1999-04-30

Government Orders
Preclearance ActHon. David M. Collenette (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs): 
moved that Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today on Bill S-22, the preclearance act which was introduced in the House yesterday. This is a good news bill for Canada and Canadian travellers. It is a key element in Canada's efforts to modernize our border with the United States while at the same time maintaining Canada's sovereignty and protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Before explaining how this bill does exactly that, I will briefly tell members what preclearance is and how Canadians have and will benefit from these services.
Preclearance was introduced in Toronto in 1952. It is currently operating at the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal airports. It allows U.S. border control officers working in Canadian airports to determine whether people and goods can enter the United States.
In 1974 Canada and the United States formalized this arrangement under the air transport preclearance agreement, but this did not spell out the powers of U.S. preclearance officers in Canada and was not given force through implementing legislation.
This year is the fourth anniversary of the Open Skies Agreement and the 25th anniversary of the 1974 Air Transport Preclearance Agreement.
These two agreements have worked hand in glove to transform air passenger travel between Canada and the United States.
In the past, travelling from Canada to the United States was long and arduous because the airlines were often prevented from providing efficient routings by the outdated air agreement. Because of open skies, some 60 U.S. destinations can now be reached non-stop from 19 Canadian cities and many more can be reached by convenient connections at U.S. hubs.
Parenthetically, I should point out that in transporter traffic, since the open skies agreement has come in, Canadian carriers dominate that market. Canadian carriers carry more passengers in the transporter market than do U.S. carriers. That is a testament to the efficiency of Canada's various airlines.
Why was preclearance important to this success? Because many of those 60 U.S. destinations do not have an adequate level of customs and immigration inspection.
At airports with inspection services, passengers who are precleared in Canada do not wait in line for customs and immigration services upon arrival at U.S. airports and thus enjoy shorter connection times with onward flights.
The fact that travellers could be precleared by U.S. inspection agencies in Canada helped make Open Skies work.
Since the signing of the open skies, air traffic has increased 39%. That is quite a remarkable achievement. It has risen from 13.5 million passengers to 18.7 million. Compared to 1994, about 2.6 million more business travellers and tourists arrive in Canada from the United States by air.
U.S. preclearance operations in Canada have operated efficiently for over 40 years. In 1997, of the 8.5 million passengers processed at U.S. preclearance sites, less than .002%, a minuscule amount, were denied entry into the United States.
We have four major objectives for border co-operation: access for our friends, families and business partners in the United States and the promotion of tourism; facilitate goods to ensure access to the United States market; protect Canadians from international crime and its effects; and ensure Canadian sovereignty and protection of our rights and freedoms.
This act does contribute to these four objectives and gives Canada a crucial building block for the 21st century.
Major changes have occurred since 1974. The 1982 charter of rights and freedoms granted Canadians new individual rights.
Border processing of persons and goods has evolved as a result of the rapid increase in border crossings and the adoption of new technology. Traffic has risen dramatically, as has the number of routes. The need for efficient and effective processing is essential in an era of just-in-time delivery.
This act, which is modelled on existing preclearance schemes in Europe, will allow Canada and the United States to modernize and apply new innovative approaches to border management. It will be accompanied by amendments to the 1974 Canada/U.S. Preclearance Agreement which will reflect the new legislation and other safeguards agreed to by Canada and the United States.
The Preclearance Act will update and clarify the legal status of U.S. preclearance services at Canadian airports. It will provide legal authorities to protect travellers' rights, while countering illegal activities under Canadian law. Finally, it will provide the legal basis for other border facilitation initiatives by air and other modes of transportation.
The bill will provide a structure for the preclearance regime and it directs enforcement. The bill represents roughly two years of negotiations with the United States government that was really a balancing act which required marrying the legal regimes of our two countries. It allows all of us to be satisfied that our own rights are respected.
I should point out that the officials in the Departments of Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Revenue Canada, Justice and my department have worked very hard at crafting these compromises to ensure these basics rights that we all respect and expect are protected in the bill.
The preclearance scheme we have before us is really a hybrid which maintains the supremacy of Canadian law but allows the United States to administer certain civil and administrative matters in designated areas that pertain to the entry of persons and goods to that country.
One of the primary objectives for us during negotiations was to safeguard Canadian sovereignty. I do not think there is a member in this House who would disagree with that priority. We think it has been accomplished in a number of ways.
The agreement is entirely reciprocal. The charter of rights and freedoms and all Canadian laws will apply in the preclearance area, so let us not pay attention to those naysayers who somehow say that it is an erosion of Canadian sovereignty. The charter of rights applies everywhere in Canada and it will certainly apply in this instance.
All criminal matters will be dealt with by Canadian law enforcement officers. There will be no enforcement of American criminal law. In the case of conflict of laws, Canadian law overrides American law and that is the way it should be.
Strip searches are a rather unpleasant part of customs duty and enforcement will be done only by Canadian officers. Canadian police officers will be available at all preclearance sites to ensure that these goals are attained.
U.S. preclearance officers will not, I emphasize they will not, have immunity from criminal prosecution. The American government will be liable for civil actions, personal losses or property damage claims against American officers in the course of their work.
While the charter applies exclusively to the action of governments, the intent of the legislation is that the charter would apply to U.S. officers' activities because their actions would be authorized by the act and would occur on Canadian soil. Travellers would also have full rights under the Canadian bill of rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The American government agrees with the application of the charter to U.S. preclearance activities.
The main job of a preclearance officer is to determine whether travellers and goods are to be allowed entry into the United States. The act would grant a preclearance officer the authority necessary to make that determination. The administration of U.S. law would be limited to those dealing with customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health.
Only the provisions of those laws that are directly related to the admission of travellers and the importation of goods to the United States will be administered. These border control laws can only be applied in preclearance areas or in transit areas which will be designated by the Government of Canada.
The bill also requires airlines to provide limited personal information about passengers from third countries passing through Canada, if the passengers wish to use in transit facilities.
This information will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Advance information will not be provided for travellers originating their trip in Canada and bound for the United States.
All aspects of this preclearance regime will be fully reciprocal with the United States. Canada will not proceed with enactment of this legislation until an amendment to the 1974 agreement has been signed between the U.S. and Canada which guarantees reciprocity.
Canada has not established preclearance in the U.S. However, we have agreed to consider requests by San Francisco and Anchorage, Alaska, to establish Canadian preclearance services in their airports.
Some amendments were passed in the other house which addressed concerns with respect to the false declaration and the introduction of a review process which ensures that a traveller is knowingly making a false statement and which provides for a review within five years of the legislation coming into force.
Very often we are criticized for introducing bills in the other place. Bills of this nature which deal with such technical matters and fundamental issues of law are well suited to be introduced in the other place. Senators have taken the time to thoroughly debate and discuss this bill and they have made amendments which we feel are very sensible. I would like to thank my colleagues in the other place for their work on the bill.
The bill ensures that a traveller can refuse to answer a question and can leave the preclearance area unless an offence is suspected. Mere suspicion is not sufficient grounds to conduct a search. The legal standard that must be met is that reasonable grounds must be there to suspect.
Travellers will be put on notice through signage and brochures that they have rights and obligations in seeking entry to the United States.
The fundamental principle of the bill is that Canada and the U.S. wish to ensure the integrity of our border operations. We do not want preclearance sites to become the preferred routing for organized crime and we will not permit that. To prevent that illegal activity on Canadian soil, we have to ensure that travellers who are reasonably suspected of committing a crime can be prevented from leaving the area while it is determined an offence has been committed. This principle we believe is consistent with Canadian operations at our airports and land borders and with Canadian jurisprudence.
Upon passage of legislation, in transit preclearance operations will be extended in Vancouver, and will be implemented in Toronto and in Montreal's Dorval Airport.
Calgary Airport will be eligible for in transit preclearance no later than January 1, 2001. Other Canadian airports with current U.S. preclearance programs, such as Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa, subsequently will also become eligible for in transit preclearance.
The successful implementation of an in transit pilot project at Vancouver Airport, introduced after the Prime Minister's visit to Washington in 1997, has demonstrated the benefits of this process.
The act paves the way for in transit preclearance in other airports. This will provide passengers, travelling from Asia and Europe to the United States, better and quicker air service.
In the past, in transit passengers were obliged to pass through both a Canadian and U.S. inspection process, often requiring two visas and a much longer connection time. The new in transit arrangements will eliminate the Canadian inspection process and encourage international passengers to use Canadian air carriers and airports for their travels to and from the United States.
It is not anticipated that there will be an increase in refugee claims as a result of this particular initiative. The pilot project in Vancouver has resulted in only one refugee claimant, one out of about 100,000 passengers using these in transit facilities.
The preclearance act is intended to be the basis for agreements between Canada and the U.S. for other modes of transport as well. As trade and travel between our two countries continues to grow in leaps and bounds, the government intends to enter into discussions and negotiations for air cargo, road, rail, marine and ferry preclearance. All good news.
I am glad my friend from Winnipeg—Birds Hill is in such a good mood. He will be speaking on the bill and I know he will wholeheartedly endorse the government's position.
This legislation will clarify U.S. authorities and protect travellers' rights under Canadian law and safeguard Canadian sovereignty. There will be a uniform regime in place at preclearance sites and border entry points to counter illegal activities across our shared border.
I encourage my colleagues on the other side to give their full and rapid support to a bill that we consider to be a priority so that those airports I mentioned can put the necessary arrangements into place and we can give better service to Canadians and other travellers using Canadian airports.
This will increase economic activity, it will be good for the airlines and it is good for our relations with the United States, all without compromising Canadian values and the integrity of Canadian law.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I will say right off the bat that the Reform Party supports this bill, even if it does come from the Senate. Some worthwhile things come from there and we are debating one of them today.
Bill S-22 is an act to establish the reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States allowing U.S. customs inspectors to operate in precleared designated areas as established by the minister. The goal is primarily to allow a freer flow of goods and travellers into the United States.
Coming from Vancouver where the test case was done, it is certainly a great benefit to any of those who have been travelling into the United States over the last few years. A lot of us remember getting off airplanes in San Francisco, Los Angeles or even Hawaii after five hours in an airplane and standing in long lineups waiting to be cleared. It was a disaster. Canadians in the west are very pleased that the test was there and that it will be going right across Canada.
One of the more exciting things in this bill, as the minister has just said, is that we are going to study in Anchorage and San Francisco preclearing Canadians or others coming into Canada. That is extremely important.
The minister mentioned the people in transit coming through Vancouver and that only one has asked for refugee status, which is a pretty good record. It is a commendable record and certainly has speeded the service up. It has helped Canadian and foreign airlines increase business in the Vancouver airport which is great. It means more money for Canada if those planes land here, fill up here and the crews stay here.
There is an interesting aspect of preclearing when coming into Canada. A large number of people who come into Canada ask for refugee status at airports at our own customs and immigration facilities. Certainly if we get into preclearance, those numbers will be greatly reduced.
I hope the government gets on with its study quickly and does preclearance for all major locations coming into Canada, especially some of those in Asia and the U.K. I think it would certainly benefit all Canadians if we had that type of preclearance coming into Canada. For anybody who arrives at Vancouver International Airport now at certain times of the day when there is between 500 to 800 people in lineups, it can take an hour and a half to get through the clearance after having spent 8 to 13 hours on an airplane.
The sooner we look at this preclearance ourselves the better. It will benefit the travellers who will not have to stand in long lineups when they arrive in our country. It will also benefit our immigration process. People who land in Canada and their passports are missing and they say they are refugees get to stay here and go through a process that takes five to seven years. That is not acceptable to most Canadians.
This bill is such a good one. We are talking about television and we hope that when this bill goes to committee the meeting can be televised. Then all Canadians could see the great benefits in dollars this bill is going to bring to Canadians by allowing them this freer access up and down. It certainly would be a great bill to start the televising of committees which we have been discussing in the House over the last few weeks.
Last year 8.5 million people were precleared from Canada going into the U.S. That is a significant amount of our population. Certainly with this bill it is likely to increase a little bit over the years.
There are a lot of Canadians who will be quite excited when they read today that their travel is going to be made easier. I know those in British Columbia, many of whom will go through San Francisco when coming back in, will be quite happy that they will be able to get off the airplane in Vancouver and go straight home because they will have been precleared at the other end.
I guess we will find out when we get into committee when we are going to start these test cases. I know it will be a very popular move in western Canada.
I said earlier that the minister has laid out pretty well what is in this bill. I could go on for a lot longer on some of these issues, but I will sit down right now and get this bill through and into committee and make sure it becomes law as quickly as possible.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill S-22. Far from being controversial, this piece of legislation will make things easier for a number of travelers. It is in keeping with what has been done so far with regard to customs preclearance.
On May 8, 1974, the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America entered into an agreement on air transport preclearance. The purpose of that agreement was to speed up and facilitate trade between the two countries.
Bill S-22 goes along the same line, but is aimed at broadening this statutory authority, on a reciprocal basis, to facilitate cross-border movement by other means of transportation. To this end Bill S-22 authorizes the United States to administer in Canada provisions of American law related to the admission of travelers and the importation of goods into the United States, except for criminal law. It is important to note that criminal law is excluded from this agreement.
The administration of such provisions of American law in Canada will be subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Finally, the bill provides that the government may, by order in council, restrict the scope of these provisions if, in its opinion, the United States do not accord Canada the same privileges. There is therefore an element of reciprocity in this agreement aimed at facilitating movement, both ways. If ever this was not the case, the bill contains provisions allowing the government to rectify the situation by order in council.
Canada has allowed U.S. federal inspection services to preclear air passengers on its territory since the 1950s. Preclearance refers to the measures by American federal inspection services in relation to travellers and goods leaving Canada for the United States.
As others have already pointed out, these measures were made official in 1974 with the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States on Air Transport Preclearance.
Under that agreement, there are now preclearance services affecting some 8.5 million passengers at the following Canadian airports: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, of course at Dorval. However, since that agreement was signed, there have been certain changes in Canadian law, particularly the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, there have been changes in border procedures because of the rapid increase in cross-border traffic and technological advances.
The official powers set out in Bill S-22 and the changes to the 1974 agreement would make it possible to exercise more appropriate control over the present border situation, while at the same time protecting travellers under Canadian law. American federal inspection services would be in a position to examine and seize goods and apply certain monetary penalties under American border control legislation.
American legislation would be administered only in designated preclearance areas and would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other applicable Canadian legislation.
No provision of American law that would be criminal under Canadian law may be administered in Canada. Criminal matters must be dealt with by Canadian authorities under Canadian law.
At the present time, international passengers travelling to the United States from a Canadian airport with preclearance services must go through Canadian customs and immigration services before going to an American preclearance officer.
The preclearance in transit planned for Canadian airports with approved services would enable passengers from third countries to pass directly through American preclearance services, thus undergoing a single inspection.
In transit preclearance services have been in operation since June 1997 in Vancouver international airport as a pilot project. Furthermore, if in transit preclearance services were operational, airlines would be obliged, before entering Canada, to provide preclearance officers with specific information on those of their passengers going on to the United States.
It has been agreed that the provisions of this bill would be matched with reciprocal provisions on the American side so that Canada may preclear in the United States within the context of American customs and immigration laws.
In general, that is not a problem. There is only one small concern at this point, with respect to the transfer of information the airlines will have to provide. I know the minister referred to this in his speech. Obviously, some care must be taken to ensure the airlines provide information on passengers in accordance with the provisions of privacy legislation.
So long as this is done properly for this part of the bill, the rest will only make the lives of travellers easier and improve cross border travel.
In this context, there is no doubt that we will support this bill, which, be it said in passing, has already been discussed and debated in the other House. Although it is certainly not our first choice and we might question its existence, much of the work has been done on this bill from the Senate.
I encourage my colleagues to support it, but to be careful, because it involves a reciprocal agreement. We must make sure that the Americans act as effectively as us, in putting all the measures necessary in place. If everything goes well, it will not be necessary to rely on the provisions of the bill that provide for the use of an order to restrict the scope of this agreement.
Assuming everything goes well, this legislation would make life simpler for travellers, given the increasing volume of business between Canada and the United States and, in the case that concerns us, between Quebec and the United States. As members know, the United States is now Quebec's main trading partner. A lot of goods are being traded and many individuals must travel to the United States to do business. Many companies with multiple interests have facilities or do business in Quebec, in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and transit through our country and, in this case, often through Dorval airport.
This concludes my remarks on Bill S-22. I will be very interested to hear what other members have to say. I ask everyone to support the bill, while being vigilant concerning the confidentiality of the information that will be transmitted by airline companies, so as to prevent any abuse. The private nature of that information is a concern to many people, in this era of modern technology and massive transfers of personal information.
This process must not lead to abuse. It must be implemented in compliance with our own laws to avoid, for example, situations such as the one in which the Minister of Human Resources Development found himself, with the cards distributed to travellers to obtain information on employment insurance recipients.
Even though public opinion may support such a measure, we must still comply with the law. In this particular case, there was a problem and the courts strongly condemned the practice, from the point of view of its compliance with Canadian law.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport referred to me earlier as the member for Winnipeg—Birds Hill. I understand his reason for doing that. Many years ago when he and I were younger members of parliament I was the member for Winnipeg—Birds Hill and his riding probably had a different name.
I begin by registering our usual objection to bills originating in the Senate. We feel that there is no good reason this bill could not have come first to the House of Commons where it would have been considered by the appropriate committee and the good amendments made by the Senate would have been made by the committee instead. It is always a mystery to us why some of these bills end up coming to us from the Senate instead of going to the Senate from the House of Commons.
On the surface, in many real aspects, the provisions of this bill have a lot of merit. If processes at the border points and at airports in particular could be expedited, it is very hard to argue against that at a practical level. Nevertheless, there were a lot of concerns expressed by immigration lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association, as well as others.
This is not my particular area to critique, but after brushing up on it this morning I understand that a lot of these concerns were addressed by the government by way of amendments being made in the Senate. We commend the government for being open to amending its own legislation and for not being its usual pigheaded self when it comes to legislation. I attribute this to the open-mindedness of the Minister of Transport and we look forward to more open-mindedness on his part in respect of this bill and other legislation for which he might be responsible.
There are some remaining concerns about the bill having to do with privacy protection, which the member of the Bloc put on the record just minutes ago. There are concerns having to do with the power of U.S. authorities to detain people and a number of other concerns that the government still has to address. If the government can dispel those concerns, fair enough, but it was a legitimate concern in the first place which many Canadians had that this would be a further application of U.S. law on Canadian soil.
I say further because we in this corner of the House tend not to see this in isolation but to see it as a part of a growing trend where, bit by bit, Canadians become more subject to laws which are not of their own making; that is to say, not made in their own parliament. I am thinking, of course, of the effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other agreements on our ability to determine our own policies in many respects.
We have certainly seen an awful lot of that lately, thanks to chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, whereby the Canadian government is now being repeatedly sued on various grounds by American companies which have more rights in Canada than Canadian companies. They can sue the Canadian government, while Canadian companies only have access to domestic courts. Thanks to chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, American companies have access to domestic courts in Canada, but when that route fails them, if they do not have a leg to stand on, as is often the case, they can then continue to harass Canadian policy makers and Canadian polity, if you like, via the investor state dispute settlement mechanism that exists courtesy of the NAFTA.
Having said that, in respect of our larger concern, it is timely that this bill should be debated this morning because we note that the Canadian ambassador to the United States made a speech this week wherein he talked about the possibility of a customs union between Canada and the United States and further codification in areas as yet unspecified in our relationship with the United States. I hope that shortly I will be able to get a copy of that speech and perhaps learn more of the detail of what our ambassador had to say.
It ought to raise in our minds whether what we see before us in Bill S-22 is part of a larger agenda or trend toward the customs union and other ways of further integrating Canada with the United States, which I think would be of concern to a great many Canadians. It certainly would have been of concern to the Liberal Party of Canada when the Minister of Transport first joined it. It does not appear to be of concern to the Liberal Party now because it has been responsible for one of the biggest acts of integration, which is a polite way of putting it, vis-à-vis the privatization of the CNR, and its coming into American ownership at the level of about 60% of that vast Canadian infrastructure, as well as various other things such as going back on its position on the NAFTA.
However, this would still be of concern to many Canadians, even if it is no longer of concern to the Liberal Party. Of course the Liberal Party is in government and what it is or is not concerned about is very significant. It does not appear to be concerned about the continuing and deepening integration of Canada with the United States.
I wonder what we are to make of this speech by Raymond Chrétien, the nephew of the Prime Minister. Is he flying a kite for the government, a trial balloon or whatever metaphor one chooses? Is this something the government has in mind and has asked its ambassador to the United States to put into the public domain to see what kind of attention or criticism it attracts?
If he is not doing that for the government, what is he doing? I thought it was the role of ambassadors to put forward the position of their government. If he is not actually acting under instruction from the government then I would submit there is at least a good argument that he is overstepping his bounds as an ambassador by putting forward the notion of a customs union. Perhaps the minister or somebody else would like to say a word about just what the ambassador was doing when he made this suggestion.
It is hard for us to separate Bill S-22 and see it only in the very practical dimension that the minister asked us to view it in. Certainly from this very practical dimension it has a lot of merits. There are concerns that exist about the bill itself and for that reason it would be appropriate for it to go to committee as soon as possible. Let us have a good look at it from the point of view of the House of Commons to see if we can address some of the outstanding concerns.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about Bill S-22 is that there is unanimity on it here in the House. A very good job was done on it in the other place, particularly the amendments by two honourable senators, one of which was to put in a 5-year limit after it takes effect, after which the minister can undertake a review. This is a very wise move, and we thank the senators and the government members for having accepted the change, which I feel is a very important one. Any concerns there might be will be verified and verifiable after the legislation has been in place for five years.
I will not go back over everything other members have said this morning on Bill SS-22. Essentially, it is a very solid bill, and one that modernizes what has been done for some years in the way of airport preclearance.
There are some concerns, however. Looking at a bill like this one, one can conclude that there is not really any preclearance in the U.S. for Canada and elsewhere. As someone put it to me, “With the Canadian preclearance areas for the U.S., it is as if the Americans were trying to protect themselves, by controlling arrivals into their country from outside their country”. How reassuring.
This leads them to say “If ever there are any problems, they are not on our territory, so this will make it easier to handle arrivals of people in the United States”. This is true. One can put a negative slant on it, that is to say that the Americans are using Canadian airports to have control over what enters the United States, be it men, women, children or goods. If there is a problem, at least they are not on American soil. The law is very clear. Canadian law and the Charter prevail.
True, we are helping the U.S. authorities, but we are helping even more Canadians and Quebeckers who travel to the United States. A number of us travel to the United States on a regular basis. Preclearance and intransit areas greatly speed up entry into the United States upon arrival on U.S. soil on the other side of the border. One does not have to wait for hours.
If there is a problem, at least with preclearance one is still on Canadian soil. The minister referred earlier to this whole issue of sovereignty.
Canadian travellers have a certain guarantee. But, as I said before, there is also a guarantee for the U.S. that, should there be a problem, it will be dealt with outside of their territory. This legislation helps people living in Quebec and Canada, while also helping U.S. authorities control the movement of men, women and goods.
To sum up, as I mentioned before, Bill S-22 updates and implements a system that already exists in the context of the global economy. There is a desire to facilitate passenger travel. However, extreme caution must be exercised. Many very interesting questions were raised during the proceedings of the Senate committee. I hope that the House committee will also review the bill fully. The Americans must ensure reciprocity with respect to their legislation on preclearance and intransit areas.
But the bill is clearly a step in the right direction. We will see this in the future. Although the minister told us that very few refugee applications were made at Vancouver Airport during the preclearance and intransit areas pilot project, only one in fact, all parliamentarians must realize that other applications will follow.
There could be an increase in such applications in the future. Depending on the international context, or preclearance and intransit areas, many refugee applications will be made right here in Canada. Will Bill S-22 be blamed? That is always a possibility, but I think such applications could be attributed to the situations people face in their own country.
I would therefore like to pay tribute once again to the work done in the other Chamber. There are some exceptionally talented individuals there who are responsible for seeing that a bill as important as this one can begin or end its journey here.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to make a few comments on this very important bill.
We have the opportunity for Canadians to engage in a little of streamlining to reduce costs a bit. I think I would be in favour of that as would thousands and thousands of taxpayers who today are facing the taxpaying deadline. They realize they have less and less money for themselves because the government keeps taking more and more.
Bill S-22 has a plan in it to streamline some costs. Passengers who are merely travelling through Canada to another destination would not have to go through Canadian customs. I think we would applaud that.
I have a small concern which some people may not even notice. It is Bill S-22 instead of Bill C-22. For those who know the way things work around here, the S means that the bill was started in the Senate. Usually we would expect a bit of a debate from a Reformer on whether or not the Senate is justified in bringing in such a bill. I will surprise the House today by saying that I believe the Senate is justified in bringing in such a bill. The question at hand is not whether the Senate is justified in doing this but whether we could improve it.
When I was in high school many years ago we had a fine class motto which I have used all my life: “Good, better, best, never let it rest until your good is better and your better best”. That is an excellent plan.
It is good that the Senate should take a piece of legislation such as this, do some study on it, and realize that it is good for the different provinces in the country. There is nothing wrong with that. That is good.
What would be better? It would be better if the Senate were elected. Then when it did something like this there would be no need to question the legitimacy of what is being done. There would be no reason to question whether or not Canadian taxpayers and Canadian citizens are represented since the senators would have been elected by the very people they are purporting to represent. That would be better.
What would be best? It would be best if the Senate were a true triple E place where it would not only be elected but would have equal representation in the provinces.
The Speaker: The member still has 17 minutes left in his speech. As today is Friday, I thought we might be able to recognize a few more members on statements. I thought we could go to Statements by Members now and he would have the full flush the next time.

Statements By Members
Canadian Blood ServicesMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Blood Services is launching this week its first youth initiative aimed at raising the awareness of young Canadians of the ongoing need for blood donations.
CBS is kicking off this campaign by sponsoring the band category at the YTV network's 1999 youth achievement awards, which will be held this evening at the National Arts Centre. This event, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary, is widely recognized as a premier platform to champion and promote the youth of Canada.
Bayer Inc., a leading manufacturer of blood products, has enthusiastically agreed to partner with CBS and develop a 30 second advertisement targeted at the youth market, to secure air time for this ad on YTV, and to allow for a young person designated by each CBS blood centre to attend the youth achievement awards.
Fourteen youths have flown to Ottawa for this special two day program of activities which will include a visit to Parliament Hill. These exceptional members of the youth community have all distinguished themselves in assisting CBS in its essential mission, either through public speaking or recruitment of blood donors and volunteers, and they are here today.
I would ask all members of parliament to join me in congratulating these exceptional young people.
Canadian Firearms CentreMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to ministerial propaganda, Canadians are not exactly beating down the doors of the Canadian Firearms Centre.
According to Access to Information, between December 1 and February 28, 17,983 applications for possession licences were received and three and a third per cent were actually processed, along with 16,870 old FAC applications which were still lying around.
Of 21,674 registration certificates issued only 2,023 went to individual applicants. The remainder were for businesses.
At this rate every gun owner in Canada could be licensed by the middle of the next century and all privately owned long guns registered by the year 2864. The annual cost, $50 million; the public benefit, zero.
HealthMrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the European Union has introduced labelling requirements for genetically modified foods. Polls show that Canadians want genetically engineered foods to be separated and labelled.
These foods are increasingly a part of our diet. They are identical in appearance to unmodified foods but may pose unknown risks from allergens and environmental threats.
Canadians have the right to know if the foods they buy and eat have been genetically altered. They have the right to choose for themselves.
Václav HavelMr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians witnessed in the House a living champion of freedom, President Václav Havel of the Czech Republic. The Prime Minister introduced him as “a beacon of freedom”.
You, Mr. Speaker, referred to “how one individual can influence the course of history in the face of great adversity” when thanking him yesterday. Mr. Havel honoured our country by accepting to address the nation.
It was also a very special moment for Manitobans when my alma mater, the University of Manitoba, granted President Havel a special honorary degree in recognition of his unique place in world history, for he is a man of courage, conviction and insight.
We were truly privileged in the House to experience the eloquence of his philosophy and the simplicity of his words when he concluded his remarks by saying “while the state is a human creation, humanity is a creation of God”. Truly Mr. Havel reminded us of the ethics of human conscience.
Aluminum IndustryMr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Chicoutimi this morning, the Government of Canada announced a new initiative to create a technological road map.
This working tool will target the future needs of Canadian industry in technological and product terms. In regional terms, it will be used in the creation of a development plan for second and third levels of aluminum processing.
The implementation committee will comprise people working in Canada Economic Development, Industry Canada, the National Research Council, the Aluminum Association of Canada, Alcan, as well as the Quebec aluminum research and development centre.
Our government is concerned about development in the regions in Quebec. An initiative like the one announced this morning is another example of our concern for working together with the stakeholders in the community and with the Government of Quebec.
Youth ViolenceMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the determination of Mr. Paul Glover. In September 1993, two teenagers viciously assaulted him. He suffered very serious injuries from multiple kicks to the face. His facial bones were literally separated from his skull. Last Friday in Vancouver, Paul won a civil judgment in excess of $60,000 against the two who are now in their early twenties.
Paul Glover has paved the way for victims of violent young people. The criminal courts hold offenders accountable to society. The only recourse for victims is through the civil court. Paul has shown that teenagers who cause harm to others cannot escape their civil liability.
It is somewhat coincidental that at a time when parliament is considering the role of victims in the criminal justice system, Paul Glover has advanced the cause in the civil courts. Canadians owe Paul and Debbie Glover and lawyers, David Marley and Vahan Ishkanian, who worked free of charge, a debt of gratitude. Soon I hope to see more victims of young thugs follow Paul's lead in pursuing their own civil remedies.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I am pleased to tell the House that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act received royal assent on April 29, 1999.
The creation of the agency marks the beginning of new and exciting partnerships with the provinces and the territories. It also offers a unique opportunity to provide better and more cost effective service to all Canadians by reducing overlap and duplication.
I can assure the House that the new agency will continue to offer the best service to its clients and to be one of the best and most respected tax, customs and trade administrations in the world.
Quebec EconomyMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, between 1991 and 1997, Quebec's exports, primarily to the United States, in the manufacturing sector, excluding automobiles, grew by 120%. At the start of the decade, exports represented 21% of Quebec's GDP. Today they have reached 36.4%.
The phenomenal increase in Quebec's exports can be explained by business people's openness to globalization. Secure access to the U.S. market, strengthened by the free trade agreement and the rapid reduction of customs tariffs, have encouraged Quebec businesses to turn to the U.S. market.
Quebec, one of the main forces behind the free trade agreement, expresses its dynamism daily in meeting the challenges of market liberalization.
To better ensure our place in the world and to give the economy of Quebec room to expand internationally, only one avenue is open: sovereignty for Quebec.
Danièle SauvageauMr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is desperately looking for something to make people forget its definition of the Quebec identity.
This is why many Bloc Quebecois members who are desperate to get noticed and to look good in the eyes of their leaders are using my analysis and the solution I have put forward in the Danièle Sauvageau issue.
What is shameful is that, to them, this issue is just an opportunity to score political points. They do not understand that the last thing Danièle Sauvageau wants is to become a political martyr helping them score points. She does not want her reputation and credibility to be used by people who are sorely lacking in that respect.
To show compassion for someone is to understand what this person is going through and, more importantly, not to use but to support him or her. Those who will make comments or ask questions about Danièle Sauvageau must realize that the more they use her, the more they cut her off from the position she loves so much.
Politics must deal with other issues. It is not up to the government to select a coach. There are other approaches, like dealing with the thrust of programs, not their management. This is the type of issue that makes people even more cynical about politicians.
I wish luck to Danièle. I understand her sadness. I am confident that the decision makers will follow up on the balanced solution that I have put forward.
I am asking the members of the Bloc Quebecois to show compassion and to stop using Mrs. Sauvageau for their own personal benefit. There are other ways to make the headlines. This one is unhealthy.
Global Internet ContestMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two students and their computer teacher from Dauphin—Swan River are going to Hong Kong after winning a global Internet contest.
Smith Jackson, a Ukrainian bilingual elementary school in Dauphin, was the only Canadian school selected as the grand prize winner in the AT&amp;T virtual classroom contest. Smith Jackson formed a team with Talahassee, Florida and New Delhi, India to win the grand prize in the elementary school category. Over 300 schools from 38 countries were involved in this contest.
All these students deserve our recognition for this global accomplishment: Andreja Frykas, Jordan McLaughlin, Joey Smigelski, Joleene Showdra, Travis Prytula, Scott Tokaryk, Alyson Sametz, Brent Hancharyk, Andrei Dandridge-Evancio, Larisa Matwee, Melissa Zabiaka, Allan Bernat and teacher Stephen Jaddock.
We wish them all the best.
Battle Of The AtlanticMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 2, Canadians across the country will pause to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic.
On September 10, 1939, Canada declared war against Nazi Germany. Within a matter of weeks the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Merchant Navy joined the battle.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest and perhaps the most critical battle of the second world war. The liberation of Europe depended on the ability of allied merchant convoys to make their way through a phalanx of German U-boats.
Canada played a pivotal role in the ultimate victory of the Battle of the Atlantic. Thousands of young and inexperienced Canadians went to sea, unprepared but ready to fight, and they fought. They fought with courage and they fought with pride, under horrible conditions and the vagaries of a cruel sea, because they knew that the freedom of our nation was at stake. Over 5,000 Canadians paid the ultimate price and never returned home.
I invite my hon. colleagues and all Canadians to participate in the activities being held this weekend to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic. It is an opportunity to reflect on the proud heritage of our men and women in uniform and to pay tribute to those who sacrificed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
Social UnionMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is in the early stages of implementing the social policy framework called the social union. However, I am frankly worried that these programs could end up designed to aid bureaucrats, but not necessarily Canadians.
This month, the auditor general looked at the first two programs being implemented under the social union, the national child benefit and the employment assistance program for persons with disabilities.
Among his comments, he found that the NCB failed to make a reduction in child poverty a measurable goal of the program. He also noted that success for the EAPD will be measured by counting participants, not by determining the increase in employment or employability of disabled Canadians.
It is not good enough for the social union to claim success because it spent a pile of money. Success should be measured by the increase in the quality of Canadian lives.
I hope that the House and all Canadians will watch the evolution of programs implemented under the social union like hawks to ensure that the benefits go to needy Canadians, not to bureaucrats and politicians for clever sleights of hand.
Youth Achievement AwardMr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Jack and Mark Nowinski, 19 year old twins from my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, are in Ottawa this week and they are winners of the YTV Youth Achievement Award for innovation, science and technology.
They say that necessity is the mother of invention, but in this case mother was the necessity for the invention.
These two young men invented an ECG machine, a mix of computer software and electrical hardware, that allows people to monitor their heart at home. They were motivated to do this in order to help their mother, Barbara.
This invention also earned Mark and Jack top honours at the 1998 international science and engineering fair in Texas. They have numerous other inventions to their credit.
They are currently students at Resurrection High School and would like to go to the University of Waterloo's program of electrical engineering this fall.
I join my colleagues in congratulating Jack and Mark for their achievements and say to the Nowinski family, who came to Canada from Poland in 1982, “thank you for enriching our country, Canada”.
Ontario TaxesMr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, in Ontario jobs are up because taxes are down. Mike Harris' government yesterday announced its blueprint plan to keep Ontario on the right track.
From 1995 to 1998, Mike Harris has cut taxes 69 times, including a 30% cut in income tax rates. This was the largest tax cut in Ontario history and the first real increase in take home pay for the average Ontarian. These cuts produced the dramatic result of 540,000 new jobs being created in Ontario in under four years. That is more new jobs than the combined populations of London, Kingston and Sudbury. This puts Mike Harris's Tories ahead of schedule in their five-year plan to create 725,000 new jobs. Most of all, the Harris government's efforts to improve the province's fiscal management means more money for education and health care for all of Ontario.
Ontarians will ask if they are better off than they were four years ago. Yes, they are. They will also ask who the strongest leader is. That is Michael Harris. Less tax, balanced budgets—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Official LanguagesMr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Maxwell Yalden, the former commissioner of official languages, recently wrote an article to try to show that bilingualism had made progress in Canada over the past 30 years, but failed to include actual figures.
Mr Yalden will be interested to learn that, since 1951, in spite of the millions of dollars invested, the ability to speak French has dropped from 31.9% to 31.3% among Canadians, while the ability to speak English increased by 4%.
Also, compared to 30 years ago, there are 60,000 fewer Canadians outside Quebec for whom French is the language spoken at home. In eastern Ontario, where the Official Languages Act has been in effect for 30 years, the assimilation rate doubled in that time, rising from 13% to 24%.
The Bloc Quebecois sincerely hopes that the next commissioner of official languages will be an ally for the francophone communities and that he will tell things as they are, not as the government would like them to be.
High Commission In New DelhiMr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like many members with large and active Indo-Canadian communities in their ridings, I have heard over the years a great number of concerns regarding the immigration section of the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India.
During the Easter break I had the opportunity to visit New Delhi and made a point of meeting with the Canadian immigration officers there to investigate these concerns.
What I found was a group of very talented, very professional officers who, under the leadership of Mr. Jean Roberge, are working hard to ensure that people receive the highest quality of service.
Along with counselor Roberge, I met with officers Robert Romano, Brian Beaupré, Larry Carroll and Brian Le Conte. These officers are aware of the concerns and are working hard under very difficult conditions to address and improve them. Their attitude and actions on these issues are examples of the very best of the Canadian public service.
Therefore, I am here today to applaud the employees of the immigration section of the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi and would encourage other members to do the same.
Dangerous OffendersJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Jean Gerard Dionne, a fugitive pedophile, is behind bars today, charged with sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, uttering death threats and possession of a dangerous weapon.
Dionne began his sexually deviant criminal behaviour in 1982 when he sexually assaulted a two year old boy and then drowned him. Dionne spent two years in jail for this crime. Upon his release, he followed up by sexually assaulting a young girl in a wheelchair for which he did four years. Dionne himself and the prison psychiatrist said that he would strike again, and so he did, last week in Ottawa.
In the case of the wheelchair victim and because of our system, the jury could not hear evidence concerning Dionne's earlier crimes and victims. Dionne will probably do another four years and be released.
Is it not time for parliament to review this disclosure of past offences? Is it not about time Dionne and others, who continue to repeat these very terrible offences, be declared habitual and dangerous offenders and be given life in jail?
Fisheries And OceansMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has just recently released his report on the state of the federal government's management policies, or the lack thereof, of our east coast shellfish industry.
He rightly points out the lack of resources in his scientific assessment of the various species such as crab, shrimp, scallops and lobster. He also points out that the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do ignore advice from various sources.
I will quote from the report:
We noted significant weaknesses in the Department's management practices designed to achieve its objectives for the Atlantic shellfish fishery. Our audit found decisions that contradict the Department's Fishery of the Future strategy, which formed the basis of our criteria for this audit. In addition, the Department is pursuing social objectives that it has not articulated to Parliament, and economic objectives for which it has not identified expected results. There is an urgent need for the Department to clarify these objectives and to develop and implement the strategies to achieve overall sustainability of the Atlantic shellfish fisheries.
The NDP wishes to thank the auditor general for his report.
TaxationMr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's high taxes are threatening the continued presence and expansion of our high tech sector and some of our largest corporations.
The CEO of Nortel has said, “Canada has a problem. We are driving our talent away”. He was referring directly to the high taxes in Canada.
Last week the CEO of Newbridge cited the presence of headhunters scouring our markets in Canada as further evidence that our high taxes are creating an opportunity for high tech companies south of the border.
Nortel needs to hire about 5,000 workers for its research operations in Ottawa over the next four years and it is unsure whether it will be able to find these workers in Canada because of the high tax regime of the government.
It is not just hockey franchisees who are feeling threatened in Canada. Our high tech industries are pleading that our taxes in Canada are killing job growth and opportunities for Canadians. What will it take for the finance minister to recognize and truly act on the high tax policies that need to be addressed to create continued economic growth and expansion for our high tech sector?

Oral Question Period
KosovoMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have just received news that the Yugoslavian government is now saying it would consider allowing an international military force into Kosovo if the United Nations Security Council wishes to send one.
This could be the first serious olive branch put forth by Milosevic. What specific diplomatic actions is Canada taking to ensure that this latest offer is being taken seriously?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to check very carefully to test the veracity of the press reports in question. If they are accurate it is very encouraging, but in the meantime I do not think we can let up the pressure. We want to make sure that these press reports accurately reflect the position of the Yugoslav government.
Canada, through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, is actively pursuing diplomatic initiatives. Our foreign minister had two useful meetings this morning with Russian foreign affairs minister Ivanov, and he has now gone to Athens to have meetings with his Greek counterpart, who is an important player.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to investigate all possibilities for peace. This appears to be an admission by Milosevic that the NATO bombardment is working.
Is the government prepared to negotiate with Milosevic to bring a UN force into Kosovo?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, what we will do, obviously, will have to be done as an important and valued member of the NATO alliance, as well as of the UN security council. I do not think this is something we would do totally by ourselves. Obviously our foreign minister, who is in the area, will want to do everything possible to see what can be done to bring about a solution to the current matter, which involves very much the agreement of Mr. Milosevic, not just to have a UN force, which is something Canada has always been interested in, but also to adhere to fundamental principles. Mr. Milosevic's ignorance of them or failure to abide by them is the reason we have undertaken—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the first real admission that Milosevic is backing down. We must seize this opportunity to negotiate a UN settlement.
Is the Canadian government talking with our allies today to negotiate a UN force and its involvement in Kosovo?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are always in close touch with our allies, as well as our fellow members of the security council.
We have to assess the accuracy of this press report. If it is accurate it is very encouraging, but there is a lot more that has to be done to resolve the matter and make sure that the Kosovars can return to their homes in safety and security.
TaxationKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and it is getting worse.
The average Canadian taxpayer will pay $2,020 more in 1999 than in 1993. Those are Department of Finance figures. These taxpayers are feeling the pain. They know their bottom line is way down, thanks to this tax hungry Liberal government.
On today's royal pain day the taxpayers want relief. Is there some preparation R on the horizon? Why will the government not relieve the pain?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government has reduced taxes by $16.5 million over the next three years.
Of course the real issue, the real agenda which the Reform Party has, is not simply tax reductions, it is to pay for those tax reductions by gutting the social fabric of the country. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member if he shares the view of the member from Okanagan who said yesterday that the $11.5 billion that we put into health care was irresponsible spending.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible since the government took out $21 billion. It is totally irresponsible.
Since 1993 2.5 million Canadians have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into higher tax brackets. While the rates go down, they move people into another category and they end up paying more. Over 840,000 low income families in poverty have been added to the tax rolls so that they now can pay taxes too. That brings the government another $10 billion. Why will the government not show some compassion for these poor Canadians who, unlike hockey players and some certain shipping companies, cannot earn their income—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no better definition of an oxymoron than the Reform Party talking about compassion.
The fact is that the hon. member had an opportunity when he stood in the House to correct the member from Okanagan and he did not do that. Is he now saying that it is Reform Party policy that spending on health to the tune of $11.5 billion is questionable spending, that it is irresponsible? Is that the Reform Party position? It is very clear that is exactly what they stand for.
KosovoMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we learned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia had announced that he was prepared to consider the possibility of intervention by an international force under the UN umbrella. Incidentally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada was in Moscow yesterday, and appears to have spoken with the UN secretary general.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister bring us up to date on the situation and the discussions that are currently under way for a negotiated solution to the conflict?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the media reports are true, this is a very encouraging piece of news. We are, of course, going to discuss the situation with our NATO allies and our fellow members of the security council.
We are going to pursue our efforts toward a diplomatic solution. In the meantime the pressure on President Milosevic to allow the Kosovars to return safely to their homes must be kept up.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the NATO strategy, to which the government subscribes, does not call for a stop to air strikes before the Serbian troops start to withdraw from Kosovo, whereas the German and Russian plans call upon NATO to stop bombing before the Yugoslav army withdraws.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us exactly what the government position is with respect to this apparent contradiction?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have just received news of a possible change in the Yugoslav position. As I have just said, we are going to investigate these reports and we will also hold discussions on the situation with our NATO allies and our fellow members of the security council, but for the moment our position is that the NATO strikes need to continue—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus among NATO leaders, particularly the U.S. president, that Slobodan Milosevic is no longer a valid partner for negotiations and that a solution to the conflict will have to be imposed on him.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he shares this view or whether he still believes that a solution can be negotiated with Milosevic's regime?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is still to seek a diplomatic solution, with possible intervention by the UN and Russia as well. However, in the meantime, the NATO initiatives must continue.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, what hope can the Prime Minister still have for a positive outcome to these diplomatic efforts, if he and increasing numbers of NATO leaders believe that a solution should be imposed on Belgrade, because Milosevic is no longer a partner for negotiations they can trust?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to comment on the U.S. president's statements.
I can repeat that Canada's position is to maintain military pressure on Milosevic's government, while continuing discussions to try to reach a diplomatic solution.
Customs UnionBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I would urge the government to do everything it can on the security council and within NATO to make sure that this latest development turns out the way we all want it to turn out.
I have a question on a different subject. Yesterday, in Washington, the Canadian ambassador to the United States floated the idea of a customs union between Canada and the United States and also talked about a more intense codification of the relationship between Canada and the United States.
Was the ambassador speaking for the Canadian government when he floated this idea? If he was not, why was he floating the idea in the first place?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite frank. I have seen some reports in the paper this morning, but I have not yet received the text of the ambassador's remarks.
Without saying that we are in favour of changing our existing arrangements with the United States, there are a lot of ideas out there. Even if we are not interested in changing our position, certainly these different ideas can be discussed at many different levels.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the speech. Perhaps I could provide a copy of it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The fact is that he did say “What about a customs union?” He is not just anybody having a chat in a coffee shop; he is the Canadian ambassador. I ask again, is that the position of the Canadian government?
He also referred to the economic value of our water resources. This is the ambassador of a country that is committed to a ban on the bulk export of water. That does not seem to jive. Is the government still committed to a ban on the bulk export of water? If it is, what could the ambassador have meant by talking about the economic value of Canada's water resources?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, our position on water resources has not changed. As the government House leader has just been saying to me, a bill on that subject will be tabled very shortly.
TaxationScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Finance agreed yesterday to meet with the CEO of Newbridge Networks to discuss the possibility of tax relief for high tech workers in Canada.
The government must cut personal income tax rates to prevent top R and D workers from leaving Canada for opportunities south of the border. Taxes are too high, not only for Canadians involved in high tech, but for all Canadians.
Will the minister show leadership and commit to providing meaningful, broad based tax relief and tax reform to benefit all Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows what the government is doing when it is reducing taxes, as it has done. I have already announced a $16.5 billion tax reduction. The government is repairing the terrible damage inflicted upon the Canadian economy by the government of the party of which he is now a member.
The fact is that the Tories increased taxes some 38 times when they were in office. Yes, as a result of that Canadian taxes are too high and, as a result of that, in the last budget and in the one before that we brought those taxes down and will continue to do so.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the previous government also implemented free trade against the wishes of the Liberals and that has provided the engine for economic growth in Canada that has allowed the current government to reduce the deficit.
Nortel is losing about 400 employees per year to U.S. competitors, despite the minister's feel good speeches. Will the minister show leadership and convene a summit of all high tech CEOs in Canada to discuss the problems they are suffering as a result of the government's continued reticence to provide meaningful tax relief and tax reform to benefit all Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I will meet with Mr. Matthews. I have met with leaders of the high tech industries across the country and I do so quite often.
I would be delighted to meet with them as a group. I know the Minister of Industry has met with them as well. We will continue to do so.
I have to say that for a Tory to complain about high taxes is like Mike Tyson complaining about somebody biting his ear.
Dangerous OffendersMr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is pretty good.
On Wednesday I asked the solicitor general about a dangerous prisoner who was given a bus ticket to be transferred from one prison to another, unescorted. I want to give the House and Canadians the response I got from the solicitor general's department on this issue.
Spokesman Jacques Bélanger said “most of them finish their trips”. Members can imagine what my question is. How many do not finish their trips?
Maybe the solicitor general will establish a lost and found for wayward prisoners so that we can get them back into the prisons of this country from their unescorted bus trips.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a number of types of institutions in this country: maximum, medium, minimum and some halfway houses.
My hon. colleague is talking about an offender who had finished his term in minimum security and was going to a halfway house. As a few do, he did not do what he was supposed to do under the Conditional Release Act.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has that right. He did not do what he was supposed to do. He was supposed to end up at the other prison on the bus.
Let us talk about Jean Paul Wright then. Jean Paul Wright was convicted for vicious attacks and beatings that left one man dead three years ago in Moncton. Let us talk about this fellow. He was put on a bus to go from one prison to another. Guess what? He was a no-show, AWOL, goner, out of sight.
I would like to ask the solicitor general about this fellow. Is he among the missing? Will he come back? Do we need—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, we have Correctional Service Canada and when a person serves a term or comes to the end of his or her term, or is released on conditional release, he or she has a number of conditions. Sometimes, very seldom, things do not work as Correctional Service Canada wants them to work.
Quite simply my hon. colleague needs to realize that when he brings up individual cases I do not know all offenders in this country. Possibly they are close friends of my hon. colleague, but I do not know them all.
The Speaker: I am not sure we want to go down those two roads.
Millennium ScholarshipsPierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the millennium scholarships, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the one with the time to write books but no time to read his mail, has said for months he supports the Gautrin resolution. It is being offered to him again, and he again wants more time to think about it.
Will the minister stop hiding and playing a game of semantics and tell us today whether or not he agrees with the unanimous proposal by the leaders of the parties in the Quebec National Assembly to negotiate government to government to break this Ottawa-created impasse?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never shirked my responsibilities, contrary to the allegations of the Bloc.
This matter is important to us. The Government of Canada decided to help students finance their studies. I think this is a vital step in a knowledge based economy. Everyone knows how vital education is to the future of our economy.
My remarks yesterday were very clear. I said the Government of Quebec's inflexibility seems to have softened. It seems now to have dropped the right to opt out with full compensation and to have opened up more promising avenues.
So we will be watching that with interest.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said he had not had the time to read the letter. So we will read him a passage from it, which says:
We propose to you that you identify a government negotiator to represent the federal government, one who is not associated with the Foundation.
Where does the minister see in the letter it stated that the federal negotiator cannot be an elected representative, such as himself, and why would he not agree to be this negotiator, as the president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec asked him yesterday?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, first, contrary to what the hon. member is alleging, I never said I did not have time to read the letter. Quite the opposite. They are once again trying to exaggerate. I never said I did not have the time to read the letter. I said it came yesterday, in the evening.
I am an avid reader, easily able to read a letter of a page and a quarter in the space of an evening. I promise you that.
I had read the letter. I never said I had never read it. What I did say is that, unlike the Bloc members, we have government responsibilities and we must take time to think things over, unlike those who take pleasure in systematically opposing.
Dangerous OffendersJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. We do not expect the solicitor general to know every prisoner in Canada but we know he can set policy.
With summer coming and a lot of parents sending their young children on buses because of its cost effectiveness, will the solicitor general assure the House that his department will inform the bus companies and other people when prisoners are travelling on a bus so the safety of all Canadians is protected?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague refers to is totally unacceptable and I can assure him that it is under review.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, parents have a right to know if their children are seated next to an unescorted prisoner. Their safety should be of the utmost concern to all of us.
Will the minister assure the House and commit today to notifying bus companies and passengers of the existence of criminals travelling by bus?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague before, the matter is fully under review.
Bill C-78Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since it is the Minister of Finance who, behind the scene, calls the shots in this government and who, after siphoning $20 billion off from the employment insurance fund, is about to get his hands on the $30 billion surplus in the federal public service pension fund, will he at least agree to appear before the committee reviewing Bill C-78, to explain his decisions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the committee invited its own witnesses. This is up to the committee.
As for the $30 billion surplus, again, the rights of public servants are not only fully respected, but their benefits are guaranteed under the law. The legislation currently before parliament even increases these benefits.
With regard to the surpluses, public servants are getting all the benefits for which they made contributions. Since the risks are fully assumed by the taxpayers, the money should belong to them.
Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to unilaterally appropriate a $30 billion surplus, without any regard for active and retired public servants.
Will the minister finally admit that no provision in the existing act allows him to claim that he is the sole owner of that $30 billion surplus, and that nothing in the act allows him to use that money as he pleases?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, again, the act is very clear. The issue went all the way to the supreme court. Taxpayers, through the government, are the sole owners of the surplus. Public servants will receive all the benefits that they were promised under the act. They will even get additional benefits under the proposed legislation.
It is the taxpayers who must get the surplus that they paid for.
Dangerous OffendersRandy White: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general just indicated to Canadians that the matter of prisoners taking unescorted bus trips from one prison to another is under review. That just happened to come up yesterday, by the way, in the House.
Will the solicitor general therefore suspend here and now all unescorted bus trips for prisoners going from one prison to another until such time as that review is complete?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague before, this matter is under review.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, there is a brilliant answer. We already knew it was under review. We are asking for the trips of people like I have just described to be suspended until such time as the review is over.
Now I want to know what is in the review. What is taking place? What is being reviewed? What kind of recommendations? Who is involved in the review? When will it be printed?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I certainly got the message from my hon. colleague. As I indicated, it is under review and this file that he is talking about specifically is under review also.
Any time anything like this happens under Correctional Service Canada, it is always reviewed thoroughly.
Air TransportationMr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the present time the air traffic control tower at Sept-Îles airport is providing air control services to the airports at Havre-Saint-Pierre, Natashquan and Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon. With the change proposed by Nav Canada, this service will in future be provided by the air traffic control tower at Quebec City airport.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us whether he believes that the savings thus realized will be substantial enough to justify such a decision, which represents a potential risk to airport users in my riding?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, Nav Canada is responsible for the air navigation system. It is the not-for-profit corporation that directs air navigation operations.
It carries out analyses throughout the country and it makes certain decisions. Transport Canada is very much aware of air safety. I do not believe that there is any problem in the case raised by the hon. member.
National DefenceMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The opposition continues to question the military equipment that is being sent by Canada to the area of the former Yugoslavia. However yesterday at the display of this equipment only one member of the official opposition, as I understand it, was able to attend.
With that in mind, would the Minister of National Defence please describe the equipment that is being sent to this area?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that at least one member of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, went yesterday. The hon. member for Edmonton North was not there and yet he was the member yesterday that was being quite critical.
I must say that the military people who are there have the highest regard for the equipment they are using. I would sooner take their word in that particular case.
They have the equipment to do the job that they need to do in this peacekeeping effort in Kosovo. All of the equipment is of recent vintage, within the last nine years. The Coyote is state of the art reconnaissance equipment. The Bison and the other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development finally admitted yesterday, after persistent questioning, that there was no protection for aboriginal women, for Nisga'a women, in the Nisga'a treaty. He also admitted that the Nisga'a laws on land matters would take precedence over all other laws in Canada.
Why has the government lost the opportunity and abandoned the rights of Nisga'a women in the Nisga'a treaty?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong again. He was wrong on the constitutional application to the treaty.
I said to him yesterday and I say here again in the House that chapter 2, article 13, explicitly states that the laws of general application will apply. In this case the B.C. family relations act will apply to all women in British Columbia. Those women are protected and also protected under section 15 of the charter.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is wrong. He quoted from chapter 2, section 13 and I have to do it again because he did not get it yesterday:
In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
The hon. member knows that the Nisga'a people have the right to all matters of land under this treaty. He knows that aboriginal women have no rights when it comes to the disposition of a matrimonial home. I am going to ask him again, why did the government abandon Nisga'a women when it negotiated this treaty?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not understand is that when we made the treaty with the British Columbia people and the Nisga'a people, it is removed from the paternalism of the Indian Act. It becomes a separate treaty. Therefore these general laws apply. If it is a power not enumerated in the treaty, there is no conflict.
The hon. member is not reading the document properly. I wish he would come to my department. We have given him the opportunity for a briefing. He will not take it. He is categorically wrong and he voted against women and women's issues on Bill C-49. Who is he trying to protect?
PensionsHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated in the House, “There will be no government interference in the investment of CPP funds and that is what the Canadian people want”. In light of the fact that the CPP investment fund is now investing some of its revenue in Imperial Tobacco through Imasco and Imperial Tobacco is targeting young people to addict them to cigarette smoking, I want to give the Minister of Finance one more chance in the House today. I ask him whether he thinks that Canadians want their pension funds invested in industries that are deliberately targeting young people to addict them to the smoking of cigarettes.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the CPP investment fund is investing in the stock exchange indexes. That is the course of action it will be following for the foreseeable future until such time as it builds up a larger fund and until further decisions are taken.
In terms of the question of young people smoking, the Minister of Health has laid out a very clear program to deal with that. It is the course we are following. It is education. There is no doubt that the government must do everything in its power to discourage young people from smoking.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in section 53 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act it states, “The governor in council may make regulations regarding those investments”. Further on it says that the investments will be reviewed every three years and the minister may make regulations and recommendations.
In view of the act and that the minister has flexibility, will he take this opportunity and recommend the ethical screening of CPP investment funds so investments like the investment in Imperial Tobacco will not occur in the future and addict people to the smoking of cigarettes?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure what the hon. member would want is that there not be government interference in the investments. I am sure if he takes a look at the investment policy of the Ontario teachers pension fund, if he takes a look at others where there is large scale union involvement, he will find that these pension funds invest for maximum return.
There are ethical investment funds and this is certainly open to the fund. We are saying it is very important that there not be political interference in the administration of the funds by the government.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members please not to use any props or wave things around in the House.
Hazardous GoodsJohn Herron: Mr. Speaker, every day firefighters put their lives on the line to ensure the safety of Canadians, yet they cannot get the support they need from their own federal government. Firefighters have been denied access to the needed funding to implement the program operation respond, which is a communications system that can quickly identify hazardous materials and provide appropriate emergency response techniques and guidance.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he make available the additional research and development funding for operation respond which would properly safeguard the Canadian public, yes or no? Certainly the minister thinks that Canadians and Canadian firefighters are worth $236,000.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a lot misinformation that is being disseminated by the International Association of Fire Fighters.
The government helped to fund a pilot project in Burnaby a couple of years ago while I was minister. It demonstrated that the results from using the operation respond technique would not even emulate the system now in place, Canutec. It provides for professional chemists of the Department of Transport manning a 24 hour, 365 day a year service to monitor all hazardous goods transported in Canada.
Youth EmploymentJohn Herron: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I contacted the Minister of Human Resources Development to register my concerns about the decision to cut $180,000 from the summer career placement program in southern New Brunswick. This means that the ridings of Fundy—Royal, Charlotte and Saint John will have approximately 200 fewer jobs to offer their youth. All this when students are already graduating with an alarming $30,000 of debt.
The reason for this is the disconnected test of reductions in the local unemployment rate for adults, not students. In fact, most regions in the province of New Brunswick have been cut. When will the minister revisit the entire issue of funding levels in New Brunswick?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the warning that he would be raising this important question.
The overall funding for summer career placement has not changed. It is still at the level of $190 million a year. It is based on a longstanding formula of the level of unemployment and the number of students in a particular region.
I take note of the member's interest. I have heard a number of other MPs say that they may not be satisfied with the present method of distribution. I will ask my officials to look into this to make sure we serve students as well as we possibly can.
KosovoMrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
There have been many news reports in recent days regarding Canada's commitment to allow 5,000 Kosovar refugees into Canada. Can the minister tell the House what the government's position is?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning with Mrs. Ogata, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees because I wanted to know what her assessment was of the refugees' situation in the Balkans. Mrs. Ogata asked Canada to reactivate the emergency humanitarian evacuation plan that we had to receive 5,000 Kosovars and we will do so.
It is very clear that Mrs. Ogata is asking us to reactivate our emergency plan and offer to take in 5,000 people. We will be prepared to receive these people, and I am sure that Canadians will open their doors to them.
AgricultureMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister's compensation program for farmers is as big a disaster as the economic factors that made it necessary, such as the government's high taxes. Some farmers do not have money to put in their crops. There are 100,000 farmers on the prairies alone but to date, not one red cent has gone out. How many more farmers have to go bankrupt before he acknowledges that his program is a complete disaster?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. The federal money is flowing today, as the minister stated a few days ago that it would be. The federal money is flowing. The minister has signed contracts with Saskatchewan. We are not waiting for those contracts to be signed by the provinces. We are sending out money now. As soon as the provinces sign, more money will be sent out as soon as possible.
FisheriesPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, in his recent report on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the auditor general has concerns about the lack of scientific or biological resources with which to assess the shellfish industry. He pointed out the possibility of highgrading or dumping of smaller or broken pieces of shrimp within our waters.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There was a recent temporary increase to 12,000 tonnes of northern shrimp. Was that tac taken on scientific and biological evidence? Is his department looking into the auditor general's concerns about highgrading of shrimp in our waters?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are two very different fisheries, the northern shrimp off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and the shellfish off the southern coast of Nova Scotia. They are two quite different fisheries.
We have taken to heart the auditor general's words with respect to shellfish. However, it is literally impossible to have a policeman on every boat, which is necessary if we are to prevent any possible cheating by fishermen.
What is necessary is a higher level of co-operation between fishermen and a higher level of self-enforcement within the fleet. Those are ways that we can in fact make progress.
Movement Of Hazardous WasteMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently Mr. Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, mentioned that the government was negligent in applying the regulations to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste because it had only 15 inspectors for 17,000 registered shipments between Canada and the United States.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it not of some concern to see the government contemplating the import into Canada of plutonium, while controls over the import of hazardous waste are already virtually non existent and may be further relaxed?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I fully understood the logic in the hon. member's question.
I want to assure members of the House that Canada has perhaps one of the safest regimes for the transportation of dangerous goods of any country in the world. As I said last last week, we have 27 million shipments of dangerous goods every year and 800,000 are radioactive material. I want to correct myself. It is not less than 1% spillage, it is less than one-tenth of 1% spillage.
We have an act. It works well. I think Canadians should be proud of it.
YouthMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, healthy communities need strong support systems, especially when it comes to providing opportunities for young people and for involving them in our communities.
The municipalities of Florenceville and Plaster Rock in my riding have proposed building arenas for just that purpose. Both the province and the towns have each committed $1 million for this construction. Can this government find a few dollars to help young people in these two communities?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, as you know we have a number of very good programs for young Canadians. The youth employment strategy has been helping thousands and thousands of young Canadians to integrate into the labour market. We have a number of human resources development programs.
Maybe the member can come to me with the precise demand and we will see what we can do about it. Definitely we want to help young Canadians do as well as possible in all communities of Canada.
TaxationMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is April 30, the day that Canadians have to file their income tax returns.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue tell the House and Canadians what relief will be provided to Canadians serving in the Balkans if they are unable to file their income tax returns on time?
Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the minister has assured DND personnel and other Canadian personnel in the Balkans and their spouses who may have to file their income tax returns after the April 30 deadline that they will not have to pay penalties and interest charges. These Canadians can explain their unique circumstances to Revenue Canada and establish suitable filing or payment arrangements as soon as they are able.
Our soldiers and their families are facing very difficult times. We want to minimize their concerns regarding their tax obligations.
AgricultureGarry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the minister is blaming everybody else because the money is not in the farmers' pockets.
The government knew a long time ago that money was needed in February. It promised the money and it broke all of its promises. The promised disaster relief that was supposed to be there has been replaced with red tape.
How can the minister say he is helping farmers when he is doing virtually nothing for western producers? Why should the farmers believe the minister's statement that cash is flowing when they have received nothing?
Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, before money can flow to farmers under this program, applications have to be made and processed. To this point only in excess of 500 applications from farmers in the hon. member's province have been filled out and sent in.
The minister has already stated that money will flow for those applications that have been processed and it will continue to be accelerated as time goes on.
Subcommittee On The Study Of Sport In CanadaMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Industry now lobbying for professional sports millionaires, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced that she will not invest one more cent in amateur sport, thus dashing all the hopes the report of the subcommittee on the study of sport in Canada had raised among athletes and sports federations.
Will the government admit that the report on sport was basically nothing more than a huge smoke screen to hide the fact that it could not care less about amateur sport and that it intends to hand over millions of taxpayers' dollars to professional sports millionaires instead?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. The government has agreed to 53 of the report's 69 recommendations and will take action accordingly.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members for Broadview—Greenwood and Bourassa and other members of the subcommittee on the excellent work they did.
As for the question of funding, let it not be forgotten that the government kept its promise and increased its contribution to amateur sport by $50 million over five years.
YouthGilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, recreation facilities are good for our young people and good for our communities. They encourage involvement in our communities and they help to reduce social problems such as crime, suicide and substance abuse.
Will the government commit today to help young people in towns such as Plaster Rock and Florenceville by finding money for community development?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question I heard a few minutes ago. The whole purpose of the Department of Human Resources Development is to help communities in Canada. We are doing a great deal to strengthen communities and to help young people in these communities. Indeed, I think the programs we have across the land are beginning to show very positive signs in our communities.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, public broadcasting should be a place for Canadians to find independent, quality programming, free from commercial and political interference. However, there is a new threat to the integrity of the CBC and it is called sponsorship. The CBC has asked the CRTC for permission to air commercials, which it calls sponsorships, on its demographically desirable radio networks.
Will the government intervene now to preserve CBC radio's integrity as a commercial free service? Will you stand up here and now and say no—
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address their questions through the Chair.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the CBC will be revised by the CRTC later next month. The corporation has toured the country to solicit Canadians' views. I would encourage the member and all Canadians, if they have concerns and views about CBC proposals, to communicate those concerns to the CRTC as soon as possible.
Presence In GalleryThe Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Andrei Shapovalyants, Minister of Economy of the Russian Federation.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to ten petitions.
PetitionsDenis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join today with all members of the Quebec caucus in tabling, on behalf of the coalition for banking services for seniors, a petition signed by more than 30,000 people.
We wholeheartedly support this petition as well as this coalition representing more than 1 million people.
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of citizens from my province of B.C.
These individuals have asked that parliament affirm the duty of parents to raise their children according to their conscience and beliefs. They request that parliament retain section 43 of the Criminal Code in its present form, as they believe that it recognizes the primary role of parents in the raising and disciplining of their children.
I respectfully submit this petition to the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway.
The petition affirms that implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will not undermine the rights, responsibilities and autonomy of parents. The government has no intention of repealing or amending section 43 of the Criminal Code or funding any research of court challenges respecting it.
Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise to present two petitions.
The first petition calls on parliament to compensate the merchant navy veterans for their service and hardship on Canadian and allied ships during World War II and the Korean war.
Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns employment insurance. The petitioners request that the EI fund be returned to its intended purpose. They also request that an independent commission be created to administer the Employment Insurance Act.
Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition requesting that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.
Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which is signed by a number of people in my riding. The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation, such as Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Starred QuestionsGar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 225. .[Text]
*Question No. 225—
Mr. Daniel Turp: Why has Canada not yet ratified Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization on the right of workers to organize and to bargain collectively, and has the current government prepared a plan to ratify it during the life of this parliament?
Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the answer, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed. .[Text]
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): The Government of Canada has a continuing strong commitment to the implementation, and where possible, the ratification of Internaltional Labour Organization, ILO, core conventions.
Although the authority to ratify an ILO convention is exclusively federal, the implementation of most ILO conventions falls under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, given the division of powers over labour matters under the Canadian Constitution.
For this reason the longstanding practice in Canada, as regards ILO conventions which fall under both federal and provincial/territorial jurisdictions, like Convention 98, has been to ratify only if all jurisdictions concur with ratification and undertake to implement the convention's requirements within their respective jurisdictions.
With respect to Convention 98, there is a high level of conformity in Canada to the convention's major principles, which include protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and workers' and employers' interference in each other's affairs, and the encouragement and promotion of voluntary collective bargaining. However, Canada has not ratified Convention 98 because there are some divergencies between the convention's requirements and the Canadian situation.
The main obstacle to ratification is that, with the exception of the armed forces and the police and “public servants engaged in the administration of the state”, Convention 98 does not provide for any exclusions from collective bargaining rights. However, in Canada, a number of jurisdictions exclude some other types of workers, such as agricultural workers and certain professionals, from their collective bargaining legislation. This has been interpreted by the ILO as not being in compliance with Convention 98.
Officials of the labour program of Human Resources Development Canada have recently sought further clarifications from ILO officials concerning Convention 98's requirements, with a view to initiating a re-examination of the potential for Canadian ratification of Convention 98, in consultation with the provinces and territories as well as the social partners.
Questions On The Order PaperGar Knutson: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, when members' statements and question period interrupted us I was talking about the very first letter of this bill.
It is a good bill. I personally think there should be no reason for us not to support it. It will save taxpayers some money. It will make travel better for Canadians travelling to other countries, as well as those travelling to other countries for whom Canada is only a stopping point. I believe the regulations will be adequate to preserve the security of the country. If not, we will chase that down when it comes. We need to be sure that the criminals do not get away with anything because of this.
I was talking about the very first letter of the bill. It is Bill S-22. The first letter is S , which stands for Senate. I said that we should really improve this. This is something that is long overdue. It is too bad that we on this side, every time this happens, have to remind the government that what we have is a failed part of democracy, and that is because the Senate is not elected. There is no excuse for that.
The Prime Minister said during the 1993 election campaign, and I have said it so often that I know it by heart, that “Within two years of being the government we will have an elected Senate”. He promised as Prime Minister, “I can make that happen”.
Instead of castigating him for a broken promise, which I would be slightly tempted to do, I would rather put it on a positive note. Quite clearly, before 1993, our Prime Minister was convinced that it was a good idea or he would not have said it. It is a good idea in his mind. It is certainly a good idea in the minds of Canadians. There is no reason in the world for this not to happen. All he has to do is appoint to the Senate, without any constitutional change, the people who are chosen by the electors.
In Alberta, for example, we had a Senate election. Two people were democratically chosen by the people. They are ready to serve the next time there is an opening for the province of Alberta. All the Prime Minister has to do is say that when the vacancy becomes available “I will appoint the person who the people have chosen”. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a compromise, but at least the people serving in the Senate would be the choice of the people rather than the political choice of the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister wants to take this reasoning to the ultimate, if he feels that he can better choose who is to represent Alberta or any other province in the Senate, then why does he not do it for MPs? Why do we have elections for members of parliament? Why do we not just let the Prime Minister appoint whomever he will, in whatever riding. We would have nothing but Liberals in the House. Would that not be wonderful?
Unfortunately Hansard does not indicate sarcasm, so let the record show that the member was dripping with sarcasm when he made that statement. That way it will appear on the record.
I will rest my case there. I would be very pleased to support the bill if it came from an elected Senate with the full legitimacy of what we know and understand to be democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Firearms Law Sunset ActGarry Breitkreuz: 
moved that Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, once again I must deplore the fact that all private members' bills selected in the draw are not declared votable items in the House. This is a real lack of democracy and it allows the government to sweep issues under the rug that it does not want to address.
I have been working on this bill, the firearms law sunset act, since 1994. I first introduced the sunset clause as an amendment to Bill C-68 during the debate in the spring of 1995. This bill was first introduced in the House as Bill C-351 on September 28, 1995 and then again as Bill C-357 on December 2, 1996.
It is most disappointing to put so much effort into a piece of legislation and to have it die after one hour of debate in the House. This is a situation that must be rectified if we are ever to have any chance of our constituents' legislative initiatives being given their rightful consideration in the House.
In light of the rash of recent shootings, both here and in the United States, more and more people are clamouring for tougher gun control laws. What we need, and what the people really want, is effective gun control laws. As we have seen with Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, tougher does not equal effective.
Bill C-278 would rectify the government oversight by implementing a process that would ensure that only gun law provisions that were proven to be effective by the auditor general would remain the law of the land.
Frankly, I do not know how any member of the House could logically argue that they support ineffective gun laws. While there may be arguments opposing the legislative process and the wording of this bill, I would be absolutely amazed if anyone in the House will be brave enough to argue against this principle.
People arguing against this bill will have to argue that they support gun control laws even if they do not work, no matter how much they cost and even if another measure might work better. I am not arguing that gun control laws are unnecessary, only that police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for our bucks. That is exactly what Bill C-278 is designed to do.
At this point, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my bill on November 7, 1997 when I reintroduced this firearms law sunset act in this session. That day the House leader and the chief justice critic for the Conservatives said:
Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party lines. These (Firearms Act) regulations are not about public safety—it is just another tax.
It is just another tax. We want effective measures and that is what this bill is all about.
This bill is a sunset law. I want to point out to the members exactly what that means. Robert D. Behn wrote this explanation:
The idea of the sunset law is that every government program should periodically terminate, and continue only after an evaluation and a legislative vote to reestablish it. The objective is to replace the assumption that every program automatically continues unless there is a vote to terminate it, with the assumption that every program automatically terminates, unless there is a vote to continue it. Consequently, sunset laws are designed to ensure meaningful program evaluation, to introduce the possibility of termination, to merge duplicative programs and rationalize program structure, and to eliminate conflicts and competition between programs.
By shifting the burden of proof from those who would terminate a program to those who would renew it, the advocates of sunset laws hope to create an incentive for individual agencies, and the government as a whole to improve.
That quotation says it better than I could. I think we have to very carefully listen to what was said. That is what I hoped to achieve in drafting the firearms law sunset act.
The bill would provide a five year sunset provision on all gun control measures which means that the measure would be automatically repealed unless the auditor general has reported that it has been a successful and cost effective measure to increase public safety and reduce violent crime involving the use of firearms. That is, in essence, what the bill does.
The auditor general's report has to be considered by a committee representing broad interest in the firearms community and the committee report must be presented to and concurred in by the House or the sunset provision will take effect automatically at the end of the five years. That is what the bill provides for.
The bill also provides safeguards to allow parliament the time necessary to make amendments to allow ineffective gun control measures to expire without affecting the parts of the legislation that are effective at fighting firearms crime.
We want to make our society safer. We want to pass laws in parliament that are effective. We need sunset provisions so we can focus on what works.
This bill is the total opposite of the ill-conceived Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, that was passed into law on December 5, 1995 and prematurely brought into force on December 1, 1998. Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun control laws are costly and ineffective. Whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun control law has to be both successful and cost effective in saving lives and reduce the criminal use of firearms.
If members of Parliament want gun control measures that reduce violent crime they will support this bill. If members of the House want gun control measures that improve public safety and save lives they will support the bill. Finally, if MPs want gun control measures that not only reduce violent crime involving firearms, but also want the most successful and most cost effective methods for achieving these goals, they will support the bill. If the MPs have an open mind and look at the bill, I cannot see how they could not support it. Hopefully, they will have an open mind.
Every year the government passes hundreds of new laws but seldom repeals any. Should every bill passed by parliament not come with a built in sunset clause which would automatically repeal any measure that is not working or is not cost effectively achieving its stated objective? How much could we save the taxpayers of the country if we had that clause built into every bill? That is our job as parliamentarians. It is fundamental that we make sure that the laws of the land work. If they do not, we should get rid of them. They cost the taxpayers a lot of money because there is bureaucracy that is put in place to track these measures.
Bureaucrats who depend on costly, ineffective government programs for their jobs will hate the bill. Ministers who are more intent on building empires and retaining their status at the cabinet table will hate the bill. Conversely, taxpayers who are footing the bill and the general public who have to pay even higher taxes for this bureaucratic bungling and inefficiency will love the firearms law sunset act.
If members argue against this bill, they have to argue that we should have laws whether they work effectively or not. I rest my case. I think I have clearly explained the importance of the bill.
The bill needs more time to be fully debated and explained. It should be debated by all members in the House. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to make Bill C-278, the firearms law sunset act, a votable item. In support of that, I hope the attitude I detect on the other side by the laughter will disappear. The need to have this item votable should be uppermost. I would like to seek unanimous consent to make this a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to have this bill made votable?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the bill after hearing the rhetoric and simplistic interpretation of the member opposite. I think his true goal was to do what he could not do when he tried to develop support against gun control legislation in the country. The member knows that more than 80% of Canadians support gun control. This is a very silly piece of legislation.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the parliamentary secretary imputing motive?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the parliamentary secretary is perhaps suggesting reasons why the hon. member made the speech he did. It seems to me it is a point of debate.
Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly opposed to Bill C-278 for a number of reasons. The bill proposes that we repeal the new firearms legislation without giving it any reasonable time to work. The Reform Party would propose sunsetting an act 11 months after it becomes fully effective.
The Department of Justice already has in place a carefully considered plan for evaluating the new law's success and achieving its objectives.
Bill C-278 ignores the accomplishments made in the first few months of the new Firearms Act. Canadians can already see the positive impact of Bill C-68. Canadians continue to strongly support the government's position.
I would like to talk about what the Firearms Act has already done. Members will see that it has already been effective. The government is confident that within a reasonable time after the new firearms law has been fully implemented its effectiveness will be even more demonstrable.
For the first time ever, the new law requires instant background checks before any gun sale can proceed. As of the end of February of this year, more than 4,700 checks have been conducted as part of gun sales or transfers. Of these checks, almost 7% were flagged for investigation. In other words, more than 325 potentially dangerous gun sales were referred for further scrutiny. Examples of these cases include people with past or recent histories of violence, break and enters, theft or drug involvement, or people who were trying to acquire guns that they were not licensed to purchase.
One of the cases caught by the new system was that of an individual from Nelson, British Columbia who tried to purchase several firearms over a two week period. The individual had a firearms licence but the background check showed numerous prior convictions and several recent incidents involving spousal abuse, uttering threats and drug activity. The individual's firearms licence was suspended pending further investigation and the sales were refused. On two subsequent occasions, the individual tried again to purchase firearms. This time his licence was revoked altogether.
This is the kind of situation the new system was designed to control. Everybody in the House should share the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. In this early case the system demonstrated its effectiveness every time the individual tried to buy a gun.
More than 85 license applications have been refused for public safety concerns. It is through results like this that the Canadian public knows the new gun control program introduced in Bill C-68 will make the homes in their communities and their communities as a whole much safer.
The choices laid out today are clear. If Bill C-278 were to become law and all Canadian gun laws were sunsetted, Canada would be left with no licensing, no registration, nothing. Why would the Reform Party risk this? Is it because its hidden agenda is to let everyone own powerful guns?
Let us look around at the rest of the world and see that the control of firearms is something the entire world is seeking.
The government, unlike members opposite, is committed to promoting public safety. It is clear that the Firearms Act already has had an impact. The government is confident all assessments will demonstrate that the system enhances public safety once full implementation is completed.
Does the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville really want to allow anyone unrestricted ownership of fully automatic guns? We know that the Reform Party continues to fight firearms control. The National Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association must be proud.
Let us talk about specific parts of the bill. The member opposite would have the auditor general and his office evaluate a major public safety program in just a few months after it came into force. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is unrealistic. There is no way that the auditor general and his staff could complete a thorough study in the time set out. It is simply unacceptable.
I do not minimize the need to evaluate laws. We heard months and months of testimony on Bill C-68. We listened to what Canadians told us about gun control. We made sure that the law would be effective. We built in an assessment program. We will make sure that any glitches are ironed out, that any opportunity to make the law even better is exercised.
The fact remains that when any new law comes into force we need to allow a certain amount of time before we can assess its impact and its effectiveness. Individuals need to adjust to new requirements. Law enforcement agencies need to adjust to new responsibilities. The judiciary needs time to consider the law's meaning and intent as cases are presented. It takes time.
The Firearms Act is no different. To assess its effects on public safety, on the incidence of violent crime and on cost effectiveness, we have to allow time for the act to be fully enforced.
The hon. member should be pleased that a full evaluation process with an appropriate timetable is consistent with Treasury Board guidelines and is already in place.
When the former minister of justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during those months and months of testimony, he spoke about the evaluation process. He stated that the Department of Justice would be monitoring experience with registration and licensing to determine what improvements could be made and to make that information available to parliament and to the public.
The evaluation plan calls for assessments of the extent to which the operational elements of the Firearms Act, part 3 of the Criminal Code and their associate programs have been implemented and whether their objectives are being achieved. It also calls for an implementation evaluation. This should begin one year after the program launch and its findings will be submitted one year later. This exercise will be carried out by key federal partners and the results are to be consolidated with overall evaluation of the Canadian firearms program.
Bill C-278 is a simplistic, unrealistic piece of legislation, but I would be remiss if I did not point out one thing. In the member's bill he supports the sentencing guidelines that the government introduced in Bill C-68, so he has found something good to say about our law.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to support the bill introduced by the Reform Party, first of all because we see it somewhat as a head on attack on the philosophy and the purpose of Bill C-68.
I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who successfully sponsored this bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I also want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the philosophy of this bill, although we did have some concerns about the legislation. We were concerned about some administrative details and wanted to make it easier for hunters, especially in terms of the issuing of permits.
With the help of my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who is well known for his exactness, especially by members of his own caucus, we brought forward some 15 amendments to improve on the bill, four of which were approved by the government.
I want to make myself very clearly understood. We do not believe that increased gun registration and control under this bill, to show where these guns are to be found throughout our society, will help to fight crime.
On the other hand, however, we believe these are significant steps that, coupled with other legislation, can make access to firearms more difficult.
I do not want to sensationalize or make facile connections, but I think the time is right for us, as parliamentarians, to debate these issues. Unfortunately, we have all seen and been affected, beyond partisanship, by what happened in Colorado and more recently in Alberta.
I believe this should reinforce our conviction that, as parliamentarians, we must take action to make it more difficult to have access to firearms. Let us not forget that one of the objectives of Bill C-68 was and still is to deal with the whole issue of safe storage.
I have trouble figuring out how asking people to take certain measures for the safer storage of their rifles, shotguns and handguns could be a violation of their fundamental freedoms.
The Reform Party is making connections and saying things with respect to an issue like firearms that do not have a great impact on people. Canadians do not expect us to ban hunting or to prohibit gun collectors from having access to their collections. That is not what it is about. It is about taking measures to ensure that guns are handled and stored safely.
More importantly, we need a national firearm registry so that when police officers are called somewhere in the community, to someone's home, they know ahead of time whether or not there might be firearms on the premises.
I sincerely believe there is nothing outlandish in this legislation. But we are not fooled. We know full well that what the Reform Party wants is, for all intents and purposes, that Bill C-68 be withdrawn.
As early as 1995, they started plotting against the bill. We cannot agree to this, no more than we could agree to the creation of more red tape that would have made life complicated for hunters in certain communities. This is why the member for Berthier—Montcalm introduced a number of amendments making the bill more practical than it was before.
To make it very clear, I want to stress how moderate, how reasonable the four main provisions of the bill seems to us. Mr. Speaker, you are our focus on Fridays. I am sure our fellow citizens who are watching want to know what Bill C-68 is about.
I will quickly highlight the four main thrusts of Bill C-68. It amends the Criminal Code to provide for stiffer sentences—this is called sentencing—for certain serious offences involving the use of a firearm, such as murder or kidnapping.
I believe lawmakers must deter criminals from using a firearm while committing an offence. In legal terms, this is called aggravating circumstances. The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this provision in Bill C-68.
Second, there is the Firearms Act, the purpose of which is to separate from the Criminal Code the administrative and regulatory aspects relating to permits and registration. This was done because we believe it is important for police forces to know when someone has firearms. The reason for this is the extremely high risk of violence that exists when a person owns a firearm, one that is not present with the possession of any other type of item.
Third, there is a new licensing system. The permit authorizes acquisition of a firearm and the purchase of ammunition.
Finally, no doubt the most controversial aspect, and the one the Reform Party was opposed to, while we were in agreement with it, is of course the mandatory registration of firearms of all kinds, including shotguns and hunting rifles.
So, there is the structure. But, here again, I repeat, I do not think this is a bill that threatens basic freedoms. This leads me to talk about organized crime.
As a political party, we believe that organized crime is a huge organization and that there is no one way of getting rid of it. Naturally, we know that there are different levels of organized crime and that certain conditions foster the proliferation of organized crime.
There are, generally, three. First, there must be some wealth in the society. It is clear that Canada and Quebec meet this criterion. Organized crime also needs a society that has communication networks, airports, railways, highways, etc. In other words, it must be possible to connect quickly with another continent because, as we know, organized crime is a global reality. It is a fact of globalization, as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean would put it.
Organized crime also proliferates in a society with bureaucracies, charters and legal guarantees that often result in delaying tactics being used in relation to court proceedings.
Organized crime is a very present reality in the Canadian society. It is estimated that the underground economy is an industry that generates close to $20 billion.
There is a connection to be made between registering firearms and our desire, as parliamentarians, to fight against organized crime.
Since my time is up, I reaffirm the Bloc Quebecois' support for Bill C-68's underlying philosophy. We believe that gun control is desirable. We are not prepared to support the Reform Party bill before us today.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-278.
The events that took place in Taber, Alberta, have shocked Canadians with the realization that brutal violence and killing is not limited to the United States. Even more shocking is the fact that the corrupting effects of an increasingly violent society have now forever altered our schools, once safe places of learning.
In the wake of this tragedy we must attempt to maintain reason. Horrific events such as the shooting in Taber often provoke the knee-jerk reaction of demanding stricter gun control laws. As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party I can state that we support gun control. However, tragedies such as the shooting in Taber provoke the government to act on emotion, not on logic. Emotional responses to tragic situations lead us to ineffective, irresponsible legislation like Bill C-68.
Bill C-68 was drafted in response to society's demand for a tougher stand on crime. Instead of dealing with the issue of crime in a meaningful way, the government took the easy way out in touting Bill C-68 as the answer to its concerns. Bill C-68 has done nothing to prevent crime and has only led to discriminatory practices toward law-abiding gun owners by the federal government.
The government should have committed to sensible gun control legislation that did not discriminate against long gun owners by forcing them into expensive, time consuming and fundamentally flawed gun registration. By doing this the government would not have need for an escape clause bill that would allow it to correct bad legislation every five years.
The PC Party supports Bill C-278 as we feel it provides for the expiry of Bill C-68 after five years. Yet it will be five years during which law-abiding responsible gun owners will suffer due to Bill C-68. Since the cause of gun owners is not a popular one among Liberals, it is easy for the government to ignore their concerns and produce regionally popular although universally ineffective gun control legislation like Bill C-68. This has been especially true since the crisis in Ottawa on April 6.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 they have tried to paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control legislation through basic simplistic terms which play on the fears of a public fearful for its own safety. For example, the Liberals will promote their anti-gun legislation by stating “guns kill people”, “guns make people fear for their safety”, and “if we get rid of guns our problem will be solved”.
The government seems to conveniently ignore the fact that guns do not kill people. Enraged individuals in need of counselling kill people. The government does not want people to know that handguns, not long guns, are the weapons of choice for most criminals. It has neglected to remember that the majority of long gun owners are responsible gun owners and law-abiding citizens. Thus upon looking at these Liberal champions of justice, it is abundantly clear that Liberal gun legislation does little to stop the real criminals and infringes upon the individual rights of responsible Canadians to own long guns.
The Liberals are already trying to amend the ineffective Bill C-68. Whether it is Bill C-278 or the old Bill C-68, the fact remains that the Liberal government's position on gun control is in constant flux. The most recent Liberal gun control legislation provides a great opportunity for Canadians to tell their elected representatives to get rid of Bill C-68 before the five year period has passed. Although Bill C-278 is a good idea, Canadians should not have to wait five years to get rid of ineffective legislation that does not take into account the opinions of constituents across the country.
The Liberal government seems only to be concerned with the opinions of its supporters who live primarily in urban Ontario. This only reaffirms the Progressive Conservative Party's consistent position concerning gun control. Whether it be the position taken by our former leader, the Hon. Jean Charest in the last parliament or during the last election; the position of our party throughout the debate on the old Bill C-68; or our position under our new leader, Mr. Clark, the unwavering opposition to any ill-conceived long gun registration is clear. The focus here should not waver.
The gun control debate is about long guns. It is about shotguns and rifles. It is against hunters and sportsmen. The Liberal government has continually failed to make legislative provisions for long gun owners. Thus I argue that Bill C-278 should be passed to allow for the removal of Bill C-68 in five year's time.
We would rather see the removal of Bill C-68 immediately. Yet, as they say, good things come to those who wait and thus we will be patient and place the PC Party's support behind Bill C-278.
One of the key commitments of the justice critic to the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—and it was mine as well—was to continue to oppose repressive Liberal gun control legislation. Such legislation is ineffective and an unproven mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates on and targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be using firearms. Bill C-68 does not affect the root causes of crime. Thus it is hoped that Bill C-278 will eventually correct this problem.
Bill C-278 is very timely. We heard the cries of thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners that assembled on the Hill before Christmas. There appears to be some opposition to what the government is attempting with its repressive gun control legislation. Our justice critic had the opportunity to personally meet with a number of representatives from organizations in his province of Nova Scotia and in my province of New Brunswick, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation, to review the negative impact which has already resulted from ineffective gun control legislation.
Businesses in the province of New Brunswick and like businesses in other provinces will be extremely and negatively affected by the implementation of continuing gun control legislation because, as we know, it will force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that will not impact on the criminal use of firearms.
We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. The Liberals have tried to further that by adding burdensome registration fees which amount to nothing more than a tax. I might add that the Liberal government and its well intentioned allies have attempted to sell their issues on gun control as a question of crime.
The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white: proponents of bills such as a Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of such bills oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us make that perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in the House, anyone in the opposition who opposes gun control per se. Gun registration is about ineffective Liberal legislation and its effect on law-abiding citizens.
Firearm owners and I meet on a regular basis. They are some of the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible and supportive of effective measures when it comes to the handling of firearms. If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use guns for criminal purposes, let us toughen up the code sections. Let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.
It came to light last spring that the statistics used by the government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were seriously flawed, according to the commissioner of the RCMP. Words like exaggeration and misuse of statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice that it was simply a difference of methodologies. This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like to hear.
Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent years. In fact the government played a part in implementing some of those pieces of legislation.
Under the previous gun law applicants were required to obtain firearms application certificates which are called FAC licences. They were required to take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits.
Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and sport club members who were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of most military assault weapons were banned or restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearm handling safety courses. The previous laws also included stringent storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these regulations.
In conclusion, let us not continue to target law-abiding citizens with ineffective and indecisive legislation. Let us in fact target criminals. It will be a long and roundabout manner of doing so, but I suggest that by supporting Bill C-278 we can continue to point out the problems with Bill C-68. This continued debate will hopefully lead to the removal of Bill C-68 in the next five years.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, it is rather sad that we are still debating horrible legislation which was passed in 1995. It is a debate that never ends.
Even though we are in grave economic difficulties and the country is fighting an undeclared war, whenever I go back to my constituency and visit the coffee shop or walk down the street people still ask what we will do about the idiotic registration law. It never dies.
I diverge a little from my colleague who has proposed the bill, although I support it. The time the studies should have been made was before the bill was passed, not after the fact. We had a bill that was based on prejudice, public hysteria and deliberately falsified data. It was all brought together under a closure motion. That was one of the blackest days in the House. It is something for which democracy is paying dearly.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said that he did not see anything in the bill that would affect the civil rights of Canadians. I wonder if the right to entry and search without a warrant and the right to seize lawfully owned private property without compensation constitute no threat to the general public.
I said some studies should have been done before the legislation was passed. I took the initiative to do something in this regard. I did a very detailed study of the crime statistics over a 20 year period for the northern tier states of the northwestern U.S. as opposed to the Canadian prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I thought, as a resident of southern Saskatchewan, I would find that the rates of homicide in those two rather different jurisdictions would be more or less equal. I discovered to my surprise that the homicide rates in those northern tier states were actually lower than in our three western Canadian provinces where we have had gun control of a sort since 1976.
In those northern tier states they call it gun control because they have a law on the books in Montana that says you cannot take your machine gun away from your own property. It is wide open and yet their homicide rate is lower than ours and has been for the last 20 years, if one takes the average of those northern states and of our western provinces.
Interestingly, when I was doing this study, I discovered that North Dakota has historically had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people. Maine, another state adjacent to Canada but not included in my study, also has that 1.2 per 100,000. That is roughly the same order of magnitude as the homicide rates in Japan where private ownership of firearms is virtually banned. One can make what one wants of that. It is a fact.
On the other hand, in that great land to the south the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia has what is probably the toughest regulations governing firearms of any jurisdiction in the western world, far tougher than we have in Bill C-68, and yet its homicide rate is astronomical. It is 80 per 100,000 per annum. That is like a war zone and yet they have these extremely rigorous control of firearms.
New York City is another example. Both state and city laws control firearms. Yet the homicide rate there is more than 10 times what it is in the wide open states of North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
That is the type of study that should have been performed relative to the Canadian experience before we got involved in this hysterical pursuit of a magic fix to do away with crime in this country, but it was not done.
In recent years there have been several academic studies made of this particular question, most notably by Dr. Manzer at Simon Fraser University, Dr. Lott at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Kleck from the school of criminology at Florida State University. These academics have all agreed and determined that the existence of a law requiring the registration of firearms has no particular effect, either detrimental or beneficial, to the prevalence of murder in any society. These are eminent academics.
If the government does not want to consult academics, it would have been worthwhile had the government listened to rank and file police officers rather than to the national association of police chiefs when it went for police input. Some very good polling has been done by the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers of its members. It was discovered that lo and behold 75% of them are opposed to the legislation in Bill C-68. Ninety-one per cent of serving RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are opposed to the legislation. These are the people who are out there on the front lines every day. These are not the political policemen.
I had a phone call not too long ago from an RCMP sergeant whom I know fairly well. He said, “There is a whole bunch of people milling around my office today. I have this big lineup at my door”. I asked what the problem was, what was going on. He said, “All the Hell's Angels in town have come around and they are trying to get their possession and acquisition certificates and they all want to get them on the same day”. Perhaps there was a little hyperbole in the man's statement, but I certainly got his message.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment quoted what she referred to as the positive impacts of this legislation. She should go back and take a look at this legislation and all previously existing legislation because background checks have been a fact of life in Canada for many years. It is not something that was brought in with Bill C-68 and she should know that. To say that there has been a positive effect from this new legislation is not true.
At the same time she set up quite a number of straw men. She said something about the people who are supporting this bill wanted to decontrol the private ownership of automatic weapons. I reread the bill immediately after she said that to see if I could find some reference of that nature and I am sorry, but it is not there.
All the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is asking is that after five years from January 1 this legislation be revisited, that some proper studies be made of its effectiveness or lack thereof, and that the government then act upon those studies to determine whether or not the $50 million a year that this is going to cost us is a sensibly directed expenditure, if it is going to do any good.
The previous studies I have mentioned certainly suggest that it does no good at all.
I would like to read a brief comment from Professor Kleck who incidentally until 1976, according to his biography, was very skeptical to say the least about the right to gun ownership. He is a criminologist. He said that it was a sort of visceral reaction on his part to think that if there were fewer guns, there would be less crime. However, when he did his academic research, and he has been doing research like this for 20 years, here is what he said—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time. I know that there are other members who wish to speak in the debate. I am afraid I am going to have to terminate his speech at this time.
John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be making only a brief couple of comments. My colleague from the Reform Party has permitted me to split some time here, so I am grateful for that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment did point out one valid issue which is that it takes a little while for legislation, whatever the topic is, to actually have any kind of effect. I would argue that the government never let Bill C-17 make a positive effect in that regard.
Bill C-68 is a bad news bill because it makes no sense to register the long guns of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. The law enforcement officers in society today would rather have the $300 million plus that is going to be spent for better law enforcement initiatives than the arbitrary registration program in Bill C-68, which the Progressive Conservative Party and this hon. member definitely oppose.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, my comments will also to be very short.
We need to focus on what this bill actually says instead of much of the talk that has been going on here on the issue of gun control itself.
This private member's bill is a very important one. It says in the desire of Canadians to prevent the deaths and accidental deaths that come from improper use of firearms and also the criminal use of firearms, that Canadians, especially this week, demand and deserve that their money be spent where it is going to be effective.
My colleague's private member's bill focuses on it very well. It says that this bill should automatically expire after five years unless it is proven effective in doing the job. In other words, this is an issue which is certainly part of being a good steward of the taxpayers' money, but it goes much beyond that. It says that where we spend that money we want the job to be done right.
There should not be a Liberal in the House who would hesitate to vote for this bill. Surely they too would want to cause the fast expiry of any bill or any procedure which is proven ineffective. That is what this bill says about gun control, or whatever it is called. It is not really gun control. Right now it is a gun registration system. The control element is essentially non-evident in what the Liberal government is doing. The bill before us today is simply calling for that to be evaluated.
I will tell the House this. If there is empirical evidence of the effectiveness of what the Liberals are doing, I will vote for it. But if there is empirical evidence that it is ineffective, as we on this side suspect it will be based on scientific and statistical evidence, then I want to see that bill gone. I want the taxpayers' money to be spent and I want the government to be doing that which is truly effective in stopping the criminal misuse of firearms.
I cannot state this strongly enough. We were all shocked and horrified this week, as people in Ottawa were several weeks ago, by the blatant gunning down of innocent people by another person with a gun. Of course we want to stop that. How we wish those people had not had a gun. But is the result of that that we are simply going to confiscate all the firearms? I really have a problem with that.
We need to make sure that we are enacting effective legislation. I would urge all members to vote in favour of this.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the government has misrepresented what this bill does in the comments made that this bill will only give a few months for us to scrutinize firearms regulations. It clearly says in the bill that there are five years for the auditor general to assess the legislation. Then the government went on to defend Bill C-68 that it passed almost four years ago claiming it was effective.
The arguments made by the Liberals, if in fact they are true and we listened to them, should be open to the examination of the auditor general, an impartial party. The argument made by the government was that it was keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. If that is true, why not let the auditor general examine these laws and determine if it is true? That is only common sense.
The NDP did not participate in the discussion.
The Bloc Quebecois went on and spent much time arguing against my bill describing the problem of organized crime. My question for the Bloc Quebecois is what is there in Bill C-68 that will affect organized crime in any way, except perhaps to encourage gun use by criminals, smuggling and the black market?
In fact, Bill C-68 puts Canadians more at risk because it ties up scarce law enforcement resources rather than allowing them to be used most effectively such as in fighting organized crime. The Bloc should support my bill because it ensures our laws will become more effective.
In these last few minutes I would like to explain some of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of the government's current legislation.
The registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934 but neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP is able to produce any evidence to prove that this firearms registry has helped solve or prevent even one crime. In fact, the RCMP does not even collect statistics on whether a firearm used in a crime is registered. It is not a factor. It is almost as if the government did not want to know it was a failure.
Statistics Canada reports that 75% of all firearms crimes are committed with handguns and less than 7% with rifles and shotguns. Is it not time for the auditor general to look at why the registration of handguns has never worked as intended?
Over the years tens of thousands of guns have been restricted, registered, then prohibited by the government even though there has been no evidence to show that these firearms were involved in criminal incidents or were a threat to public safety. Many prohibited firearms have been confiscated from their rightful owners without compensation, breaking if we had them, property rights laws.
It is time to have the auditor general determine if this prohibition strategy is actually reducing crime, improving public safety or saving lives.
The firearms acquisition certificates have been mandatory since 1979 but this has not prevented criminals or madmen from getting firearms. Has it kept firearms out of the hands Marc Lépine or Valery Fabrikant or Denis Lortie or Mark Chahal or Pierre Lebrun and so on? Is it not time for the auditor general to examine the effectiveness of the government's licensing program?
If my bill or any version of it became law, it would force a constant improvement in this country's gun control laws. Gun control laws that do not work would be repealed. Gun control laws that are working would be retained and improved. There would be a dynamic process of change and improvement. We should not just have it here, we should have it in all legislation.
Most important, my bill would take the politics and the emotion out of the process of making gun control laws. Laws would be based on reason and logic and solid research. The public trusts the auditor general far more than it trusts politicians. I am willing to put our gun laws to the public safety test. Is the government ready to do the same?
I would like to thank everybody who participated today. Someone drew to my attention a comment made by somebody who thought that we needed more gun control laws. He did a thorough study. Gary Kleck said: “The research has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is, and must always be, indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary” and so on. We need to see if this is true.
Before this bill dies today, after all the arguments have now been heard, I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further review and examination. Let us send it to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to refer the bill as requested?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.15 p.m.)