1991-11-06

Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues to Canada's continuing prosperity is youth development.
While this government claims to care about global competitiveness, unfortunately it often takes steps to undermine Canada's competitive position.
The government talks about a learning culture while it cuts its spending on post-secondary education and imposes a 3 per cent tax on student loans. It says it wants to fight illiteracy while at the same time it imposes a tax on books.
It pretends to care about training while this department has seen drastic cuts. Between 1985 and 1990, the government cut the budget of the SEED program in half from $149.5 million to $77 million, depriving many young Canadians of job opportunities. Last year alone it cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
It is time for this government to stop sending out mixed signals on the issues of education and training. It is time for this government to act in a consistent, constructive manner which will guarantee that Canada's young people get the education and training which will enable them to compete against the rest of the world.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, from today until November 8, an exhibition of life-size bronze busts of Canada's 18 Prime Ministers will be held to mark the 125th anniversary of Confederation. These busts were made by Dr. Joseph Adrien Letendre of Amos. On the base of each is a short biographical note giving the Prime Minister's main achievements.
Dr. Letendre is an orthopedic surgeon by profession. On a sabbatical year in Oxford, England, he developed a particular interest in sculpture. He spent ten years of his leisure time to complete this collection.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues and all employees of the House of Commons to visit this exhibition, located in Room 525 of the Wellington Building in Ottawa.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, Grant Devine and the Saskatchewan Tories could not pull it off but a Pennsylvania Democrat did. Last night Harris Wofford overcame a 40 per cent deficit in the polls to beat Republican heavyweight Dick Thornburgh in the Pennsylvania senatorial race. Wofford won on a platform of advocating nationalized health care in the United States and Pennsylvania voters sent a clear message to their President. They agree with Wofford.
Americans have heard about the efficient, affordable and universal Canadian health care system and have decided that they no longer want an expensive user-pay system which leaves 37 million Americans without adequate health care.
This victory should serve as a reminder to Canadians of the value of medicare and how fortunate we are to have it. It should serve to remind the present govern-

ment that the commitment to medicare in this countiy must be preserved and the cutbacks stopped. Finally it should serve as a warning to politicians across the countiy who wish to win the next election that to back away from the principles of universal medicare and to campaign for a user fees will mean certain defeat.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that Canada's national financial burdens of debt and deficit are both federal and provincial partnership challenges. All know in their hearts that the goods and services tax is a necessary response to those burdens and is here to stay.
The constitutional proposals call for harmonization of federal-provincial interests in economic planning and financial budgeting. A good place to start that harmonization and that partnership is here and now with the goods and services tax in the interests of all Canadians.
Provincial initiative and leadership is required. I call on my own province of New Brunswick, which has long been a model for Canada, to lead again by the integration of the New Brunswick and federal sales tax systems as an expression of that leadership now.


FORESTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that the NDP government of Ontario has accepted the Conservative government's federal-provincial forest agreement when the federal contribution has been drastically reduced from $15 million a year to $6 million a year.
The 1984 to 1989, $75 million agreement saw 100,000 hectares of forest regenerated, 166 million seedlings purchased and 400 kilometres of access roads constructed. The 1984 agreement was considered inadequate at the time and the future agreement should do more.
How can this government present this agreement as progress for the future of northern Ontario and its ailing forest industry? This is just another slap in the face of the working people of northern Ontario as a tonne of
newsprint sells at 1982 prices and the softwood lumber industry has lost its markets because of the 15 per cent export surtax.


JOHN FULOP
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is home to many refugees from terrorism and inhumanity, some of whom owe their very existence to the heroism of individuals who stood up to tyranny and fear itself.
John Fulop of Budapest, Hungary is such a man. Between October 15,1944 and January 20,1945 he saved the lives of my constituent Dr. Thomas Szirtes and five other Jews by hiding them first in his one room apartment and later in a 12 foot by 5 foot cellar.
As Dr. Szirtes has stated: "He did it because of his supreme dedication to helping the oppressed, his calling to save the persecuted and to alleviate the suffering of the sufferers. His bravery, his skill, his tenacity to keep our moral and physical beings alive were exceptional. He never lost his cool and he always had his presence of mind which was so essential to make possible our survival against overwhelming odds."
I would call upon all members of this House to recognize John Fulop's outstanding heroism and humanity.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian health care system was given a show of support by our southern neighbours. Democratic candidate Harris Wofford defeated Republican Dick Thornburgh in the United States Senate elections. Mr. Wofford's campaign focused on the need for an affordable health care system based on the system we have in Canada.
At a time when the United States is moving toward a Canadian-oriented health care system, it seems rather ironic that this government is trying to phase out ours so that by the year 2000 the Canadian health care system as we know it will cease to exist.
November 6, 1991

Perhaps our health care system was one of the tradeoffs in negotiating the U.S.-Canada free trade deal. Unfortunately I fail to see what Canada is getting in return.
In words of defeated candidate Dick Thornburgh: "The issue of health care commanded greater attention than we had anticipated. I guess we underestimated voters' concerns".
I would urge the Prime Minister and this government to stop underestimating the concerns of the Canadian voter and restore health care funding instead of making the mistake of listening to President Bush again.


EDUCATION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, this is Canada Career Week and I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how urgent it is to do something about education and careers. When we talk about the recession, unemployment, training, research and development, and high technology, we too often forget that education is the key to our economic progress. We are in the midst of an education crisis.
In Quebec, nearly 40 per cent of young people drop out of high school before graduation. It is time for all concerned, whether in the federal or provincial governments or in the labour movement, to agree to develop a strategy to rectify the situation. A complete, stimulating, well-directed education is essential to our prosperity. Young people have lost confidence and we must do our homework again. I hope that our jurisdictional quarrels will not compromise our young people's future and that everyone will open their eyes to reality, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, all future agricultural policies are supposed to be market responsive, product neutral, sustainable and competitive.
I assume these four pillars apply to the distribution of the $700 million to non-horticultural crops announced
during the Saskatchewan election, in which case there should be no question about including cultivated forages. They are good for soil. They take pressure off grains, oilseeds and pulses.
I am talking about good farm land above class 5 that can be easily converted back to other crops. I am talking about farmers who made good market decisions to switch to forages to reduce losses and to put nutrients back into the soil.
These crops have suffered from lower prices too. Surely the proposed assistance package must include all cultivated land whether seeded to cereals, oilseeds, pulses or forages. To do otherwise ignores the four pillars and common sense.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to research and development will help secure Canada's future and ensure that our nation remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that this Conservative government has committed $7.4 million to an industrial research and development institute to be established in Midland, Ontario. The institute will assist in the advancement of the tool, die and mould industries.
Universities, community colleges, and the industrial sector will work together to make the institute a leader in its field. Research in the industrial sector is vital. It goes to the very heart of all of our economic activity. The new technology and subsequent jobs which will emerge from this centre is one step toward ensuring Canada's continued prosperity and competitiveness.


ARMISTICE DAY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days Canadians will be celebrating Armistice Day and will rightfully honour our fellow citizens who have given their lives for our freedom in the First, Second and Korean Wars.

Oral Questions
This November 11 we should also remember those Canadians, members of the armed forces who have given their lives in peacetime.
Last week five Canadians died near Alert, Northwest Territories, on a military mission. As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I want to express my condolences to Master Warrant Officer Robert Grimsly of Limoges, Ontario and Captain Julie Trepanier of Cumberland. Both those constituents of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell lost their lives for their country. May they rest in peace.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse the sentiments of my hon. friend who just spoke.
If you based your understanding of the government's proposals for a renewed Canada just from what is in the media, your view sure would be distorted.
We hear lots about the distinct society clause and other things which cause controversy.
But where is the debate on the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers? Where are the arguments for and against new powers of economic union? Why are Canadians not getting the facts about harmonizing budgets and tax systems? How about the division of powers which would cut duplication and bring government closer to the people?
I would like to urge all Canadians to demand an intelligent and comprehensive debate on these important economic initiatives. We have stared at our constitutional navels for long enough.


ALEXANDER MACKENZIE BICENTENNIAL
Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia will spend close to $1 million to commemorate the Alexander Mackenzie Bicentennial in 1993.
Two hundred years ago Alexander Mackenzie was the first white man to cross Canada by land and the first white man to make contact with the 30,000 Indian people
who lived in the Bella Coola Indian territory. The white men who followed Alexander Mackenzie spread disease, alcohol and firearms. They stole Indian land, resources and Indian artefacts. They destroyed Indian society and Indian people.
A hundred and fifty years after Mackenzie's visit there were only 239 Bella Coola Indians left on the face of the earth. Thirty thousand people had been annihilated.
Mr. Speaker, from you and other honorary patrons of the Alexander Mackenzie Bicentennial, the people of Bella Coola today would like to know what is there to celebrate about a genocide?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. According to the CFIB, for every dollar of sales tax in Germany it costs businesses less than half a cent to collect the tax. For every dollar of sales tax in the U.K. it costs businesses less than four cents to collect the tax. But in Canada it costs businesses 40 cents for every dollar of GST collected. It costs Canadian businesses nearly $7 billion to collect the GST.
You can say "bull" et cetera all you want, but these are the facts.
If the GST is such a simple tax, why is the collection cost to business in Canada one hundred times higher than that in Germany?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would be honest with herself, she would realize that the statistics which she just quoted are hogwash. They are based on a survey which has no evidence, no support data, no proof of cost and is based on flawed methodology.
In fact I think that the respected columnist, Mr. Terence Corcoran in The Globe and Mail put it the best way this morning when he wrote: "Mr. Bulloch's $10 billion, essential to his sensational claims, is the product of fine but preposterous statistical manipulation". I agree with Terence Corcoran.
November 6, 1991


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question is for the Minister of National Revenue, he who claims to be fighting cross-border shopping.
Everyone knows that the GST is largely responsible for a flood of cross-border shopping which is costing thousands of Canadian jobs.
Can the government explain why, on the one hand, it is telling Canadians that we are going to cut back on cross-border shopping and on the other hand, in the government's GST Consumer Information Office bulletin released this week, the minister's office is suggesting: "The GST reminds holiday travellers that domestic flights are taxed at 7 per cent; all flights to Mexico, the Caribbean and to overseas are GST free. Bus and train trips within Canada are taxable, but there is no GST on bus and train trips to destinations outside Canada".
Why is the minister responsible for the GST also killing us with more calls for cross-border shopping in his own document?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, after extensive consultations over the last six to eight months across the country, I have put in place numerous programs which are working their way through the system in co-operation and consultation with the provinces, with the private sector, with the retail council, with labour and with the municipalities. In fact, if the hon. member attempts to pull together the GST and cross-border shopping, all she has to do is listen to what the head of the Retail Council of Canada recently stated. Mr. Alasdair J. McKichan, the president of the Retail Council of Canada, who I presume would be the most interested in cross-border shopping, made it very clear when he said, and I quote: "The phenomenon of cross-border shopping is not a child of the GST".


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer my question.
Considering that Quebec, for instance, derives a substantial part of its income from tourism, an industry that is very important for the economic recovery of Quebec City, Montreal and all other regions in the province, why
Oral Questions
is his own department suggesting that Canadians take vacation trips outside the country? It is suggested in the department's own document that it will be cheaper to go skiing in the United States than in Canada!
My question to the minister is this: Why is he pursuing a GST policy that kills Canadian jobs and puts a heavy burden on our tourist industry?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it isn't like that at all. Whether we are talking about the province of Quebec or the rest of Canada, we now have a very substantial program for advertising Canada in the United States.
Previously, there were a number of problems with campaigns in the United States to advertise Canada and its regions.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Yesterday, much to the relief of all Canadians, the minister agreed to speak with the co-chairs of the constitutional committee regarding the problems facing that committee.
The situation which the committee faced yesterday in Manitoba could have been avoided. It saddens us all that such an important committee appears to be falling apart because of disorganization and lack of planning.
I would like to know what action the minister is taking to avoid the collapse of this critical unity committee.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I continue to be impressed by the determination of all parties in this House to put partisan considerations aside and to try to recognize that we have to do everything we can to make the most out of this best instrument we have to allow Canadians to participate in the approval of the proposals that were put before them.
I have had preliminary conversations since yesterday with the two co-chairs. I have just had a conversation

November 6, 1991
Oral Questions
with the member of this House who co-chairs and with representatives of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party who chair their delegations on the committee.
I understand that the steering committee has decided not to proceed with any of its hearings scheduled for later this week in northern Ontario. Those will be put back until a later time to allow the committee to ensure that a more effective organizational structure is put in place that is designed to improve the effectiveness of this committee procedure. That has been the approach outlined to me personally in a telephone conversation minutes ago with representatives of the three parties.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the minister for his concern and his actions on behalf of all Canadians, because it is something we need for the unity of this country.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yesterday the Quebec minister of Intergovernmental affairs stated and I quote: "The principles are interesting but the proposals are unacceptable." Did the Prime Minister speak to Mr. Bourassa to make sure that Mr. Remillard was indeed speaking on behalf of the Quebec government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we spoke with the premier's office, representatives and spokespeople of the Quebec premier. We have no reason to believe the Quebec government's position has changed.
Mr. Bourassa has said clearly that, for him and his government, the federal proposals are a valid basis for discussion. He has some reservations about the details of some of our proposals. In any case, the proposals are there to be improved, and we hope that Quebec, like all the other provinces and territories and all Canadians, will co-operate in a joint effort to improve our proposals.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
I must say that I was delighted to hear that the committee has decided to suspend its operation for the next two days in northern Ontario to enable the committee to plan its future.
Obviously Canadians have indicated an interest in getting involved. We appreciate that the process is critical here in terms of providing ample opportunity for all Canadians to participate if they wish to. The minister has set the deadline of February 28 as the time for the committee to report. Will the minister indicate some willingness to reconsider this deadline to provide ample time, acknowledging the fact that we are getting into a pre-Christmas period in terms of Canadians' attention being perhaps turned to other than constitutional issues? Will he consider that date being put off a few weeks to enable the committee to do its job more properly?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as I do the rules of this House and its requirements. A report will be presented to this House by the special joint committee on its reporting day. There will then be a reply by the Government of Canada which will constitute the position of the Government of Canada which will be interpreted in Quebec in accordance with their Bill 150 as an offer, and which will be interpreted in other ways elsewhere in the country.
The time frames are very tight. They are not all of our making. I would not anticipate that there would be a change in the reporting date of the special joint committee that has been established by a resolution of this House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
Obviously Canadians have indicated that when they are responding to what they see as a committee on the renewal of Canada that much of the discussion has taken place beyond strict constitutional matters, that they have also included matters of fair taxation, economic development, job creation and so on.
Will the minister responsible recognize that these are in fact appropriate interventions on behalf of Canadians concerned about the renewal of Canada and will he
November 6, 1991

make some effort to communicate to the two chairs that they be more tolerant in terms of a much more widespread debate on some of the critical issues facing the country's renewal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will carry out what I take is part of my function to communicate the views expressed in the House to the two co-chairs of the committee.
I would also point out to the hon. member that among other things there is a public process of consultation on prosperity initiatives, a variety of other public consultations in the public domain that allow Canadians who are interested in other questions to raise those questions.
I would also repeat to him what I think is known to all in the House that if there is an individual, a political party or a government of a province that has a proposal to make on an issue related to, for example, a social charter, we would be very interested in seeing the detail of that proposal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think we all acknowledge that the leadership of the committee itself has to accept responsibility for the fact that it has not worked the way it had been intended to work.
We were informed this morning about some potentially very unfortunate remarks that one of the co-chairs made regarding the premier of the province of Quebec.
My question to the minister responsible is that if these quotes that are alleged to have been uttered by one of the co-chairs are in fact true in any form whatsoever, will the minister consider replacing that particular chair of the constitutional committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that the minister can replace the co-chairperson of the committee. The committee is the master of its own procedure and that would have to be a matter for the committee.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Knowing that the plans to harmonize the GST fully with the provincial
Oral Questions
sales tax clearly cannot be implemented, is the government now telling us that we will continue to be the only country with two retail sales taxes that are completely inconsistent and not harmonized?
Is the government now prepared to work with Canadians to clear up this disaster of its own making?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, discussions are in fact continuing. As the hon. member knows, Quebec saw fit to postpone the implementation of the harmonization for six months but it has certainly in no way backed away from the implementation of it.
There are other discussions going on with other provinces. I can only indicate that there is the prospect of success and achievement in these particular areas.
The hon. member says name them. My understanding is that talks are continuing with respect to the province of Newfoundland which has expressed an interest in the harmonization in order to improve efficiency and to reduce the administrative costs.
My own sense is that what is required now is the support, in fact the encouragement of all politicians and leaders and people who represent special interest groups to encourage the harmonization of the tax because in that way it can reduce the administration costs and make the whole tax system much more effective.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is living in a dream world if he thinks that harmonization is still going to occur.
Let me ask him this. He surely knows that one of the things that Canadians find most unfair about the GST is the fact that it taxes things that they consider to be essential in their daily lives. Yesterday, and we welcome this news, the minister announced among other things that lancets, button infusers, aerosol chambers and extremity pumps and guide dogs for the hearing impaired are going to be exempt from the GST.
Why will the minister consider exempting and zero rating other things that are essential to Canadians in daily life, things like fuel to heat their houses, children's clothing, other things that people need daily?

November 6, 1991
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is progressive enough to recognize that the old federal sales tax that was in place was not an appropriate tax for a modem economy and that there needed to be reform and a value added tax like the GST was the most appropriate.
The hon. member refers to the fact that some changes were made yesterday. This is the fourth occasion on which there have been changes implemented. I think he should also bear in mind that the object of the exercise was to reduce the over-all rate from 13.5 per cent, which was the tax under the old manufacturers' sales tax, to a lower level, but in so doing it had to cover a broader range of services and to generate essentially the same amount of tax revenue.
The hon. member knows and understands that the minute you start providing for more exemptions, you will either end up with less revenue or a higher tax rate. I guess what we are trying to do is implement the system so that it will be fair and equitable to all concerned.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, compliance with the GST has cost $102 million in Nova Scotia. Sixty-nine per cent of this cost has been borne by small business. In the past year 1,867 businesses in Nova Scotia have gone bankrupt.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he think that Atlantic small business has suffered enough? Will he act today to make the major change and end this punitive tax?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, both yesterday and today I have been attempting to let hon. members know that the survey from which the hon. member is quoting and referring to is really a scam. If I may quote and let her in on a little secret from a letter of May 24 sent by Mr. Bulloch to his membership when he was sending out for the survey, he wrote in that letter: "The results from the attached survey will help greatly in demonstrating to government the very punitive effects a tax of this kind has on small firms".
I consider that manipulation. I consider that bias. I consider that a scam. I in fact consider that a fraud.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a scandal that the government members can laugh at 1,867 bankruptcies in the province of Nova Scotia. That is no scam. That is true.
The statistics in New Brunswick and Newfoundland are similarly staggering. Will the minister today cease and desist his scorched EARP policy that is destroying small business in Atlantic Canada? That is no scam either.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am looking down here-


An hon. member:: We want an answer.


Otto John Jelinek: I have plenty of answers, my friend. If you would only listen and try to be fair.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will answer the question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, what I misplaced in my file here and what was offered by the Minister of Finance just now is what I stated in the House yesterday. That is a recent survey of the Atlantic region businesses on GST.
I repeat exactly what I said yesterday. I want to have the facts right, Sir. I am not like the member who tries to manipulate and switch.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last week when the minister was asked about the drop in national income which took place in August, he stated: "These data were stale. There are data which have come forth in the month of September".
Today, we have the latest data from October, and the help wanted index which came out today has fallen again. It is at the lowest point since this government took office in 1984.
Will this government now recognize that the recovery has caught pneumonia? Will the government end the GST so that business can put its money into new jobs, not into more bureaucratic paperwork?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member will not argue the fact that the September
November 6, 1991

figures indicated that there was an increase in housing and an increase in the merchandise trade balance.
The unemployment figures went down from 10.6 per cent to 10.2 per cent. Since that time, there has been a further decline in interest rates. I think what is important, is to note that today the capital spending by Canada's 300 largest companies is expected to jump by
5.1	per cent to $43.4 billion in 1992.
I think that that is an expression of confidence in the economy, and if that kind of investment is going to take place, there will be jobs created as a result.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the Bank of Montreal, which is a good friend of this government, has said that the unemployment rate in this country next year will be over 11 per cent. That is not acceptable.

The economy is really sick. Does the minister know that Canada is competing with Italy for the highest rate of unemployment? When will the minister come back to reality and invest in the economic recovery?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member gets his figures from. I can only tell him that the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, projects Canada's growth to be 3.8 per cent in 1992. That will be exceeded only by Japan and that is uncertain.


Steven W. Langdon: That is only a projection.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says that is only a projection. What is the hon. member suggesting when he talks about the Bank of Montreal suggesting an 11 per cent unemployment rate?
The IMF has projected a 3.8 per cent growth rate. The OECD has projected a 3.5 per cent growth rate for 1992. The corporate sector is prepared to increase its investment in capital by 5.1 per cent. That seems to me like some pretty positive indication that the recovery is about to be upon us. That will create jobs and economic activity, and the hon. member should welcome that.
Oral Questions TAXATION


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance stands up in this House repeatedly and makes the claim that the cancellation of the manufacturers' sales tax is a great benefit to our manufacturers. Yet 80 per cent of the job loss in the province of Ontario is related to our manufacturing.
How does he square his claim that the cancellation of the manufacturers' sales tax is benefiting our manufacturers when we have such significant job loss?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member does understand that in fact the manufacturing sector has suffered not only in Canada and the United States, but indeed throughout the world there has been a substantive decline and a substantive decline in relationship to the other sectors, i.e. the service sectors.
I think that as we go through the process of globalization and attempting to compete more effectively in the globalized economy, there are certain adjustments and economies of scale that have be created in order to be competitive.
I think the hon. member would understand-and I am sure he does-that there is that adjustment and restructuring going on and a bit of that fall-out is recorded in that decline in unemployment in the manufacturing sector.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
There are 900,000 entrepreneurs in this country who are opposed to the GST. They are our greatest hope for job creation.
The Minister of Finance and the minister of trade state repeatedly in this House that they are going to listen to Canadians and they are going to consult with Canadians. Who are his consultants that are telling him and his government that the GST is a good tax for the economy of this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, committees of this House, successive royal commissions and studies into the manufacturers' sales tax all recommended that it be

November 6, 1991
Oral Questions
scrapped and that a more modem tax such as a value added tax or a GST be implemented. It was on that basis that this was done.
The federal sales tax, the manufacturers' sales tax, was archaic. It was a silent killer of jobs. It was not the kind of a tax to have for a country in a modernized global community. Therefore it needed to be changed.
There are refinements and improvements that have to be made and we are doing that. Yesterday we announced the fourth batch of improvements and refinements. It is a very major change in the tax system. Some 48 other countries in the world have it. We believe it is the best tax system to preserve jobs, to create new jobs and to maintain Canada's competitiveness.


YUGOSLAVIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I think it is fair to say that many Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned and disappointed at the deafening silence of this government on the tragic circumstances of Yugoslavia and the lack of any action.
We are told that there are proposals going forward to the NATO summit this week. They will be asking for a full economic embargo including oil and a potential blockade of the Adriatic by NATO forces.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Will the Canadian Prime Minister be supporting these initiatives for an oil embargo at the NATO summit? Will we be instructing our UN ambassador to be pushing for UN endorsement of an embargo? Will the Deputy Prime Minister today say that our country is prepared to participate in those international efforts?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague surely knows that the foreign ministers of the European Community have said that they were considering taking further measures in view of the failure of the peace negotiations, including a kind of embargo as an expression of condemnation. We know that along with the NATO meeting, the
EC ministers will meet in Rome and make a decision on this subject.
My hon. colleague also knows that the Prime Minister is now in Rome with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and talks will be held on that topic. He also knows that we now support the measures taken by the European Community.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is no answer, given the urgency of this situation.
I also have a supplementary question for the same minister. There are more than 300,000 refugees in Croatia; thousands of people, particularly children, are living in terror and misery. Last week, I asked for an airlift to transport food and medicine for the people of Yugoslavia, but nothing was done. I again ask when Canada will act and offer humanitarian aid together with the international community to help the people of Yugoslavia.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my colleague is not informed, but Canada has already answered an international appeal. On October 9, in reply to the International Committee of the Red Cross, we granted $250,000 in aid to help more people.
We are now considering other possible offers and my colleague knows very well that Canada always responds very generously to appeals for help and we shall continue to do so.


NUCLEAR VESSELS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question . is for the Associate Minister of National Defence on the issue of nuclear subs.
The government has put forward the justification for its policy that these transits of subs are safe. Yet today an American nuclear sub collided with the French fishing trawler.
The minister will also be aware that the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office in a memorandum to its minister said that the Department of National Defence was claiming so-called national securi-
November 6, 1991

ty as the justification for the government trying to avoid a full public hearing on the issue of these U.S. nuclear visits to Canadian waters.
What conceivable national interest is it of Canada that a public hearing on this be avoided? Who is the government standing on guard for, Canada or the United States government?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather incredible because this issue has been raised in the House before and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has responded a number of times.
I would ask my hon. colleague a question. It is indeed by taking these measures that we are soundly asserting Canada's sovereignty to the Dixon Entrance. We are saying they can only pass with advance notice and with the appropriate protection with respect to compensation if there should be an accident. This measure was taken by the government to protect Canadian sovereignty and to stand on guard for all Canadians.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to be aware that the Orders in Council go beyond Dixon Entrance but also include visits to Canadian ports and Canadian waters.
I want to quote from this same memo of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office which said:
National Defence's reluctance to conduct an initial assessment under the EARP needs to be questioned. It has come to our attention that the United States conducted an environmental review with extensive public involvement of an acoustic testing facility for nuclear submarines to be located in-Alaska, notwithstanding the obvious defence related sensitivity of that facility.
My question is the same as that put by the federal environment department to its minister and to cabinet. If such public consultation was possible for the United States in this situation, how come it is not possible for the Canadian government to assure public assessment review in Canada?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that it was the government back in 1967 which authorized port
Oral Questions
visits of nuclear propelled ships and/or submarines at certain ports within Canada. We have in fact over the past 20 years been monitoring those visits. Indeed, we have recently completed an environmental assessment of those visits, which was made available to colleagues who had an interest in it.
The outcome of that environmental assessment shows that there is negligible, in fact insignificant impact resulting from those visits. We will continue our monitoring of course and ensure that information is made available. But there has been in fact a positive impact from those visits, as my colleague from Victoria well knows. The welcome the Victoria Chamber of Commerce has given to many of our allies when they come to his city has been I know very much appreciated by them.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
I am sure the minister agrees that small business is the backbone of the Canadian economy and that anything we can do to ease the paper burden associated with operating a small business would greatly add to its productivity and growth.
Can the minister advise Parliament of any specific measures that he has or will undertake that would ease this burden? Can small business be assured that this government is going to attack this problem?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for the interest that he takes in this subject.
There is no doubt that small businesses everywhere in the industrialized world are having to cope with additional paperwork. As a result of that, our government works across all departments to tiy to decrease that paper burden.
I will just give some examples. Some 85 per cent of small businesses no longer has to fill in Statistics Canada questionnaires. We have had a number of forms by Employment and Immigration Canada declared redundant. We have electronic communications in Supplies and Services.

November 6, 1991
Oral Questions
I have 47 other examples of things we are doing, but the most important thing we can do is to make sure that our special task force works quickly on this matter. That task force is working on it now. More important, if we decrease the size of government we will decrease the number of pieces of paper.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. First I wish to thank the minister on behalf of the Bloc quebecois for not giving us a seat on the Castonguay-Dobbie committee. He spared us the embarrassment of sitting on a committee that is becoming the laughingstock of this country.
We know what people would have said if we had been on the committee today. They would have said it was our fault, that we sabotaged the committee. However, I can see the committee does not need any help.
On top of that, the minister responsible for this dossier in Quebec City announced yesterday that the proposals of-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for this dossier in Quebec City announced that the federal government's proposals were unacceptable, which has been confirmed by the results of opinion polls in Canada and Quebec. My question is one that many Canadians and Quebecers are asking today: Why does the government not withdraw its proposal and stop wasting everybody's time and money?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member refuses to consider the advantages offered by Canada. I know he wants to deny Quebecers an opportunity to consider those advantages. We think we have an extraordinaiy country and that the people of Canada, the people of
Quebec and the rest of Canada, have the right to consider how to preserve and develop that country, how to improve the federal government's proposals.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what the minister thinks is one thing, and what Quebecers think is something else again. That is why a bill was passed by the National Assembly, obliging the government to hold a referendum on sovereignty no later than October 1992. And I understand that to observe the time frame-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his question.


Mr. Bouchard (Lac-St-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the government wants to meet the Quebec constitutional agenda. My question is this: Will the minister give the members of this House as well as the people of Quebec and Canada the assurance that the federal government offer will indeed be tabled next March?


Charles Joseph Clark: cannot say March, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP ACCOUNT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
In 1981 the Canadian Ownership Account was established in order to increase Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada. Canadians paid for this through a levy on the domestic price of oil and gas.
The energy minister, in response to a question, indicates there is $2 billion in this account as of March 19, 1991, but the finance minister in an October 22 letter stated that the money has already been spent on deficit reduction.
I just simply ask the finance minister: Is the money in somebody's account?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member asked me the question because I read the article in which she responded to this question.
November 6, 1991

Oral Questions CREDIT CARDS
I want to tell her first of all that when the revenue came in it became part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, part of the revenue for the government for that year.


An hon. member:: That is not what you said.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is exactly what I said. In fact in 1986, if we go back to the Auditor General's report, he asked for a change in the accounting and we did that as well.
I say to the hon. member that if she would have followed the answer that she received from both the Minister of Finance and myself, she would have found especially that her speculation in the press that there must be some private slush fund, some fund for the Conservative Party for re-election, at best was unimaginative. It was wrong. She should not have said it, and I am glad she was now able to correct the record.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is so defensive on this issue.
Canadians are looking for answers and they are looking for integrity in government. If it is not in the Minister of Finance's account-and you say it is in your account; he says he has reduced the deficit with it-why is it still on your books, Mr. Minister?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not defensive. I was just trying to show the hon. member how wrong she was again, but I will try to be even kinder in my second answer.
Under the accounting system which the Auditor General asked us to do it obviously is an account. I will go back. She once had responsibilities as I did in municipal affairs and under law we had to have certain accounts at that time based on the by-laws that we had to work under.
The same thing applies here. I wish there was another $1.9 billion. The fact of the matter is that it goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. She should have know that and the speculation that she had might have been a good press story but it sure was not accurate.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, this evening for the third time in just five years a parliamentary committee will begin an inquiry into the costs to consumers of credit cards.
As was noted in this House last week, the spread between card rates and the banks' prime is now an unacceptable 11.25, but even more costly to consumers is the outrageous way the banks calculate interest on those cards. Unless you pay your debt in full, they refuse to reduce interest charges.
Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs give us an update on a recommendation made two years ago and accepted by the government that credit card issuers be compelled to calculate interest charges in a manner which fully credits any partial payment by the credit cardholder?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is raising an important point. The way interests charges are calculated is quite complicated, indeed. The date from which they are calculated is not the same for everyone. Partial payments are not always processed in the same way: some process them daily, others monthly. In some instances, the consumers benefit from this. In any case, I agree with my hon. colleague that perhaps banks did not do their best in the interest of the consumers. I am open to suggestions.

I know the committee is starting its hearings this evening. I will be more than happy to listen to its recommendations. I will meet with the bankers in the very near future to discuss that as well.


FOREST PRODUCT INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, in the Ottawa area, throughout Quebec and across the country, the forest product industry is facing unprece-

November 6, 1991
Privilege
dented difficulties. The stakeholders in that industry, all of them, Mr. Minister of Finance-I apologize, but my question is directed to him-say that the unfavourable rate of exchange is having a catastrophic effect on the industry.
Would it not be time-besides reducing the exchange rate-to call a Canadian forest ministers' summit to join forces against this problem?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the forest products sector is in a very serious cyclical situation which is compounded by a number of factors, some of them environmental, and other factors including the exchange rate.
I would point out to my hon. friend however-I just did some research on that a couple of days ago-in 1976 when our dollar was above the U.S. dollar, industry had a return on their investment of about 10 per cent.
In 1985 when the dollar was down to 73 cents the industry was flat broke. That would point to the fact that while the exchange is a factor in the equation of the present circumstances in which the industry finds itself today, it is not the only factor. There are other more serious issues that are involved and all of them have to be considered together.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the Minister of National Revenue in an exchange with my colleague from Halifax I believe either breached or came close to breaching in its entirety Standing Order 18. I wish to bring that to your attention. Perhaps the hon. member in the spirit of reform would want to reflect upon his remarks and perhaps withdraw them.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, being honest with myself, I would not want to abuse any of the rules and privileges of this House. If I have I would certainly withdraw them but I do not think I did.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look at the "blues".
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege which arises from the itineraries of the constitutional committee. I understand that it is a long-standing tradition that Parliament be in control of its parliamentary papers and more contemporary papers that print the business of this House. It is deemed contemptuous should that be contravened.
Perhaps the analogy is erroneous but I refer to the GST ad about a year ago. I think all Canadians were offended by that and I believe the Speaker was as well.
An ad was published in the local newspaper with my name cited as an information person. I had no knowledge at all of the agenda of the constitutional committee and where it would be meeting. I understand no one from the steering committee endorsed the ad in the newspaper. The question is: who is endorsing it, who is spending the money of the committee?
As far as the personal breach of privilege, my office for three days has been inundated with calls asking: "What about information that you should have". I know nothing of it whatsoever. I tried to have the radio and newspaper ads withdrawn, even though no one endorsed them and that was refused. I think it is unfortunate that unity could be lost in a process rather than the substance of what is in the constitutional package.
These ads were published without my knowledge or my permission. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take this very seriously as you normally do.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a question of privilege.
As has been indicated to him, it would be my intention at this point to adjourn the question of privilege in order to be sure that others who may well be involved in it would be here to respond.
I notice the hon. member for Shefford is rising, but I am sure he would co-operate with the Speaker.
November 6, 1991

Government Orders
I assure the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that I	(Division No. 54)
will do everything I can to bring this matter back to the Chamber as quickly as possible and I will be trying to do
it by tomorrow.	YEAS
Members


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue a theme that I began a week ago Friday in a speech, I hope on behalf of all members of the House.
I wish to draw members' attention to today's edition of The Ottawa Sun and in particular to the editor in chief, Richard Van Sickle and his editorial and cartoon.
The editorial and the cartoon concentrate on the problems of our constitutional committee in the country. Page 3 has an article. In total, there are 27.75 column inches devoted to the problems of the committee. There is 4.75 inches of headline.
There is not one word about the good work which committee members did yesterday hearing witnesses, Canadians who put a lot of time and trouble into their presentations on our Constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The hon. member has made a point. I am not sure it is a point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Alt house
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair
Bevilacqua
Boudria
Brewin
Caccia
Clancy
Dingwall
Edmonston
Flis
Foster
Gaffney
Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)
Harvard
Hopkins
Jordan
Karygiannis
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Mills
Nowlan
Parent
Phinney
Prud'homme
Riis
Simmons
Stewart
Vanclief
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-75
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Blackburn (Brant)
Breaugh
Butland
Catterall
Copps
Dionne
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
McGuire
Milliken
Nault
Nunziata
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Rodriguez
Speller
Taylor
Waddell
Wappel

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 5, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 5, 1991 the House will now proceed to the taking of the recorded divisions on motions at the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Charest	Pagtakhan
Proud	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, since the second amendment, Motion No. 19, is a Liberal amendment, I think there is a disposition, and perhaps members of the House will want to comment, of the House to apply the vote on Motion No. 12 to Motion No. 19.
(.Division No. 55)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair
Bevilacqua
Boudria
Brew in
Caccia
Clancy
Dingwall
Edmonston
Flis
Foster
Gaffney
Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)
Harvard
Heap
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
McGuire
Milliken
Nault
Nunziata
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Rodriguez
Speller
Taylor
Waddell
Wappel
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Blackburn (Brant)
Breaugh
Butland
Catterall
Copps
Dionne
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hopkins
Jordan
Karygiannis
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Mills
Nowlan
Parent
Phinney
Prud'homme
Riis
Simmons
Stewart
Vanclief
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-76
++NAYS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we would agree to that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The government members agree to that, I believe Madam Speaker.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: I did not vote on the last motion but I would like my vote recorded with my party on this one.


Mr. Prud'homme:: The hon. member was kind enough to say that he did not vote. There were many others who did not vote. Do they want to do the same gesture, or do they just want to remain seated?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly I declare the amendment to Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 19 both	
negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 20A. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 23A.

Government Orders



[Stage Direction]
C hares t	Pagtakhan
Proud	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion 20A lost.
Therefore I declare Motion No. 23A lost as well.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I think there would be a clear disposition perhaps of the House that the vote which was just taken on Motion No. 20A which applied to Motion 23A could also apply to Motion No. 41.


Mr. Bosley:: Madam Speaker, I would like my vote to count on the negative of this motion please.
Anderson
Beatty
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chartrand
Cole
Corbeil
Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois
Dick
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Greene
Gustafson
Hawkes
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Bertrand
Blenkarn
Bourgault
Brightwell
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Collins
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Do mm
Duplessis
Epp
Felt ham Fontaine
Gray (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus we agree to that proposal.


Mr. Darling:: Negative on that vote. [Translation]


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I wish to see my vote recorded in favour of Motion No. 41.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, I wish to see my vote recorded in favour of Motion No. 41.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think with those changes, Madam Speaker, the remainder of this caucus would vote against the motion.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, with all these unaccustomed changes, I would be very interested to hear the results of the vote.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It seems our clerk is also an excellent mathematician.



[Stage Direction]
Charest	Pagtakhan
Proud	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 41 lost.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

November 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings


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 opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
Pagtakhan
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 5, 1991 later this day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official
November 6, 1991

languages, a review of the regulatory and administrative issues concerning the Meme breast implant.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Guy St-Julien: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to table, 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.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table such a document?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent at this time.


Guy St-Julien: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.
Routine Proceedings


Guy St-Julien: I consider that consent was not given by the opposition, that is the Liberal Party and the NDP. Thank you.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The previous speaker's comments are totally out of order. The opposition on this side did not say no. The no came from the government side. As a matter of fact I give him consent to table his report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We now move to Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.



MEME IMPLANT

Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, on August 17, the Montreal Gazette published an article on the Meme breast implant, alleging that it did not comply with the Medical Devices Regulations. Following that article, I asked my department to examine the issue of the Meme implant, to find out if these allegations were true. I have now received the department's report, which I am pleased to table in the House today.
First, I want to respond to the allegation that the Meme implant had not been checked before it was put on the market. I am convinced, given the information that the department has, that the Meme implant was available to Canadian surgeons before Part V of the Medical Devices Regulations took effect on October 8, 1982 and that it was not necessary then for the manufacturer to make a submission.
As for the second allegation, that the Meme implant has been modified many times since 1984, the manufacturer has given the department written assurances that only the size, shape or volume of this device has been changed. Without any scientific evidence to the contrary, we should take the manufacturer, who did not inform the department when those changes were made, at his word.
However, the report indicates a discrepancy between the strict interpretation of the regulations and the administrative practices of the department when the

November 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings
ownership of the maker of medical devices that can be implanted changes. I want to dispel any other suggestion that the department would have been at fault regarding this medical device. That is why I want another opinion on the department's findings.

I have asked my deputy minister to have an audit firm from outside the government examine the department's actions on demand and to determine whether officials follow the appropriate administrative practices. My deputy minister has consulted with the Auditor General on the terms of reference for the outside audit.
My main concern is for the women who have these prostheses. We will continue to make available to these women and their physicians any new information regarding the safety of these products.
I encourage women who want information on the Meme or other breast implants to write to my department.
[Translation\
On the basis of our present knowledge, we can say that the main risks to women are those related to the actual surgery: complications as a result of anaesthesia and post-operative shock, infection and scarring. These risks are no greater with the breast implant that with other protheses, and the type of implant does not seem to make a noticeable difference.
At the request of the department, the Canadian Medical Association assembled a group of specialists to advise physicians on the use of polyurethane-coated breast implants, including the Meme implant. The group's report is published in the 1991 November 1 issue of the Canadian Medical Association's review, which is sent to all Canadian physicians. I will send a copy of the report to my provincial counterparts, to inform them of the results of the study and the recommendations formulated by the group, and I will ask for their views on the recommendations concerning jurisdiction.

We will also conduct a survey to obtain information from Canadian women regarding their experience with
breast implants. We will request the collaboration of I Know/Je sais Network.
I encourage all women with breast implants to participate in this survey. The department will also be asking doctors to make their patients aware of this study.
The regulation of medical devices is a very serious matter. In March of this year we established the Medical Devices Review Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Ambrose Hearn. The committee is examining the regulatory framework under which medical devices are sold on the Canadian market and will make recommendations for regulating devices over the coming years.
The committee will hear from consumer groups as well as from the medical, scientific and manufacturing sectors. It will report in the spring of 1992.
In closing, I want to assure Canadians, especially those women who have the Meme implant, that Health and Welfare Canada will continue to monitor the safety and effectiveness of these devices.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the minister's statement on the Meme breast implant. I applaud his statement.
There are certainly two issues and they are quite clear. These are the same issues that have been before us for some time. They are the safety of the product, the health of Canadian women and the reliability of the Research Branch of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare in deeming something safe or unsafe.
The history of the Meme has been chequered, to say the least. Its manufactured name has changed several times over the years. As a result of a grandfather clause it has had open access to the Canadian market without scrutiny and has been exempt from government checks.
At least five of the minister's own scientists have said the product was unsafe and women across Canada have also said that it was unsafe and should be withdrawn from the market. Yet in those months when it was very much under discussion the ministry did not act until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration withdrew the product from the market.
I raised this issue on several occasions in this House of Commons. Due to the unsatisfactory response of the then minister and the government I introduced a private member's bill, C-279. It is an act to amend the Food and
November 6, 1991

Routine Proceedings
Drugs Act (breast prostheses). This bill has had first reading in this House and waits its turn for full debate in the House of Commons.
The purpose of Bill C-279 is to ensure that people are protected from dangerous or potentially dangerous breast prostheses, including the Meme.
I welcome the minister's decision for an independent review of his research practice within his own department. Earlier the ministry review was made by a surgeon who implanted the Meme in her patients, an obvious conflict of interest.
You do not ask a user surgeon if the product is safe. You do not ask the head of your own research branch if the department is acting properly with regard to medical devices. You do not ask the manufacturer of a product, such as the Meme, if its product is safe. You go to an outside source for an independent review. This is exactly what the minister is going to do.
We need only to go back in history to find a few examples of medical devices that can kill or maim. The one that immediately comes to mind is the IUD. Yet many stay on the Canadian market without meeting proper safety standards.
I am not scare mongering and I do not think anyone in this House has ever meant to scare monger. However we need to be concerned about safe products and good health practices, as well as about standards within a department that is responsible for the health and welfare of all Canadians.
Again I applaud the minister for this step forward and an enlightened approach. I will closely follow and monitor the minister's survey and encourage Canadians, especially women who have had implants, to participate in the process.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the minister on this very important subject.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, we are cautiously optimistic about the minister's statement. It is not often that we can applaud what the other side of this House does but this is one day I think we can. Much of what we have asked for the minister has given us today.
The government has admitted that it is willing to correct a wrong. The wrong it is going to correct is a
wrong of the government's own making. We are going to see an audit which is something that our party and the women involved in I Know/Je sais have asked for for a long time.
We will see what actually transpired between the government's regulations and its dealing with the manufacturer of the Meme transplant. In looking over the minister's statement I find that he makes a kind of half-hearted admission that the government made a mistake. He seems to say: "We did not do anything quite wrong, but I am not quite sure because there seems to be something that could have been done better."
I applaud the fact that the government side is going to look into this mistake and is going to have an outside scientific audit once and for all to determine what dangers are associated with this implant. That is very important.
It seems when you look at the consumer history of implants and women and the control of their bodies, that women have been guinea pigs. Women have been testing devices on the market which have never really been fully tested before being marketed. I hope that perhaps when the government makes its audit and comes up with its conclusions that it will be very quick and forthright in giving its conclusions to the Canadian public. I believe the government can only learn from its mistakes and by being forthright, open and transparent with the people who are most affected, the people who have had these implants as well as the public in general.
Another important statement made by the minister is that there is going to be a general survey not just on the Meme implant but on breast implants generally. That is very important and it is very important that the people in the I knowlJe sais network be consulted. They have had first hand experience. They have created their own network and because of the self-help they have been responsible for I think they are the best placed people to contribute to this survey.
Only last week our party was calling for this type of action from the government. I want the government to know that the problem is not going to go away. I just learned from my colleague who has been responsible for the dossier that just last week two women were offered the Meme implant again. Now the minister probably does not believe that but I will be very happy to supply him with the information on the incident and he can look into it. The minister says it cannot happen, these implants are not available in Canada and then you come

November 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings
up and see a woman who has had these implants. I mean that is the reality that we are faced with as a political party. That is the reality that women are faced with when they come up against this government and tell it: "Look, I have one reality and you have another, I do not believe you know what is really happening on the market."
In conclusion I want the minister to know very clearly that the offer to consult and collaborate with the I Know/Je sais Network is one which is going to be taken up by the women in this network. I would like the minister to know that this group of women will not be drawn in to any co-operation without assurances from his department that all-and I mean all-will be done to correct past errors. When I say all, the minister is aware of a letter that was sent to him quite recently by my office that women who want these implants out of their bodies should have, with his provincial counterparts, all the financial support needed to get these devices out of their bodies.
I hope the minister will look at the request made from my office and at the same time start this scientific technical audit as soon as possible as well as have this survey with the Je sais I I Know Network.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is my proud duty today as Minister of Veterans Affairs for Canada to remind this House and indeed all Canadians that Monday, November 11 is Remembrance Day. It is certainly a very special day for the free world.

Considering that the future of our country is at stake, I think it would be appropriate if we were all particularly attentive this year to the significance of Remembrance Day.

Just a couple of months ago I had the honour to lead a pilgrimage of Canadian veterans. They returned to Sicily and Italy for the first time in six years to visit the graves of some 6,000 compatriots. The Mediterranean campaign
lasted 20 months and was the longest campaign waged by the Canadian army in the Second World War, yet it was fought in relative obscurity and unwarranted anonymity.
I cannot help but wonder whether our country would have benefited had Canadians been exposed to the hour by hour television coverage of the battle for Ortona-Montecassino or the Hitler line and all the other battles of the two world wars and Korea, in much the same manner as we received almost instant news from the Persian Gulf. We would have known so much better the sacrifices made on our behalf and the horrors our veterans faced. I think Canadians would have even better appreciated our Canadian veterans.
We might also have appreciated Canada better. Viewers would have seen young men from the prairies sailing with their countrymen from the maritimes. They would have seen regiments raised in Quebec City and Winnipeg battling side by side in the futile effort to save Hong Kong. They would have seen air crews from Canadian cities thousands of miles apart flying together in the Battle of Britain. Viewers would have seen not western Canadians, not central Canadians, not Atlantic Canadians but Canadians. They would have seen Canada at its very best.

If television cameras had existed at the time, they would have shown us men and women rising above all petty concerns, involved in a tremendous joint effort, ordinary Canadians from all the provinces and territories acting as one to accomplish a task and risking their lives in the name of the traditional virtues of duty and patriotism.

It is no surprise that our veterans' organizations are once again fighting for Canada as they conduct vigorous national unity campaigns. They do not want to let down the 115,000 men and women who were killed with the Canada flash on their shoulders.
Next April we will be commemorating the 75th anniversary of Vimy Ridge, Canada's greatest victory in time of war. General Byng, Commander of the Canadian Corps recalled the victory in these magnificent terms:
There they stood on Vimy Ridge that 9th day of April, 1917. Men
from Quebec stood shoulder to shoulder with men from Ontario, men
from the maritimes with men from British Columbia and there was

forged a nation tempered by the fires of sacrifice and hammered on the
anvil of high adventure.

If we allow these words to become a mocking echo in the future, it seems to me that we will have failed those we are commemorating on Remembrance Day. That will be more than a shame for Canada, it will be disgrace.
Let this be the time for us to show courage and commitment to our country Canada. Let this be the time for new generations of nation builders. On November 11 let us all remember the sacrifices of those nation builders who died so our country and the free world could prosper.
Madam Speaker, we owe that to them.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, on each November 11 we make statements to commemorate the supreme sacrifice made by many young Canadians so that we and future generations could speak freely inside and outside the Parliament of Canada in this rich and magnificent country.
We gather around more than 1,700 cenotaphs of the Royal Canadian Legion across Canada to lay wreaths and poppies in their memory.
As time goes on there is a danger that some people will consider it a common practice or just simply the "thing to do".
For all of us every day of our lives should be a Remembrance Day because many young Canadians gave up their lives so that the rest of us could continue to build Canada into a great land of opportunity for all.
If we do not continue to build Canada into a strong and united country, if we do not continue to build Canada into a great land of opportunity for years to come then we will not be remembering the serious cause for which more than 112,000 young Canadians died in World War I, World War II and the Korean conflict. Tens of thousands more brought their lifetime wounds back home with them.
Canadian historians have stated that Canadian nationhood was born on the battlefields of Europe. One has only to visit and witness the massive but beautifully maintained memorial cemeteries in Europe and Korea, where the grave markers remind us of the teenagers and
Routine Proceedings
early 20-year olds who never returned to Canada and who are resting far from home. They never had the opportunity to participate in and live out their days in their beloved Canada. At this early age they answered the call to responsible duty and left their native land, never to return. Dreams lie buried in those foreign fields, dreams of families left behind, dreams of families yet to be bom, dreams of careers, dreams of peace and dreams of home.
Those young Canadians who never returned to their homes and families never knew what they did for all of us, and what their sacrifice meant to the entire world. But we know and we must remember.
We all tiy in our own way to honour both the casualties and the survivors of those terrible wars. We have as a society tried to pay back some of the debt which we owe. We have developed veterans' benefits programs which are the envy of the world but we must do more.
Those young men and women who died in foreign fields and those who came back did not fight for benefits or pensions. They fought for ideals, they fought for freedom and they fought for justice.
They fought for what was right. They fought for Canada and the free world. In this place as we pay tribute we must, each of us, re-dedicate ourselves to seeking solutions to our problems in their and our beloved Canada.
Just as one of our respected House of Commons constables salutes and turns a page in the Book of Remembrance in the Peace Tower of this Parliament each day of the year at eleven o'clock, we as living and gifted Canadians must work toward turning a new page in Canadian history. We must set this great nation of ours and theirs on a renewed course toward a Canada that is strongly united and a Canada that is clearly a great land of opportunity.
It is within our power to guarantee that they did not die in vain. On Remembrance Day let us make their memory the inspiration which will lead us to maintain and indeed improve the country which they died to defend. They accepted the responsibility to fight for the rights and privileges of each and every one of us.
Let us remind ourselves constantly that we too have responsibilities and obligations to our country. They managed the wars for us. It is now our duty to manage

Routine Proceedings
the peace for them. In all of these ways we will be remembering them.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a welcome duty to be able to rise in my place on behalf of my colleagues in memory of those men and women who served our country during her armed conflicts.
I also want to urge all Canadians to remember with me those who have suffered most from the insane cruelty of modern warfare; the innocent civilians of many lands, the men, women and children who endured hardship and death during wartime.
Canada has been at war a number of times this century. On each occasion the burden of service has been borne mainly by Canadians of unspectacular origins, by the sons and daughters of farmers, foresters, fishermen, miners, nurses, doctors and factory workers.
When Canada called they rose from their native soil. They left their families, their communities and their work to face the guns of the enemy. Too many did not come home.
We can never repay those who returned. We must never forget those who did not.
I want to compliment the minister on his statement, particularly the part pertaining to keeping this country whole. Those in Canada who want to break up our country had better explain to Canada how they can callously disregard those who gave their lives for this country.
About 110,000 Canadians-French, English, aboriginal, Metis and those who immigrated from other countries-fought together not for western Canada, Atlantic Canada, Ontario or Quebec. They fought for all of Canada.
When I visited cemeteries in Europe there were many instances where I saw English names, French names and Indian names on gravestones side by side. I thought about my country. Are those who would break up our country or who do not care if it does break up telling us that those who gave their lives or suffered their wounds did it for nothing?
Since the end of the Second World War, Canada has tried to repay its veterans and generally has done well. As a nation we have keenly felt our duty and obligation to those who risked so much in our name.
However, it gives me great pain to have to remind this House and all Canadians that some of our bravest souls have received as part of their reward indifference and neglect.
The first Canadians to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War have never received even the thanks of the government of their country, nor have they received the slightest compensation for the risks they faced for the sake of democracy.
Many members of Canada's First Nations contributed mightily to our nation's efforts in World War II and Korea. In many cases their armed service created problems they had not faced before. We as our nation's parliamentarians are only now learning of these difficulties. Aboriginal veterans are entitled to the fullest veterans' benefits and to any benefits denied them. They must be given the most sympathetic review and reconsideration retroactively.
There is one group whose members have been denied their rightful reward and may be standing on the verge of receiving the full recognition they have earned.
On October 2 the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs tabled its first report of this parliamentary session in the House of Commons.
I was very glad to have the privilege of working with the other committee members on that report. I am even more pleased to be able to endorse without reservation its recommendations.
The committee recommended unanimously that Canadian merchant mariners with one or more high seas ocean-going assignments during wartime be fully recognized as veterans and that full veterans' benefits be extended to them. The committee also recommended that a Book of Remembrance dedicated solely to merchant mariners who died in Canada's wars be placed in the Peace Tower.
Finally the committee recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs encourage the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada's
November 6, 1991

wartime merchant mariners. The committee suggested as well that Halifax would be a suitable site for such a monument.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs now has an opportunity, with the support of all other members of this House from all parties, to respond positively to the committee's recommendations. I hope he does so quickly. It is long past time for Canadians to seek out our forgotten heroes. We must do this to help realize some of our most profoundly held national ideals.
Not only must we never forget, we must strive to remember and ensure that veterans' benefits go to all veterans.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Beauport-Montmorency- Orleans):: Madam Speaker, in response to an invitation from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet, a Canadian delegation visited Japan from October 12 to October 20, 1991, and it is my privilege to present its report. During our visit, we had an opportunity to meet and talk to Japanese parliamentarians on a number of subjects of mutual interest, including international trade, fisheries, Canadian exports and forestry products and the relations between our two countries generally. This parliamentary exchange was a success and it was an enriching experience for participants on both sides.
First of all, I wish to thank our Japanese hosts for their kindness and hospitality, and I also want to thank members of the Canadian delegation, who are to be commended for their contribution and the excellent way they represented this House. In concluding, I would like to say this was an outstanding contribution towards strengthening the existing harmonious relations between Canada and Japan.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
15TH AND 16TH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Routine Proceedings
Order 114, I have the honour to present the 15th and 16th reports of the Standing Committee on House Management. If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in these reports later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Philip Edmonston: for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Competition Act (class actions).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed carried.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, today as I introduce this private member's bill whose purpose is to amend the Competition Act to allow consumers to bring class actions, I feel I have finally accomplished something I have been considering since the sixties, which is related to all the work I have done on consumer protection.
I know that in Quebec we already have legislation that allows consumers to bring class actions, and in the United States this legislation has been around for 20 years. Today, as I introduce this private member's bill, we are doing for Canada what we have already done in Quebec.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will look at this bill and read it carefully, because it is extremely important for Canadian consumers. I hope we will be able to adopt this bill or that perhaps the government will improve on it by adopting similar legislation.
Madame Deputy Speaker: Mr. Edmonston moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

November 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
16TH REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: I move that the 16th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to table petitions signed by 1,649 Canadians residing in metropolitan Toronto and region, Windsor, Kitchener, Rexdale, Oshawa, Pickering, Downsview, Port Colbome, Norval, Brampton, Woodbridge, Hamilton and many other regions of Ontario.
The petitioners statement that:
Whereas Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990 and;
Whereas 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence and;
Whereas, the anachronistic communism fuels the Yugoslav army backed Serbian terrorists as they continue their brutal attack on thousands of unarmed Croatian civilians, women and children and;
Whereas, Croatians like all other peoples are entitled to freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination and;
Whereas, Canada has an international reputation as a moral authority and as such can initiate the democratic process without compromising world peace, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present this petition on behalf of the undersigned residents of Canada. There are 1,748 signatures of petitioners who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent, sovereign and democratic nation.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the attached petition has been certified correct as to form and content.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by approximately 600 residents of my constituency of Delta and the surrounding municipalities.
These petitioners are very concerned about our country's national debt and call upon Parliament and the government show continuing restraint measures involving government spending.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 3,000 residents of my riding of Okanagan Centre who call for the government to limit spending.
Whereas, in spite of significant cuts to various programs in recent years the accumulation of the national debt continues to grow at the rate of $58,000 a minute-one third of all federal tax revenues are already used just to service the debt, a figure that can only grow if spending is not kept under control-whereas, the average Canadian now works half a year just to pay the taxes levied by different governments at the local, provincial and federal levels, the same organizations continue to call for government to spend even more money of our tax dollars. The most recent federal budget proposes to
November 6, 1991

limit by law the amount of money that may be spent on federal government programs over the next five years.
The undersigned, our petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to show support for restraint by unanimously passing a proposed law to limit government spending.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today, 29 and 55.


Mr. Cook: With respect to the delivery of advertising flyers in North
Vancouver, (a) what is Canada Post's cost per 1,000 (b) what does
Canada Post charge for providing this service?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: a) Canada Post Corporation operates in a highly competitive market. Therefore the Corporation cannot compromise its competitive position by releasing commercially sensitive information.
b) Please find attached the unaddressed admail base single mailing rates.
There are separate large volume unaddressed admail mailers whom have entered into contractual arrangements with Canada Post. Details concerning these contracts are proprietary to the corporation and its customers. However, all of these agreements are in keeping with Canadian competition policy.


[Stage Direction]
Premium	[DOT][DOT] Economy
RESIDENTIAL RATES	Up to 50g	Over 50g	Up to 50g	Over 50g	(Delivery to Residence only) (Volume)	per piece	per piece	+ per kg	per piece	per piece	+ per kgUp to 5,000	9.0C	5.7c	66 c	8.5c	5.4c	62c5,001 - 10,000	8.0	5.2	56	7.0	4.5	5010,001 - 20,000	7.8	5.1	54	6.8	4.4	48
Routine Proceedings
Premium	* * Economy
RESIDENTIAL RATES	Up to 50g	Over	50g	Up to 50g	Over 50g	(Delivery to Residence only) (Volume)	per piece	per piece	+ per kg	per piece	per piece	+ per kg20,001 - 30,000	7.6	5.0	52	6.6	4.3	4630,001 - 40,000	7.4	4.9	50	6.4	4.2	4440,001 - 100,000	7.2	4.7	50	6.2	4.1	42SINGLE SHEET	N/A	N/A	N/A	5.3	N/A	N/ASAMPLE RATES	13.5	10.0	70	12.5	9.0	70up to 100,000	BUSINESS RATES	9.9	6.5	68	N/A	N/A	N/A(Delivery to Businesses only)	Premium-[Within Collective Agreement	size specification delivered by	Letter Carrier]	
[DOT][DOT] Economy-[Outside of Collective Agreement size specification delivered by Admail Helper]
Mr. Wappel: What is the exact cost to Canada Post for producing each white and
red cardboard folder which contains groups of 10 stamps?


Harvie Andre: The cost of definitive stamp packs is variable, based on the quantity ordered. An averaging on costs for 1991 production and the projected cost for a new design to be implemented January 1, 1992 are as follows:
1991 cost 1992 cost Queen 10 X Domestic Rate $0.0734	$0.0532
Flag	10 X Domestic Rate $0.0705	$0.0523
* refers to non-philatelic products


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of

November 6, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Motions for the Productions of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices be allowed
to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received an application pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a case respecting the need for an emergency debate on the situation in Yugoslavia.
Let me first say that no one in this House has any reservations about the problems there. We all know about the deteriorating situation. What we have to do to satisfy the requirement for an emergency debate is to meet the test of urgency.
I want to make the case to the Chair that we have had no opportunity in this House to have a full debate on the circumstances. There was some negotiation a week or so ago to have a general resolution. That has not been possible, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now left for an extended visit overseas. Therefore members of Parliament are deprived of the opportunity to make their views known and those of their constituents.
I would like to bring another important fact to the attention of the Chair. There were reports today in the European press, particularly in the London Financial Times, that proposals would be made tomorrow at the NATO summit, which the Prime Minister is attending, concerning the need for an oil embargo and the possible NATO blockade of the Adriatic. These are serious discussions that would have very important implications
for this country in terms of our commitment to those two orders.
It would be absolutely essential before a decision is made by the Prime Minister at that NATO summit meeting within the next 36 hours that this Parliament have the opportunity to debate the matter and to let the voice and concerns of Canadians be known.
It appears to me that the events taking place at the NATO summit are a primary cause for the need for an emergency debate and for this Parliament to speak with a voice so that we can represent the very serious concerns of many Canadians about the deplorable situation in Yugoslavia.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the arguments presented by the hon. member. I think that all members of this House are quite aware of the very serious problem that exists in Yugoslavia at this time and know that discussions will take place in the coming days.
I have also considered all the arguments that the hon. member presented to me and I believe, all things considered, that it would not really be appropriate for me to agree today to the request or to grant the hon. member's request. This does not prevent the hon. member from repeating this request in the coming days.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted on Tuesday, November 5, 1991 and considering the time taken to vote on the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs 'tariff in consequence thereof, I wish to inform the House that Government Orders will be extended by 52 minutes.

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statements Government Orders will be further extended by 32 minutes, for a total of one hour and 24 minutes.
November 6, 1991


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as you will know from conversations that we had in the House yesterday afternoon, there was some concern that we may possibly run out of time today at the end of the day. We had all agreed that we would not see the clock to allow a few members to complete their remarks or one member or whatever the case may be.
First I wanted to confirm that again and, second, just make certain that the House understands that during that time period no dilatory motions or quorum calls would be receivable by the Chair.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I think we are in agreement with the parliamentary secretary.
I would say, though, that some leniency should be shown with those who do want to speak because by then we will be in 10-minute speeches.
I can guarantee that this will be the one day for speeches but I would hate, particularly after going with one speaker on second reading, to deny members the right to speak. I know that my hon. friend shares my feeling on that. I think we have an understanding.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I would agree with what my two friends have said.
We would try with one of our 20-minute speakers to get two at 10 minutes. Perhaps the House will give us some leniency on that.
I hope and trust that we will continue our debate today. It was a rather remarkable debate that we had last night on amendments which flowed very well. It flowed late. Many people got on, through co-operation in the House, and we expedited a lot of work very quickly, very efficiently and very fairly. I think we can do that today. I will sit down so that the minister can get started.


Mrs. Venne:: Madam Speaker, I would like to know if I understand correctly, because we are rather far away.
Government Orders
Will we agree to go on a little later than scheduled and not to request a quorum at that time? Is that all there is in that motion or is there something else that I might not have heard from my seat?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hubert heard exactly the same thing as the Chair did. I think we have the cooperation of all hon. members for this debate to be orderly and for as many members as possible to take part in it.
As I just said, the time spent on voting and on ministers' statements will be added to it, so we have 1 hour and 15 minutes more than scheduled. Further to the motion, it was agreed that hon. members would not be timed right to the minute and would be allowed to finish at the end of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, I will try to keep my remarks at third reading reasonably brief because I did have the opportunity to speak at second reading and I want to give as many colleagues as possible a chance to put their views on the record in reasonable time.
I want to acknowledge the very hard work of members of this House who contributed to these proceedings. It really was an extraordinary effort. Members of all parties have taken an active interest in gun control legislation.
Their knowledge and concerns have helped bring forward many new ideas and possibilities, not only for this legislation but for future policy as well.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders

Gun control is a very difficult issue. During the past two years, members of this House have been made aware of the concerns of many Canadians. As this process has developed, we have heard that gun control is not just a justice issue, but also one of public health and accident prevention that touches everyone.

The progress of the proposed amendments from the special committee to the legislative committee was very important for developing reasonable, effective and practical legislation because it provided an opportunity for everyone with an interest in firearms or gun control to be heard and to be questioned by members of Parliament.
This is an important element of the democratic process. If we are to have workable legislation, we must have well informed legislators.
I think it is important just to say a few words about the process because much of the commentary of it seemed to suggest that the committee process was a delay and that it represented a lack of will on the government side of the House to see this legislation through. Nothing could have been further from the case.
As I think all of the people who participated in the process will be well aware, the differences in points of view on this particular issue are profound. The differences arise from the fact that this is such an enormous country with such an enormous diversity of life experience.
I can speak from my particular reality as an urban person. I am the member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre. My city is a major centre of the drug trade in Canada. It is a port. It is subject to pressures for crime. We are very close to the United States. That border is very close to our particular community and all the difficulties that that creates with the smuggling of firearms and drugs and other difficult sources of criminal activity.
The people in my part of the country, the people in my constituency, are largely preoccupied with the question of public safety and are concerned about the role that firearms play in destabilizing the comfort level that is so important and destabilizing their sense of security.
Not all of my constituents have that particular point of view. There are also among my constituents members of shooting organizations and people who like to hunt as a recreation. But the majority of them have what we might call that urban perspective. Yet at the same time many of the people of my own province-I do not even have to
go out of British Columbia-live a totally different reality where firearms are a daily part of their lives either because they are hunters, because they are ranchers, because they live far from urban centres, because there are predators in their midst, because they hunt as a natural part of supplementing their food supply, or because they enjoy shooting sports. They are responsible users of firearms. They feel that somehow those who wish to increase gun control are trying to solve the urban crime problem on their backs and they resent that.
The realities are profoundly different. What this bill represents is a really heroic and very mature attempt by members of Parliament from around this countiy to bring together those realities, to try to understand one another, to try to understand the need to create a framework of firearms legislation in this country that does provide security for people and that does provide a sense of safety.
In fact that good legislative framework is the best guarantee that those who wish to continue to use firearms for hunting or sporting purposes will be able to continue to do so, because the majority of Canadians will then be comfortable and secure in the knowledge that those who use firearms are competent to do so, that they are screened to do so, and that they are people who are using those firearms responsibly. Where they do not do so, society has the tools necessary to call them to account.
Even though I am from Vancouver Centre and represent that point of view, I think it is very important. I have learned a great deal from listening to other members of Parliament about the reality of their constituencies. That has been an extraordinary part of the sharing of attitudes that has gone on in the committee processes dealing with this legislation.

I am very pleased with the recommendation that the legislative committee has put forward. I am confident that these amendments will strengthen the legislation and make it more effective. All of us want a bill that will preserve the safety of the Canadian public and at the same time improve the administration of the gun control system.

I am especially happy to report that members from all parties who sat on this committee achieved substantial consensus on the amendments put forward. They were, like all members of this House, very much united behind the public safety goals of the legislation. But they also shared a desire to improve the administration of the gun
November 6, 1991

control system to ensure fairness to firearms owners and users.
This bill has measures to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have access to them, to limit access to the most dangerous types of firearms and to strengthen the sentencing and deterrence aspects of the law. The amendments put forward by the legislative committee not only preserve but enhance these goals. Some of the most positive and useful suggestions that have emerged during the hearing process have to do with specific areas of prevention. One of those has been the idea that court prohibition orders could be extended to apply to situations where there is a risk that a firearm could be misused even if this has not previously occurred. A prohibition order is of course an order which prohibits an individual from owning or being in possession of a firearm.
The sentencing measures were strengthened in Bill C-17 by adding drug trafficking to the list of offences for which a court can make a discretionary firearms prohibition order. The committee has proposed adding the offence of importing narcotics. This proposal will help to reduce a small but very dangerous area of firearms misuse, and I strongly support it.
As a result of evidence heard by the special committee on gun control chaired by the hon. member for Kitchener provisions were included in the bill which will allow courts to impose firearm prohibition orders in bail release and peace bond applications. This will help the authorities to remove firearms temporarily from potentially dangerous situations even before a trial takes place. I think it is important to point out that in many of these applications that result from domestic disputes there is a situation, a very volatile situation, where the presence of a firearm is an extraordinarily dangerous catalyst to perhaps further violence.
What this bill does is require the courts in considering those peace bond or bail applications to consider the presence of a firearm in that situation and, where appropriate, to issue a prohibition order even before the matter has gone to trial. I think most people would agree that that is an extremely important provision.
Government Orders
I would also like to comment very briefly on the debate on the amendments that took place at report stage, not on the specifics. I would like simply to say that I think Canadians who watched that debate were treated to a remarkably reasoned and intelligent discussion of the various aspects that have to go into consideration in drafting legislation in this area. Some of the amendments that were not supported by the government are amendments that were not supported because they are in fact in principle recognized in the legislation already.
I think, for example, of the provision that asked for a mandatory 30-day amnesty period. I appreciate the spirit behind that and I support it. I simply think that the bill does provide now through its blanket amnesty provision for new types of firearms that are declared prohibited weapons. The concern was that people not become instant criminals. It does provide the ability to create an amnesty. I am concerned that in fact in some cases 30 days may not be long enough. What it does is it enables the government to bring forward a set of regulations with respect to each prohibition that is properly tailored to the circumstances. The spirit I think is a good one. I accept it as I accept the spirit behind the proposed amendment to create mandatory prohibition orders for certain kinds of drug offences.
Where we differ, we being the government and members of the Liberal Party who supported that amendment, was in our concern that there would still be some discretion left in the court because that provision covers a huge array of offences. What our proposal does is require the court once again to consider prohibition orders.
One must look, for example, at a situation in the north, in Yukon, when an aboriginal person who relies on hunting is convicted of a charge of trafficking in a very small quantity of marijuana. I am not suggesting that is not a serious offence, but perhaps it is not an offence that would justify a mandatory 10-year prohibition order in those circumstances.
Where we differ is simply that we on this side of the House would believe that the judge should have some discretion, but we do agree very strongly that prohibition orders respecting firearms must be seen as part and parcel of the disposition and sentencing procedures that the courts enter into in dealing with these offences. They

Government Orders
must see the link between certain kinds of crime and the possible danger to be presented by firearms in that particular set of circumstances.

Many witnesses told the special committee of the seriousness of the problem of domestic violence in Canada. Members heard about the disturbing frequency of domestic homicides. They also heard that firearms are the single most common weapon used in those homicides. I was pleased to see that witnesses and committee members agreed that this proposal is a major step towards addressing the problem of firearms in domestic violence situations.
The presence of firearms in such situations is truly frightening. Our law should go as far as it can to empower and encourage those involved in the system to remove them whenever possible.

The development of this legislation has been a long process. It has been necessaiy to take the time to allow everyone to express his or her views. The interest and concerns have been carefully weighed in the development of fair and effective legislation. The process is nearly completed and it has proven to be a very productive process indeed.
During the committee hearings we have come to see the ways in which firearms and gun control affect us all. We have come to see that many Canadians have legitimate, reasonable and prudent uses for firearms and that they share the concerns about public safety expressed by all Canadians. We have come to see that firearms are not just an issue for sportsmen and enthusiasts but for our public health community as well. We have heard from doctors, lawyers, educators and firearms owners.
The process has at times been divisive but I am convinced that the end product has been the development of a consensus on many issues.

During the hearing process, the witnesses have educated on the issue of firearms not only the members who heard their testimony, but each one of us as well.
I think that this is something that those who participated in the process can be proud of and that all Canadians can be grateful for.

I would like to take this opportunity to express their gratitude along with my own. The contribution of the committee members and witnesses has proven a victory for the democratic process. It has resulted in better gun control legislation for everyone.
No one expects this or any other legislation to put an end to violence in society. That requires a much more concerted effort and one to which I think all members of this House are devoted and actively seek mechanisms to ameliorate and to resolve.
On the other hand we must give to the police, customs officers and the courts the tools that they need to do their jobs. Sometimes people say to me: "Well, you know, what is the point of having this legislation? People steal firearms and are going to break the law." That would be a justification simply for shredding the Criminal Code and saying: "We give up." It is very important that those who seek to secure our safety in society have the tools they need so that when we talk about law enforcement we have not undermined that ability by not providing our policemen, courts and customs officers with the statutory authority they need to act.
More importantly I believe that we must make a clear statement about the firearms culture in this country. I think it is important to underline the fact that we are unique. I had a discussion recently with the Home Secretary in Great Britain. In Great Britain firearms ownership is an upper class phenomenon. Hunting is the activity or the hobby of the rich. Similarly, the United States has a very different history from us. Their frontier was not opened up as our was in the presence of law and order and in the presence of the Northwest Mounted Police, later the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Theirs was opened up with a very much wilder and less constrained approach to resolving disputes that has created a different firearms culture.
Canada has its own firearms culture. It is one where many responsible, law-abiding Canadians own firearms, use them to hunt and for sporting activities. In fact this is a very important part of our cultural tradition. At the same time we also have a culture that is non-violent, that is concerned about public safety and respect for public security. Our culture believes it is appropriate to impose on those who own firearms a reasonable and well thought out legislated scheme to ensure public safety, to ask those people who have the privilege of owning firearms to respond to society's concern that these
November 6, 1991

firearms not be misused and that they be handled with care.
I believe that a very important role this legislation plays is to re-assert the uniquely Canadian cultural values with respect to firearms. Firearms are a part of our social activity but we also have very high expectations of those who possess them in terms of guaranteeing the security of all. As we become a more urbanized society we become more sensitive to questions of violence. As our own consciousness rises we want to ensure that we have in the system by which we govern ourselves, our collective aspirations, a system that can reflect that culture adequately.
I believe Canadians deserve effective gun control legislation and I would urge all members of this House to support this bill.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her statement and her support of this legislation. I think the minister has fought hard for this legislation and I want her to know that members on this side of the House appreciate the fight that she has carried on in her government. It really indicates that here in Canada we are a very thoughtful people.
We are proud of our traditions, and we are very conscious of our heritage. The minister has made reference to the distinctive nature of Canada as opposed to Britain and the United States.
Our culture is not dependent on firearms the way it is south of the border. Without being demeaning to our American friends, I find it very much of a concern, frankly, the attitude that they have. A lot of it, of course, is based upon the fact that in the American Constitution the right to bear arms is enshrined.
That being said, I find it very alarming that the day after the tragedy in Killeen, Texas, the U.S. Congress voted 247 to 177 to defeat a gun control measure. The only one changing his vote was the member who represented the Killeen, Texas area.
To me, that is much of a concern. I know the minister has to go, but before she does, I want to say to her that
Government Orders
bearing this in mind, I hope that she will support the initiatives of the police at all levels, the provincial, the municipal and the federal police forces to work together and to have an integrated committee whereby they can plan and work toward the guardian against the importation of illegal firearms into this country.
I would hope the government would give support, be it financial or just moral support, to these police forces to allow them to continue to do this.
As the minister knows, and as the members, the parliamentary secretary and the member for Cariboo- Chilcotin know we have heard that there is this importation of illegal firearms in the country. We have to do, as members of Parliament and responsible people, what we can.
Certainly they are going to come in regardless of how many precautions. There is only a reasonable amount you can spend toward that, but I would hope that the government would do its best efforts in that regard.
I was also alarmed in the fact that three days after this tragedy in Texas that a reporter was able to go into a store in Houston, Texas and buy a dock 17 in 40 minutes, never having had a FAC or any comparable certificate. This includes having to go back a second time to buy the ammunition because the store's policy was that it would not sell the firearm and the ammunition at the same time.
The journalist had to buy the firearm, go out to the car, leave the firearm, go back in and buy the ammunition.
I think it is vital that we in Canada appreciate the fact that we have first of all a citizens' base in this country that is prepared to think on this question, to think about the fact the privilege of using firearms is just that, a privilege in Canada, and one which is very well adhered to by the firearms community. Also, we should appreciate the fact that we have not had the proliferation of firearms in this country.
I look to the recent ad put forward by the National Rifle Association. It advocates that the best way for a woman to protect herself is to carry a hand gun in her purse, or to keep one at home.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
That, of course, is a proliferation of the use of firearms. Once that starts, how is that going to be controlled?
If the United States said today: "Elow are we going to control firearms? How would we roll it back?", it would be an extremely difficult thing to do. You have the attitude there now that you need firearms to be able to protect yourself.
If someone was to be asked to give up their firearms, the first question would be: "How am I going to protect myself with all those other firearms out there?" We could, in this country, get into that position.
Hopefully that will never happen. This bill is not a real strong gun control bill. It is a reasonable piece of legislation, but it is not really strict, strong gun control. I think those who say it are trying to alarm the Canadian public to an unreasonable degree. I wonder whether any kind of gun control would please some of these groups and some of these individuals and whether they are not just trying to say: "Look, we have this menace, we have this red menace at our door. The government is trying to disarm us and we have to fight back". It has been a heck of a good membership drive for a few of these organizations. I know of some that have lobbied on behalf of the pro-firearms groups and their memberships have gone up substantially. They were able to convince a great many firearms owners in this country that there was this threat. Their houses were going to be broken into and their firearms would be seized. I think that is irresponsible and counterproductive. I think it also very important that the people of Canada realize this is the sort of argument and propaganda that has gone on.
What we are doing in this legislation as far as the prohibition of firearms is concerned is to merely prohibit semi-automatic firearms that could be converted to the automatic mode. That is simply it. Automatic rifles are already prohibited. It creates the National Advisory Council which I will come to later. It will look at all military and paramilitary firearms to determine which ones are suitable for hunting and have an actual purpose.
Some automatics and semi-automatics are merely imitations and copies of already prohibited weapons and
are convertible to fully automatic mode. They too will be prohibited.
Where I ask is the loss in that? They are not even good hunting rifles. If you are hunting deer you want to shoot the deer, you do not want to cut it in half. The fact of the matter is that they are not as accurate as some very well made semi-automatics that are perfectly suitable and in fact desirable for hunting, which it is not the intention of this bill to touch in any way.
Most of the rifles in this country are not even registered or restricted. We do not even know the people who have them. It is not the intention of this bill to restrict those firearms.
This legislation will also restrict clip sizes. We are saying that in handguns the maximum clip size will be 10 and the maximum for a rifle will be five. That does not seem to cause a great deal of hardship to most hunters.
I have a lot of hunters in my riding. Most of them feel that is adequate and that a good hunter will not need to use any more than five in a rifle. There again we have made exceptions. We have looked to the possibilities that can occur.
This country has taken pride in the success of our competitive shooters in international competition. We have said that those involved in competitive shooting are exempt from this. They can have magazines with more than 10 rounds so that they will not be hurt in international competition.
We are not really insensitive to the exceptions that can occur. I believe the exceptions have been taken into consideration.
We also say that we want to have a firearms acquisition certificate to buy firearms. That of course is a common sense arrangement I would say. Before you actually acquire an FAC you have to go through a 28-day waiting period so that your application can be checked. There can be substantial checks made with those who the authorities feel would have pertinent knowledge about your ability and desirability to have a firearm. In effect a community check is done and I think that is suitable.
November 6, 1991

We are also advocating that before a person is granted an FAC he must pass a training course. All groups agree that it is desirable for those who own firearms and henceforth purchase firearms to complete a training program. The question of course is when will this training program be brought into existence? The training programs are under provincial jurisdiction and their actual implementation requires the federal government and the provinces to enter into an agreement. I want to say to the federal government that we see this as being very important.
Even though the amendment put forward by the member for Kenora-Rainy River was ruled out of order we hope that indicates the seriousness of this party in assuring that these training programs are put into place. We will be monitoring this and demanding that this be done as soon as possible if in fact it is not done.
We have also said that there has to be a photo on the FAC. Those who are going to renew a firearms acquisition certificate do not have to go through this waiting period. However they have to get an updated photo. They must have a security check and they have to be there to pick up the FAC in person.
Some say: "I have had a firearm for years. Why should I go through this training program? Why should I have to wait for 28 days? I am being treated unfairly. I am being treated as a person who has never had any experience in firearms and I think that is unfair". I would say to all members and to everyone frankly that there is a very obvious way around this. That is to get people to qualify for an FAC right now under the circumstances that exist before this bill comes into effect and this new program comes into effect.
If that is a concern anyone who knows that this bill is going to be providing these new requirements for an FAC and does not take advantage of it has no one to blame but themselves. We must have stricter FAC requirements and we have to ensure that these measures are enforced.
I know we have to start somewhere. Allowing those who do not have an FAC now to qualify before this bill and this program come into effect is being more than generous.
Government Orders
Those who have prohibited weapons do not have to give them up. If they want to keep them they must qualify as a genuine gun collector and therefore must have some knowledge of firearms. They have to show some responsibility in having adequate security provisions and must keep a log of their firearms. They have to allow someone to periodically come into their home or wherever they are storing their firearms and make an inspection to ensure that this storage is suitable.
That is not asking too much. That visit would be once a year at the most. With the work that the registrars will have to do they may be fortunate to visit each person every two years, although that is an excessively long period of time between visits. The fact of the matter is that the definition of a genuine gun collector is very broad. Perhaps it is too broad if anything.
What we have to do is ensure that this is effective. We have to ensure that the genuine gun collector is not somebody who just stores his prohibited weapon in the corner. We say there is a prohibition against these firearms and we mean there should be a prohibition against these firearms.
The fact of the matter is that there should be these safeguards. The advisory council will be looking into a lot of these questions and tightening the restrictions. One question which is of vital importance is that of safe storage. Safe storage is going to be tremendously important if we are to reduce the number of deaths from firearms.
In 1988 there were 1,400 deaths from firearms in this country. Eleven hundred were suicides. In the United States there were 34,000 deaths from firearms during that same year. We had 1,400, they had 34,000.
A lot of theirs were accidental deaths. The reason they had the accidental deaths was because the firearms were available. If somebody is morose and feels despondent and there is a firearm in the corner or in a closet that is not locked, with ammunition in it, it so easy on the spur of the moment to use that firearm to end one's life.
We are saying that there has to be a deterrent. The 28-day waiting period will be a deterrent. If someone does not have a firearm and needs one, they have to get an FAC, they have to go through the training course, and the 28-day period. For those who have firearms at home we are saying that there has to be a degree of safe storage. Not all of them are going to be genuine gun collectors protected by alarm systems and elaborate safety mechanisms. There are rifles that we do not even

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
know exist. They are there. We are saying that at the very least there should be precautions such as the storage of ammunition and perhaps the bolt from the rifle stored separately from the firearm itself.
We are also suggesting that trigger locks be placed on the firearm. This means that there will be a deterrent, the person who wants to use that firearm to shoot themselves would have to go through the motions of getting the ammunition and the bolt or getting the key to unlock the trigger lock. These are deterrents because it gives people time to think.
There are those who will say that it is not important. It is not important because you cannot enforce them. No, we are not going to send law enforcement officers into people's homes to check storage. That would be an invasion of privacy. That would be unreasonable. We are depending on people to obey the law and I think most people will. Elowever, should someone use their firearm to commit suicide or to commit an assault on another person then their storage will be examined by the enforcing officers and charges could be laid against them at that particular time. You run that risk if you are going to disobey any safe storage laws that are going to be put in this bill.
It is vital for the purposes of discouraging violence against women. In this country today 65 per cent of all murders or all deaths are a result-I see the member from Montreal is taking this all very seriously. He is playing cowboys and Indians in the aisle on the government side. It is a disgrace.
Sixty-five per cent of the deaths resulting from the use of firearms are as a result of crimes of passion and not of criminal acts involving robbery or the murder of people they have never met before.
In this country 30 per cent of the victims of firearms are women but only 5 per cent of the users are women. It is no wonder that women in this country are very concerned about whether this gun control legislation will succeed in this House. I think they have every reason to be concerned. With the increase in crime in Canada there are a lot of women who are concerned about just walking home from the bus stops in the evening. We have to be able to give them some assurance that this House and this Parliament is concerned about the safety concerns they have.
I am very disappointed that the government did not see fit to approve the amendments that were presented and voted upon here today. The minister referred to the period of one month suggested by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso upon the implementation of the bill to allow people a month to abide by the bill.
The minister says there will be an amnesty for a period of time, but we do not know how long that period of time is going to be. It is important for people who want to abide by this bill to know exactly where they stand in a definitive way, and not a very subjective period of time to be applied by the courts or subsequently by regulation. I think it should be in the act itself.
We likewise had an amendment suggested by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. He suggested that not one month but three months was a reasonable period of time. I think two months is a reasonable period of time. We have to be able to allow people to know where they stand and what terms of reference they have to abide by this legislation.
It is also important that we be mindful. The government is putting through a lot of justice legislation this week because it is crime prevention week and it wants the public to believe that it is completely obsessed with doing something to increase safety in our communities. I take a rather jaundiced view of this. I am not convinced. While I do approve of this legislation some of the other legislation leaves something to be desired.
I think the government would admit that there is a major problem in our communities, particularly with respect to the use of drugs. The motions put forward by this party relate to the mandatory prohibition on the use of firearms. Right now Bill C-17 says that if a person is convicted of a crime involving violence that has a maximum penalty of 10 years or more they are prohibited from using a firearm for 10 years on the first offence and life on the second offence.
We are saying that anybody who is convicted of an indictable offence involving violence should be prohibited from using that firearm for 10 years on the first offence and for life on the second offence. We are also saying that these penalties should also be applicable to those who are convicted of indictable offences under the
November 6, 1991

Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotics Act. This would mean that somebody who is trafficking in narcotics, is in possession of narcotics for the purposes of trafficking, or is importing or exporting narcotics should be prohibited from using a firearm.
This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly you could say that some people might get into fisticuffs and would be charged with an indictable offence. I do not know about other areas but in my area fisticuffs results in a summary conviction which would leave the discretionary prohibition with the judge.
We have to do something to control drug related crime in our communities. We have to be able to say to people: "Look, if you are going to commit an indictable offence under the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotics Act you are going to lose the right to use a firearm for 10 years on the first instance and life on the second". At the very least, we may prohibit those who are involved in or hooked on narcotics from using a firearm in the commission of a second offence while trying to raise money to feed their habit.
We have to do something. We cannot just sit back and allow this increase in crime to continue in our municipalities. These are two important amendments. They are related amendments and they deal with these issues. It is important to leave discretion with our judges but there comes a time in certain incidences when we want to send a message. We are losing the war against drugs in our municipalities and we have to acknowledge that. We cannot be blase. We have to admit that we are fighting a catch-up battle in this regard.
I am disappointed they were not accepted. I am prepared to remind the government that it turned this down on occasions when crimes are committed for drugs. These situations certainly could have been prevented, or at least dealt with responsibly, if these amendments had been brought forward. I might say that I will be a very bitter person if what happens is what I think is going to happen, and that is that drug related crime is going to increase and this Parliament has not put forward provisions necessary to deal with this.
Government Orders
The minister is from Vancouver. She mentioned that it was an entry point for drugs. Yet, this is not being accepted. I think it is unfortunate.
I do feel also that there are a lot of hand guns out there, albeit they are restricted and as such are registered. These registration certificates that are given to the owners of hand guns are good for life. I think that is a long period of time to give anyone a carte blanche right to have a hand gun, particularly since most of the crimes involving firearms are committed with hand guns. Therefore, I think it would have been wise for the government to have accepted a five-year limit on each registration certificate on a restricted weapon.
I do not want to go on too long because there are a lot of members here who want to speak. I see the member for Don Valley North. I want to thank her for her support and the member for Lethbridge who is chairman of the committee as well, and who did a marvellous job in Legislative Committee H on this.
I would be wrong if I did not also thank the critic for the NDP and the member for the Bloc Quebecois and others, particularly my two colleagues who worked with me in the legislative committee, the members for Stormont-Dundas and Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
I know there are a lot whom I forgot to mention. This is a determination. Once again I see my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin who represents, as I do, a constituency where there are a lot of gun owners. Ele worked extremely hard. I saw an awful lot of that hon. member in the last year working on these various committees. I developed a respect for him and many members in this House for their sincerity of not necessarily agreeing on every point of view, but wanting to bring together the points of view, the disparate points of view to develop a piece of legislation that would be a very important piece of legislation for this country and one which would bring us further in the area of gun control.
This is not everything everybody wanted. It is a lot farther than a lot of members wanted to go. Certainly there are lot of members in the public who feel that we did not go far enough.
I would like to say that it is a very meaningful piece of legislation and when you compare the inaction of our friends south of the border for whom we have a great

Government Orders
deal of respect, but we cannot really understand their position on this very question, I believe we are continuing to move forward.
The fact is we in Canada are saying the citizens are going to control this country, that firearms are not going to dictate the way of life to the Canadian public. We in Parliament are taking a position that Canadians are going to be in charge of their country, not firearms, and they are not going to be held ransom by firearms are we are not going to allow pressure groups to dictate that we take measures that are going to be counterproductive to our own well-being.
I want to thank everyone in the House and members of my party for the support they have given me, even though they may not have completely agreed with my point of view. I believe we have a very worth-while piece of legislation here and I hope it will be supported.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time for this bill on gun control. It just passed into third reading a few hours ago in the House of Commons, overwhelmingly. It will pass tomorrow at ten o'clock to the Senate and then soon into legislation.
I just want to say that while we have passed the bill, the struggle for effective gun control in Canada has just really begin. It has just begun with this bill. There are a number of other issues that surfaced during our many hearings that we are going to have to face as a country and as a people. I say it has just begun with this bill because most of the bill, the guts of the bill, will be in the regulations. As hon. members know they will be passed later by the government through regulations, not here in the bill as specific law. The bill authorizes the regulations but the regulations are not in the bill and we have not seen the regulations.
For example, there is the size of magazines that will be permitted. The minister said 10 bullets for hand guns and five for rifles. We are going to have to wait to see that, and we are going to have to wait to see about the safe storage provisions of the bill. We are going to have to wait to see which, if any, military or paramilitary weapons will be prohibited.
I say to the various groups and the various people who worked for effective gun control that you have to keep the pressure on. We have to make sure that these regulations are drafted. We have to make sure they are not delayed. I am going to speak about those procedures later in my speech.
Let me say right off the top that this bill is a very modest bill, indeed a very modest bill. For example, the bill fails to clamp down on the possession of some 50,000 converted semi-automatic guns in Canada, many illegal, which, if obtained by criminals, can be changed back to automatic guns.
Even if we pass this bill tomorrow, as we will, Canadians will still be free to buy bullets without even having been approved or authorized to own a gun. More disturbing still, we have evidence from metropolitan Toronto police, and I will come back to this later in my speech, that there are some 50,000 registered hand guns in metro Toronto alone, not counting another 17,000 that belong to police security firms and gun club members, and this number is growing in spite of the fact they are restricted. This legislation of course does not deal with that at all.
Let me start by taking a little bit of a different tack for	I
members in the House. I would ask members to listen to	I
this article that was in The New York Times last week:	I
They had been the closest of friends, their classmates said, two boys	H
in their mid-teens who were always in and out of each other's homes	H
in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn. Then, on Friday night, before a	I
crowd of friends and neighbours, the younger of the two, 14 years old,	H
shot and killed his friend after the 15-year old had accused hint of	H
breaking into his home.	H
The 14-year-old suspect, John Dalton, known as	had told	I
friends shortly before the shooting that he had been looking for a	I
gun because he was afraid that his friend, Michael Sharib, was	H
gunning for him, a mutual friend said yesterday. "J.P. came to my	H
house," said the friend, who declined to be named. "He was scared.	H
He goes, 'You know, Mike's shaking me up a little. He threatened	H
me with a gun. I want to get a gun before he gets me.' So J.P. got a	M
gun, I guess, before Mike did".	H
The shooting occurred about 10:30 p.m. as the two teenagers	I
argued on the street in front of 6914 8th Avenue, where Mr. Dalton	I
lived with his mother, brother and stepfather.	I
As other friends and neighbours looked on, the police said, Mr.	I
Dalton pulled out a .25-calibcr semi-automatic Raven and fired at	H
least four shots, striking his victim twice, in the chest and shoulder.	H

November 6, 1991

The victim, Mr. Sharib, 15, of 715 Bay Ridge Avenue, was
pronounced dead at Victory Memorial Hospital at 11:15 p.m. Mr. Dalton was arrested and charged with second-degree murder and
criminal possession of a dangerous weapon.
One of the neighbours, the victim's aunt, Linda Sharib, said:
"He was just a baby. I don't understand the violence today between
children. They shoot to kill; they don't shoot to hurt."
That is a little story from Brooklyn. It is not Canada, but it is a little glimpse perhaps into the future of what may be Canada. Canada we think of as being different.
Unlike the Americans, the Canadian frontier was not opened with a gun. When Europeans went to the Canadian west, as well as the north, guns were checked with the RCMP, even at Dawson City. I spoke to Pierre Berton about this and asked him about guns. He told me that in Dawson City in Yukon at the height of the gold rush when you came across that border you checked your guns.
Even the police were under orders not to draw their weapons unless it was absolutely necessary. It was different in Canada.
You should see and hear some of the evidence we got before our committee. Listen to this. This is evidence presented before the committee. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was there and he will remember this.
Mr. John Bickerstaff said this: "Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Firearms storage and gun control came into my life and the lives of my family very recently. Although I am a gun owner I do not represent myself to be a gun expert. I am here to address you because I have first hand knowledge in dealing with the consequences of poor gun control. I have also had the opportunity to give the matter of safe gun storage a great deal of thought.
On August 13, 1991 my 18 year old son Lee was accidentally shot to death. He and five teenage friends were amusing themselves in the home of a deputy commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police by playing with a service revolver.
The restraints on the gun if present were removed. A bullet was put in it and shortly thereafter Lee was dead. Criminal charges were brought against the son of an OPP officer and the families of those involved will never be the same again."
Government Orders
That was the evidence we got in front of our committee.
The aim of gun control is not to affect the hunters and the sports shooters. It is first of all aimed at criminals. It is also aimed at people who do not store guns safely, who do not look after their guns, whose teenager grabs the gun in a fit of depression and commits suicide. We heard evidence after evidence and witness after witness about this matter. There were 1,100 cases of that type in Canada last year alone. This is what gun control is aimed at.
We are trying to stop the Marc Lepines of the world, people who are deranged or unfit to have a gun. We are trying to implement some screening process. That is why this legislation asks for two witnesses and a photograph before issuing a firearms acquisition certificate. There is this need in Canada for gun control.
I want to deal with a number of matters. People have said: "Gun control does not work". The fact is that it does. It saves lives. It is a public health and safety issue in Canada.
They say that this bill is unfair, ineffective and an infringement on their sporting rights. It seems to me that this is a very modest provision in the law and I will come back to this.
People say the problem lies with criminals using illegal guns but as I said, 1,400 Canadians die each year from gun wounds. Over 60 per cent are killed with rifles and shotguns. A great number of them are legally owned. We are talking about 100 murder cases.
It is said that one-third of Canadian voters own guns so they better listen. In fact about 2.2 million Canadians own guns and few of these people will be adversely affected by this legislation. Canadians by and large support greater gun control.
We need to look at further measures. We need to register in this country rifles and shotguns so we know where they are, so we know what happens when they are stolen. That is possible to do. Why can we not do it? We need some controls on the sale of ammunition. Why can we not do that?
Legitimate owners, hunters and shooters need not be concerned about that. This would be a good regime. We need real courses in how to use a gun. We should consult

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
some of the gun people in the sporting clubs who could help the government on that matter.
Where are these courses? They were supposed to be here in 1978 but they are not here. The feds and this minister and her provincial counterparts better get their act together and get these courses going.
We should ban military assault weapons. There is no animal in the Canadian woods that you need a military assault weapon to kill. Canadian Eskimos, the Inuit, used to kill polar bears with bows and arrows and spears. Why do we need these kinds of guns? A good hunter will ask you this. These bans and so on are not in the bill.
I want to address just briefly the concerns of some of the gun clubs and rural Canadians. We tried to approach the bill to address some of these concerns as the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys said. I will give you some examples of what we tried to do in the committee to address these concerns. We tried to get in a really good, safe handling of firearms course. We tried to show some flexibility so that if you were way up in the north the firearms officer would use his discretion to certify competence without a course or a test. We built in some flexibility for rural and northern areas.
We allowed Parliament to review the provisions of some of these regulations on magazine size and so on. If the bureaucracy got out of line parliamentarians could put them back into line.
Every firearms groups called for tougher penalties. My own group, the Port Coquitlam Hunting and Fishing Club called for tougher penalties for criminals. We put tougher penalties in the bill and Liberal and NDP amendments would have put even tougher penalties in the bill if the government would have accepted that.
We tried to clarify the regulations. One of the concerns was what the minister would put in. The people in my area were concerned with the Lee-Enfield weapon. Would that be prohibited? The government said no it would not be and people would still be able to possess it. We clarified that and we put that in the bill.
People who had firearm acquisition certificates had to renew them. We reduced the fee from $50 to $25. Is $25
really that much? It used to be $10 in 1978. We have had inflation since then. Hunters are paying $30,000 for a car or for a truck. They have to put licence plates on the truck and so on. Is it really too much to pay $25?
We allowed FACs to be renewed with an easier procedure for people who have them and there are one million who have them. We tried to deal with all that in the committee.
It seems to me and I said this to the gun club the other day when I spoke in Port Coquitlam: "You have nothing to fear from this bill". After we discussed it they agreed they had nothing to fear from this bill.
I want to conclude by looking at the future. What have we got to address? What are some of the matters that came out of the committee that we have to be concerned with? I do not want to repeat some of the things that were said by my hon. colleague who has gone over the bill. I will tell you one thing that really concerns me. I do not think the Minister of Justice understands this. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the members who are speaking would speak outside. It would be helpful to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member does have the floor. If we could have a little more attention I would appreciate it. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has the floor and I would like to listen to his speech too if I may.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to deal with this matter. It is a technical one and came up in the course of our hearings. I think the House should be concerned about it. It is this. There is nothing in the bill that addresses the growing proliferation of handguns in our cities. The hon. member touched on this.
I proposed an amendment as suggested by numerous groups to limit the duration of a registration certificate for a restricted weapon, and that is basically a handgun, from a lifetime to five years. At least you would have to renew this certificate. That was rejected by the government.
What are restricted weapons? They are handguns, semi-automatic firearms with shorter barrels, automatic weapons grandfathered before 1977 and weapons declared by cabinet order to be restricted weapons. By far
November 6, 1991

the largest group is handguns. How many handgun certificates were given out?
The minister says: "Well, we do not have to worry because these are already restricted". However we received two disturbing pieces of evidence. One was from the customs people. They said that guns are flowing across the border and they cannot stop them. The second disturbing piece of evidence came from the police, like the metropolitan Toronto Police and other police forces. They are saying: "We are getting more and more applications, legal applications, for restricted weapons, namely handguns". There were 33,000 in 1986, 37,000 in 1987 and 46,000 in 1990. Metro police said that figure is growing by three times this year.
Who can get one of these handguns? You can get one if you say it is for the protection of your life, if you say it is for use in your lawful occupation, if it is for use in target practice, or if you are a genuine gun collector.
You can buy a "dirty Harry" gun in Toronto now, a magnum. You can say you are a gun collector, or you say you need it for your own protection and you can get a restriction. That is really going on. We are going to need new legislation to deal with this or we are going to need tougher laws to deal with this. What we are seeing in our cities is absolutely shocking.
Now I want to get back to the original story I told about the kid in Brooklyn and how Canada is different. We have to protect ourselves from becoming a gun culture. Once it gets into the minds of Canadians, especially in the big cities-and I say this to some of the rural people who have had some concerns-that they need a gun to protect themselves they are going to go out and apply to get legal guns. They are also going to get illegal guns to protect themselves. The general population, not just the criminals, is going to start turning Canada into a gun culture like the United States. They are going to have a gun to protect themselves, to settle an argument and so on. This is my great concern.
I want to also touch on something my colleague from Cape Breton said and it is that gun control is a woman's issue. Women by and large are proportionately the victims of guns. We had to fight this in committee and we
Government Orders
eventually came to understand that this was a real problem.

The massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique put the issue of firearms and violence against women at the forefront. This issue is far from new to Canadians. Sixty per cent of all murder victims are killed in a family setting. Most of the time, their attacker used a gun or rifle.

We have a lot of evidence, especially from the province of Quebec, that women were affected, specifically in family violence. This is in fact a real concern.
We have to thank-and I see the member here and I think he would agree with me-not only the politicians who did work but a group of people led by Miss Wendy Cukier. She took time out from her job and tried to organize, with very little money, Canadians across the country. She was joined as well by Ms. Heidi Rathjen, who went to great lengths to fight for effective gun control.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin entered into a dialogue with them, and it was really something to watch. He invited them to his constituency and so on. Today when the Constitution committee is having so many problems and the country seems to be falling apart, the people in Montreal who were especially affected by the massacre-we were all affected by the massacre at l'Ecole Polytechnique-were out talking to the people in Toronto, in Vancouver and in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Something wonderful was happening.
Canadians were all talking to each other and they were sharing something in common. Mr. Speaker, if you give me a chance I will end by saying that Canadians generally want effective gun control. This bill is the first step. The struggle goes on. We have a lot to do. I do not think that legitimate hunters and shooters have been injured by this bill at all and I think we can live with the bill. We should all work together in the future again to get more effective gun control and make Canada different and unique, as one of the most prosperous and most humanitarian, tolerant and safest countries in the world.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I go into questions and comments the hon. the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various members of the House and this is a motion regarding private members' hour. Essentially the result of the motion will be that Private Members' Business would be cancelled for this evening. I think that will create time for this debate.
I ask unanimous consent for this motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders and usual practices of
this House, that item No. 1, Bill C-269, and item No. 2, Motion No.
47, and the Order of Precedence for Private Members' Business be
reversed and that Motion No. 47 be dropped to the bottom of the
Order of Precedence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thrift in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam for the very good work he did on the committee and for the help he has been to all members in bringing forward this legislation.
I know he feels that he had some very good amendments that were not accepted. It is unfortunate but certainly he did everything he possibly could. I certainly join with him in paying tribute to those two ladies who, along with Mrs. Suzanne Laplante-Edward, worked tirelessly on behalf of gun control. They did a marvellous job and are to be commended. I do not know where we would be had they not made the effort they did.
On his visit to the gun club in Coquitlam he was able to see that once properly told about the provisions of the legislation the members were agreeable a lot that was in the legislation.
I wonder if he feels that a lot of the objection to the legislation is because many gun owners have not been told exactly what is in this bill or had the bill properly explained to them. They are getting this information from various groups.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is right. I tried to lay out what the bill did. I did not hide my feelings. I am for strong gun control and I said that. The members were asking questions and they voiced their concerns.
As MPs we have an obligation in the future to gun clubs and hunters and so on to make them well aware of the regulations. There is a provision in this bill to get them referred to a committee. I wonder if that is a mechanism for delay but I am open and we will see how it works. We are going to see how it works. They say no. I think we have an obligation to make it work. We have to take the regulations and show the gun club people and take their concerns to the Firearms Advisory Board being set up to advise the minister or bring it to the appropriate House of Commons committee when the regulations come down. I think that is really important.
The member did pay tribute to numerous people. He added the name of Mrs. Edward. What can I say? I think we are all aware that Mrs. Edward appeared, with great courage. When we dealt with her there was a certain moral authority she has in this issue. We were all affected by that and it influenced all of us in dealing with the bill.
I would like to say again how courageous Mrs. Edward has been to come back from what must have been a horrible time after the death of her daughter in Montreal at l'Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal and work with the committees in the House of Commons and with the members. She was here this week. I think she is still here today and tomorrow. I know she will not give up until we get a bill. She would like a stronger bill, but at least we are going to get a bill and she has had a lot to do with that.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert, but I think that for all practical purposes, firearms should not exist. In the United States and in many other countries where they are allowed, firearms simply generate violence. When it comes down to it, I am
November 6, 1991

not in favour of abolishing firearms in this country first thing tomorrow morning. Elowever, if we look at what is happening, especially in our big cities, if we look at what has been happening in Montreal in recent years, we see that violence is increasing. We also see reople involved in the drug trade using weapons for all kinds of reasons. In Montreal, armed robbery is the rule, and I am thinking of convenience stores and gas stations.
There has been an increase in armed robbery in all kinds of small businesses, and since the police can't be everywhere at once, owners of small shops decide to take justice into their own hands. In Montreal a few weeks ago, the owner of a jewelry store on Saint-Elubert was killed by a robber because he tried to resist.
If we give people too much freedom to possess firearms, violence will increase. I don't think firearms serve any purpose. I don't have guns, my wife and children don't either, and we can live quite happily without. If people were not entitled to possess firearms, policemen would not need them, no one would need them, and we could get along quite well without.
I am not saying we should go as far as that first thing tomorrow morning, but it should be one of our goals, so that some day there will be no more firearms except to defend our borders, for national defence and for special brigades in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, I think firearms should not even exist in our society.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that was just a comment. Are there further questions or comments? Does the hon. member want to reply?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the short speech by the hon. member for Quebec, and I would like to tell him there is still a difference between Canada and the United States. Canada is far less violent than the United States. As I said earlier, we heard from a number of mayors, including the mayors of Montreal, Lennox-ville, Vancouver, Edmonton, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Burnaby, Nepean and Ottawa in fact, from all over the country. These mayors favour stricter gun controls, and I agree, We have firearms in this country, but as I said earlier in my speech, we had to build Canada,
Government Orders
francophones and anglophones together, without firearms. That is why we live in a country that is less violent than other countries, and I hope we will be able to keep it that way.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate this evening.
This week we are seeing a number of pieces of legislation in which my constituents have certainly had a very strong interest. The amendments to the Corrections Act, the Young Offenders Act, the Extradition Act and the firearm legislation are all issues of great concern to residents of my riding and of course other areas of Canada.
The firearms bill is one in which I have had a strong interest because my constituents and I believe that prevention is an important part of the package of reforms necessary to deal with crimes against the person.
I am supporting this bill not because I believe that it is perfect and cannot be improved but because I believe it is progress on this issue. The process has been a difficult one in producing this legislation. It has meant that many members of our caucus have had to compromise, including myself.
I would like therefore to thank those members of our caucus and indeed the members of the other parties who have participated, who have risen above parochial concerns and who have made an effort to understand the issue, to deal with it in a responsible way and to provide good and effective legislation in this area.
I also want to join in thanking the community and thanking Canadians for gun control, in particular Wendy Cukier, Heidi Rathjen and Suzanne Laplante-Edward who have made an enormous contribution of time and effort and indeed a personal financial contribution. I believe they have played a very key role in this issue by monitoring the committee, by going out to other Canadians and by informing members of Parliament. I think in particular of Suzanne Edward and her contribution in the calling of all the members of Parliament and the lobbying that she has done personally. In getting over her own personal tragedy, she has indeed made a tremen-

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
dous memorial to her daughter's death. I feel that she has made meaning out of that very tragic event.
I very firmly believe that people throughout Canada do not want a proliferation of powerful weapons capable of firing bullets in rapid succession for extended periods of time. They do want a system established which ensures that people who do own guns are competent, careful and respectful of the rights of others, and that is the issue.
Polling data overwhelmingly indicate the broad support of Canadians for stringent gun control. In my own party 72 per cent of the delegates at our convention this summer voted for stringent gun control. There is no significant split between urban and rural Canadians on this issue.
A Gallup poll sponsored by Safeguard attempted to confuse Canadians by asking them to choose between the alternative of severe penalties for criminal misuse of weapons and control over ownership. Canadians do not need to do that and have not really fallen for that at all. Canadians know that both are possible and both have been indicated as being good ideas that are supported by all Canadians. I think this week of legislation as well as this bill clearly illustrate that point.
Stricter sentencing, better enforcement of the laws and a more streamlined justice system are all important components and improvements that must be proceeded with as is clearly evident in these initiatives.
Tomorrow I am looking forward to the response of the government to the report which the subcommittee on the status of women produced entitled The War Against Women. There are many recommendations in that report which again address the issue of prevention of violence against women. Of course many of them also would apply to men.
There seems to be a supposition among many of the people opposed to this kind of legislation that all gun owners are legitimate gun owners simply because they have acquired their guns legitimately. I think that must be laid to rest.
In 1990, 197 or 30 per cent of the homicides committed in Canada were shootings. Some 243 or 37 per cent of the homicides that were committed by a spouse or
common law partner, and 50 per cent of those were with guns. Clearly those who are committing the worst crimes in our society are not necessarily by any means-in fact farm from it-people who are illegitimate gun owners. They also have a dismal safety record as has been mentioned many times: 1,100 suicides per year and several hundred accidents. If one compares the number of deaths produced by guns in this country with the number of deaths produced by automobiles, one-third the number of deaths are caused by guns. Gun owners are a far smaller proportion of the population, probably less than 10 per cent.
My particular community has had a tremendous experience in the last while with the use of guns. It has really made us all think very carefully about the use of guns in our community. In 1987 eight of the 60 homicides involved guns. In 1990 up until September, and the number is still growing, 28 of the 68 homicides so far have involved guns. In 1987 we had 367 robberies of small business with shotguns. In 1990 that number was 1,075. My sister's bank was held up, so it hits people personally. They know people who have experienced this kind of abuse of firearms.
In 1991 the police estimate that 1,400 robberies will take place, given the current rate. These are appalling numbers that strike fear into the hearts of many people, particularly when one lives a concentrated community. I think it is perhaps one of the differences between urban and rural people. We experience crimes as if they were next door to us because of the closeness of the community-
When one looks across Canada, Toronto is one of the safest places to live. We are a way down at number 15 in terms of the homicide rates in a census of metropolitan areas. Regina and Saskatoon clearly lead. Apparently the farther west we go those homicide rates rise.
I believe that is because people are spread out. They do not realize that the per capita figures are very poor. Because we are concentrated we are much more aware of it.
I also think that there is a mentality problem. The people in metropolitan Toronto-and I say this as someone who has experienced government in metropolitan Toronto since 1972-believe in the efficacy? of legislation and the efficacy of our police force. We believe very

November 6, 1991

strongly in law enforcement and in attempting to prevent problems in our society. There is a strong reliance on the educational system and a large amount of money spent on it and similarly on the police force. Our costs for policing are the highest in Canada, and I do not think anybody wants those costs cut. Many communities across Canada have similar beliefs.
I think that is one of the distinguishing characteristics between Canada and the United States. It is the belief that we can change behaviour, that we can have an effect. That is something that we recognize as very healthy in society.
We hear arguments that criminals will always be able to get guns. I do not think that is necessarily true. I believe we can limit them. Indeed right now they do not have to get illegal guns because they can go in and purchase guns themselves or they can steal them from other homes. Frequently the charge of illegal possession of a firearm is the only charge the police can make. The police want this legislation and they want even stronger legislation.
On magazine restrictions, this is an area in which there has been a great amount of compromise. I think people who oppose this legislation should feel that there has been a great attempt to accommodate the legitimate interests of hunters and of sporting enthusiasts.
Clearly the exemption around rim fire magazines is one that would allow people such as the hon. member for Crowfoot and hunters to continue to shoot rabbits and gophers as much as they would like. I know my own brother says if you shoot a deer with more than two bullets, it is not worth eating. My brother never puts more than two bullets into his gun. I think the real hunters out there are not going to be disturbed by this at all.
In addition there are not really serious problems with the gun club people. I agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam about the proliferation of these gun clubs and my family is certainly very familiar with these.
We have made great progress with this bill. I think that many of the people who started out with the "I am all
Government Orders
right Jack attitude" have learned and have compromised. We have come to something that I think is appropriate. I think that initial attitude has been overcome in many circumstances.
We as a society have a history and a culture of caring. We also have confidence in our law enforcement agencies and I think that Canadians care about their neighbours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Crowfoot I know would like to say a few words. I would just like to remind the hon. member to name the hon. members by their constituency. The hon. member for Crowfoot is Mr. Malone and Mr. Waddell is the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
The hon. member for Crowfoot on a question or a comment.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker I do not have a question for the hon. member for Don Valley North but I do have a comment that I would like to pass to her and to a sector of Canada that I think needs to hear my comments.
First of all I want to compliment the hon. member for Don Valley North. I appreciated her speech. I believe that she and I have approached this issue from about as far apart as one could start. Through the parliamentary process and the party process, we have come up with a bill that is a national bill and in the interest of Canada.
She says she has compromised and has not received all that she would like to have in the bill. That is true for those who might represent a different part of Canada.
I want to say that there is another political party on the scene. Many gun owners are looking to them as a refuge. I speak of the Reform Party. Two aspects of its party policy are free votes and referenda. Anyone who thinks they would like to join the Reform Party to get what they want should note that if this issue was put to referendum most of the guns would be abolished from this country.
A referendum never looks after the minority. Referendum always gives winner take all and the majorities win. Those in western Canada had better recognize quickly that they are not the majority. On the question of a free vote in the Flouse of Commons, my hon. member for Don Valley East and ourselves who might have held a

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
different opinion have come together and have worked on a long, long, hard process. We made amendments and changes, worked on it and came to a national Canadian position.
I rose because I think we exemplify a divergence of views that have come together in the interests of Canada. But put this in its first stage to a free vote and those on either end of the issue would have lost, particularly the gun owners of Canada. They should be appreciative of this system. This is the system that respected it.
I want to thank the hon. member for Don Valley North for being a part of the system that helped all of Canada, including those for which she in the original stage may not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Don Valley North, if she would like to rebut.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that comment. Certainly I appreciate the spirit with which the hon. member has addressed the issue. I think it clearly shows that we are people who will compromise. We are thinking of Canada not just our own little local area.
With respect to your comments about the Reform Party, yes, I find their position on this issue to be very, very un-Canadian, as I do on many issues. I know for example in my community all they need to get is about a thousand votes because we have very small margins and that would mean that a Liberal would win in my particular area.
Quite clearly we have a lot to fear from the Reform Party. But I find that when I really talk to these people about this issue and they really understand the complexity of the issue and the importance of prevention, they realize that what we have done as a government is produce something that is worth while. It is a good piece of legislation that accommodates and meets the needs of Canadians. That is what government is all about.
It is not about selecting one particular little viewpoint that a particular group has. It is about considering and accommodating minority views and producing legislation that is Canadian in total.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was mentioned but we are sharing our 20-minute period in the interests of trying to get more people on the record.
Seeing as I have had the privilege or opportunity to have worked with this gun legislation for nearly a year now, I think I have said just about everything I would want to say. I think I have heard most of the things I want to hear about gun legislation.
We are all interested in seeing the results of this hopefully effective legislation. It will in fact increase the safety of Canadians from coast to coast, in rural as well as in urban areas.
It has been a very interesting experience for me. We have heard a number of people in the House today talk about the fact that although we came from different parties and diverse viewpoints when we began this debate, there has been a coming together of the people on the committee. As we came to understand the issues better and the points of view of other people, we started to find common ground. It has been fascinating.
We have watched the coalition for gun control-they have been mentioned several times, Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen-and have seen them blossom if you wish. They became the focal point for the lobby groups interested in fighting for more effective gun control.
What was extremely interesting to me about these ladies and the people they represent is that they never tried to take extreme positions. They were always interested and tolerant of the points of view of others. As a result I found myself not only able to work with them, but I found them to be extremely beneficial to the process.
Although they did not tend to coalesce in the same way there were also many witnesses who came to us from the responsible gun users, people who were not used to making presentations on a national level, especially in Ottawa. Many people were very uncomfortable with it but they and their groups at local levels and at national levels did pull together their positions and did contribute significantly to the process.
I have mentioned members from the various parties who have spent so long with us and my colleague from British Columbia. I can assure you that when we started this process we did not see eye to eye on very many things. In fact when we finished the process we probably did not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I can assure you that we do have a far better appreciation of why we believe what we do. I am actually confident that if given a
November 6, 1991

little more time we might even have the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam able to not only understand the gun users and their communities, but in fact able to probably find the common ground and compromises that are necessary.
In particular, I recall that late one evening in committee meetings when we were resolving some of the amendments that that member, my colleague from British Columbia, did in fact join the committee on one of my amendments. I did appreciate the fact that he took the effort to understand and to join together with us on what I consider was a major achievement to the bill.
The process ended up identifying the problems. Surprisingly, most people would agree. There was not too much difference from anybody as to the fact that the criminal use of firearms had to be and should be addressed.
There is the recognition of what I will call the "crazies", the mental disorders, the people who are performing these horrendous crimes that we read about not only in Canada but in other parts of the world, especially in the United States.
We heard from witnesses who brought home to us some of the tragic events of accidents. We heard about violence in the home which is an unfortunately increasing phenomenon. It is so depressing to me and to so many other Canadians, the increasing incidents of young people and the suicide situation.
Of course, the committee was charged with these issues. It did its best to try to address what it is that we can do in our gun control legislation that will in fact have an impact on some of these tragedies.
It is in trying to forge the solutions that I think we tended to have the greatest difficulty. I am going to try to explain why. Many people have said: "What is it about your constituents, this gun community that you represent that is so different? Why would they be opposed to this gun legislation?"
First off, I want to point out that they really are not that much different. I will try to briefly run through a questionnaire that I sent out to my constituents. My constituents, for those who are not aware, are from
Government Orders
Cariboo-Chilcotin, 60,000 square miles in central British Columbia who are guides, outfitters, ranchers from very remote areas.
They are people with a high percentage who are hunters, fishermen and gun users who are as comfortable with having guns in their day-to-day life as people in the city seem to be comfortable with what I consider to be a horrendous experience every day driving to work on freeways.
In that riding that I represent, the constituents responded, and I will give the results of only those who have guns. Those are the ones who you would expect would be opposed to this legislation.
On my question of should there be restrictions on military and paramilitary weapons, in Cariboo-Chilcotin the gun owners responded in excess of 70 per cent saying: "Yes, there should be restriction". When we talk about: "Should there be safe storage and safe transport", the gun owners in particular said: "Yes". I could go on with the question.
They will show that the people in the Cariboo are not really any different than the other parts of Canada in what they want to see achieved. In the methods that we use, that is where the difference comes in. It is in the sense that they have the feeling, as lawmakers especially here in Ottawa but representing in particular the majority of the people across the country who live in the major cities are prepared to impose heavy handed legislation that would affect them, their lives and their property.
I believe that much of their fear is unwarranted. It is a principle that I have been fighting for throughout the last 10 months to try to ensure that when we are coming up with what we think are solutions to this violence in society, we are always cognizant of the minority of the people in this country who are gun owners, but the vast majority of them are law-abiding and responsible and they want to play a positive role in this process, they do not want to be driven out.
I want to thank again the people who have worked with us so co-operatively, not only within the House but again the witnesses whom we heard from Nova Scotia through to British Columbia. I share with many members of the House that this is one of those pieces of legislation

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
where each one of us who worked on it can say we may not have made a dramatic difference in Canada but we have made a little bit of a difference and it will be seen in the years to come.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I understand the member represents a gun community, to use his own words, where it is part of their livelihood, and this community represents what is good about owning guns, from the survey he has made. They are against, for example, paramilitary guns and so on, and they are for some form of gun control. I congratulate him and congratulate his community for this especially since they are in an area of the country where the use of guns is a way of life.
I know the member to be reasonable, and he suggests that there is a compromise that has found. My question is this. Given that there were in 1988 1,400 deaths through gun fatalities, in the United States alone 34,000, and given that the regulations we will be bringing in later, I have a concern that we seem to be missing the point here. It is sort of like the urban area versus the rural area, with people who think that anyone who owns a gun is not a correct or a proper person. I think perhaps we are missing the point by forgetting the incident at Ecole Polytechnique and the incident at l'Assemblee nationale, and you referred to crazies, or, to use your words, crazies or people with mental disorders. Following incidents or occurrences or great events that we see that make national and international news-people going into a comer market and shooting a great number of people, or into a school and shooting down a great number of students, or going to a hamburger joint and shooting everyone in sight-we discover that these people had mental problems.
Should there not be a registry of people who have done time in a mental institution. It is easy to make a check in a community, in most residential areas, but in downtown areas of big municipalities it is quite difficult because neighbours do not know each other. You may get cases of people who have been institutionalized and are possibly manic depressives. Are they not the type of
person who will go and buy a gun and will probably shoot themselves or go out and attack the world, as it were, because they feel the world is against them? Should there not be a registry of these people where the police would check into this and perhaps, just perhaps, we could prevent cases like Ecole Polytechnique or the sad event at l'Assemblee nationale?


Dave Worthy: I would like to thank my colleague from Carleton-Gloucester.
The committees and the members working on them have spent a long time trying to wrestle with what to do about the people in society who are committing these atrocious crimes.
It is a terribly difficult one to address, but there is one thing that we all agree is necessary. Right now anybody can walk in to a gun store and, with a limited amount of time, very little screening compared to what we have put in the ground, is able to buy a very high-powered rifle. In fact, once they have the certificate, they can order them from a mail catalogue. They can get them half a dozen at a time.
It is what I call the proliferation of and far too easily obtainable high fire power weapons. That is something that we can address. Even in the gun communities a high percentage of the people will say yes, we do and we can address it. The first thing we have to do in that is to ensure that there are no more of these weapons coming into the country and being sold.
The more difficult problem is, how do you address those that are now there. In many cases many of these have been bought by responsible law-abiding people, hopefully for collections.


An hon. member:: Are they registered?


Dave Worthy: First off, we are talking about what we can do about them, and that is trying to reduce the proliferation of these kinds of weapons. In terms of trying to control the people themselves, we have done several things in that area. Anybody who is going to get a firearms acquisition certificate in the future will have to pass a competence test. They are going to have to go to a gun club in the community that they live and be able to demonstrate that they know how to handle their gun. The person responsible for that is going to have to sign
November 6, 1991

off that this is somebody they feel is responsible in having a gun.
In many cases, people with the kinds of problems the member is talking about will not pass that test. Further to that, the firearms acquisition officer will be meeting with these people and his responsibility is to check into the references and into the background of the individual.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, of the many debates I have heard in this House, of the many bills that are hotly controverted before finally passing, I do not think I have ever heard one where there has taken place in the House so much congratulations of one point of view of the other point of view about how accommodating they have been, how much they have come to see each other's point of view, how happy they are with the compromise that has been achieved.
I cannot comment on the process that led to this bill being before us today in its present state because I was not a part of it. I was not on the committee. I have been justice critic of our party in the past. I have been a minister responsible for gun control in the past, but as it happens, I took no part in the process that brought this bill before us tonight. So I cannot judge, as all those speakers before me have done in congratulating each other, what a wonderful process they enjoy together.
I can look at the bill, the bottom line, and say that I am very disappointed in this bill and that I think much more could have been done to save lives in this country with a stronger bill. I heard the leading speaker for the NDP say something in particular that disappointed me. He said that the process of gun control has just begun because now we have to make sure that this bill, as full of discretions and loopholes as it is, is applied in a wellmeaning way in favour and not against gun control.
I hope he is right. I hope more will be done within the framework of this bill to make it tougher to obtain guns, but I certainly disagree with his observation that we have just begun the battle for gun control in this country. I have news for him. Gun control in Canada began before Canada was formed in this part of British North America. Gun control occurred when the Klondike was opened, for example, where Mounties stood at the stations, at the entry points into the mining fields, took
Government Orders
rifles and guns away from the prospectors who were coming in, broke off the triggers, gave them back their weapons and sent them in to look for gold.
In the whole of the opening of the Klondike in the history of our country, not one murder occurred, not one person was shot. In California when the gold rush occurred and the opening occurred, there were a dozen murders some days. If my recollection is correct, there was never a day when someone was not murdered.
Let us not think that this is a country with a lower incidence of gun related crime because we are better people than the Americans are. That is not true. We are not better people. But we have had a commitment to gun control. We have over the years, going all the way back to then and even before, used the power of the government to reduce the amount of fire power in Canadian society.
I know that there are what one could honestly call two solitudes in this country on the subject of guns. Some people say it is rural-urban. That is a generalization which I think is right maybe in general but not at the fringes. Timing to these two solitudes, there is one very large group of people in our country who feel more comfortable when there is a gun around, loaded. It makes them feel that they are in a better position to make their livelihood, to protect their family, to protect their property and their households. There is another solitude of people who feel the opposite, who feel nervous when there is a gun in their house in a drawer up on the second floor, in a locked cupboard, in a locked safe, loaded or unloaded, and there are children around. They are more nervous than when that gun is not there.
They talked about a compromise. It is not a compromise. To be honest and blunt about it, it is zero sum gain. One side is winning because more gun controls are being put in, and the other side is losing because more restrictions are being put on a basic freedom.
The question is, and I will take it right out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Are the restrictions that were proposed and rejected and are the restrictions that were proposed and appear in this bill reasonable in a free and democratic society? Was there a justification in real terms for taking away some of the freedom that would be enjoyed if this bill did not go

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
through or, if it had gone further as I would have like, could you justify taking away those freedoms?
I had a very close and intense experience with the gun control measures that were finally implemented in 1987 under the leadership of my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace when he was Solicitor General of Canada. I know the bill that he presented to our caucus contained much less gun control than the bill that he brought to cabinet.
I can also tell the House that the bill which came from caucus to the floor of this Chamber in 1976 or early 1977 contained much less gun control than was presented to caucus because politics is the art of the possible. We live in a country that has these two solitudes. One side can make its arguments and the other side can make its arguments, but there has to be some recognition of a variety of points of view in a country as diverse as ours.
What I regret and what I condemn this minister for is not having recognized that she could have seized the opportunity and the events of the last two years to go further than she did. If she had gone further than she did we would have had a better bill. I feel I can categorically defend more gun control by making the very simple point that we have proof in the statistics that resulted from the implementation of the package of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace from 1978 that gun control works. The more we control them in rational, reasonable, effective and logical ways, the less people will be killed and the less accidents there will be related to gun use.
It is reasonable in a free and democratic society to do more. This minister had the opportunity because of a number of tragedies that occurred in this country-and I am going to talk about these tragedies because some of them happened in my own riding-to do more and she did not. Being the minister is a heavy responsibility and being the Minister of Justice is a heavy responsibility. There will be murders and there will be gun related crimes and accidents that will occur in the next two years or in the future that would not have occurred if the minister had brought in a stronger bill. It will be on her responsibility that those additional terrible crimes will
occur, because we know that more effective gun control reduces the amount of gun related crimes.
On December 8, 1989, after the murder of 14 women by a man using an automatic weapon, I was given the opportunity to ask questions in the House. I asked the then Minister of Justice if he would bring in I think four, five or six specific changes which if implemented in the law would in my opinion and based on statistics result in fewer gun related crimes in the future and fewer deaths of innocent people. I called for a compulsory waiting period for firearm certificates and a third party character reference. Those are in the bill so I am not saying that this bill does not do something. I am not saying that it should not be supported. Our party, as a matter of fact, is supporting this bill as has already been indicated.
We called for and have received a more secure screening process; the inclusion of a photograph of the permit holder on the firearms acquisition certificate, much like a driver's licence; and raising the fee for the firearms acquisition certificate to make the system selffinancing. I do not know if that low fee is really going to make it self-financing. If it is not, I hope there will be an effort by the government to see the fee raised to cover it. We have also called for the banning of semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons, the prohibition of large capacity magazines and the prohibition of military and paramilitary assault weapons.
As I indicated in my question, which had a lot of discussion in our caucus before I asked it, and as I am indicating today, we could go much further. I think the time would have been right to go further and we would have had enough national understanding. I am not saying national support because I know there are people who would prefer not to have any gun control, but I think at the moment we are in, in the history of our country, we would have had a national understanding of going further. The minister blew it in the sense of not taking advantage of that opportunity.
My leader called for prohibiting people who were convicted of violent crimes and sentenced to less than 10 years or indictable drug trafficking offences from being able to own a gun, giving judges discretionary power to prohibit gun ownership to anyone convicted of lesser drug trafficking offences involving violence. That type of measure which my leader has urged and which the

minister has rejected would have saved some lives if she had done it.
In my riding of York Centre in Toronto there have been more than 70 crimes committed involving guns just in the last 12 months. I am talking just about my own riding, one out of 300 in Canada. Most of these crimes relate to the activities of gangs and drug trafficking. In July the metro police seized 28 firearms including high handguns in a raid on drug dealers in my riding. In September gun-fire wounded six people at a dance for 500 people in my riding. These facts are compelling reasons for more action on gun control and compelling reasons which would have had a national understanding surely even among the other solitude that feels more comfortable and secure having guns around.
The bill and the policy have the support of our metro council. They have the support of the Toronto Police Association and the Toronto Board of Education. We have had tremendous efforts made by an association which I would like to acknowledge, the Coalition on Gun Control, Wendy Cukier, a Ryerson student from Toronto and Heidi Rathjen from the Ecole Polytechnique where that terrible tragedy occurred, which galvanized public opinion in this country. The government allowed it to go by without doing anything for months and months and then brought forward this veiy politically adjusted bill so satisfactory to so many of the participants in that process.
The bill is supported by the Canadian Police Association, by the Caucus of Big City Mayors representing Canada's largest cities, by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, just to name a few. I know that tougher, more effective measures would also have had the approval and even more enthusiastic endorsement of the public of Canada that recognizes our history and the effectiveness of gun control in reducing the mass of weapons in our society and the amount of gun related crime.
I began by expressing my disappointment that the minister and the government of our country have blown an opportunity to move in a direction that history has brought the laws of our country at a time when more could have been done. I submit that more should have been done.
Government Orders
Therefore I support the bill because it takes a little step, but I cannot let the opportunity pass without expressing my regret that it does not take a big step.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-17. As the last speaker just said in the House, I think that we could go much further with regulations to control firearms in this country.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, a while ago, I was a victim in some sense of the Polytechnique tragedy, because while the killing was going on, I had two sons at that institution. I was here in this House on Parliament Hill and I had a very anxious time from 6 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. as I waited for news of my children. I can tell you that you really have to go through such an experience to understand how one can feel when a mad gunman decides to go on a rampage in a school or a shopping centre, as happened in the Polytechnique tragedy. Mr. Speaker, my wife and I lived through those terrible hours and I think that I will never forget them as long as I live.
There has been similar carnage on other occasions. When I see and hear those who oppose this bill that we are now debating, I think that they do not understand what it is trying to do.
This bill does not seek to take away the right or privileges of collectors or hunters to own firearms. On the contrary, this bill is to protect society. It provides that those who want to get firearms must register themselves and declare those firearms. The bill also prevents those who want to get firearms for purposes other than recreation or sports activities from doing so freely.
I heard several comments on ammunition. Some say that a permit should be necessary to buy ammunition. I fully agree with them. What difference does it make if I go to a store that sells ammunition for firearms and have to show a card confirming that I am an honest citizen who knows how to use firearms and does not want ammunition for evil purposes? I do not feel that this is a breach of my rights as a citizen.
We are discussing this bill today in the House because there is too much violence in the country and on the North American continent.

Government Orders
After the Polytechnique tragedy, I made a speech in the House and asked the then Minister of Justice to pass legislation for controlling firearms and violence on television and in the newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, if you watch TV programs, music programs or video clips closely these days, much of them is violent or incites violence.
So, you can imagine that a 10-, 12- or 15-year-old watching those programs gets ideas that are not too healthy. That young person is already rebelling against society; things are going badly at school; he does not get along with his parents; his girlfriend left him; he has taken drugs on occasion. That young person becomes so mixed up that a television scene can incite him to violence.
I asked the government back then to pass legislation and regulations to limit or eliminate completely this violence on television. I am not necessarily talking about pornographic movies, where violence is directed at women and children.
Some people think they are important and intelligent because they make movies showing violence against children and women, and sometimes men, and they sell those films and hope to become rich.
This is despicable. As civilized human beings and normal citizens, we cannot tolerate such a thing. We should eliminate all that violence. Some will say that here in Canada, it is quite difficult to control what comes from the United States, via satellite and television. I must admit that. But the fact remains that when we discuss a free trade agreement with the Americans or with the Mexicans, we should also put this issue on the table and say: "Listen, where are we going?" After all, the Americans also have a problem with violence.
Why could we not sit down and give this some thought? I am positive, that if only we tried and discuss or negotiate with our American partners and the Europeans as well-since we also pick up European broadcasts-there might be no need to put our picture on an application for a hunting permit. I have nothing against that, mind you, but, as a matter of principle, we are compelled to take drastic measures today in the hope that there will be less violence and fewer people killing
each other or dying at the hands of nitwits who use guns to put their ideas across.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to attempt to explain to my constituents and to all Canadians the situation we have before us tonight in Bill C-17.
This afternoon I had the opportunity to vote on Bill C-17 and I voted against this particular piece of legislation. I would like to explain why.
I think it is important that we try to focus on the facts and on what we want to achieve with this piece of legislation. One of the reasons why I believe very strongly that this particular legislation has the wrong focus and is ineffective legislation is because it focuses on the particular piece of equipment that we call firearms in this country rather than focusing on the crime which exists in the large urban centres and indeed in the rural areas of this country.
I want to deal with aspects of the bill that are missing because again what we have done with Bill C-17 is tinkered around. We have taken a piece of legislation and dealt just with the fringes of the issue.
After the next election I expect to see myself in some other seat, probably over there on the opposite side, dealing with this issue again.
The reason I say that is because we have done a very shoddy job. The NDP has said that this is just the beginning of gun control and we will have to visit it again. I have to agree with that. This is the wrong approach to gun control and that is why we will have to visit it again.
We have not dealt with the fundamental issue which is crime on the street, the individual who is not completely sane and decides to take a firearm or any kind of weapon, such as a bomb which they use very frequently in the British Isles to do carnage to their citizens .We have not dealt with that particular issue.
I thought when I first got involved in looking at gun control that maybe-my colleague who spoke before me in the Liberal Party touched on it very well-it was the wrong time in history to deal with this particular piece of legislation or this particular issue because it became such an emotional issue that we never did take a good look at the facts.
November 6, 1991

It is obvious that we did not take a good look at the facts because the parties made a decision very early in the legislative process to restrict the debate. At second reading we were restricted to having one member from each side talk very, very quickly about the legislation and then it was sent off to a committee.
Then as members of the public will say depending on what side of the issue they are on: "It was railroaded and sent to a special committee called C-80". Once the process was railroaded in this place, members were not allowed to speak and the media got hold of the issue, it took off on a life of its own.
The extremists on both sides came out suggesting that on the one hand for those who were in favour of guns, all the guns would be taken away. We all know that is not a fact. We know that is not what this bill will do, and those of us who tried to maintain some sort of rational process during this whole debate tried to explain that.
There is the other side of the issue where it is the opinion, to which there is a right, that society should have no firearms at all. Unfortunately living in a large rural country that has grown through the process of firearms from day one that is impossible and it will never happen in this country. At least that is my own firm belief.
What happened in the media when it took on a life of its own was that all of a sudden every single individual who ever was aware of an incident where people were killed or there was a suicide with a firearm, there were all sorts of tragedies out there, and out they came.
I never saw so many media reports about guns. I have never heard of so many in my whole life. This is something which appalled my constituents simply because legitimate gun owners do not run around with machine guns. First of all, automatics are already prohibited in this country.
I want to bring a little bit of sanity to this debate and a little bit of respect for what both sides are trying to deal with.
I understand what the urbanites and those who do not believe in firearms are talking about. Those individuals are talking about the unsafe feeling they have of living in
Government Orders
the city and the fact that there are statistics that will show that crime is much higher in the urban centres than in the rural areas. They do not feel comfortable because of the kinds of stories they see in the media every night.
I thought that what we would do when we got to Bill C-80 before it became C-17, as a member of that committee, we would deal with those particular issues. While it quickly became apparent that members were prepared to deal with the issue of Bill C-80, they were being told by the justice department that that was not the strategy they wanted.
For example I want to deal with the areas that we talked about very extensively at the very beginning of the whole issue of gun control. Let me just deal with the first paragraph of this particular committee's recommendations.
It is very important to realize that the committee had a different focus than the justice department. Let me read one quick quote:
The special committee believes that there must be established a mandatory competency and safety course the successful completion of which would be a condition to obtaining an FAC for the first time.
The committee recognizes the overwhelming support for the implementation of such an educational component and the acquisition process where virtually all witnesses who appeared before us.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things you notice is not in the bill is a mandatory training program. That was something agreed to by all sides. Everyone thought that if you wanted to have legitimate gun owners in this country, people who understood the law, who were going to understand how to deal with their firearms safely, the first thing to be done as Canadians would be to educate.
I suggested that all along. The first thing the minister should do is to tell her provincial counterparts who were also making presentations as the offices of the attorney generals were that they felt this was a good piece of legislation, that they simply allow us as Canadians, as members of Parliament, to pass the piece of legislation that puts in regulation, mandatory training, and allows the federal government through the advisory council to put in that particular training regime which will meet the needs of all Canadians.
That never got done. That is not in the bill, and that is something everyone felt strongly about under C-80.

Government Orders
We also talked about something that was very important and something that the committee felt it should deal with because the perception is that most Canadians believe, and rightfully so, that the courts are not doing justice to the criminals who are brought before them as it relates to firearms. The committee again said that it felt that the idea of plea bargaining was being used on most occasions instead of having mandatory sentencing for those who were using a firearm during a crime. The committee recommended that we increase to three years the minimum for a first offence and five years for subsequent offences.
Again, the minister decided under section 85 not to deal with that at all, that in essence it was working very well. Just about all the members who came forward who were involved in this particular issue in a large way felt very strongly that the process was letting them down, that the judicial system that we have in place now was not dealing with the issue the way it should.
There was another area that I thought we should deal with that I still think we will have to deal with very soon. That is the importation of firearms. You can prohibit whatever you want. Legitimate gun owners will follow that. They will respect the law as they have always respected the law.
One of the things that they will not do, or be able to help you with, is dealing with the criminal element which is buying illegal firearms that are being imported into Canada through the United States because of the difficulties at the border.
Let me read what the president of the customs union said to us on Bill C-80. Ele stated that the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, suffers from staff shortages and inadequate training of customs officers. He suggested that at least 1,000 more customs officers were needed and that all customs officers require more training in regard to Canada's firearms laws.
It became very evident in talking to customs officers- and I happen to have a riding that is bordering on the United States and we have customs officers there-that one of the things they made very clear is that first of all they have no knowledge of the firearms legislation that we have now. Never mind the regulations that we are
going to be putting in under Bill C-17. They were also trying to tell us that they could not see themselves being able to justify dealing with the illegal importation of firearms because of the lack of staff.
If we are going to be serious about dealing with these kinds of things, and be able to feel comfortable in this place telling Canadians that yes, indeed we have put a good piece of legislation in, we should look at the obvious problems that are out there. I have just named a couple of problems. That is, one, the fact that we are going to start prohibiting and restricting certain firearms is not going to deal with the issue that is out there on the street now.
I want those who are listening to us tonight to realize that the situations that happen such as the one involving Marc Lepine in Montreal just in the last year or so are not going to disappear because of Bill C-17. I think everyone has to be very serious and straightforward enough to admit that. There is no possible way we have the ability to stop madmen like that from doing things that they are going to do.
If we remove the firearm that Mr. Lepine used which the government is proposing to do under this legislation, he would have used something else. I am not suggesting that because of that we should not have gun control. What I am suggesting is that we have effective gun control.
I am one of those who believe that this is all a smoke and mirrors game. This particular piece of legislation will not have the effects that the minister has suggested it will or that members opposite have suggested or the majority of the members in this place. I for one think that when we get the opportunity to deal with gun control again that we should look at it in its factual sense, not to let the emotions run wild the way they did in committee, where people were screaming and yelling at each other because they did not agree with their opinion and there was this myth created that there is this tremendous gun lobby out there that is pressuring people to allow guns to be worn on each hip.
That is not what Canadians are all about. Canadians in this country are very sensitive, very caring and very loving people. They are also very law abiding. They are also very carefree and very capable of honouring their commitments.
November 6, 1991

I sense the members are saying that if they continue to restrict the legitimate gun owner or the law abiding citizen that they are going to deal with the issue of crime on the street.
I would like to know from the minister how much money it is going to take to administer this piece of legislation. I would like to take that money and pump it into Toronto to help the people of Toronto fight crime. I imagine it will be in the millions to deal with that, not to mention the millions of dollars of firearms that are going to have to be destroyed under this piece of legislation through the amnesty provision.
All that personal property is all for naught because we simply have not dealt with the issue that is before the people of Canada today.
I was a very strong proponent of mandatory gun training and I still am. I believe if you want to change the views of Canadians, you have to educate them. We simply have done it the cheap way. We will continue to reduce, reduce and reduce the amount of fire power out there, hoping that will rectify the problem. Unfortunately, it will not.
I attempted to put an amendment before this House on mandatory training. The impression that is being left by the media, the Department of Justice and the minister is that we do have training now. We do not. The fact remains that the attorneys general of this country have to approve the whole process before it comes into existence. It is no different than in 1978.
What happened in 1978? We are still waiting for that infamous agreement that the minister suggested we were going to get.
The other day I mentioned a particular poll. I am not one for polls. A government should not be run by polls because it is just a reflection at a certain time of somebody's view. The poll seemed to suggest that Canadians were not looking to us as parliamentarians to restrict legitimate gun owners. They were looking for stronger laws that would deal with the criminal element.
If that is what the minister suggests this piece of legislation does, then I will have to say that I am wrong. I believe very strongly that I am not. Somewhere down the line there will be another situation that will happen such
Government Orders
as happened in Montreal. It is sad to have to say that in this place, but it is a belief I have. Then members in this place will be asked this very simple question by their constituents: "I thought you folks looked after that with Bill C-17". We have not. We have not looked after that one iota.
The other area I want to touch on is something we are still waiting for. I commend my colleague, the critic for justice from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, who asked the Minister of Justice in June if she would be willing to give us an explanation of what the regulations will be. This is a very unusual piece of legislation because most of the issues are dealt with in the regulations. We have no idea, for example, what the definition of a genuine gun collector is going to be. We have no idea what the definition of what safe storage will be. We have no idea what will be prohibited, military, paramilitary, what kind of semi-automatics. All of these are areas that are left to regulation under this particular scenario. We asked the minister quite a long time ago for that explanation. In June she said they were not prepared.
We are now into November and still no regulations and we as members are voting on something that we are not quite sure what the end result will be. The argument put before us is: "That it is perfectly acceptable, because you will get to take a look at those regulations and if you can find 20 members who are not in favour of it, within 30 days, then we will be able to send it to committee. During that whole process you will either vote yes or no and you will not have an opportunity to amend it because it is a yes or no. If it is not yes, you can amend the regulation somewhat". Those are all areas that really concern me as a member of Parliament. Many of my constituents come from rural areas and are avid hunters. They believe that they their use of guns is legitimate and legal in every sense of the word. They are quite prepared to be inconvenienced or restricted if they feel that they are getting legislation that will simply rectify the problem.
But we are not rectifying the problem here. I want to make that very clear to all those who are out there. Because of that I suggest to the government of the day that it take another look at what it has and try to deal with the issues that are so paramount in peoples' minds and that is the criminal element that is using illegal weapons and creating carnage in our society.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
I thank you very much for the opportunity to bring my views forward. I wish the minister good luck with her bill. I am looking forward to seeing the regulations. That is the area that concerns me, more so than what is in the bill so far. Everything is in the regulation and not in the bill.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the hon. member from Kenora-Rainy River's speech. I think it was a very good speech and a very thoughtful one. I want to make just a couple of comments with respect to the bill and the provisions in it.
The member talks about the consensus on the special committee for a training provision. As he well knows, such a provision has been in the Criminal Code since 1978. It is not in this bill because it is already in the Criminal Code. The problem is that it has never been implemented.
When I brought forward my package of firearms measures I made it very clear that there were three parts to it. The first part is the creation of a Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms to deal with such things as the question of how to have a training program. That had been in the legislation at that time for 12 years. I wanted to bring it into fruition and in fact I will be ready very shortly to table those regulations in the House of Commons.
There are other powers that are now in the Criminal Code such as the power to prohibit any kind of firearm. So in terms of defining military and paramilitary firearms governments have had that power for a very long time.
What I indicated when I brought my package forward was that I was going to get the very best advice that I could from a cross-section of Canadians. It is a regionally balanced, interest balanced advisory council consisting of many people who are in the shooting community, as well as people who are experts in the area of public health and law. They tried to bring together a reasoned range of outlooks to advise me on how to implement those provisions.
So a variety of those things require in fact no new powers.
I want to say to the hon. member that my provision for the House dealing with regulations allowed the House in
fact to veto regulations. At the suggestion of the government Whip that provision was changed to extend or perhaps formalize the consideration of regulations by a parliamentary committee. Even though there has been an amendment that my regulations would go to the justice committee, in fact because of the changes we made to the rules of the House after the McGrath committee report, any standing committee may deal with these regulations when I table them. If the agriculture committee wants to look at them, if the external affairs committee or the finance committee wants to look at them, they may. There is no way that I can or would want to prevent it. It simply means that as a matter of course they will go to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
I will very much look forward to the input of my parliamentary colleagues on those regulations. I hope to be coming forward with a variety of regulations in the very near future.
I think it is important to point out that the criminal law is not the guarantee of no crimes. I think the hon. member makes a very important point but this is not a panacea. This is not going to do away with violence in society. What it does is give to the police, the customs officers and the courts the tools that they need. We have in fact very much increased criminal penalties. We have increased the length of mandatory prohibition orders and a variety of offences to which mandatory prohibition orders apply.
Where I differed with an amendment put forward by that member's party was where some of these orders would have been mandatory, even for relatively minor offences dealing with drug trafficking. I could envision a scene in Yukon or somewhere, where an aboriginal person is convicted of trafficking in a small amount of marijuana and a mandatory 10 year prohibition order I think would probably be considered in most cases overkill. Therefore, the discretion is still there in the courts.
I want to say that I very much respect the hon. member's comments because I think what has been frustrating about this subject is that there has been a polarity of views. I think it is frustrating for responsible firearm users to find that there are some people who think that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent homicidal maniac. That is not true. Similarly there are
November 6, 1991

many people who are firearm owners who do recognize the need for good legislation.
Just the other day I was speaking at the University of Ottawa and a young person spoke to me and said: "I belong to a shooting club. We use handguns. We are in competition shooting and we support your legislation. We know what you are trying to accomplish and we know that our ability to pursue our sport depends upon the confidence of the public in the firearms system".
I believe that we have to continue to evolve. My concern has been to create a legislative framework that is workable, to put into place the training provisions that have been in the statutes for so long, to reassure Canadians that those who have firearms are competent to have them, to create an atmosphere of tolerance, and to create a legislative framework which is truly national. We cannot legislate for downtown Vancouver alone. We cannot legislate for Kenora-Rainy River alone. We have to legislate for the country and that requires balance and co-operation.
I think we have come a long way. There has been an enormous sharing of points of view here. I hope the hon. member will continue to participate in the discussion and to be part of the process because I think it is very important. I just want to say that I think some of his comments were not well taken in criticisms of the bill because it is very easy to look at a piece of legislation and say it does not solve the social problem and therefore we should not have it. It is a contribution. The law and public safety are made up of a mosaic of tiles of legislation, policy and attitudes. This is a contribution, and I hope we will work together to fill in some of those other tiles with our attitudes and our policies that will eventually do away with some of the more outrageous scenarios which have been discussed in the course of this debate.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. Indeed it is a very difficult piece legislation to debate.
Again I suggest to the House that it is unfortunate that we have to debate it in these kinds of circumstances, as I mentioned, under second reading. I would have loved to have brought my views up at second reading so that they could have been used at the committee or that all members or all Canadians could have looked at the issue in a more factual way instead of allowing it to become so
Government Orders
emotional in that if you voted against a particular piece of legislation that dealt with gun control then as the minister said you were some sort of Rambo who wanted to run around with an AK-47 in the bush chasing a rabbit.
I recall when I saw that cartoon in The Globe and Mail. It really brought home to me just where this whole debate had gone. It had gone astray and it had caused a lot of members on both sides not to speak their mind. It is really quite sad to think that there are members over there and on this side who had a lot to give this whole debate on legislation this country so desperately needs and were not allowed to speak. I would say to the government and to all people who are listening that the next time we get into this issue we should allow everyone to speak their mind freely. Then we will get the kind of legislation that we so desperately need in this country.
I say to the minister that I wish her well with the regulations. I will be around to scrutinize them very carefully because there are some issues in those regulations that if done properly will make this legislation just a bit easier to live with.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member what I learned in the committee and at a lot of hearings. Most Canadians who are killed by guns are not killed by criminals but by people they know. The statistics are overwhelming.
We should focus on criminals, yes, and we do need legislation. I see the minister is in the House. In the future we are going to have to revisit restricted weapons, handguns, as I said in my speech tonight.
I am not quite sure what the member's position is or whether he represents the Liberal Party's position, because I heard from the member from York Centre saying totally the opposite. Does he represent the position of his party? Just in a very brief capsule, if he had a chance to do effective gun legislation, what would he do?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the member's foray into the House of Commons. I told him the other night that every time he speaks I gain about 100 votes. I have done real well by this member lately. I probably got re-elected because of his lack of understanding of the whole process of gun legislation and the

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
belief that anybody who happens to have a firearm is innately bad and is someone who cannot be trusted.
I go by the premise that law biding citizens who know their way around the bush of northern Ontario are capable of my respect and vice versa. I would not unduly legislate them to death based on that.
Just let me quickly finish. The member asked whether I represent my party. Obviously if he were in the House today he would have noticed that I was in the minority. My caucus believes that this legislation is better than no legislation at all. I simply think that this is not good enough for the circumstances that we are in right now as Canadians. Therefore I have walked away from following suit with my party even though it hurts me deeply to have to do so.
I think my constituents understand because of the fact that they believe that I am here to represent them first and foremost. That is what I have done here today.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have a chance to enter into the debate on Bill C-17.
I would just like to thank the member for Kenora- Rainy River as well for his productive comments and a very reasonable and rational approach to this whole idea which in effect is certainly an emotional issue.
Gun control generally makes its way to the top of the agenda due to rising incidents of armed violence, accidental shootings or suicides with guns. I think this is probably no exception to that. These types of extreme actions often evoke equally extreme reactions. We have certainly seen that in committee meetings with special interest groups coming forward. Neither side of the debate is immune to irrational and irresponsible lines of argument.
Too often these are the positions that are heightened through the media. We must seek to present a clear and undistorted picture of firearms control to the Canadian public. In so doing we must first define the general objectives that we believe are consistent in balancing peace, order and good government with the rights of the individual.
To my mind this encompasses three essential points. First, we must acknowledge the genuine concern especially in urban areas with respect to the easy availability
of firearms and their increasing use by unstable and criminal elements in the population. We must also acknowledge the desire of many Canadians to use and own firearms for hunting and for collecting purposes.
Second, I believe that the trust of firearms regulations should be toward more effective regulation of users rather than increased regulation of firearms themselves. There must be stronger enforcement of existing and future regulation with the cost of licensing being borne primarily by firearms users.
Third, there must be a higher priority on the right of Canadians to public safety than on the right to own and use firearms.
Having stated these general objectives we must now apply them to the legislation currently before us. We must ask ourselves: If we enact Bill C-17 will it be respected? Will it be obeyed? Most important, and I think the ultimate question that we need to ask here is: Will it curtail gun related crime?
In short I believe the answer is no. This bill does little in the way of protecting the average citizen. I believe it seriously undermines the freedom of the law biding individual.
Let me outline my misgivings about Bill C-17. As I have just stated, I believe Canadians are more concerned with public safety being the top priority for firearms control rather than the right to own and use firearms. However, this bill all but ignores public safety by way of focusing in on the legitimate users and failing to acknowledge the real threat posed by the criminal element in this country. My comrade beside me has just spoken very eloquently about that.
It would appear to me then that although well inten-tioned the committee has perhaps missed the source of the problem. I just want to congratulate the committee for the months and months of work that it has done. It interviewed countless witnesses.
The use of firearms during the commission of a criminal offence has not been addressed. If the reason for this bill is to combat firearms related crime then it has failed. The theft of firearms has not been adequately addressed. If preventing the theft of firearms by criminals was a significant issue, the Department of Justice would have been better off to make mandatory minimum sentences for this offence rather than penalize legiti-
November 6, 1991

mate gun owners with stringent, anti-theft storage requirements.
The new definition of safe storage is certainly a step in the right direction but we simply cannot put the onus on the owner for protection against theft while ignoring the thief. Weapons are not stolen simply because they are improperly stored. They are stolen because someone other than the owner has intentionally committed a felony. Criminals could not care less about how many locks they have to break in order to access a firearm. This exclusion in the legislation nullifies the impact this bill could have in preventing criminal acts which employ firearms.
The smuggling of firearms has not been addressed. Any criminal worthy of his or her profession is not going to register a firearm before he or she commits a crime. Let us think about this in a logical fashion. Mandatory minimums for smuggling firearms would be helpful in deterring this type of criminal activity, but again there is no provision.
The fact of the matter is that none of the increased penalties in the bill relate to criminals using firearms to commit crimes. Rather, penalties are only applied to those who have been recognized as qualified gun owners who have violated the law in terms of things like storage requirements. Thus there is little in the proposed bill which attempts to control crime committed with guns.
How is this legislation intended to insure public safety? I must submit that it contributes little or nothing in that area. In fact it is difficult to see how this bill will actually lessen the number of guns in Canada or prevent a future massacre and tragedy such as happened at l'Ecole Polytechnique.
The real problem with Bill C-17 is not with its contents but with what has been excluded in addressing criminal activity. That is the problem is not what is in the bill but what has been left out.
That being said, there are some significant steps taken in this legislation which should alleviate some of the fears of ordinary Canadians. I applaud the committee's work with regard to acquisition certificates. It is imperative that stronger enforcement of firearms regulations take place. The new FAC provision is a healthy contribution to that end.
Government Orders
The photograph which is to accompany the FAC, proposed by the justice minister and endorsed by the Canadian Police Association, is an important and logical step toward more effective control. I congratulate them for that.
However that is not to say that the proposed FAC is flawless. In fact there is a major gap in the logic of this bill in that it adds discretion for local firearms officers to certify competence without any course or test. Why would we think to place an unlimited number of restrictions on part of the firearm using population while at the same time allowing others virtually unlimited freedom? It would seem that there are two different standards to be employed in obtaining an FAC. Surely there must be one law applied to all of us.
The bill is therefore not devoid of good ideas. I want to reiterate that. However there are far too many holes in it to provide for effective firearms control while at the same time balancing the rights of individual Canadians. I must say however that some of the amendments proposed by the committee are in keeping with the objectives we should be pursuing. The new fee of $50 for an FAC is consistent with placing the cost of licensing with the firearms users themselves. Those who are not gun owners should not be forced or even asked to subsidize those who do exercise this freedom. In addition, deleting the provision that would have allowed individuals to rent restricted weapons seems a logical extension to effective gun control.
These are both reasonable and intelligent amendments. I think that everyone across the country will certainly recognize that.
However I must express my reservations about a provision which would allow firearms officers to question neighbours, social workers, spouse and family members of anyone who has applied for an acquisition certificate to determine if he or she has a history of violent behaviour. I can certainly understand the rationale behind such an amendment. However I wonder if anyone has put any thought into the consequences that such possible actions might bring.
In small rural communities, in fact where I live, these types of activities would almost certainly cause a great deal of strife and animosity between community members, neighbours and family. It is not inconceivable that such a process would create suspicion between family and neighbours thereby tearing apart the very fabric of that community. Imagine the distrust which would sweep

Government Orders
around a community knowing that some people may have been asked about a particular person.
All this may be done at the whim of the inspector and without any real guidelines for such an action. I hope the House will consider the extent to which individuals may be unduly persecuted in this respect.
These amendments contribute to some of the shortcomings of the legislation but Bill C-17 still remains fundamentally flawed. Many see this as a rural versus urban split. Of course this is a simplistic and stereotyped view.
I have received numerous letters from Canadians outside my rural riding of Beaver River asking me to defeat this bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough in achieving the three objectives I listed earlier.
These people are not uneducated, uninformed, trigger happy killers. They are doctors, lawyers, professional people, working Canadians, men and women. The spectrum is as wide and diverse as the Canadian people themselves. I have received a powerful statement from a female Ph.D at a very prestigious institution in downtown Toronto who writes: "This legislation would be seriously damaging to the legitimate shooting community and would offer absolutely no offsetting benefits to public safety."
This person is an established doctor of psychology, not an uninformed radical. We must therefore acknowledge that this issue concerns everyone and not just a particular set of interest groups whom we have all heard from be they on one side or the other of this issue.
We must strike a balance between the concerns of both rural and urban Canadians. It is my feeling from the correspondence which I have received and the studying that I have done that the bill satisfies virtually no one.
I submit that this bill is unsatisfactory in its present state. It is a patchwork of amendments intended to satisfy various interest groups on both sides of the issue. It therefore ends up falling short of doing what it should do and that is protect the average Canadian. It undermines the democratic process because there is no protection by members of Parliament against Orders in Council or regulations. We have seen that one of the amendments allows for regulations to be taken to committee
but when it cannot be debated openly on the floor of the Commons, then people certainly have a suspicion about that. I really doubt that much serious work could be done in committee as my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River mentioned earlier.
MPs have no vote against regulations and bringing in amendments and may not even be notified about these Orders in Council before they actually happen. It would be much nicer to know ahead of time what is coming rather than playing catch-up all the time.
Above all I believe this legislation is irresponsible because it presents the illusion that the government has done something to curb gun related crime when in fact there are no simultaneous measures directed at organized or unorganized crime.
Since Bill C-17 does not go far enough in achieving the objectives of public safety, upholding the rights of the individual Canadian, and putting a check on the unstable and criminal elements of the population, I am not able to support Bill C-17. As it looks as though this bill is going to go through probably on a vote tomorrow morning, I would certainly wish the government and the members of the committee well who have worked so hard on it. I think we certainly do not need to stop here. It will proceed but I think as Bob Nault just mentioned we need to keep moving ahead. This probably does not address the issues and answer the question, will this in fact prevent another tragedy such as the one all Canadians witnessed last year at Ecole Polytechnique. I am not convinced and I do not think anyone is convinced that would be the case. I hope that is what we will move towards in effective gun control.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is a pretty tough test that the hon. member has set for us here. It would have her support I take it if we could guarantee that this would prevent a tragedy or a massacre. Well I think the hon. member should admit even if she did not say so in her comments, that would be pretty difficult. If the hon. member has amendments or a draft bill that she would like to show us that she knows would prevent past tragedies from happening again I would be very interested in seeing it. I would love to see just what amendments would guaran-
November 6, 1991

tee that terrible tragedies like the one that was mentioned would never happen in Canada again.
When you have set up that kind of a test, I guess we are always going to be somewhat short because who can guarantee human behaviour? I mean it is a little bit like the arson bill. A year ago we were involved with that and somebody said to me that the arson bill which has not been amended in 100 years did not include setting fire to your car as an offence. If you set fire to a vegetable stack that was arson, but if you set fire to your car it was not. Somebody said to me well does this mean that people are not going to commit arson by setting fire to their cars? I said: "I do not know but I do know this, it will be an offence in Canada and we are setting a direction in the Canadian Parliament". We are saying what we believe is proper behaviour and what we believe is proscribed behaviour and I think that is what we are doing here. Just as I cannot guarantee that nobody will ever set fire to their car I can guarantee that people who want to engage in that kind of behaviour will find that there is a sanction of the Criminal Code against them. As I say it is a pretty tough test.
I want to direct the members' attention to a couple of things she said. Twice she said the issue of smuggling was not addressed. I heard it in a couple of speeches. I do not know if these speeches get passed around or if bad information travels but the hon. member should be aware that this bill raises the maximum sentence for smuggling from five to 10 years. That is in the bill. Again they always say: "You have not put a minimum sentence of five years". I think the hon. member would know what court decisions in this country are saying about minimum sentences. She should know what happens to the minimum sentence on importing narcotics. So we made it 10 years. It is a direction by the Canadian Parliament.
For anybody to say that we have done nothing in the area of smuggling is absolutely incorrect.
As well the other red herring put out is failing to mention that the wanton disregard for the safety of the public is also an offence for which we have increased the
Government Orders
penalty. I wish the hon. member would address herself to some of those concerns.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the concerns of this hon. member. I first must say, without being holier than thou, as I was delegated to be by my neighbour from Port Moody-Coquitlam that we have just witnessed in this House someone who made fun of an arson bill. Someone has come forward and made fun of setting a car on fire with a sanctimonious tone of voice and a defensive feeling. I think anyone who is watching this parliamentary channel right now would say we are dealing with an issue far more serious than getting up and making a scene like that.
I believe that if the government House leader is watching this and I am sure he will get this on demand video because he watches every word I say, I would say listen to that. If we are talking about decorum in this House let us address the issue of something so serious as gun control. I would dare say that if Mrs. Edward was watching this right now and heard that going on while we are talking about an issue so serious when somebody launches off about setting a car on fire, vis-a-vis arson, it is dreadful.
I do not want to appear sanctimonious but I will say that is why we get ourselves off the issue far too often.
Thirty-two recommendations were brought forward by the special committee on Bill C-80.1 dare say that if half of those regulations and recommendations would have been put forward in this bill, people would have been far happier to accept it. People would have been far more pleased to say that we realize that a special committee has been brought forward and that people worked very hard on these issues and that 32 recommendations were brought forward. How many of them have been acted on in C-17? How many have been acted on? Not very many.
I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that over 90 per cent of our respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered. I agree with that and I think every Canadian would agree with that. There should be a minimum age. I think that is perfectly acceptable as well and that compulsory training requirement should be in effect to

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
obtain a gun of any kind. Those are things that we think are extremely important.
I would also like to say that the maximum sentencing for smuggling of 10 years was addressed. What are we going to do about the minimum? We know how the courts work in this country. What is the sentencing going to be? What about a mandatory sentence, that my neighbour here from Kenora-Rainy River spoke about? What about people who are involved in policing across the country who are saying: "What do we do when we catch these people"? Are we going to make sure there is a mandatory sentence and that they will not be able to plea bargain themselves out of it.
In terms of existing legislation, I would like to record something that the Lac-la-Biche Shooting Association, a very prestigious and renowned group in my riding of Beaver River, hundreds of miles away from central Canada said to me. These people are very responsible citizens. They said to me and they have said it since Bill C-80 was first introduced in June 1989: "Although violent crime is on the increase in Canada, firearms related crime is decreasing and is not a major sector for concern. Current legislation, although in no way perfect, is adequate". That is what I have been hearing from right across the country. Current gun control legislation is not perfect, neither is Bill C-17.
The issue that I think every Canadian looks at is whether it will be enforced. Whatever legislation is in place let us make sure it is enforced. I fear that many people, such as fish and wildlife officers and policemen to whom I have spoken, are saying we are going to have a very difficult time enforcing this legislation.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaver River very appropriately and correctly states that both sides of this issue at the extremes were irrational. It is a highly emotionally charged debate. Concerns of urban areas often were distinctly different from that of rural areas.
She belongs to a political party that would like to put these things to free votes in the House. Free votes lead to purist attitudes. They do not bring out party compromise which provide balance on issues.
Her party also believes in referenda where the winner takes all, except in the case of Ernest Manning who had
a referendum on Sunday sport in Edmonton. He did not like the results and therefore rejected them.
I would like to ask the hon. member how she would resolve an issue that requires balance and work to bring sides of a country into some sort of compromise for a national Canadian perspective when she belongs to a party that would let the purist attitudes and the winner take all, either through free votes or referenda.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question of my neighbour from Crowfoot in Alberta.
The whole idea of compromise, in bringing things together so we do not run rampant, is a very important issue. We have seen that members on opposite sides of the spectrum on this whole issue have, as the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin said, come together on this issue somewhat. It probably is a long way down the road from where this issue started in 1989.
My question would be why was this thing, if it is so good and is coming along so well, immediately sent, quietly, to committee? Why did only one speaker from each party address it? Why was it passed quickly and silently at five minutes to six one night? Is this compromise? Is this what we look at when saying that we are all free to speak our minds? No it is not.
We saw today whether it was a free vote. That is the question we need to ask ourselves. No it was not, because of party discipline.
I want to congratulate the eight members, I believe, on the government side who had the nerve to stand up and say that constituents are important, that they saw weaknesses with this piece of legislation and that they would continue to move ahead.
I do not know what is going to happen to them, if they are going to come and join me here in the independent ranks as others from the government side have done. We believe it is important for people to stand up in the House of Commons, as we witnessed here today. It would be advisable for the member for Crowfoot to be very careful about what he says when throwing stones at this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend question or comments?


Some hon. members:: No.
November 6, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent. I am sorry for the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you were going to let me pose a very short question afterwards and I understood that the other members agreed.
The member who was speaking wanted to hear- [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but our Standing Orders are very clear. Each speech is followed by a 10-minute question and comment period. To extend that period, unanimous consent is required. On debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River for 10 minutes.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. I do that not for the purpose of adding to some of the fireworks which we have seen in the last several exchanges but rather to explain to people who have expressed their personal concerns to me as a member of Parliament why I cast a vote in support of the principle of this legislation, as I did today.
Among the responses I received, probably similar to those that many other members received, there were basically three categories of interventions that the people of Canada made to us. The first of those categories of interventions or opinions were from people who opposed gun control on principle, who do not want to see any gun control of any sort in this country.
I had the opportunity to pursue studies in the United States for four years. I lived there for four years. I have had the opportunity to visit many American communities during that time and since then. As a result of that experience I have to categorically reject the whole notion of not having gun control.
I do not want to see our communities turn into the kind of free fire zones that so many American communities have turned into. I do not want people to get the idea that going to bed with a handgun under their pillow is any kind of solution to their feelings of personal insecurity and fears for their personal safety.
Government Orders
A second group of people that intervened in this debate wanted a much tougher approach to gun control. In fact a lot of these people did not really see any reason why there should be any guns in the country at all, why people would want to own firearms in the first place. I also could not support that particular point of view.
Certainly in my own constituency in northern Saskatchewan there are a lot of hunters who hunt for sport and hunt for food. I would not be representing my constituents if I subscribed to that point of view. Personally I do not subscribe to it either. As I mentioned, food hunting is a necessity of life for a lot of people in northern Saskatchewan and a lot of other northern and native communities in this country.
The figures indicate, as I have presented to the House before, that in a community such as Black Lake the cost of food to feed a family of four by the Canada food rules is $955 a month. Ninety per cent of the people in that community are unemployed and thus living on welfare. Welfare payments amount to $555 a month. That means they are $400 short of being able to feed their families in accordance with the Canada food rules. Obviously, although those people are hungry and unhealthy as was shown on The Journal just the other night, they are not starving. That is a result of the fact that many of them hunt and fish and pursue traditional livelihoods for a living. It is not just a tradition. It is an absolute necessity for a lot of people. Firearms are a necessity in providing food for many of the families in my constituency.
Second, there are a lot of rural users of firearms who require them for things like pest control or a humane method of doing away with animals that are sick. I grew up on a farm myself. I still pursue farming from time to time. There was always a necessity for a .22 on the farm for shooting skunks under granaries or putting down animals that are in pain. This is a legitimate use which certainly has nothing to do with criminal or frivolous uses. It is a necessity in those kinds of circumstances. That is a legitimate use for firearms.
As well, I am not going to say that people who hunt for sport are not legitimately using firearms because I believe they are. I think it is a legitimate sport. Certainly a lot of the tourism in my constituency is based on the sport of hunting. Many of our tourist operators, many of our communities would be much poorer if it were not for that possibility. Therefore I also rejected the arguments

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
of people who said there is no need for firearms, no legitimate use for firearms in our communities.
The people I had the hardest time responding to were those who were concerned about specific aspects of this legislation, particularly some of the technical aspects of the legislation. A lot of these people intervened to say that while they did not take one extreme view or the other they felt that we had to be a lot tougher on crimes involving weapons and firearms and much tougher in general with people who own firearms and are known to be violent offenders because of the records they have had in the past.
There were a number of amendments before us that addressed the whole question of violent crime and keeping weapons out of the hands of violent people. I supported those amendments, and I am very disappointed that more of them did not pass and become incorporated into this legislation.
I am also concerned that this legislation probably in no way deals with the situation in my home community of Prince Albert which had to do with the shooting of an Indian gentleman by the name of Leo Lachance, I believe it was last January, by the leader of the Aryan Nations in Saskatchewan, a man by the name of Carney Nerland. What appalled me in that case as much as anything was the fact that Carney Nerland had been allowed to operate a firearms shop, a gun shop, quite openly in spite of the fact that he was openly identified and known to the authorities, to police forces and so on, as being involved with the Aryan Nations, a group which preached hatred and violence toward particular minority groups. This gentleman was allowed to run a gun shop in our country. He shot an Indian gentleman in that gun shop and this whole issue has never been properly dealt with. I fear that there is nothing in this legislation that would help deal with it either.
As well, there were a considerable number of concerns expressed about technical aspects of this bill. I guess the reason I ended up supporting the bill is because although there are still a lot of technical problems left in the bill, I do believe that a fair number of those have been addressed. I would like to outline a few of them.
First of all, when it comes to the FAC certificate, there is a requirement that there needs to be a course or a test. However, it is possible to waive that test in specific
circumstances, especially in northern isolated areas when for logistical reasons it is not possible for an individual to take that test for reason of language or distance, or whatever, which makes it possible for a lot of those hunters to have their competence vouched for rather than have to take a particular test. I think that is an improvement.
A second improvement was that people were concerned that it was strictly a regulatory decision-making process that would deal with the final aspects of this bill. I think there have been some parliamentary controls built into this bill that improve it somewhat in that area. Although I am not entirely satisfied with that, I think we have made some improvements.
There has also been an exemption from the proposal to ban large capacity magazines for competition shooters. I think that is only fair.
As well, there were a lot of concerns expressed about a designation of prohibited devices when it came to magazines. A lot of people said that was too broadly defined. Under the revised legislation it says "parts components, accessories and ammunition". I think that is an improvement.
At the committee stage, as well, there was a proposal made which was accepted, to have the fee for FAC renewals reduced from $50 to $25. For a lot of these people who hunt for food and do not have very much money, that is an improvement. As well, the 28-day cooling off period is not going to apply to renewals.
The seventh improvement was that there is an option to waive the photograph requirement on the FACs. Again that posed a lot of practical difficulties for people who might have to fly a thousand miles in order to find a photographer to take their picture.
So we end up in a situation where the kind of weapons that are principally used by hunters in my constituency. There is no magazine limit on 22 rim fire rifles. There is no magazine limit for bolt pump or lever action firearms and the old faithful, the Empire, is still a legal weapon.
Because of some of these changes that were made, I ended up supporting this bill. Certainly, I still have some qualms about it, some reservations. I think we should have dealt with the question of violent crime more directly. However, a lot of people put a lot of hard work into this. I think it is an improved bill as a result of that,
November 6, 1991

and I think those improvements are good enough that people like myself who represent a lot of hunters and people in rural areas can still vote for this bill in good conscience, knowing that we represented our constituents effectively because there were significant changes made in the bill to reflect their concerns.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, this debate on Bill C-17 is finally drawing to an end. I think it is about time, because we are all, if not tired of hearing about it, at least all talked out.
I want to say, first of all, that I sat on the legislative committee considering Bill C-80, the predecessor of Bill C-17, which also dealt with firearms. I was the vice-chair of that committee. I think that fact was not well known because some were not too pleased to see me there in that capacity, in view of the fact that-there were surely many reasons, but this was certainly one of them-I am a woman, and normally women do not meddle in firearms. In any case, we are not used to see women involved in such issues. I was there because of my background or, so to speak, of my legal expertise. Having studied law, I could determine whether the amendments were in order and could correct, if I may use the terms, the Criminal Code. So, I had two valid reasons for being there.
But I do not think that my presence was appreciated, as evidenced by the fact that the first time the chairman, had to leave the chair, he refused to let me take his place. He actually asked one of his male colleagues to fill in for him. I was shocked and appalled to see that although I was the vice-chair, I was not called upon to substitute for him in his absence. I made it quite clear to him, in my own feminine way, that this was not the thing to do, at least as I saw it, when there was a vice-chair present.
I was interested in the issue because I go hunting. So, I am of course interested in firearms. As I said, I has many reasons to be there. Now, I would like to come to the reasons that are more peculiar to women. I think this was kind of brushed to the side, because women are often called sentimental and emotional and because there was no reason to make this debate passionate. Quite the contrary, I think this aspect should have been emphasized. Unfortunately we have once again stuck to the
Government Orders
rules made by males, who were in the majority on this committee.
I would like to quote a few statistics regarding firearms. I know that statistics are always a little boring, but I think that they are necessary in this context. Let us begin with conjugal violence and firearms: between 1979 and 1988, 42 per cent of the women killed by their partners were shot; in 1989, it was 46 per cent. Firearms are used in 35 per cent of the murders committed within the family; on average, a woman is killed every five days in Canada.
In 1989, 74 women, or 30 per cent of all women who were murdered, were shot to death. Most women who are killed are shot with unrestricted weapons like hunting rifles. Between 1980 and 1989, 464 women were killed by gunfire; this is 72 per cent of all women murdered. I think that all those statistics are quite disturbing.
I would like to go on but not give you statistics, because as I said, I know that it is boring, but these things should still be mentioned. It must also be said that we received quite a bit of mail from people who were for stricter gun control. For example, the Community Health Department of the Montreal General Hospital, in co-operation with the Community Health Department of the Centre hospitalier de Rimouski, sent us some documentation and asked us to remove subsection 106(10) of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
No local registrar of firearms, firearms officer or other person shall require as information, to be submitted by an applicant for a firearms acquisition certificate or permit, details concerning the makes or serial numbers of shotguns or rifles of a type, kind or design commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
On that point, the doctors at these community health departments remark that 85 per cent of the deaths due to firearms in Canada are caused by shotguns or hunting rifles. We ask whose interest is at stake and who is being protected. It is certainly not in the interest of public health.
I would mention that people wrote to us, asking us to support them and, in many cases, to improve Bill C-17. Among other things, they suggested a motion, which I put forward but which was ruled out of order by the chairman. This motion asked that a firearms acquisition certificate be required for buying ammunition. In other words, this famous firearms acqusition certificate would

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
always have to be shown when buying ammunition. Unfortunately the motion was ruled out of order.
We also called for the registration of all firearms. Several people have spoken about it. Here again, this motion was ruled out of order by the chairman because it was said to go beyond the scope of the bill.
Another motion that was rejected would have required those whose firearms were lost or stolen to report it to the local police. This amendment was also rejected by the chair.
All this to say that all along, we tried to improve Bill C-17. We have not succeeded completely, but I think that our efforts were not totally in vain. One only has to see where we started from. Bill C-80, the present Criminal Code, allows a 16-year-old to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate. In Bill C-17 we first improved that provision by saying that, from now on, the minimum age would still be 16 years but that parental consent would be required. Now, the minimum age is 18. That is certainly a real improvement. There have been several others but, as I said, we were not always successful.
I would like to conclude by saying that we will certainly vote in favour of this bill because we feel it is a step in the right direction.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few minutes, as the member representing the riding of Outremont where this terrible tragedy occurred, to participate in this debate.
As I just said, this tragedy occurred in the riding of Outremont. I taught at the Ecole Polytechnique where I gave courses on human relations and psychology. It may have seemed, on the surface, that I was not immediately involved in the debate. I thought that so far, this issue belonged to those who had been directly involved. Today marks the end of a long process.
We all know that perfection does not exist in this world, and as the famous French writer La Fontaine said, we cannot please everybody at the same time. This is not an excuse or an attempt to dodge the issue. And I fully intend to get into the specifics of this bill. However, I
think that first of all, we should realize that we cannot achieve perfection immediately.
Very briefly, the sequence of events was as follows: On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine took a gun and went to the Ecole Polytechnique. Twenty-eight people were hit. Twenty-eight people were shot within a matter of minutes. Fourteen were killed. Ever since that day, students, staff and graduates of the school have made an extraordinary contribution to the debate on gun control in Canada.
And it is a pleasure and a privilege to have this opportunity to thank all these people who made Canadians take a long hard look at this fundamental issue, in a society that is seeking a new identity. Again, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish to thank the students, teaching staff and graduates of the Ecole Polytechnique who supported this action and made a truly outstanding contribution. They came here to testify before the committee and they read their briefs. They met members of Parliament. They met owners of firearms. They organized petitions, and their contribution, in a difficult climate, has enriched the legislation before the House and contributed to the awareness of all Canadians.
This legislation will not undo what happened at the Ecole Polytechnique, but it will substantially and indubitably limit the recurrence of such tragic incidents in the kind of society we have today. It will make it far more difficult to acquire firearms. It will help the police, the constabulary, by allowing them to screen prospective owners of firearms. It will make it possible to prohibit persons with a tendency towards violent behaviour from having access to these weapons which are not evil as such but can easily become dangerous in the hands of a person whose personality tends towards extreme violent behaviour. It will also give police more authority and more opportunities to confiscate firearms found in homes where there are instances of family violence or violence among groups of people.
What is even more important, is that there will be strict controls on high-performance firearms of the type used at the Ecole Polytechnique. The bill will restrict access to many weapons that Canadians might wish to
November 6, 1991

own. It will also allow the government to limit the use of firearms by restricting the use of cartridge magazines. There is a great deal to say but I only have two minutes left.
Finally, whose recommendations will we follow? Will the government listen to the gun lobby, which says that gun control does not work, that Bill C-17 is unfair, and so forth? The answer is clear. We say that gun control saves lives and that Bill C-17 is a great improvement on the existing law.
A few more points in conclusion: this bill, although not perfect, is more than a step in the right direction. Such important people in the community as the director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, the rector of the University of Quebec, the president of Concordia University, the president of the Ecole Polytechnique and a mother who is still going through a difficult period of mourning have supported this bill. They know that it is not perfect as they, and all of us, would like it to be. But it is a definite step in the right direction. Once the bill is passed, it will be possible to move forward on that basis to continue to protect our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Lon-gueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member for Outremont, who just made an excellent speech, would agree that firearms registration should be mandatory. He did not mention it in his speech.
I think that registering firearms would be the least one could do and it would cost the government absolutely nothing, since the people who want to register their weapons would have to pay for it. In that way, even the government could make some money and at the same time keep track of exactly where firearms are located throughout the country.
Another point that I would like to raise is whether he would agree to register firearms for all applicants who know how to operate and handle them. We know that firearms are dangerous. Many people who own firearms do not even know how to use them. Why did the government not go a little further in its bill, knowing that
Government Orders
it would not have cost it a penny more? On the contrary, it could even have made some money on it. That is my first question for him.
Second, as far as I am concerned, we should go quite a bit further. I think that in principle, individual citizens do not need firearms. Citizens should be completely forbidden to own firearms. I do not believe that it is really necessary in our society to have firearms. I do not have firearms, my family does not have firearms and one can live very happily without firearms. There are many other things one can do for fun and for sport.
That is only a brief comment, but I would like the hon. member to answer the two questions I asked him at the beginning.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, or shall I say my former colleague and nevertheless friend from Longueuil, for his two interesting questions. He is still my friend, but he certainly is no longer my colleague. One day, he will see the light and, as silently and discreetly as some weapons, he will get back on the right track. I am telling him this tongue in cheek, but I am very serious.
This being said, I do not know whether if I should answer him as a psychologist or as a colleague but one thing is sure: I would hate, I just could not stand that the notion of profit be associated in any way with a bill as important as this one. It is about human lives, not about making money through controls and regulations.
I think I can appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Longueuil when he asked whether the government could make money with the registration of guns and rifles. I think this is too important an issue- It is a social concern. The whole of society is taken to task, not just individuals. I do not want to associate in any way financial gains or whatever economic consideration with such basic ones as psychological and social concerns.
As regards tests, I think they are really useful, but framework legislation cannot go into the smallest detail. We are faced with a social problem which is reflected in this bill. It is symptomatic of another problem that society must decide to tackle. Society must take a stand on this issue.
In his second question, our friend from Longueuil said that he does not own a gun and can get enjoyment from many other things besides guns.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
I do not shoot either since I am not interested in firearms, but I would suggest that the hon. member for Longueuil have a talk with his colleague from Saint-Hubert, who told us about 15 minutes ago that she was a highly-skilled hunter and that she loved firearms. I will leave it up to the Bloc Quebecois members to try to get along with each other. Once again, there is total dissension among them, and once our colleague from Longueuil will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary West has the floor for ten minutes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to speak after the hon. member for Outremont. There are two psychologists in this House. In French, the word psychologue is difficult to pronounce for an English speaking person. Those two psychologists are the hon. member for Outremont and myself. It is a treat to have the opportunity to make a speech immediately after the other psychologist.

I am going to say it in English in part because it is a whole lot easier for me and hopefully a whole lot more expressive and a whole lot more precise. It is appropriate perhaps to start in French and move to English because I got sort of submarined and sabotaged by some people from central Canada, some from Montreal and some from Toronto, who have a kind of stereotype of western Canadians and in particular people from Calgary. I would like the House and people watching to know that all six members of Parliament from the city of Calgary, Alberta have post-graduate education and three out of the six have doctorates. We do not have pointy heads and long tails. We are quite used to talking to each other and listening.
One of the things you can count on with a western Canadian is if he says you have a deal and he shakes your hand, you have got a deal. You can do the paperwork later and nobody is going to go back on it. That is not true of all the people in this Chamber. It is not true of all the people in Canada. It is not true of all the cultures in this country, but that is part of our culture: when you shake hands and you have a deal, you have got a deal.
I made a deal with myself not too long ago to use every opportunity in this Chamber that I thought was appropriate to talk for a minute or two about the press in very specific terms. I want to talk about the Calgary Herald, a nice local newspaper that has been around a long time. It wrote an editorial about me and what I was going to do in relationship to this piece of legislation based on a Toronto Star story, and it should know better.
I would like my constituents and everyone in the Chamber to know that those people never talked to me. They never asked me. Obviously they never read the committee hearings or anything I said about the subject matter at the committee hearings which are a matter of public record. Of course after 12 years in this Chamber that does not surprise me. That is the press in this country.
I spoke to a report yesterday about the constitutional committee. I said that if members of the committee did one thing wrong then tomorrow's newspapers and tonight's TV news would be totally on the thing they did wrong. If they did 99 things right we would never know it because they will not have a single word about anything they did right. Of course that is what happened this morning. There is another editorial in the Ottawa Sun.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we are now debating a bill about the press and the freedom of the press in this country or if we talking about a serious matter. I know the hon. member is on the defensive, but I would like order to be brought back to this House so that we could discuss the topic that is before us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you one thing, nobody in the press world of this country has read that bill with 39 amendments. I make that statement and challenge the entire press gallery to prove me wrong.


An hon. member:: I will bet you are right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Okay, you will bet I am right. The stories about this bill, the way it came into being, the way it was amended and the thrust of those amendments, are so terrible that Canadians out there have really very little idea of what this piece of legislation is about or most pieces of legislation that come through this Chamber.
November 6, 1991

I do not have a whole lot of time to speak. I would like to get a few thoughts about this bill out into the public domain and into the record of Hansard so that at least I can send it to my constituents.
The first myth that exists in the Press Gallery and in the minds of a lot of people in this country is that gun owners, those who belong to shooting clubs and those who hunt have no concern about gun safety. That is one of the biggest myths in this country. They have more concern about gun safety because their lives are at risk the minute they decide to store a gun in their home, the minute they go to a shooting range, the minute they go out and hunt. Clearly they are, if you listen to all the witnesses, absolutely the most knowledgeable group and the most concerned about gun safety.
That should never be mistaken by anybody. That is the group that we as parliamentarians and law makers must depend upon for help and advice if we get past the first part. If we were to say that guns will exist and people will have them then under what terms and conditions? The best piece of advise for safety will come from those with experience and knowledge about the subject matter. We should never forget that 10 years from now or 20 years from now.
They helped us a lot in making up those 39 amendments and I think there were two more or 41 amendments in total. All those amendments met one test by all members of the committee if they decided to vote for them-and I voted for every single one-they produce a somewhat safer world. They reduce to some extent, in some cases, the hassle for individuals that would not have been upheld by courts and should not be upheld by courts.
The notion of a warrantless search and seizure without cause is an absurd notion under our legal traditions. No court would uphold that kind of behaviour in the first place, but the bill in its drafting was not clear and now it is more clear than it was before. That is in there.
What did we have as an assignment? We had to have a piece of legislation that dealt with the issue of crooks. Drug dealers and robbers are perhaps the best words to describe the crooks. We had to have a piece of legislation at the same time that dealt with disturbed people, two kinds of disturbed people primarily: those who are
Government Orders
suicidal or attempt suicide at some point and those who are into violence and in particular family violence, particular crimes of disturbances.
We had to deal with this piece of legislation as best we could with the notion of trying to reduce accidents. The kinds of accidents that occur are in hunting areas and in peoples' homes. Children get hold of a firearm and use it inappropriately. They do not understand it and there are accidents in the home. There are accidents from time to time in other kinds of shooting areas and in particular in the hands of those who use a firearm as a tool. Policemen use the firearm as a tool and are frequently involved in accidental use of those firearms. Perhaps one of the things we learned is that there may not be enough training for policemen.
The third thing we had to be concerned about is those who use a firearm as a tool. We had crooks, disturbed people, accident situations, and those who use a firearm as a tool. To design a piece of legislation under the Criminal Code that would do all of those things with the kind of sensitivity that was required was a challenge in itself immediately, but as we listened to witnesses it just grew.
The crack dealer in downtown Toronto has so little in common with the aboriginal person in northern Saskatchewan who has a gun in the home. How do we do that under the Criminal Code? The only possible answer in our system is in the utilization of a regulatory power. We looked at that. We have had that. There has been not some very sensitive uses of regulatory powers in lots of statutes.
What is the antidote to sensitivity and common sense? It has to be the notion that a regulation proposed by the bureaucracy would be reviewable by the elected people of the country. They could call knowledgeable witnesses to look at a regulation before cabinet could proceed to gazette it and it could start down the process to become law.
For the second time in Canadian history and perhaps in the clearest way ever the members of the committee invented a set of words to put that principle in this particular amendment to the Criminal Code. All the regulator power that exists currently in the Criminal Code without the amendment, all of the new powers, forever after will have to come to Parliament first, to

Government Orders
both Houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, with whatever set of words people dream up for review.
If the whole examination of Bill C-80 and Bill C-17 has taught us something, it is that if you show the exact wording to knowledgeable people in Canada they will comment about it. You are well advised to listen to those comments because there is an awful lot of common sense in an awful lot of what they have to say.
The protection for firearms' owners and users of the future in terms of this statute lies primarily in that provision, which allows them to come before Parliament in the future and argue about whether a particular proposition is right or not.
The long-term solution lies in training. In five or ten years we can get a complete licensing system. It makes sense to those who own and use firearms that training courses be rigid and that safety aspects be very well vetted and very firm.
People out there who are listening tonight need to write their provincial attorneys general and their provincial members and tell people to enforce the criminal law. That is an administration of justice. The power is there. However if they plea bargain their way in the prosecutor's office it does not do anybody any good.
I would like to encourage everybody listening who cares about this issue to write their provincial attorneys general who are involved in the administration of the law, pound on their heads and get them to exercise those provisions which already exist.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I did not find the speech by the hon. member who was assigned an arm-twisting role throughout the process very edifying, and when I hear the government Whip say that the committees had plenty of leeway and freedom, I think we know that the main artisan of the arm-twisting that took place before this committee, the bully acting on behalf of the government, was the hon. member who just spoke.
My question is very simple: The hon. member referred to the principles that guided the committee's proceedings. With respect, I doubt any principles were involved. I think the committee's proceedings were guided by the
lobbying that went on, and especially by the government's attitude. I would like to ask the hon. member why the government did not decide to establish a general rule and subsequently make exceptions, instead of doing it the other way round? It looks like the government's position on gun control was determined by events, and we could say that they very reluctantly came up with a bill, but instead of defining the general principle, it seems they preferred the American approach. In fact, in this government, they are Americans at heart but do not know it.
Into the last stretch, under pressure from the general public, timidly and reluctantly, they managed to come up with a wishy-washy bill, a bill that has no teeth, and I ask the Whip whether he doesn't feel personally responsible for the fact that today, we have before the House legislation that will have to be reviewed every time there is an accident or a vicious murder.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are both Canadians and proud of it.

That is what exists in this party. You asked the question.

The hon. member wants an explanation, but he is an expert. However, he never went to committee meetings on C-17 or C-80. A lot of explanations were given and many witnesses, many Canadians appeared before the committees. The hon. member never attended these meetings, but nevertheless he is an expert.
I think the hon. member is way off the mark most of the time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and question for the hon. member.
My comment is that if I were him I would be very careful in going after the press in his hometown, even though-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It takes courage.
November 6, 1991


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know the member has a lot of power there. He may want to call them before the bar next week or something like that if he really does not like them.
I want to ask him this seriously, and it is a matter of debate tonight. We heard from the Reform Party, which we are told is strong in the neck of the woods the hon. member comes from, Alberta, that it was unable to take a position at its convention on gun control and in fact tabled a motion on gun control. Therefore the Reform Party has no official position on gun control. We heard from the Reform Party member tonight. She was supportive of the police, supportive of Mrs. Edward. The police and Mrs. Edward were in favour of the bill and she is against the bill.
I do not know whether the Reform Party is trying to walk on both sides of the street at the same time. I think it is pretty hypocritical, frankly.
Anyway, I want to ask the member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Very briefly. There are only 30 seconds left in the question period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just want to ask the member if he would comment on how his position in Calgary differs from the position of the Reform Party.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the party is learning to walk and will be guided by referenda. In terms of gun control that means that the people in Toronto and Montreal will decide the future of gun control in this country. The problem with the whole referendum notion is that those of us in the regions of this country, outside the main population centres, get swamped by the centre of the country. If we live in a rural area we get killed by city folks. There is a basic problem with the whole referendum idea.
The other thing that distinguishes us is that on this side of the House, as you may have noticed in the votes and in the arguments and in the questioning of the people who came before committee, we argue our perspectives persuasively and vigorously. We are not afraid to disagree with the Whip or anybody else and are not afraid to stand up in this Chamber and take a different point of view from time to time. We are not all peas in a pod committed to doing what our party tells us. We do what our hearts and our minds and our examination tell us and that is a good feature.
Government Orders


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Legislative Committee H which studied Bill C-17, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on third reading of this legislation.
Our committee heard testimony from some 25 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice. We received numerous briefs and letters from various groups, organizations and individual Canadians. As well, like every member of this House, I have personally received countless correspondence from across the country concerning both Bill C-17 and the entire issue of gun control.
From my experience on the committee and from what I have heard and read a common conclusion can be drawn. That is whether or not one supports separate gun control measures or conversely that the criminal justice system has to make the effort to deal more severely with those who commit violent acts involving firearms, the underlying issue remains one of public safety.
Certainly the argument that guns do not kill people, people kill people is far too simplistic. Obviously as a society we have to examine all the aspects of the problem before us and proceed to find acceptable and practical solutions.
As I did not sit on the special committee that examined Bill C-80, the precursor of Bill C-17,1 went into our committee's deliberations with an open and unbiased mind. Obviously, like every Canadian, I was not entirely unfamiliar with the issue of gun control. However I did not wish to examine the issue on the basis of personally supporting one viewpoint about gun control over another. I did however remain conscious of two fundamental aspects in our society, aspects which I believe every Canadian is interested in. The first is one's own personal safety, Canadians want to live in a country that is safe for themselves, their loved ones, friends and neighbours.
The safety and protection of any society is a paramount concern for the members of that society.
The other item concerns individual freedom which includes, among other things, the ability to carry out one's personal life without undue intrusion by the state or other authority. Therefore, with Bill C-17, two considerations have to be given. Does the bill offer protection for the public and would it provide gun control measures to be implemented that still permit legitimate firearm users to pursue their livelihoods, recreational activities or any other legitimate pursuit without undue restrictions being placed upon them? I

Government Orders
believe this legislation is a positive step in meeting these two considerations.
This of course does not mean that I can stand in my place today and state that Bill C-17 is the panacea for the problems improper use of firearms create. The bill will not stop violent gun related crimes and the taking of human life. Bill C-17, in reality, is a beginning. Some say the bill is not strong enough to tackle the serious problem it tries to address. Others say it is too strong, that it is an infringement on legitimate gun users.
I wish to believe that the bill should be viewed as a positive step in the right direction.
No one should be under the impression that Bill C-17 will prevent a future massacre as Canadians witnessed in horror on that fateful night of December 6, 1989. It will not. However, I believe the bill will put in place a series of obstacles that may well prevent future tragedies from occurring. These obstacles may go a long way to reduce the lethal potential which firearms in the wrong hands have.
Bill C-17 should be viewed as having measures directed toward controlling the escalation of firearm related violence. It will not eliminate the all too many acts of violence and death we see occurring throughout our country. Statistics show that in Canada today, approximately 1,400 people are killed by firearms, 1,100 of these deaths involve suicide. The remaining 300 were homicides, usually the result of arguments and normally involving hunting rifles and shotguns.
One may suggest that the number of fatalities could have been reduced if firearms were not so easily obtainable. Others may argue that alternative means would have been found to make up for the lack of a gun. Nonetheless, if we permit the continued proliferation of firearms and the ease by which they can be obtained and choose to simply stand idly by, then we will never know just how many lives could have been saved.
Almost one million Canadians have permits to own guns. These permits or firearm acquisition certificates enable the holder to purchase an unlimited number of firearms. In 1990, some 40,000 FACs were issued in Canada. Statistics indicate that the known total of restricted weapons, such as hand guns was 981,000.
Another 5,000 fully automatic guns are owned by gun collectors and roughly 6 million shotguns and rifles are out there. The shotguns and rifles do not have to be registered. This is quite an amount of fire power for a country of 26 million people.
In addition, what about the number of illegal weapons in circulation and the countless other weapons that are unregistered that we do not know about. I believe many Canadians are wondering why our society needs so many firearms.
Given the number of firearms in Canada, I hope that the Minister of Justice accomplishes what she first set out to do with Bill C-80. On June 26, 1990, the Minister of Justice presented her gun control proposals to Parliament in the form of Bill C-80. At the time she stated that the bill would, in her own words, and I quote: "Reduce accidental and criminal misuse of guns. That it will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons and encourage and ensure responsible gun ownership and use".
While I am sure that the minister shares the same sentiments with regard to the proposals contained in Bill C-17, I sincerely hope, as I believe a majority of Canadians do likewise, that this bill is able to reach such desirable goals.
When the Minister of Justice appeared before our committee, she alluded to the point that there were concerns in Canada today about the proliferation of high-powered firearms. She said that Bill C-17 would address this concern by making three basic changes to the existing law.
The first change is firearms which have been converted from fully automatic to semi-automatic would become prohibited.
Second, certain paramilitary firearms will either become prohibited or restricted weapons by way of Orders in Council.
Finally, the minister said that Bill C-17 will place absolute limits on the fixe power of semi-automatic firearms by limiting the capacity of cartridge magazines. This would be accomplished through regulations introduced after Bill C-17 is passed.
November 6, 1991

There are other positive elements in Bill C-17 that I would like to comment upon at this time. For example the bill will tighten up the screening process of FAC applicants. The minimum age for obtaining a FAC will be raised from 16 to 18 years of age. There will however be an exemption for youths who require a firearm for sustenance purposes.
A mandatory 28-day waiting period will come into being which will cover the time an applicant applies for an FAC to when it is granted. It is hoped that this so-called cooling off period will prevent individuals from obtaining a firearm on the spur of the moment. In addition, every application for an FAC must have a guarantee from two references who have known the applicant for three years. The references would be protected from civil liability but would be criminally liable if they knowingly made a false statement.
A photograph of the FAC holder will now appear on the FAC. This would permit only the individual whose photograph appears on the FAC to purchase a firearm. There is also a fundamental change in existing rules whereby applicants who are refused an FAC by a firearms officer will now have the onus placed upon them to prove wrongful refusal. Currently the firearms officer has to justify why the FAC application was refused.
One of the amendments I put forward at the committee stage of this bill that was adopted and appears in the bill before us concerns the issue of community checks. I am grateful to members of the committee for their support on this amendment which will enable a firearms officer who has received an application for an FAC to conduct an investigation. This may consist of interviews with the applicant's neighbours, community, social worker, spouse, dependents or whoever in the opinion of the firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant has a history of violent behaviour including violence in the home.
I believe this provision will further assist the firearms officer in his investigations. It will also complement the other proposals relating to the screening process. I also hope it will have some impact on the very serious issue of family violence and the often tragic consequences that occur when domestic disputes and firearms come together.
Government Orders
As is currently provided for in statute, FAC applicants will still be required to pass a course or test in the safe handling and use of firearms or be certified as competent by a local firearms officer.
Bill C-17 however will add a component on firearms law and responsibility to the course curriculum. There will be a provision that will allow a local firearms officer to certify an applicant by an alternative means. Obviously there may be instances where it is either unnecessary or not practical for an FAC applicant to write a formal exam and this is understandable. The criteria for direct certification would be limited by regulation.
I would like to stress at this point that there was considerable support indicated during our committee's hearings for mandatory firearms training and competency tests. A number of witnesses both supportive and opposed to Bill C-17 found common ground in the desire that steps be taken by the federal and provincial governments to create some form of national firearms training system.
At the very least it was hoped that training and course requirements would be sufficiently designed at a national level to ensure the safe use and handling of firearms and knowledge of all facets of firearms legislation. I believe this is a credible recommendation. I hope to see the federal and provincial governments take steps in the immediate future to bring such a system about.
We all of course recognize once again the administrative problems as well as the financial implications involved in trying to establish such a system. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt of the benefits that would be gained from its creation.
In order to finance the new FAC system, fees for FACs will be raised. This will help offset the current $3 million deficit of the FAC system. A fee of $50 for first time applicants and $25 for renewals is being considered. The current fee for an FAC is $10.
Given that an attempt is being made to have the FAC system pay for itself the provincial and federal governments in consultation with the firearms community and other interested parties may wish to enter into consultations on ways revenues could be generated to help cover the cost of implementing a national firearms training system.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
Discussions should also be held with the parties I have just mentioned in relation to the type of training curriculum that could be implemented in order to meet the objectives of a viable and acceptable national firearms training program.
Aside from the new rules pertaining to the FAC, Bill C-17 also addresses by way of the regulation process the strengthening of safe storage requirements for firearms. As in the case of other regulatory matters, the measures concerning safe storage are not as yet known. I might add that our committee was hampered somewhat by the lack of information we had concerning the nature of future regulations. This was indeed unfortunate as a number of these regulations deal with very important subjects. One could argue that if more information on the regulations was provided perhaps some of the fears and uncertainties from the firearms community and supporters of tougher gun control laws could have been avoided. I hope the Minister of Justice and the Advisory Council on Firearms, which is the body mandated with providing regulation recommendations to the minister, will soon announce the nature of these important regulations both to Parliament and to all Canadians.
Another issue of concern is the so-called grandfathering clause. The clause allows anyone who currently owns a weapon that would become banned under this legislation, such as a converted fully automatic weapon, military or paramilitary, to retain possession if it is registered by October 1, 1992 and the owner becomes a genuine gun collector. While it is uncertain as to how many firearms this involves, the Canadian Bar Association has suggested that it may include some 50,000 firearms. The government may have to give this issue more consideration. Perhaps they may wish to implement some form of compensatory program which would give an incentive to owners of these weapons to turn them in rather than keep them in their possession.
While Bill C-17 does provide a definition of genuine gun collectors, these collectors will however be permitted to keep firearms that the bill proposes to ban.
In relation to safe storage requirements, I have alluded earlier to the fact that regulations will be devised for the safe storage of firearms unaccounted for in Canada today. Therefore the government must ensure that regulations for safe storage are indeed adequate.
We must curtail the opportunities presented to unauthorized individuals receiving firearms that were not properly secured by the owners. As well, an element of safety is involved here inasmuch as tragic accidental deaths have occurred from improper storage procedures of firearms. This also includes police firearms as tragically portrayed to the committee by Mr. John Bickerstaff who lost his 18 year old son, Lee, to an accident that involved a police officer's sidearm.
There are other tragic cases we hear about too often and many involve young children. There must be proper safe storage regulations implemented as soon as possible.
The definition of a genuine gun collector in Bill C-17 is another issue that has caused some concern. A genuine gun collector is not presently defined by statute, however only genuine gun collectors may register firearms under a grandfather clause where restricted weapons are part of a collection.
Bill C-17 will provide a definition for genuine gun collector. It will be anyone who has or seeks to acquire one or more related firearms and can demonstrate knowledge of the firearm involved while satisfying any regulatory requirement for safe storage or record keeping. Regulations concerning safe storage and the record keeping requirements will be forthcoming.
Much has also been said about the need for a national firearm registration system for Canada. I agree that a concerted effort must be made to establish such a system. Obviously the logistical and financial implications are considerable. There may also be federal-provincial considerations to be ironed out so that the most viable system possible can be developed. My colleague, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys proposed an amendment to Bill C-17 which I believe was certainly worthy of serious consideration. I would hope that the government would re-examine this important issue and work toward the creation of a national registry for firearms. The system would obviously start by registering firearms from the inception onwards. This would be the most practical. I believe a national firearms registry is feasible if the right course of action is followed. This system would be of considerable benefit to our police forces and would add another measure of security for the entire population.
November 6, 1991

Another issue which I believe could be improved upon concerns the sale of ammunition. There are certain types of ammunition available that have more than the average lethal capability such as the so-called KWT "super slug". This bullet, according to the testimony provided to our committee by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, fits conveniently into most standard handguns. Its teflon coating and composition is such that it can penetrate automobile engines and bulletproof vests. This type of ammunition, if not banned for sale in Canada altogether should, as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police suggests, be included in the definition of prohibited weapons. As well a number of witnesses called for controls to be implemented on the sale of ammunition. One often heard suggestion was that an FAC be required for the purchase of ammunition. I hope the government will give consideration to implementing such a provision in the regulations.
Another point I would like to comment upon concerns the mandatory reporting of all lost or stolen firearms to the police. I believe such a requirement would be beneficial to the efforts being undertaken by our police forces. It would assist them in knowing what is out on the streets and also indicate how successful safe storage requirements are and where improvements can be made. According to Police Chief Flanagan of the Ottawa Police Force, guns used in the commission of crimes are for the most part stolen. These guns were originally legal guns or were in legal hands. For various reasons these firearms, whether because of unsafe storage or otherwise, fell into the hands of criminals. Chief Flanagan went on to say that there have been large scale thefts where up to 100 firearms have been stolen with the potential end result being that 100 criminals have firearms. His experience has shown that the problem is stolen firearms rather than illegally imported ones.
During his 40 year career in criminal investigations he could not remember a case where an illegally imported firearm was seized. The firearm is usually stolen from some place. If thefts are required to be reported, the police may find something to go on to locate the thief and recover the firearm. There are obviously numerous cases where stolen or mislaid firearms go completely unreported and this has to be corrected.
Government Orders
A number of individuals and organizations who have been before our committee and those who wrote to me personally on the subject of gun control, raised the need for stronger legal deterrents for those who use firearms in the commission of criminal acts. Without getting into a lengthy discourse on the merits or failings within our criminal justice system or the adequacy of legal sanctions I would like to make a few comments.
Bill C-17 introduces changes to the current sentences for part III Criminal Code offences which concern firearms. Presently maximum sentences are set at five years. Bill C-17 will increase the maximum sentences for certain offences to 10 years. These include the possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of a firearm while prohibited and the importation, purchasing or selling of a prohibited weapon. While I would like to leave the debate over harsher penalties to judicial experts, criminologists and the government to re-evaluate, many Canadians feel that the legal community and the government have to seriously examine the issue of firearm offences and sentencing and determine if sufficient deterrents are indeed in place to reduce firearm related criminal acts.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee of which I had the privilege to be a part. I particularly want to thank the chairman and the member from Lethbridge. I believe the amendments our committee put forward strengthened Bill C-17. I hope the government will take additional steps to further enhance this bill and thereby improve the safety and security of all Canadians.
The issue of gun control is a very controversial one. I hope that this bill and the regulations which are to follow will provide a beginning to provide Canadians with gun control legislation that is both reasonable and effective. More important, I hope that this bill will indeed reduce the tragic loss of life that firearms have caused and that it will improve the safe use of firearms.
In conclusion, I believe responsible gun owners and all Canadians realize the value gained in the past with the introduction of gun control measures. The creation of the FAC system and the banning of fully automatic weapons contribute to a safer Canada. In the final analysis both the firearms community and advocates for

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
tougher gun laws want nothing less for our country and its citizens.
[Translation)


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont- Dundas. I would prefer to speak French exclusively, but I do not speak it very well.

But I would like to thank him for a very thoughtful and worth-while contribution to this debate. I would like to make a brief comment and raise a question. I will do it as quickly as I possibly can. I just received a letter from Mr. Bill Snowden of Hannon, Ontario in the Mount Hope area of my riding. The letter reads: "I am writing to you as a member of your riding and someone who has voted Conservative for the last 20 years. I have been a hunter and a gun owner for 27 years. As such I feel that recent legislation introduced by Justice Minister Kim Campbell, namely Bill C-17 does not represent my best interests. Although there are some genuine improvements in this bill, it retains many of the flaws which caused its predecessor, Bill C-80, to be rejected by your own Conservative caucus. If you choose to support this bill I will have no choice but to withdraw my support of your party in the next election and I am sure many of the seven to eight million law-abiding firearm owners in the country will'.
The letter goes on: "It is the kind of thing that we are getting from the rural areas and, as the Whip of our party says, we get killed by the city folks if we talk about anything less than what Bill C-17 proposes. In fact the city folks want something much, much stronger".
I am confronted by an conundrum here. It is a lose, lose situation for me. I do not know in my 13 and a half going on 14 years in the House of Commons how on earth I am going to vote on this one. I am alerting the Whip that I may not be able to vote for Bill C-17.
How do you reconcile the profound differences among the gun club owners, the gun owners, the responsible people and those in the cities, towns and villages who are fearful of those who own guns and use them illegally and in an horrific way against Canadian society? That is the question I put to the hon. member.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his comments, and I must say that the problem he raised has been shared by many members in this House ever since the tabling of a bill dealing with this very controversial subject which affects all Canadians.

I would say to the member that in committee particularly I was obviously struck by the testimony of individuals and organizations from across the country that related to the situation. I think in some cases they were raising the issue of urban-rural, but I agree in this instance to a great extent with the minister that there has to be some consistency in implementing federal gun legislation.
I do not know how we could ever devise a piece of legislation that would address specifically just the concerns of large metropolitan areas and then a separate bill that would address the rural concerns.
What is creating a lot of the anxieties at this point are the regulations. Not knowing what those regulations are going to be is creating a great deal of anxiety for the groups at both ends of this debate.
I know in my riding there is a large rural area and a small urban area of approximately 50,000 people in Cornwall. I have had to wrestle with the same concerns the member for Hamilton-Wentworth has to deal with, as have all other members on both sides of the House. This is not an issue that has been easy for any member. I think we have all been the recipients of the type of correspondence which was just related to the House.
However, by the same token we are called upon in this instance as we are in any other to make a final decision, having examined all of the evidence, weighing all the evidence, and taking into consideration all the interests in presenting what is in my estimation a bill, a beginning or a part of the solution of a far larger problem.
The responsible gun owners will remain the responsible gun owners. We count on their sense of responsibility. They want to continue to enjoy their sport. I do not think we are going to impede their ability to enjoy that
November 6, 1991

sport, whether it is hunting, marksmanship or what it might be.
In the end the bill does not please anyone on one hand, but on the other hand it is a step in the right direction. For that reason I will support it tomorrow.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech. He spoke at length on the government's fear of going further in this bill. He particularly talked about registration, and I quite agree with him that absolutely every gun or firearm should be registered. Not only that, but if the arms merchant does not comply with this regulation, he could lose his licence to sell arms.
I would like to ask him whether he agrees with that. Did he work hard enough, since he was on that committee, to make the government loosen up a little? Of course, we know that the government was greatly influenced by the gun dealers' lobby. We know that very well.


An hon. member:: It's sad.


Nic Leblanc: It is quite sad because we know very well that weapons are not toys and that they absolutely must be properly controlled. So would he agree that not only must weapons be registered but that if the dealers do not comply with this rule, they simply lose their licence?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil, for his comment and question. Certainly, I totally agree that we need a registration system, the sooner the better. Once it is in place, if someone like a dealer would fail to comply with the regulations, we would have to see then. I agree.
I also want to take a moment to thank and particularly congratulate his colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, who participated very actively on the committee and made a very positive contribution.
I would like to say the same perhaps about the hon. member for Shefford who just now wanted to address the House on the same bill, even though he was not on the committee. Very likely he was preoccupied with other business. I will give him the benefit.
Government Orders
I thank the hon. member for Longueuil for his comment.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas and his speech, but I see a problem here tonight. It is a tradition in this House that for such a well prepared speech, the Minister of Justice should have had the decency to come and listen to it.
Mr. Speaker, could you help me remember whether tradition requires a government minister to be in the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I know that it is a tradition not to point out the presence or absence of another member in the House.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today there were 13 individuals, 12 plus myself, who felt it was their duty to stand in this House and vote against a bill.
I want to make it clear at the start of my comments that not one of those individuals, including myself, is against gun control or law and order. We are against this proposed legislation.
If you listen to some in this Chamber or some across the country, you would think that the 13 of us probably either have horns, are rednecks, or live in the stone age.
Let us make it clear that none of that, not one bit, is true.
We are talking about a bill that is going to be voted through this House tomorrow and will become law and in it there are quite frankly no regulations. As a member of Parliament from rural Canada, the riding of Timis-kaming in northern Ontario, I am not prepared tonight or tomorrow to sign a blank cheque without knowing what the regulations are.
I say that for a very good reason. I have heard on numerous occasions the critic for the NDP who has said that this bill does not go far enough. That troubles me. It indicates to me that the member from Vancouver is really not concerned about fairness. He wants to take

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
away opportunity from individuals across this country, in fact the people in the regions who have developed this country. He is prepared to take away a right of these people. I am not prepared tonight or tomorrow morning to allow that to happen.
When reviewing this piece of legislation earlier we heard about some increase in sentencing on the criminal side. It has not gone far enough. Why are we punishing law abiding citizens with this piece of legislation when we are not sentencing in terms of violent crimes involving guns? What about the incidents of violence and the cross-border black market? What about the efficiency with which we are dealing with this bill and stiffer penalties?
It is fine for us to say that we will be looking at a maximum of 10 years. Who is to say within the justice system today that someone will end up getting two years on a plea bargain? Yet a law abiding citizen has to go by this. Violent crimes have not been dealt with in this bill in the manner they should have been.
I want to deal with a couple of other areas. It is fine for us to say that $50 is not too much. With the salaries around this place and this being central Canada, $50 may not sound like a lot of money. However, let me tell the House that in my constituency and many other constituencies across this country $50 means putting food on the table.
People ask: "How much is a gun?" There are a lot of people out there who have not bought a gun for many years and have no plans to buy a gun. Under this legislation, before they can buy a gun to go out on a trap line to hunt for food for their family, they are going to have to pay $50. There is nothing to say that in five years from now that is not going to be $75, $100 or $150.


An hon. member:: It should be.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the member for Ottawa Centre to say that it should be, because he lives under the dome. He does not deal with the reality that those of us who come from the rural part of Canada deal with on an ongoing basis.
Regulations on types of guns, storage and clips should be determined and printed to be passed into legislation. To limit semi-automatic firearms and prohibit the same styles of guns which are now being used for recreational
and hunting purposes in the north affects those individuals who purchased guns many years ago. The 303 Lee-Enfield rifle with a clip of 10 which many of my constituents own today will no longer be lawful when this piece of legislation is passed.
I just want to give a few numbers here that make it veiy interesting in terms of deciding what we are really talking about in Bill C-17. Private insurance companies paid out $6.4 billion in 1989 as a result of automobile accidents. Out of that 284,234 people were injured and 4,246 were killed. Some 495 people including 81 children and 7 firefighters died in fires in 1988. Of 656 homicides in Canada in 1989, 218 were effected by firearms.
We are trying to say that this legislation has been driven more by emotion than by facts. I have received letters not just from rural parts of Canada but from from concerned citizens all across Canada. I have one here from Victoria, B.C.: "Hunting, target shooting and collecting are traditional sports and should be preserved for future generations. If saving my way of life means that I have to become politically active I plan on doing so".
A corporation in my riding has received information on Bill C-17, the new gun control legislation. The council objects to Bill C-17 for the following reasons: "The real purpose of gun control use is to reduce violent use of firearms. However, Bill C-17 will effect the average northern hunter and their traditional values. A $50 FAC fee is unacceptable to most rural Canadians. Stiffer penalties should be imposed for criminals for the violent use of guns. There should not be a requirement for further safety courses over and above those already in place, and this is completely unnecessary. And this council hereby petitions the legislative committee studying Bill C-17 to completely review the entire part of this bill".
I could go on, as you can see from the numerous pieces of information that I have received. My greatest concern is not only the fact that we are dealing with this one piece of legislation here tonight but it seems to be an ongoing effort in the real rural parts of Canada. The livelihood and the way of life of those of us who come from those regions are, on an ongoing basis, being jeopardized by the fact that none of us believe that criminals should be loose.
November 6, 1991

None of us can say how sorry we are about what happened in Montreal. However the fact is that the history of northern Ontario and the history of rural Canada is that we have grown up and learned how to hold firearms and learned how to use firearms. Who can say today without regulations in place that trigger locks, cabinet locks, room locks and who knows what else will be put in place.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. I know that there is a voice out there that wants to be heard. I hope they have been able to hear what I have tried to say on their behalf.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks and just say how much I admire him for speaking against this legislation. One of his colleagues, the hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned earlier that the Tory party comes up with consensus. I just want to congratulate him and others who I see here tonight who had the nerve to say that there are concerns about this legislation.
I would like to just make one quick comment in reference to a member of my riding, Lionel Tersier from Bonneville. I was wondering if the member would concur with what Mr. Tersier said in light of the remarks he made. He says: "Unfortunately it seems that a series of ill-considered regulations and unenforceable laws will be put on the shoulders of law-abiding gun owners who, in the past, have tried to follow earlier regulations that have not had the desired effects, and that is reduce criminal activities".
Could the member enlighten the House further on his views?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, back in January 1978 legislation was put into place to protect life, it was put into place for bona fide gun collectors.
This is something that has been going on for many, many years. In fact I have other legislation here that goes back to 1961. My greatest concern is that we are getting carried away, we are not dealing with the real problem and which is the criminal.
That is what we have to deal with here. It is not the law-abiding citizen. I hope we will see more changes to
Government Orders
this, but there is still a great concern that not enough has been done to make changes that will affect the criminal.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member for Timis-kaming that I have deep respect for him, and I listened to him carefully. He should not think that members from urban ridings are not suffering with him tonight over this legislation.
He mentioned the fact that there is a lot of emotion in this debate and I share his view. There is a lot of emotion in this debate. We in urban areas have probably as many people involved with the legal possession of firearms coming to us as does he. However we also have constituents coming to us and I will cite one example of a father, a Vietnamese gentleman, who came into my constituency office not too long ago. He had lost his son from a gunshot wound on the street in my riding. That has an emotional effect on all of us.
The chief of police in our city is telling us: "Dennis, this is not perfect legislation but there are some good things in it that will help improve the gun control situation". How does the member respond to a police chief that gives us that kind of a recommendation?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: It is very simple and I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
The law side of it is what we have to deal with, the punishment side dealing with criminals. I am still very concerned about plea bargaining. I am very concerned that we have said we have increased the sentencing to 10 years. I do not think that is strong enough. I believe we have come to a point in this country that we have to make those that break the law pay. We can no longer have a society out there where people just have their fingers slapped when they commit a crime. That is what we are looking for in this legislation. When you err, when you break the law, when you end up taking a life you should pay for it, not the honest, law-abiding citizen.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, before I start my 10 minutes, I wonder if we could have agreement from the House. We do have a number of pages here that are university students and have study time to put in before tomorrow. They are usually off at 8 p.m. and we have kept them now until 9.30 p.m. and we could be keeping them up a lot longer. I wonder if everyone would agree to allow the pages to go home.

Government Orders


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is agreed on all sides that if they wish to go they should be free to go. However they would not want to miss the speech coming up in probably the next half hour or so from the veteran member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I am sure we would be glad to hear him.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I will stay. We used to sit here until 10 p.m. anyway. Anyone who cannot stay to hear my speech can read it in Hansard tomorrow or see it on video.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The camera is not on you, sir.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I think it is agreed that we are allowing the pages to go home.
Earlier today I voted against this legislation. It is very difficult to vote against legislation that members in my caucus have worked so hard to reach a compromise on, to reach a position that they feel, and justifiably so, has found a balance.
I refer particularly to my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who worked very hard on this legislation.
I want to read you a couple of quotes tonight if I may. I think they outline very carefully the feelings that I have and the feelings that my constituents in Alberta have. This is a letter I received from the office of the Farmer's Advocate of Alberta. I will not read it all but it is regarding Bill C-17, the firearms legislation.
It says: "I was recently speaking to a law professor from Osgoode Hall and he tells me that in Canada there are about 350 different charges that can be lodged under the Criminal Code of Canada but that there are approximately 40,000 other legal restrictions under which charges can involve our citizens."
I would assume reference is to laws and regulations enacted by our three levels of government. His main concern is not with the Criminal Code since, "if charged under this a citizen is innocent until proven guilty, sometimes a difficult task, but the principles of English common law prevail.
The concern is with the laws and regulations of the associated charges that can be laid under a large portion of those other 40,000 laws and regulations applicable to
Canadians." In reference to the latter he indicates that in many cases, penalties can be as severe as those of the Criminal Code but a citizen, if charged by an inspector or other official carrying out the intent of the act, is faced with having to prove his innocence. That is quite another case.
"Further, a good many of our citizens can no longer bear the cost of seeking justice in the court system."
I would like to move to another one. Of course, he is against the enacting of Bill C-17. I will quote another paragraph: "I do not believe anyone would quarrel too much with the removal from sale of military type assault weapons but most of the other provisions of the bill will only serve to penalize honest people". That is what I feel is happening with Bill C-17.
Then he goes on to say: "My constituency happens to be one comprised of farmers living in western Canada". Indeed, that is much of my constituency. "The moment the firearm bill is passed you will have created thousands of law breakers on our farms for I cannot imagine that they will take the rifle from the back porch, from behind the basement door or from behind the seat in a half-ton truck and lock it away someplace officially regarded as safe."
Then there are the changes concerning magazines, capacity and the measurement of a barrel length which will sweep even more into the net.
I think a very significant paragraph is the last one: "If the realities of life and politics regarding guns are that much different in the Golden Triangle than they are in farms in western Canada at this moment in history in which we live, then consideration should be given to other solutions. Obviously the U.S. recognized this since gun laws differ from state to state and tend to be more stringent in the densely populated areas".
I would like to go on record as saying that I truly understand and feel real empathy for those living in urban centres like Montreal where the tragedy that we are all aware of took place.
Bill C-17 will put the individual honest Canadian who takes up a legitimate activity, the gun club members across Canada and farmers who use their weapons consistently in their daily activities in a position of breaking the law as they carry on in the normal, safe manner that they have always carried on.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
To me that is wrong. There has to be another way and I think the way is to make it very strict and very tough on the criminal element who by the way acquire their guns illegally. That activity is not going to stop in my view. Anyone who is going to commit armed robbery, anyone who is going to commit a violent activity is not going to worry too much about acquiring a weapon in an illegal way to carry out that activity.
I received correspondence and I am sure other members of Parliament here today have as well. I hope she wrote to everyone. It is from Judith Ross, Ph.D., 34 Cavell Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. I think it is an excellent piece of work that she has done. She pretty well destroys all of the myths on The Coalition for Gun Control and brings in the facts. It is too bad that we do not have time to read it. I hope that everyone has read it.
I know it is not going to make any difference. I know that this bill is going to be enacted tomorrow. Bill C-17 will be passed in the House tomorrow and then it will go to the Senate and become law.
It really distresses me that this is going to become law and I am going to have to go back and talk to farmers, trappers and the native people in my community when it is absolutely second nature for them to carry and to use a gun in their daily lives. They do not use it in a destructive way. They use it in a very constructive way.
I now have to go back and say to them that they are breaking the law and can be charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, if the police happen to come to their house or stop them on the road and find a weapon in their pick-up truck. I cannot believe that we in this House of Commons cannot come to a better solution than Bill C-17.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Hubert.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member who just spoke that to say guns do not kill people is a myth, and that will be subject of my comments.

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. The fact is that people without guns injure. People with guns kill. Gunshot wounds are 15 times more deadly than those from knives and far more deadly than those from weapons such as clubs or fists. Reducing the accessibility of guns may not reduce the number of violent confrontations but it will reduce the risk of fatal outcomes. It takes a less well formed motive to commit murder with a gun than with any other weapon because of the physical and psychological distance between the aggressor and the victim.

I think it is quite obvious, everybody has said so, but when we listen to the hon. member, he just doesn't make sense.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask him a question, and I hope that he will be able to give me a straight answer. I do not see why all those farmers and hunters and practically all the people in his riding will be breaking the law, because from now on, we will have legislation that will be a bit stricter on firearms. What it boils down to is that this legislation will turn restricted weapons into modified semi-automatic weapons. I do not think every single person in the hon. member's riding has a modified semi-automatic weapon.
I fail to see why everybody in his riding will be breaking the law from now on. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could answer that question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. friend. The storage provisions and the transportation provisions in the bill will make it illegal for a farmer to set his gun beside the back door or hang it up over the door. Yesterday I had a visitor from High Prairie who told me that two days prior to being here he shot a coyote in the back yard. It had come up nearly to the back porch.
I am passing this information on to you.
I asked him what he did with it. He said he shot it and then he had it buried because he did not know if it was rabid or not. He wanted to have the carcass buried. That

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
is something perhaps that my hon. friend does not understand.
He will not be able to leave his weapon, the .22 rifle, handy in an area close to the ammunition that it carries. He will have to store the weapon in one spot under lock and key, under regulation, or have a guard lock on the trigger mechanism and the ammunition in another spot. That is in the law. That will be in the law and is the regulation that is coming out.
The storage is in the legislation. It has to be under lock and key. Tell me how you are going to be able to do that.
Let me go back to the question brought up by my hon. friend. She said guns do not kill people, people kill people. That is a bumper sticker.
A Danish study differs greatly from American studies and finds that rather than being 15 times more lethal gunshot wounds range from 1.5 to 5 times more lethal than knife wounds. It depends on the calibre of the weapon. The information given by my hon. friend gives no consideration to penetration by a .22 calibre bullet. I would consider a knife wound much more lethal.
Those are spurious arguments. That is not the argument I am using. My argument is that there are honest people who have weapons. I have some. I have a number of shotguns. I have a couple of rifles. My sons, my children, have them. I have taught them to use them properly and they attend gun clubs. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is a legal activity. It was a legal activity and now we are zeroing in on an issue because there was a tragedy-and it was a tragedy that happened in Montreal-but because of those kinds of things happening we are zeroing in on legitimate, law-abiding citizens and to me that is wrong. That is wrong in my view.
Therefore, I cannot support the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I wish to inform hon. members that the first five hours of debate at third reading stage are now expired. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House, the 10-minute maximum period, without questions or comments, is now starting. On debate, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-17.1 recognize, as I am sure all members do, that it is far from perfect in achieving the objective that I think virtually all Canadians want to see. That is effective gun control legislation. An overwhelming percentage of Canadians have come to the recognition that the first and primary responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens.
We are now facing an epidemic of violence in this country that has been created by a series of causes and will be dealt with, not simply by legislation of this kind. This legislation will only deal with a small part of it but at least it represents a step in the right direction.
Let me start by joining with other hon. members in a personal statement. I come from a very urban culture. Guns are foreign to me. I fired a gun a few times when I was in cadets in the army and later in the navy. I was not very good at it but I do recognize that it is necessary for the military of this country to be equipped with guns as part of the security of our country. I accept that in some circumstances police officers need guns, but beyond that I personally have a great deal of difficulty understanding why private citizens need guns.
I recognize as the previous member said there is a somewhat different culture, particularly in rural Canada. There are those who collect guns. To me that is a strange activity. I do not understand it at the personal level. There are those who hunt. That too is something that is strange to me. There are those who engage in shooting as part of a sport and in fact the sport is included in the Commonwealth Games, in the Olympics and so forth. To me that activity almost romanticizes the violence that is really inherent in guns. If we look back at history that is the role that guns played in our history and in our culture. They are part of war and war has become the bane of civilization.
So to me, guns symbolically have no place in a good society. However I recognize, and all legislators must recognize, that there are those who have a different culture. Further we must recognize that the criminal law cannot simply do the effective job of changing human behaviour. If we are going to tackle the causes of violence that led to the massacre in Montreal, that has caused 1,100 young people last year to commit suicide in Canada and the domestic violence some of which hap-
November 6, 1991

pens by guns, we cannot simply rely on the Criminal Code to do it.
But the argument that we should not try to use the Criminal Code to the full extent possible simply does not stand up. What distinguishes this country from the country to the south is that we recognize that the possession of a gun is not a right. It is a privilege which Parliament is entitled in the interests of the safety of the community to restrict.
What legislation in 1978 began to do, by providing certain restrictions on the acquisition and possession of guns, this legislation takes a step further. There is a huge amount of misinformation being put out about what is included in this bill. Let me be fairly specific about the bill and what it seeks to achieve.
It provides that first time applicants for firearms acquisition certificates, which have been in place in Canada since 1978, have to wait 28 days before receiving a certificate. It provides that for exceptions in certain areas, photographs would be necessary as part of the job of applying for a certificate. The bill changes the age limit for obtaining a certificate from 16 to 18. It increases the cost but provides that the cost on renewal is halved from that of a first time application. It bans the import and possession of fully automatic firearms converted to fire in a semi-automatic mode. It creates the enabling power to ban large capacity magazines through regulations.
The bill creates a new offence, the altering of a firearm or assembling parts to produce a fully automatic weapon. There is also the promise of prohibitions or restrictions of certain military and paramilitary type weapons following criteria to be developed by the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms.
The Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms will have a major role in shaping the regulations and so too will this House because any regulation will have to come back to the House.
The previous member spoke of safe storage as if there is some terrible problem for those on farms. There is no provision in this legislation that will restrict a farmer from keeping a gun beside the door. What this legislation provides is for regulations to be developed for safe storage. Those regulations will have to be approved by the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms and will
Government Orders
have to come back before this House. Members of this House will have an opportunity to see that there is a public debate on the regulations. Clearly the historic position of farmers will be taken into account.
Genuine gun collectors are defined in the regulation. It provides for record keeping requirements on gun collectors. How could any citizen complain about that? Remember, a gun remains a lethal weapon which can kill. As long as it is a lethal weapon which can kill human beings then it is entirely appropriate that the state should intervene to control and restrain it.
We also must remember, to come back to the point, that the Criminal Code has to deal with behaviour and make certain behaviour illegal. That is what this bill seeks to do.
I believe that Canadians generally accept the idea that we must have gun control. That control can be through education. As the previous member stated, a parent can educate his or her children in the use of guns. Society can train and educate people before they are allowed to acquire and possess guns. That is what this package provides for.
If the precise regulations do not work as effectively as they should then we will have to deal with them.
I would like to conclude by making this point again. This gun control legislation, so necessary as a step towards a safe society, is not all that we in Parliament must do to deal with the epidemic of violence in our society. We have to recognize the extent of the violence in our society. We have to recognize that violence is fundamentally gender specific. It is a male propensity to violence which is predominantly the problem in our society. We have to understand the reasons for that. We have to get to the heart of what it is that produces domestic violence, social violence and even institutional violence.
We have to work on social programs that get to the root of the difficulties. We have to fundamentally understand that people must have a fair, just and equitable society and they must see society as a family. In my view rampant individualism is at the heart of the increasing propensity of our society for violence. Further, it is the Americanization of our culture. The American belief

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
that to own a gun is a right is becoming a potential belief in this country.
What I am so proud of in this bill is the overwhelming support of all sides of the House for this step to bring under some kind legitimate control the acquisition and ownership of guns. It is a step in the right direction.
We on all sides in Parliament will monitor its effect. We must be ready to intervene to improve and make more efficient the procedures so that citizens are not burdened with bureaucracy. We must also be ready to continue to close the gap so that all in our society can feel safe that guns are not out of control in the end.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, since we are now under the 10-minute rule I will try not to ad lib too much. I am fortunate to be following the previous speaker, the member for Athabasca. His speech portrays in capsule form the two solitudes that are really involved in this whole debate of guns and gun control and/or the social domain.
It is interesting that I am now speaking because I frankly come in between as a happy negotiator, a happy compromiser and a happy ex-Conservative.
I am not a gun owner. I am not a gun collector. I do not own a gun. I could not shoot a deer if you paid me money for it.
I have listened to the debate and it is a troubled debate. As the hon. member for Victoria said sincerely and as the member from Athabasca sounded out certain practical problems that he felt, that is part of the problem that we have here tonight.
The thing that bothers me more than other matters is the process. Today really is the first time that under this interesting parliamentary system we have there has been an opportunity for members to debate publicly their views on C-17.1 know I only have 10 minutes and it goes very quickly. I think four have gone already. What really bothers me the most is the fact that this Bill C-17-and I admit that there has been a lot of preamble and a lot of history, C-80 which never came to the floor of the House-just came to the floor of the House on June 6. What we have is a mini Meech Lake. There was a mini Meech Lake with House leaders on June 6. Before the Minister of Justice even started to make her speech, the Leader of the Opposition stood up to say there were consultations among House leaders and it was decided
that one member would speak from each party and then the bill would be sent to committee. That is the way it was. The bells rang and then under the rules the Whips came.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you would get away from the interference with the member from wherever he is because this is a serious matter. Bells rang and under the rules that we have all agreed to the Whips come up and say: "No". That was Thursday, June 6. There were not many members around. "We will postpone the vote on second reading, which is usually a vote of some importance, we will postpone it until Monday at three o'clock", I believe.
Lo and behold, and frankly it is happening too often in this House, in the midst of Private Members' Business on the same day, the House leader of the NDP stood up twice and the second time he was successful. He said, among other things-of course I do not know how many members were in the House then, perhaps three, four or six-he then said: "Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any other rules and procedures of the House of Commons, let it be deemed that this bill is passed and referred to the Legislative Committee H", et cetera. Some members said agree and there it was.
I admit that sincere members who were concerned about this matter debated it in committee. That is fine. They produced a report that finally came into the House as the amendment, or Bill C-17. The vote this afternoon on second reading at the report stage was the first time that members had a chance to express themselves by vote. Tonight and today is the first time members, besides the committee, have had a chance to speak on this bill.
If members want to know why the public out there feel that this place is irrelevant I would suggest that they look at the process that has been used in a very fundamental important bill that affects directly or indirectly all Canadians that they look at what has happened here with C-17.
Time moves so quickly in terms of the substance of the bill. As I said earlier, I am troubled by this bill. I know the popular feeling is to vote for it. However I finally got into it when it came on to the floor of the House. I read the report of the special committee on C-80 and I have read the minutes of the committee on C-17. There were the best of intentions to try to tighten up certain matters that affect lives. A blanket of bureaucracy on law-abid-
November 6, 1991

ing citizens is not going to solve the problem, as everyone wants.
I think there are some people in the gallery tonight who have experienced the agonies and the tragedies. I have two daughters and hopefully I will never have to share what some people have shared as a result of that tragedy in Montreal.
There has not been a member anywhere in the House, including the Minister of Justice, who has even tried to suggest that with this bill the tragedy in Montreal could have been avoided, or even the tragedy in Iowa where a brilliant Chinese honours student, distraught because he did not get the acclaim of his masters, went out and horribly shot a Chinese colleague who received the doctoral award and then he shot the professor who did not give it to him. There is not a member who has said that any of this would be corrected.
There are two solitudes here. We had that graphically illustrated earlier by the hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for Athabasca. My problem is that the people I talked to are law-abiding citizens who wonder why they are going to have to comply with more bureaucracy when the penalties for using guns really have not been that fundamentally affected.
Time is of the essence here. The debate has been pretty good tonight because there have been different points of view. There is really no political capital in terms of partisanship in this. I want to compliment my seat-mate, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who has taken a leading part in committee and in the debate of this bill. Frankly he has informed me of things that I did not understand about this bill. He has had the temerity perhaps but I say the intestinal fortitude to do what the people send us here to do, that is to stand up and say, as he said in his opening remarks on this bill and I was privileged to be here next to him when he said it: "Hey, we are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope".
It is not the law-abiding citizens who have guns and have the .22 over the door, like my friend from Athabasca said, but the criminal out there that we are trying to get. We are not getting them with this bill. This bill, as I
Government Orders
said to the local press when I voted against the bill at second reading and at report stage earlier today-and I imagine I am most likely to vote the same way tomorrow-is a charade. This bill does not address the problem of the killers. There is not a killer that I heard of in the tragedies that we know about that would be affected by this bill.
You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I only have one minute-and 10 minutes does go very fast-but I want to compliment those who have worked sincerely on the bill. I compliment the Minister of Justice for trying to do something. Quite frankly I think more can be done with this advisory council to try to sort out where we go on this and to try to get the criminal. We should not try to pretend with the pressure of tragedy that gun control in this bill is going to solve the problem.
In conclusion, there are so many things that can be said. Obviously guns do not kill people. People kill people. Yes, I think we have a fundamental interest in legislating but I take exception to the pressure. However I am glad that we are at least debating it. This bill is a microcosm of members speaking and representing their constituents. Obviously you have a different point of view depending on where you come from. Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I am just about through and I am through. I do not believe this bill solves the problem that we are trying to solve, the dilemmas of those who have sustained agony and those who are going to continue to sustain agony. That is because this bill does not address the fundamental issue of the criminal.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks let me with the greatest of respect correct my hon. colleague from Annapolis Valley- Hants. Indeed this bill, though flawed, though imperfect, would make a difference in at least one of the tragedies in which he noted. It has been reported by two separate independent studies that had this bill been in place, particularly relating to the size of the clip, that Marc Lepine would probably have killed fewer people at Ecole Polytechnique. Just the time it would have taken him to reload would have allowed more people to escape.
I trust that my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley- Hants will accept this most respectful correction of his statement.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
It is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill that were I in a different position that I would have brought forward. It is at least a step in the right direction.
I think that some of the amendments are good steps. They will show the people of Canada particularly the women of Canada, particularly the parents of Canada who worry about their children and who are sickened at the tragedy that we saw in Montreal nearly two years ago, that here in Parliament we are trying to do something. I wish we could do more. I want us to do more. I hope that we will do more very soon. I support this bill as a start.
One of the reasons I support this bill is because of the situation in my own city of Halifax. Yesterday on my way to the airport to return to Ottawa I heard that a recent study had declared Halifax to be the city with the third most murders in the country, after Vancouver and Thunder Bay. I can tell you that that is news that comes in spite of the changes in our lives in the city of Halifax. It is news that is still shocking to Haligonians.
In the first 20 years of my life in that city I believe that there had been only one murder. In the last 20 the murder rate has risen steadily every year. Not all of those murders are done by guns but most of them are.
The other thing that brings me to support this bill and to support gun control generally also relates to the increase in crime in the province of Nova Scotia and the spate of spousal murders that we have seen in our province over the last few years, of young women shot to death by the men that they, one supposes at the very least, trusted most. Another reason I support it is that it sends a message that we are coming to grips with the question of guns in our society.
I think we sometimes suffer a great deal because of our nearness to the United States and our reliance on many of their communication facilities. Far too many Canadians tend to see themselves in the context of American society rather than in the context of our own. One of those things is the whole question of the right to bear arms which in the United States is a constitutional right. I will make no comment on the sensibility of that being a constitutional right. I will merely say that I am very happy that it is not something that appears to be in question or in any danger of going into our Constitution.
I remember some years ago, when I was living in Vancouver, British Columbia, and I was involved in a program for Canadian customs officers. They were telling us that one of their biggest problems was dealing with American tourists taking the Alaska Highway, going through the province of British Columbia to the state of Alaska. Every second car the customs officer told me had firearms which would be taken by Canadian customs officers, dismantled, sealed into special packages and given to the people when they left the province of British Columbia at the Alaska border.
The customs officer told me that his greatest difficulty was the complaints from Americans who kept saying: "We have the right to bear arms". As he said: "Yes, you do. In your country, you do not have the right to bear arms in my country".
I think that this is one of the differences between us and our neighbours to the south that gives me a certain sense of reassurance. We have not yet seen, although we have seen too much in the way of death by gun, some of the horrible tragedies that the Americans have seen.
I am thinking of a situation in Florida several months ago where a little boy was playing with a gun. He shot and killed his sister because a gun was something that was around the house and something that he played with.
I am thinking of a paperboy in a small town in Michigan about five years ago who was walking up the walk on his regular Thursday night rounds to collect money. A homeowner who had forgotten that it was the night of the paperboy thought he was an intruder and shot him dead on the front walk.
In both of those cases, the shooters were negligent but not murderers. The victims were no less dead. In those cases, guns did kill people even though the people wielding the guns probably did not want to.
I understand the needs of bona fide hunters, the farmers and of the true gun collectors to exercise their rights and their needs with regard to guns, but I think that a number of the people who complain that this bill is too severe have to walk a little bit in the shoes of those of us who live in the urban centres where people are afraid with reason to go out after dark. Women are afraid to park their cars in underground parking lots. Danger
November 6, 1991

lurks in cities that used to be safe and an entire Canadian way of life is disappearing as a culture of violence takes over.
If we do not, at the very least, support the minimum strengthenings to the gun law that this bill offers, then I think we will have to be ashamed to hold our heads up in front of our constituents. I do not think that this bill, as it stands, will interfere significantly with the rights of legitimate gun owners holding those guns for legitimate purposes.
I also do not think that this bill goes far enough in other ways to protect those of us who desire the protection against those who hold guns in an illegal manner.
As I said in the beginning, it is a step, it is a start. I hope it is a start of something that will make the Canadian society a safer place for all of us. I hope that this legislation is just the beginning toward what will be a permanent memorial and a just law so that the young women who died at Ecole Polytechnique and the other people who have died in Canada through the senseless violence and the senseless use of firearms will not have died in vain.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House in support of Bill C-17, a support based mainly on personal experience. First of all, I am an American by birth. Second, I spent three years in the U.S. Army, from the age of 17 to 20, and I know how extremely dangerous firearms are. I have seen first hand the damage they can cause as well as how they can literally transform normally peaceful people into violent, super machos all of a sudden.
I agree the bill is not perfect. I agree it does not do enough to defer criminals, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley said just now. However, gun control is necessary, not because there are so many criminals who can purchase firearms but because the people who are killed, who are threatened and attacked with firearms, are not necessarily part of the Mafia or the underworld. They are people like you and me, Mr. Speaker. I am having a lot of trouble-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members so that the hon. member can continue his speech. The hon. member for Chambly.
Government Orders


Philip Edmonston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As an American by birth who was in the army for three years, I know what can happen with firearms, and how, in an environment where there are no firearms, innocent people can be affected and hurt by the absence of gun control.
There are some major flaws in this bill. The only reason I will vote for the bill is that it is a step in the right direction. It is the kind of step even the United States were unable to make. The same day someone in Killeen massacred twenty people and wounded ten others in a Texas restaurant, the U.S. Congress was considering a bill aimed at controlling firearms, but because of a powerful lobby group, the National Rifle Association, representatives in the U.S. Congress did not have the nerve to pass a bill that would prevent something like that from happening again. Here in Canada we have a bill that is a step in the right direction and that will at least save a few lives until the legislation is reinforced.
I have some reservations about this bill because I think there are some flaws, and I will mention them quickly.
First, there is no munitions control. Even when I was in the U.S. Army, they always made sure ammunition was not stored in the same location as the firearms.
Second, we should have a registration system that registers firearms when they are purchased. This bill does not provide such a system and in my view that is quite an important shortcoming.
Third, assault firearms should be forbidden, but that will only be decided in the regulations. That worries me in a way because we do not know exactly what assault weapons will be banned. I would really like to have that list as soon as possible so that we could end the trade in those weapons once and for all.
Fourth, another flaw of this legislation is that it contains a fairly important exemption for semi-automatic weapons that have been converted into automatic weapons. About 50,000 of these firearms will be exempt. I find that unacceptable, because these semi-automatic weapons cannot be used for hunting, except to hunt human beings. So I find that is a fairly important deficiency.
But, despite all these flaws, as I said, I find it is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. And I agree with those people like the lady whom I met, Mrs. Edwards, the mother of one of the women killed in the famous massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, who said: "Phil, pass the bill now. We will try to

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
strengthen it later. If we do not pass it now, we may never get another chance".
I trust that young woman's mother. I find that Quebecers are quite peaceful people with lots of common sense and they know that we really need to control firearms.
Having a law today to start the process is more important than not having a law at all. In general, that is why I will vote for this bill, based on my experience as an American citizen by birth and my three years of military service.
I know that firearms have had a frightful effect, right in the city where I was born, in Washington, in the United States, so much so that Washingtonians want to hold the manufacturers of firearms responsible for the murders committed with those weapons. It is an act of desperation because so far, the city of Washington has never been able to control the trade in these firearms. They are banned in Washington but it is a very profitable business in Virginia and Maryland. Now in Washington they are trying all they can to stop the killing.
I also want to talk to you about something else. In Fort Lauderdale, where my mother lives, people are allowed to transport firearms in their car provided these weapons are exposed for people to see. I even saw a man get out of his car when the car behind him honked at a red light. He took his gun and asked the other driver whether he wanted to get a bullet in the head. At least he was polite: He asked.
Frankly I do not want to see Canadian society become like that. It is true that in the United States everybody is armed to the teeth, which is extremely dangerous, but it is worse than that, because in your heart and soul, there is that pervasive fear that violence is waiting around the corner, and if you do not watch out, you will be the next victim. We do not have that here in Canada, and I am very glad about that.
Just one last word. It is true the legislation does not affect criminals who have firearms. I agree. I do not think any legislation would be able to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but there is also the problem of
young people, teenagers, who all of a sudden want to commit suicide. With this bill at least, we will have regulations on storage, and these young people will not have such easy access to firearms in order to commit suicide. Suicide is quite a serious problem among young people today.
There is also the problem of marital squabbles, when the husband loses his temper, grabs a gun and kills his wife. It is too easy. At least with this legislation, we will have a way to enforce proper storage of firearms.
In concluding I will vote in favour of Bill C-17 because it is a step in the right direction, but I expect Mrs. Edwards and all other Quebecers to take immediate action to reinforce the bill.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation this evening.
Bill C-17 presents tough choices for many members in this House. The issues surrounding this legislation are difficult and profound. Bill C-17 requires that we choose between the conflicting goals of public safety and individual freedom, between the interests and perspectives of rural and urban Canadians, and between our obligations to represent as members of Parliament the views of our constituents while attempting to forward the national interest.
The mail I have received on this legislation has been for the most part opposed to this bill. Many of the letters were passionately and honestly written and argued. They raised some very good points. Those points were sincerely believed by those who took the time to write to me with them.
They suggested that the focus of Bill C-17 is wrong. It seeks to control guns when it is the criminal use of guns that needs to be controlled. It seeks to compensate, without compensation, the personal property of gun owners who have purchased weapons which as a result of this legislation will become illegal. It makes criminals out of law abiding responsible hunters and sportsmen. It fails to address adequately the need for training in the handling and the storage of firearms.
November 6, 1991

My understanding of this legislation and of gun control in Canada has been greatly helped by my discussions with one of those people from my riding who has taken the time to write and to intervene in this legislation, Kevin McMaster of Port Hastings. Kevin McMaster is a recreational marksman and a gun collector. He has devoted a great deal of time and energy toward understanding gun control in Canada and in other countries and its relationship to criminal activity. He is responsible, intelligent and well informed on these issues. Kevin McMaster has expressed to me serious reservations with Bill C-17. He has written:
I am deeply involved in the shooting sports and have invested a lot of time and money into it. If this legislation goes through as is, two of the guns I paid a lot of money for and bought legally will become outlawed. The government has said they will pay no compensation and this outrages me. I fully agree with stiffer penalties for criminal misuse of firearms and feel this to be a strong deterrent to crime. I would hope the government follows through on this.
I don't want to sound like someone who thinks everyone should have a gun. I just want a system that will work so that I will not have to worry about losing a sport that means so much to me. Every time I hear about a shooting I cringe, knowing that it makes gun owners look worse and worse. You can't even mention that you feel you should be allowed to carry a gun for self-protection without somebody thinking you are some kind of freak who wants to shoot somebody.
I can understand Kevin's concerns. Yet, while Kevin would not agree with my support for this piece of legislation, I believe we share the over-all objective of more effective gun control legislation. I support this legislation, flawed as it is, because I believe it is a step toward that objective. More important, it does not preclude some of the important measures that Kevin and others like him would advocate.
Bill C-17 is really one step in a process. It is a process which will address some of the important issues of firearms control and, as such, represents a step forward in making Canada a safer society.
For example, there are the enhanced requirements for obtaining an FAC: the 20-day waiting period, the photograph requirement, the minimum age raised to 18, requiring two references and allowing firearm officers to question spouses, family members, friends and other associates about an applicant's suitability for gun ownership. These will help control who gets guns, just as the law controls the guns that people get.
Government Orders
Even though these changes will cause some inconvenience for gun owners, I believe that the changes are reasonable and responsible under the circumstances. As well, the requirement that the FAC applicants complete a training course is a fundamental one in my view. Training has long been recognized as a tool for reducing accidents with firearms.
People must know that guns are not toys. They must be trained in their use and in the responsibilities that accompany their ownership. Even though serious questions remain about the structure and administration of firearms training, the fact that this bill reaffirms its importance is reassuring.
I should say in response to one of the issues which Kevin and others have made advocating further training,
I think it is important to note that this bill moves as far as the federal government can go constitutionally in presenting a framework to facilitate the provision of training for the use of guns which under our system must be administered and implemented by the provinces.
I would hope that the provincial governments will take up their responsibilities to encourage responsible licensing and training of firearms owners so that this objective toward gun control can be furthered.
I support as well the principle of safe storage, even though as I said before there will be certain people who will be inconvenienced by it. Many gun owners rightly believe that the criminal element of guns is what we must address. Yet these same people believe that lawful gun owners are totally unrelated to the criminal element.
From whom do criminals steal guns? From lawful gun owners in many instances. In 1990 there were almost
56,000	lost, stolen or missing firearms in Canada. Theft of firearms is not the only storage problem we have to address. We must address as well the accidental misuse of firearms, the kind which most often occurs with lawful gun owners.
Time and time again we hear on the news about tragic deaths resulting from children who have access to guns. I am not impressed with the government's inability or unwillingness to provide at this time a definition of safe storage for Parliament and Canadians to consider. I believe that definition would have brought a great deal

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
of reassurances to those who have reservations about this legislation.
Now we can only hope that the Firearms Advisory Council will think beyond the urban limits when it sets out storage requirements and makes them affordable, realistic and enforceable for all Canadians.
Increasing penalties for criminal misuse of firearms are welcome as well, as are the enforcement of prohibition orders. Despite the legislated sentences, though, it is important to educate judges and crowns alike as to the importance of applying these penalties in a serious and consistent manner. As with all laws, unless the penalties are properly enforced and administered, they are essentially pointless.
Although I support this legislation, I recognize as I said earlier that it is flawed in many instances and really represents only a first step. I have introduced some amendments which I believe would have strengthened the bill and which I would hope this government, in monitoring the legislation and developing the regulations that will accompany it, would take into account. In particular I would hope that the government would explore the issue of compensation for those people who must turn in their personal property, those guns that will be prohibited, so that these guns can be safely taken out of circulation.
Finally I also hope that the government will encourage the provinces in any way possible within the ambit of this law to establish standardized and rigorous training and licensing requirements for those who would purchase and use firearms in Canada.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is about a lot of things. It is about gun control, supposedly. It is about better gun control, hopefully. I wish I felt that it would accomplish these kinds of objectives. I wish that I did not feel that it was really just a political bill, a bill to satisfy a series of events, a bill reacting to the fear of growing violence in Canada, and that somehow we would find a solution to the growth of this violence by restricting, controlling and enforcing.
After 17 years in the House of Commons, somehow I feel that again I am going to be cajoled by the pressure of party peers and this party kind of thing that happens in
voting to steal just another little chunk of my freedom and a little chunk of the freedom of my son.
I have hunted as a young person. I no longer hunt. I no longer own a gun. I have no interest in shooting at a target or at animals. I think the reason I feel that way is because I am a Canadian and I feel something about space. I had a chance to learn and to experience this kind of freedom. As a young man, I was able to take my father's shotgun and go from pond to pond and from field to field across the prairies and experiment and shoot and feel and satisfy that hunter instinct in me.
As young guys we would get a bunch of cans and put them up on those long, endless stretches across for miles and miles as far as you could see, and each try and make a few shots at it. You learn something from that about being Canadian, about being fee, about having space.
It is that sense of freedom and space that we have in the second largest country of the world that makes us non-violent. It is that education, that understanding. But that is not going to be there for my son. I cannot take my son out into the same field with pistol and set those glass balls, or an old glass insulator we would happen to find by the bottom of a pole and shoot at those. We learned something about ourselves and about our freedom, but my son cannot do that because he cannot get a permit to take his pistol to the field. In fact, he cannot take it anywhere except to a gun club of some kind that is properly registered, and that is only after he gets a registered permit.
By the time you have the learning experience, it is gone. At least the experience that I had that taught me about hunting, about life and guns and made me nonviolent so that I would never hunt again. I probably never would want to shoot a gun. That is how it was satisfied and that is why Canadians are less violent. That is why there are less murders in Canada by guns than in the United States or in the densities of city cores.
I believe our approach is a little bit wrong. This is really about space and Canadians feeling space. Here I go again applying a wrong solution and that concerns me. It concerns me that my son who is now 24 or 25, and his friend Ted, like to take the registered pistol and go out in the field and shoot a little bit at some targets. They cannot do that in the second largest country in the world.
November 6, 1991

There is no place in Canada that they can experience this kind of freedom.
They are willing to lose this freedom if they think that by losing it they are going to save the lives of all kinds of people. Quite frankly, I do not think it is going to work. For 17 years we have piled restriction upon restriction upon restriction, we voted again and again, to get tighter and tighter regulations, and here we go again. Has it worked? No. I do not think it has worked. I think our society is becoming more violent day by day, not less violent. I do not think this bill is going to add anything to it, other than the debate itself, where we express our anti-violence feelings and our sense of freedom. I just do not see that restricting my son's and his friends' freedom is going to give anyone security.
There is not that much in this bill. It is a rather useless kind of a bill now. Surely if you are going to do it do it then. I do not really think this is going to take any or many guns out of the system and I do not think it is going to make those who are shooting the guns less violent.
It seems we always have to choose a law for the lowest common denominator because there is an exception here and here, because there is mental illness here, because there is that person who does not have that sense of freedom or has been raised in a density and they become tight. That tight explodes and it explodes into violence, violence and guns and death. That is the lowest common denominator and so we place our freedoms on the same basis as the lowest common denominator. It concerns me that I will do this again.
My children and your children have had the good fortune to understand and perhaps have these freedoms. They have been able to afford to go to the gun club if that is where they have to go to shoot. To all these young people at university, school, college or newly into the work force, who want to have these experiences, we have suddenly said: "No. There is something very sinful and evil about this and if you do this you'll be violent". Guns are not about violence. It is the nature inside of us that causes us to act in a violent manner.
It seems that this bill is about politics. It seems to me it is about the career of the Minister of Justice who is a good Minister of Justice, a great politician and an intelligent woman whose motives are all right, but it
Government Orders
should not be about that. It should not be because there is a demand in our society to control violence that we throw in another restriction. That is not going to work. More and more laws piled upon us, reducing our freedom, are part of the pressure that causes the violence.
We have made this a useless bill. All it does is maybe take away a little bit of freedom. I have not decided how I will vote tomorrow on it. I guess I will go along. I do not know. As I go along I know that of the thousands of things I voted on, this is just one more small thing that I think I will regret if I think of it in terms of what I am as a Canadian, what Canada is to me, what freedom is to me and will I really whittle it down one more time. I do not really want to do it.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my brief 10-minute remarks by lamenting the fact that I only have 10 minutes to discuss this bill. It is of great importance not only to many people in my riding but to our country, regardless of which way the vote goes. We have a general idea of which way it is going to go.
One of the unfortunate things about the so-called reforms of the House of Commons is that we are restricted to making comments of 10 minutes after five hours of debate, particularly on a subject like this where we did not have any debate, or very little debate on second reading. Of course I am going to have to restrict my remarks severely.
I do want to let the people of Scarborough West know what was involved in the decision making process of their member of Parliament. I want them to be able to feel that they can come to me and ask me to explain at greater length what my thinking was. I want them to know that they had the opportunity to impact and input on the decision that I have come to.
When I first approached this topic when the legislation was in its previous form under Bill C-80, I was determined to take a completely neutral role and listen to both sides of the argument with as little passion and as much reason as possible. I answered that search by examining the legislation and then inviting the people of Scarborough West to come to a public forum which I hosted in my riding.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
To that public forum I invited two people, one person who I knew was in favour of that bill and one person who I knew was opposed to that bill. I gave each of those people an opportunity to express their point of view as to the reasons why they held the particular view that they did.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that that forum to this very day had the greatest attendance of any forum that I have had. That really surprised me because I am an urban member of Parliament. I represent an urban riding. It is 100 per cent urban. Scarborough West is in metropolitan Toronto. I resent it greatly when I hear people attempting to turn this issue into an urban versus rural issue because it is not that.
There are people in my riding who passionately hold views on one side or another, and yet they all reside in the riding of Scarborough West, in the middle of Scarborough in the most populous area of Canada. It is not an urban versus rural problem.
It is a problem that we Canadians have to deal with. When I say "we Canadians", I mean Canadians of both sexes because violence affects everyone. Violence is a danger to everyone, and we all as human beings and as Canadians must be concerned about violence and its effects on everyone.
One of the interesting things that came out of that forum that I had was the strength of opinion on both sides. There were policemen there. There were lawyers, teachers, clergy, grandmothers-yes, grandmothers- husbands, wives, constituents. Very few people had no opinion, except perhaps me, and the atmosphere was a charged atmosphere. I took that into account.
It is interesting because there were more people there than there were at my public forum on the GST, my public forum on free trade, on abortion and on whatever topic you want to name. There were more people in Scarborough West in an urban riding at my forum on gun control than past or since to the present time.
That surprised me, so I sat back and analysed what I thought was the general consensus of that meeting. I had asked everyone to identify themselves as to whether they were in or out of the riding. To be sure, there were people there who were from outside the riding who expressed views opposed to the legislation.
I recognize that, but what else did I do. Of course, I received people in my office and had them explain to me at their leisure, one on one, their concerns with the legislation or their reasons why they felt I should support the legislation.
I sent a questionnaire to over 37,000 households in my riding. I represent approximately 100,000 people. I attempted to find out what those people were thinking. I asked them what their concerns were. Over 100,000 people at least had the opportunity to input on what their member of Parliament was going to do.
There were approximately 14 letters that I received regarding gun control, 14. Out of that, they were approximately half divided. Some were for, and some against. Of course, subsequently, we have received cards and representations from both sides.
I had the advantage of having one extra ability, and that was my ability as a member of Parliament and indeed, my privilege as a member of Parliament for the Liberal Party of Canada to be able to listen to the views of my caucus colleagues, to be able to explain to them the problems that I had with this legislation and to listen to what they had to say.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in my view there are very serious problems with this legislation. I want to just identify them quickly for the record because to me they are of great concern.
One of these amendments would impose what is known in law as a reverse onus. It would impose on a person who has been denied the opportunity to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate to prove that he is entitled to it. The citizen has to prove that he is entitled to something as opposed to the state having to prove that he is not entitled to it. That is called a reverse onus that is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has been so stated by the Supreme Court of Canada on more than one occasion. That is in this bill and it is overkill. It is an attack on the individual rights of the citizen. I have a problem with this and I flag it for the hon. Minister of Justice and subsequent Ministers of Justice because I hope that they deal with it before the Supreme Court of Canada deals with it as it has done with previous reverse onuses. It is about time this House started taking responsibility for its own decisions instead of leaving the decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
November 6, 1991

Another concept that I have a problem with is confiscation without compensation. The bill provides that certain weapons will be illegal, cannot be possessed after a certain period of time. They will have to be turned in or whatever will happen to them, but there will be no compensation. This is dangerous. We have stood as a society against such things, against expropriation without compensation. Those people purchased weapons that were legal at the time of purchase and they will be denied compensation when those weapons are taken away from them.
There is a limitation on testamentary powers. What does that mean? That means that we are denying people the ability to give away their property by will. Is that what we want to do? A father cannot give this type of weapon in a gun collection to his or her children. Is that what we as a society want to tuck inside a criminal law bill? Have we thought about it? I do not think so.
Under the definition of genuine gun collector we have an open door to an attack on the sanctity of the home because a person who wants to be a genuine gun collector and he only has to own one restricted weapon has to agree in advance that his premises can be entered and searched to ensure that he complies with the regulations. What regulations? We have absolutely no way of knowing because there are no regulations and that is another problem.
As a former chairman of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I know the difficulty of scrutinizing regulations and of determining whether they are legal or not.
There are many other faults with this bill which I do not have time to express, however, having listened to my colleagues, I realized that these errors as I view them can be cured by this Parliament. We can change the law. We have that power. But there is one power that this Parliament does not have. This Parliament, no matter how hard it tries, whether there is the agreement of the Whips, whether it is the unanimous opinion of the House, we cannot give life to the lifeless. This bill may prevent the death of an innocent individual. I am prepared to give the bill the benefit of the doubt to save even one life because we can correct the errors.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying that I agree with my colleague from Scarborough West. I too have had a very difficult time in analysing this legislation and I must say
Government Orders
to my colleague, our critic for justice, that he has been very supportive in helping us through this legislation because it is complex and he has understood well that there are in fact two solitudes on this legislation. It is certainly not a rural-urban debate that is going on here. Like my colleague from Scarborough West, I have had representation here from caring, intelligent constituents who have presented briefs to me. The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada has been given the opportunity to make representation at the justice committee on Bill C-17. I must tell you, after reading their briefs it made it even more difficult because they pointed out in very vivid detail the flaws in this legislation. The central issue for all of us in public life today is the issue of trust. People are trusting us to make a decision on a piece of legislation like this, not just based on the headline of the bill. It is called the gun control bill, so how could you, as an urban member especially, possibly be voting against that says you are opposed to gun control? I mean, people in an urban centre, you just could not imagine doing that. Yet, when you get behind this legislation, you see that there are many, many faults in this bill. There is a lot of illusion in this bill. This is the one thing that frightens me deeply.
I am concerned that many of our constituents-and I go back to my colleague from Scarborough West- might think that this bill is really going to solve a lot of the problems that we have in terms of crime related to guns in this city, or wherever in our nation. The problem is that it is not.
I have talked to many of the people in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood, many of the policemen who walk the beat and who are exposed to firearms, day in and day out. I asked them to tell me honestly what they think of this legislation. They tell me, to a man, that they are not confident in this legislation. I spoke to Chief McCormick the other day and I said: "Chief, I have a very difficult time. I see you are on the list here of all the police chiefs in Canada supporting this legislation". He said: "Listen, Dennis, this bill is not perfect legislation, but it has things like the firearms acquisition certificate with a 28-day processing, the fact that we now put a picture on the firearms acquisition certificate. That is a plus. The training program is going to be much more extensive and in place. That is a plus to the legislation and the safeguards on storage". He did mention that he would like a national amnesty over a 90-day period. He

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
thought that that would go a long way. He said that for those reasons alone I should get behind this bill.
What distresses me about this whole process is the fact that this is such an important issue in our country, and yet we have only had, on the floor of the House of Commons, about six hours debate. I, quite frankly, find that not good for the people of this country. I particularly resent what happened to my fellow colleague from Willowdale last night. As he was standing on the floor of the House, and he was trying to put, not unlike my colleague from Scarborough West and not unlike myself, forward both views that exist in this important debate, the fact that there are law-abiding citizens who happen to have gun collections, who happen to be members of shooting clubs. He talked about their point of view in the debate. Debate is not just putting forward one point of view, it is listening to people in your community, or other people not just in your community but from across the country, as I listened today to the member for Timiskam-ing who I thought made a lot of sense. That is the purpose of this. He was doing that. I see a press release here that my colleague was accused of being a champion for the concerns of the gun lobby. There is nothing further from the truth. This is the kind of ruthless, uncaring emotion which can hurt a member for no just cause. The member was putting forward both sides of the debate, not unlike what we have been doing here tonight. I heard earlier the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who was trying to do the same thing. It is only when we can get into listening to both sides of the debate, listening to all points of view, that we can ultimately craft a piece of legislation that is really going to serve the objective we are trying to attain.
I will be supporting this legislation, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not like it. I do not like this legislation. It is an illusory piece of legislation. I am frightened to death that we are misleading the Canadian public, that we are leaving the feeling that once this bill is passed crimes related to guns in this country are somehow magically going to disappear.
I think we are going to have to be vigilant in the implementation aspects of this legislation. As my colleague from Scarborough West said a few minutes ago the regulations have not been defined. We are handing this over to public servants who are basically going to be operating this without political input after we have passed the bill. That is not what I was elected to do when I came here. We were elected to craft legislation and after it was properly crafted, properly debated at length, put it over to the bureaucrats with all the definition attached.
What we are doing here is exercising blind faith in the bureaucracy of Canada, the Department of Justice, and I do it with trepidation. Like my colleague from Scarborough West, if it is to save just one life then we have done the right thing. I also do this because of my immense respect and trust for my colleague who is our justice critic.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding in Ontario. I believe that sometimes there is a real lack of understanding in this House on the ways of life in rural Canada. Sometimes in this House we have poorly thought-out bills that may seem reasonable to urbanites and people in urban Canada but really make no sense at all to rural Canadians, especially northern Canadians.
Hunting predators of livestock is really a way of life in rural Canada, as is hunting for food and livelihood in the native and northern communities. I believe law abiding Canadian hunters and many tourists who visit Canada will also be penalized under this bill.
Many urban Canadians do not understand the way of life in rural Canada. Unless one has lived on a farm or in an isolated part of the north it is really difficult to relate to the needs of these Canadians. That does not mean that they do not have rights or that they do not have any right to be heard on this issue.
A whole sector of society is being ignored by the minister and the government in that they have proposed such a vague and ambiguous bill. I speak of it as being ambiguous in the sense that a lot of what is in this bill will be brought down through regulation. I heard the House leader of the government suggest earlier that Parliament will have the right to look at the regulations in this case. Clearly they will not. Parliament has made changes in the bill which give a lot of people who are
November 6, 1991

concerned with the regulation some sense of hope that their voice will be heard. What he failed to relate to the public is that in fact we will not be able to change these regulations. That is the whole problem. That is why there are a number of people out there who are concerned about what will be in these regulations.
I would like to take a look at what a Gallup poll said about this bill and about gun control in general. I believe strongly that this bill goes in the wrong direction. Canadians want gun control but this bill really does not address the needs of Canadians.
Eighty six per cent of Canadians felt that the courts are presently being too lenient in punishing criminals using guns. Many of my colleagues spoke earlier about the report of the special committee on the subject matter of Bill C-80. In that report they clearly indicated to the minister and to the government that they would like to see stricter sentencing for criminals who misuse firearms. A lot of this is brought out in section 85 of the Criminal Code, where it speaks of minimum sentences in these areas.
A lot of the discussion on Bill C-80 dealt with plea bargaining. The question was asked: "How can we have these minimum sentences when we have so much plea bargaining going on". It really make it irrelevant.
I would suggest that the majority of Canadians are sick and tired of criminals getting off with just a slap on the wrist from our criminal justice system. I think they would have wanted the government to bring in stricter laws in this bill and to deal with the whole issue of minimum sentences.
Eighty-eight per cent felt that the new laws should control criminals not guns, by giving out much tougher penalties to those who use a gun in any crime. Another aspect of that is the importation of illegal firearms. Canadians are concerned about illegal guns coming into their communities.
I know the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke earlier on that. He was really concerned about the fact that border guards of Canada Customs are not trained well enough on Canada's gun laws. They really have a problem with staffing and they feel there is not enough staff to deal with this very serious problem. We are not going to stop the importation of these guns.
Government Orders
There is no compensation for those people who will be giving up their guns under this bill. Some guns and gun collections are worth thousands of dollars. I believe that will start an illegal underground for these guns. I quite frankly think it will make the guns more valuable and as a result there will be a number of these illegal guns coming into our country from across the border.
It is incumbent upon this government if it is really serious about stopping guns in Canada that it deal with the problem it will create by not paying compensation. First I believe it is unfair not to pay compensation. Second I believe it is dangerous not to do so without first going after those people who illegally trade these guns in the underground and illegally bring these guns into the country.
Some 82 per cent felt that law abiding sportsmen, recreational shooters and collectors should not lose their guns because of the actions of relatively few criminals and 69 per cent felt that passing more severe laws would have very little influence on criminals.
All these results indicate that Canadians of all stripes, not just the millions of gun owners, really have some difficulty with the proposed legislation. As a safeguard Canadians for Responsible Gun Laws states with respect to the bill that its emphasis is wrong, that it does not control criminals, and that instead it tries to control guns owned by law abiding citizens which are not a factor in crime.
Police resources which could have been devoted to criminal investigations would be wasted in forcing vague, changeable regulations aimed at an estimated five to six million Canadians who now own guns legitimately.
I was looking for a quote of somebody who has spoken about such a piece of legislation. It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who in close to 1778 said that good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad laws bring about worse. I fear that this is exactly what this piece of legislation will do.
I believe Canadians want to win back their streets from crime and violence, but let us not sacrifice the rights and the privileges of legitimate Canadians for a piece of legislation which I think does not really address the problems it is trying to address.

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
In the one minute I have left again I will argue like my other colleagues that it is a shame we are only given 10 minutes because of the new rules.


An hon. member:: It is a scandal.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I agree. It is a scandal. In the time I have left I did want to point out a few quotes from a few people who wrote to me on this matter. This is from a senior citizen who is a sport target shooter. She says: "I am a senior citizen, 67, and this is the only sport where seniors and handicapped people can compete with young men and women on an equal basis. If I lose my large capacity magazines, I could no longer compete because changing magazines eveiy five rounds is difficult and painful for me because I suffer from arthritis".
A number of other Canadians wrote me about the bill. A lot of them were from my riding. Unfortunately I do not have the time to read through them all. However, here is another one from a person who had actually written to the minister on it. The letter says: "None of the policies that the Hon. Campbell has put forth would deal effectively with crime. What is required is not an oppressive ban on firearms and related materials, but an effective, aggressive policy for dealing with firearms offences. I am tired of having to constantly fight for my right to enjoy my sport".
In the 15 seconds I have left I want to say that I do not support this bill quite frankly because I do not think it does what it sets out to do.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, as many have said Bill C-17 is a very difficult decision for all members of Parliament. Many people feel that the bill goes too far and many people feel that the bill does not go far enough.
For example, we all remember the massacre at l'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. We all hear demands to defend against violence and to control guns such as were issued just this week by Justice David Dickson of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick as he conducted the trial of Allen Leger, who was convicted of multiple murders in the Miramichi area in New Brunswick last year. It is natural that Parliament should wish to express its serious concerns in very tangible and legislative ways. Bill C-17 is such an expression. Yet there is another serious side to this issue, and that is the restraint of rights of law abiding citizens, of men and women who
shoot for sport, who collect guns as artistic treasures, who hunt wildlife and game birds as a means of enjoying the great natural resources of Canada. There are also some very well organized youth training and education programs in Canada which are at risk of compromise and frustration within the umbrella of this bill.
In Fredericton we have a very active shooting fraternity. The head coach of the Shooting Federation of Canada lives in my riding, Bob Kiersttead. He has been very successful in guiding the shooting team of Canada to medal performance in international competition such as in Cuba earlier this year. In fact the president of the Shooting Federation of Canada, Mr. David Hitchcock, also resides in Fredericton-York-Sunbuiy. He has has been very helpful and instrumental in informing me about the points of view of those who are enthusiasts and collectors of firearms.
In communication with the Shooting Federation of Canada as this bill has come to the House, some concerns have been expressed which I would like to put on the record. The Shooting Federation of Canada feels that this bill, with all its good intent and purposes, in its present form prior to regulations actually inhibits the youth training and education programs which it conducts in the sense that it limits firearms acquisition certificates to those who are 18 years of age or older. I am advised that this still does not prevent those who are under 18 from using borrowed guns under the permit regime.
The shooting federation points out that the definition of firearms inhibits many of the air gun types of target pistols and rifles that youth use in competition. I was advised by the minister's office today that subsequent regulations emanating from this bill will address the youth education and training programs of the Shooting Federation of Canada and specify in regulation form the provisions that will make those programs effective once again.
It is going to be a commitment on my part to follow in this House the emergence and the advancement of those regulations so that in fact the works of the Shooting Federation of Canada are not compromised or inhibited in the ways it now fears.
The shooting fraternity in Canada is by and large a very responsible and effective constituency. Those in the Fredericton area, as I say, have conducted very responsi-

ble and comprehensive communication in consultation with me throughout the process of considering this bill. I believe that much has been accomplished as a result of those consultations not only by myself, the representations that I have made to my caucus colleagues and the consultations with those shooting enthusiasts from my riding, but the same process has existed right across Canada.
Some of the really significant evidence of the political process at work has been the fact that Bill C-80, which was badly flawed and unacceptable, was withdrawn. Bill C-17 has received many amendments both in committee and here in the House.
The definition of genuine gun collectors has been cast in the legislation, which is an advancement. There has been an identification of sport shooting with respect to restricted weapons. There has been an improvement generally in the normal firearms acquisition process. But perhaps most profound of all the accomplishments that I believe has been achieved is that the process of regulations has been cast in such a way that every regulation, as opposed to emanating from a bureaucratic source without challenge, under this bill must come to this House, must be available for 30 sitting days, not during vacations, not during election campaigns, to be examined by the appropriate committees of this House and of the Senate so that they might report to members of this House upon the ramifications of those regulations, so that this House might in fact debate and approve or reject those regulations.
It is my understanding that is only the second time in the legislative history of this House that such a process for pre-examination of regulations has been used in terms of a bill such as this one.
There is no doubt in my view that legitimate gun owners are unfairly penalized by this legislation which does attempt to offer a balance of comfort and confidence to those who fear for the safety of a violent society.
I understand, sympathize and support the concerns of all such responsible and careful citizens who do safely practice the use and ownership of firearms. However, the political process, the way of life in a free and
Government Orders
democratic society is balanced and I believe we have achieved a form of balance in this case.
Perhaps more than most other bills, this legislation reflects the true nature of our political process in Canada. There is really no call to vote the party line on this bill. It is largely a matter of individual judgment and conscience.
Through the consultation process with our citizens, both those who use guns and those who abhor them, we have considered all sides of this issue. Through the caucus process we have wrung every amendment possible to achieve a balance and to reach a consensus.
On the basis of that balance-in respect for the concessions and compromises which have been achieved, in respect to the consensus which I have shared with my colleagues, both in caucus and in this House, and in respect for the deep concerns which are held by my constituents on both extremes of this issue-I have come to the conclusion that I will support this bill on third reading tomorrow to achieve two purposes.
Some say two solitudes, but it is two purposes that are closely integrated by this bill. The first is to contribute my own message for a less violent society in Canada and second, to contribute an equally strong message for recognition of the integrity of the legitimate gun collecting and shooting fraternity in Canada who are paying their share of a high price of freedom to achieve the purposes of this bill with respect to a more stable society.
Let us earnestly hope that their sacrifice of further limited rights will not be wasted and that Canada will in fact become a safer and more secure model of contemporary life.
If the balance of those two purposes can be achieved and served by this bill, then it will truly be an optimum demonstration of responsible consensus among the members of this Parliament.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity at long last to speak on this bill.
We were asked not to participate at second reading and there were very few speeches given. Now that it has proceeded through committee, through report stage and on to third reading, those of us who have had an interest in it but have not been able to participate immediately in the process of bringing this legislation through to this

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
stage are being given this brief opportunity, although it is only 10 minutes, to state our view on it.
It is something that I have been anxious to do for the record. I have made no secret since I came here in 1988 of my belief that there should be stronger and more complete regulation of firearms in Canada. I say that without equivocation and I say that in support of this bill. I say it also while acknowledging the fact that many of my constituents have come to see me and have spoken to me of their concerns about this bill.
Many of my constituents, be they urban or not, are owners of firearms. They use them regularly either in hunting or in sports and they feel strongly that this bill does not serve their interests fairly. To them I say: I have heard your concerns. I have much sympathy for some of the technical problems that have been raised with respect to this bill, but I want to address it in more general terms on the basic philosophy behind this legislation.
I think we have heard quite eloquent speeches tonight on both sides of this issue. Where they tend to focus in criticism of the approach to control firearms, and have made notes as I listened to various speakers, they have said this bill does not get to the issue of the killers. They have said it only penalizes those who are law-abiding. They have said in essence that by trying to control firearms you are not controlling criminals because criminals do not seek firearms acquisition certificates or whatever.
I have a fundamental disagreement with that notion. My friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants said that we are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. I suggest that the opposite is true, that he is looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope.
The notion that we should be inhibited from regulating activities which are otherwise lawful and carried on by law-abiding people in a democratic society is simply wrong. It is a fallacious principle. We have in our Constitution a very eloquently drafted Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It speaks of fundamental freedoms, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, democratic rights, legal rights, equality rights and so on.
I believe I came to this House partly because of my great conviction of the importance of fundamental and
more general freedoms. But freedoms do not exist in a vacuum. Freedoms exist because of the rule of law. Our freedom to act is inhibited by the rights of others and without that inhibition, their freedoms indeed are restrained and lost.
To look at the fact, yes, firearms may be lawful. Their possession may be in order. To begin to impose regulation on those things is to take away freedoms. To me that is completely nonsensical in a modem society. What can we do in this society without addressing law or regulation in some form or other? We cannot be employed without having registered to obtain a social insurance number. We cannot drive a car without being licensed, having taken training, having passed tests. Whatever you do in our society you confront rules, regulations of some form of other.
Surely in modem society to impose regulations on the acquisition and possession of firearms is a minimal and reasonable limitation on something that is fundamentally dangerous and also frightening to many Canadians.
Look at the statistics. I think they speak for themselves. The member who spoke earlier said they do not work. I do not understand how anyone can say gun control does not work. Look at the comparisons between Canada and the United States in these numbers. For example, I am told there was a study done comparing Seattle, Washington, with Vancouver. Despite similar over-all crime rates, Seattle had a much higher murder rate than Vancouver. The Seattle rate of murder with hand guns is almost five times higher than in Vancouver. The rate of assault using a firearm is seven times higher.
Is that because people living in Vancouver are somehow nicer than people who live in Seattle? Is it because for some reason Canadians have all of the space that my friend opposite was talking about earlier, they are more peaceful? No. It is because we have built a society in which the acquisition and use of firearms and their control has been accepted as natural and normal. The result of that has reaped for us in much lower rates of crime. Those are the indisputable facts I believe.
When we approach issues like this, let us not get the thing upside down. Let us recognize the fact that a proliferation of firearms that would result with lessened regulation would also result ultimately in more crime, in more murders and more homicides, in more assaults
November 6, 1991

with firearms. That to me is indisputable. As for those who pursue shooting as a sport, I have no problem. I earnestly hope that if there are technical problems in this bill that do interfere in some way that is unfair, those problems will be addressed in future legislation at an early time.
I speak, I admit, as one who does not possess, has never possessed, a firearm, but I think I speak on behalf of many Canadians who look in our daily newspapers and see classified ads for the sale of firearms, who pick up the Canadian Tire catalogue and see with some fright photographs of firearms readily available, who can walk into stores and see them on shelves.
To me, it is a very simple thing. This is something that requires regulation and control by government to protect freedom. I am not one who sees this as a further limitation on freedom but rather as a method of ensuring the most basic of freedoms, the freedoms to walk our streets and to live in peace, and to believe that we will not be assaulted. That is the fundamental freedom. That is the most important thing.
If there are concerns that those freedoms are not fully enjoyed then surely they must be addressed. That limitation is one to which we should willingly subscribe as we do to so many others.
Without having the time to go through technical details and argue for points of change or other things that I would like to see added to the legislation, I simply want to add my voice to those who say that this is a reasonable limitation of our freedom in a democratic society, to use the words of the charter of rights, and one which I think is welcome by the vast majority of Canadians.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate this evening. The member for Ottawa South mentioned it in his opening remarks and I guess I am in the same category. I am on the finance committee and have not had a chance to take part in the legislative committee and all of the work it has done on this bill, and it has done a lot of work. I do have to thank the members of that committee for that. A lot of our own caucus members have done a great deal of work on this bill and I thank them for that as well.
Government Orders
Today I was one of those 12 or 13 members of Parliament who voted against the passage of this bill to third reading. I did it for very good reasons because there were certain parts of this bill I was uncomfortable with. To be perfectly honest, I did not understand and I had to have some clarification before I would make up my mind as to what I would do on third and final reading.
We have dealt with some very emotional issues in this House since I was elected. Mr. Speaker, I have been here only three years, the same length of time as yourself. But we have dealt with some tough ones since I have been here. We have dealt with abortion of course, the gulf war, free trade, GST, and a whole lot in between.
The two most emotional topics up until tonight for me were obviously the abortion debate and the gulf war debate.
Bill C-17 is just about in the same category as far as I am concerned. It is a very emotional debate and there is no question that there are two different points of view. There is no question at all and we have to respect that other point of view.
The hon. member for Timiskaming spoke earlier. But as the member mentioned this evening: "We didn't vote against it because we are red necks, or because we have a particular entrenched point of view". He has a particular point of view and we have to appreciate that.
One of the things that I want to mention is that we are imperfect human beings in this place on both sides of the House, trying to construct laws that we can all live with at the end of the day. Therein lies the problem. This bill certainly is not perfect and it does not even come close to being perfect. One can understand the other members in this House who speak against this bill. But at the end of the day we have to do what we feel is right, and right for the people of Canada. We are charged with responsibilities in this House and most of us take those responsibilities seriously.
But some of the comments that have been made on this bill are inaccurate. I want to focus on some of those inaccuracies as I go through this bill. One of them is the storage of firearms. Some members tonight have been heard to say that they will be breaking the law in the rural parts of Canada if the gun is not stored properly and they went through what might happen in certain scenarios. But that is not going to happen. There is some flexibility and there will be considerations built into this

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
bill that will not allow those things to happen in rural Canada.
When they allude to the lack of emphasis on the criminal sector and the criminal use of firearms that is also an inaccuracy. There are at least seven references to criminal activity and the criminal use of weapons in this bill, including the importation of illegal weapons into this country, for whatever use. That is covered in this bill. I do not think there is anything in there that we have to worry about in that regard. If we take the time to step through this we will find that that area has been addressed in this bill.
The other thing that has concerned many of us and it has been mentioned on both sides of this House this evening is the regulations. They will be drawn up, in a sense, by the nameless and faceless bureaucrats, as they sometimes refer to them. Some of what we would like to see happen might be side stepped and parliamentarians will not have any input into those regulations. This will be the first bill, I am told, and others have said it will be the second bill since the founding of this country that will actually go to the committee stage before those regulations are considered by the minister.
I think there is protection there for us as individual members of Parliament. We are not subjecting ourselves or the Canadian people to something over which we have lost control. I think that is very important to consider.
When we were elected to this House in 1988 and entered this House for the first time all of us knew that we would come up against legislation that we would have problems with. As individual members of Parliament, how do you address those difficulties within the inner person? Do you stand up on your hind feet and be heard, as they say, or do you just passively move on to something else and ignore some of the things you were sent here to examine and put some thought into.
I have no intention of doing that. I know what we are charged with here as members of Parliament. I think it is incumbent upon us to state how it is. At the end of the day we have to live with ourselves. We have to live with our constituents we represent and we have to act in a way that we can be proud of upon reflection, whether it be a year, two years or ten years down the road. We have to be able to say that we did the right thing.
I think the right thing to do with this bill is to support it. I definitely have problems with it, but if it can save just one life, and with the kinds of things that have been happening frequently within Canadian society lately, at the end of the day we can say we have done the right thing.
There is nothing Draconian in this bill. It is much, much different than Bill C-80, the one it is often compared with. Most of us in this House had some difficulty with that bill, but this one has had exhaustive study by many members of Parliament. They have spent a lot of time on this bill. The minister has been very, very considerate on this bill.
Although I voted against the passage of this bill to third reading this afternoon, some of the questions I was grappling with today have been answered. We have to live with our decisions and the only decision I will be comfortable with when I go to bed tonight is that tomorrow morning at 10.15,1 will vote with the government on the passage of Bill C-17.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I take the floor tonight to speak on a difficult subject, particularly at a time of seemingly increasing intolerance and violence. Everyday we hear about tragedies like suicides, serial murders or even murders related to petty larceny. It is sad that such tragedies are now a common occurrence.

The most tragic of those incidents we hear of is about a child who has injured a playmate, using a gun that just happened to be in the house.
Bill C-17 is a beginning, a first step. The stricter control of firearms in our country can only help in diminishing the likelihood of a gun being used in anger or frustration or despair. If you do not have one, if you cannot get one, you cannot use it.
The first letter I ever got on gun control came from Africa. It came from a constituent living in Nigeria, I think it was, who wrote me saying: "I just got a magazine from the gun society to which I belong. It is encouraging me to write you to oppose gun control legislation". He said, "I am writing you for exactly the opposite reason.
November 6, 1991

No responsible gun collector, no responsible hunter opposes good gun control legislation".
Since then I have received many more letters on both sides of the issue. I have read carefully all letters to me from both those interested in increased gun control and those against control.
The most persistent thing I have heard from those who do not want to see this bill pass and do not want an increase in gun control is that it does not control criminals. Hopefully, it will keep more guns out of the hands of criminals. The RCMP estimates that there are
53,000	lost or stolen guns unaccounted for in Canada. The safe storage requirements in this bill may go some way toward ensuring that number is not increased dramatically in the future.
These letters say this bill does not punish the criminal. That is true. I do not think we want a lot of criminals to punish. I think what we want to do is prevent crimes of violence. We want to prevent deaths. Our whole policing system in this country is turning toward preventative approaches to policing. The 28-day cooling off period helps ensure that guns are getting into fewer and fewer hands where they will be misused.
They say it does not reduce violent crime. However since gun control legislation was brought in, in 1978, the percentage of homicides due to firearms has dropped from 39 per cent to 29 per cent.
I have heard tonight that more people die in automobile accidents. That is true too. However there are 16 million automobiles in Canada and only 6 million gun owners. The rate of death by guns is 50 per cent higher. That totally ignores the fact that cars are used every day for many hours a day and driven many miles a day.
The 40,000-plus police officers across this country, the ones who face the threat of those guns on the street, are the ones who have asked us to pass this legislation. In fact they have asked us to pass tougher legislation than what is before us. Can we who sit here comfortably say to them who suffer the consequences of our inaction that we will not act? I cannot.
I have heard a lot of talk about freedom. I was particularly concerned when I heard the member from Fraser Valley West, who is a member I admire and
Government Orders
respect for many reasons, say with almost tears in his eyes that his son would never enjoy the pleasures of shooting a gun across the prairies. Does the freedom to enjoy the vast spaces of our prairies mean we have to be able to shoot a bullet across it? Can we only enjoy the Rocky Mountains if we can hear the crack of a rifle in the mountains? I do not think so. To me the important freedoms are the freedom to live, the freedom to walk the streets, the freedom for my daughter to walk into her structural engineering class and know she is a little safer than those girls in Montreal were two years ago.
Some people have asked me: "Is this a different issue for women?" Yes, it is. It is a different issue because we know from the time we are very little that even when we grow up we are going to be smaller, physically weaker and more vulnerable because of it. It is something we live with every day of our lives. Our activities are constrained by it. There is a tinge of fear in our lives far more often than in those who are not women.
Anything that extends that sense of vulnerability and fear we feel is something that further limits the way we live our lives.
I do not think that the limits imposed in this law are unreasonable for the privilege of possessing something that is capable of killing and maiming. Is it unreasonable to say that you should be 18 years of age before you own a gun? I do not think so. Is it unreasonable to say there should be a more secure screening process for gun applicants? I do not think so. Is it an unreasonable limit on freedom to say you have to wait 28 days between the time you apply to acquire a gun and the day you can actually get the permit to buy that gun? I do not think so. Is it unreasonable to require that somebody has to have two people to vouch for them before they can walk out of the store with something in their hands that can kill the very next person they see? I do not think that is unreasonable.
Is it unreasonable that your photograph appear on your firearms acquisition certificate so that it is clear that you are the person who has that certificate and that you have a right to have the gun you have. I do not think there is anything at all unreasonable about that. I do not think that is an extreme infringement on anybody's freedom. My photograph is on my driver's licence. Why

November 6, 1991
Government Orders
should it not be on a gun certificate if I happen to have one?
Is it unreasonable that semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons be banned? I do not think so. I do not think it is unreasonable that military and paramilitary guns be banned.
We live beside the most violent society in the world, largely because of the constitutionally entrenched right to bear arms. We do not want to be like that society in the level of violence. I will never forget a friend of mine who came here from Boston, saying that the greatest joy for him of being in Canada and in Toronto, our largest city, was being able to walk around safely at night. He had never been able to do that since he was a child in Boston. He and his wife, on their first few nights, slept during the day and walked the streets of Toronto at night because it was an unexpected, unknown privilege for them to be able to do that. That is the kind of country I want to try and preserve to the greatest extent possible.
I just have to look at the figures provided to us by the police officers and the excessively higher rate of homicides in comparable sized cities in the United States compared to Canada. A week ago all of us met with national organizations that asked us to put children first in our decision making. We all said, I am sure, that we thought that was a fine idea and that we would have a better country and a better world if we put our children first.
I think one way of putting our children first is to say that we want a society where violence is not the way we solve problems. I think putting reasonable limits as this bill does on the use of guns is one small step toward that better world for children.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak tonight, but having sat here and listened to the debate, one cannot just sit back and hold on to things as too many things come out.
I am not going to require a whole lot of time, but I do have a few words that I would like to share with you and the House.
We have heard very much tonight and several people in the debate said things to the effect that we did not have enough time to debate. I would suggest to them that they have not taken advantage of the tremendous opportunity we have had in the past to discuss and debate this issue. It seems like a long time ago when I
had my first opportunity to speak and that was on second reading on Bill C-80. Following that I was given the opportunity to sit on a special committee that came out of Bill C-80. I felt that committee had several recommendations that would have probably improved Bill C-17 more than it is had the minister and her officials chosen to take all of those recommendations.
The committee put a tremendous amount of study and work into it. A number of groups came in front of us. We received many briefs, presentations and letters, and I think we researched the issue very, very thoroughly.
Based on our report, the minister did make some changes and modifications and brought in Bill C-17. Although I did not volunteer, I was asked again to sit on the legislative committee on Bill C-17 and I did so very willingly.
For those who felt the debate was limited, I would offer to share my files, the briefs, the letters I received that cover an entire shelf in my office. We had them piled on my desk and they covered my entire desk to a depth of about 18 inches. My staff has offered the observation that reading through all of them is the equivalent of reading an encyclopaedia. We received a tremendous volume of input and suggestions.
I agree with many of the people tonight who have said that this bill is not perfect. My own personal preference was that we should be licensing users rather than looking at their weapons and firearms. We are not there. Perhaps some day we can get there, but we are not there yet.
We do have a bill that will improve firearms control and safety. The training requirements before issued with a firearms acquisition certificate, are something that have been supported by absolutely everyone. People on both sides of the issue, hunters and shooting club members have a vested interest in making sure that those who hunt with them and stand beside them on the range are qualified, competent and handle their weapons safely.
There have been a few misconceptions tonight that I would like to touch on briefly. It is my personal feeling that this bill will not impact on 99.9 per cent of those who hunt or shoot competitively.
The storage restrictions that were talked about earlier refer to collectors and those with restricted weapons. I do not think the farmer who is worried about predator control needs to be worried about storage requirements,
November 6, 1991

at least not legislated ones. I would hope that person knows enough to store his weapons safely anyway.
There was a concern expressed by some about unauthorized search premises. The committee in its deliberations introduced an amendment that made sure that we were not authorizing anyone to come into someone's house and search unless there was a reasonable reason for it.
Indeed, the amendment in the bill now states that there will be reasonable notice given in exactly the same way that we would allow a fire inspector or a wiring inspector or a plumbing inspector to come in and look at our house. Someone who is going to be restoring restricted weapons will have at some point to allow someone to come in to ensure that those weapons are stored safely. I have no objections to that. If someone is going to have restricted weapons in their house I would like some assurance that they are stored safely.
There is a concern about regulations. Many of the concerns expressed about regulations tonight have been red herrings. Regulations were possible under the existing legislation.
There is an extra added safety feature in this bill. As other speakers have said in rebuttal regulations are now going to come before the House. Elected representatives are going to have the opportunity to look at them, vet them, discuss them in committee and comment on them before they are gazetted. No Canadian need worry about regulations being snuck in. It is something that is going to become very public and open to debate.
It is very late in the day. You have been very patient. Members who are still with us tonight have been very patient. I will conclude by saying something that I have said in our committee several times. That is, I honestly believe that people in the Hunting and Shooting Federation and the Canadians who are concerned about gun control both have something in common. They and every
Government Orders
sensible Canadian want effective firearms legislation. The only debate we have had is to determine what defines effective and what is going to work.
I am going to be supporting this bill. I pray it will help provide more effective control of the criminal use and abuse of firearms in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 5, 1991, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to complete third reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 5, 1991, a recorded division is deemed to have been called and differed to Thursday, November 7, 1991 at ten o'clock.
It being 12.08 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later today at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.08 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 7, 1991