government is seeking to do by Bill C-69-we have had this argument in the House before- is change those programs to the detriment of Canadians

November 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
and particularly those in three provinces: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
The effect of Bill C-69 is to restrict the rate of growth of federal payments under the Canada Assistance Plan to 5 per cent for both 1991 and 1992 and the restriction applies only to those three provinces.
I may say that I believe this is the first time in Canadian history that the federal government has acted in a discriminatory way in the administration of cost-shared programs with the provinces. Instead of allowing provinces to participate if they choose to do so, it has said that certain provinces will only be allowed to participate so much, or at least to a certain extent. The government will decide which provinces will be the ones that it thinks have too much money and might be able to get a larger share of the pot if they are able to participate in these programs.
In other words, the poorer provinces can have what they want and the judgment as to who is poor and who is rich will rest with the federal government. The others will have to either pay for the program themselves or make do with less if they proceed with it with federal involvement.
I submit that is a bad principle for us to be involved in in federal-provincial relations. This government has claimed consistently that it was out to solve federal-provincial relations in Canada. I submit that it is painfully obvious on all the evidence that it has not only botched that but it has driven wedges into the relations between the provinces and the federal government in this country such as we have never seen in the past.
What is the effect of these cuts?
The two most devastating cuts affect shelters for battered women, which are partly funded through the Canada Assistance Plan, and the 5 per cent ceiling applied in the three provinces. They will probably result, depending on the province's own financial circumstances, in fewer shelters being built and a freeze on existing services. Child care programs are also funded through the Canada Assistance Plan. This restriction will ensure that fewer child care facilities are built and existing services are frozen or expanded at a less rapid rate. That is a very serious problem particularly when the government pledged child care as one of its principal planks in the 1988 election campaign.


Rob Nicholson: Ask your friends in the Senate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The parliamentary secretary says to ask my friends in the Senate. The nerve of him, making a comment like that.
The Senate got that bill about a week before Parliament was dissolved and the bill was not passed in that place. The Prime Minister ranted and raved, as the parliamentary secretary is probably going to do, all across the country and said that the Senate had blocked child care in Canada and that if it was not for the Senate, we would have child care.
That election was two years ago. The Prime Minister could have introduced and had passed a child care bill in the House. He has used closure on almost everything else, and he could have easily had a bill through the House by now, or even a year ago. But, has there been any move by the government to introduce child care into the House? No, all we have had is a cut and the cut is right here in Bill C-69. That is how the government keeps its promises.
Instead of introducing a bill to do what it said it was going to do, and what it said was so vital all through the campaign in 1988, it has introduced a bill that reduces child care in Canada. There is no other explanation for this bill. This is not just a breach of promise. This is not just a case of not fulfilling a promise. This is actually going back on a promise and making conditions worse than they were when it was making the promises of pie in the sky.
The government deceived Canadians. It was one of the many frauds perpetrated on Canadians during the 1988 election. We are now seeing the government's true colours. It wants to slash, slash, slash. It wants to cut programs for Canadians. This is an indication of its desire to reduce Canada's social programs. If this bill is allowed to remain in place, it is known and it is stated by economists that, by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter, there will be no money available under EPF transfers.
That is the other thing Bill C-69 does. It blocks and reduces EPF transfers. By the year 2000, there will be none of these available. Funding for education and health care in Canada will have been abandoned to the provinces insofar as the federal government is concerned. The attitude will be, if the province wants to have these programs in place, the province is going to have to pay. There will no national standards, no national programs.
November 22, 1990

This is an abandonment and dereliction of duty and I call on the government to respond to the Court of Appeal by agreeing with it and withdrawing this bill before the other place at once.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I would like to place this matter in context. It is useful to restate two questions that the government of British Columbia placed before the Court of Appeal.
The first question was this. Has the Government of Canada any statutory prerogative or contractual authority to limit its obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan and its agreement with the government of British Columbia, dated March 23, 1967, to contribute 50 per cent of the cost to British Columbia of assistance and welfare services? That was the first question.
The second question was this. Do the terms of the agreement of March 23, 1967, between the two governments, the subsequent conduct of the Government of Canada pursuant to the agreement and the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan give rise to a legitimate expectation that the Government of Canada would introduce no bill into Parliament to limit its obligations under the agreement or the act without the consent of British Columbia?
The Court of Appeal answered the first question in the affirmative. The Government of Canada agrees, of course, that its obligations under the Canada Assistance Plan may be altered in the manner proposed in the February budget only by an amendment to the plan. That, of course, is the purpose of clause 2 of Bill C-69.
Adjournment Debate
With respect to the majority opinion of the Court of Appeal in response to question number two, that the consent of British Columbia to an amendment of the plan was required, the Minister of Justice indicated to the House last June 18 that the government would be appealing this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am pleased that that appeal has now been commenced. It will be heard December 11 and 12.
The Minister of Justice also indicated on June 18 that, pending the review and decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the views of the court of appeal on the Canada Assistance Plan legislation would be respected. That remains the position of the government.
It is evident that the appropriate course of action is not, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands suggested, to withdraw this bill. On the contrary, it is clearly in the interests of controlling the federal budgetary deficit that these portions of Bill C-69, unrelated to the Canada Assistance Plan litigation, be proceeded with expeditiously. That is the course of action that the government will be pursuing. It is wholly consistent with the position announced by the Minister of Justice on June 18.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), until 10 a.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 23, 1990