1991-11-05

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TABLING OF DOCUMENTS


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to table in the House, in both official languages, a disclosure statement on the expenses incurred in the performance of my duties as member of Parliament for Abitibi in July, August and September 1991.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.


Guy St-Julien: On a point of order, this refusal is considered to have come from the opposition, namely
the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As the hon. member knows very well, that is not a point of order.



BILL C-3 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

['I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but according to the rules, only the hon. member who moves the motion to adjourn under Standing Order 52 has the floor.\nI am ready to rule. I think the hon. member raises a very important question, but according to the rules of this House, I cannot today give a positive answer to his application.']
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee on Bill C-3 completed its deliberations yesterday.
In presenting its report, I would like to present four very brief compliments; first, to the Clerk and the research staff assigned to the committee. The briefing materials and summary that they prepared were excellent. Second, I would like to compliment the minister, the President of the Treasury Board, for his attendance and for addressing all concerns that were raised by the committee. Third, I compliment the chairman, the hon. member for Labrador, for his expeditious handling of the committee and finally, committee members from all three parties for the co-operative, constructive way that they filled their obligation.
On their behalf I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-3, an act respecting the acquisition, administration, disposition of real property by the Government of Canada, with one amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia from a number of communities which indicates their opposition to damming the

November 5, 1991
Routine Proceedings
North Thompson River at Valemount in an effort to divert the water into California.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, the residents primarily of Kamloops point out through their petition a whole variety of reasons for their support of the RCM Police.
The petitioners urge the government to continue with proper funding for the RCMP so that it is able to fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for most communities across British Columbia.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from many residents of Mississauga and other communities in the greater Toronto area dealing with the current problems in Croatia and Slovenia.
Clearly we all have our concerns about the Yugoslav army slaying innocent people of Croatian, Slovenian, Hungarian, Macedonian and Albanian backgrounds.
This petition calls upon Parliament to ask for justice for those responsible for these crimes against humanity, and to recognize without delay the independence of Slovenia and Croatia.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today.
The petition is signed by numerous residents of Inverary, Wolfe Island, Elginburg, Joyceville, Harrowsmith and Howe Island.
Many of these individuals are in the neighbouring riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox-Addington. A few are in Kingston and the Islands.
The petitioners are virtually all members of the farming community. They are seeking to uphold article XI of the GATT, and they call upon Parliament to instruct the government to hold the Canadian system up as an example to all the world, to protect it at all costs in the upcoming negotiations and indeed, to strengthen article XI of GATT so that the dairy industry in Canada may prosper.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from people in Preissac, Matagami, Val-d'Or, Amos, Malartic and Villemontel in Abitibi who say that the Canada Labour Code must respect the principles set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore is supposed to protect women's rights. They also say that preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is a desirable and necessary option for working women.
For these reasons, they humbly ask Parliament, when it reviews the Canada Labour Code, to consider seriously the deficiencies in it and to recognize the need to include in the code clauses concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am in receipt of a notice of a motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice this morning to the Speaker's office asking for an emergency debate on the situation in Yugoslavia. If I might, I would like to address the central question of urgency which is always the point upon which Your Honour has to make a decision.
The urgency is caused first by the situation in Yugoslavia itself, the deteriorating conditions, the loss of life, the destruction of an historic city, and the potential of the absorption of a whole region of Croatia by the Yugoslav army and by the Serbian state. That clearly is a condition that deteriorates day by day.
November 5, 1991

Second, we received information today that the United Nations is about to consider whether there should be a major trade embargo, particularly on the question of oil, which is to be debated at the United Nations within a matter of days. This would demand some kind of expression from the Canadian government and from the Canadian people as to how they would like to see our country participate and to ensure that we took a leadership role and were supportive of the application of those kinds of embargoes.
Third, I would point out that we have had no opportunity thus far in the proceedings of this House to debate Yugoslavia. There has been some discussion about trying to get a joint resolution but that has not come to fruition. We heard today by way of petition the real concern of many Canadians about the deteriorating situation and it can only be resolved by debate in this House.
This is a prime example of how Parliament must speak on behalf of the Canadian people on an issue that affects us all as international citizens. Mr. Speaker, I really would ask that you give serious consideration to giving parliamentarians an opportunity to speak on an issue that bothers us and is of such great concern to all Canadians.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the application by my colleague for consideration of this matter before the House of Commons. I have received many representations from my constituents about this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but according to the rules, only the hon. member who moves the motion to adjourn under Standing Order 52 has the floor.
I am ready to rule. I think the hon. member raises a very important question, but according to the rules of this House, I cannot today give a positive answer to his application.



POINT OF ORDER


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, last evening in the House a question was put by Your Honour to the House concerning a motion made by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for the extension of the hours of
Routine Proceedings
sitting. My learned friend from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell raised this issue last evening. I think Your Honour has reserved on it but I want to support the submissions that he made at that time because I think it was clear that the parliamentary secretary gained the floor on a point of order and got the question put on a point of order. It has been the invariable practice since I was elected to this House that such a motion could only be made by a member who had risen in debate on a speech, not on a question or comment, not on a point of order.
The question was put to the House and it was objected to of course by the requisite number of members and blocked. But in my submission, it ought not to have been put to the House. It appeared in Votes and Proceedings as a motion that had been put. No objection was made at the time and unfortunately I was not in the Chamber. I walked in as the members were rising in their places to object and was unable to be here to object more vigorously.
Since the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised the matter I did not stand.
I want to reinforce the point that it is most unusual for that motion to be put in that circumstance. I would ask that Your Honour review the practice very carefully because the invariable rule since I have been here is that only a member rising on debate could put the motion. For example, if a member of the-



SPEAKER'S RULING

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. For the sake of brevity, the question was raised yesterday evening by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell. After due consideration, the Chair is now ready to announce its decision.
I am willing to entertain further arguments, if you insist, but I think the case was clear from the start, and I admit that the request made yesterday by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was entirely legitimate. I was in the chair at the time, and I thought there was unanimous consent for the motion presented by the parliamentary secretary. However, it is true such motions may not be moved on a point of order, and I should not have allowed the motion at that time. I think the incident is now closed.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, I would like to know the Standing Order on which the ruling is based, that a motion such as that could not be put on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: To help the parliamentary secretary, I may refer him to the commentary on Standing Order 26 in the Annotated Standing Orders of the House, published by this House in 1989. In one of the paragraphs on page 67, we read as follows:
Such motions have been disallowed when moved on a point of
order.
There are many precedents in this House for disallowing these motions, as you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will read the Annotated Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am still willing to listen to what others members have to say, but I think the Chair has received ample clarification and that there is no lack of precedents in this respect, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I may refer the House to page 67 of the Annotated Standing Orders, French version, where it is clear the kind of motion presented yesterday was not in order. However, I am prepared to again recognize the parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: I do not want to take time from the House so it can get on with its business, but I do want to make this point. If one were to look at Standing Order 26(1), item (a), it would seem to me that it is fairly obvious, and if I just may read the relevant parts:
-the motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that proceedings in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this Standing Order;
In other words as I read that, the only way you could interrupt the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole would be by way of point of order. I would argue that in spite of the fact that you may have precedents not to move such a motion under a point of order, our own Standing Orders provide for that and we need to
re-examine those precedents. I think Standing Order 26(l)(a) states that it would be in order to do that in Committee of the Whole. It should therefore be in order to do it during regular debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member's comments will be part of the record and, if necessary, the Chair will provide further clarification. We shall now proceed to the orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36 and express the views of my constituents, because our penitentiary system is a very important issue in the riding of Kingston and the Islands. There are probably more penitentiaries in this riding than in any other riding in the country. There are also quite a few prisons near Kingston, for instance in the riding of Hastings-Fronte-nac-Lennox and Addington. I believe four are located right near Kingston. This means that many people in my riding are employed by the Solicitor General and Correctional Services Canada.

This bill represents an important change and a very important updating in the law that the minister introduced with great fanfare yesterday. We were told that this bill was part of a package of law and order legislation that the House would deal with this week.
November 5, 1991

Certainly the government's interest in this area is new-found. After seven years of inactivity it has decided that something needs to be done that Canadians have been crying out for for a considerable period. I am delighted that the government has finally decided to move after numerous studies, lots of consultation and a lot of foot dragging.
The minister in his speech yesterday spoke eloquently and in glowing terms about our justice system. I want to say that from my own experience as a member, I have visited all of the numerous penitentiaries. I think there are nine including maximum, medium and minimum security penitentiaries. There is a correctional staff college in Kingston. The Solicitor General's Ontario regional headquarters is located in Kingston. I have visited all these places and have had the opportunity to see first-hand the kind of services that are provided. These include those facilities that are operated by the National Parole Board in Kingston and grant parole, including day parole and day passes to inmates in various correctional facilities.
On the whole I have been extremely impressed with the quality of service that is provided by our penitentiary service. It appears from any fair and balanced observation that Canada is a leading country in the corrections field. We provide a very high quality of correctional service. I am not so sure it is the best in the world but it is certainly a very good one and measures well against any other correctional service. I think that the strengths of the service lie in the rehabilitation facilities that are offered, particularly in the minimum security institutions. I hope that in looking at the law and order legislation that the minister is bringing forward the rehabilitation of offenders will not be lost in the shuffle.
There are three basic principles that must guide any corrections service: first, protection of the public; second, the rehabilitation of offenders; and third, deterrence to others. There may be others but those are certainly three of the principal ones.
In the minister's speech yesterday and in the press releases that accompanied this bill on its introduction, he indicated that this bill represented a major change because it put protection of the public at the top of the list.
Frankly it was a bit of a specious argument on the part of the minister. I am surprised that he trumpeted this so
Government Orders
loudly. Of course protection of the public has been the primary concern of all the correctional facilities and institutions of this country since they were established. To suggest somehow that this law represents a major advance in terms of protection of the public is a bit thick.
I am glad that the minister is concerned. We are all concerned and to suggest that any member is not would be unfair. I think that the protection of the public is clearly the primary motive for penitentiaries in the first place and it is certainly one that we would fully support.
There are parts of this bill that my colleagues have indicated we will support. We do support the bill in principle.
The issue of rehabilitation of the offender is really extremely important because protection of the public does not just involve locking up. It involves making it safe for the public when the person is released. Inmates invariably get released and for the government to ignore the issue of rehabilitation is to ignore protection of the public. The two are very closely intertwined. We cannot have one without the other.
My fear is that the continual cutbacks in funding for penitentiaries that we have had under this government in all fields will be felt most keenly in the rehabilitation field.
Rehabilitation is vital for the protection of the public. It is vital for the citizens of our country who are locked up in the prisons. We must not forget that almost all of them are citizens of Canada. They will be out of these prisons eventually and we need to make them working, capable and diligent members of society upon their release.
We want them to take their place again in society and contribute to the benefit of our country. We do not want them to continue in a life of crime. We must create the atmosphere in prison where rehabilitation can work. We must offer the rehabilitative services that are so vital in terms of retraining. If we do not do these things then we are failing in a primary objective of corrections.
If we stress the protection of the public and the importance of incarceration, we will lose track of the importance of rehabilitation. That part of corrections is something that we in this party believe is very important and deserves more consideration than it is getting in the current debate.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
I am surprised to hear the minister say that the protection of the public is now paramount as though it had not been in the past. The thrust of his bill is to change the rules in part relating to parole. The bulk of the changes that he says will protect the public allow judges to keep an inmate incarcerated for a longer period by terms of his sentence so that the National Parole Board gets no jurisdiction to consider early release of a person in custody.
If that is the case what is the problem? Has the National Parole Board been too generous in allowing prisoners in our institutions to be released? I do not see much evidence of that. I do not see a lot of facts and figures brought forward by the minister to suggest that the National Parole Board has been playing fast and loose with the safety of Canadians.
The fact that inmates are entitled to be considered for parole does not guarantee that they will be released. If the minister feels that is a problem, I wish he would have brought forward some figures to back up this kind of contention. He did not make the statement directly but the suggestion is that the National Parole Board has somehow allowed too many inmates to be released.
I do not believe that is so. If it is, the changes have clearly taken place in the last seven years. Perhaps it is because the good members who were on the National Parole Board before the government took office were not reappointed. Maybe it is because it put too many of their own supporters on the National Parole Board and perhaps they were less than enthusiastic about keeping people in prison. I do not know. But if that is a problem, perhaps the minister should replace them with the people who were there before. It did not appear to have been a problem until 1984.


Mr. Dick:: I thought we were trying to be less partisan.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We are. If that is the kind of comment the minister is making, I would just point out that perhaps that is where the difficulty lies. The Minister of Supply and Services may disagree but he can make a speech in this debate too.
In my experience with the National Parole Board, I think it is extremely careful in its review of cases. It is extremely thorough in its review of cases. Admittedly there are problems. There are always some people who
are released who should not be released. Let us look at the system.
We are dealing with a group of men and women appointed to the National Parole Board who like us are not perfect. They make mistakes. We are also dealing with a group of men and women, mostly men, but some women, in the penitentiary system who apparently are not perfect either. They have been convicted of various crimes. Therefore the National Parole Board, in its interaction with these people, has to deal with a real variety of individuals. Its success rate, particularly on day paroles and arrangements for temporary absence, is extremely high.
Unfortunately the minister did not cite a lot of statistics to support the work of the National Parole Board. I wish he had done so because, in my view, by and large, it has been quite successful in the work it does.
Parole is very important in our system. It is a carrot that is held out to a person who is facing a lengthy period of time in an institution that can help induce a real desire for change. It is vital. If we do not have that kind of carrot, what is the incentive to the inmate to change his views or his ways or to try to improve his situation in life upon release? I suggest that there are not many carrots available and parole is one of the very good ones.
The change that allows victims to attend parole board hearings, where the chairman of the parole board so decides, is a very important, significant and good change. The minister is to be commended for that. Many other jurisdictions allow much more open hearings than Canada does. We should be moving toward more open hearings. This is a first step and I commend the minister for that effort.
If the system is as bad as he says it is, I wish the minister had beenmore clear. I wish he had stated figures to support his contentions but he did not. I suggest that the minister has fallen into a trap which has consumed many members and it is that we tend to criticize the system because of the mistakes that have been made which are so sensational.
There have been some serious mistakes and there will always be mistakes. That is a problem we cannot solve. To simply lock people up and throw away the key does not solve the problem of crime in Canada. After all,

most of the people who are in the institutions are not committing crimes. There are some committed within the walls of the institution of course but the crimes that are committed on the street are not committed by inmates. In my submission we ought not to be expanding our prisons at an enormous rate to hold more and more people. We need to attack the roots of crime to try to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. Unfortunately this bill does absolutely nothing in that regard.
There are two things the minister said to which I particularly want to draw attention. I have touched on one already. The first statement that was made is recorded at page 4429 of Hansard:
There is a very real and disturbing perception within society that
the balance is all wrong.
As Solicitor General, I wish the minister had done his best to convince society and this House that the balance is not all wrong. The person who is incarcerated does not lead the life of Riley. I have been to the institutions. I have toured them. I wish more Canadians could see the living conditions in some of the maximum security institutions, particularly in our country. It is not a piece of cake. Life in prison is not a pleasant experience. I do not think there is anyone in this House or anyone I know who would particularly enjoy being in one of those institutions. It is a far cry from a pleasant life, in spite of statements by people like Harold Ballard who said that he enjoyed his time in prison. I suggest that that was a specious comment. He did not. Had he been in a maximum security institutions he would have enjoyed it even less. That is the first thing and I think that we tend to forget that. We talk about the good food that people get and the fact that life is organized for them. That is true. But many of the strictures on their lives in prison, the long hours spent alone in cells, would not be a pleasant experience for many people.
Second, I think the minister might have pointed to the success rate of the parole system that we now have in Canada and the success rate of our prison system. They could be higher but by and large the system has worked reasonably well. It is unfair for the minister to suggest, without correcting the suggestion, that there is a perception that the system or the balance is all wrong.
Government Orders
In my view the minister should have said the system is not all that bad. We are seeking to improve it. There is room for improvement but we want to stress the strong points of the system too. They are there and the public should know about them.
I think there is a lack of boasting on the minister's part about the accomplishments of his department. I would hope that he would make more statements about the success stories that exist within Corrections Canada.
The second part of his remarks that I wanted to deal with is one that surprised me. The minister is usually very erudite and clear but there was a lot of obfuscation in his speech yesterday, particularly on page 6 of his notes. He talked about the possibility of having people eligible for parole at various times in their sentences.
It is a curious truth that sometimes sociely is better protected by moving certain offenders through the system and out of prison faster rather than leaving them behind bars where hope, job prospects and family support can fade away all too quickly. The rationale for doing this, while well supported as a rehabilitative measure, will also allow us to free up almost $1 billion which we spend each year to lock people up. By doing so we can place a greater emphasis on keeping the violent and dangerous offenders behind bars longer.
The plan is to move through the system more quickly those who have been convicted of property offences but not violent offences. Then the plan is to lock up drug offenders and violent offenders for longer periods.
Frankly I do not think there is going to be much of a saving. The minister suggests that somehow part of the $1 billion is going to be saved by moving these others through the system more quickly, yet in the same breath he says he is going to lock people up with longer minimum sentences and with longer dates before parole eligibility comes up. This really flies in the face of reason.
What he is doing is saying that he is going to save on one hand and spend with the other. What he should be doing is saying that we need to commit more funds to rehabilitation in our system however it is done.
Locking people up for longer periods in and of itself is not going to do that because it will drive up the costs of operating the penitentiary system which admittedly is a significant cost in this country. We need to find ways of doing it more efficiently and in a less expensive way per inmate but at the same time try to maintain a level of care and rehabilitative service that is reasonable in the

Government Orders
circumstances. As always in these matters there has to be a balance struck.
I wish the minister had been a little clearer on this point instead of trying to suggest in one paragraph that he was going to save Canadians money and in the other suggest that early release was just the thing for one group of offenders.
I agree with him. The early release may be appropriate in those circumstances. We will see. Experience will teach us something. But I suggest that he must have some figures and facts to back up his suggestions, and yet there were none presented in the course of his remarks yesterday. Nor were there any that I am aware of in the background papers that were distributed at the time of introduction of the bill.
To conclude, I want to say that I commend the government for its effort on this. I believe this bill can be carefully and usefully studied in committee. I see that the government has incorporated a change which I myself had proposed in a private member's bill to the Penitentiary Act. That is to allow access for members of Parliament, senators and judges to prisons. I see the government has hedged a bit by providing that it may make regulations governing the rights of those persons to visit institutions. I have concerns about that. The reason that I had put it back in the bill is because the government was seeking to regulate it too much and it was not in the bill. That particular provision needs rewording in my view.
The minister has indicated his willingness to consider amendments in committee. I hope that that is a serious commitment on his part. I hope he will consider amendments that are presented by the opposition in a reasonable light because we will have some amendments to move to this bill. By making changes at the committee stage we can improve the bill so that we end up with a correctional service in Canada of which we can all remain very proud.
He mentioned during his remarks that this bill does not do anything to attack the roots of crime. He also talked about the fact that we needed to educate our society as to what happens in these correctional institutions and make people more aware of just how our whole parole system works.
I wonder if he could give me his opinion on an idea that I have been thinking about for a while. It has to do with younger people. I think students in grade eight or high school should be exposed to a federal institution as part of the educational system. I do not mean where they come into contact with hardened criminals or even talk to them. The hon. member says that the condition is not very flattering.
Does the hon. member think that it could be a deterrent to crime if more of our youth in a supervised way were exposed to the conditions of some of these federal institutions? Does he think that is too harsh or too dramatic? I know in my particular riding there is a city jail. It is the old Don Valley jail. I know that when you drive by that institution and see the remnants of the old institution it is a pretty scary thought. I tend to think that if some of our younger people had an early taste of just what that institution is like from the inside and not just the outside that it might go a long way toward crime prevention.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood raises an interesting question. I am not an educator, so I feel a little apprehensive in answering his question directly.
I think he has suggested it is a good idea. I would agree it is a good idea but I would leave it to the teachers in class to decide what if anything pupils ought to be exposed to at that age. The place I would have in mind is Kingston penitentiary which I think was built in 1853. It is a very old institution. When you go inside you are well aware of that fact.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his remarks. Being a member who has nine federal institutions in his riding, he perhaps does have a better grasp on the complexity of this issue than most of us have.
The inmates that I have met with have complained in one of the ranges of having a racoon and rats in the range. Birds fly in the windows that are broken and open. I have been in the range. I have seen the windows in this condition. I know that it is like that. I am told it is being repaired.
November 5, 1991

It is not a pleasant place to be. Obviously with the cells being just bars, these animals are free to get right into the cell where the inmate happens to be. It is not a picnic being in these places.
I think young persons would be shocked to see what they would see if they were there. Whether it is worth exposing them to that kind of environment I am not sure. If more of the public could see what it is like, particularly in some of our older maximum security institutions, I think their view of prison life being some kind of picnic would radically change.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The government is proposing that victims be formally recognized. We have been pressing for some seven years now for victims to have a greater role in the criminal justice system. They seem to be all too often forgotten. The government is proposing that the victims be kept informed of an offender's prison and parole status if they request and information from victims be considered at a parole hearing.
At present, victims can only appear before a parole board hearing if the inmate consents. What the government is proposing is that the discretion should be in the hands of the National Parole Board. It should be up to the parole board to decide whether or not a victim or the families of a victim can attend.
Would he not agree that this should be taken one step further and that victims should have the automatic right to participate at parole board hearings, that all too often the victim's concerns are not addressed?
Yesterday I indicated to the House a case where one of my constituents was brutally raped. One day she went to the corner grocery store, paid her bills, turned around and there was the person who had been convicted of the rape. She was not informed of the person's release. There were no conditions attached to that person's release, for example ordering that person not to go back into the community where he committed the crime.
There have been a number of other very high profile cases where had the victim or the family of the victim
Government Orders
been in attendance certain tragedies might have been avoided. We know of the Melvin Stanton case, the Allan Sweeney case, the Joseph Fredricks case, the Daniel Gingras case, the George Foster case and numerous other cases where the absence of another perspective or another point of view at the parole board hearing could have avoided certain tragedies.
Can my friend comment on the role of victims in the parole system and would he not agree that victims should have the right in law to attend parole board hearings?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I listened yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to my learned and hon. friend's speech.
I think there are two issues here. The first is the right of the victims at the stage of the trial. I think the criminal law was amended not that long ago. I think it was about 15 or so years ago. I was practising law at the time. I recall that victims were allowed to make some kind of a submission to a judge in writing or something at that time. Occasionally a Crown Attorney will have a victim there and will invite comments from the victim at the time of sentence. It is not unheard of for that to happen in our criminal justice system. When was some change made in the law? I am sorry, but I am not familiar with the technical change.
In my view, it is entirely appropriate that at the stage of sentence, the victim have something to say about the disposition to be made in the case. Having done that, the question of parole becomes an issue of rehabilitation of the offender. That is what parole is for. It is not to continue to satisfy the need for revenge or the need for punishment. It is there to try to rehabilitate the offender as a useful member of society again.
The parole hearing, in my view, is a different thing. It is a professional assessment by professional parole officers of the offender's ability to rehabilitate himself in society and take a useful place there and whether or not the offender should be released on a temporary or part-time basis or into various living arrangements in society.
I agree that the victim may have something useful to say at that stage and that is why I think the government's proposal is a sound one, that victims should be able to go. As to whether they should have a right to attend, I am not sure. I can imagine there would be circumstances

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
where their attendance would be very disruptive to the hearing because of a continuing anger, if you like, on the part of the offender or on the part of the victim toward the other, an animosity that exists. I am not sure that having a right to attend is really going to further the cause of rehabilitation. It may, but it may not. Since the purpose of the parole hearing is rehabilitation, I am not convinced that the right is necessary. Where it is appropriate that the victim attend, the law allows it. The victim still has a right to make submissions under the law under this new bill to the chairman of the parole hearing and I think that is entirely appropriate.
The hon. member may be right in saying that there should be this absolute right. I am not absolutely convinced of it. Maybe I could be in committee, but I think we have a system that is worth trying. We should try this and see how it works. If it is successful, I would be in favour of expanding the rights beyond what are proposed in this legislation. However, I think it is important to remember that parole is not a second trial. It is a hearing for the purpose of seeking the rehabilitation and re-establishment of the offender in society. The offender is going to be released sooner or later. The question is when. The parole hearing is to determine whether or not the release should be done earlier, subject to conditions, so that there is some continued restraint imposed on the offender. That is the purpose of it, and I hope we can bear that in mind in looking at the two types of situations, the trial and the parole hearing.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. I just want to make a few short remarks on this because, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, this is a very complex issue for us in Toronto because we, of course, right now are facing crime statistics of such proportion and magnitude that people are afraid to walk the streets at night. In my own riding, just in the last week we had over 29 break and enters on one street in my riding on the Danforth which is a street of mainly merchants.
The police feel that they are not getting support from the system. Therefore, it is important that when we have a bill in the House like today on reforming the correctional system that we do not just push it through with a couple of speakers on each side of the House, but that we spend some time talking about it to see if we can put forward some amendments that will address tHBhese concerns.
I realize this is a complex issue. As my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said earlier today, life in a federal prison institution is not the life of Riley. It is a very tough existence. Of course, most people in urban centres feel that it should be a tough existence. They do not feel that this should be an easy kind of existence. There is a feeling in most urban centres today that our entire parole system is really not working. They feel that criminals are able to use the system as it exists now to their own advantage. They feel that the justice system has really broken down and they want radical reform.
In my particular riding there are parents of younger people who have in fact been sentenced to federal penitentiaries. They tell me stories about first-time offenders who are put into federal institutions with hardened criminals. We talk today about rehabilitation. It seems to me that it is very difficult to develop a program of rehabilitation when you have first-time offenders in with hardened criminals.
As we look at the reform of this piece of legislation, we should not be governed so much by the $6 billion cost that goes with running our federal institutions, but we should be paying attention to the fact that the system as it is operating right now is not working. With the over-crowding, first-time offenders with hardened criminals, maybe it is time that we build some new institutions where we take the process of rehabilitation in a much more serious way. We have situations right now in some of these federal institutions, and I hear this from people in my riding, that there are sometimes two to a cell, where the first-time offenders are exposed to all kinds of drug habits, that in fact there is no way that a person has a chance at getting solid rehabilitation.
The other thing, of course, is in the area of crimes of violence. There is a feeling right across the country today that those people who are convicted of crimes of violence and who are being paroled too early, without sufficient notice to police forces, are causing an even further breakdown in the system and the public's confidence in our correctional system.
When we take this bill back for amendments, before we have its final reading, we should come forward with something that is not only reasonable in terms of human rights within those institutions, but we must do something that puts a sense of confidence back into the people, mostly in urban areas, who are afraid right now to walk the streets at night. Merchants who are nervous
November 5, 1991

in terms of their own security because our basic parole system is not working.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: No, Mr. Speaker, the House is far from ready for the question on this one.
I agree with my friend, the minister, that we are having a hard time to get speakers. I held back for a moment, hoping that the hard time would get less hard and that some of the Conservative members over there would stand up. If they will not stand up, we will get up and speak for some of their constituents who are calling, even as we came through the lobby this morning. We will speak for them if they will not speak for them.
There are some things we cannot do, on behalf of the minister, who has all kinds of things to say on this issue from his bench but little from his feet. Will he tell us, for example, just why it is that at this particular time the government is cutting funds for Crime Prevention Week, cutting $2 million in funding?
We hear the strategy of the government: Speak to the bill. All right, let us speak to the bill.
What could be more germane, Mr. Speaker, than a missile from the government labelled "The Proposed Corrections and Conditional Release Act Highlights"? These are the government highlights, these are put out by the government.
The government says this is a highlight of this new bill before us. This is highlight number one: "Protection of the public will now be the paramount consideration in all decisions relating to the treatment and release of inmates".


Mr. Nicholson:: That's the kind of legislation Canada needs.


Roger Simmons: There is the gentleman from Niagara Falls struggling to make his maiden speech in this House. He was applauding and I applaud with him this sentence. I mean, can you get any more salutary? Is there anything more commendable than this first objective? "Protection of the public will now be the paramount consideration in all decisions relating to the treatment and release of
Government Orders
inmates." I am sure the member for Niagara Falls, when he gets up to speak in the debate-


John V. Nunziata: If he does.


Roger Simmons: -will explain to us the implicit contradiction in terms in that first highlight, that first statement. Listen to it one more time. In part it says: "protection of the public will now be the paramount consideration".
What has been their paramount consideration up till now, I want to know. Are they telling us they have discovered something new? Are they admitting in that first highlight that until now it has not been the paramount objective, that we need some new legislation? Good Lord, I would hope that any government worth its salt, any Parliament worthy of the name, would have long since made that the objective. That is the kind of drivel you get from this crowd. They are now going to rediscover motherhood.
The difficulty with this bill is not that there is a need for it. That is not the issue at all. In this House we cannot find anybody in any party in this Chamber or any Independent who sits in this House-and they are getting more by the minute almost around here-who would disagree that there ought to be updated legislation to ensure that the public is adequately protected on this matter. That is not the issue.
On this as on so many other issues that we could mention, whether it is free trade, foreign overfishing, unemployment insurance, the national railway system or any issue that we can connect to this government over the past seven years or this bill, the issue is the same. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. They are saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.
Yesterday in the late show debate on a fisheries question I had to go to early Roman history to make the point that I wanted to make. I found that there is a term in early Roman history, janus geminus. Geminus means two or twin. I know no Latin but I understand that janus means gate. The term janus geminus came into usage because it connoted a gate that looked in two directions, that had two faces. Hence the origin of the term two-facedness, looking in two opposite directions at one time. When they wanted to characterize that notion in a coin of the day, they characterized it in terms of head

Government Orders
with two faces looking in two completely opposite directions.
I went to the library yesterday and dug out the origin of this and some of the description. Yesterday in fun, but making a point hopefully at the same time, I was applying it to my good friend from St. John's West, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who had said in response to a question from me in October that anybody who was at all remotely connected with the fisheries would get help under the program, the fish aid program, and then the next week issued a directive cutting off at the knees everybody in the western and southwestern part of my riding making them ineligible just on the basis of where they live.
I used it strictly as an example of where the government does one thing and says another. The description, just in passing before I get back to the point I want to make here, of jams geminus was absolutely delightful because it said three things about jams geminus. Two of them can be said about this government and the other one can certainly be said about the gentleman from St. John's West. It said that jams geminus is characterized as normally having two faces, but sometimes having four faces and is sometimes depicted with a beard and moustache and sometimes without the moustache. The third certainly applies to the gentleman from St. John's West. The first two make this government a jams geminus particularly on this parole issue, on this parole legislation, because it says one thing and does another.
Let me give a clear example of what I am talking about. The few Conservatives over there who have been allowed to speak, the three who have been allowed to speak, their basic thesis is the following: first, this bill like everything else the government has done is the best thing since sliced bread. That is their first point. Their second point is: To wit, we are going to see to it that those dangerous criminals serve half their time. That is a nice objective. Nobody can argue with that except the criminals concerned I suppose.


Rob Nicholson: You are arguing.


Roger Simmons: The member for Niagara Falls is misleading the House.


An hon. member:: Come on.


Roger Simmons: We are not arguing that at all. If he were fair he would understand.


An hon. member:: You are holding it up.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, this nonsense from the member for-


An hon. member:: We have not had five hours of debate on this bill yet.


Roger Simmons: I would not want to interfere with what you are saying. My friend from Kingston and the Islands is making the point extremely well. The member for Niagara Falls over there is lamenting. His charge across the floor out of the camera's range, because he will not stand up in front of the camera, I tell his constituents including his several supporters down there-


An hon. member:: There are not many left.


Roger Simmons: He has blood relatives.


An hon. member:: They too are deserting.


Roger Simmons: The member for Niagara Falls is saying we are holding up this debate. I am sure he would want that on the public record, because that is what he said.
This bill has been in second reading for 24 hours already.


John V. Nunziata: Less than 24 hours.


Roger Simmons: I say to my friend from York South- Weston, our critic on this issue, that is the most indecent thing I have ever heard. You have actually held up a bill for nearly a full day?


John V. Nunziata: We have waited seven years.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, how dastardly can the member for York South-Weston be? He has actually been here as the critic for this bill and is allowing this thing to be held up for almost 24 hours. How agonizing. It is almost 24 hours.
We have to take out of that 24 hours a few hours for sleep. We stopped yesterday for an hour for Question Period. There were some Routine Proceedings and there was a late show last night which is another half hour or so. So it has not really been 24 hours.
I suppose in terms of debating time it has been more like three or four hours. We have had three or four hours of this genuine Niagara Falls-style filibustering where the gentleman from York South-Weston has been out
November 5, 1991

there fighting tooth and nail to hang it on. What is he holding down? He is holding down a bill, not exactly a Simpson's or a Canadian Tire leaflet but a bill yea thick. Let me see how many pages are in it.


John V. Nunziata: There are 125.


Roger Simmons: There are 125 pages. We have had three hours of debate on this, three agonizing hours of debate. We have heard from all of three Tories over there. The whole clique over there tells us its concern about protecting the public but it is not about to get up and say anything about its concern.
I use this and I take time to make this point to show how hypocritical, how two-faced that crowd can be whether it is talking protection of the public or gouging the public on taxes or anything else. They are two-faced. Janus geminus rides again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the hon. member for Niagara Falls rising on a point of order?


Rob Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought finally the member had exhausted himself and his comments. I thought it was time for questions and comments.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have to say something. I am going to say something, Sir, which will probably get me run out of this place. I watched this farce yesterday and I am not going to be a party to it today. That clown from Niagara Falls has not got the guts to make a speech, and when we are making a speech he gets up and you allow him to do so. You knew he had no point of order.


Rob Nicholson: Shame on you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As an experienced parliamentarian, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's should know he is getting into dangerous territory here. I would appreciate the hon. member's co-operation in maintaining decorum in this debate, and I am sure I can count on his support and co-operation. The hon. member has the floor.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my experience in this Chamber and the other one tells me that when a member rises on a point of order, if he does not state what his point of order is in the first sentence, he is not
Government Orders
permitted to use that point of order to abuse the rules of the House and try and make a cheap shot that he does not have the guts to make in debate.


An hon. member:: Sit down.


Roger Simmons: No, Mr. Speaker. The member for Niagara Falls may have instructions from his clique to sit down, but my people sent me here to stand up.


An hon. member:: Rubbish.


Roger Simmons: If he wants rubbish, I will give him some rubbish. I think we are hitting a few nerves.


An hon. member:: A testy bunch across the way.


An hon. member:: At 12 per cent in popular support, who would not be?


Roger Simmons: If they want some rubbish, I will give them some rubbish. I will give them some genuine, unmitigated rubbish.
The Tories say: "We want to keep those dangerous criminals in for at least half their sentence". What dangerous criminals? The ones who are not in for half their sentence. There are none of those, unless they are now saying they have no faith in the parole system and all the cronies they appointed to the parole board. The practice now is that dangerous criminals do not get out until they serve half their sentence. So, it is rubbish, just as he asked me for.
It is rubbish for them to suggest that this bill is going to change anything with respect to how long dangerous criminals are incarcerated. It is not only rubbish, it is a lie. They are deceiving the public. They could not get on bandwagons with free trade and everything else. Now they figure the latest sop to the public is that somehow they are going to protect them more.
God Almighty, the ones they need protection from most is not the guys in the jails but the guys over there. That is who the people of Canada need protection from.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I would urge him to be more moderate in his comments. I know I can count on his co-operation, but I think we are really borderline here.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, with respect, if you think I have been immoderate, you owe it to me to tell me in what particular. I now repeat what I just said. There are many laws. There is an administration of justice which sees to it that people who ought to be incarcerated are. That is one point I want to make.
Point number two, I said the people this country needs protection from the most are the Tories over there. That clique over there. Now, Sir, you may not believe that, but I want to say that 85 per cent of Canadian people do.
I repeat, Sir, if I have in the last few minutes said something that was immoderate, you owe it to me to tell me in specific terms what I said and then I owe it to you to withdraw what I said if it has been immoderate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: To be perfectly clear, the hon. member used the term lie, and that is why I asked him to apply some moderation.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I realize the term lie was unparliamentary. I withdraw that. I did not realize that you were referring to that particular term at the time. The allegation or the suggestion that this bill is going to change anything in terms of how long the dangerous criminal is incarcerated is just not true. It is an untruth. It is just not true. It is, as my friend said, garbage.
Now these people are incarcerated for at least half their time already but let us see what the bill states. The bill provides that the time of incarceration before parole would be altered, would be increased, but it gives discretion to the judge.
It is not automatic. It is a double deception, Mr. Speaker, to be out there saying that this bill is going to increase the time of incarceration. That is based on what the judge will do or, in most cases, what we would hope he would do.
This whole thing is an absolute scam on the public. It is an absolute scam what the government is pretending to be doing here. Do not let that comment be confused
with the reality, with the need to have adequate legislation to protect the public.
In committee we will deal with this. We have already said that because we support the stated objective of the bill, i.e. to see to it that the public is adequately protected and so on, we support the principle of the bill. Of course we do, and of course we will.
But we give notice and my colleague has already done so that there are many changes that we will seek in committee because while the objective is clearly stated, the way they go about it is extremely clumsy and a bit two-faced in a number of places.
I wish I had a little more time. I thank you for your indulgence, sir.


John V. Nunziata: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague has not completed his submission and I would seek unanimous consent of the House to allow my colleague to continue speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. Why would he first of all insist on using the sum of $2 million for the crime prevention week reductions when in fact the Solicitor General informed the House, and I am sure the hon. member's own party knows, that in fact the sum in question is $340,000. Why would he continue to insist upon using the sum of $2 million is one of the questions I have.
Why he would object to the fact that the programs started by the Solicitor General within crime prevention week have been so successful that now they are being carried on in the private sector and by non-profit groups? In view of that, why would he insist that the federal government continue to spend money when it is obviously no longer necessary?
I would also like to know this. The hon. member stated earlier that he and his party are not opposing this legislation but later on he said it was garbage. Well the hon. member should make up his mind. If the Liberal Party believes it is garbage, but they are supporting it, maybe he should make that clear. If they are not opposing the bill, then let us get on with it.
November 5, 1991

The other point the hon. member made on just that point was this: he said it had been debated for 24 hours, with a few hours for sleep.
Let me put it to him that yesterday at six o'clock the parliamentary secretary who sits in front of me put it to the House that we could have extended hours beyond six o'clock. The members of his party said no. I want to know if it is the case that the members of the Liberal Party all fall asleep after six o'clock? That is what he is saying. If he was prepared to debate, they should have debated. We were ready to sit here all night if necessary. You were in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and you will remember that. It was the hon. member's party members who started bleating and squealing that they could not stay here after six o'clock. Now he says that it is because they want a few hours sleep.
Is it the case that his party goes to sleep after 6 p.m.? I know they were asleep at the switch for 15 years when they ruled this country. I know that one for sure, but I did not know it was just after 6 p.m.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, that has to be-


An hon. member:: He doesn't have the guts to deliver a speech.


Roger Simmons: No. That has to be the most delightful intervention that you will ever witness in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. It demonstrated how wrong I was that the man can stand and put words together. It demonstrates that he is not completely muzzled over there and so I withdraw any inference that I made earlier.


An hon. member:: He is smarter than he looks.


Roger Simmons: It also demonstrates that he was listening to some things I said. Fourth, it demonstrates that he did not understand very much of what I said.
Yes, I used the term garbage. I responded to his invitation to spew some garbage and so I gave a genuine example of garbage. If he misconstrued it, thinking I meant the principle of the bill, he is wrong because I very clearly said two things. I said we support the principle that the public deserves protection and legislation ought to be updated accordingly. I said that very clearly as the last sentence before I sat down. I wanted to be clear that not only I but my colleagues in caucus support the principle of the bill.
Government Orders
What is garbage, and what I said was garbage, I am sure that unless he is being mischievous, he understands. What I said was garbage was the government pretending that this bill would keep the dangerous criminals in any longer than it is keeping them in right now. I demonstrated in the two examples, the one with the present situation where they serve half the time anyway. Just check individual stats and you will find that.
Then I gave a second example, where even under the new bill, it is up to the judiciary to decide whether that inmate will stay any longer. That is what is garbage. But he knows, he knows the distinction I made earlier and he is playing a little mischief. I do not mind that because if you sit here day after day with instructions to sit but not to stand, it must get pretty boring over there. Mr. Speaker, I understand.
He asked me first about the $2 million versus the $360,000. He may not trust the senior public service but I happen to trust the senior public service. Let me read a bit of information.
Solicitor General Department spokesman Claude Rochon said the decision to axe the $2 million in funding was made last February.
The $2 million in funding, which is the figure I used earlier, the member alleges was only $300,000. I would like to make two points. First, I submit that my figure was correct because I just quoted the spokesman in the department from whom I got that figure. Second, whether the figure is $300,000 or $2 million-and I submit the latter-the member has just made an interesting admission, that there has been a cut. He is the first person over on that side who will even admit that they have cut anything.
Finally, this nonsense about this latest crime of Liberals, that they sometimes actually get a few hours sleep a night. Well, my apologies, Mr. Speaker. We have had three hours of debate on this. We have waited seven years. If it is a serious piece of legislation requiring some thought and contemplation, why do we have to stay up all night and pour coffee into ourselves and pull our hair to keep awake so we can ram this thing through? We have waited seven years. The people whom it will affect and help can wait another 24 hours, another day or two.
That is not the issue. The issue is that the member for Niagara Falls is skating very badly, but he is skating. He is trying to cover up the fact that only three members,

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
including nobody from Alberta I noticed, on that side have even spoken on this bill. If he wants to know how long it is going to be going on, it is going to be going for awhile yet until we hear what their views are on the issue so I can tell his constituent who is calling me what he thinks because she cannot find out from him.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to thank my colleague for his submission. He makes a very important point. The government has been selling this bill. It has been looking for headlines that read: Government gets tough with violent offenders. That is the message the government is trying to get out to the public. My friend has pointed out that it is nothing but a public relations scam, that in effect this bill will not offer any further protection to the public than they already have.
Today inmates under existing legislation become eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of their term. They become eligible for full parole after serving one-third, but the reality is and the statistics show, as my friend has pointed out, that most violent offenders serve at least half. In any event judges will be given the discretion.
Would he not agree that if the government is truly serious about getting tough with violent offenders that it would eliminate mandatory supervision, which is not parole but is a process whereby violent offenders are released automatically after serving two-thirds of their sentence? Would he also not agree that it should be automatic that judicial discretion should be removed and that a person, by operation of law, should be required to serve say three-quarters of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York South-Weston and, of course, both points that he makes he will be making in committee and that is why he is the critic. He has led the caucus and has advised the caucus on what the pitfalls are in this particular bill. We will be supporting him and others who know this file much better than I do. We will be supporting those amendments in committee. I know we can count on men like the gentleman from Niagara Falls to see that his side also supports those amendments.
In the first part of his question, my colleague alluded to the real agenda here. It is unfortunate but it is true. This has so little to do with the protection of the public and of course it should. At that level it is a very serious debate but at the other level it is the cynicism that runs through this whole process, where the Tories cannot speak, ram it through and pretend that somehow we are now going to protect the public.
This bill, like every other initiative of this government, is the latest cynical attempt to do something on the backs of some people. It so happens now it is going to do it on the backs of the public it wants to protect and the people who, for reasons of sick minds or weak moments or whatever happened, are behind prison bars.
In other times the government was riding fishermen, in other times it was riding poor people, in other times it was riding already over-taxed people and today it is riding the public at large and the inmates and that is what this is all about, sad to say.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an occasion to talk on this bill but in more general terms on the issue of crime, the prevention of crime in particular, enforcement of sentencing and issues related to response to victims of crime.
I would like to put these in the context of admitting that this is not an area of expertise for me but that I do want to go on the record as expressing my very great concern about the fact that many Canadians, especially in our large cities, are growing increasingly concerned and anxious as they see rates of crime increase, as they see more frequent incidents of violent crime and as they begin to fear for their personal safety in the streets of our cities in Canada.
It is something Canadians have always taken a bit of a smug pleasure in, that our rates of crime and our incidents of violent crime were significantly less than those of our neighbours to the south. As we watch and see these incidents of violent crime increase and as the reporting of them on our nightly news becomes more and more extreme, the level of concern among our citizens is increasingly greatly.
It is very important that governments at all levels emphasize response to this rising trend of crime and assure our public that they can be safe in the streets of Canada.
November 5, 1991

The first thing that I would like to comment upon is that we need to focus in Canada, first of all, on crime prevention. The response to dealing with issues of sentencing should follow a focus on the necessity of preventing crime before it occurs, dealing with the causes of crime, dealing with educating people to avoid and to prevent crime. All of us I think share the concern about the government's cutting of the funding to the Prevention of Crime Week program. Whether it is $2 million as officials say, or $340,000 that the government has cut from this program, the point remains that prevention of crime is in part based upon education.
To suggest that the program, as the parliamentary secretary just did, is so successful that it has been taken over by other governments and therefore no longer needs to be funded by the federal government in the face of statistics that show the occurrence of crime is increasing in Canada does not make any sense at all. In fact, we need greater education toward the prevention of crime.
We also need to look at some of the other issues related to the occurrence of crime. It strikes me that perhaps the primary issue that we should be dealing with is that of poverty. It is indisputable I believe that the occurrence of poverty on a growing scale in our cities in Canada is directly linked to the occurrence of crime. The more that people despair the easier it is for them to justify taking the law into their own hands.
I think that the government's policies on the economic front that have contributed directly to the increasing disparity between rich and poor in Canada, the increasing frequency of very serious poverty problems in Canada, contributes to the occurrence of crime and needs to be part of the focus of any strategy. We do need a strategy to deal with the rise in crime statistics.
I would also like to say a few words about the bill in respect of how it deals with victims of crime. I think that it is common for many Canadians to express concern about the fact that so much of our system focuses on the perpetrators of crime and so little on the victims of crime.
There is a little element in this bill that attempts to give some additional support to victims of crime by enabling them to attend a parole hearing at the discretion of the parole board. I understand that currently the law permits victims of crime to attend the parole board
Government Orders
hearing only where the consent is obtained of the inmate.
While moving that discretion to the parole board is a move in the right direction, I would suggest that victims of crime, particularly victims of violent crime, ought to enjoy the right with no one's discretion at issue to appear before the parole board to make submissions at any time a perpetrator of a crime, an inmate, is up for parole consideration.
On the issue of delaying eligibility for full parole to a half of sentence, this seems to be again a move in the right direction, but one on which you have got to raise questions about whether it really achieves the result that is sought.
In a recent editorial in The Kingston Whig Standard by N. Kershaw, she points out that only one-third of federal prisoners are even released on parole. Those who are have on average served 50 per cent of their sentence. In other words, what the change in the law that is proposed is doing is simply recognizing the status quo by increasing to what is already the average sentence for those who are paroled to 50 per cent of the sentence.
This raises other broader questions though. I understand that the Law Reform Commission has done some work on these issues. The average Canadian is concerned that sentencing is relatively meaningless when the fact that one-third or one-half of a sentence is served is becoming so common place. The average Canadian thinks that the determination of sentence ought to be very closely linked to the amount of sentence that is actually served. After seven and a half years in power, surely the government is by now capable of dealing with some of these issues, of grappling with them. What we need to be addressing is the issue of whether our current sentencing procedures and time frames are adequate to the reality of dealing with the criminal justice system as it now stands.
One of the things that has always concerned me is the fact that sentencing, because of the discretionary nature of sentencing, often leads to widely divergent results in cases in which the facts are very similar, depending upon what judge happens to have jurisdiction over sentencing in a particular case. If our system of justice is to retain the respect which it deserves and which it should have, surely some consistency in sentencing between judges at

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
least, between regions, between sets of circumstances, should be the rule rather than the exception.
Part of the proposal that the government has included in this bill is delaying eligibility for full parole to one half of sentence, subject to judicial discretion, in other words, a further broadening of the discretion the judges may exercise in the question of sentencing.
Discretion number one, what level of sentence to require,and discretion number two, whether to impose the one-half of sentence requirement before parole can be granted.
I suggest that adding to the discretion of judges is a questionable policy where there already exists quite a large divergence in experience between sentencing as it occurs by judges in different courts in different communities.
The other point that I would like to raise is the issue of granting passes from prisons. The proposal is that the National Parole Board must approve passes for inmates serving mandatory life sentences or inmates convicted of violent offences, serious drug offences and sex offences against children. In addition, no unescorted passes will be allowed for those classified as maximum security inmates.
I would like to indicate that these changes meet some of the concerns that exist in incidents that have been generally reported in the media. Serious offenders are able to enjoy golf at federal taxpayer expense, they are able to visit local malls on their birthdays, despite the fact that they are serving sentences for having committed serious crimes. The raising of the discretion from the warden to the National Parole Board should be seen as a move in the right direction to addressing concerns that are raised about day passes.
In conclusion, I would like to refer again to the editorial from The Kingston Whig Standard in which the executive director of the John Howard Society of Ontario, Graham Stewart, is quoted as saying: "It is very difficult to see how the changes will actually make any difference to the amount of time served". Mr. Stewart goes on to say: "There is not a shred of initiative in these
proposals that is going to reduce the risk to the community one iota".
I suppose every community in Canada has faced the problem of crimes resulting from people who have been released on parole, people who are on day passes, and so on. Ottawa is no exception. We have had some very well publicized cases, very tragic cases, along those lines.
When I look at this legislation, what worries me is that it is an attempt by a government that has had many years to come to grips with essential problems in our criminal justice system, to do so in a very ad hoc way, without the kind of broad based reform that is essential, so that it can put together one page of its campaign for re-election that says: "Look what we have done to address the issue of crime". I said at the beginning that I am no expert in this area of the law, but I am very concerned about issues of crime and justice because those in a way are the essential issues of any liberal democracy.
The fact that people are afraid to walk on the streets of our major cities ought to be something that preoccupies each member of the House of Commons on a daily basis. It is not acceptable and it should not be the case.
To come forward with a package of ad hoc reforms so that the Solicitor General can appear on The Nation's Business and talk about what he is doing to address the concerns of crime is just not good enough. I applaud our critic, the member for York South-Weston, for the initiatives he has taken on this bill. I think we are right to support it. Any improvement is worth supporting. It just does not go far enough. It just does not come soon enough and it does not address the need for comprehensive reform that so many Canadians have recognized and are calling for.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very timely submissions. I know that his constituents are as concerned as mine are about crime and safety in the streets.
I know that in the Ottawa area the concern was highlighted during the Celia Ruygrok incident several years ago. An individual by the name of Alan Sweeney was paroled to a half-way house here in the Ottawa area. He had been serving time for a 1975 mutilation murder of a woman. It was later shown that he manipulated the system. He was released to a half-way house where he brutally murdered a young woman by the name of Celia
November 5, 1991

Ruygrok. I know that the Ruygrok family has participated and has been urging the government to bring in amendments.
I recall the Ruygrok family coming before the justice committee a number of years ago pleading with the committee to do something. In fact, the committee did put together a rather extensive report entitled Taking Responsibility. I was part of that committee. We travelled the country and came up with 97 recommendations. This particular report has been sitting on the shelf for the last three years and the government has not taken any action whatsoever. Now that they are at 12 per cent in public opinion, now that they are a desperate government, a desperate political party, they have decided to take some action or introduce some legislation. But it is all smoke and mirrors.
We have not only had the Sweeney case but a number of other high profile cases that have caused the public to be that much more concerned about their security and the security of their families.
In my community in the Toronto area, there was a fellow by the name of Melvin Stanton. He was a three time rapist and was convicted of killing a 14-year old girl. That was his crime. He was sent to a federal penitentiary and then in 1988, he was given a 48-hour unescorted pass, unescorted. "You are free my friend. Go take a drive down Yonge Street. Go into whatever bar you want to go into. We know you are serving a life sentence for murdering a 14-year old girl, but here is an unescorted pass from Kingston Penitentiary''. He was booked into a Toronto half-way house. I am surprised, given the circumstances, they did not book him in at the Royal York or the Hilton in downtown Toronto. I do not make light of the situation.
He then proceeded to kill a young woman by the name of Tema Conter. It is the Ruygrok, the Conter, the Fredricks cases and the Gingras cases that my friend referred to, where he was given a pass to go to the West Edmonton Mall to celebrate his birthday, and the George Foster case in British Columbia that caused the public to throw their arms up and say: "What is this government doing? Has it not learned its lessons?"
Government Orders
I would like my friend to comment on the impact that the Ruygrok case had on the Ottawa community. I know it was a national story. In particular, a lot of people in the Ottawa area were especially touched by this particular incident. I know he may have had dealings with the family of that particular victim.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for those comments because I think they bring into relief exactly the concerns that many of our constituents have. There is a suspicion that this system has somehow crumbled around them and that they are living in peril as a result of it.
The Ruygrok case was very well known in the national capital area. My friend is right. I know the victim's father. I have met with him on numerous occasions. He has in many ways committed much of his time to issues of criminal justice reform, both in areas of parole as well as firearms control. His dedication is very apparent to anyone who meets him.
The Celia Ruygrok case was made that much more tragic by virtue of the fact that the victim was a very highly motivated and dedicated young woman who was a student of criminology. She had undertaken work on behalf of the John Howard Society in the context of a half-way house. She was tragically and uselessly murdered while she was the sole person on duty in the house by this character who should never have been released from prison on parole at all. I think in retrospect it is easy to say he should not have been released.
That does a number of things to a community. First of all, it raises these underlying concerns about whether there is integrity in the system or whether the system has somehow run amok, allowing people who are genuinely and clearly dangerous out and about on the streets in vast numbers. I suspect that is not true but I think the perception is that there are a lot of people out there. It does not take a lot of people. It only takes a few like Sweeney to cause people to have continuing fear and lack of trust in the system.
The other thing that it does is to create a great deal of intolerance on the part of the public as to the real motives behind our justice system. These are only partial deterrents but they include the need to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes including violent crimes. The result of a case like the Celia Ruygrok case

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
is that people become very intolerant of efforts to rehabilitate. What that imposes on the parole and justice system is an obligation to exercise very great care that the rehabilitation objectives are not undermined by incidents such as that one where gross and violent crimes are committed.
I noticed in the proposal that the government now wants to make the protection of the public the paramount consideration of all decisions relating to treatment and release of inmates. I should have thought that in the case of violent criminals the protection of the public should always be and should always have been the paramount concern.
What we do with people who have committed violent crimes has got to be seen by all members of the public as addressing their fundamental right to safety in public places and in their homes in Canada. We engage in talk in this country day in and day out about rights and privileges and whose rights are being transgressed. After everything, the fundamental right should be the safety of the person in the home and in public areas.
I hope that we can move toward reforms that give Canadians much greater assurance that indeed that priority is being enforced.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to now ask about the role of victims in the criminal justice system.
My colleague from the Hamilton area will be speaking a little later in the debate and she will be talking about one particular case. I would like to just comment briefly on the Pollington case and the John Rallo case.
A couple approached me about the Pollington case a year ago. Their daughter and their two grandchildren were murdered by their son-in-law. This was about 14 years ago. The person to this day does not admit to the murders. He has not assisted the police or the family to locate the body of the second child. Yet this person was granted day passes into the Hamilton area so there is a chance that this family will come face to face with this individual who was given a life sentence.
This family has been told that they cannot participate as a matter of right at any National Parole Board hearing. This individual is John Rallo. He will be eligible
for judicial review next year after serving 15 years of his sentence. This means that even though he was given a life sentence for the murder of his wife and two children he will have the opportunity to have a judge and a jury decide whether his parole eligibility should be reduced to 15 years. The Pollington family has been told that they have no right whatsoever to attend that hearing in order to make submissions.
I would like to ask my friend whether he agrees that families of victims should be given the right to attend National Parole Board hearings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.


John Paul Manley: Surely now I can reply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend the period of questions and comments?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.
Before resuming debate, I want to inform the House that the first five hours of the debate have now expired and the time for speeches is a maximum of 10 minutes.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think I must have misunderstood because I cannot believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General would inhibit me from making a brief comment in response. I think he was saying that I had consent. I would just like to clarify that indeed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada does not want me to respond to that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I heard a no. I cannot see the entire House at once. However, when seeking unanimous consent, if the Speaker hears a no, he must conclude there is no unanimous consent. I cannot see the entire House at the same time. I heard a no in the House, and that is why I could not assume there was unanimous consent.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that the proposed corrections and conditional releases act has taken seven long years for this government to bring forward. It has talked about it. It wants to be on top of the heap, running down the road, waving the flag and trying to make Canadians believe that they are the greatest law-abiding citizens and putting laws into place that are going to be tough for criminals and so on. It has waited seven years to bring this important piece of legislation before the House.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has the gall to stand up in this House today and berate Liberals for not wanting to debate this bill last night. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice should not believe at this stage in his political career that the loudness of his voice makes up for the lack of rationale in his argument.


An hon. member:: Let's get on with it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He wants to get on with it because he does not want to hear about his own comments. He did not want to allow my friend for Ottawa South to comment either because the government does not want to hear those answers.
This bill is such weak medicine that none of the law and order abiding MPs on the government side from western Canada and various parts of this country are speaking on it at all. One can only assume that they are thoroughly disgusted with the content of this bill. They are not trying to sell it so they must be fed up with it.
The government wants headlines to prove that they are trying to be tough when in practice their actions make them look like a bunch of pussycats.
There is one thing that I find to be really revolting about this bill. It does zero in a great deal on the parole board operations. For the first time victims of crime will be formally recognized in the federal corrections and parole processes. For example, victims will be kept informed of an offender's prison and parole status if they request. That is natural. There is nothing tough about
Government Orders
that. It is just plain common sense that they should be kept informed.
Information from victims can be considered at a parole hearing. It should be mandatory that information from victims be heard at a parole hearing. Where are the rights of the victims? I have sat here and heard this government over many years talk about the rights of the victim. Now it comes forward after seven years with a piece of legislation that can only be compared with an elephant giving birth to a mouse because of its intent and its content.
Another part that I find really revolting about this legislation is that the victims can attend a parole hearing at the discretion of the parole board rather than at the discretion of the victim. Again I ask this government, where is their big argument about the rights of the victim? The victim should automatically be allowed to appear before the parole board. Who is calling the shots? Is it the criminal in prison or the person who has been the victim of crime?
Another point says that judges will be able to lengthen the time that violent offenders andserious drug offenders spend in prison by delaying eligibility for full parole to one-half of the sentence. This provision is called "judicial determination". In other words, it is at the discretion of the judge.
Many other people have made the point that while they could be considered for parole after serving one-third of their sentence, they had usually served one-half of their sentence anyway by the time everything was settled. So there is no change here in practice. The government is simply putting into law something that has already existed in practice for a long time. Then it calls that progress.
They should be automatically made to serve one-half of their sentence and it should not be left to the discretion of the judge. If one is going to be tough, then put the law into practice. Sometimes they serve that half of their sentence before the hearing even comes before the parole board.
Under existing law violent offenders who are considered at high risk to commit new violent crimes if released may be kept in prison for their entire sentence. Serious drug offences and sex offences against children will be

Government Orders
added to this category. That is common sense. Why would we not do that? There is no great revolutionary concept in that at all. It is something like Bill C-30 which we debated in this House a while back and will be again. It is still before the House. In that bill people who were declared innocent because of insanity were categorized into those who were safe to be let out on to the streets and those who were not.
This legislation was brought in because the Supreme Court of Canada told the Government of Canada that it only had six months to bring it in because of the charter conditions.
The government did not have it done in six months. It has now asked for an extension of time and has been granted it. This is another case where this government talks a lot about its actions and yet is dragging its feet.
It has taken seven years to bring Bill C-36 forward. It took more than the six months allowed to it by the Supreme Court to bring in Bill C-30.
Correctional resources in this bill will now be focused on violent criminals by streamlining the parole process for first-time offenders convicted of non-violent crimes. If these inmates are considered unlikely to commit a crime they will be eligible for release at one-third of the sentence. That is the existing practice. There is no change there.
What is the big deal? These offenders will remain under supervision in the community until their sentence is complete. This provision is called the accelerated review.
On the business of cutting funding for crime prevention week this is the week for crime prevention. It is an attempt. It is also a privilege or a chance for the law enforcement agencies of the country to relate to the public at large and to carry on a conversation and communication with communities right across the country to talk about crime solving and to make people aware of the types of crimes that are going on.
It is to make them aware of what is being attempted to prevent crime in the streets, to get the public behind the law enforcement agencies of this country, to tackle the problems of the street warfare that is going on and the fact that our streets are becoming unsafe for people to walk around at night.
The government has cut the funding for this crime prevention week program. That is the kind of backing it is giving to the law enforcement agencies of this country. It is saying that this is no longer necessary. Its excuse is that other levels of government have taken a greater interest in it.
We are in the Parliament of Canada here. It is the duty, the responsibility and the necessity for the federal Government of Canada to be the leader in solving crimes in the nation, to make our streets safe in the nation. It is the federal government that must deal with the international relationships around the world that are causing problems with crime in Canada through drug trade and so on.
The Government of Canada is neglecting to give the law enforcement agencies of this country the chance to relate to the general public and get their support behind them to try to enforce the laws that are already on the books to make the streets safe for Canadians.
We do not want to have our streets Americanized. We have seen enough of that. We want this nation to remain safe for people and it is only going to do that if the government shows its muscle. It has to show that it is going to enforce the law and it is going to support its law enforcement agencies across the country, particularly when they are dealing with the international community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is a five-minute question and comment period.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who last spoke a question. He accused the government of being a pussycat in this. He said: "The actions sure make the government look like pussycats".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no question or comment now. That was only for a maximum of ten minutes.


Mr. Kaplan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on a point of order. Perhaps we could have unanimous consent for some questions on the interesting point raised earlier by my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member asks if there is unanimous consent for a period of questions and comments.
November 5, 1991

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There is no unanimous consent.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make some comments on this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation for Canadians and I think it is one that most Canadians, certainly the people I represent, will be very interested in. It changes the eligibility for day parole. A person was eligible for day parole after one-sixth of the sentence had been served. That has been changed to six months prior to the eligibility for full parole. One of its important provisions for violent offenders is moving the parole date from one-third to one-half.
All these are good measures. The reason that government members have not been on their feet today is that they want this bill to progress and go to committee. Obviously there are those who have some problems with that for their own reasons.
Last night as you know it was impossible to get the members of the Liberal Party for whatever reasons to sit beyond six o'clock. I am now going to give them the opportunity to sit through lunch as well.
I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the
purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-36, an act respecting
corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders
and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I heard clearly there was no unanimous consent.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the parliamentary secretary was intending to continue his speech. We are down to 10-minute turns and I am very glad to have even a brief opportunity to speak on the bill.
I would like to pick up where my colleague left off but I want also to reinforce the general theme from our side. There is enough critical analysis of it to back us up as members of the opposition on this. This is nothing more than a public relations gesture coming seven years after a government promise to get tough on crime with a measure which will give them a point for campaign literature-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but I made a mistake just a minute ago. The hon. member does not need unanimous consent to table his motion. I have no choice but to put the question before the House.
The hon. parliamentary secretary moved:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the
purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-36, an act respecting
corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders
and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator.
Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to get clarification of House business.
We are ready to proceed with gun control. All parties are supporting this bill. I am not quite sure what we are doing in this House. Perhaps the Liberal critic or the Whip could give us some idea as to how-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is not up to the
Chair to determine the business of the House. Since this morning, we have been considering Bill C-36, and the Chair has no authority to end the debate.
The House has just adopted a motion to continue sitting during lunch time.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders


John V. Nunziata: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The NDP critic has made a comment and I would appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The NDP and the Conservatives have chosen not to participate in this debate-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I would appreciate the co-operation of both sides of the House. I think the situation is quite clear and that we are still on Bill C-36.


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, when you asked members opposed to the motion to rise, I asked my colleague here who belongs to the New Democratic Party whether it was about objecting to sitting during lunch time. My colleague said no, so I did not rise. I am sorry but I wanted to vote, and I wanted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I took the trouble to read the motion very slowly, so that all members of this House would understand what the motion was about.
I understand the hon. member's position, but the House has spoken, and I cannot reverse a decision made by the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, before I take the floor, I would like to know whether all this arguing will be deducted from my speaking time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I can assure the hon. member that he will have his full 10 minutes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in that case I would like to say that for the opposition it is not a matter of objecting to a bill like this one which provides so little. We want to take this opportunity to make it clear to Canadians that for a government that for seven years has been promising Canadians it would tighten up the judicial system, it has actually done very little.
In fact, many comments from non-partisan sources imply that nothing will change and that no major changes will be made as a result of the bill before the House.

We cannot support the bill without making it clear to the Government of Canada how much we object to their failure to deal with serious problems within the criminal justice system of our country.
When I was Solicitor General I had the honour to propose and sponsor the first crime prevention week in Canada. I watched the program grow during our administration to make a very worth-while contribution to reducing the amount of crime in Canadian society.
I was also the first Solicitor General to devote funds to support victims. I called for the first victims' conference which took place-I still remember all of it very well-in the Park Plaza Hotel in the city of Toronto in 1980.
From that event a tremendous amount of understanding developed of the plight of the victim in the criminal justice system. This bill makes a very small addition to the measures we previously had to bring victims to a sense of justice in the development of the criminal justice system. I am not going to focus on the shortcomings and the smoke and mirrors that are contained in this bill. I have something much more important to say about what it is that the government is trying to do with this bill.
It is trying to make this small package of very little look like a method of fighting crime and reducing the amount of crime in Canadian society. While this bill may reduce some victimization that would otherwise take place without this bill, of all of those who are accused of crimes in Canada less than 2 per cent end up in federal penitentiaries. When they are released the great majority of that 2 per cent do not reoffend, whether they are on parole or not.
If the government wants Canadians to think that this is a measure that is going to do something about crime, I want people to realize that this bill does very little. This government has done very little in areas where we can

November 5, 1991

make great strides in reducing the amount of crime in Canadian society. In fact it has moved in a retrograde direction.
I want to talk about crime prevention week not only because I was its sponsor. It focuses on an area and on a series of techniques and programs which really do reduce the amount of victimization in Canadian society in a very measurable and remarkable way that does not always involve police action. In fact I want to talk about crime prevention measures which may not even have occurred to this Solicitor General or to his parliamentary secretary. They are measures that really do address the aberration in society which leads to crime. The government's focus is on that very small percentage of 2 per cent of those who run afoul of the criminal justice system.
Crime prevention week focused on such programs as neighbourhood watch which keeps track of households when families are away from them. It focused on many other programs and drew on volunteer participation. It is now going to be abandoned by this federal government because it says other levels of government can take it over now.
I want to make the point that this is just another example of our national government, the Mulroney government, abandoning an area of authority and responsibility that Canadians want to be very involved in.
When you ask Canadians what is special about Canada, they talk about some of our social programs, our safety net and so on but they also talk about the relatively low level of crime that we have known historically compared to other countries. That is changing and this bill is not going to reverse the trend, I can tell you that.
I think Canadians are proud of the low levels of crime in this country and they want their federal government to be identified with that. It is a national value in this country that we have historically kept crime at low levels. To hear the federal government say: "The provinces are happy to take this program over. We have no business doing it", is just one of the reasons why this country is in jeopardy. It is because we are not reinforcing our national strengths. We are not seeing the national resources used to preserve and strengthen the things that the Canadian people believe in.
Government Orders
The most successful crime prevention program in the history of the world-I would love to be able to say it is one that I introduced but it was not- is day care. I want members of the House to realize what an enormous opportunity was lost when this government broke its promise to deliver a day care program in this country based on need. The reason I can make such a dramatic statement about the impact that day care has on crime is because in the United States of America during President Johnson's administration, which in many ways does not get the recognition that it deserves, one of the so-called great society programs was Head Start. This program was begun in the early 1960s and it lasted for seven or eight years. It was offered in almost every population centre in the United States. Thousands and thousands of young people, many of them living in substandard living conditions, were brought into programs where they were given the opportunity to develop.
What is interesting about this program and why I mention it now is that the oldest of these young people are 35 and 36 years old. Important longitudinal studies have been made of these people who went through the program, tens of thousands of them all around the United States, comparing them to people who lived in similar circumstances but did not have the benefit of the Head Start program. There are enormous differences between Head Start young people and those deprived of that program in the amount of criminal activity in which they engage and the amount of all forms of deviant behaviour they contribute to: alcoholism, chronic joblessness, drug addiction, and more relevant to today, crime. The differences between that group of young Americans and the others is so categorically demonstrated that it is time for the government to recognize that crime prevention and fighting crime through crime prevention is infinitely more significant and also considerably less expensive than the kind of measures that are being proposed today.
This bill is barely worth having. It is being presented to the Canadian people as a way of dealing with crime but experts doubt it will make much of a difference. The program on which the government promised action and on which it broke its promises is a program which would really have worked to reduce the amount of crime in Canadian society.


Mr. Thacker:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
I think my friend opposite who served the country as the Solicitor General and served well would perhaps want to correct the record. He said that the government backed down on its promise of day care but, as I recall, there was a bill and it was defeated in the Senate by the Liberal majority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no question or comment now in the debate.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to speak about this issue today. I am not a lawyer and I am not an expert on the Criminal Code but I spent the summer canvassing in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. In at least every second house that I approached the mothers and fathers were concerned about the safety of their children. The husbands were concerned about the safety of their wives. They are all afraid to go anywhere now. They are afraid to walk out on the street in the daytime, let alone at night.
My concern and that of people right across Canada, particularly in the Hamilton-Burlington area, was highlighted by the murder a few months ago of Nina DeVilliers. Nina's senseless murder shocked the community. Her parents, Priscilla and Rocco DeVilliers, were very surprised by the overwhelming support they received after the death of their daughter. It was from right across the country. It was from every walk of life. It was from people whose own children, husband or wife were murdered in the last few months. Mrs. DeVilliers felt that she wanted to do something that would focus on the feelings of the people who had written to her. She did not want to just leave it at that so she approached me about writing up a petition for her. I worked with the DeVilliers' criminal lawyer and the clerk of petitions to write up a petition which has now gone right across the country.
I would like to read this petition to the House for the members who have not seen it, although it has gone to all the offices of every member twice. Many of you are being asked to have this petition in your constituency offices and to allow people to have copies to take out and get signed. Many of you have co-operated. I can assure you that the people who are getting back to me and Mrs. DeVilliers are very pleased when a member makes this petition available.
I will read the petition now:
We the undersigned residents of Canada in support of the parents of Nina DeVilliers draw the attention of the House to the following:
That the murder of Nina DeVilliers on the 9th August 1991, has exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk;
That crimes of violence against a person are intolerable and constitute the most abhorrent crimes society faces;
That current criminal law does not require bail hearings in crimes of violence to be presided over by judges;
That current criminal law may require only a simple signature on a document with no money actually posted as surety for the release of accused perpetrators of crimes of violence;
That current criminal law does not hold agents of the Crown directly accountable to the public for their actions or admissions in permitting known offenders and accused with violent backgrounds to be free or in failing to seek orders prohibiting possession of weapons;
That sentencing in crimes of violence does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence to violence in order to act as a true deterrent and to protect the public by removal of the offender from society;
That the risk to society posed by the early release of a violent offender appears to be of secondary consideration to the rights of the individual criminal;
That the statutes governing the criminal justice system in Canada must be revised to reflect society's attitudes.
Therefore petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and they request the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
There are thousands of these petitions out across Canada, there are thousands that have come back to my office and there are hundreds of thousands of signatures on these petitions.
They are not from lawyers, they are from people in society. There is a lady from Dundas, Ontario who has collected over 5,000 signatures. They are from universities and church groups. There are people right across Canada who want to sign this petition to show their concern to this government. They are very, very concerned about the weakness of our criminal code.
It is really too bad that this government took seven years to bring in the changes they are presenting to the Parole Act. Of course these changes do not go far
November 5, 1991

enough. We need comprehensive reform of the Criminal Code including the Bail Act.
Canadians understand that it is their fundamental right to safety of the individual. I hope this government will make as many changes as are necessary to give us back our safety.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I will not take very long.
I am not sure but I suspect there is the possibility that the debate on this bill will complete before two o'clock. Even though we have an order to extend hours on this bill, I am wondering if members on all sides of the House might not agree after the completion of this debate and the demanding of the vote, that Bill C-17be called solely for the purpose of hearing the Speaker's ruling on the amendments and the grouping of the amendments to that particular bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on Bill C-36. It is on people's minds now because there has been an increase in crime including violent crime in places like Toronto.
This bill is not dealing with the whole question of crime though there is an argument that we should be doing that. However that is not actually the subject of the bill. The bill deals with violent criminal offenders.
This legislation would increase the length of time or the length of a sentence that such an offender would be required to spend in prison. It would increase the length of time from one-third of his sentence to one-half of his sentence. It would also add to the list of violent offenders certain new categories such as those who sexually molest children, arsonists and dangerous drug offenders. That means those who are serious ringleaders or kingpins in the drug industry.
The legislation would also improve the flow of information from the sentencing judge to the parole board so that the parole board would be aware of the facts about
Government Orders
the history of the offender whose sentence they are considering.
As has been pointed out I think that all sides of the House are in favour of this bill.


An hon. member:: In principle.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The hon. member has said "in principle" and that means of course exactly what we are voting on at second reading, approval in principle. When it goes to committee then of course there will be discussion of details with the possibility of amendments.
This is not the time to talk about possible amendments. However I am concerned with the context of this bill, partly in the sense that has been mentioned by some previous speakers that this bill was a long time coming. But my main concern is that it could be taken, although it is not necessarily so intended, to suggest that more police, more convictions, more jails and more time in jail are the solutions to crime.
The increase in crime is not entirely an accident or a coincidence in our time. The increase in crime happens to come at a time of unemployment in the city of Toronto for example such as we have not had for decades. I am not just talking about high unemployment, but longterm unemployment. I have talked to people who have been hunting for jobs for two years. I do not mean sitting at home waiting for a job to come. I mean out there knocking on doors or telephoning in response to advertisements for two years.
That can do some damage to a person's spirit. I am not suggesting and nobody in this House is suggesting that it justifies the commission of a crime, whether it is a violent one or a non-violent one. What I am saying is that when we are concerned about an increase in crime we should examine the kind of things that contribute to the breakdown of a human spirit to the point where a person may-not everybody does-be more likely to commit a crime including possibly a violent crime.
For that reason I want to remind the government and the listening public including my city of Toronto that there are other things that are needed in order to address the apparent rising rate of crime. One is closely related to this although it is not part of the subject matter of the bill. It is the fact that by passing this law we

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
can ensure that certain prisoners will stay in prison longer than they did before. But they will come out, they will come out. We might give ourselves a bit of a breathing space before they come out. If we do not do anything useful with that breathing space it is not likely they will be any less dangerous when they do come out. If they are too dangerous to let out now and they stay in prison for months or years longer, we have no guarantee that they will be less dangerous. It is at least equally possible they might be more dangerous when they come out because prison is often called a school of crime, in whatever sense that may be meant.
Unless the time in prison is used for rehabilitation then it is likely that all we are doing is postponing the danger to the public that we would like to prevent or to reduce. That requires staff work.
I have read from time to time in the papers about some repeat violent offender who had received no kind of treatment for the nature of his previous offence while he was in prison. I am speaking mainly of men. He had received no treatment. There was not enough appropriate staff. There were no facilities and so on.
This could be regarded as a stopgap or a band-aid only. It will not serve the intended purpose unless in addition the government through the correction system provides a much more serious and solid rehabilitation program for offenders than we now have. This especially includes violent offenders.
But there are other matters also and this has been warned of long ago. When I was on Toronto city council and metro council during the 1970s people were warning then that the lack of adequate public support for child care would result in violence in a decade or so. The children were being sometimes poorly cared for because of their parents' poverty or because of in one-parent families, one parent, or in two-parent families, both parents, had to work away from the house for long hours. Latchkey children were being neglected. Children had a key to the apartment hung around their necks and were on their own when they went back home for lunch and when they came home after school.
People were warning about this. Metro council social services committee and the appropriate bodies of city
council addressed their warnings to the senior levels of government that neglecting children then would ensure that some of those would grow up to be criminals, even violent criminals, later on. That has to be given attention.
There is furthermore a rehabilitation of people who are addicted to drugs. I have had people come to my office begging for assistance for an adult son, for instance. He was a drug addict and according to medical information needed treatment in a residential treatment centre in Canada. But there were not enough beds in the centre. I have met a few of those but I know there are many more instances where a person wants treatment, needs residential treatment but cannot get it. He thereby continues to be addicted to some of these harmful drugs and becomes a dangerous offender or at least part of the pattern in which the dangerous offenders are created.
This government must give more attention to the cost of child care which is cheaper than the cost of criminal care and to the cost of drug rehabilitation before addicted people enter into the stream of violent crime.
Without attention to those programs, rehabilitation of the criminals, care of the children and rehabilitation of addicted persons, this bill we are approving today will be a deception and a trap. It will not prevent violence. It will only postpone it and quite possibly increase it.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on Bill C-36, which is intended, in principle anyway, to restore public confidence in Canada's prison and parole system.
If one reads the bill carefully, the guiding principle of the new provisions is to protect the public first and foremost; that is the most important consideration in all matters relating to the release of offenders on parole. That is the purpose.
As a parliamentarian I must tell you that I am sorry the government waited seven years to present a bill like this one. I receive many calls and letters from my constituents on this subject. Not only have they lost confidence in the system, but they are quite reluctant to support the measures which the government is proposing in this bill.

Protecting the public is so important and the public has so many reasons to be concerned in our big cities and elsewhere that strong measures against criminals are justified. We are not mistaken; the facts are there. An article in Montreal's La Presse, I think last May, reported that violent crimes, murders, kidnappings, sexual and other assaults had increased steadily since 1977. They followed the general trend, increasing from 248,580 to 269,118 or 6.8 per cent. They now affect one person in a hundred, the highest rate in our history. It goes on to say that this type of crime now accounts for 10 per cent of all infractions committed throughout the country. The article tells us that the rising level of violence has now reached crisis proportions.
Strict measures must be put in place. I am absolutely convinced that unless we implement known measures which are strictly enforced by the judges and our correctional system, the problem will not be solved.

I had occasion to speak recently to somebody from the Ottawa police force because I was concerned about the violence in my riding.
Again last night we had a rape at an OC Transpo public place. It was a violent rape. The individual in question apparently was raped and then beaten.
This occurs pretty well every week now. People in my riding are responding. I want to read a few extracts from letters. I do not want to name the person because it is a confidence: "Why should the public have any confidence in a justice system when the rights of the convicted rapist takes precedence over the right of society to feel secure. Victims live in terror because of threats that they receive". Further on it says that while on parole many of these criminals repeat the same acts and again are let go too soon.
In the proposed legislation I must admit there are some good measures. There are also some things which we would like to see tightened up. I want to address the question of the hearing before the parole board for a criminal who wants to apply for his conditional release on parole.
At the present time, if I understand the system, a criminal is allowed after serving one-third of his sen-
Govemment Orders
tence to apply for a parole hearing. Under the proposed legislation before us a judicial determination can be made to extend that to half of the sentence. It would be up to a judge to say: "Yes, by our system, one is entitled to a parole hearing after one-third but in this case I determine that half the sentence must be served before this can be invoked". It would be up to a judge.
I am one of those who believe it should be automatic. There should be no release before one-half of the sentence. I am of the belief also that the victims of crime have rights and should be represented before that judge or before that parole board at the victim's discretion. It should not be at the discretion of a parole board. I asked the police force in the city of Ottawa today what they thought about that. They even went so far as to say: "If the victim does not want to appear then he or she could have representation on his or her behalf before this hearing as a right so that they would be kept informed of what is happening in this criminal case".
I would hope the government would seek to amend the legislation and put the automatic requirements in the bill. Having said that, I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning. We are indeed very preoccupied with the present system. It is failing many of us. It is failing our daughters and our sons. It is failing our elderly citizens. It is creating fear in the system. I can give untold examples in my own riding of Ottawa-Vani-er of people living in fear today because of a violent experience they had and because they do not have the information that they would like to have or they should have in regard to the justice system reserved for those who are found guilty of criminal acts.
I would hope that the government would tighten up this bill and put in it the rights of the victims just as seriously and with just as much care as they have at this time considered the rights of the criminals.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity to join my colleagues in debating at second reading the parole legislation which is before us. I do this, as other members have done, because not only is the issue of crime a serious one in Canadian society, generally speaking, but it is an issue that unfortunately is on the climb. It is on the climb in terms of the illegal

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
series of violent crimes in our communities. It is also up in terms of the conscience of a community.
I have public meetings at least once a month in my community. I have participated in the various municipal election campaigns that are currently under way in Ontario. As you speak to people in these public forums and at their homes, the issue of so-called law and order and the issue of coming to grips with the crime element in our communities is very pervasive.
I would categorize the complaints and the frustrations coming from our citizens in the community of York West into three areas: first, the element of criminal activity is up particularly in terms of the illicit drug trade in our community. Second, there is a feeling of frustration that many judicial decisions coming from our benches are too lax. With all due respect to our criminal system, they are too lax in terms of facing the real problem. The third item concerns the illicit drug trade. The profits or proceeds from a number of those drug busts that come from the local police authorities and local organizations that are engaged on the front lines should go back to general revenues at the federal government level which are very distant from the front line battles. This should be used to try to come to grips with fighting the illegal drug trade in our communities.
There is a great deal of frustration with those three points, particularly the last point. In concert with our Solicitor General critic who has started a national petition across the country, I have tried to distribute this petition far and wide to come to grips with the situation of drug profits. When we do make one of those busts those profits should be shared with our local police forces and our local organizations which are responsible for trying to win this battle. If crime is a serious problem then it cries out for serious solutions. We cannot have a serious problem and then simply pick a week where, as a public relations exercise, we try to somehow convince the public that the government is doing something about it when in fact it clearly is not.
We have waited for this particular legislation for seven years. The government has had ample opportunity to come to grips with the particular problems plaguing the parole system of Canada. Yet not only has it taken seven years but this is the third time it has announced that it is going to do something about it.
The last time was on the eve of the 1988 federal election campaign. I would submit with all due respect it is that type of a charade that is bleeding public credibility for this government and for politicians and institutions across this land.
If it is a serious problem then let us come to grips with it in this Chamber, this government and across the country and do something about it. We have waited seven years and the promise has been reworked three times in order to maximize it in terms of political credibility. I believe that Canadians are not that gullible.
This is crime prevention week and for the first time since 1983 the government has walked away from participating financially in sustaining the awareness level of crime in our country during this one week. If there was ever a time for a national government to participate in trying to promote awareness, this was the year. Yet the government walked away from it.
You have to ask if the government is serious about coming to grips with this problem. Is it simply satisfied to fill up a number of hours on a Tuesday, followed up by another number of bills, wash its hands and then move on to the next agenda item?
I would suggest that the government must do what it says it is going to do not only now but in the future and not inflate the rhetoric.
In the few minutes accorded to me I would like to draw on some of the highlights of the actual piece of legislation. The government says that this legislation will actually serve to protect the public in terms of it being paramount.
Right off the bat I would have assumed along with my other colleagues on this side that public safety would be issue number one in the current legislation. We do not have to get new legislation to suggest that public safety all of a sudden is going to be priority number one. That begs the question: Where has public safety been up until now, after seven years of this government's rule? That speaks to the very malaise and the very frustration people in our communities feel. Somehow public safety and the safety of our communities is far down the list.
Therefore off the top of this government's list, the paramountcy of public safety ought to be issue number one in our current operations without even discussing the new Bill C-36.

The second aspect is that it is, for the first time, trying to formally recognize the victims of crime. The government is suggesting that the victims of crime would be allowed to attend a parole hearing at the discretion of the parole board rather than at the discretion of the offender. Obviously at the discretion of the offender is a non-starter. We are saying, why not go all the way? If you are interested in public safety, if you are interested in recognizing that somehow the victims of crime must also be thought about, then why not make that opportunity automatic? Why not leave it to the victims of crime to decide for themselves and for their families whether they wish to choose to exercise the right of appearing at that hearing in order to make a salient point about the offender. Rather than placing the onus of choice on the parole officer, we are suggesting victims of crime be given the automatic right to defend and promote their own concerns first hand at the parole hearings or at least to designate someone to do it on their behalf.
That is another measure that is seen by our side as a half measure. We are going to promote in committee that we go all the way and recognize those victims of crime who unfortunately are all too often the forgotten variable in this ugly equation called crime.
Another aspect of a half measure is that the government purports to introduce judicial determination. This will give judges the opportunity to lengthen the time spent in prison to at least half rather than one-third the term for violent offenders and serious drug offenders. If the Government of Canada really wants a crackdown, then let us make that automatic. Let us not have that as a potential possibility for judges because there will be different judges in different parts of the country taking different views. I believe we ought to have some national standards about the wave of crime across this country.
We are suggesting that those offenders be automatically made to serve at least half of their sentence, otherwise it becomes a mockery.
The last point is the suggestion that first-time offenders, largely white collar criminals, be given a provision called accelerated review. This would accelerate their
Government Orders
parole as compared to the more violent criminals in our society. We will have to think carefully about that. While there may be different variations of crime we also have to be careful about the standards that we are suggesting.
Are we suggesting that we have a double standard? There would be one for blue collar crime, perhaps out in our communities. There would be another for white collar crime that may take place in some office tower. It may in fact be the lynch pins and controlling individuals who support this kind of activity.
I am suggesting that yes, we have a problem with overcrowding in our jails. What price are we going to pay in order to solve that, by suggesting that white collar crime is less important than blue collar crime? I am suggesting that we should standardize that. For those who are supporting white collar crime, they must bear the price of society as well.
I notice that you are indicating that my time is up. I look forward to speaking on this bill once again in committee stage and at third reading.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That Bill C-36 be referred not to a legislative committee but to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
I would seek unanimous consent at the conclusion of the debate that that be done.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal speakers' list is now complete. We have put up 14 speakers and we are satisfied that we have thoroughly debated Bill C-36. We are prepared to give our consent to the matter being referred to the justice committee as opposed to a legislative committee.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to it as well. It was the original understanding that it would go to the justice and solicitor general committee. I think it was an error yesterday that it was not at that point mentioned in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On the same point of order, the hon. member.


Albert Glen Cooper: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a further one. Perhaps I should ask that you put that question because I think there is consent, and then I have a point of order.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have beendiscussions and I think that you will find:
That immediately following the request for the votes on this
particular bill the House is be prepared to revert solely for the
purpose of hearing the Speaker's ruling as it relates to the
amendments at report stage of Bill C-17.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. parliamentary secretary asks for consent to hear the Speaker's decision on Bill C-17 after disposing of the question on Bill C-36, if I understood correctly. So there is unanimous consent.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think there is no hesitation. When I asked whether any hon. members were opposed to the motion, I heard no nays. The motion is therefore adopted automatically.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I simply ask hon. members to be patient for a few minutes. The Speaker is on his way to give his ruling on the procedure and process to follow in the debate on Bill C-17.


SPEAKER'S RULING-MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Speaker:: This is a ruling that I am required to give with respect to the amendments that have been filed on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the customs tariff in consequence thereof.
There are 80 motions set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and customs tariff in consequence thereof.
I should say before I get into the substance of this that great efforts have been made by the table to speak with all the various members who have filed amendments and to try to explain in general terms, and I hope in terms that have been acceptable to the members, why some amendments could be accepted and some could not.
I want it made very clear that the grounds for accepting or refusing an amendment are procedural. They are not substantive and I would hope that no member, no matter what amendment he or she put in, felt that it was rejected for other than the reason that procedurally they did not stand up to our procedural rules.
November 5, 1991

I shall proceed.
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk, will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Justice, Motions Nos. 29A, 36B and 47A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Motions Nos. 30 and 35, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Hubert and Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, all deal with firearms acquisition certificates.
These motions will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motion No. 2 will be voted on separately. The question on Motion No. 30 will be applied to Motion No. 35. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 29A, 36B and 47A.
A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 29A which will apply to Motions Nos. 36B and 47A. Motion No. 31 will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 3, 8, 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 37, 52 and 61, all standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, are technical in nature and seek to amend the French version of certain parts of the bill to ensure that both versions have the same meaning. The Chair proposes to group these motions for debate, but they will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4, 11,17, 54, 55, 57 and 62 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and Motions Nos. 53 and 58, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Justice, all deal with large capacity cartridge magazines.
They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: A vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 11, 17, 54, 55, 57 and 62. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 53 and 58. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 will necessitate the questions being put on those motions.
Government Orders
Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam was moved, debated and negatived in legislative committee. Therefore, under the authority of Standing Order 76(5), I will not select Motion No. 5 for debate.

Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and Motion No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 7;
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 6 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 7.

Motions Nos. 8A, 19A, 23B, 29B, 36A, 45A, 45B, 45C, 51A and 52A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East, cause the Chair procedural difficulties because they seek to introduce into the bill certificates for gun collectors. This is a whole new concept that was not envisaged when the bill received second reading. It is contrary to citation 698(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition. For this reason, I must inform the hon. member that these motions are out of order.
Motion No. 8B, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East, cannot be accepted because it seeks to amend a section of the Criminal Code which is not in this bill. I refer the hon. member to citation 698(8)(b) of Beauchesne's sixth edition.

The Chair has concerns about Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk and Motions Nos. 48 and 51, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. They introduce a new concept not envisaged in Bill C-17 as agreed to at second reading. The hon. members are seeking to include provisions in the bill for persons wanting to use a firearm which is not a prohibited or restricted weapon, for hunting or predator control on a farm or ranch. I regret to inform the hon. members that these motions go beyond the scope of the bill and that for this reason they will not be selected.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders

Motions Nos. 10 and 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Elaldimand-Norfolk, cannot be accepted because they seek to amend either a subsection or paragraph of the Criminal Code which not in this bill. I refer the hon. member to citation 698(8)(b) of Beau-chesne's sixth edition.
Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is identical to Motion No. 12 and therefore will not be selected.
Motion No. 13A in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, and Motion No. 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, caused the Chair procedural difficulties. They seek to introduce into the bill a mechanism whereby firearms owners would be compensated in certain circumstances with respect to prohibited weapons. In addition to going beyond the scope of the bill, they infringe on the Royal recommendation contrary to citation 698(7) of Beauchesne's sixth edition which reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the
Public Treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the
conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal
Recommendation.
For these reasons I regret to inform the hon. members that their motions are out of order and will not be put to the House.

Motion No. 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and Motion No. 18A standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam cannot be accepted because they seek to amend subsection 97(1) of the Criminal Code which is not in this
bill. I refer the hon. members to Citation 698(8)(b) of Beauchesne's 6th edition.

Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions No. 20A and 23A standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys are identical to Motions Nos. 20 and 23, standing in the name of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. After consultations with both hon. members, I will select Motions Nos. 20A and 23A and not Motions Nos. 20 and 23.
They will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 20A will apply to Motion No. 23A.
Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, introduces into the bill the element of "assault". This is covered in section 266 of the Criminal Code but is not dealt with in the bill. In so doing, the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the bill and for this reason the motion is out of order.
Motion No. 24, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 25 and 26, standing in the names of the hon. members for Saint-Hubert and Cape Breton-The Sydneys respectively, together with Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam, cannot be accepted by the Chair because they seek to amend subsection 104(2) of the Criminal Code which is not in this bill.

Motion No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, introduces into the bill the national firearms training program to be set up by the minister following from the consultations that have been held with the hon. member.
There may be some doubt as to whether this motion is beyond the scope of the bill, but it would, in any event, be out of order pursuant to citation 698.(7) of

Beauchesne's sixth edition. Motions Nos. 32, 38 and 44, which also deal with the proposed training program, are out of order. Consequently, they will not be selected.
Motion No. 39, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and Motion No. 40, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, are out of order as they are trying to amend subsection 109(1) of the parent act which is not in this bill.
Motion No. 41, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 42, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, is identical to motion No. 41 and, therefore, will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 43 and 46, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and Motion No. 47, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, caused the Chair to reflect and look into their procedural acceptability. After careful review, the Chair is of the opinion that these three motions seek to introduce into the legislation a new administrative element, namely that of administrative fees for registration permits. This is out of order because it goes beyond the scope of the bill and it is with regret that the Chair must inform the members that these three motions will not be put to the House.

Motion No. 45, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 49, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 50, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 56, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 59, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and motion No. 60, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port
Government Orders
Moody-Coquitlam, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
I will now give a recapitulation for the convenience of the House.
Motions Nos. 5, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 18A, 19A, 20, 21, 23, 23B, 25, 26, 27, 29B, 32, 36, 36A, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45A, 45B, 45C, 46, 47, 48, 51, 51A and 52A will not be selected.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions No. 2, 29A, 30, 31, 35, 36B and 47A are grouped for debate.
Motion No. 2 will be voted on separately.
The question on Motion No. 30 will be applied to Motion No. 35.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 29A, 36B and 47A.
A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 29A which will apply to Motions Nos. 36B and 47A. Motion No. 31 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 3, 8, 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 37, 52 and 61 are grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4, 11, 17, 54, 55, 57 and 62, together with Motions Nos. 53 and 58 are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 11,17, 54, 55, 57 and 62. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 53 and 58. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 will necessitate the questions being put on those motions.

Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 60 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 7.
A negative vote on Motion No. 6 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 7.

Motions Nos. 12 and 19 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 13A will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions No. 20A and 23A are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 20A will apply to Motion No. 23A.
Motions Nos. 24, 41, 45, 49, 50 and 56 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 59 and 60 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
It being 1.26 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
The House took recess at 1.26 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, blue skies are now visible over Kuwait again, thanks to the efforts of two oil fire fighting teams from Alberta who helped put out the 732 oil well fires set by Saddam Hussein's army.
This task took only 10 months, instead of the predicted two to three years. The success of these Canadians has made a significant contribution to ending the ecological trauma that these oil fires represented to the environment and to rebuilding Kuwaiti oil production.
Putting out oil well fires is an endeavour of refined experience which combines science and raw courage. The Canadian oil patch has contributed to oil exploration recovery and safety all around the world: Texas, Oklahoma, Middle East, Indonesia and the North Sea are some of the areas.
The two Alberta teams from Safety Boss of Calgary and Red Flame of Red Deer are part of this proud tradition and Canadians are proud of them for their work. We congratulate them and welcome them home.


WOLVERINE COPPER TUBE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to light with the closure of the Wolverine Copper Thbe plant in Delta that the company and, to a lesser extent, others have been selling substandard copper tubing to the Canadian public as the real thing.
Since then, in order to allow the substandard copper tubing to be used in British Columbia, the previous provincial government reduced the standard to 85 per cent of the recommended thickness.
I was amazed to learn that copper tubing, a major component in all plumbing installation, does not need to have the Canadian Standards Association's stamp of approval even though all plumbing and electrical fixtures used in Canada require the CSA approval.
I would strongly urge that the federal government work with the provinces to insist on CSA approval for all copper tubing sold in Canada to protect Canadian consumers from being misled by companies such as Wolverine Tube and to ensure that products are provided as specified.
Canadians should not tolerate inferior products to be sold as quality products at non-competitive prices.


NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday this government announced a $95 million charade called the Northern Ontario Development Agreement.
While this government was announcing it in as many cities and as often as it could, it forgot to mention one small detail. The agreement represents a cut of over 50 per cent for northern Ontario.
According to the government, this package was designed to help in the areas of forestry, mining and tourism with an injection of $95 million. However, prior to this agreement combined funding in these same areas amounted to over $220 million.
Let us look at what this government has done for northern Ontario. It gave us high interest rates and high dollar policies which all but wiped out our exporting resource industries. It gave us a 15 per cent softwood lumber surtax. It cancelled mineral exploration incentive programs. It cancelled our train service and our
November 5, 1991

flights. It cut research and development, native education and the Small Craft Harbours Program. Of course, it gave our tourism industry a 7 per cent go-south tax.
Now, it has kicked an economy that is already down by cutting funding by over 50 per cent. Why does it seem that the government's on-again, off-again deficit fight is always on when it comes to northern Ontario?
For the people of northern Ontario, it is clear that competitiveness and this government do not go hand in hand.


FRENCH AMBASSADOR
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the French ambassador to Canada, Mr. Francois Bujon de l'Estang, left this country after a posting of more than two years. The ambassador told a reporter from Le Droit what his feelings were upon leaving this country, and I quote: "I leave with very positive feelings about a friendly country with tremendous potential. But I am surprised to see Canadians wallow in pessimism and self-pity, without realizing how lucky they are". The ambassador went on to say: "Canada is a rich country; it has plenty of space, a wealth of natural resources, an abundance of cheap energy, a determined and tolerant people and solid democratic traditions. Canada is a kinder, less harsh and more tolerant America".
In a nutshell, the ambassador told us we have a country that complains without realizing how lucky it is.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Chief Bernard Ominayak and Indian Affairs Minister Tom Siddon met face to face. It was the first high level meeting since the government attempted to ram its destructive take it or leave it offer down the throats of the Lubicon Indian nation nearly three years ago.
On Sunday, Alberta Solicitor General Dick Fowler indicated that the provincial government would stand by the Grimshaw Accord reached in October 1988. All that now stands in the way of a final settlement of this outstanding national disgrace is the federal government's continuing refusal to negotiate adequate economic development provisions and compensation for decades of abuse and assault inflicted upon the Lubicon people by successive Canadian governments.
It is the federal government that must act now to reopen unconditional negotiations and make the first move toward the achievement of a just and liveable settlement for the people of the Lubicon Indian nation.


PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government proposes to increase Canadians' rights by putting the right to own property in the Constitution. Last week, a number of groups met in Ottawa to discuss this and agreed on this statement:
We believe that everyone should have the right to ownership and enjoyment of property, and not to be deprived thereof except by due process and with just compensation.
We believe this right should be given equal weight with the other rights the Charter protects.
We acknowledge that this right to property is subject to, and restricted by, such reasonable limits prescribed by government through law as can be justified in a fair and democratic society.
Given the above, we seek to have property rights included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Among the groups who signed this are the P.E.I. Property Owners' Association, Canadian Real Estate Association, Taxpayers' Coalition of Ontario, Alberta Real Estate Association, Fraser Institute, Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, Canadian Homebuilders Association, Ontario Real Estate Association, Toronto Real Estate Board, and the Canadian Condominium Institute.
These organizations support the government's proposal to give Canadians more constitutionally guaranteed rights.

November 5, 1991


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, to design the public exhibit base celebrating CBC's history as an integral part of the national fabric of Canada, to highlight its use of technology, its management decided to hire an American business whose interpretation will greet us at the front door. To me, it is the ultimate insult to Canadian creators.
Why did Canada's premier cultural institution take this decision? CBC says it was because the foreigners best understood their role in Canadian life. After the poetic cries of support for the CBC, I for one do not think it had to leave Canada to find creators who understand the CBC's role in our lives.
It is easy to suggest that opposition to Americans interpreting Canadian culture is xenophobic, but that would be to miss the point. What we have here is a publicly supported cultural institution whose mandate says it should be predominantly and distinctively Canadian and contribute to the shared national identity. Is it not then contradictory for the CBC to turn to foreigners for self-interpretation?
Let us hope in the future that national cultural institutions will engage Canadian creators and not engage in cross-border shopping.


LEADER OF BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois is very cocky about the anticipated success of his party in the next federal election.
He says one of the ridings his party will win is Charlevoix, which will elect former PQ minister Lucien Lessard. He may have spoken too hastily because Sunday in the municipal election in Forestville Mr. Lessard came in third and last. After being defeated in his own municipality, it is highly unlikely Mr. Lessard will ever get a following elsewhere in Charlevoix.
This is just one more indication of the fact that the political judgment of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is pretty far off the mark. Never take anything for granted.


MANPOWER AND OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position on manpower and occupational training has been severely criticized throughout Quebec.
These are economic issues, and Quebec's economy, and more specifically the economy in Montreal, is suffering as a result of this government's inconsistent policies. All partners in Quebec, including the Conseil du patronat, chambers of commerce, labour congresses, co-operative movements, the City of Montreal, the City of Quebec and the Quebec government agree that manpower and occupational training should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.
Claude Piche, who writes on the economy for La Presse, said this morning that Ottawa would rather pick fights than be effective, and that its policies were amateurish in the extreme. That is why Bloc Quebecois members urge members from Quebec to form a common front and show their solidarity with all Quebecers. The choice is this: Defend Quebec or slavishly follow the party line.


CAREER WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, stay in school is the message to be promoted during Canada's career week. The week November 3 to November 9 provides a national focus on the future for youth. Thirty per cent of high school students across the country drop out, but in today's job market education is a prerequisite. Students need to see the direct link between their studies and their futures. Career week encourages communities to become directly involved in their schools through such events as job fairs and visits to work places.
Young people need to realize the value of an education. Their dropping out limits not only their futures but the future of our nation as a whole.
November 5, 1991


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the parliamentary committee on the government's constitutional proposals touring the country.
Committee subgroups will appear in my riding, Thunder Bay and Timmins, this Thursday. Yesterday the local papers ran large ads directing readers to the local MP's offices for information. All information we have gathered concerning the agenda has been through our own efforts.
No one organizing the committee called either to give us any information or ask permission to use our names in the ads. Yesterday the committee's chairperson stated that dissemination of information had been hampered by the cutting of the committee's advertising budget.
I suggest there is plenty of money yet for advertising, especially for friends of the government. What is lacking is organization, intelligence, and the political will to finally let Canadians into the constitutional process.
New Democrats have from the beginning called upon the government to make this an open participatory process. Unity is too important to be lost in the process and not in the substance.
I call on the committee co-chairs to get their act together before it is too late.


HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, imposing user fees for health services is not the answer. It would penalize children and low income families who already have trouble making ends meet. The health care system in Canada must be reformed, but not by raising costs to the detriment of the most disadvantaged.
Certainly the system is abused by some people, but what about a radiologist who can earn up to $600,000 a year? Perhaps we should start by better managing our health care system, since it accounts for a third of our national budget, or $60 billion. In Quebec it is $11 billion. That is a lot of money and before spending more,
it would be better to re-evaluate our services, some of which are underused.B
We made health care universally available. Several countries have copied us and the United States would like to do the same. Will we go backward and again charge taxpayers who are already overtaxed?


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the fighting in Yugoslavia continues. The beautiful city of Dubrovnik, an historical museum within walls, is being bombed. We see this on television every day. Innocent women and children are losing their lives, and we ask why.
The position of our party has always been not to take sides. We are saying it is up to the people in Yugoslavia to come to their own resolution of the problem, with international help if at all possible.
Our party recommended the help of CSCE, the EC. When that failed our party was urging the United Nations to get involved to support the cease-fire and to put an end to the conflict in Yugoslavia.
The international community is talking about bringing about sanctions. I hope that whatever sanctions are brought about will hurt the army which is doing the attacking and not the innocent Serbs, Croatians, or Slovanians.


IMPORT REGULATIONS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the effort to make Canadian business competitive must include the government regulations and policies which are sometimes part of the problem. One example is the double standard which allows consumers to take advantage of preferred tariff treatment with the U.S., with virtually no paperwork when importing goods from the U.S. as long as there is some indication that the item was manufactured in the United States.
However, if a Canadian business imports the same item for resale under the same tariff treatment, the business must obtain from the manufacturer cumbersome documentation which often makes it impractical

November 5, 1991
Oral Questions
for the business and in many cases the information is just simply not available, which then obviously makes it impossible.
As a result, Canadian business is prevented from offering to the Canadian consumer the same merchandise as the U.S. business at competitive prices.
The Departments of Revenue and Finance must move to one set of uniform proof of origin regulations for both casual and commercial imports if Canadian business is to be given a chance to compete.
I urge them to proceed to eliminate this regulation, and all other regulations which hinder the competitiveness of Canadian business, right away.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, anger over the Conservative government's goods and services tax is still widespread.
A recent survey of constituents in my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley shows that 80 per cent of the people are more opposed to the tax than when it was first introduced. A mere 3 per cent said they were more in favour.
A serious concern for the business community is that over 82 per cent of the people who replied said they had reduced their spending because of the GST. The majority, 90 per cent, felt that it was possible to abolish the GST and bring in a fair tax; 93 per cent said the GST should be an issue in the next election.
Canadians should reject the Liberals, Conservatives, Reformers and Bloc for their support of the GST. Canadians should join with the New Democrats and axe the tax.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I was told that he would be in the House, but since he is not I will put my question to the
Prime Minister. On April 21, the Liberal Party asked the government to create a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study the government's constitutional proposals and to begin hearings as soon as possible. The government accepted this proposal in the Speech from the Throne, on May 13. However, we know that the committee started work late in September and today, in early November, we realize that it is not working well. So far it seems that the process is not working well and the government is not doing what is necessary to ensure that this committee produces the desired results. At present the committee appears to be a laughing stock throughout the country.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yes, the parliamentary committee has some problems.


An hon. member:: It's a circus.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, the two independents in the House say that it is a circus. It is an honest attempt by the three main parties in this House to take part in drawing up a new constitution. And when you involve 30 or 35 people in a process across a country as vast as Canada, there are start-up problems. That being said, I am told that Senator Castonguay and Mrs. Dobbie have taken certain measures to greatly improve the effectiveness of the committee. If so, and we shall monitor it closely, although a joint committee of Parliament is to be independent, we shall keep a watchful eye on it and if we see shortcomings we shall extend the co-operation not only of the government but of Parliament as a whole, because it is an important national commission working in the national interest.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister ask his Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs to take hold of the situation at this time? We cannot wait a very long time. We have a deadline to meet at the end of February and it would be better to have an earlier deadline.
We have lost very precious time. We want this problem to be resolved. We are very concerned. We want the country to put its mind to other major problems facing the country as quickly as possible. It is the responsibility of his minister to make sure that this job is done quickly and clearly for everybody. We want the Prime Minister
November 5, 1991

to see that this job is done in the interest of Canadians as quickly as possible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern expressed by my hon. friend and I think all members of the House do, with the exception of a few freeloaders over here who like to take advantage of Canadian unity while they are trying to undermine it.
It was pleasant last week to find out the latest proposal about an independent Quebec. You could have an independent Quebec, as described by their leader, Mr. Parizeau. They were going to have an independent Quebec with Canadian money, with a Canadian economic union and now with Canadian citizenship and a Canadian passport. Why would you go to all the trouble? We will be delighted to keep you as Canadian citizens.
The problem that the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs encounters is, of course, the proper balance between the independents of a parliamentary committee and the desire to offer full co-operation on behalf of either the government or members of this House. The minister has just arrived in the House and I know that he will want to assure the Leader of the Opposition personally of his interest in this matter and his desire to work very closely with the co-chairs to ensure a greater degree of effectiveness so that as many Canadians as possible can be heard in what is an important contribution to nation-building.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned.
I would like to tell the Prime Minister and the minister, of course, that if we are to have the same passport and everything from the independents, so much the better, but we should not give them an occasion to make fun of the process that we on this side take very seriously.
I ask the minister, who is now in his seat in the House, to make sure, if need be, to change the member from this House who seems to be the problem in this committee, to take his responsibility and appoint a person who will not become the laughing stock of the country.
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for being late in the Chamber.


John V. Nunziata: Lost your luggage again?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right, Mr. Speaker, I lost my luggage.
I understand the seriousness of the issue. Certainly I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition about the effective functioning of the special joint committee. I think everyone does. If members of the House believe it would be appropriate for me to sit down with the two co-chairs, even though this is a special joint committee operating normally at arm's length from the government, I would be more than happy to do that as quickly as possible and do everything that we can in the spirit that I think has been evident in this House to ensure that the committee functions effectively and is a means by which Canadians can take part constructively in defining the future of a strong and united country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business today released a report which states that the GST has had a devastating impact on Canadian small business.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he concurs with the results reported in this study or does he have any facts, not theories but facts, which contradict the report?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we have always recognized that there would be difficulties with a major tax change of this nature and we said it well prior to implementation.
However, we do not agree with Mr. Bulloch's conclusions in any way, shape or form because the study as announced today by Mr. Bulloch is incomplete, if not flawed. It overlooks some very, very serious points. For example, it did not include the administrative costs of the federal sales tax which businesses paid for while it was there, and the 22,000 exemptions and loopholes which we scrapped for the benefit of the business community.

November 5, 1991
Oral Questions
It did not include transitional tax credit or the accelerated write-offs and so on. Most of all, it overlooked the fact that most of the financial costs are either recoverable or deductible as business expenses.
This government said in advance of the implementation of the GST, after we scrapped the outgoing federal manufacturers' sales tax, that we would continue to consult with business and with Canadians as a whole to try to improve and simplify the system whenever and wherever possible. The Minister of Finance is going to be announcing some adjustments later this afternoon.
I invite Mr. Bulloch to come and work with us on behalf of business, instead of against us. That is not constructive.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue of implementing the tax, this is an issue of tax policy and the Minister of Finance should be answering for it.
Last week the government made the display of wanting to go out and consult with the public on the issue of competitiveness. If the minister is unwilling to accept the CFIB's findings on the impact of this tax, is he prepared to undertake immediately a public review and consultation study of the impact of the GST on Canadian business?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, there are two very important factors that the hon. member forgets.
The first factor is that studies, royal commissions, including an all-party parliamentary committee, agreed categorically and unanimously for the last 40 years that the federal manufacturers' sales tax had to be scrapped and replaced with something fairer and more modern like a value added tax which is being successfully used in some 48 other countries.
The other factor that the hon. member forgets is that there was a consultative process leading up to the implementation of the GST. There were some 6,000 business seminars. There were some 135,000 visits with business people to help them prepare. Virtually all business organizations-and I have to specifically compliment the Retail Council of Canada-worked in support of their membership to prepare them for the adjustments, except for the CFIB, and I would hope that the CFIB would once and for all start working on behalf of business instead of against them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
All Canadians appreciate the value of the small business sector in terms of driving the economy, particularly in the future, and job creation in the country. In the government's own goods and services tax information booklet for small business, it said that the GST would lower operating costs. The CFIB today indicated that the average cost for business is in excess of $9,000. It also said it would improve cash flow. We know that the GST has massacred small business. Some 13,000 have gone bankrupt in this past year. Another 20,000 have had to walk away from their businesses.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Knowing the reality of the GST, why did the government mislead Canadian small business about the effects of the GST?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have constantly been blaming the free trade agreement for lost jobs and they were wrong in trying to blame the free trade agreement. Now they are trying to blame the GST for lost jobs and they are just as wrong in trying to blame the GST.
I repeat what I said in reply to the earlier question, that the methodology used by Mr. Bulloch in the study is flawed. It does not'include many of the elements, including the discounting of nearly $1 billion of start-up costs for small businesses, or the $2.3 billion of GST credits to low and modest income Canadians. The fact of the matter is that all royal commissions over the years have categorically concluded that the federal manufacturers' sales tax must be scrapped and replaced with a value-added tax in order to make Canadian businesses more competitive. Can the hon. member not get that into his head, that the federal manufacturers' sales tax taxed the cost of doing business. The GST does not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. minister that it was not the New Democratic Party, it was Catherine Swift of the CFIB who this morning estimated that between 100,000 and
200,000	jobs were lost because of the GST alone.
My question goes back to the Minister of Finance who knows full well the Gallup polls indicate that in excess of 70 per cent of Canadians are against the GST. This morning we find out that 70 per cent of the small business community across Canada is also against the

GST. I want to say very categorically that the New Democratic Party is also against the GST, 100 per cent.
My question is for the Minister of Finance who has indicated an interest in consultation with Canadians. Some 70 per cent of Canadians say it is wrong and 70 per cent of the small business sector say it is wrong. I suspect that Main Street, Vegreville says it is wrong. Will the minister now say that 70 per cent of Canadians are wrong in their GST opposition?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to scrap the GST. How would he replace the revenues? He wants to scrap the free trade agreement. How would he open up markets to the business community of the country?
The member quoted some studies. I will quote another study which was recently done, granted in the Atlantic region only. It was done by an independent organization and concluded as follows: 80 per cent of small businesses feel that they understand the GST as it relates to their business; 77 per cent had no problem understanding and completing their forms; 94 per cent felt the service they received from Revenue Canada was helpful and courteous; and 92 per cent were satisfied with the over-all level of service offered by Revenue Canada.
It is quite obvious that Canadians are going to be concerned when a hidden tax is replaced by a fairer and open sales tax. But there is no doubt in any of those reports and royal commissions done during the last 40 years, including an all-party parliamentary committee which suggested that this government do the right thing for Canada, and that is exactly what this government has done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to say that 70 per cent of Canadians and 70 per cent of the small business sector say they do not want a Tory GST or a Liberal GST. They want no GST, plain and clear.
I want to go back to the Minister of Finance who is going to ignore 70 per cent of the Canadian public, particularly 70 per cent of the small business sector. If the government is going to go ahead with this massacring type of tax, will he at least acknowledge that every small businessman and woman across the country has
Oral Questions
been turned into a federal tax collector, with absolutely no compensation? If the government is going to go ahead with this very punitive tax, at least compensate those who are collecting the tax for you.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there is a compensation or subsidy to small business for the start-up costs.
The hon. member also quotes what the Canadian business and public want. They want greater productivity. They want greater job creation opportunities. The two things that are going to drive it there are lower interest rates, which are as low as they have been since 1978, and lower inflation rates which are lower today than they have been in the last 20 years.
That is the progress that this government has been making, and that is what the hon. member and John Bulloch should be applauding this government for.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, this government has been very concerned, as it should be, with Canada's declining competitiveness. As a matter of fact a year ago the then Minister of Finance told Canadians through this House that the GST was going to put Canadian business on a level playing field. Now 70 per cent of small business disagree with this tax. They say they have been hurt by it.
This is not an implementation problem. This is a fundamental policy problem. Will the Minister for Finance respond? He has not put Canadian business, at least small business, on a level playing field. He has thrown them into the showers. Won't he reconsider this tax measure?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the small business sector in Canada has the lowest corporate tax rate of any small business sector in the world. That recognizes the importance of small business to Canada.
He should also realize, and I know that he does, that under the federal sales tax it did hurt competition for Canadian concerns relative to those who were importing similar goods because the imports were taxed at roughly one-third that of comparable goods. He should also be aware that the over-all impact of the GST which is

November 5, 1991
Oral Questions
refunded for business people has reduced the cost of capital by about 4 per cent.
All in all the application of the GST as a replacement for the FST has over all reduced the cost of doing business in Canada. That makes Canadian business more competitive.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary that this minister could tell us that this tax has enhanced the competitiveness of Canadian small business, particularly small manufacturers. A majority of small manufacturers disagrees with the minister and says that this tax is worse than what we had before.
How can Canadians have faith in this government's ability to lead us into prosperity when its GST, according to all these studies, is working against small business?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a very intelligent member and understands business very well. He knows that what has occurred here is that when we brought in the GST we removed the 13.5 per cent federal sales tax which was a burden on business. It was recommended by royal commission after royal commission, parliamentary study after parliamentary study, that it should be scrapped for over six years.
This government had the courage to scrap it and in so doing has in fact improved the competitiveness of Canadian business.
I want to say something else. We know as well that the replacement of the FST with the GST has saved the farmers of Canada over a quarter of a billion dollars.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The verdict is in. The GST has sucked nearly $10 billion from the bottom line of small businesses across Canada. It has caused a recession and cost over 100,000 Canadian jobs.
My question is: Will the government now admit what all Canadians already knew, that the GST was the wrong tax at the wrong time?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that the methodology
used in that study is absolutely false. It did not include many important elements in the conclusions of that study.
Another part is that the elimination of the federal manufacturers' sales tax, just to carry on from what the Minister of Finance said, is going to release over the next months and into next year as we come out of the recession some $9 billion of new economic activity.
That is probably the reason why the Leader of the Opposition now says he is going to keep the GST.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today the CFIB said, and I quote: "There is absolutely no justification, economic or political, for continuing to impose this costly, inefficient, regressive and unfair tax, the GST".
Will the government now take the advice of the CFIB and withdraw this badly flawed, unfair, inefficient and regressive tax, the GST? Yes or no.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, that is not what Mr. Bulloch used to say as a matter of fact. One of the elements in this report that we agree with whole-heartedly is harmonization of the GST with provincial sales taxes. We do not believe for a moment that objective of ours is dead. We are continuing as we stand here today discussing and consulting at the officials' level with the majority of provinces.
We would hope that the provinces will see the light of day and will see the benefits of harmonization not only for their businesses but their consumers as well. We continue to work toward that goal, that objective of having one tax, one system for Canada and Canadians.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the minister as usual has brought out his excuse of harmonization as the answer to everything. In fact harmonization is going backward. Quebec has postponed it for six months. The province of Saskatchewan has backed out entirely. Will this government admit that the harmonization process is dead and recognize what the CFIB has therefore concluded, that it has to rethink entirely its sale tax project?


Otto John Jelinek: No,
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the harmonization process is dead at all. We are not going to rethink our objective and goal of having one tax, one system.
I would hope that the hon. member would go to Queen's Park and talk to his friend and ours, the premier of Ontario, and ask him to rethink his position on harmonization because harmonization in Ontario, as in any other province, would help not only the business person and business in that province but certainly the consumer ultimately.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the GST has damaged right across the province of Ontario, especially in border communities, small business, medium sized business, every form of business, and this minister knows it.

My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is as follows. Seventy per cent of Canadians are opposed to the GST. Why is the Minister of Finance not prepared to accept these recommendations and reconsider this proposal on the GST? Why is the minister not prepared to answer Canadians throughout this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, because as the hon. Minister of National Revenue indicated to the House the study is not complete. It is flawed. It uses selective methodology. Therefore it would only mean that the conclusions and the recommendations would be incomplete or flawed as well.


OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Quebec Chamber of Commerce urged its members to boycott the latest federal offensive on occupational training. Director General Claude Descoteaux said that it is hard to understand an initiative that
Oral Questions
involves scattering money outside the structures and organizations which are already mandated to provide occupational training.
Since the approach is completely improvised, why did the minister not consult the organizations involved in this field, such as the Quebec Chamber of Commerce?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the hon. member to stop masquerading and to say exactly what he is talking about.
He is talking about $12 million released under the Unemployment Insurance Act reform. What he calls improvisation was supported by the economic expansion board of Argenteuil, the St. Maurice Valley farmers' union, the General Motors workers' union, the Marine Industries workers' union, the Chambly economic council, the Valleyfield Chamber of Commerce, the South Shore Chamber of Commerce and the Berthierville Economic Development Corporation.
If you tell me that these groups are improvised and do not really exist in Quebec, I suggest that you return to Quebec and see what actually happens in the labour market. You will realize that Quebec workers need to strengthen their positions and their skills and that is what the UI reform is trying to do.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
What the minister is doing has created even more confusion, and there is already plenty as far as manpower issues are concerned. How can the minister justify spending over $15 million to consult the public on competitiveness, when he has managed to line up a number of organizations in Quebec?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have had several conversations with the Quebec minister in charge of training. In fact, I will be meeting him again this Friday.
Instead of getting involved in a lot of useless arguing, my government and I are concentrating on the circumstances of workers in Quebec, and that is why this Friday I will be having another meeting with Minister Bourbeau to consider how to co-ordinate our activities in the best interests of workers in Quebec.

November 5, 1991
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
The value of the Canadian dollar keeps increasing. In Sudbury alone every time the dollar goes up by one cent it costs Inco approximately $15 million in operating earnings in that year, and that is only one company in one sector in northern Ontario.
When will this government step in?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member may want to check with her companies in Sudbury to find out how much they are saving on the reduction in interest rates, because interest rates have come down dramatically. We said that was the key to economic recovery, but in order to bring interest rates down we had to ensure that we could contain inflation and we had to ensure that we could consolidate our fiscal position. That would allow us to bring down interest rates and keep them down. If we can keep the inflation rate down and therefore our interest rates down, we will pave the way for a sustainable, durable recovery.
The hon. member knows very well that the federal government does not artificially set the value of the dollar. We do have a policy of a floating exchange rate and its value is established in the marketplace. I am sure the hon. member understands that, and I think that is the understanding and the position of the Liberal party as well.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell these things to the people of Falconbridge who are going to be shut down for seven weeks this year where they used to have only a two-week shutdown.

Canadians want to know what this government's strategy for competitiveness means. Does it mean a Canadian dollar at par with the American dollar? Does this government have a strategy for our Canadian dollar? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the economic strategy of the government is to provide a framework for sustainable, durable growth with price stability. That is the key. If we can do that, that will bring our interest rates down, that will encourage investment, that will encourage purchasing, and that will allow us to build a strong, durable economy with price stability. The two go hand in hand.
I am sure the hon. member appreciates this as well. We have to contain the deficit. We have to reduce government expenditures because every time we borrow more money to finance a deficit, whether it be in a province or whether it be in the federal government, it has the ability of driving up the value of the dollar. I ask for the hon. member's co-operation in that regard.


WOLVERINE COPPER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Western Canada's only copper manufacturer has been shut down and 175 jobs lost. U.S. based Wolverine Copper has a monopoly in the Canadian copper market, but it has refused to allow the British Columbia plant which has been mothballed to be purchased by Canadian workers and by investors because, in its own words, it would harm the market.
I want to ask the minister whether he will use his authority to order a complete reinvestigation into the merger of Noranda Mines and Wolverine Copper. Time is running out. Will he explain what the government is prepared to do to ensure that these Canadian workers can keep their jobs and that Canadian investors have an opportunity to compete in the marketplace?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the director of the Bureau of Competition Policy has looked at several aspects of the case and how these are affected by our legislation. Certain aspects of the question are now being investigated. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Bureau of

November 5, 1991

Oral Questions
Competition Policy acts independently. It is in fact a tribunal with quasi-judicial status. This makes it very difficult for the government to intervene.
The only thing I can do is ensure that, when we get a situation like this, the Bureau of Competition Policy is able to do a comprehensive review. The bureau is now analysing certain aspects of this question.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Forty-five per cent of the production of this B.C. plant was exported to the U.S. It was beating the U.S. plants in their own backyard. As the only plant in western North America, it was set to expand its capacity to the Pacific Rim. That is why this plant was closed.
Does the minister not recognize that as a result of the free trade agreement this manoeuvre was designed to lessen competition with the U.S. industry while at the same time allow U.S. plants to take advantage of reduced tariffs to supply Canadian markets? Recognizing that, is he prepared to exercise his responsibility?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a lot of experience. He should realize that in cases like these complaints are filed with the Bureau of Competition Policy requesting a review of the entire question. At the request of a number of people who filed complaints under a specific section, their complaints were withdrawn. However, the director is still considering several aspects of the question.
I hope the hon. member is not asking me to intervene in the business of a quasi-judicial body. The government does not intend to do so since the Bureau of Competition Policy acts independently, and I intend to maintain this position.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works with regard to the fixed link. It will not only have a dramatic impact on the economy of all of Atlantic Canada. It will encourage economic unity and increase the competitiveness of the entire region.
Considering the very positive impact of this project, will the minister give the House an update and perhaps a timeframe for the development of this project?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can report briefly to my colleague. I appreciate his continuing interest in this important project.
The specific bridge proposals have now been submitted for evaluation by a panel of ice experts that will report back to Public Works in due course. Those which pass the environmental criteria will then be eligible to bid for the actual construction of the fixed link. We expect this will occur early in the new year.


HEALTH CARE
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, we all know the future of health care funding becomes more critical as the current baby boom generation ages.
Today a CBC poll indicates that 56 per cent of Canadians would favour user fees over higher taxes to meet this increasing financial demand.
I want to ask the minister of health if he would agree to review, along with his provincial counterparts, ways to better utilize our precious health care dollars and with such a review seriously consider allowing user fees for some health services for those with the ability to pay.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because I believe it is good to make a point about user fees.

November 5, 1991
Oral Questions
First, Canada spends about $60 billion a year, private and public money, on the health care system which is the second highest in the world just after the United States.
Last September in Winnipeg we agreed with the provincial ministers that to put more money in the system would not fix the problems the provinces face. Studies have been made by all the provinces and it was found that in any case one province could recommend a user fee because it would be as expensive to manage the user fee.
Finally I want to draw attention to one point in particular. Any user fee will harm the capacity for poor people, particularly women, single parents and so on, to have good health services. For that reason particularly and for all the reasons I raised, I am personally opposed to any user fee in the health care system.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The government's policy to keep the dollar high is a disaster for Canadian exports. Last week, Atholville Pulp closed its doors, putting 285 people out of work. Since the unemployment rate in the area is up to 15 per cent and this plant closing is an economic catastrophe, what does the government intend to do to preserve these jobs? And could it report on what it has done so far?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I am doing something about it. I was in Moncton Saturday, where I had a meeting with the provincial economic development minister, the minister of natural resources, and the minister of intergovernmental affairs. We discussed the problem at Atholville. All services available under the programs of the Department of Employment and Immigration have been made available to Atholville workers. We hope these measures will be able to alleviate the problems caused by the closing of the Fraser plant.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for part of his answer at least.
I would like to say that I appreciate his personal involvement, but on Friday of last week I met with union representatives and community leaders about this closure. The consensus which emerged was that reopening the mill with new ownership and the manufacturing of finished products was the best possible means of preserving these jobs.
What will the minister do to guarantee that no effort is spared to ensure that this goal is reached?


Bernard Valcourt: Encore la, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that there is right now a study being made by the workers, by the union at the mill. As soon as they get the results we will be able to look at any recommendations that come up and we will take it from there.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
One-half of all businesses in Canada says that the GST is singularly responsible for lost business. When will the minister wake up, smell the coffee, and recognize the damage that he and his government have inflicted upon small and medium sized business in Canada?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the federal manufacturers' sales tax was not only damaging big business but was damaging small business and the economy as a whole.
All governments of the past did not have the guts to move ahead with this veiy important tax change. The hon. member knows that. John Bulloch knows that and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. That is why that leader said just yesterday that he would not be scrapping the GST because it is good for the future of Canadians and good for Canadian competitiveness as well.
November 5, 1991


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we got along just fine before this government and its economic policies. We will get along just fine after Canadians are rid of them.

My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. The report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business confirmed that 100,000 jobs in Canada were lost due to the GST. Why did the minister cause 100,000 jobs to be lost in this country?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member's past is but my past is being a small businessman.


Mr. Fontana:: Ask your brother.


Otto John Jelinek: Someone says: "Ask your brother". The reason my brother was able to expand his business outside the borders and keep his headquarters in Oakville, Ontario was because of the economic opportunities that have arisen in Canada to make him expand.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Can't you get that through your thick head, that expansion is not bad?


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Canadians are currently undergoing a fundamental transition in our economy at a time when older workers are hit hardest by the ravages of unemployment.
Does the minister find the program for older worker adjustment fair when 54 Route Canada workers in London got no benefits, lost their jobs, and are ineligible, when members in the same job in the same company in Hamilton were able to get the benefits of POWA? Does the minister think this is fair? Should geography matter in a regional national program?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the program for older workers adjustment is a federal-provincial program that
Government Orders
provides for financial assistance where there has been a major lay-off, depending on the size of the city.
In the case of the Route company in the hon. member's riding, because of the criteria of the program there would have been 17 older workers affected out of a population of the city of roughly 270,000. It was decided that because of the criteria unfortunately these workers would not be eligible.
However, having said that, the hon. member will know that under the labour force development strategy a substantial number of programs would be available to those workers and I would advise those workers to take advantage of them.


THOMPSON AND FRASER RIVERS
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A major study of dioxin and furan levels in fish tissues, river bottom sediments and drinking water throughout the entire Thompson and Fraser Rivers systems was expected this spring but has been delayed and not yet released.
A copy of the report has been given to the minister's department. I would like to ask the minister if he could tell this House the reasons for the delay and when we might expect the report to be finally completed and released to the public.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, as we do normally when the minister receives a report, we have to study and consider recommendations, but I can assure my friend that as soon as the study is over I am going to release the report to all Canadians.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in con-
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
sequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations; and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez (p. 4192).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez at second reading stage of Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
November 5, 1991


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether there would be a predisposition in the House to take the previous vote and apply it in reverse to the main motion. Certainly there would be on the government side.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I generally agree, except since I abstained on the amendment I certainly want to vote on the main motion and would so vote with the bill.


Miss Grey (Beaver River):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did the same thing. I abstained on the NDP amendment and I want to support the government on Bill C-22.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion of the hon. government Whip?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion agreed to.

Government Orders
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. A few days ago, you agreed to take under advisement the issue of authorizations for travel expenses. This is a very important matter for all members of this House, also because of the attendant privileges. I want to ask the Chair when it intends to give a ruling on this matter. The committee continues to travel, but we don't know what the rules are. Could the Chair offer some clarification?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the House already gave its unanimous consent on the motion for travel expenses and the Speaker already gave a decision, so there is no reason to reconsider.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know the Speaker is infallible but perhaps I may remind him that the other Speaker who sits in the same chair from time to time promised me and other members, including the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, that he would rule on the appropriateness of trips paid for the New Democratic Party which considered itself on staff.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I thought the hon. member was referring to the transport committee. If I am not mistaken, this is about the committee on the government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada. In that case, the question is still under advisement and I have had no indication when the Chair will give its decision.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I would hope just as a courtesy that the Chair would notify the respective House leaders prior to the announcement of that particular decision so that we could be here in the Chamber to understand fully and appreciate the Chair's ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has taken careful note of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in the House.


WAYS AND MEANS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table a copy of the notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and other legislation respecting the implementation of the goods and services tax. I ask, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(2), that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said ways and means motion.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Speaker has already made an important ruling on the conduct of the debate at report stage of Bill C-17.
The Chair was given notice by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk that he did not intend to present his Motion No. 1.
We therefore move to the second stage of this debate, on Motions Nos. 2, 29A, 36B, 47A, 30, 35, 31.

These motions are grouped for debate and will be voted according to the Speaker's ruling.


Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 2

November 5, 1991

Government Orders
(a) by striking out lines 17 and 18 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The definitions "antique firearm", "firearm" and "firearms acquisition certificate" in subsection 84(1) of the";
(ib) by adding, immediately after line 15 at page 2, the following: ""firearms acquisition certificate" means a firearms acquisition certificate issued by a firearms officer under section 106 or section 107;".


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Motion No. 29A
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 18
(a)	by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"sition certificate and a fee of seventeen dollars does not, after considering the";
(b)	by striking out lines 18 to 20 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the fee referred to in subsection (1) shall be reduced to ten dollars."


Pierrette Venne: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 9 to 20 at page 23.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 18 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 23 the following:
"(1.3) The local registrar of firearms, firearms officer or other person may require as information to be submitted by an applicant for a firearms acquisition certificate or permit details concerning the makes or serial numbers of firearms."


Pierrette Venne: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 31 to 33 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"sioner, shall have a photograph of the holder".


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Motion No. 36B
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 19, in the French version, by
striking out line 8 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion d'armes a feu faite par une personne visee au paragraphe (!)[DOT]"
Motion No. 47A
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 24
and 25 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"for certificates mentioned in section 106, 107 or 109 or for permits mentioned in subsection."


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Bill C-17, which we have been studying for several months, originally as Bill C-80.
Motion No. 30, to delete lines 9 to 20, simply aims to avoid the renewal of firearms acquisition certificates. I ask that firearms acquisition certificates not be renewed, because renewals make it possible to avoid the 28-day period.
Also, the renewal would cost half as much as the original firearms acquisition certificate. Since the certificate would cost $50, renewing it would cost $25. People who buy firearms spend on average $500 and often more so they should not have us believe that $25 or $50 for a firearms certificate is too much.
Therefore, I believe that firearms users must pay for their sport, because hunting or target shooting is supposed to be a sport. I think users should pay for their sport.
The Legislative Committee on Bill C-17 heard many things. It heard people who came to testify, and I must say that many of these witnesses told us about the quality of life. I would simply like to mention a few associations that told us about quality of life. I will not give a complete list, but I must say that we got great support from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I have a very long list that it would be too tedious to read here, but I think it is important to tell the general public that we did get a lot of support.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
Quite often, those who were opposed to any amendment and even to Bill C-17 itself were unfortunately Conservatives who basically did not support their minister.
Why did they act that way? They told us that it was because there is a very big difference between urban and rural ridings and that separate legislation was needed, which of course does not make any sense in law. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association told the Committee just that. Nevertheless, those arguments were made.
I now turn to my Motion No. 35. To make it easier to follow, I will show you. We heard all kinds of illogical and silly arguments, but in this motion, I simply ask that a photograph be attached to the firearms acquisition certificate. In fact, that is what we were promised, but unfortunately, this is what we have now from the Legislative Committee. The bill says-and I will tell you exactly what I want to change-that a firearms acquisition certificate must be in the form prescribed by the Commissioner and shall, unless the Commissioner deems otherwise, be accompanied by a photograph of the holder.
As an argument against this provision, we were told that there were people whose religion prohibited the taking of photographs. They cannot be photographed because of their religion. That is the argument that was used against that provision.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Which religion?


Pierrette Venne: So I asked what religion it was. I really do not know which one. I must admit my ignorance, but I think that if there is a religion in Canada that forbids photographing its members, it should be mentioned, because I do not think that there are many of them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Can its members be drawn then?


Pierrette Venne: My colleague asks if drawings are all right. That might be a good suggestion to make. That is why I wanted to tell you that we received some rather strange proposals which, unfortunately, have led to the legislation before us.
It would be much simpler to specifically mention that religion, since its followers must certainly be proud to practise it. It would also be interesting to know how many people belong to that faith in Canada. We are not going to pass an act that supposedly applies to everybody
but in the end only applies to some exceptions, unless it is an indirect way of not having a photograph attached to the firearms acquisition certificate. I certainly hope that is not the case. The Firearms Control Coalition and others, asked for stricter control and the use of photographs as identification for buying a firearm or ammunition.
I proposed that amendment, which was rejected on the grounds that it was not in accordance with the spirit of the bill. According to the Chairman, it was out of order. They rejected the idea that firearms acquisition certificates be used when buying ammunition. If certificates are required for buying firearms, they should always bear a photograph, as we requested, since it is well known that people exchange certificates to buy firearms. That was the purpose of that motion.
Of course I do not think that we should criticize everything in the bill since it is a step in the right direction, but I must say that it is only a step.


An hon. member:: A small step.


Pierrette Venne: A small step indeed. We also asked that every firearm be registered. That procedure could have been implemented in the near future. We did not ask for registration of all the firearms that are presently in Canada. We asked that this registration process start at a future date, on January 1, 1993. This amendment was also rejected because apparently it went beyond the scope of the bill.
Unfortunately I think that we disappointed quite a few people that way. In our opinion, this is an important measure and it will have to be implemented eventually. This government will not do it. Unfortunately it is not the Conservative government that will do it. It will be another government that will take credit for it then. Too bad for those people; they will not be able to take advantage of the situation. The field is open right now. Everybody wants it.


An hon. member:: They need something to their credit.


Pierrette Venne: They sure do. That is what I am told here, but that is another matter. Maybe. In concluding, we would have liked more improvements to Bill C-17, but of course, we will have to content ourselves with what little we have now since, as I said, this is all that we were able to get.
November 5, 1991


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise to speak at the beginning of what I believe is an historic debate. This is on gun control. As members know, this is the second bill this year. We have had a lot of committee meetings in which all members have participated and we have had a lot of give and take in this House on this bill.
I know people see some things that go on in the House and on TV but behind the scenes there is a lot of work. Many members, including the one who just spoke, members of the Liberal Party and government members, have put a lot of effort into this bill.
The country is watching today because there is a lot of interest in this.

Mrs. Lapointe-Edwards is here. She lost her daughter in the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.

She has shown great courage in following this bill through until today and so have other people. Everybody has good motives, I believe.
The New Democratic Party has tried to have one constant position throughout and it is that we are in favour of strong but effective gun control. We do not want a bureaucracy that will hurt genuine hunters, trappers, competition shooters and even collectors. But we do want effective gun control.
Canada is not the United States. This country was settled peacefully and it was settled without the use of guns. That is part of the Canadian culture and all members of this House and all Canadians share that.
Therefore we welcome the bill. I would just like to state briefly what the bill does.
Just to summarize what the bill does, it prohibits automatic weapons that have been converted to fire in a semi-automatic form. These guns have flowed into Canada in the last few years. There are about 50,000 of them in the country. Unfortunately they are grandfathered in this bill-that means people can keep them-and
Government Orders
we will discuss that later on. We have some amendments about that. But the fact is that these guns have no place in hunting or any legitimate purpose. They are military guns and the government is moving to prohibit them.
Second, the legislation prohibits or restricts semi-automatic military assault rifles. It is going to be done by regulation. It is not dependent on this bill and we will be waiting to see these regulations. We do not want to see the Rambo culture in Canada. These guns are increasingly being imported into Canada and we want to pursue this in the debate that is going to follow today.
Third, there is a prohibition on large capacity magazines. As I understand it, semi-automatic handguns will have a ten-shot limit and centre-fired semi-automatic rifles and shotguns will have a five-shot limit. We will be discussing this as we go along. I remind the members that the large capacity magazine that Marc Lepine used enabled him to kill more people and that might have been prevented.
Fourth, this bill also changes the firearms acquisition certificate screening process to improve the screening so we will know that people who get guns are legitimate gun owners, not crazies or criminals. So there will be an improvement of the screening process.
Fifth, there will be safe storage in the bill. We are going to try to define that and deal with it so that someone does not store a gun unsafely and his or her teenage kid in a fit of depression gets the gun and commits suicide. We had 1,100 cases like that in Canada last year.
We are going to have tougher penalties in this bill to try and deal with criminals who misuse firearms. I think all of us are in favour of that and we want to improve that.
Finally, there will be a parliamentary review of these regulations. We will get back to this.
This is a modest proposal. My first amendment deals with the matter of the firearms acquisition certificate. We have the technical ability and we have witnesses who came before the committee and asked why we do not now register guns on a firearms acquisition certificate. This could be done when people buy guns so we know where all future guns are and how many we have in the country. We could trace lost or stolen guns and so on. That is what we propose to do.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
There has been an awful lot of opposition to that in the country and the government has not accepted that. It is not in this bill. That is why it is a modest bill.
But I say to the government, to other members, to hunters and people who have opposed this; let us look at the broader picture. It is not going to hurt legitimate firearm owners. We want to get at the illegitimate firearm owners and we want to have a strong bill. I hope that we will see a future bill that will include firearms acquisition certificates so that there is a form of registration of guns when they are bought. I hope the members will adopt my amendment. I am not holding my breath but I would like to see that in the bill.
I have outlined what is in the bill and why it is a modest proposal. I think it could have gone farther and I am going to introduce amendments today. It could have dealt with controlling ammunition and tougher criminal sanctions. It could have nailed down a bit more what the parliamentary scrutiny is on the bill. It could have dealt with getting regulations before the House. Most of this bill will be in the regulations. We would like to see the regulations before the House to see what is in the bill.
The government has set up a system wherein there will be control through regulations. It will be vetted by the Firearms Board Advisory Council and the House of Commons, so legitimate hunters need not worry.
I just want to end by saying that I believe Canadians are for gun control. I believe Canadians want strong gun control. They want effective gun control. They understand that this is part of Canadian culture, that this is a peaceful society. I believe events have shown that we need that. We want no more incidents of the Marc Lepine type. I know they are impossible to really prevent but gun control works.
It worked after the first bill in 1976.1 predict it is going to work after this bill and we should fight to further strengthen it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on what the last member has said.
I think that everyone in this House in a responsible way supports the safe use of guns and the control of guns in society.
In our society today we have to be really tough if we are going to control it. It seems to me that it does not matter how well we make up legislation in this House, it is never going to be enough to do a very difficult task. But if we do not start somewhere we will not get anything done.
I want to say a word today on my amendment with regard to the cost of firearms acquisition certificates. Members who sat on the committee and in this House will know that this has been a big issue.
My main concern is the case of the farm community where there is an outbreak of rabies or predators such as wolves. The farmer may have to go out to buy a rifle for the first time in his life.
It is going to cost him $50, a figure that is being thrown around, although we know it is not cast in stone. That gun will be used on the property for the legitimate purposes of protecting animals and the health of people and other animals on the farm.
Here you have a legitimate reason for buying a gun. I guess my feeling is that I see people like that paying for the over-all program when actually they need it for their own particular way of life. They are legitimate arms owners and they are certainly going to be no problem to society.
Similarly, I had another amendment that was not accepted on the compensation for collectors of firearms who find out after the regulations come in that they have a firearm that is illegal. These firearms collectors have collected these items during times when it was legal for them to do so. Some have put out quite a lot of money for their collections.
They are going to have to give up those firearms without any compensation within a certain period of time. After that they will be in illegal possession of those firearms.
The reason behind my submission of that particular amendment was that I think there is a far greater chance of gun collectors declaring what they have in their collection if they are going to get some compensation for the weapons they have collected over the years.
There might be a tendency not to turn them in if they find out they are not going to get any compensation for

them whatsoever. That was the real intent behind the particular amendment that has not been accepted.
The amendment to Bill C-17 which I put down with regard to the cost of firearms acquisition certificates does specify the amount to be paid by applicants for the reasons which I have mentioned.
I felt it was unfair to charge people who need guns because of their way of life whether they are farmers, hunters, trappers or whatever.
They are honest citizens going in to purchase firearms acquisition certificates, whereas we will have other people of course who will not do it in that way. The criminal element is certainly not going to do it in a fair and open way.
At the present time Bill C-17 stipulates that the Crown will determine the cost of firearms acquisition certificates and renewals by regulation. The only requirement is that the firearms acquisition certificate renewals must be one-half the amount of the firearms acquisition certificate application fee.
The government has provided figures of $50 for firearms acquisition certificates and $25 for renewals, which is rather steep when they become a necessity. These figures are not set in stone and can be changed by the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council could virtually increase it beyond this amount for people who require firearms in the daily routine of their lives.
By amending clause 18 of the bill, the amount paid for firearms acquisition certificates will be specifically set at $17. The fee for firearms acquisition certificate renewals will be set at $10. If this amendment is adopted the Governor in Council will have to introduce legislation in order to change the amounts charged for firearms acquisition certificates and renewals.
This is to protect that group of people on whose behalf I have argued before who should not have to pay the full amount because guns are used in their way of life. I am thinking of the farming community today and farmers certainly do not have an abundance of cash. They are having a very difficult time out there and you do have times when rabies become very prominent in certain regions. Today there are problems out there with wolves attacking animals on farms. So it seems to me that we are adding an extra burden to people in a particular
Government Orders
occupation in this country where their overhead and costs are already extremely high.
Clause 19 of Bill C-17 authorizes the Governor in Council to issue firearms acquisition certificates to people who are under 18 years of age. This clause is perhaps included in the bill to address the concerns of the native community.
This proposed amendment to clause 19 specifies that the application fees for firearms acquisition certificates and the renewal thereof for this group of people, will be $17 and $10 respectively, rather than being subject to regulation. This proposed amendment to the bill provides uniformity in the fees for firearms acquisition certificates and renewals.
Therefore my representations today, as I have said, are really aimed at the people who may need a new firearm by necessity: farmers, hunters or other people who need them in their regular way of life.
I have no sympathy whatsoever, as nobody has in this House, for those who try to abuse the system by gathering up firearms without following the law of the firearms acquisition certificate.
We in Canada have always been very responsible in the way we have handled these issues. I want to compliment our critic for the fair way he has handled this bill in committee and others who brought forward the representations of people across this country. I think it has been a very open discussion on the part of all members of Parliament. Those of us who come from large rural ridings, and I include my colleagues from northern Ontario, may have somewhat different views on some of these issues but that is because of our backgrounds. I think in the final analysis of the passage of this bill it behoves all of us to have a very responsible piece of legislation that is going to aim at the criminal-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member's
time has expired.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments with respect to the seven motions that are before the House at the present time. Before doing so I want to agree with the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke that this has been an open process. It has been a very productive process. There has been a great deal of consultation and study by parliamentarians on this bill. It has been amended a number of times since we first saw it in its

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
first incarnation as Bill C-80 and I think the bill before us is certainly a more effective bill.
The seven amendments that are here refer specifically to the firearms acquisition certificate. I do not want to let my comments trail off into other areas of the bill. I would be pleased to talk about them as they arise through the amendment process but we are dealing here with the firearms acquisition certificate.
When I first began meeting with individuals and sitting in on discussions that the Minister of Justice had with national groups from across this country everyone said the same thing. There are problems with the firearms acquisition certificate. That is the one thing people were unanimous on.
I remember one group pointing out to the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Lewis, that the form does not even provide for a change of address. Obviously that is a problem. I believe there was not enough of a security component within the firearms acquisition certificate process as well. I think there are problems with the fee schedule which was written in 1978 and was written right into the bill.
Parliament does not tackle these bills every year, and perhaps for good reason, but writing in an amount I think is a bad idea.
We have made a number of changes through the FAC and I think all of them improved the situation. One of them, as the hon. member for Saint-Hubert mentioned, is the requirement in the general case that photographs be required. She mentioned the fact that it is not an absolute requirement that every FAC have a photograph and she asked under what circumstances there would be exceptions. She mentioned at committee stage she heard there was one religious group who objects to photographs. For her information I believe it is the Flutterites.
There was another reason we did not make it absolute in the bill. It may be very difficult particularly in the northern section of Canada. Camera equipment may not be readily available and it may be a situation in Canada's far north where the hunter or the individual would be well enough known that there would be no question as to that person's identity.
It was for those reasons that there was not the absolute requirement but we would expect that in 99-point-something percentage of the cases we would have photographs, and it is a good idea. I do not think individuals who have it will mind because it protects them as well in case their firearms acquisition certificate is stolen.
These amendments are coming from two different areas. The hon. member for Saint-Hubert asked why there was a reduction in the fees upon renewal. She questioned the whole renewal process in one of her amendments.
The member from the Liberal Party who just spoke questioned why the fee was set at $50. As I indicated at the committee, $50 is what the Government of Canada believes is its cost in administering this program. We try to operate a number of these things on a cost recovery basis to the extent possible. It is our belief that $50 will pay for the system.
As good a Conservative as I am, I certainly agree with efforts by the government to try and balance its books on as many programs as possible.
I should indicate to hon. members that the cost of the registration of restricted weapons which is also part of the firearms regime, although not specifically addressed in these amendments or the bill, is borne by the Canadian taxpayer. The cost of registering restricted weapons comes out of general revenue.
The firearms acquisition certificates are on a cost recovery basis. It is our belief that it is about $50. A number of colleagues at committee said: "Look, we want to keep people within the system. We want to provide an incentive for those who have an FAC to renew it". There is no requirement that a person renew their FAC. However if we waive the waiting period for those individuals who do have a valid FAC and are renewing theirs and charge a reduced fee we encourage people to stay within the system. We think that is a a good idea and the committee adopted that as well.
My hon. friend in the New Democratic Party from Port Moody-Coquitlam asked: "Why not tag in a registration system?" I do not want to accept an amendment that puts in a registration system without having everything that might go with it if that is the direction we want to go in.
November 5, 1991

The amendment he has would only require the local firearms officer to register the firearm. I am not quite sure what that would give us. I do not see any requirement there for a person moving to another jurisdiction. There is no central retrieving system and no provision here to pay for that kind of a system.
Just because this might ultimately make sense to some members I do not want to tag in an amendment here. It would require an enormous administrative task for very little gain if this was hooked into some national system, but that is not what the amendment says. I think there would have to be a lot more thought given to it. The firearms acquisition certificate would be changed to something different. It is not a possession certificate, it is an acquisition certificate.
We could argue whether a person should have a valid FAC just to possess a firearm. We could argue about that for the rest of the afternoon but that is not the regime that was set up in 1978 and is not part of the regime which we have modified at the present time.
That in sum is where we are going with the FAC. I think it is a dramatic improvement. There is one comment that the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke made that I want to draw to the attention of the House.
He mentioned the case of the individual who may not be able to afford the $50 and what about him? Although it is not in Bill C-17 it continues to be part of the law of Canada. The Criminal Code states, and I will read the section: "That no fee is payable in respect of a firearms acquisition Certificate that is issued to a person who requires a firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself or his family".
That is the wording in that section. There is provision for exemption for those individuals who hunt for a living. I would not want to leave an impression that there was no provision. It is a reasonable package.
I know I only have one minute. Section 2 which I do support is a technical amendment by the government which tightens up the description of an FAC and eliminates one of the definitions of an FAC that has not been of use or of benefit to us in the past 12 years.
I am urging hon. members to accept Motion No. 2 and to reject the other six that are proposed at this time.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 Restigouche- Chaleur-Canada Post; the hon. member for Drummond-Imported Carpeting; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Trade; the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Paper Industry; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Unemployment Insurance.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 29A.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Excuse me, we will proceed with the vote on Motion No. 30, and the results will apply to Motion No. 35.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost, on division, and the vote also applies to Motion No. 35.
Motion No. 30 negatived.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question-is on Motion No. 29A, which will apply to Motions Nos. 36B and 47A.Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 29A negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote also applies to Motions No. 36B and 47A.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 18 by adding immediately
after line 20 at page 23 the following:
"(1.3) The local registrar of firearms, firearms officer or other person may require as information to be submitted by an applicant for a firearms acquisition certificate or permit details concerning the makes or serial numbers of firearms."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 31 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motions Nos. 3, 8, 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 37, 52 and 61 are all grouped together for the purposes of debate.


Benoît Bouchard: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 18, in the French version, by striking out line 20 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"liale, et aux fins de son enquete, interro-".
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 19, in the French version, by striking out line 8 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion d'armes a feu faite par une personne visee au paragraphe
(!)"[DOT]
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 31, in the French version, by striking out line 19 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"inclure dans l'ordonnance une condition".
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 38, in the French version, by striking out line 38 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"les sans delai a un registraire local d'armes a".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The debate will be on these various motions.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that of all the amendments we might have the least amount of debate on these. These are technical amendments to assure that the French and English versions of the bills are as exact as possible. Many of them were recommended by Mr. Claude Ryan, the Quebec minister responsible for this area, and the technical analysis of the bill recommended a number of these changes.
We strive as always to have the bills conform in both official languages so that they both say the same thing, and these amendments accomplish that.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately what we have here is just a few technical amendments proposed by the minister. We had hoped the minister would do better than that.
We are well aware-and this was clear from the proceedings of the legislative committee, and especially the actions of the government's chief Whip, which were in fact criticized by one of the members-that the
Government Orders
majority has unfortunately left the Minister of Justice very little leeway.
Sometimes we get the impression that the Prime Minister would rather travel abroad and talk about disarmament and human rights instead of supporting his Minister of Justice within his own party, to meet the minimum demands of those Canadians who are anxious about public health and support genuine gun control.
The process has shown how a very broad consensus evolved in Canadian and Quebec society, not only among the people directly concerned but also, for instance, among all public health authorities in Quebec, who intervened on numerous occasions before the committee, first before the special committee and later before the legislative committee. Every time, the bill was improved a little more.
After the hearings of the Special Committee, there was an improvement, assessed at about 10 per cent of what people were asking. On the legislative committee some elements were further clarified, but we obviously have a long way to go, because the technical amendments now before the House contain no reference at all to the public health problem. This bill is still essentially based on the concept that we have the right to possess arms and that our freedom should be restricted as little as possible, and I am referring especially to the desire for minimal controls on people who possess arms in a civilized society.
Why object to the registration of all firearms? This would be a way to find out how many firearms there are in Canada. At the present time, no one knows how many firearms we have in this country. This would help us find out who the owners are.
Is it too much to ask, Mr. Speaker, considering that not only most unfortunate and painful incidents are caused by some deranged people but also that often guns are known to be used to commit suicide.
Quebec health care officials spoke at length of this issue before the committee. Yet, nothing in this bill would make it possible to initiate an education process to focus on the fact that it is a privilege to own a gun and that in a civilized society such a privilege is to be exercised with some restraint.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
I just cannot understand why the minister was unable to convince her caucus of this obvious fact, especially after the whole process the committee has gone through.
There have been some improvements, for instance in the definition of the genuine gun collector, and I think that, in that respect, it is going in the right direction.
But another fundamental aspect of this bill has gone unchanged: it promises a number of things that can only come through when regulations are made, which means going to an advisory committee which, I am told, is made up for the most part of people who consider guns as very important.
So, we will have to wait for the regulations to know if the minimum set in this bill will indeed be reflected in them and implemented by the government. It is this second aspect of the bill that makes us somewhat sceptical. Basically, the provisions of this bill are telling us that, yes, we are taking a step forward, but in order to see if this step was indeed taken you will have to wait for the government regulations.
In this respect, one particular part is most unfortunate, the part dealing with prohibited firearms. We will still have to decide if such and such a firearm is prohibited, when based on technological advances and all that we could have really protected the public. Instead, we will have to wait for more unfortunate incidents to happen before designating a particular type of firearm as prohibited.
A much simpler and more normal way to go, as in the case of drugs and various hazardous goods, would have been to start by controlling the sale of firearms and ammunition. Then, it would have been possible to allow only those deemed to meet the legal criteria to be sold, instead of acting after the fact. EIow many of these firearms will have been sold by then?
It is especially important in the Canadian context, because of our proximity to the United States where arms are in wide circulation. We are asking our customs officers at the border to determine whether or not a weapon is prohibited. We are in fact asking them to become weapons experts on top of everything. Customs officers came to testify before our committee. They said: "We already have trouble controlling. The controls must be made much simpler". It would have been very easy to
say: "Here are the allowed weapons and all those that are not on the allowed list cannot be imported. If you want to import them or sell them in Canada or Quebec, you will first have to obtain permission and know for sure that this weapon satisfies criteria acceptable under the law".
Now we will intervene after the fact; we will act when unfortunate incidents occur and public opinion demands that we take another step forward. The minister told us that she expected it to happen in future, but that the attitudes of our MPs. Unfortunately it holds true for many members on this side of the House. We will see other amendments that were proposed to further diminish the bill as presented.
I think that despite the minister's efforts, it is very clear to us that she was unable to assert leadership and have the support of her Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues to convince the members of her caucus to go further and come up with a minimum acceptable to everyone who is concerned with public health and protection.
I am convinced that most hunters, who in order to have the right to exercise their hunting privilege accept far greater restrictions than registering their weapons, would have quite willingly accepted being required just to register their weapon.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I must say something about these insignificant amendments proposed by the minister. My colleague from Rosemont, and particularly the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, have both examined this bill in detail and they spent many hours listening to different groups across Canada, especially from Quebec. I want to congratulate them because their convictions did not change when they changed affiliation. I know that these members, who were extremely active when they were in the Conservative caucus, have done everything to convince the government to take stronger measures. Today again, they continue to defend those who believe in stricter control of firearms.
It is obvious that a superpowerful lobby has neutralized many of our colleagues who claim that they support public safety, that they sympathize with the unfortunate victims and their families, but who will only make a very timid effort to push for limited gun control. Unfortunately we are in a situation where a small step is better
November 5, 1991

than nothing at all, and even though we have strong reservations about this bill as a whole and think it does not go far enough, we are convinced that other amendments will have to be made very soon. After each incident, we will rise in this House to demand more amendments, and each time, the government will be on the defensive and will lengthen the list of prohibited weapons.
In fact, the reactive approach of the government makes it look as though we are trying to pull teeth. The government never fails to put itself in an impossible situation. I do not at all understand how the minister goes about her duties as Minister of Justice. Instead of following a pure, simple and clear principle to the effect that all firearms be registered, and then make exceptions, she takes the opposite approach and that explains the reluctance of the government to do anything in that field.
I would hope that this is not the result of the American influence. I would hope that they will not claim that the urban and rural realities are so different as to justify being so cautious with each detail of the bill, especially so as not to displease superpowerful lobbies.
As far as I know, the value of life is the same, whether one lives in the country or in the city. The same emotions are stirred and the same troubles ensue when firearms are misused in the city or in the country. A bullet is as deadly in the city as it is in the country.
When I hear this so-called lobby claim that it speaks on behalf of rural Canada, I am sorry but I think the problem is being misplaced. It is because the government is trying so hard not to displease anybody that we get this kind of legislation, a bill that lacks firmness and which essentially takes a backward approach. This is obvious to everyone. Almost 80 per cent of Canadians expected far stricter legislation. People respect athletes but respect law and order even more and do not want violence across this country.
Recently I was listening to a report on various gangs in Montreal who said that they used to settle their scores with their fists. It was not very civilized, but it was not as
Government Orders
bad as a gunshot. In fact, the leaders of these communities and these gangs said that now it was a lot more effective. Once they settled their scores, they stayed settled.
This legislation has no backbone. It will do nothing about the problems caused by various criminal acts. I think it is sad for all those people who spent so much time and energy during the past two years, struggling to make the government understand that we wanted to live in a society that was as peaceful as we could make it, that we wanted to ensure that firearms did not lie around in the back of the trunk of just about anybody's car at any time.
We wanted to ensure our children would be safe at night. We wanted to give life and ourselves the best possible break. But today we have a bill that tries to give people the best possible opportunity to possess arms. We think this is unacceptable, but like all Canadians we have to consider: What do we do? We have a government that has no guts. It is willing to move a little, no more. Then we have a choice: Do we vote against this bill? If the bill is defeated, all we have left is the law of the jungle, more or less.
So we are all in a difficult position as parliamentarians. We feel they lacked the courage of their convictions, that they lacked principle, but at the same time we are stuck with voting in favour of the bill, because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We are really stuck. What worries us is that the government will probably use our support during the final vote on this bill to claim there was a general consensus in the House. There is no such thing. Unfortunately we are all more or less being held hostage, like the rest of Canadians. I want to pay tribute to all those people who did everything they could to try and convince the government to do more.
Earlier the hon. member for Saint-Hubert mentioned several groups. We all had visits from people of principle who wanted to tell us about some of their tragic experiences, often as a result of improper use of firearms. As parliamentarians we all had a chance to see how earnestly these men and women become involved in the parliamentary process, as every good citizen should.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
Unfortunately, their demands fell on deaf ears. It is sad, because I have seldom seen so many men and women in the general public speak up about a problem that concerns them all personally.


An hon. member:: Like the GST.


Jean-C. Lapierre: My NDP colleague mentioned the GST. Yes, I suppose so, but although the GST may hurt, it does not kill. I do not think we can compare the two. However, the minister turned a deaf ear to the concerns of these people. I realize she had problems in caucus, but I fail to understand the Prime Minister. We know he has some influence on his caucus. After all, at this point, if he can hold his caucus together, he must have some influence.
I do not understand why he did not use this influence precisely to bring in stricter amendments with more teeth in them to ensure that the registration of guns and rifles would be included as well as the sale of ammunition. Why has the Prime Minister not convinced his caucus to accept without exception the prohibition of military weapons and their elimination?
We have now reached the end of this debate which is so important for our safety and for that of our fellow citizens. I urge the government once again to show a little heart, a little compassion for what is really happening on our streets in Canada, and to come to its senses and listen to the voice of sensible Canadians and not only to the weapons lobbies.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this group of amendments. I heard the speech by the hon. member for Shefford, Quebec and I agree with some of what he just said, but not all. I am in the same position as he is.
I learned of the petition that came from Montreal, Quebec, signed by 700,000 people after the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique. At every meeting our committee held on this bill, I heard witnesses from Quebec, doctors, police officers and social workers, tell us that there is a problem with firearms. In my opinion this bill is not very strong, but I understand that Mrs. Edwards and the Ecole Polytechnique students' association in Montreal are for this bill. In committee we proposed amendments, some of which were accepted by the government. Personally I would have liked the government to accept more amendments, but I must accept the reality of this
situation. I say to members from Quebec that we must continue to insist on having more amendments accepted and other changes made in another bill, perhaps.
As I said in my first speech, much of this bill is already in the regulations. We can continue to work with groups, students, the Ecole Polytechnique, Mrs. Edward, Mrs. Turcotte, Heidi Hodgin and other groups in Quebec, and to work hard. I must tell the hon. member that I said something quite amazing: people from Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver worked together. Not on the Constitution or anything else but on controlling firearms. It was all done together, which is quite amazing. We must continue with the regulations and insist that the system be strengthened.
I think that we can do it and, as I said, I agree with the hon. member who spoke. I am in the same situation. We can see that it is not a very good bill, but it is acceptable. That is why we will vote for this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 8 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
November 5, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 22 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 28.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 28 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 29.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 29 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 33.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 33 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 34.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion No. 34 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 37.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion adopted.
Government Orders Motion No. 37 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 52.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the Motion No. 52 adopted.
Motion No. 52 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 61.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the Motion No. 61 adopted.
Motion No. 61 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In accordance with the Speaker's ruling we will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 4, 11, 17, 54, 55, 57 and 62 and of Motions Nos. 53 and 58 which are grouped for debate.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 2
(a)	by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"amended by repeal-
(b)	by striking out lines 43 to 45 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"prohibited weapon;";
(c)	by striking out lines 39 to 42 at page 3.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out line 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"described in paragraph (c) or (e) of the";
(b)	by striking out lines 37 to 44 at page 5 and lines 1 to 16, page
6.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 25 to 45 at page 9.


Benoît Bouchard: November 5, 1991
Government Orders
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 34.1, in the French version, by striking out line 14 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"present loi, est abroge et remplace".


Robert Daniel Nault: 
Benoît Bouchard: Motion No. 58
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 38, in the French version, by striking out lines 35 and 36 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"en gros ou au detail d'armes prohibees-au sens de I'alinea f) de".


Robert Daniel Nault: Motion No. 62.
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
' sories, or ammunition defined as "prohibited' -


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, in the short time that I have, I would like to start my comments about the particular amendments that I have as they relate to clip size, magazine size, by prefacing my comments. I want to preface my comments very carefully because I understand the emotion that has been created in this debate. I want to try and focus on this legislation based on my knowledge of gun control and guns themselves and also based on my experience on the special committee. I want to focus on that because I think it is very important for people to keep in mind the long road that we have been down in the last few months.
I want to start off by suggesting to the members of the House and, indeed, to the public at large that unfortunately this piece of legislation has the complete wrong focus. I know all members in this place and the public out there really would like to see a stronger gun legislation. I am one of those who would prefer that we have better legislation as it relates to gun control in this country. Unfortunately, the government has done an excellent job of convincing all Canadians that this particular piece of legislation is going to make our streets safer, it is going to reduce crime and it is also going to somehow reduce homicides and accidents that are created by the use of firearms.
I want to relate to a national Gallup poll that was put out in September 1991. The wrong focus the government has taken is borne out in this particular poll.
Let me start off by reading this poll and then get into more specific details of the legislation.
No. 1 on the Gallup poll: Canadians were asked to pick the one thing in the following five choices whereby the government should mainly address the new gun control laws. The results were as follows: guaranteeing severe penalties for any crimes involving guns, 33 per cent; tighter screening of new gun buyers, 29 per cent; further limiting the types of guns that can be bought, 15 per cent; increasing the requirements in safety training, gun use and storage, 12 per cent; increasing restrictions over present gun owners, 8 percent.
Canadians agreed that the courts are presently much too lenient in punishing criminals using guns.

November 5, 1991
That was agreed to by 86 per cent of Canadians. The new law should control criminals and not guns by giving out much tougher penalties to those who use a gun in any crime. Again 88 per cent were in favour of that.
Law abiding sportsmen, recreational shooters and collectors should not lose their guns because of the actions of relatively few criminals. Again 82 per cent of Canadians agreed with that statement.
Passing more severe laws over legitimate gun owners will have very little influence on criminals, and 69 per cent of Canadians agreed with that. I do not feel well informed about the issues related to gun control because I have not been given clear or complete information about the subject, and 50 per cent of Canadians agree with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government should consider bringing its defence policy out into the open so that there can be a full public debate on the over-all logic of our defence position.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose as I stand to speak on this private members' motion, those who watch the cameras and perhaps some of our colleagues on all sides of the House would say:"Why is he speaking and on which subject is he speaking?"
I think this is a very important subject and this is why raised it in my resolution. It may not be related to my immediate riding problem, which is basically a problem of the failure of the fishery, but the subject of defence is very pertinent and very close to the hearts of Newfound-
Private Members' Business
landers, and I am sure to all Canadians, for a number of reasons.
I know the time I have and I want to say to members on all sides of the House, that this can be a partisan issue. I do not want it to be a partisan issue. The motion, very simply stated, says that we would like to see a larger debate on national defence. If I quote government sources, if I quote the sources on my side of the House, it is only to make the point that there should be a longer discussion on this subject.
I would indulge you, Mr. Speaker, if I become partisan perhaps you could remind me because I do not intend to, but should I, I suppose I could be forgiven for this.
Sir John Hackett, who was a great writer about military things, said: "What a country gets from the military is what it asks for, nothing more, and nothing less. And when it looks into the hearts and minds of those in uniform, those men and women in uniform, what it sees is a reflection of itself. And if the mirror is a true one, the reflection will be as accurate as the mirror is".
When I was in uniform I was always impressed by that because I knew that in this House was a great concern about our military people. I did not design the timing but I think it should not go without notice that it is very close to November 11. Activities that have taken place in the last few days reflect how important the military is in our lives.
By way of putting things in perspective, I want to read the opening statement of the old defence paper. I say the old defence paper, but it is the last one we have had, really. This is not meant to be partisan and I just want to put it in perspective because it could have been the Prime Minister of any party who said this.
If I had been a prime minister or if it had been my party I think I would have said that as well. It is not meant to be partisan. Prime Minister Mulroney said: "No government has a more important obligation than to protect the life and the well-being of its people, to safeguard their values and interests, and in Canada it is a time to renew that commitment". That was the beginning.
I worked very closely with the white paper on defence and I suppose in some ways it would be difficult for me to stand up here and say that I disagreed with what was in there. I am certainly aware that the circumstances have

November 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
changed since that paper was put together. I want to read the conclusion of that paper:
"The government will implement this program vigorously. Over time our endeavours will produce a defence posture responsive to the challenges of 1990 and beyond. Canadian security and sovereignty will be better served. Canada will become a more responsible ally and we will have a firmer basis from which to contribute to peace and freedom."
As I said earlier, that could have been written by any government, it could have been written by any prime minister or any defence minister.
Since then there have been developments. In some ways I am almost embarrassed that this cannot be more partisan, but I would share the views of the government that it is very difficult to organize a defence policy when things are changing so rapidly.
I know that I am certainly supported by my colleagues on this side of the House, and I see members on the other side of the House nodding as well. I would like to see a more public debate on this very important issue.
I had some notes but they are scattered all over the place. I had a very starched and ironed speech but it does not seem to be the time for it. I feel more comfortable speaking about defence and the notion of involving the Canadian public in a more positive sense, in a more continuing sense. Let me explain why I feel this.
Each time the budget comes out there IS a change in national defence. There have been base closures, there have been changes in the NATO structure, and I have to be honest, there are few things that have come out in the statements with which I have been able to take real issue. I am the kind of person who if there is a subject that I want to take issue with, I will, and if there is one that perhaps I would have to force, I would just as soon not.
Let us look at the defence policy statement that was made by the minister on, I think it was September 17. What did he say in that? He basically said that things are going to be as they were before, except we are going to have some changes.
I have been involved in the last 15 years in trying to work out defence policies and there are basically three ways you can do it. You can start with what you have and take it up or take it down. That is called the incremental defence policy. You can start with what you have and totally rearrange it. That is called the new change. This is what the white paper in 1987 did; the "new change". Or you can start and do something called zero base. You start from zero and you work out why you have so many people in uniform, what it is they are doing, and why they are doing it.
I have been in consultation with some of my former colleagues and I would never want to embarrass them. They are not upset by the policy as it is today, which is, I suppose, an incremental policy. I have here in my hand the statement on defence policy by the Minister of National Defence and the government, and I will read the first paragraph. It says:
Canada, like any country, must maintain its defence policy
periodically because of the requirement to maintain efficiency, adapt
to changes in the international situation, and to take into account the
realities peculiar to the territory.
That is great stuff. It is wonderful stuff, but what does
it mean?
We are the second largest country in the world and I wonder sometimes if we recognize really where the threats are. It is because of the unusual nature of the threat that I believe my motion should be considered seriously.
The motion basically says that we should talk more about defence policy in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know where you come from and I know that you have been involved in defence issues, perhaps not as a constituency matter but I know that you certainly have been involved peripherally.
There are a number of reasons why the 295 politicians in this House become involved in defence issues. Most of the time perhaps it is for the wrong reason. Perhaps a base is going to be closed or somebody is doing something and a politician has to go and make their number in the House of Commons.
If we were really to get down to basics, we would have to look at defence policy as an insurance policy. In the bad old days when there were wars and enemies on the other side of wherever, it was a fairly simple thing to say
November 5, 1991

that there was an enemy, we can afford this much for defence, and this is how much it is going to cost the taxpayer to protect against the enemy. Certainly in my lifetime that was reasonably clear. I knew more or less where the enemy was, or at least the perceived enemy in peacetime.
It was judgmental on the country as to how much money it would spend on defence.
There has been a transition in the last two years and a number of things have changed. How can you possibly say there is the enemy and this is how much we are going to spend? The government has a real problem. Anybody in government would have a problem in deciding how much to spend on national defence.
I think there are 166 or 167 countries in the United Nations today but in those days there were a lot fewer. The civilized world is a civilized organization very much like the way we run this House of Commons; we are civilized people, there is a Speaker, and we have certain rules that we are subjected to. We do not always follow them but we are subjected to them.
In 1945 the war ended. All of a sudden there was no enemy. The enemy of yesterday was the friend of tomorrow. In 1949 we started on NATO and we got NATO organized in 1950. Then things became lined. You knew you were on this side and you were a member of NATO. People joined NATO and then there was the other side, the Warsaw Pact. I would not say it was simple but I would say it was relatively clear about how you would line up.
Eighteen months ago that changed tremendously. Who is the enemy today? Where is the enemy? How is the enemy going to perform?
I would suggest that the enemy of today is more malicious than the enemy of yesterday. If I know my enemies, I may not be happy with them but at least I know their failures and their successes and I know what they can do. When you do not know who the enemy is how do you deal with it? How do you say it may be him, it may be her, it may be that, but I am not sure how to do it?
You have a number of choices. You can say that because there is no enemy that I can perceive I am not going to do anything at all. I am going to pack it up and throw it away. Or you can say that because you are not
Private Members' Business
sure who the enemy is you should do double what was done before. I am not so sure that is the right way either.


An hon. member:: Don't do anything.


Fred J. Mifflin: I heard a comment from my hon. colleague from Victoria who said: "Don't do anything". I would be more kind to the government. It is trying to do something. It made a policy statement on defence that would have been all right if nothing had changed since the 1987 white paper. Since the white paper all the assumptions made there were changed rapidly and dramatically. The world is not in the same place as was described in this well put together and well written document.
We have things going on in the world that we see and I am sure we recognize for what they are. Who is the enemy? We have a lot of things going on. We have a thing which the books and those who are more learned than I call cultural nationalism. We see it in our own country and it is very deep. Sometimes I believe I understand it, and when I sit down to analyse it I really do not understand it. It is not the same as putting a pilot in a MiG 34 or a MiG 26 and sending it from a to b. It is not the same as having a cruiser and putting a whole bunch of missiles on it, because the intelligence can say this is what is happening. But how does intelligence recognize cultural nationalism? It is deep. There are times when you think it is submerged that it will always return. There is cultural nationalism.
There is the instability going on in the world. I take you back, Mr. Speaker, to 1945. I say it took from 1945 until around 1950 for the people who were working on defence policies to sort them out. Our major change in defence policy came in the last couple of years when the cold war was basically over. We made a change in NATO. We arranged some of our base structures in the country. As a statement of policy this came out in the policy statement I hold in my hand. If I were defence minister, there is not a great deal different that perhaps I would have advised my Prime Minister on.
I will go back to the point of my motion. I would love to see a public debate about defence. National defence is the second largest department in the government. The industries involved in national defence involve 120,000 people and a countless number of firms. I am not going to get into the arms sales. That is a separate subject, but it certainly is related. I think my hon. friend will speak on it as a subject as well.

November 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, you are asking where am I going. I am surprised that nobody on the other side of the House has asked me where I am going. I am not sure where I am going. The point is there is a need for a public debate.
I come from a reasonably large riding. There are
110,000	people in my riding. It is a modest riding and one would not think it was that related to defence. I boast, and I think rightfully so, that Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is the largest fishing riding in Canada. Nobody has challenged me on that.


Roger Simmons: I have.


Fred J. Mifflin: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's says that he has. We will sort this out later on.
I am one of 295 people in this House. I am modest enough to think that I am not much different from anyone else. In my riding there is seldom a time that I go to a reception or speak or go to a gathering where someone does not say that their son or daughter served in the Persian Gulf. They were involved. They are asking me: "Where are we going?" I say that I think we will continue to have a defence policy and I think we will continue to support defence matters. Any government, whichever side of the House, can have a defence policy. I suppose I have kind of lost track of this, but I go back to the statement of the Minister of National Defence. The day before he made his statement the Prime Minister said: "There will be a larger statement later on". I assumed that there would be some public consultation. The motion says that I would like to see some public consultation. I go back to what Sir John Hackett said. I started with Sir John Hackett. I do not mind talking about him because he was an army general and most admirals and generals usually get along. He was a veiy deep, learned man. Mr. Speaker, before you give me the option to sit down, I will once again, in closing, ask you and ask those who are going to speak on this matter to reflect on his words. Once again, John Hackett said: "What a countiy gets from its military is what they ask for. Nothing more, nothing less. When they look at their military they are looking in a mirror and, if the reflection is a true one, the face they see will be their own".
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for bringing the motion before the House today so we can again debate and consider the future directions of Canadian defence policy.
I agree with the member that it is important that these issues be raised publicly and considered from many different perspectives. Increasingly we have been having good debates here on the floor of the House of Commons about foreign and defence policy. It is a welcomed change.
I remember the week the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was reunited. There was not a single question asked in the House of Commons during Question Period relating to any aspect of Canadian foreign policy. I think we were preoccupied with a domestic tax change or some matter like that.
Therefore, it is always important as Canada is in transition from the model of a 19th century nation state into a 21st century international countiy that we the elected representatives of the people contemplate the direction that the policy should go.
The member, in the wording of his motion, wants to bring Canada's defence policy out in the open for a full public debate on the over-all logic of our defence position. "Out in the open" and "full logic" are two elements that I just want to note in passing.
The more open the better, but I think there are already a number of public meetings and discussions, not only right now on the floor of the House of Commons, but earlier today the standing committee on defence met with this whole subject as part of its current, self-assigned mandate. Elsewhere throughout the country the minister's own policy statement to which the member has referred is also part of that. Therefore I think our countiy is engaged in public discussion and the more the better. I agree with that.
As to the logic, I pause. The search for logic in government policy is perhaps a quest that would leave the hon. member mad. It is very hard sometimes to find logic. Historians tell us that Canada defies logic, that the policies of government that tried to keep this country

November 5, 1991

united east to west on an economic basis defied the logic of north-south integration.
In the member's own province of Newfoundland the constituent assembly that met to consider what questions should be put on the ballot in the referendum omitted the option of Newfoundland voting to join with Canada. There was no logic in that. In fact it was subsequently added by the British government as a choice for Newfoundlanders. As a consequence of that we have the member here today and as a consequence of that we have this debate.
The point I am making is that if our quest is for logic, I think we will be here a lot longer than the brief time allowed for this debate.
A former leader of the member's party, Mr. Trudeau, once outlined his political philosophy in an effort to have the mind rule over the heart, the head over the heart, although his political actions in many respects sometimes contradicted that. I think that we increasingly see-


An hon. member:: You are being partisan.


Patrick Boyer: The hon. member is interrupting by saying that I am being partisan. I am analysing the problem we have in public policy, that it is not always logic and the rationally designed order that prevails. People are as much if not more motivated by emotion, instinct and by primeval human drives to do things as they are by logic. I simply make the comment in passing that we should look at the broad outlines of the policy and the reasons for it. If it appears to be logical, so much the better as far as the hon. member is concerned.
He has outlined all the changes that have taken place. No one can escape them. It is in that context that the previous government's policy on defence issued in 1987 became outdated. It stood as an island trapped in time as so many other changes were swirling around. The member has referred to them.
There are not only changes in the international context, but changes domestically relating to the government's efforts to try to deal in a serious minded way with the national debt that the country has and to bring spending down. We have changed international context and budgetary restraint at home.
A third element impinging on this is the desire to have the Canadian Armed Forces indeed do more at the very
Private Members' Business
time their numbers are being reduced, to take on new roles in addition to those that are required of a professional armed force of the kind that we have in Canada.
It was on that basis that the minister made the policy statement not so long ago on September 17. He did present reasons that yes, there would be changes and yes, there would be elements remaining the same.
This should not be disparaged. This is a "logical" approach to the situation I have just described. There will be some progress. There will be some progressing and some conserving of elements that together are necessary as we go ahead in the new context.
I think that the basic tenets of Canadian defence policy are out in the open. They are very much in the open. They are part of the public record and they have been there for a long time following some three fairly well-known features. The first is defence and collective security. The second is arms control and disarmament and the third is the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Those are areas that are long-standing, publicly known and publicly supported aspects of Canadian defence policy. The call to have this out in the open is perhaps a call not so much as to reveal anew, for the first time, public policy. It is rather to invite the hon. member to remove his sun glasses and see what is there in full public display for everyone to see and recognize.
The global changes that we have seen are of historic proportion. We discussed this yesterday when the member for Victoria had a resolution before us dealing with the future role of the North American defence agreement between Canada and the United States.
The cold war is over and we are no longer viewing the role of the Canadian Armed Forces, our treaties or our arrangements in that context. Yet, to say that, we must not assume that all the sheep and all the lions are lying down in the pasture together and that there is no hostility or threat of hostility. We must not assume that there is no need for us to still maintain our vigilance, because certainly there is.
I think the ongoing conflict in Yugoslavia is ringing a very clear warning bell to the world community revealing how the many challenges that remain can lead to violence.

Private Members' Business
I had a discussion on Friday of last week with Dr. Madeleine Fullbright, Professor of International Law and a Democratic presidential adviser on foreign policy in the United States. We discussed the survey she had conducted in central and eastern Europe showing that in virtually all of the countries of central and eastern Europe a majority of the people living there feels that a part of their country is within the borders of another country.
There are a lot of possibilities over there that will give rise to peacekeeping work and a strong role for the United Nations to keep regional and border conflicts from erupting. That is one of the other areas where the policy announced by the Minister of National Defence clearly states Canada's commitment to continuing in that role. That is another part of our policy.
Indeed I would like to add personally that the work of a number of parliamentarians to see us now move to the next stage of preventive peacekeeping is something that would be a further role for Canada to provide leadership on a global basis and be consistent both with the traditions of our country and the new opportunities and challenges internationally.
There are many more elements to all of this and in a brief 10 minutes I cannot entirely reiterate the lengthy policy statement of the minister. However I would like to clarify that the government is responding in a way that is both pragmatic and creative. It is with that in mind, with more debate and discussion by Canadians on this issue, that we can have a consensus in the country on the future direction of a very constructive defence policy for our country.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate and join in congratulating the member for bringing forward this motion. It is clearly important that there be public debate on Canada's defence policy.
I have to say that I am very disappointed that this is as far as the motion goes, that I am very disappointed in the content of the member's speech as he brought it forward; not in his style, not in his motivation, not in his intention, but in the content and substance of it.
I think that the parliamentary secretary who just spoke is quite correct. The government's policy is quite out in the open. The government has made a policy statement. The government is conducting defence policy in this country. What this country now needs is not a quiet, wimpish motion that calls for more public debate with the Liberal Party, if I can say it, hiding again behind process. Rather, let us begin to join issue on the issues that there are in defence.
The government has put forward its position and we have put forward our position. The country is waiting perhaps with bated breath for what the Liberal Party has to say on these critical issues as the world changes.


An hon. member:: What do you have to say?


John F. Brewin: If you will be quiet for a minute or two, you will hear exactly what we have to say. You have heard it already on two or three occasions and you will hear it again. Let me raise first of all the context in which our country now has to look at issues of defence policy. It is absolutely clear the fundamental premise that has underscored our defence policy since the late 1930s has changed, particularly the fundamental premise of our policy since the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the cold war. It is a point which I made last night in the discussion on NORAD.
The Warsaw pact has disbanded. Virtually all Warsaw pact countries regard themselves as applicants to join the west and to enter into normal peaceful relations with the NATO countries including Canada and the United States. They have laid down their arms. They present no threat. They want to be friends and allies.
The Soviet Union has been proclaimed by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs to be our friend and our ally, and we are now entering into economic, political and social relationships to make that a fact.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union are proceeding at break-neck pace to dismantle the whole nuclear apparatus that had grown up during the cold war. We are left still with the remnants of that and that needs to be dealt with, but it will not be dealt with by a build-up of arms. It will be dealt with by effective arms control and arms reduction measures.
Canada and the defence planners and public policy makers now face a complete re-vision and re-orientation of where we want to go in this country. We start with the
November 5, 1991

first question: What is the threat to Canada? What threats are there to our territory, our space and our integrity from a military point of view? The answer has to be virtually none. There is no country, other than the United States of America, that could successfully invade Canada and hold space in our country. There is the risk of occasional incursion, militarily, from some country testing and probing our area and again it is primarily the United States and the Soviet Union that have any capacity left to do that. Challenges to our sovereignty come primarily from the United States and not from anyone else. There are the remnants of Soviet power left, but that is all there is.
At the defence committee today we heard of the complete chaos in the Soviet Union which is facing transition from a state run economy to a market mixed economy, transition from a military system phasing out which employed millions of Soviets both in the defence industry and in the armed forces. That is being dismantled and it is facing the very transition of the Soviet empire into a series of republics and a very loose federation. It simply does not have the time, energy, money or drive to provide any military threat to speak of to Canada.
We happen to be in effect the Switzerland of the 20th and 21st centuries in that in the current terms no country can engage in a significant military attack against Canada. We need to patrol our coasts. We need to know what is happening in our air space. We need to have some capacity to deal with incursions and, in terms of our own territory, that is it.
The question for Canadians and the hard question for Canadians is to what extent do we contribute militarily to security in other areas of the world. The clear answer, in which all Canadians agree, is that we participate in UN peacekeeping. On that we share. I think most Canadians would agree that if the CSCE called on Canada to participate in some form of peacekeeping in Yugoslavia or in the foreseeable future in parts of the Soviet Union as it now is, where minorities may be under attack or where there are regional tensions between republics of the Soviet Union, where there are problems of that kind, Canadians would look very seriously at that.
I think we see that we have a role in a kind of peacekeeping area, but we do not come to the post cold war era as a major military power. We come as a middle power with credibility, as a negotiator with credibility, in
Private Members' Business
a role as confidence building and, most important, with credibility in terms of developmental assistance and environmental work. It seems to me that the post cold war era for Canada is going to require a very significant contribution. The role we can most effectively play is in trying to finally rid the world of poverty, to try to support the efforts of peoples of the world to build social justice, to work on the institutions of international stability, order, peace and justice such as the United Nations, the CSCE and other regional groupings.
What we need to do is take initiative. I have not heard a word from the Liberal Party on this. It is really interesting that the associate critic for the Liberal Party says he does not know where he is going in these areas. I may have taken him out of context, but we have not heard from him on issues-


An hon. member:: I did not say that. We do not know, as a country, where we are going.


John F. Brewin: I thought I heard him say that he, too, did not know where he was going. I see the parliamentary secretary nodding vigorously. The record of Hansard will tell the tale.
The fact remains that what we should be doing is moving quickly to provide leadership on developing a polar security arrangement, on trying to de-escalate the arms build-up that there has been for the last 40 years. This is the future of debate in Canada and this is the focus of the debate. This House has to pick up the challenge and the government has to pick up the challenge of bringing Canadians into this discussion as a whole. The questions of debate now are not technical, military questions.
They are questions of public policy, of what Canada's relations should be with the United States, what our relations are with Europe, what our relations are with our neighbours. This should be the focus and these are questions of major public policy, and this has to be the focus of debate.
The citizens' inquiry on peace and security, sponsored and organized by the Canadian Peace Alliance and its constituent groups, is performing a very important service for this country and is beginning to open this up. We in this House and the government, for its part, have to build on that.

Private Members' Business
It is not sufficient for these issues to be the property of the military. The military and the Department of National Defence in this country played an enormously important role in the Second World War, in the First World War, in the Korean War, in the Persian Gulf War, and in keeping the peace over the last 40 years. But the property of this debate is not that internally of the Department of National Defence.
To this extent I entirely agree with the underlying proposition of the member who moved this motion. It is that this discussion has to be brought out of the Department of National Defence. The way in which the September paper was produced is not constructive and effective. The first questions that have to be asked are: what is the military threat to Canada? What perspectives do we have for the future? Where are we going in the future? These fundamental questions are public questions which all Canadians should be engaged in. It is our responsibility to find a forum, a process and a way for that debate to be engaged.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate knowing full well, however, that I follow people who are so well versed in the subject, the member who was a career officer from the Armed Forces from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, the critic for defence from the NDP, and indeed the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence.
I hope during this debate to point out that perhaps we have already met the main part of this motion. There has been a great deal of room for public input. Indeed, we are probably already providing for what the member for Victoria is suggesting, that we give a place to join issue, that we let people come in and talk through the things I will mention a little further along in my speech.
Before we do that I would like to comment that the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has quoted a person who said that we get from our Armed Forces only that which we ask of them, that if we look in the mirror we will see what we need from the Armed Forces. I would like to suggest that they have always delivered more than what we asked. They have always served us so well, in two world wars, in Korea and in the Middle East, more recently last year in Oka. Indeed, we are proud of everything that the Armed Forces have done for us
because they do go beyond what duty might demand of them.
Because we are coming close to November 11 and the time when we remember the sacrifices of the people who fought for Canadian values, I want to say that we will never forget what they have done in their sacrifices for Canada.
Let me move to the topic of today. I want to suggest that the recently announced defence policy was the product of in-depth research and review of opinions and views offered by numerous people and organizations since 1987. Contrary to what at least one member of the opposition party has said here today, the review was not completed in isolation. Studies and reports by various parliamentary committees on a broad range of defence subjects were taken into account. These included studies on maritime sovereignty, Canada's land forces, NORAD renewal, the gulf war and Middle East security, the arms treaty and the Oka crisis.
Many of these hearings included testimony from individual citizens as well as various organizations and interest groups. The minutes of all proceedings, as well as the final reports of these all-party committees, are public and are available to anyone interested in defence issues.
The government has also listened to the position set out by the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies and other organizations that expressed their views. In addition, we have heard from countless other interested and concerned citizens. In fact, since the release of the white paper on defence in 1987, the public has expressed its views on defence through thousands of letters to the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as through testimony during participation in government sponsored meetings and conferences. Now that the policy has been released I may add that there continues to be ways for Canadians to influence the content and orientation of our policy.
First, an advisory group has been created to study this area of concern to many Canadians, the process for rationalization of Canadian Forces bases and installations. Members of this advisory group were selected from outside the government or any political party in order to give as much objectivity to the process as possible. Their report will be tabled publicly and will be passed to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for further review and recommendations. I might say that we in this House all know the

chairman of that particular committee, the member for Crowfoot, with his strongly independent processes, is going to make sure that everyone who wishes to give a view to that committee will be able to do so.
This process provides the public with the opportunity to scrutinize the principles, the parameters and the logic of the planned review of defence infrastructure and offer their opinions.
Second, the opportunity to discuss, review and recommend direction of our defence policies and programs is presented at least once a year when Main Estimates are referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, as well as at any time supplementary estimates or interim estimates for the Department of National Defence are tabled.
Upon any one of these occasions the committee may consult with concerned citizens and various interest groups, and indeed I am sure that they would like to hear from those concerned citizens and would help the committee to talk to departmental officials, and of course the Ministers of National Defence.
Reports resulting from these hearings are public and are considered by defence planners. Moreover, it is the intention to come forward with a more detailed explanation of defence policy upon the consideration of the Estimates.
Finally, as the world order is evolving so quickly, flexibility in any defence policy has become essential. Toward this end, this government is seeking more public input on future defence policy than any previous government has done.
Annual ministerial declarations will allow the government to consider public opinions, provide for greater public consultation and make appropriate policy adjustments in a timely manner. This government has in fact conducted a defence review based on the realities of the current national and world situation.
As the government continues to consider changes in defence policy, we will continue to listen to the views of Canadians. In the meantime we have produced a defence policy which meets the needs of Canada in an era of rapid change. It is a flexible policy. It is a realistic
Business of the House
policy for the people of Canada and, moreover, it is an achievable policy.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the members of the House and you will find that there is consent for the following motion.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) I wish to state that the representatives of all parties have reached an agreement with regard to a proposed allotment of time for the disposition of report stage and third reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof.
I therefore move:
Thai, in relation to Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof, the remainder of this sitting day shall be allotted to report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to third reading stage of the bill; that the debate at report stage shall continue tonight beyond the hour of daily adjournment until all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the said bill are disposed of, provided that no dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be deemed receivable during the extended sitting; that any requested divisions shall be deferred until three o'clock p.m. Wednesday, November 6, 1991, provided that any time used for the voting at report stage of the said bill on Wednesday, November 6, 1991 be added to the hours of government business during that sitting; that notwithstanding any Standing Order on Wednesday, November 6, 1991, the House shall proceed with third reading stage of Bill C-17, and that at the end of the time allotted for the consideration of Government Orders on that day all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, and that if a recorded division is requested that it shall be deferred until ten o'clock a.m. Thursday, November 6, 1991.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there have been some extensive deliberations pursuant to the Standing Orders regarding this particular motion, as well as on its specific contents.
I am sure my colleague from the New Democratic Party would want an assurance from this House with regard to a particular matter and I believe some of my other colleagues will seek assurances. I wish to indicate first hand that we would be prepared to give those

Private Members' Business
assurances in the spirit in which the motion has been drafted and given by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition.
We certainly support this motion. As I see it, this will give everyone who wishes to contribute to the debate an opportunity to do so today and tomorrow as well.
I want to seek a clarification from both my hon. friends that at the end of the day, meaning tomorrow when we complete third reading stage, if there is a need for some extension to allow a few more members to complete their remarks, we would accept that in good faith to ensure that those people who wish to speak will have an opportunity.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there are assurances within the motion that the time it takes us to complete all the votes on report stage would thereafter be added to the time in which we will debate at third reading.
As the hon. member has suggested, if there is a finite number of individuals who wish to speak for a short period of time I am certain that reasonableness would enter the Chamber and I would be happy to give my concurrence to the hon. member's request.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, with the atmosphere which prevails in the House, it is hard not to join in, and you know that we are always inclined to co-operate.
However, I know that the House, at least on third reading, will not want to miss the excellent speech of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, who will illuminate us all with her knowledge. I would ask my colleagues to give us the assurance that the House will not deprive itself of the words of the member for Saint-Hubert.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to concur with the motion that has been put before us. I also would like to have reasonable grounds of confidence that I would be able to speak to this bill.
I know that the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants would like the same assurance that we could treat this in good faith and make sure that everybody does have a chance to speak, as the member for Kamloops said, and if we do need to go beyond the time for a short period tomorrow night, we would be able to get some assurance on behalf of the government.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to indicate my thanks to all members who have co-operated to make this House order possible.
I also want to indicate to the hon. members for Saint-Hubert, Beaver River and Annapolis Valley- Hants that we will be more than pleased to co-operate to make sure they have an opportunity to participate in the debate. The whole thrust of this motion is to make certain that all members who wish to speak have that opportunity.
I do want to indicate to the House leader of the New Democratic Party, as has already been confirmed by the House leader of the Liberal Party, that we too would be prepared to co-operate to make certain that if there are some people who need to speak when we come to seven o'clock tomorrow evening, we would allow that additional time.
I might also say that this is a wonderful idea, the way this is working. I would be quite happy to take care of all of the lists for speakers on all future debates and maybe we should consider that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mifflin (p. 4577).
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, on a point of order, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I was the last to speak and I only went through about two minutes of my designated time. Are we back on debate or is this something else altogether?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will now resume consideration of Private Members's Business until 6 p.m.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception in bringing forward this very timely motion this afternoon in private members' hour. I was particularly interested in hearing the defence critic for the NDP in the House get up and deliver a cheap shot at his efforts on his first go round. We in this House know that the New Democratic Party of Canada would be quite happy to have the Ottawa police force as the national army of Canada and so we write that off without worrying about it any longer.
We have to take this motion very seriously. I am glad that some of the government members are taking it very seriously because there is a great rapport on this issue in this Parliament.
While we have things moving toward peace on the international scene, and we are all very pleased with that, we have to be very concerned about the accidents of history that happen along the way. We have had those accidents of history happen in days gone by and they have caused great consternation to the human race in this world.
As we come up to Remembrance Day, I think it is even more apropos that the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception has brought this motion forward for us to take a look at and consider what should be in a future defence policy for Canada.
We know that the white paper the government put out a few years ago is now totally out of date. It has come forward with some ad hoc suggestions which really do not serve the purpose of our times.
I totally agree with the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception when he says that we get out of our Canadian forces what we ask of them. We have a tremendous record in the activities that we have partici-
Private Members' Business
pated in around the world. The world needs Canada. I think that is a very important thing to remember at this time when we are reviewing defence policies. The world needs Canada.
We have troops right now on the Golan Heights which have been there for some time between Syria and Israel and they have been doing an excellent job. Sometimes people forget they are even there but they are there and they are doing their job.
We have about 560 troops still in Cyprus keeping the peace in that part of the world and that has gone on for some 27 years. We do not know how much longer it is going to go on.
We had occasion to send teams of our military personnel to Vietnam at the close-out of that war where they did a super job. Korea was a UN battle to drive the communists back to the line that had been agreed upon by the United Nations. Canadians went over there and served well. We will remember those who made the supreme sacrifice in that battle when we stand around the cenotaphs at more than 1,700 Royal Canadian Legions across this country next Monday, November 11.
We have sent troops to Africa on peacekeeping missions. We have sent troops to Central America to try to manage peace or bring peace about in that area.
Our Canadian forces, as the hon. member who sponsored this motion very well knows, are not only soldiers. People look upon them as military. They are military first because they have a job to do when they are given the orders to do it. Second, they are great diplomats because they are called upon to deal with many nations of the world and other forces that they work with in peacekeeping with the United Nations.
At the same time they may not like this comment, but I always refer to them as being very good politicians because they can sit down around a table and get some consensus out of a meeting and bring something together for a solution to a problem. They can get other countries agreeing with them and working with them toward a useful end to solving a conflict.
We all remember the time that we had 1,036 peacekeeping troops in the Sinai and in Egypt. After the war over there that was so devastating it was the Canadian

Government Orders
Forces that pulled together the UN forces that were there and worked with them.
I had the privilege at that time of visiting with Brigadier General Don Holmes who was commanding officer of our peacekeeping forces in the Middle East. It was great to see him in action and I look upon those actions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Ihriff in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from Legislative Committee H; and of Motions Nos. 4, 11, 17, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58 and 62.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order passed earlier this afternoon, we resume consideration of report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminel Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof. At that time, the debate was on Motions Nos. 4, 11, 17, 54, 55, 57 and 62, as well as Motions Nos. 53 and 58 which were grouped together for the purpose of the debate.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before Private Members' Business started at five o'clock, the Gallup poll that was done in September 1991, as you can see, has a different slant to it than the government's piece of legislation, in particular under the area of law-abiding sportsmen, recreational shooters and collectors that should not lose their guns because of the actions of relatively few criminals. Mr. Speaker, 82 per cent of Canadians said that they agreed with that statement.
In connection with this situation we are dealing with I want to talk a little bit particularly about the motion and the area of amendment I am looking for. That is that Motion No. 4, about which we are talking particularly,
and the others that are bunched together delete all reference in clause 2 which adds the definition of a large capacity cartridge magazine.
When we dealt with C-80, and I was a member of that committee, we dealt particularly with clip size. I want to read what the committee said about that and particularly some of the individuals that came forward. One of the areas we focused on was that magazines are unmarked and thus untraceable. It was suggested very strongly to us by an RCMP expert, Mr. Murray Smith, that indeed it is acknowledged that the problems of interchangeability and untraceability compounded by several million ammunition magazines that are already in the country would make any limits very difficult to administer and enforce.
I cannot understand for the life of me why anybody would want to put in a piece of legislation which the experts out in the field tell us cannot be enforceable. That situation is really what we are debating here today.
What we are debating is just what it means to the law-abiding citizen, the individual who feels that this piece of legislation does absolutely nothing to the criminal element that we as members of Parliament are supposed to be dealing with.
We are not supposed to be restricting severely law-abiding citizens who are not the problem at all. I will not get much of a chance to deal with that because of the short time that I have, but I want to suggest to the members opposite that removing over two million clips and also outlawing a significant amount of firearms because of the fact that some of these clips are built in is not going to improve the situation one iota in the urban centres of this country.
We have suggested to law-abiding citizens of this country that we cannot trust them to do the right thing.
When I get my chance at third reading to discuss this a little further, I will talk about some of the issues that we talked about in C-80. We thought they were very important issues that should have been addressed in this legislation and would have made for strong gun legislation. That is the focus to which I think we should apply ourselves.
It is a charade to say that we have put in good legislation and people can sleep better and feel much safer walking on the streets in cities like Toronto and Montreal. It cannot, for the life of me, come out of my mouth because I believe that would be suggesting to my constituents that they are totally incapable of un-

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
derstanding this legislation and that they do not realize armaments there are. They are not looking at the issue that their members of Parliament are correct.	of who is using them.
I have made this legislation available to all people in my riding who were interested. I want people to know that I have over 3,000 members of my riding who belong to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They are not a lobby group. They are just people who go hunting and fishing and are interested in our environment. They have asked for this particular report on Bill C-80.
In this report there are a lot of different issues that we dealt with that have not even been touched by this particular legislation called Bill C-17. One area of difficulty is the magazine size.
In closing I want to say that when I get a chance to speak more thoroughly and for a longer period of time, I will focus on just a few areas that I missed, specifically the difference between clamping down on criminals and clamping down on legitimate gun owners. I think that is important to focus on.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadians to look at the problems we are attempting to deal with in addressing the very important issue of arms control.
Last year there were about 1,400 deaths in Canada that were arms related. Of those, 1,100 were suicides. About 100 to 200 were from the criminal use of firearms.
This bill purports to make our society safer by dealing with the criminal use of firearms. How does it attempt to do this? First of all, it does make it more difficult for people to get an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate. There is going to be more screening. This is good, but I am not sure that they have gone far enough in terms of these provisions.
Another area they are going to look at is restrictions on the types of arms that Canadians can have. They will do this by limiting or making restricted weapons or outlawing certain types of weapons, including guns which were automatic but which have been converted to semi-automatic. They will also limit the size of clips, the number of bullets that can be fired from certain guns. In doing so they are looking at the problem of what types of
The problem is that many gun collectors, people who belong to gun clubs and people who shoot for recreational purposes, are going to be affected because they have a number of these types of arms in their collections, legally acquired in the past. One of the problems we face is that throughout all of the hearings we have had there has been almost no suggestion and certainly no evidence that it is legitimate gun collectors and members of gun clubs who have created the problem of gun-related deaths in Canada.
As a matter of fact, these people have probably done more through training courses and rigorous screening of people who are admitted to their gun clubs to make the use of guns safe if they can ever be.
It seems to me that this bill as it now reads is dealing not with the fundamental issue of controlling the criminal use of guns. It is penalizing people who have proven in the past that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem of gun related deaths in Canada.
Does this bill deal with increased penalties for criminals who use guns in the course of a crime? For example, it was suggested by many of the lobbyists who appeared before committee that we should increase the penalties for the use of guns in crime.
We should make it mandatory that a person have at least a two year sentence for even using a gun during the course of an offence. You could say that this could create problems in terms of plea bargaining and the administration of justice. Suggestions were put forward that you could not withdraw this mandatory penalty without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. That would give a certain flexibility if you need it.
Is there anything in this bill to deal with mandatory penalties for smuggling guns into Canada? Guns smuggled into Canada are often used in crimes. Is there anything in this bill to deal with mandatory penalties for the theft of firearms? No.
If we are really attempting to deal with gun related crimes and the deaths that ensue, which none of us want to see and which we should be seeking to prevent, then I

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
feel that this bill is deficient in not dealing with these very important issues.
This bill is very deficient in that it is not fair. People have over the years acquired a number of guns. I do not have a gun and I do not particularly like guns but people have within the law gone out and bought collector's items and paid a lot of money for them. Many of these guns are going to be taken away from them by this bill without compensation. It is expropriation without compensation. You cannot do that in terms of peoples' homes or cars. Surely this is not fair.
Another problem I see with this bill was mentioned by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who has a good knowledge of this bill and has spoken strongly on it. He will speak more. He called for mandatory training programs so that when people are going to acquire a gun, particularly for the first time, they have to learn more about safety and the safe use of these guns.
There is no provision for these mandatory training programs in this bill. How do you get at the accidental use of firearms causing serious harm to people unless you train people who are going to have guns? Even under this bill there are still going to be guns.
I know I have very little time left but I find this bill extremely deficient. It is not going after the criminal use of guns or the negligent use of guns because it is simply putting most of the burden of this bill on gun collectors and people who belong to gun clubs. Neither of those sports are ones which I feel any particular personal affinity for. But let us not pretend that we are dealing with the root causes of gun related deaths in Canada and the harm that guns can cause to Canadians when we do not deal with more training and the criminal use of guns in smuggling, theft and the commission of crimes.
Maybe there is some progress. Maybe there will be some limitation on the use of guns by making it more difficult to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate. I suspect they did not go far enough in having mandatory training programs which could have been administered by these gun clubs that are willing to do it for a very minimal fee. They already impose strict standards on their own membership.
While this bill addresses the problem of gun control, it does so in a very marginal and, in many cases, unfair way. It does not address the real problems so that we as a Parliament will have to come back to deal with those issues not too many years from now.


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I find it unbelievable that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River proposes such a motion, and in particular Motion No. 4 which specifically aims at authorizing again large capacity cartridge magazines in firearms.
Mr. Speaker, considering all the incidents that have occurred, this goes beyond anything you could imagine. I wonder how the hon. member was able to find someone to second such a motion. I also wonder what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace does in the Liberal Party of Canada, considering he was the first one to go and get the petition signed by 8,000 students of La Polytechnique. He was the first one to go and get that petition, but he is nowhere to be seen here today.
I was at the Polytechnique when that tragedy occured, and I could hear Marc Lepine shoot with his semi-automatic rifle. One would have had to be an expert not to think that this was a true automatic weapon. With a 30-cartridge magazine, how can people prevent a massacre? Who needs such a weapon? Who needs a rifle with a 30-cartridge magazine? I hope no member of the House. I hope this motion was simply seconded to allow a debate and to show how far ignorance can go with proposals that are totally unacceptable.
If there is a minimum of improvement in that legislation, it is because of those weapons. Obviously, as I mentioned earlier, we will have to wait for the recommendations of an advisory committee: We will have to wait for the regulations that will be tabled by the minister and approved by the cabinet. In its present form the legislation only provides for the minister and the Cabinet to make such regulations on firearms. It is already less than minimum and it is completely unacceptable to claim that firearms with any large capacity cartridge magazine should not be prohibited or restricted.
November 5, 1991

I hope that this motion will be rejected, as well as the other ones that were grouped together following the decision of the Speaker and that were proposed by the member for Kenora-Rainy River. Several of them show a similarity; others aim at making more exceptions regarding possession of prohibited weapons. There are already thousands of prohibited weapons in Canada, and there is no real control nor safe storage, not to mention that we may not even know who their owners are.
As regards certain paramilitary and semi-automatic weapons, again those who already own such firearms will be able to keep them. That is what this legislation says. Imagine: these people will become genuine gun collectors. Would you believe that the amendments and motions made here are aimed at making it even easier for those who would be entitled to buy prohibited weapons, to use prohibited weapons and to continue to keep them?.
I call upon all the members to unanimously reject that motion.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be sitting here while someone says to reject all of them. There are actually two government amendments here that are technical amendments.
I am sure if the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys had a look at Motions Nos. 53 and 58 he would see that they are good technical amendments which improve this bill. I would urge hon. members to support them. With respect to the other seven, I do agree with the last speaker that the House should turn them down.
As well, I would like to clear up one misconception that may have been left with the House concerning the contents of this bill. I think the member for Willowdale said to the House that nothing is being done about smuggling in this bill. I just wanted to point out to him that there is section 95 which prohibits the importation of illegal weapons. We are increasing the penalty in that section from five years to 10 years and that deals specifically with the question of smuggling.
The member for Calgary Southwest, I might add, has been very active and interested in this subject right from
Government Orders
the start. She and I were talking about Bill C-80 and commenting on what an improved bill this is. I think all members of the House would agree that this bill is a more effective piece of legislation. I thank her and others who have made recommendations and who have been interested in this. The member pointed out to me that she thought she heard the member for Willowdale say there would be no trading within the grandfathered class. I did not hear it myself. I was checking on something else.
The hon. member is shaking his head. That is fine. I just wanted to make sure the House did know that within the grandfathered class there is trading within the members of the class under this bill.
With respect to the seven amendments by the member for Kenora-Rainy River, the gist of what he is suggesting is to strip the Minister of Justice of the ability to prohibit magazine size. While the bill does not set down any restrictions in this regard, it certainly gives the power to the minister to prohibit certain magazine clips.
The minister has announced that she would eventually formulate regulations with the following limits. For magazines for centre fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns there would be a five-shot limit. For magazines for rim fire rifles, non-semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, there would be no limit. I have been to a number of different communities and there seems to be some confusion about that last point. The magazines for handguns would be limited to 10 shots.
I would like to point out one thing to the House. In setting those limits I have had individuals ask me how this would affect people who are involved in shooting as a sport or as a recreational activity. I want to let them know first of all that as far as our international competitiveness is concerned, no event sanctioned by the International Shooting Union will be affected by these limits. Not one event sanctioned by the International Shooting Union will be affected by these limits. As well, no competitions sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee will be affected by the proposed limits of the Minister of Justice. As I say, when hon. members are considering that I think they should keep that in mind.
I believe that most hunters use magazines with a capacity of two to four shots. That is common among hunters.


An hon. member:: Three.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders


Rob Nicholson: The hon. member points out to me that migratory bird hunters commonly are limited to three-shot capacities. I do not want the impression to be left with individuals who have a legitimate interest in hunting or sporting purposes that somehow the government is trying to interfere with that very legitimate pursuit.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Kenora- Rainy River. I hope the House turns down these amendments. I can tell him that there are many Canadians who would like to see a complete prohibition of semi-automatic firearms. I can also tell him that limiting fire power is less restrictive than prohibiting semi-automatic weapons. I think hon. members should keep that in mind when considering this matter.
It is a balanced package that we have here. Except for those two technical amendments that have the support of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Motions Nos. 53 and 58,1 would ask the House to reject the other seven that we are discussing in this package.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, further to the speech of hon. member for Rosemont, I would like to say a few words. If you take a look at the motions tabled by the hon. member from northern Ontario, you will notice that Motions Nos. 4, 11, 17 and 54 are designed to prevent regulating magazines when the firepower of a gun can be assessed by the capacity of the magazine it can use.
The government wants to regulate this firepower by limiting the magazines capacity to a reasonable level, depending on the needs of the users. This is an important aspect of the public protection strategy, particularly Motion No. 4 which is aimed at allowing large capacity cartridge magazines.
Members of this House just cannot vote for such motions. The firearms control coalition has done a good job with very limited means. The hon. member for Rosemont has explained them very well and they must be defeated.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment of the Liberal member for Kenora-Rainy River. He would
eliminate the enabling power in this legislation for the minister to ban large capacity magazines of the type Marc Lepine used in Montreal.
The bill creates the enabling power to ban large capacity magazines through regulation. It is not done in the bill. It is going to be done by regulations. The minister, however, has indicated that she is going to propose the prohibiting of all handgun magazines that hold more than 10 centre fire cartridges and all magazines for semi-automatic long guns that hold more than five centre fire cartridges. That is what she proposes to do. The question then is: What about competition shooters? There is a legitimate objection. We have amended the bill so that there is a specific exemption for legitimate competition shooters. They need not worry.
There has been concern expressed by some firearms groups that the magazine size would apply to rifles they already have. An example would be the bolt action Lee-Enfield. An extremely rare semi-automatic rifle called the Charlton may use the Lee-Enfield magazine. The concern was that the Lee-Enfield would be caught up in the prohibition because of the possible use of the magazine in the Charlton.
I put this question specifically to the minister. The minister and the parliamentary secretary assured me directly that there was a commitment that the Lee-Enfield would not be affected. I think that disposes of two objections right there.
It seems to me that the member is wrong. It is ironic that he is opposing the proposal to ban high capacity magazines, because high capacity magazines surely are not needed for hunting. Legitimate hunters do not need high capacity magazines. They are used more in assault weapons.
It is true that some legitimate shooting competitions, particularly handguns, use large capacity magazines but that issue is addressed as I said with the exemption. As a member of the BQ said, Lepine used a 30-round magazine at the Ecole Polytechnique massacre. Three weeks ago in Texas, at that horrific massacre there, there was the use of a 17-round magazine.
Why ban large capacity magazines? Let us deal with the real issue. A ban on large capacity magazines is a
November 5, 1991

practical way of limiting fire power. "Fire power", to quote a background paper prepared for the special committee on Bill C-80, "is a combination of cartridge power, possible rate of fire and ammunition capacity". Limiting the size of a magazine is a reasonable alternative to banning semi-automatic weapons. Many semi-automatic weapons have common and legitimate uses in Canada. Rather than banning the weapon, the government has chosen to limit the fire power of semi-automatics in a way that will not interfere with hunting.
That is really the key and that is why I am opposing the Liberal motion and supporting this provision in the bill. There is a problem with an increase in firepower weapons in Canada. There must be a way of addressing such weapons that are already in the hands of Canadians.
In recent years a large number of military firearms have been in Canada from a number of eastern European and Third World countries in search of foreign currency. For example, the Norinco AK-47, a Chinese copy of the Soviet assault rifle, can be bought in Montreal for $450 according to the evidence we had in our committee.
This provision will limit the capacity of future firearms' design. Weapons are becoming more and more dangerous all the time. Even if the magazine proposal has a limited impact on existing weapons, it will have the effect of stopping future, unnecessary innovation and advanced fire power before they become a problem. It seems to me that is sufficient reason to support the proposal.
I want to close with two concerns that the member from Kenora had. It has been argued that the limit of five on semi-automatic rifles will affect built-in magazines. Images of thousands of rifles having to be destroyed have been put forward by the gun lobby. So hundreds get concerned: "My God, my gun is going to be destroyed". In fact evidence presented to our special committee suggested that in 1991 of approximately 2,600 makes and models of rifles only 28 would be affected. Some 26 of these guns are in the paramilitary class and would be prohibited or restricted in any event. Thus, of 2,600 guns only two versions of the Marlin Camp Carbine are affected. For this the Liberal member from Kenora wants to eliminate an important element of the bill. It seems to me he has not thought it through.
Government Orders
Groups have raised the issue of magazines that can be used in semi-automatic and non semi-automatic firearms. Only one firearm, the Lee-Enfield, has been identified as a problem, and I already explained how I put this question to the minister.
I listened to what the member said and I think he addressed some concerns, but I think they have been dealt with. We try to deal with them in amendments we fought for in the bill, and we got them. As I said, the alternative would be to ban semi-automatics. The government has chosen not to do that. Legitimate hunters do not need large clips. Competition shooters are exempt and so I think the amendment should fall.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak to this group of amendments very briefly.
I had the pleasure of working for some months on the first committee with the first speaker on this, the hon. member from Kenora-Rainy River. I can attest that he did put some very valuable time in and was a valued member of that committee.
He also represents a constituency very similar to mine which is Cariboo-Chilcotin. Many of the people in his area as well as in mine depend for their livelihood on hunting and fishing and are very definitely considered to be in those areas where there is a heavy density of gun users. In many cases they are people who depend for their livelihood and their lives on the use of weapons.
In spite of the fact that we come from similar areas, and I understand totally where his concerns are with the imposition of new rules on the law-abiding people who have up until now been very wise and very safe in the use of their weapons, they have a very real distrust and in all cases a concern for these tougher changes to regulations that will be coming out through regulations.
I think there is a distinction that the hon. member has not made. In my area, and I am sure in his, in excess of 90 per cent of legitimate hunters and sporting people would not be the least bit upset if the change in magazine size as well as many of the other changes were to occur only to new guns being purchased.
Any self-respecting hunter who suggests they need more than a five shot clip would be embarrassed about it. They totally support the idea that for hunting, high capacity clips are not required. We have already made allowances for legitimate sporting events. Even in the

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
gun community a high percentage of the people, perhaps in the high 90s, would support very tough legislation as it pertains to the magazine size in particular.
I believe the only problem comes in enforcing a change in magazine size for the existing stock that is out there. On that I share the concerns of the member for Kenora-Rainy River, but I do suggest that the changes coming down are going to be coming through regulation that we as a House and our committees will have a chance to review.
I would ask that all members of the House recognize when these changes are made that there are legitimate, law-abiding people out there who do own these weapons and that they could be made to suffer inconvenience based on what these regulations do say. Therefore, we should always keep this minority of Canadians in mind when we make those changes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 4. I remind all members that a vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 11, 17, 54, 55, 57 and 62. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


Benoît Bouchard: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 53 is agreed to.


Benoît Bouchard: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 58 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 6 and 7 which have been grouped for debate purposes.


Pierrette Venne: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 10 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) on May 1, 1992, the firearm".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 10 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) on March 1,1992, the firearm".


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, so we speak on Motion No. 6 which, in relation to the new section 84(c) of the Criminal Code, will have the effect of restricting the use of modified semi-automatic arms. What we asked was that modified semi-automatic arms,
November 5, 1991

that is automatic arms that were converted to semi-automatic arms, be banned. The minister did not think it was necessary to do that. Instead, it was decided to make them restricted arms.
We might as well try to do our best with what we have in that section.
Thus, it is provided in that section that it comes into force on October 1, 1992. My motion provides that that section should come into force on May 1, 1992, that is as soon as it is reasonably possible. Naturally we will see in a moment that my colleague from the NDP asks for an even sooner date for the coming into force of this section, but that seems to me to be a little too soon for people of the government.
I thought I would be very tolerant and I agreed that May 1 would be an excellent date for that section to finally come into force. The sooner it will come into force, the sooner we will be able to control the sale of arms. That, I think, is the purpose of this section and in any case it is the purpose of my motion, that we should act as fast as possible.
Moreover, I think October 1, 1992 is a bit awkward since in Quebec-it is unfortunate that our friend from Abitibi is absent-the hunting season opens in October. I believe it would really be unwise to specify a date after the beginning of the hunting season because I understand these firearms are sometimes used for hunting. I am not too inclined to believe that is the case, but it is what I have been told. I suggest that if those weapons are really used for hunting it would not be possible to enforce such a requirement as of October 1. It would not be feasible.
Besides, those guns are assault weapons and have no legitimate use in Canada. We have been saying so for a very long time. Here is a list of groups who have also claimed the same thing for a long time.
The petition circulated by the students of the Polytechnique asked for the banning of such guns. Furthermore, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Caucus of Mayors of Major Cities, the Solicitor General of Alberta, the Chief Firearms Officers for British Columbia and Alberta, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Coalition for Gun Control and the Comite
Government Orders
pour le controle des armes de Polytechnique have all asked for the banning of those firearms.
Of course, it is obvious that unfortunately their calls were not heeded. Since we are stuck with that section because the Conservative government did not want to listen to people, we ask that at least it proceed as fast as it can.
I also wanted to say that converted automatic weapons, or modified semi-automatic weapons as they are called, were declared illegal by a Court of Appeal in at least one province. We could say that in that case there is an unfortunate regression. While the rest of the bill represents a big step forward, in the case of converted automatic weapons it goes against the decision of the Court of Appeal of one province.
I would also like to say a few words about those who object to a stricter control on firearms. Here is a really remarkable piece of literature. It is a letter that I received from the National Arms Collectors' Association. In that letter, the Association mentions that it also represents the National Firearms Association, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, the International Practical Shooting Association and the Shooting Federation of Canada.
The association writes that it represents all those people. The letter is addressed to all the members of the legislative committee which studied Bill C-17. In that letter the association tells those members that, if they vote in favour of the bill, in the next election it will do everything it can to remind Canadians of the terrible and ungrateful thing they did to the people who had elected them so generously.
It is a form of threat that I find unacceptable in 1991. It is unfortunate that such a letter was sent to the committee members. I do not think those people had the nerve to send it to all members of this House.
Of course the letter was in English. They are unilingual, that is for sure, but I could just read it to you. The sentences are a bit long. I would say it is not well written.
I will not quote the text literally but I think that I explained its content, namely the threats made to members of Parliament who would decide to vote against Bill C-17.
I do not think that the Conservative members will be intimidated. I believe that they are strong enough to vote

Government Orders
according to their conscience and I am convinced that they will not let themselves be influenced like that.
Those of us who are concerned, I mean the people who are not afraid of the National Arms Collectors' Association, asked that the legislation provide storage standards. Unfortunately, again, we will not have those standards in the act; they will be included in the regulations. We made all kinds of compromises and we tell ourselves that we will make another one.
We know it is important that it should be done through regulations, since it cannot be done directly through the act. I talked to people I know and they told me that, unfortunately, they store their firearms without unloading them. It is inconceivable, but these things happen. We must have regulations. Obviously we will not be able to check every house, but that is not the objective. The objective is to make people aware. That is what is important.
In conclusion I want to say that it was also necessary to make the population understand that having a firearm is not a right but a privilege. This is not the United States where the right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Indeed, the second amendment gives the right to Americans. We are not in the United States. This is Canada and the bill shows that, without saying it explicitly as we would have liked. In any case we will again make a compromise and accept that legislation.
Those are the comments I wanted to make on these motions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my motion on this matter. The motion standing in the name of my hon. friend from Saint-Hubert, who just spoke, and my motion are grouped together for debate.
What happened was that this bill was supposed to come into effect. It deals with converted automatics. The whole point of this bill is that these military assault weapons are flowing across the border. They normally would have been prohibited because they were automatic weapons but people converted them to semi-automatics to get around the law and they flooded into Canada. The government does not want these guns in Canada. That was one of the biggest parts of this bill.
In committee the government moved to extend the deadline for registering existing converted automatics. You can keep these guns now if you register them. The deadline was moved from December 31,1991 to October 1, 1992, a full eight months.
My friend proposes amendments that would bring that deadline back to May 1. My amendment would bring it back to March 1, 1992.
Just before I get into that part of it, I would like to say that I had a motion that would have eliminated entirely the grandfathered clause for converted automatics. Converted automatic weapons are remodelled to get around our present law prohibiting automatic weapons. There is no place for these weapons in Canada. They should be prohibited and an amnesty should be offered for a limited time period so that they get right out of Canada.
Mr. Lome Newson, chief firearms officer for British Columbia, said in a brief to our special committee: "In the first place these people were very much aware", that is people who were bringing these guns in, "that they were skirting the law by buying superficially modelled machine guns. They are deserving of no sympathy".
Converted automatics are treated as illegal weapons today, for the most part. There is real concern, as a matter of fact, that this provision in this bill will weaken and overturn our case law. I point to the case of The Queen v. Global Arms.
My amendment to cut this grandfathering was supported in the committee by the Polytechnique students, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Big City Mayors Caucus, the Solicitor General of Alberta, the National Association of Women in Law, the Coalition for Gun Control and many others. I am sorry the government did not listen to them.
Let me turn to the particular amendment that I have proposed to reduce the deadline to March 1, 1992. The government extended the deadline for registered

converted automatics, that is the grandfather clause, from December, 31 to October 1, 1992. My amendment would limit this extension to March 1, 1992. The government argued that it would give people more time to learn about the proposal and to register their weapons. It also gives them more time to obtain the weapons. The history of this proposal seems to contradict it by saying no more can come in. Why? Because the government said no more can come in. You have to have a law, my friend, to say that. You cannot just say no more can come in. You could bring them in and say "you can't seize these, Mr. Customs Officer, give me the law. There is no law." The law here will be in this bill. That is a nice pious wish but that is not the law.
The history of this proposal seems to contradict what the government is doing. In May 1989 then justice minister Doug Lewis announced the government would ban converted automatic weapons. In June 1990, another year later, this Minister of Justice, the present minister, tabled Bill C-80 which prohibited converted automatics and the minister said they would have to be registered by June 1991. That was four months ago.
Bill C-80 died. The minister then tabled this bill, Bill C-17, in June. She said the deadline for registering existing weapons would be December 31, 1991. Then in committee she extended the deadline to October 1992.
Surely enough is enough. Owners of converted automatics have known about this proposal for two and a half years. It will be three and a half years by the time October 1992 rolls around. There is no need for more delay. My motion would give people enough time to register their weapons without any more needless delay. It is outrageous that the government has extended the deadline. If we are going to get serious about gun control and these guns flowing across the border into some of our large cities and causing crime in some of these cities, we have to act now.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, first of all I am very pleased that both hon. members want to see the government's legislation enacted as soon as possible. With that sentiment I am in agreement. The question is just when is it a reasonable time for us to have this new regime up and running. It is not just for the gun owners that we are proposing the date that we are, it is for the police and the people who must administer this.
Government Orders
I have been involved with this area for the last couple of years, and neither I nor any member of the government has any interest in delaying it. We want to pick a time that is realistic. We have guns here now that will have to be registered, guns that will have to be inspected and people who will want to be a part of the grandfathering clause may have to set themselves up as genuine gun collectors. We have already agreed, the committee agreed, that there would be genuine gun collectors. People who are converting their guns will have to make sure that it is properly converted because they do not want the thing seized later. That is why we are suggesting this. We expect this bill to be passed by Christmas and we want to give ourselves, the public, the police and everyone else about nine months.
Nobody benefits from having the police swamped in the first two months, as they would be under this bill by people trying to register their firearms, people trying to get them inspected, making sure that they have been properly converted and getting themselves registered as genuine gun collectors. This system could not possibly operate in its first few months.
We do pick a realistic day. We have suggested October 1992 which will put everyone on notice. I want to assure the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam because he made reference to the fact that converted automatic weapons have been coming into Canada from the United States.
I can tell him that customs officials are stopping the importation of additional firearms.


An hon. member:: Which law is it?


Rob Nicholson: They are basing it on the court decision in Alberta, the Global Armaments case. As the hon. member knows, there is another decision in the province of Ontario that perhaps was not entirely favoured. In any case, Canada Customs has stopped the flow of these types of firearms into Canada.
It seems to me that before the court process goes any farther we should get this bill passed because I think it clarifies what it is we are prohibiting in Canada. I think it complements the existing judicial interpretation up to this point.
I do not want people to be left with the impression that somehow these things are pouring across the border. They are not. On the other hand, we have to pick a date

Government Orders
that is reasonable to have this whole regime up and running.
If some members say they do not want the grandfathering clause, I can see how we might have a system in three months in which everything is just being seized and destroyed presumably without compensation. Perhaps that might be another amendment.
We have agreed that there will be a grandfathering provision. We are setting up a regime. We are notifying people what it is we want, and there is no point to having the police and everyone else involved with this swamped with a hopeless situation in two or three months that they cannot possibly administratively handle.
I think it is better to pick a realistic date which October 1, 1992 is. I hope the House will reject both these amendments.


Benoît Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice has to say. If the problem is the transition period, because of the grandfather clause that lets owners keep altered firearms, this bill could be brought into force sooner to prohibit acquisition of more firearms. After that date, offenders could have a transition period, a kind of 48-hour notice like the one for a defective light on a car. But it would be more reasonable to have a two-to three-month notice.
This bill allows people to continue to buy firearms and maybe buy more, especially for the new hunting season next fall. If the acquisition of new firearms were prohibited this coming spring, there would be no problem.
Unfortunately, the hon. parliamentary secretary has already made up his mind. He is not listening. Maybe I should switch to English. His argument is obviously faulty. What we want to do is to prohibit the acquisition of new firearms of this type as soon as possible, because we were unable to ban them altogether.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, these motions aim essentially at changing the deadline for registration of converted semi-automatic weapons. The
deadline would be October 1, 1992, according to the bill, and Motions Nos. 6 and 7 suggest advanced dates.
Is it reasonable to give eight to nine months to those who until the law is passed are perfectly legitimate owners of these weapons, to register them in order to be allowed to continue their peaceful possession?
These weapons cannot be registered before the law is passed and they must be inspected before registration.
For me, October 1 is a difficult date. In the north of each province, in Quebec, for example, and in some parts of the south, October 1 is hunting time. In Quebec the hunting season begins often around October 15 for bow hunting and around October 25 or 26 for rifle hunting. For me, this date is a problem. It must advanced.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a few minutes to say a few words with regard to Bill C-17 and the couple of amendments on the floor right now.
My involvement with firearms legislation has gone on for a number of years and indeed before Bill C-80 was tabled a year or two years ago. I have spent quite a bit of time meeting with the Calgary Police Force, the gun club personnel of southern Alberta, competitive shooters, gun associations, and firearms dealers throughout the province of Alberta. These people have been very concerned with regard to any changes in the old firearms legislation, but of course public safety is first and foremost in everybody's mind.
One thing that crops up in Alberta has to do with citizens' rights and a law that will have an effect upon sincere, law-abiding citizens and no affect upon the criminals. Madam Speaker, as you well know, within the legislation there are three or four clauses that discuss the careless handling of firearms, the storage of firearms, importing or delivering prohibited weapons and making automatic firearms. The penalties have been strengthened and we are coming down harder on the criminals, but as the parliamentary secretary has said the administration of justice is under provincial jurisdiction.
November 5, 1991

I know that the Minister of Justice has been working with the attorneys general and I would hope that these more severe penalties would come into force appropriately.
I also have to make a comment with regard to people saying that we are banning, eliminating or removing certain types of target ammunition. The bill does allow Orders in Council or the Minister of Justice to prohibit certain types of ammunition, but the only one that I am aware of is the cop killer bullets, the one that pierces the armour of our police officers. Any further prohibition would have to be put forth in the regulations and would come before this House for debate.
The time that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert asked for it to come into force was May 1, 1992 and the bill stipulates October 1, 1992. There are many Canadians who own firearms, store them extremely safely and are law-abiding citizens. We have to come forth with the regulations that will define a legitimate collector and bring forth the safety regulations with the FAC. This is another area, the firearms acquisition certificate. Anybody, after this law comes into force, who is purchasing a new weapon will have to have an FAC. We will have safety regulations. We are presently working with the various provinces, the gun clubs and the professional people to set up a type of schooling so people, prior to purchasing new weapons, will have to prove their knowledge of firearms and their ability not only to store it safely, carry it safely, shoot it safely, but know all the working parts of it. I must say that I have worked a year and a half or two years with regard to this. I know there are a lot of concerned citizens in my riding and right across Canada. The charter of rights certainly protects all citizens. There will be no search and seizure or people knocking at your door demanding to see the firearms. That is not what the bill says at all. It says that they would want to have the ability to review the collectors, the types of firearms the collectors had and whether they meet the criteria. This can be arranged on a very friendly basis. There is no such thing as search and seizure as some people are saying.
I would like to say that I am a hunter. I have been for years and years and I do own shotguns. I have four youngsters. Mind you, they are all grown up but they have grown up in a house where there were shotguns. They were all taken to gun clubs. They were taught the safety of these shotguns. They were taught how to store
Government Orders
them, how to take them apart and how to clean them, because they have to clean my shotgun. That is part of the deal. We do have safe storage in our house. The shotguns are stored in a gun case with a lock and key. Our guns are always clean. The chambers are empty and indeed are left open at all times. I cannot say that I have done everything perfectly, but there is one thing that my youngsters have learned, that they treat a gun as if it is always loaded. You never ever point a gun at anyone; the gun is always loaded. Indeed, touch wood, we have been very successful so far.
I must say that I am very proud of them. I do believe that a lot of my fellow constituents are safety conscious, understand and know the operation of shotguns. In no way is this bill going to prohibit or limit their ability to enjoy migratory shooting.
What we have moved in is the safety of Canadians all along since the last firearms legislation. I just learned today that since 1896 we have had firearms legislation in Canada. Owning a firearm is a privilege. It is not a right, as the hon. member mentioned earlier. We have had firearms in this country for about 94 or 95 years. It is a privilege, not a right.
I support the bill. A year and a half ago I had a lot of qualms, difficulties and concerns. Bill C-17 is far improved over Bill C-80.


An hon. member:: The minister listened.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: The minister did listen to us. In no way are we coming down against the honest, law-abiding citizens. Criminals have been targeted. We will work with the attorneys general. The penalties are stiffen It is up to the provinces to implement those penalties. I think we can see a much safer society where we all respect one another.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 6 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 7 negatived.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso) proposes that:
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately
after line 16 at page 6 the following:
"(3.3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is in possession of a firearm that is a prohibited weapon by virtue of paragraph 84(l)(c) or an order made under paragraph 84(l)(e) and who lawfully disposes of the firearm thirty days after paragraph 84(l)(c) comes into force or the order is made, as the case may be, provided the firearm was lawfully possessed by that person before that time.
(3.4) Subsection (2) does not apply to motor vehicule in which there is a firearm that is a prohibited weapon where by virtue of subsection (3.3), subsection (1) does not apply to the person who is in possession of that weapon."-
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for my amendment, Motion No. 12. This amendment, like the others that I proposed, aims at reinforcing the legislation and has been motivated by representations that I received during the development of this bill from citizens of my constituency.

My constituents in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, like all Canadians, support strong effective gun control legislation. This includes experienced hunters, competition shooters and weapons collectors who responsibly purchase and use weapons for sport or for pest control.
They abhor the kind of tragedies that occurred at the Ecole Polytechnique. They want to end the criminal use of firearms to kill innocent Canadians, but they do not believe that restricting the use of certain firearms by itself will achieve this objective.
Our law enforcement, our criminal justice and our parole systems have to act to protect the victims of crime and to deter criminal activity. Training should accompany the use of firearms. Regrettably training has been insufficiently addressed in this legislation.
As well hunters and sportsmen, particularly those living in rural areas, want to feel that every effort is being made by the government to recognize and understand their particular situation. Many of the new elements in Bill C-17 are seen by the hunting and sporting community in my riding as creating an inconvenience or intrusion on their activities. I think we all acknowledge that gun owners will be inconvenienced. We all acknowledge as well that this is a price worth paying for making firearms in Canada much safer.
There are limits to what legal gun owners can and should be asked to do. We are asking that they meet a host of new FAC requirements and that they meet conversion and safe storage standards, which have not even been determined yet let alone made known to the general population. We are asking that they comply with regulations that will prohibit some of the guns which they purchased legally in good faith and often at great expense.
As drafted Bill C-17 requires those in possession of weapons prohibited by this legislation to turn in those weapons as soon as the bill is proclaimed as law or be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years.
I believe this is unnecessarily rigid. I believe that granting at least a 30-day grace period following the proclaiming of the legislation to enable owners to dispose of their weapons properly would be appropriate and would help alleviate the perceived unfairness by some gun owners of certain elements of this law.
Many constituents have written to raise concerns about becoming criminals overnight as a result of this legislation. For example, C. S. Halet of Country Harbour has written to say: "Many hunters and gun owners are not criminals and do not want to be made ones by new firearm restrictions".
November 5, 1991

Gun owners whose weapons have been declared prohibited will need some time to make the necessary decisions. They will have to ask themselves several questions: "Can I convert my weapon?" Perhaps, but conversion standards have not been determined yet. "Should I sell my gun to a genuine gun collector?" Maybe, but this is a new element to firearms control and it will take a little time to organize a structure and a system through which these guns may pass.
"Should I turn my weapons in to the authorities?" Perhaps a great deal of money was spent on these weapons. "I live many miles from the nearest firearms officer. Should I take the chance of being caught with a prohibited weapon in the trunk of my car while taking it to hand it in?" Technically you are a criminal or you are committing a crime. But if a 30-day grace period existed, you would be free to travel to local authorities when you can to remit your gun.
Gun owners will need time to think, decide and act. Once a new regulation comes into force prohibiting guns, the present owners of these guns who bought them legally and in good faith are now violating the law. With a 30-day grace period they would have time to dispose properly of the guns and avoid becoming criminals. Even if they are not apprehended by police, they feel in their hearts that they are criminals and that is offensive to them.
If they are stopped by authorities they face up to 10 years in prison. Is this fair? Police usually unofficially allow this kind of grace period but they have the authority to enforce the letter of the law if they so wish.
I want to change the letter of the law to protect honest Canadians. Most gun owners are not criminals and we must give them every opportunity to avoid becoming criminals.
There is one final but important point I would like to make. I originally submitted this amendment as a point of reference in the legislation to accommodate my proposed motion dealing with financial compensation. That motion would oblige the government to provide fair compensation, determined by regulation, to gun owners who have to turn in weapons because they have been declared prohibited. The amount of compensation would
Government Orders
be determined by regulation in accordance with fair market values for these weapons.
Financial compensation was called for by virtually all letters I received on this bill. It was recommended by the special committee studying Bill C-80, the predecessor legislation. It would encourage compliance with the law. It would act to prevent a black market in these weapons and it would be fair to gun owners who purchased these weapons in good faith.
Unfortunately financial compensation is not provided for in Bill C-17 so my motion has been declared outside of the scope of the bill by Mr. Speaker's ruling. I have no quarrel with that ruling but I do believe the absence of a provision for financial compensation is a substantial weakness in this legislation and I would urge the government to correct this weakness in subsequent legislation.
In any case, the 30-day grace period provided for by my proposed motion would by itself be an act of good will toward legitimate owners of now prohibited weapons. I believe it would facilitate and encourage the safe withdrawal of these weapons from circulation, which is the purpose of the legislation. I hope all members will support my motion.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am not in support of the hon. member's motion because I think it is unnecessary. There is a provision in the current bill for an amnesty power that I think provides more flexibility to the Minister of Justice. She has indicated her willingness to use it. She can declare an amnesty for periods longer than 30 days. So on that count alone, I do not think it is necessary.
To be more specific and use an example, in the case of a firearm that was prohibited by an Order in Council, the procedure we have set out in this bill will take care of that. Hon. members will remember that at the committee stage we agreed to an amendment that would allow for the pre-publication of regulations. Now if we were prohibiting a certain type of firearm the pre-publication itself puts people on notice of the government's intention. The hon. member would know that when we set a date for proclamation there is a bit of a delay between the time we pass it and the time it is proclaimed. We are giving notice again on a second count to anyone who might be affected.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
The hon. member knows of the discussion that we just had on the last two amendments about the closing date for the case of converted automatic weapons. We have set that at October 31, 1992. It seems to me that whether it is the amnesty or the pre-publication of the regulations that might prohibit a weapon, as well as the postponing of the closing of a class for converted automatic weapons, that the bill itself now has more provisions, and I think provides greater flexibility.
I say with respect to the hon. member that I do not think his amendment is necessary.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso present his amendment which I think is very important, quite in order and necessary. It is a concern among the population of Canada that when this bill comes into effect they will be considered to be breaking the law.
It is of considerable concern to a great many people. He mentioned the people in his riding. I can assure you there are law-abiding citizens in my riding and in other ridings right across this country who want to feel and know that they are doing the right thing.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has stated that there is provision for an amnesty in Bill C-17. But there is no assurance that an amnesty is going to be called right away, so the minister has that discretion.
The discretion is that she can call an amnesty whenever she thinks the amnesty is in the best interests of the country. That is a subjective decision of hers and more broadly probably the government's.
The parliamentary secretary has also stated that when the bill is proclaimed there is a period of time before the proclamation when the regulations are brought forward after they are recommended by the department. If I am not mistaken it is before they go to cabinet, which is important.
These points are true. While they are important, there is still this period of time when the bill comes into effect, when people of this country want to be assured that they have time to turn in these firearms and not be considered to be breaking the law.
I think a period of time is important. The hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso has been very reasonable in asking for only one month. I think one month would certainly be suitable. I do not think he is
asking too much of this House and of the government to have this one month period.
He also mentioned an amendment which he brought forward which was ruled out of order regarding compensation for the firearms that are being prohibited. We may find these firearms offensive. We may find the semi-automatics that can be converted to fully automatics offensive and we may say that people should not have purchased them.
Perhaps they should have even known that sooner or later they would become unlawful. That is not the point. The point is that these people purchased these firearms when these guns were within the law. They had every right to purchase these guns. They were doing so because these were advertised in this country for sale. They purchased them and were quite within their rights and within the law to do so.
Now we are saying that they have to turn in these firearms which they purchased lawfully. Some of them are worth $700 and $800. If we want this bill to work the way we feel it should, we are asking these people to turn in a piece of their personal property. Perhaps it has sentimental value but it is valuable to them certainly through the sheer weight of the money they spent to purchase this item. We are asking them to turn it in for nothing.
That is asking a lot. I do not know of a precedent for this, unless we look at the last time that an amnesty for firearms was brought forward. We know what happened then. A lot of the firearms and automatics at that time were not turned in. In fact they are still wrapped in burlap on top of a shed or a barn or under a floor board somewhere.
They were not turned in because no one was going to turn them in. A lot of people were not going to turn them in without adequate compensation or at least even partial compensation.
There are people who say: "If we pay for these firearms, then we are inviting illegal firearms to come in from the United States into Canada and then be sold in the amnesty. We are paying the cost for illegal firearms that entered the country through the back door".
I do not think that this is reasonable if we have an amnesty of an exact period of time. I think we have to give these people the right to some compensation for their firearms. I just want to say that I think this is a good amendment. I would have hoped that the government
November 5, 1991

would have supported it, and I still hope the government will.


Deborah C. Grey: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments as well about this amendment that has been brought forward regarding in effect property rights, that is when somebody owns a gun that the government decides should be turned back to them.
When I think about the recent constitutional proposals that were brought forward in terms of property rights, where the government in fact is looking at fair and just compensation for any takeover of property, we could look very, very soundly and strongly at a real correlation here in terms of taking back weapons that people have paid their own money for and which is their own personal property and has been acceptable up until this point.
When we think about the Minister of Justice, which the parliamentary secretary referred to, in terms of granting amnesty for 30 days or whatever, I would think that we are probably being witnessed tonight by people watching this on television who own some of these guns and who are asking: "Why is it I should turn this back in?" How is it that the Minister of Justice would be able to grant amnesty purely on a subjective basis, if she decided to do this or not. What are there in terms of rules and regulations? What further then do we see for Order in Council regulations being put?
People from my riding are expressing concern about this very issue, as well as the whole broader scope. When this legislation is put in place, what will become of all the regulations that will be put in place simply by Order in Council? People are feeling frustrated about that. I know that I have been swamped by correspondence from people who are concerned about what is going to happen in terms of actual regulations, because they are not dealt with in the legislation, There is a certain frustration about that. As well as this idea, when people are collectors it is very near and dear to their hearts what will happen to this personal property of theirs. I think somehow the government should be thinking about intertwining the two; constitutional proposals about property rights as well as what will happen when these people have to give over weapons that they have had
Government Orders
which are worth a great deal of money and sentimental value to them as well.
I would suggest that the government think seriously about accepting this motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 72(6)(a), a recorded division of the motion stands deferred.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East) moved:: Motion No. 13A
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 6 the following:
"(3) The said Act is further amended by adding immediately after section 90 thereof, the following section:
"90.1 (1) Where, pursuant to paragraph 90(3.2)(a), a local registrar of firearms refuses to authorize in writing that a person is a person who may possess a prohibited weapon referred to in that paragraph for use in conjunction with a firearm that is suitable for use in shooting competitions designated by the Attorney General, the local registrar of firearms shall notify the person in writing of the refusal and the reasons for it and include in the notification a copy of this section.
(2)	A person who has received a notification referred to in subsection (1) may, within 30 days after receiving the notification or within such time as is, before or after the expiration of that period, allowed by a provincial court judge, request in writing the local registrar of firearms to refer the matter to a provincial court judge having jurisdiction in the territorial division in which the person resides.

Government Orders
(3)	On a reference by the local registrar of firearms pursuant to subsection (2), the provincial court judge shall fixa date for the hearing of the reference and direct that notice of the hearing be given to the person and to the local registrar of firearms, in such manner as the provincial court judge may specify.
(4)	In a hearing under subsection (3) the burden of proof is on the person to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal was not justified.
(5)	Where at the conclusion of the hearing under subsection (3), the person has satisfied the provincial court judge that the refusal was not justified, the provincial court judge shall, by order, direct the local registrar of firearms to authorize in writing that the person may possess a prohibited weapon referred to in paragraph 90(3.2) for use in conjunction with a firearm that is suitable for use in shooting competitions designed by the Attorney General and the local registrar of firearm shall immediately comply with the order.
(6)	Where a provincial court judge makes an order pursuant to subsection (5), the local registrar of firearms may appeal to the appeal court against the order and the provisions of Part XXVII except sections 816 to 819 and 829 to 836 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of the appeal.
(7)	In this section "appeal court" has the meaning given that expression in subsection 100(11)."
He said: Madam Speaker, like all members of the House, I have been the recipient of a great many representations from people on both sides of this bill. Many people for and many people against this bill have put forward to me their concerns and their thoughts, and in each and every case I have made those known to the minister and as many as I could to the committee when it was sitting considering the bill itself. There were a number of suggestions made to me that I thought certainly should be incorporated in the bill and I had put forward a number of amendments to the bill. Unfortunately all but one of those has been ruled out of order by The Speaker, and so I have been left with this one amendment before the House this evening.
I might just say however that one of the other amendments in particular it seemed to me made imminent sense in light of the fact that Canadians are concerned about fighting criminals with guns and concerned about public safety. Surely the kind of legislation that we should be bringing forth here is legislation aimed at that sort of thing.
With that in mind, I did put forward an amendment which would have required where evidence became known to law enforcement officers that a firearm had been used in the commission of an alleged criminal offence, that a firearms charge would have to be laid in addition to all other charges and that where such a
charge was laid the charge could not be withdrawn at a subsequent time once it had been laid. Unfortunately, that has been ruled out of order and is not before the House tonight.
I would hope that the government in its wisdom would introduce legislation of that sort veiy shortly after dealing with this bill.
The motion that is before the House tonight, however, in my name-and I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for his second and his work in relation to this motion and amendment-creates an appeal process where, from a decision of the local Registrar of Firearms, where under the provisions of the bill as it now stands, the local registrar may allow a person, who is competing in a shooting competition, someone who has already received a firearms acquisition certificate, probably a member of a gun club, someone who has received all sorts of training on the weapon and is good enough to be competing in a shooting competition that has been authorized by the Attorney General of the province, to use a large capacity cartridge magazine. The local registrar can agree to that or he can reject it. If he agrees, he has to issue an authorization in writing and, if he does not issue that authorization in writing, then the person who wishes to compete using a large capacity cartridge magazine does not have the right to do so.
The decision then in the bill is an arbitrary one and at present there is no right to appeal that decision. My amendment would provide a right to appeal that provision to a provincial court judge and so forth in the same fashion with the same kind of an appeal process as is included in the bill already with respect to appealing decisions concerning firearms acquisition certificates. There is, as I have indicated in the bill, an appeal process where a firearms acquisition certificate has been refused for the person who has been refused to appeal that decision. This amendment would provide exactly the same appeal provisions with respect to someone who was turned down from receiving written authorization to use the large capacity cartridge magazine in a shooting competition that was authorized by the Attorney General.
It seems to me only reasonable that if we are going to allow this appeal procedure in relation to an FAC we should also be allowing it in this case as well. I understand that the government is prepared to consider this in
November 5, 1991

a positive vein and I would urge all members of the House to adopt this amendment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, that sounds like a reasonable amendment and I would support it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I must say I was speaking to the hon. parliamentary secretary about this motion and I was kidding him about it. Quite seriously, this motion is reasonable and we certainly would be prepared to support it.


Deborah C. Grey: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member as well for a very reasonable and thought out motion. I would like to again encourage other government members to support that as well. I think it is excellent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 13A agreed to.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk) moved:: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 28 at
page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Paragraph 97(4)(d) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(d) comes into possession of a firearm by operation of law and within a year thereafter, lawfully disposes of it or obtains a firearms acquisition certificate under which he could have lawfully acquired the firearm; or."
"(4) Subsection 97(4) of the said Act is".
He said: Madam Speaker, my motion is No. 19 and I will be speaking at great length later on in this debate, I guess it will be tomorrow, about my feelings on the bill.
I know full well that tomorrow night or Thursday morning this bill will pass.
I must say at the outset, however, that during my short term as a member of Parliament, just coming up to three years now, I do not think I have ever seen a piece of legislation like this that is so flawed and a piece of
Government Orders
legislation that tries to do something that I do not think it is successful in doing.
I believe this is nothing but a bill to hoodwink the Canadian people into believing that the government is concerned about or trying to do something about gun control when it clearly is not.
If this bill is real gun control, then it must address gun control in four different areas. It must address the accidental use of firearms in domestic violence and suicide, and most important, in crime. This bill addresses none of these uses of a firearm, except by placing more stringent conditions on the acquisition of an FAC.
I believe people all across Canada are cynical and sceptical of their political leaders, not only because of the stands they take on one side of an issue or another, or on their political philosophy, whether it is from the left or the right.
They are upset with politicians because they feel they are not willing to take the tough decisions. They are not willing to come to grips with the real problems.
A real problem is the misuse of firearms in our communities, especially in urban centres.
We were talking earlier today about the GST. This is a prime example of where the government saw a need for money. People were crying for real tax reform and the government, instead of bringing in real reform, went to a tax gab instead.
I see this as a similar bill. It fails to address the real problems in our society. It gives Canadians a false sense of security that the government is actually doing something to stop violent crimes when in fact it is not.
I would suggest that in this bill the government is encouraging an underground network of illegal guns. If we as a society deem that we do not want certain guns, there are a couple of ways of getting rid of them. The government can use its heavy hand and come in and grab them and say: "We deem these to be not in the public's interest and we will take them". On the other hand it can invest in a system whereby it makes sure it gets those guns back.
A lot of these guns are very expensive. I do not believe that Canadians will be so willing to give these guns back. That is why I have put forward amendments to this bill similar to those put forward by my friend from Cape

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
Breton Highlands-Canso which would mandate the government to compensate these individuals.
The question I am talking about in this amendment deals with the situation of an elderly person who is a collector of guns and who becomes deceased. The guns then are left to his family. As the bill reads, and as the act is now, we are in a quandary. If the spouse does not have an FAC then legitimately the government can come in and take all that property. We could be talking about thousands and thousands of dollars.
What I want to do in this amendment-I say one year thereafter but I am willing to accept any amendments to that, whether it be three months or more-is give individuals some time whereby they could dispose of these assets or get an FAC. Right now persons would have to wait 28 days to get an FAC if they did not own one.
Legitimately this person will be holding illegal guns. I think this aspect was debated in committee but unfortunately it was never dealt with and the committee never really came up with any solution to a situation like this. I have talked to the parliamentary secretary about it and hopefully he will be able to talk to the minister about it and tiy to make some changes in the bill, whether it is through another act or through regulation.
In my last few minutes I want to take the opportunity to talk a bit about what some of my constituents have been saying because I, like other members of Parliament, have been inundated with letters from constituents about this. Remember that I am in a rural area. I think there are a lot of rural people who have legitimate concerns about this bill and how it will affect their lifestyles.
There is one gentleman who happens to be a gun collector. He says: "I would require genuine gun collector status which would be refused unless I consented to periodic inspections. It is curious that an honest citizen must open their door and have their privacy invaded. Yet a criminal's privacy is protected by the use of a search warrant or some other such device. There are too many non-defined areas that will be filled in after the bill's passing. For example, what will be prohibited? What is safe storage? This demonstrates no regard for the financial loss or limitation of real personal property to an honest citizen". That is one of the areas in which I tried
to deal with an amendment. However, it was ruled out of order by the Speaker.
He states further: "C-17 creates a permanent jungle for the use of a firearm in competition. For example, a permit to a temporary store, a restricted weapon out of residence. This bill seems designed to disarm, over-regu-late and financially devastate the honest Canadian citizen. It will redefine honest Canadians as criminals and punish them severely for things like paper work and storage infractions".
Another constituent writes: "Any reasonable resident of Canada wants to live in a society where violence has been curtailed to an irreducible minimum.
Whereas this bill has been touted as a step in the right direction, in reality it does nothing to support this most worth-while goal. It does not deter criminals from acts of savagery. It does not make access to firearms more difficult for criminals. It does not reduce the propensity toward violence that some members of our society persistently maintain. It does not protect us from members of society who, by virtue of mental illness or the abuse of addictive substances, commit crimes of violence."
Another constituent writes: "My husband and I have been sport shooters and gun owners for several years and as members of the Canadian shooting community are responsible and law-abiding people. Bill C-17 is designed to deceive the public, but it conceals the real purpose, whereby to create laws by non-democratic means, i.e., Order in Council, to confiscate at will millions of dollars worth of legally obtained firearms."
What she is talking about is the fact that when these people bought these firearms-and I do not collect firearms but I understand that these people have a legitimate brief with the government-they have legitimately collected these under the laws of Canada and will not be compensated for giving them back.
She goes on to say that many items of this bill are conceived by bureaucrats and politicians who have absolutely no knowledge of firearms and their use in our society. I think that is what the hon. member from Kenora-Rainy River has been trying to point out throughout this debate.
November 5, 1991

One last quote: "I am sure all non-criminal Canadians would like to see guns out of the hands of criminals and much more severe penalties for the criminal use of firearms. However, the latest Bill C-17 is a typical example of our government in action. Do not identify and tackle the real problem, which is the use of firearms by criminals. Instead, make more regulations in the bureaucracy to harass citizens who are the legitimate owners of firearms".
I think that really sums up my view on this bill. I have tried to point out in debate, and I will tiy it again tomorrow, that I believe very strongly that we need strong gun control and that this bill goes nowhere toward fulfilling that role.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of comments after listening to the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
He had several problems with the bill and I want to assure him that it is the government's intention to move ahead on the safety provisions. We want to make sure that people who are buying FACs in the future have taken a safety course, are properly certified for the safe handling of firearms, that they have knowledge of the safe storage provisions and that they know the firearms law. These all contribute to a safe and better society, and the government's intention is to move in that direction.
The hon. member said it does nothing for domestic violence. When we get to the prohibition sections, and I believe there is an amendment coming up that will direct hon. members' attention to that, we will see that these are the kinds of things that a judge has to take into consideration when imposing a prohibition order on an individual before the court. I think it is useful in that area.
As well, I am not going to take the time of the House but we have increased penalties across the board. People who commit crimes with firearms are not going to like Bill C-17 because we have upped the penalties all the way along.
Somebody asked me recently: "Why did you not do it for the top crime, robbery?" I said it is life now. You commit robbery with a firearm and the maximum sentence is life. That is the top end under our criminal
Government Orders
justice system. Between that and the minimum sentence we impose of one year, we up the penalties for people who smuggle guns into the country, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Willowdale earlier in the evening, and for people who act in a way that recklessly disregard the safety of others. We have upped the penalties for that. For people who manufacture prohibited weapons, we have upped the penalties right across the board and I think most Canadians are interested in that.
I would like to deal with the specific amendment that the hon. member has.
I know what he is trying to get at. What happens is an individual might come into possession of a firearm and not have an FAC. You may have inherited this firearm if your spouse passed on. It may be a trustee in bankruptcy who might acquire firearms if he seizes the assets of a gun shop that went bankrupt.
The present law now before Parliament says that a person must act with reasonable dispatch either to dispose of the firearms they have come into possession of or get an FAC. We say to act with reasonable dispatch.
The problem that I would have, and I was talking to the hon. member earlier about this, is that if you have a one-year period you create a no man's land. Individuals can, for whatever reason, come into possession of these firearms and can go for a year. They cannot be touched by the police. They do not have to make the effort to do something about that in the same way they are required now.
I hope all members of the House say: "I think the way the government has it here is probably the best way." If you come into possession of these things, you must act with reasonable dispatch to either dispose of the firearms or to get an FAC.
I think it is a better way and as a result I hope the House turns down the suggestion.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak very briefly to this proposed amendment because I think it at least places on the record a concern that a number of members on both sides of the House have as to the problem of people coming into possession of firearms, not because they went out and purchased them, but because they came into possession of them simply by operation of law.

Government Orders
Is a gun so evil that simply because it is found in your possession you suddenly become a criminal? Guns by themselves are not so evil that we should be placing that mechanism in law.
I just wanted to quickly point out the several ways-it is not a comprehensive list-that a person can come into possession of a firearm or any other piece of property simply by operation of law.
It could result by way of the execution of a trust whereby the property was put into the hands of a beneficiary. It could happen in the devolution of an estate, either by operation of a will or on an intestacy. It could happen in the movement of property under a bankruptcy. It could happen as a result of a sale in bulk in which a large bulk sale of property took place.
I suppose we could even talk about the ammunition magazine or gun clip that is being prohibited under the legislation now. It could happen when a creditor made a seizure of property where the creditor had a security interest. This could happen in all of the provinces across the country.
I just wanted the record to show that there are a whole lot of instances in which individuals, law-abiding Canadians, could come into possession of guns in a very legal way and they would then be belly-up against provisions of the Criminal Code that could see them charged as breaching provisions of the Criminal Code.
If this legislation is not going to be able to take account of the positions of those law-abiding Canadians then at least the record should show that we had an opportunity to address it here in this House.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to Motion No. 19, clause 9.
It is hoped that this amendment will help the government to see the importance of this particular motion and allow the member for Haldimand-Norfolk's motion to go through.
Basically what we are suggesting is that in (d) we replace "comes into possession of a firearm by operation of law within one year" with "comes into possession of a firearm by operation of law within three months".
It amazes me when I listen to members opposite. Pardon me if I sometimes sound like a constituent of Kenora-Rainy River, but only a lawyer would say that
reasonable dispatch sounds good and is acceptable. If we ask ordinary Canadians out there what that means, they will not know what reasonable dispatch means.
I think it is important when we put legislation forward to the people of Canada that we make it as clear as possible and as simple as possible so that there will be no debate by the local registrar of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. There are enough words in this legislation that are going to give people a rough time without having to add reasonable dispatch. That could mean in Toronto in about two years from now. In a community like Kenora it could mean two weeks. That is the difference in what we are talking about as far as getting an FAC is concerned and the abilities to check into it.
If we are creating a 28-day waiting period, I think it is important that we put in the allowable time where a person has to go and present themselves to take a course in order that they can keep a particular firearm which may have been given to them by someone such as their father or may have been inherited.
The whole object, I would think, of members opposite and of the government is to get people to want to participate in the process of registering their firearms. I was going to speak on the previous member's intervention on Motion No. 12 by indicating that if they make it so difficult people will just go underground with their firearms and will not bring them in. I think this is a veiy suitable motion and amendment by my colleague because it makes it very clear just how much time someone has.
I have presented the amendment. It is hoped in presenting this amendment to Motion No. 19, which was explained very articulately by my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk, that the government will see fit to make this very clear change in order for everyone to understand just what it means by reasonable dispatch.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has moved an amendment to the motion. On debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I feel like I am being lobbied over here. I just want to remind hon. members how reasonable we were during committee stage, as the member for Cape
November 5, 1991

Breton-The Sydneys will attest in terms of accepting amendments from the opposition.
The only thing I would point out to the member is that I have to disagree because I think most people do know what reasonable dispatch is. I can tell the hon. member why he might not want that. In the example that he gave there might be a situation where a spouse inherits a number of firearms. It may not be reasonable for that person within three months to make the decision to take whatever courses are required and make the necessary applications. It would seem to me that with reasonable dispatch he or she would be in a much better position in satisfying the court, if it ever came to that, in perhaps three or four months. I am not going to get into the argument as to whether it should be two months or six months or anything else. I am just saying to the hon. member that three months is inflexible. I think that with reasonable dispatch is a flexible way of doing it. It may be that a trustee in bankruptcy would have to move in and dispose of a firearm within a few days and three months would be too long. As I say, I can see a situation where a spouse would not be in a position to make the decision immediately to get involved with the courses and regularize his or her position with respect to the firearms.
It was a nice try. I have some sympathy for what the member is saying, but it seems to me the best wording is the wording that we have here: with reasonable dispatch.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the parliamentary secretary. I just feel that the amendment suggested by the member for Kenora-Rainy River to this motion is excellent. I think it makes it a very worth-while motion and I think it should be accepted by all parties in the House.
As we have said before, and others have said it, what the government is proposing brings forward a very grey area. What we need is something definitive to be able to reassure Canadians that they have something that they can understand, not something in the mumbo-jumbo that presently exists in the legislation.
I think this is an excellent motion and I think it should be supported.
Government Orders


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I just want to remark on what has been said. I must admit the parliamentary secretary did it quite well as far as explaining why we wanted this amendment. It is simply that kind of explanation, that a widow gets two or three guns given to her-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I have to interrupt the hon. member. As he did move the amendment himself, he is considered as having spoken on the amendment. I was asking myself the question and with the help of our table officers I reminded myself that unfortunately I will not be able to allow it.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on the amendment to Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 20A
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 11 by striking out lines 44 to
46 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"or attempted, or of an offence under section 85, or of an indictable offence described in subsection 39(1) or (2) or 48(1) or (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, or of an offence described in subsection 4(1) or (2) or 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act,"

Government Orders
Motion No. 23A
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 11 by striking out lines 1 to 8 at
page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) a summary conviction offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or,
(c) a summary conviction offence described in subsection 39(1) or (2) or 48(1) or (2) of the Food and Drugs Act. "


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I remind the House that a vote on Motion No. 20A will apply to Motion No. 23A.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I think this is an important motion because we are faced this week with the question of crime prevention.
It seems in the minds of Canadians, the more people we talk to, a concern exists in our country, particularly in our urban areas, about the question of crime prevention. I can remember being in the House last year and speaking on this very point. I talked about crime prevention as did other members in this House. I think it is safe to say that the concern in this country with respect to rising crime rates has increased about 50 per cent in the past year.
I think all Canadians will tell us that the crime rate is increasing. They may not be able to tell us the interest rate of the bank or where the constitutional committee is in any particular week. I do not know if anybody can tell us that. However, I think it is safe to say that one thing they will tell us is that crime is increasing in this country.
It is a concern. It is a concern to everybody. People from coast to coast are being intimidated about the very utilization of the facilities in their own communities, about going in elevators late at night in apartment buildings and about women at this time of the year going home from work when it is dark, getting off a bus and having to walk a block or a block and a half, merely a short distance most of us would say, particularly in the daylight. For women in our cities it is a terror, an absolute terror, and this is not acceptable. Certainly gun control is only one aspect of crime prevention in our country. There are many other aspects, but this is the one with which we are seized this evening.
I think it is important to look at it. The most relevant influence on the increase of crime in our communities is drugs. The increased activity in drugs has made it absolutely imperative that the government not stay in
neutral on the question of crime prevention and that it does something constructive.
Here we are proposing something constructive which can be done to aid the problem, to aid the fight against drugs in our country. We are submitting that the mandatory prohibition of firearms be increased, not just for those who are convicted of an offence of 10 years or more but for those who are convicted of any indictable offence involving violence. This is very significant. If somebody is going to be convicted of an indictable offence involving violence, the fact is that this person is not the type of person we want to be in possession of firearms.
Even more important, we are suggesting that those who are convicted of trafficking in drugs, those who are in possession for the purpose of trafficking and those who are dealing in the export of narcotics and who are convicted of an indictable offence relating to these narcotics and drugs, should also be prohibited from using a firearm.
For the first offence it should be 10 years. For the second offence it should be life. This requires a great deal of circumspection by those who would be prone to deal in drugs. When they know they are going to lose the right to the use of a firearm for 10 years in the first instance and for life in the second, then certainly they will be much more prudent about their actions. Not only that, but we have seen in drug related offences that sometimes where a person is convicted of more than one offence at subsequent times the actual convictions escalate in their seriousness.
What we were saying is that if we can in the first instance on a conviction of an indictable offence relating to drugs prohibit the use of a firearm by that person, we may actually prohibit the fact that the person may commit a subsequent crime using a firearm.
I think that is very important. But it also gives a great deal of assurance to people in our communities that the drug activity will not continue to escalate at the rate it has in the recent past.
I think the Criminal Code already requires all firearms dealers to make note of this as well. In particular, drug gangs make it advisable and justifiable to ensure that all those convicted of any violent indictable offence will be subject to a prohibition order on the possession of firearms or ammunition.
November 5, 1991

Now discretionary orders may be favoured by judges but they require that the Crown and judges put their minds to the question of a prohibition order and take a sufficiently serious view of the need for such orders.
A mandatory order ensures that the order will be made and that there will not be that discretion. I am not as a rule in favour of mandatory orders because I think the discretion should be left with the judiciary. However in this case we are dealing with and really fighting a rearguard action against organized crime and particularly drug related crimes in our cities. This is the least serious infringement on the normal relation that the judge can have with the accused and we are impinging just a little on the discretionary powers of the judges.
When you consider what is at stake I think it is absolutely necessary. Mandatory prohibition orders should apply to all drug trafficking offences when they are serious enough to be prosecuted as indictable offences. Minor offences will be dealt with as summary conviction matters. We are not talking about casual dealings in drugs. The nature of the offence alone might justify a mandatory prohibition order, but given the incidence of firearms use by drug gangs in the cities, the argument is even stronger.
It is difficult to imagine a case in which a conviction for an indictable offence involving violence or drug trafficking would not merit a prohibition order on the possession of firearms.
Bill C-17 would provide the discretion necessary to make exceptions in appropriate cases. Proposed new subsections (1.1) to (1.3) would give the judge a discretion not to make the order where the circumstances of the particular offender and the particular offence made that appropriate; where the offender needed a firearm in order to provide sustenance or where the effect of such an order would make it impossible for the person to hold employment.
This will provide an escape valve for aboriginals and other persons who may have a special need for a firearm and who despite the conviction for an indictable offence do not appear to pose a danger to the public.
We have tried every way possible to make this motion applicable to those who need an exception but we must in all conscience do something about the increasing crime rate in the communities in this country. We
Government Orders
cannot turn away from the fact that drug related offences are increasing and something has to be done.
We therefore submit this motion in the hope that the government will accept it and really put some action behind their so-called stated inclination to favour crime prevention in this country. It is one thing to talk about crime prevention but it is quite another to back it up and to do something that the people in this country are crying out for.
I would ask the government to put a little action behind their declarations.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on this motion on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
A week or so ago I visited the Port Coquitlam hunting and fishing club high up in the north shore mountains overlooking the Fraser Valley. They have a wonderful club house there. We discussed this bill. I tried to explain how I would support this bill because I was in favour of effective gun control. I tried to make sure as much as possible that they would not be unreasonably affected by bureaucratic measures that would hurt them. They accepted that Canadians are generally in favour of stronger and more effective gun control, especially in light of the massacres and the growing misuse of firearms.
I tried to explain that the bill would try to catch people who were deranged. These people would have to apply for a firearms acquisition certificate before they could buy a gun. We could perhaps weed these people out since they had to have references before they got the gun.
I tried to explain that we would also, through the safe storage provisions of the bill, try to stop people who were momentarily depressed and deranged or teenagers and so on, from grabbing the family gun and killing themselves or other people in their family.
They listened. Sometimes they did not agree with me entirely but they listened and I listened to them in return.
The point that was made over and over again was to get tough on criminals, get tough on the criminal misuse of guns.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders
Having listened to that I am pleased to support these two amendments tonight. I understand that the first amendment would prohibit anyone convicted of a serious drug trafficking offence from owning a firearm for 10 years. We know that with criminal gangs, and especially in drug trafficking, firearms are used and it will be tough to crack down on that with this amendment. We should not kid ourselves that this is going to end that but we can recognize it in the legislation.
The other amendment, as I understand it, extends the ban on firearms possession to anyone convicted of a violent crime, not just those sentenced to 10 years or more. A repeat offender would face a lifetime ban. I would support that. I think I have made some similar proposals in committee. I was listening to what the member said and I was listening to what the hunting and fishing clubs in my riding said and I accept that.
I was worried about persons up north, native persons, who might have an incident in town and then in the cold light of day suddenly be faced with a ban on a gun needed to hunt for food to feed himself or the family.
As I understand it, that is protected in the bill because there is an exception for sustenance.
I was a former Crown attorney for the city of Vancouver. I have been defence counsel. In my experience judges did give tough sentences to people who used firearms in the commission of offences.
I think if these amendments are put in this bill, they would give the clear message that we are also concerned as a Parliament with the criminal misuse of firearms.
I want to conclude by saying that I support this amendment. A week or so ago, I said to the government: "We really need a package for effective gun control that will include a fair registration system, looking at ammunition, looking at really safe storage provisions, looking at getting rid of these converted semi-automatics and these kind of paramilitary weapons and at the same time protect the legitimate hunters and competition shooters". I think we have moved toward that. I really do. I think we are moving toward that now. We also want to give the message that the criminal use of firearms will be hit.
I predict that in the near future we will see such pressure coming from Canadians, especially in the big
cities, that there will be further measures I hope on the misuse of the handgun. This bill doesn't really deal with the hand gun. I tried to get it in the bill through some amendments, but it is basically out of the bill. It peripherally deals with the hand gun when we deal with clip size, but it really doesn't. We are going to have to do that because of the growing use of hand guns by the criminal element in our cities. We are going to have to get even tougher there. One way we can do that is to signal through these two amendments that for criminal offences, criminal types will have to pay an additional penalty by being prohibited in the future as part of their sentences from possessing a firearm.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on the amendment proposed by the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.
This particular amendment does not impact at all on the law-abiding gun owner. We have to recognize in the large cities now the proximity of guns to drug trafficking. It is a very real phenomenon in the big cities. In my view lying behind this amendment the logic is precise, the sanction is precise, and it places the burden of the sanction squarely on the shoulders of the serious offender, the drug trafficker.
There is no need to burden a judge or a busy Crown Attorney with the challenge of recommending a certain type of suspension or not, the precision is there in the act, if it is there. I feel that this would take us a lot closer to placing the burden of gun control or at least the penalties for breaches on the shoulders of those who break our criminal laws.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make is that this bill carries a mandatory prohibition for any indictable offence involving the use, threat or attempt of violence if the maximum sentence available is 10 years or more, a mandatory sentence that says that if you are convicted of a crime of that nature that you cannot possess, own use a firearm for 10 years. That is mandatory.
On the other indictable offences all the government is saying is that the judge must direct his or her attention to the advisability in that case of whether a firearm prohibition should be imposed.


The hon. member who introduced this motion said there was an escape valve. He made the point that he agrees that discretion should be left in the hands of the judges and he pointed out the escape valve. I can tell him that that escape valve is very narrow. In fact, I do not think it would include the situation that is taking place in our territories where if a young native person gets involved with trafficking in narcotics, gets involved with drugs, there are sentences that have been imposed by judges where they can get reintegrated into their culture and sent out of the town, away from the problem area, and they are required to use firearms as part of the native's learning life skills program. I do not think that would be covered, quite frankly, in the exception that the hon. member pointed out in the bill.
The other problem I see with it is this. Some times a court will proceed by indictment for something like common assault, and there are hundreds, I suppose thousands, of those kinds of convictions in a year. I cannot honestly say that it is always appropriate in every circumstance that in every common assault case that is proceeded by way of indictable offence that a 10-year mandatory prohibition against the use of firearms is appropriate. To this extent I agree with the mover that, yes, we should leave the discretion with the judge.
The final point I want to make to the hon. member- he knows, he is a lawyer and so is the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam-is that if you do not give the judge the discretion, the discretion wall be somewhere else. I ask the member to consider this. If the Crown Attorney is thinking of laying an indictable charge, many times he will not with something like this because the penalty would be way out of line to the crime committed. You would be taking the discretion away from the judge and, in a sense, you would be asking the Crown Attorney to make up his or her mind whether they will go by indictable offence or not.
On the three counts, I think it would unnecessarily hurt a good program that is taking place in the Northwest Territories. I think it takes the discretion away from the judge when he or she should have it in terms of say an indictable offence for common assault as well as the other reasons that I have mentioned.
Government Orders
I think the House should turn this down.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak specifically to Motion No. 20 with respect to the drug trafficking offences.
I, too, have spoken to many people in my riding regarding this bill. I spoke to many hunters and people who are involved in shooting clubs. They have indicated to me that one of the things this government, this country and judges should be doing is getting tougher on the criminal element in this country.
With respect to Motion No. 20, that would prohibit anyone convicted of a serious drug or trafficking offence from owning a firearm for 10 years, I think that is a very good amendment to be added to the legislation. Certainly in large urban centres where drug trafficking is a very serious offence and many times there is violence involved, it has caused a lot of emotion and a lot of pain and suffering.
If we are going to have gun laws that are going to be reasonable and are going to have some effect, we need to have some very tough laws. I would certainly support the amendment with respect to drug traffickers receiving a 10-year ban on any use of any firearm. That is something that goes a long way to sending a message to drug offenders and also to the courts, because there has been some concern that all of the courts have tended to be tough on offences where violence is used and where weapons are used. There are instances where this has not been the case and I think it is important for this body to send a message to the courts throughout this land that in fact we want the courts to be tough. We want the courts to have some impact on these violent offenders.
I would therefore support this particular amendment.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on this.
I know that I and many others in this House have been very strong on the law and order aspects of this bill. The people across the country, as well as most of the people in the House, recognize that we have not sent a strong enough signal to those who misuse firearms, and we want to do that.

Government Orders
On the surface, this motion seems to address that and, in most people's minds, it should be an acceptable one for people who take the law and order stance that I have taken.
Not being a lawyer, I do not get into all of the legal frills in this type of a motion but what it means as a motion to me and to the people I represent. We have in this bill now charged that judges will have to review people who are guilty of the offences that we are talking about. They are charged with making the decision as to whether or not there should be a prohibition order placed on their possession of guns. That is much stronger than we have now. The judge in doing that review can tell the difference between somebody on the fringes of a drug gang in one of the cities or possibly a native on the DEW line of Canada who happens to have been involved in school with some relatively innocent sale of drugs, let us say marijuana.
There is a big difference between violence in crime or the real violence that we see in so many situations across the country and in many cases a rancher who may only get into the city two or three times a year. Unfortunately, unless he has had a good fight, he would not have a good reason to come back to the city.
This type of amendment would in fact sweep these people into the same net as the criminals and the violent people who we really are trying to address. In my opinion the discretion of the judge or the fact that we are charging the judge to review and make that decision is adequate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
I remind members that the vote on Motion No. 20A will apply to Motion No. 23A.
Pursuant to the Speaker's ruling, Motion No. 24.

I realize that the proposer and his team are not in the House, so we move to Motion No. 41.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-17 be amended in Clause 20 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 29 the following:
"(3.1) A registration certificate shall be valid for a period of five years from the day on which it is issued."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
November 5, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion No. 45 is in the name of the member for Kenora-Rainy River. Is the motion to be withdrawn. Am I right about that?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, the motion that you refer to which is Motion No. 56 was supposed to be in with the other motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am asking about Motion No. 45. I want to be sure that you have withdrawn that motion. Is that right?


Robert Daniel Nault: Yes, it is Motion No. 45, Mr. Speaker. I got the wrong one here. Motion No. 45 was supposed to be in with the other motions which dealt with the clip size. It was put in another section which was not my intention, so I withdraw that motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 27 by striking out line 40 at
page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"every appropriate committee as determined by the rules of each House."
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain to the House what is happening here. As I said before, most of this bill is in regulations. For example, safe storage, clip size and so on. We wanted to get a system whereby there would be fair regulations and I think that is important.
I would prefer that the minister would give us all the regulations now. We should have the regulations before the bill, or around about the bill rather than after the bill, but that is the way things seem to work. We are getting them after the bill.
As we understand it, the regulations will be vetted by this Firearms Advisory Committee, with people who are knowledgeable about weapons, guns and firearms and so on. They will be vetting the regulations.
There was a proposal put in the original bill by the government that there would be a negative resolution by the House, so the House itself, so MPs could get a look at the regulations. That was withdrawn and rather an extraordinary member of the legislative committee, the government Whip, made a proposal that any committee
Government Orders
of the House of Commons could undertake an investigation and do a report on any firearms regulation. This brings in a very interesting proposal. A member or some members who did not like a regulation could get that regulation examined by a committee of the House. But it says: "any committee of the House."
It seems to me-and I think hon. members opposite would agree with this-that this is a bit too far open. This is what you would call in constitutional terms an egregious error perhaps. It is too broad. Does "any committee" mean that if a few members dislike the clip size, for example, they will try to get it in the justice committee, but if the justice committee says no, we dealt with that, then they will go to the agricultural committee or they will go to the defence committee? I mean, you could literally go committee shopping until you got a sympathetic committee chair or a committee you could get some control of, and you could get it in the committee. You could have an agricultural committee on the basis that farmers use a gun for whatever reason, and if you could get it on and you get the right chair and the right person, you could get it in that committee. You could committee shop and go around.
What my amendment does is say we will accept that provision that the House can scrutinize those amendments, but let us put it in the Standing Committee on Justice, let us make it reasonable. I think that is a fair trade-off and I think that is a reasonable way of handling it. After all, we are talking about firearms. We are talking about amendments to a bill, to the Criminal Code. It should be done by the Standing Committee on Justice. Let us say an out of order amendment, an out of order regulation, a kind of wild regulation got through the screening of the firearms committee, which is going to be pretty hard. But if even got through that, it could go to the justice committee and MPs would get feedback.
MPs who get feedback, not bureaucrats or appointees but MPs who are responsible to constituents, could then examine it. They should do it in the justice committee. Does that not make sense?
It does not make sense to me to move it all around different committees, and that is why I propose this amendment.

November 5, 1991
Government Orders


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I have the amendment by the hon. member right.
His amendment is to take out the words "every appropriate committee of either House" and replace them with "every appropriate committee as determined by the rules of each House". That is the amendment? The amendment does not mention the justice committee by name. The appropriate committee is determined by the rules of each House, presumably that is the justice and solicitor general committee or some other successor to that committee. They could be split.
I do not see anything wrong with the amendment. I think all hon. members should consider supporting it.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, it is not one that I have had a chance to give full consideration, to which I would like to give any motion affecting this bill. Nothing is what it appears to be on first sight.
When we were discussing it in committee I meant to raise a question on it. It is so wide that any committee of the House could seize this gun control issue and try to address it. I do not think that was the intent of the member who actually worked so hard to try to get this process in.
I also would support the amendment as proposed by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say as well that I think this is an excellent amendment. I want to congratulate the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam in bringing it forward. It does do a great deal to tighten up what have been until now very loose procedures and a loose set of references in the bill.
While I think I know what the government was intending, the wording really does not lend itself to the exactness we would like to see. I think when we have only 30 days to consider these regulations, we have to make very good use of this 30-day period.
References are being applied to committees inappropriately so if the utilization of the time is not to the best
advantage, then I think we are not doing a service to the House or to the country.
I would say unequivocally that I would support the amendment as put forward by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 49 agreed to.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-17 be amended by striking out line 5 at page 36 and
substituting the following new clause:
"28. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto,
immediately after section 116 thereof, the following section:
"116.1 (1) Every order made by the Governor in Council under any provision of this Part shall be laid before each House of Parliament by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada not later than five sitting days after it is made.
(2)	Where an order has been laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of either House, to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House and by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate may be filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House at any time but not later than twenty sitting days after the regulation has been laid before that House.
(3)	Where a motion is filed as provided in subsection (2), the House in which the motion was filed shall, not later than its sixth sitting day following the filing of the motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been taken up and considered in the other House.
(4)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (3) shall be debated without interruption for not more than one hour and, on the conclusion of the debate or at the expiration of that hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall immediately put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(5)	If a motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (3) is adopted, with or without amendments, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
November 5, 1991

(6)	Within the first fifteen sitting days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (5), that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection with the motion shall be debated without interruption for not more than one hour and, on the conclusion of the debate or at the expiration of that hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion in question is concurred in.
(7)	Where a motion taken up and considered in accordance with this section is adopted, with or without amendements, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(8)	Where a motion taken up and considered in accordance with this section is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced, or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the order to which the motion relates shall remain unaffected.""
He said: Mr. Speaker, this follows on the previous amendment. It would be an alternative to the previous amendment and one which I personally would favour.
One of the great concerns that I have with this bill is that so much of this bill is done through regulations. We are passing a bill that in many ways is enabling and gives the minister carte blanche to do what he or she may wish to do with respect to huge portions of this bill.
We have in this country today, I would suggest, a problem in that we are increasingly being controlled by decisions in cabinet and by regulations. That is a problem that has been ongoing, certainly, since I came here as a member. There have been a number of times when I have been frustrated by the fact that my voice either cannot be heard or counts for very little. The bill before us today simply adds to that. That has existed in other legislation.
Recently on Bill C-13, the Canadian Bar Association was before that legislative committee indicating that it thought there was too much regulation in the country. An individual has a tough time getting hold of the statutes and regulations to know what the law should be.
It is important that parliamentarians have a say in what takes place in this country. That is what we are elected to do. There certainly is a place for regulations.
Government Orders
This bill talks of the storage and handling of weapons by owners, people who are in the business of selling guns. The shipping, the handling, the storage and sale of those weapons are all handled strictly in regulations. The size of the gun magazine is handled strictly in regulations. The regulations have not been presented to this House to let us debate them, to let us see exactly what they are. We are in the dark with this bill. Therefore we are passing legislation and we are not really sure where it is going to end up. That is the concern of people throughout the country who have some interest in this bill.
This amendment would bring back a clause in the original bill that would force the government to bring any regulations in front of the House to be debated and to be voted upon. That way they would be in front of the Canadian public. It would allow members who wish to put a case for or against a certain regulation to put that case and would allow us, as members, to have a vote and a say in the regulation.
This is an alternative to the previous amendment but it is one that I would prefer. I suggest it is something that is important if we, as parliamentarians, are going to truly represent our various constituencies.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some interesting comments about the role of the private member and some of the frustrations he has had concerning amendments and the shaping of legislation.
I say with some com iction that this bill is not one of those bills. I can tell the hon. member that individual members of Parliament have made a difference. Compare this bill to the way it was originally tabled in June 1989, and the changes that were made after the Reimer committee and the many recommendations that were made by a committee of this House. When this bill went before the legislative committee it was changed.
The very amendment that the hon. member is suggesting be put back in the bill is an amendment that came out of the committee process. His colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, will remember that. I was there as a witness with the departmental officials

Government Orders
onbehalf of the Minister of Justice. This was not an amendment I came up with. This came from members of the committee.
You can point out that it was a Conservative member of the committee, but I can tell you it was not something I drew up and thought would be a great idea. The committee thought it would be a good way of handling regulations.
I can tell the hon. member with some certainty that there is no other provision in the laws of Canada that provides parliamentarians with this opportunity to debate and study regulations before the regulations get into the process by which they become law. It is usually too late by the time parliamentarians think they might want to get interested in this. By that time the thing has been published and is well along the road. This is unique, I believe, in the whole body of law and all the regulations passed by the Government of Canada, going right straight back to the beginning of regulations.
This provides an opportunity for parliamentarians to have a look at it before it has the opportunity to have the force of law.
I see what the hon. member is doing. He is saying that he did like it the way it was previous to that, but we tried to come up with a balance and, in a sense, we would be open to the charge that: "You did not listen to your own committee. Your own committee backed this." I could be corrected on this, but I think it was unanimously accepted. I do not see anybody shaking their head. I believe this procedure for having a look at regulations was unanimously accepted. As I say, at the time it was not my first choice as to the way it should be done but I can see where this is a dramatic improvement over the way it was done in the past.
I say, with some reluctance, that I will not be supporting going back, but I think there are lots of benefits here for the individual member in the way this is now worded.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker,I just wanted to add something to what the parliamentary secretarysaid. We are trying to strike a balance, but one of the fears that Ihave is that it is very controversial, as you might have guessed, when a regulation is made concerning clip size, safe storage and thetypes of para-military guns that are banned. What happens then is itgoes through the firearms advisory
committee and then maybe a memberof the House with some pressure, who has a right, tries to get Preferred to a committee.
I am a little afraid that the process will still be delayed and that nothing may ever happen. That is why I was very reluctant when the member for Calgary proposed this process. I cannot look into the future because I do not have a crystal ball so we will wait to see what happens.
Will it work or will it be a vehicle for undetermined delay and debate of the same issues that we have been debating for the last year and a half? We want to get on with the thing so that we have some sort of idea of just what exactly is controlled and what is not. We do not want to have a mechanism that is a recipe for delay and delay.
Maybe the government is a little afraid to bring it in. It is delayed, examined, Parliament was not sitting, an election comes, and so on and so forth. Having said we had better get on with it, I will sit down and let us do that in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question.


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 50 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The mover of Motion No. 56 has advised the Chair that he would not propose his motion. We will thus go on to Motions Nos. 59 and 60 that are grouped for the debate.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 59
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 38
(a)	by striking out line 39 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"the case may be, is carried on;"
(b)	by striking out line 45 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Commissioner or person so authorized; and
(e) mail copies of the records of all retail sales transactions involving firearms to the local registrar of firearms within fifteen days of the end of each calendar month."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 60
That Bill C-17 be amended in clause 38 by striking out lines 41 to 45 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"tory relating to restricted weapons and firearms to the Commissioner or to any person authorized by subsection 110(5) to issue a permit to carry on a business in accordance with any request made in writing by the Commissioner or that person so authorized or such requirements as are defined by regulation."


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment which I think can have a good deal of importance because it will be a beginning of registration. I think that the main complaint to the request by the pro-gun control groups to registration of all firearms is that it would create an overload of activity for the officials. There would be so much information to program into the computer in a very short period of time that really the whole system of registration and controls and inquiries concerning FACs and so on would not work well.
The important thing is that when we try to make the system more effective and increase the regulation and control, we do not overload it so that the whole system breaks down.
What we are suggesting in Motion No. 59 is that the retail sales be the point at which we start with some registration. The person who completes the retail sale mails copies of all retail sales transactions involving firearms to the local registrar of firearms within 15 days of the end of each calendar month. Those records of firearms with the registration number and so on would then be put on a computer and we would have the
Government Orders
beginning of the registration of firearms. That would put the system in place for the registration of firearms.
Mind you it would involve some work to get the system going. If it is the intention to eventually register all firearms, this would be the manner in which this registration could be started. I think it is a modest beginning but one which could work without overloading the system and overtaxing the activities and the time of the officials. They also have to do research and make inquiries on FAC applications and renewals. They have to deal with the registration of hand guns, deal with amnesties and other inquiries. I think this would be a suitable means of adding to the registration program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on my Motion No. 60, which would place on obligation on a firearms business to record all retail sales and send the information to the RCMP. At present they only have to send records of sales of restricted weapons.
I just want to take a moment and deal with the restricted weapons. I meant to mention this before on a debate on one of the motions and it fits in here. What are restricted weapons? They are hand guns; they are semi-automatic firearms with barrels shorter than 470 millimetres; they are any rifle or shotgun that can be fired while its stock is folded or telescoped; automatic weapons grandfathered in 1977 and any weapon declared by cabinet order to be a restricted weapon.
By far the largest group is hand guns. I just looked at the Metro Tbronto Police Board testimony because we have been hearing a lot about crime in Tbronto. They came before our committee and this is what they said: "It is not commonly known by most Canadians that when a registration certificate is issued for a restricted weapon it is valid for life". I draw to the attention of the committee that surely things can change in a lifetime and we should re-evaluate that. The certificates are issued free of charge. It is estimated by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force that it costs about a thousand dollars to conduct an investigation into an application for a restricted weapon, usually a hand gun. A thousand bucks to look at it. Surely the time has arrived for a user fee. They point out that there are strong points in the legislation that can be improved, and so on.

Government Orders
Then they give us some statistics. I think this is really interesting. It is fitting perhaps that we end the debate tonight with this: restricted weapons certificates 1986, 33,200; 1987, 37,500; 1990, 46,000 new registrations. Metro police say that the number in Toronto has grown exponentially and in 1991 three times as many were issued as previously. People are getting certificates for hand guns.
They can get them to use as protection, in a lawful occupation, as target practice, as part of a shooting club and part of a collection of a genuine gun collector. You can start off with one gun. Hand guns do not really have any hunting purposes. Some are incredibly powerful and they can be concealed.
Someone who sees the Dirty Harry film and wants toown a Colt 44 magnum like the hero of the film can go to the libraryand learn about magnums. He can then go to his local registry office to get his restricted weapon certificate. He can get one based on the fact that he says he is a genuine gun collector. He buys the weaponand keeps it in his home.
Metro Toronto police are telling us that the number of people doing this is growing like crazy. It is the Rambo culture. This is a serious problem and there is really nothing in the bill to deal with it.
What the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and myself have been saying to the House and the Canadian people is: "Let us target these hand guns and then get back to these para-militaiy weapons". These are not for hunters. These are para-militaiy weapons that are flowing into Canada. We are saying that when people buy guns surely with modern cash registers and computers and things we can take a record and send it to the RCMP.
People will say this is a tremendous violation of civil rights. Is it when you weigh everything? The member for Saint-Hubert said: "We don't have the third amendment that gives us the right to have a weapon". This country was settled peacefully. We have hunting guns and so on, but by and large good hunters do not need powerful weapons. We do not have any elephants in our woods in Canada. Inuit used to shoot polar bears with bow and arrow and spears.
We do not need these high powered guns. We do not need them flooding into this country. We need some controls.
I think what the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is doing with his amendment and what I am trying to do with my amendment is point to the future. That will be the big debate in Canada in the future. Can we have a registration system for future guns so we know where they are and how armed our population is so that if they are lost, stolen or get into criminal hands, we can deal with them?
It seems to me that is where it is going to go in the future. I think people have to be prepared for that. I urge the government to accept our amendments.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the specific amendments that are being proposed here. They were addressed in committee. There was a lot of discussion on them. Of course, there was a lot of discussion across the country generally about the value and the problems of registration.
There is a terrible fear by some people of the process of registration for all guns. Yet there is a terrible demand by many others who feel that is the way we should be going in the future.
I will not attempt to argue whether we should or we should not. I will argue that we are now with this bill going to be vastly increasing the number of weapons that are registered and therefore under better control. I think most people in Canada feel that is positive.
The special committee studying Bill C-80 recommended that in fact we should be going far beyond these automatic and automatics converted to semi-automatic.
There is a whole culture of guns not legitimately used by hunters or sporting people. We in that committee felt that people in Canada, not all people in Canada, but the majority of the people, were insisting that we address that issue.
The concern is what to do with those that are already in the country and what to do with those that have been legitimately bought by law-abiding people. The committee made recommendations on that but this bill does not directly address those.
I would be disappointed if most of those guns do not end up onthe registry as restricted weapons, weapons that are owned by people in the country, known by the

November 5, 1991
police and under control.This will vastly increase the number of registered weapons. It willtend to include all of those that are now in the country and what wewould determine as the higher fire power type weapons.
We are not saying to go back to all the old guns that are in the country, but to the new ones that are being brought in. It is a very attractive, I will even use the word seductive, approach. It seems so simple and so easy.
As I pointed out to the committee, in one of my former lives I was a computer consultant involved very heavily with computers and computer systems. If you are going to implement a computer system it has to be something that can be maintained accurately or you are going to end up with garbage. It is something that everybody recognizes but it is a trap that is easy to fall into.
This is a trap that the House is being asked to consider now. Ifall new sales are put into a computer there is no demand that thoserecords be maintained. If a person moves there is no record required of that move. If a person who legally owns a gun sells it to anotherperson who has a firearms acquisition certificate there is no reasonfor them to send that record to the computer system. In very shortorder that system, and a very expensive computer system by the way,would be full of data and a significant percentage of it would begarbage. As such, the whole system really becomes useless.
The concept of paying a lot of taxpayer money in trying to develop a safer system when that system would be invalid would detract from many of the other good things we are doing in the bill. Although it is a seductive motion, and the idea is one that would appeal to many people, I would strongly recommend to the House that it not accept this amendment.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few brief comments, if I may. I have sat quietly throughout the discussion and on this particular amendment I could not help but find myself in the position of agreeing with virtually everything my hon. friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam said.
However, I find myself unable to support the amendment and I want to say why.
Government Orders
This is one of those issues that is a very, very difficult issue and it has been difficult for members on all sides of the house. I think it has been approached in a very constructive way by members on all sides. As I read the many amendments that were put forward here today, I was impressed with the thought that had gone into them.
There were some that in some ways I agreed with and others that I did not. It is difficult achieving a consensus on this issue. We went through Bill C-80 in the special committee. We went through the committee that handled Bill C-17. All members of the House, while they may not find that the bill provides everything they are looking for, would agree that this minister and her parliamentary secretary who is here, have really bent over backward to try to find a fair and reasonable path between two competing points of view on this very, very difficult issue.
I represent a rural area. I have never owned a gun and I likely never will own a gun. I found that when this gun control issue first came up, in 90 per cent of the households in my constituency there were firearms. As I watched this issue unfold and tried to find out the concerns of the people I represent, one of the things I found was that there was a real urban split on this issue.
I found that it almost seemed to hurt the rural Canadians, at least the ones in Atlantic Canada, so that they were almost under assault on this issue, as if to own a firearm made you some sort of closet Rambo who wanted to go out and do vicious, evil and violent things. That is not the way people are in rural Nova Scotia.
People in rural Nova Scotia are responsible. I am very pleased that the various gun clubs in my constituency and many of my constituents who have written to me on this issue are very responsible in their approach. They are going to welcome some of the provisions in this bill.
They did not look to the government to bring in a bill of this sort, but they are reasonable people and they will see some of the provisions like the 28-day delay, for example, and the requirement for training for new people. Some of these very responsible provisions have been a constructive contribution.
There are very legitimate concerns that have been expressed to me by a number of my constituents about things like what will be in the regulations that will follow. I am pleased to see that any regulations will be com-

Government Orders
ingbefore committee before they in fact are promulgated. This is one of the big concerns.
With regard to the state of the motion before the House, which is the amendments-I know you wish me to do that-and the point I want to make is that a lot of members have participated in the exercise that has got this bill to where it is.
There was give and take on both sides of the issue. The minister is to be commended for her willingness to listen and to try to accommodate the different points of view that exist. As with any difficult issue, compromise is necessary and the bill that is ultimately brought before the House at this time represents a compromise that is probably as reasonable as can be had. It offers something to everybody who has an interest in the bill without necessarily giving everything to everyone.
That is why I am not going to support the current amendment that is before the House, but wish to commend the bill in its final stage to all members. I think all members should be prepared to support it.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point because I think it has been covered by my colleague.
I just want to point out that in fact there is some control, and I think it is done in a less expensive, less elaborate manner than might have been suggested by the two amendments here.
A firearms dealer is required to record the serial number and the FAC number of purchases. Police can have a look at that. Indeed, that was one of the ways they identified Marc Lepine. They checked the serial number on his gun, and they checked it against the FAC in the place where he bought it.
I can tell the hon. member from the New Democratic Party that even if we were going to accept it, he would probably want to add prohibited weapons which can be in the inventory of a company.
His amendment refers to restricted weapons. If we were going to accept it, we would have to put "prohibited". I do not mean to be picky, but as I say, the system
in place is inexpensive and it is easy for the police to get at.
The hon. member from British Columbia just pointed out that we would have garbage very quickly because this does not put any requirement on private citizens who have a transaction. There is no requirement on them to have that recorded, so very quickly you would find that the records you have are completely out of date. You would have incurred this huge expense to very little advantage.
As much as I would like to have accepted an amendment from the member, I do not think that is possible.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on the record my support for the concept in general, but it is impossible to do in this bill as we found at the committee stage, as my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin pointed out.
It is there with this bill. Everything is in position for a future minister to take the next logical step which will be a total revision of part III of the Criminal Code which will pull in those parts that this bill did not deal with.
Members who served on the committee know that part III has 33 sections to it. This bill only dealt with 24 of those sections. Before we can move into these newer concepts, a minister has to bring all of part III before the bill and then a minister may well decide to get into a licensing and registration system where, depending on your degree of training, you will be able to have access to certain guns and not other guns. It will be treated more like cars. You will have a proper licence. If you are going to be a chauffeur you will have a better type of licence. You will have different insurance ratings.
Everything has to be done as a package. This bill has to be done first because we have to get all of those training courses in place before we can take the next step. It is with regret I say that because I know the member has worked very hard on it. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to have a word because I had the privilege of

November 5, 1991

chairing that committee. Being as these are the last amendments, I want the record to show clearly in terms of the government members that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Red Deer and the member for Ahuntsic all worked very hard. In terms of the Liberals, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys worked very hard on this bill and very productively. My good friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam really did work hard. It was a treat to put a group of members around a bill that was very sensitive across the country and within this Parliament and to have them work constructively.
Of course it cannot be done without a parliamentary secretary, the member for Niagara Falls, who worked very hard, and then the minister. I mean we all remember being years and years in this House in opposition when we could not get an amendment through at all. It was frustrating for the Liberal members when they were on the back benches, but in the last 10 years, starting under the Liberal Party in 1980 and continuing through with the Conservative Party, committees now have awesome powers and make some very significant amendments to bills.
This gives us satisfaction. I want to say that it takes a minister who is not psyched out by a committee and who is prepared to listen to the rational arguments that are made. There are rational arguments made, and the Minister of Justice deserves a lot of credit for the amendments that she accepted both to Bill C-17 and to Bill C-80.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I simply want to point out that according to Standing Orders any member who wants to be recognized must be in his place. However, since no one objected, I did not wish to shatter
Government Orders
the excellent ambiance in the House tonight by applying the rules too strictly, but I insist this must not be used as a precedent in the future.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 59.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 59 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 60. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 60 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House are further deferred to Wednesday, November 6, 1991, at three o'clock p.m.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 6, 1991