Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, so that we can assist the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) in carrying out his responsibilities at this time, I am seeking the leave of the House to alter the Estimates sequence in the committee room as tabled on March 27 and subsequently altered by setting aside the Estimates of Government Services until a later date to be agreed upon between House leaders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable government House leader is seeking leave of the House to alter the Estimates sequence in the committee room as tabled on March 27 and subsequently altered by setting aside the Estimates of Government Services to a later date to be agreed upon by the House leaders. Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: On behalf of the minister and all those who hopefully will be assisted by he and his efforts, I say thank you to honourable members for that.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I would suggest that with respect to Thursday's sitting, we begin the day at 10 a.m. with Prayers and work until noon on bills, and at 1:30 proceed to Routine Proceedings followed by Oral Questions and whatever other proceedings take place at that time in accordance with the usual business of the House and followed then by Estimates review. I think this was something that the Clerk of the House raised with me in terms of what kind of a day we should have and some of the details, I think, especially referring to the issue of the prayer being the matter that begins the day and from that point as I have set out.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Is that agreed? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

I did it without my Order Paper, too.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Acting Speaker--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please.

Mr. Toews: I rise on a grievance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please--the honourable House leader, seconded by--

Mr. McCrae: Seconded by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey).

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): It has been moved by the government House Leader, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier, that Madam Speaker now do leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Mr. McCrae: On a point of order, I worded that, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Agreed?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I rise on a grievance, Mr. Acting Speaker.

I am raising this grievance in respect of an issue that was raised in the House yesterday, brought by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and supported by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the Attorney General of Manitoba is not complying with his duty to enforce the law.

The provincial Liberals have stated that the registry system enacted under the Firearms Act should be administered and enforced by Manitoba provincial officials including myself as Attorney General. The provincial NDP, as represented by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the member for Broadway, has stated that the provincial government must enforce and administer the federal registry for firearms if it is constitutional. [interjection] Mr. Acting Speaker, I hear members from the NDP saying that is right, if it is constitutional.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to this matter that had been brought before this House yesterday. I am not surprised that my colleague the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) raised this grievance as I understand the solidarity he has to show with his federal cousins in Ottawa. I believe, however wrong he is, he at least acts on principle. However, Mr. Acting Speaker, I note with interest the position of the New Democratic Party of Manitoba and the position that it is taking in this matter. As you know, the New Democratic Party under the leadership of the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) has stated time and again that they oppose the federal Firearms Act as it relates to gun registration. Although the NDP and our government do not see eye to eye on many issues, this is one that we did--and I stress did--share a common view. Unlike the Liberals, who at least act on principles, however wrong, the NDP is simply acting out of political expediency with a view to trying to be on both sides of the issue, which, of course, is impossible to do.

Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) stating that I am advocating civil disobedience and indicating that the Attorney General of Manitoba is constitutionally obliged to enforce the registration system. I wish to make it clear that there is no constitutional requirement nor is there any statutory requirement for the provincial government to shoulder the federal government's responsibilities in this matter. I want to take this opportunity to clarify for members opposite and for the public the position our government takes on this matter, and I would add that this is not a new position. The former Attorney General, my colleague, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), articulated time and time again Manitoba's position in this regard.

* (1440)

I would like to clarify this matter for the media and others because, although I took great pains to explain Manitoba's position and reason for not administering and enforcing the registration system implemented by the legislation to the reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, I was disappointed to see that the article did not explain the reason for Manitoba exercising its statutory option to opt out of the administration and enforcement of this registration. Although I went to great lengths to point out the relevant statutory authority which permits the provincial government to do this, the reporter, for reasons of her own, chose not to accurately or even at all report in respect to that position. As I stated, our position in this respect is not a new one.

My predecessor, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), articulated Manitoba's position regarding the registration scheme that the federal government was proposing under the Firearms Act. I would like to table a letter that the member for Fort Garry wrote to the federal Minister of Justice, and in respect of that particular letter back in September of 1996, the member for Fort Garry, then the Attorney General, outlined our position. We stated in our correspondence, and the letter will go on: " . . . that we will continue to meet our responsibility to enforce the Criminal Code, including all firearm-related offences under that statute."

We also indicated that we had serious misgivings about the federal government's intention to implement the statutory, mandatory universal firearms registration and we made our position very, very clear. [interjection]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. Can I remind the House that this is a very serious matter, and I think that the honourable Minister of Justice is owed the courtesy of putting his remarks on the record without interruption from members of the Chamber. If you want to carry on any discussion, please do so in the loge or outside the Chamber. Thank you.

Mr. Toews: Having taken the position that registration would not reduce crime, we indicated that, under the legislation, which clearly contemplates that either the federal legislators, that is the federal Parliament, the federal government or the provincial government, if it chooses to exercise its option, may administer that legislation. There is no statutory requirement nor is there a constitutional requirement for us to enforce that legislation.

Now the NDP have said, if it is constitutional, we will exercise that option and we will enforce that legislation. I want to say why we as a government have said we will not exercise that option to enforce the registry system. As important as Bill C-68 is as an issue, it is simply a symptom of a much greater problem, and our position on the issue of gun registration was made very clear and straightforward from the earliest time that we became acquainted with its provisions. We support measures that are anticrime and we asked the Government of Canada to consider our views as this legislation was developed.

In our opinion, the federal government has taken a wrong approach to confronting the real issue before the Canadian public, that of fighting crime. We believe that it is essential to deter the criminal use of all weapons, not just firearms. We believe that it is not the average, responsible gun owner that threatens the safety of our communities. There is also an economic benefit for our communities for the careful and responsible pursuits of firearm owners. The annual hunting season, for example, provides the basis for serious and well-documented economic gains in many areas across Canada, in many areas of Manitoba. In fact, during the hunting season, I note with interest one motel in Dauphin that puts out a sign, "Welcome Hunters."

The economic benefits to a community such as the rural community of Dauphin are many. This new firearms registry system will destroy much of that economic activity by discouraging our citizens from the lawful and legitimate pursuit of hunting. We say the real threat to public safety derives from those individuals who have such a disregard for the laws of Canada that they deliberately choose to pursue criminal activities. My predecessor, the former Attorney General, wrote the federal government and put forward our position to expand Section 85 of the Criminal Code to include all weapons in the commission of a crime. Section 85 instructs the court to impose a mandatory term for the use of a firearm in a crime. This is in addition to the sentence for the actual commission of the crime. We support legislation creating mandatory penalties for the use of any weapon in the commission of a crime.

I want to add, Mr. Acting Speaker, my priorities as a legislator in this body are health, education, social services, and public safety. Resources are scarce, and we do not want to tie up law enforcement resources in unnecessary and ineffective administrative duties. Chief Cassels' response to the Manitoba position in this regard is rather interesting. The chief, whom I have the utmost respect for as a police officer, has indicated that the province's position of not exercising its option of enforcing the registration is a foolish one. The chief neglects to understand--and I appreciate he is not an elected official--the implications of this legislation to the taxpayers of Manitoba if we choose, as the NDP have said we should, to administer and enforce this legislation. He neglects to understand that the federal government specified in the legislation that the provinces have the ability to opt out of the administration and enforcement of this act.

I took this act to the reporter, and I showed her the act, and I said we are simply exercising an option that the federal parliament gave to us. It says the provincial minister means, in respect of a province, a minister who has been designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and in those provinces where there is no designation, then the federal minister. Clearly the responsibility falls with the federal minister if there is no exercise of the option by the Lieutenant Governor.

Another very curious section, quite unusual in one which should be enforced by the provincial Attorney General, Section 116: "Any proceedings in respect of an offense under this act may be commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that government."

It is clear where the responsibility lies for the prosecution, the enforcement, and it is clear where the option is that the provincial government is not required to enforce this. Yet I had members in this House standing up saying that we were to exercise our option, members from the NDP, members from the Liberals, saying we were to exercise our option and enforce and prosecute.

Well, let me emphasize, there is no constitutional requirement to do that, and there is no statutory requirement for the province to expend millions of dollars on a registry system. We will lawfully exercise our option not to administer and enforce this legislation, and the federal government will bear the responsibility of administering and enforcing this registry system.

* (1450)

This is not a constitutional issue. This is not a statutory issue, and I am ashamed that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would say that they would enforce this legislation. At least on this issue he could have stood with us, but the NDP, along with the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), has chosen another route. They have followed the federal Liberals down a very dangerous path. This is no different, this situation, no different than the way that the federal government administers and enforces the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the customs and excise act.

Those are all areas in which they have exercised criminal statutory authority. There is no requirement on the province to exercise administration of those acts or prosecutions under those acts. I know from time to time that the province does, in fact, enforce the Narcotic Control Act on a consensual basis. As a provincial prosecutor at one time, in fact, I appeared in court to take guilty pleas before a judge.

So here, the parties opposite, the Liberals on principle, the NDP on political expediency, have decided to enforce legislation that will cost the provincial government millions of dollars. I have indicated where my priorities are. My priorities are in health, education, social services and putting police officers on the street where they will, in fact, affect crime and change. If we are to spend money on reducing crime, let us not do it by sending our hunters and our farmers to jail, which is, in fact, what this Liberal bill is doing.

I am disappointed that the comments of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would support putting our hunters and our farmers, law-abiding citizens, in jail, and, you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, they ask me to exercise the option that we have under the legislation to continue in that direction, and I say that is wrong. This is a federal bill; this is a federal responsibility and they have given us the option, and we have declined that option. So for members opposite to sit and accuse me of a dereliction of duty and not following the law is wrong when, in fact, they are not even familiar with the law; they do not even understand the law.

The new firearms legislation is indicative of a much more serious problem, and the serious problem, I say to you, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the issue of co-operative federalism. We acknowledge governments must co-operate. This very serious situation that we have outside of this House today in the province of Manitoba with flooding is an exact situation where it demonstrates how governments must act together in implementing legislation and policy.

Yet the Parliament of Canada, in the areas of criminal law, enacts legislation without consulting the provinces and wrongheadedly and blindly, yes, admittedly on principle, proceeds to enact legislation. An example of this is a huge problem with our Young Offenders Act, and I raised this very specific issue with Justice Minister Rock. I said it is wrong that this legislation, the Young Offenders Act, cuts off immunity from prosecution anyone under the age of 12 years, so that the resources of the court, even if a judge thought it was appropriate, cannot be brought to bear on that child if it is necessary. We advocate that that discretion must be given to the judiciary in order for them to effect appropriate justice in those cases where it is needed. So the federal government sets policy direction with little or no consultation with the provinces and then says to us you enforce it.

Bill C-41, conditional sentences, the aim of this bill we opposed because it was bad legislation. There are many good policy aspects to it, but the legislation was bad. We opposed it and we told the federal government, and we said you are creating a danger out there. It was perceived as simply being a way for white-collar criminals who allegedly do not create a difficulty for our community--and I think there can be some discussion on that--to not have to serve their time in jail.

Well, in fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not simply white-collar criminals who get the benefit of this. It is drug dealers and sex offenders and dangerous people who should in many cases be behind bars and, again, no consultation with the provinces. Yet the responsibility, which we have accepted because it is mandatory, goes on us to fulfill our duty.

But Bill C-68 is not that type of a bill. If we accepted the option with the firearms legislation and enforced this registration system, we will inherit all the problems that will occur in the administration and enforcement of this legislation. Regulations which specify that subsistence hunters will be exempt from the fees but not from the regulation will be basically impossible to enforce. We would have to devote legislation, manpower and money. I say let the federal government weigh its resources in enforcing the regulations that are going to be next to impossible to deal with.

With due respect to Chief Cassels, whom I respect as the police chief of Winnipeg, with due respect to the Liberals, who are acting on principle, but with shame on the NDP, who are simply acting out of political expediency, we would rather put our scarce resources into health, education and social services. Others may wish to contribute to a larger, more costly bureaucracy in Ottawa. The provincial NDP and the provincial Liberals may have that as their priority. We do not. We will not exercise our option to enforce in accordance with the statute, even though the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has indicated that if it was constitutional, they would exercise their option, and they would enforce the legislation. They are wrong and it would cause much damage to the people of Manitoba.

So I would ask the members of the NDP to reconsider this folly and to ensure that our resources are put into the appropriate circumstances and programs. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1500)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: I think perhaps coincidentally--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. Is the honourable member for Thompson on a grievance?

Mr. Ashton: Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Okay.

Mr. Ashton: I find it absolutely amazing and of course not all that coincidental that this is the second day of the federal election campaign. Well, for the minister to stand in this House and talk about political anything involving any issue when indeed he is rising on day two of the federal election is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Toews: Mr. Acting Speaker, I rose in response to a grievance that was put in this House yesterday, and there was a request that I respond to it to put our position on the record. I did so as quickly as possible, and I want you to admonish the member for Thompson to suggest that I have done anything improper in coming back to the House and indicating in fact the response that we have to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

I think the Chair should admonish the member for Thompson.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable minister does not have a point of order

* * *

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member for Thompson, to continue.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. For the edification of the minister, he can rise on a ministerial statement at any point in time. There are other mechanisms to put on the record his views, his opinions, his political philosophies, whatever view of the world the minister might have, but the role of grievances, which is tied in historically and in this House to the Supply provided by this House to the Crown, is to provide members of this House who are not part of Executive Council the opportunity to speak on a grievance.

I have never seen a minister of the Crown rise on a grievance, and I say to the minister if he wants to quote back to us any legislation with any certainty and have us believe his legal interpretations, he might want to start by interpreting the rules of the House properly and not abusing the rules of this House by rising as a minister of the Crown on a grievance.

I want to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that I do find it passing strange that we are now into day two of the federal election campaign. I think it is unfortunate in this House that the minister himself seems to wish to rewrite history. I know why he is sensitive about C-68. I want to say this on the record here. We know where the Liberals stood, most of them. Most of them voted in favour of C-68. I believe David Iftody abstained. There were a few Liberals who were mysteriously absent on the day of the vote, including my M.P.--at least on one of them--in Churchill.

But, you know, it is interesting. The NDP voted eight against C-68, one in favour. Unlike the Liberals, by the way, the federal NDP caucus did not kick the one person out that voted the other way. We had respect for that. Now Reform--I love the Reform Party, by the way, because, you know, they like to play this real tough. Now they are going around--I got a leaflet the other day from the Reform Justice critic saying how they would repeal C-68. Well, what is interesting is, what happened when they came to a vote. There were three Reform M.P.s who voted for it, including the deputy leader.

But I want to say this to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) before he leaves us, because which way did the Conservative Party vote? You know, Jean Charest, what did Jean Charest do on C-68? Was he in favour of it? Was he against it? He did not show up for the vote. That is this Conservative Party of principle, the same party that the minister opposite was lecturing us about. Talk about political expediency. You know, there is the old political story of the politician who is asked his position on an issue and said: Some of my friends are for it and some of my friends are against it, and I am with my friends. Well, I guess Jean Charest was with his friends on C-68.

Well, and I must say I get some amusement out of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) driving out into rural Manitoba, northern Manitoba with his view of the world. I love this reference to hunting in Dauphin. It must be very interesting to the people in Dauphin to read this Hansard, that the Minister of Justice actually recognizes that hunting is a major activity, including for tourism, in Dauphin. That is no big news out in rural Manitoba, but I would say coming from northern Manitoba, and this is news to the minister. People can see through politicians posturing at election time. This minister now gets up on day two of the federal election campaign and all of a sudden has a newfound interest in C-68. Come on, Mr. Acting Speaker, we all know what is going on. It is called a desperate attempt by the Conservative Party to correct what Jean Charest did, which he did not even have the guts to vote on C-68, did not even have the guts.

Well, I say, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I say this to the Minister of Justice as well. If you want to deal with C-68, and by the way, their key issue is the registration. There are other elements of the bill that I think everybody supports, and I think that is the unfortunate part about this debate. In terms of C-68, there is a difference. I know the Liberals are very clearly provincially in favour of the registration.

An Honourable Member: That is an open book.

Mr. Ashton: Well, it was an open book, but I do not think there is any dissension in the current Liberal caucus on that, nor with the previous leader. I am not trying to say that there were not Liberals who maybe were on the other side. I know in my own constituency, the Liberal candidate, I remember one time when he got up and it was interesting. He was asked his position on C-68 and he said: Well, I do not own any guns and I am proud of that, and I am in favour of C-68. That was his position, and I respect that. I must say that it did not reflect a lot of people in the community.

I say, in terms of Bill C-68, I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed, and a lot of people have, about the priorities of the federal government and Mr. Rock in particular, who I believe wanted to use this as a political symbol. But I also have problems, and the Attorney General is not contributing to this, and I said this in my own constituency. I see these signs up now: Gun control is not crime control. I tell you I put on the record and I put this on the record in the provincial election, that I favour gun control. You know we already have gun control. We have a much better system than the Americans. I do not want to see the American system today, tomorrow or any time in the future. We have had handguns registered since the 1930s. There are restrictions on assault weapons. I mean, we all, I think, in Canada share the sense that that has much more merit than the wide-open system in the United States.

But that has never been the issue. The issue is in terms of the registration portion, and there are many people in northern Manitoba who said it did not make sense, particularly in rural and northern communities, and I say to the Minister of Justice that what he is doing, on this particular case, I think it is shameful. I mean, he is trying to turn this into an issue in the federal election, but he should be reminded of the fact that he is the provincial Attorney General. I do not care if he tries to cover up for Jean Charest. His first role should be as the Attorney General to the public of Manitoba. [interjection]

I say to the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), he knows of what I speak. [interjection]

Well, it is interesting now, and I appreciate the member for Lakeside is also jumping into this, you know, and I am sure that Jean Charest will remember him well for this effort. To the member for Lakeside, I ask the question: Why did his federal leader duck the vote? I would suggest that if Jean Charest travels to Dauphin, I say this to the member for Dauphin, someone should dress up in a chicken suit and go to his campaign meetings with Bill C-68 on it, because you knew where the Liberals stood, you know the Liberal M.P. voted for it. You knew where the NDP stood, eight out of nine voted against it, but you know, where were the progressive chickens?

I say I can understand why they had to get up in this House; they have got to talk real tough. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), he can get into all the Clint Eastwood go ahead and make my day poses but I realize it is a tough act to follow, and I have news for the Minister of Justice because I would suggest he check and see what kind of credibility the Conservative Party has in rural Manitoba, particularly when you explain this to people.

You know, I get a lot of people--you talk about C-68. They assumed the Conservatives were against it because now when it is fashionable, when they are in the right seats, when they are in the province of Manitoba, guess what happens? They are going to put out--I guarantee you, in Dauphin, they will put out a leaflet that says, hey, they are against C-68. I will tell you what they will do in Quebec. I think this has something to do with it. Jean Charest is going to go around, and he will probably only say this in French. He will probably say, well, I have concerns, but I support C-68.

* (1510)

I mean, we have been through this. This was amazing, I went over to the Liberal MLA, and I said this is unusual because normally it is the Liberals who are on both sides of the fence. They are often firmly impaled right on the fence, but on this one, on C-68, the Conservatives are on one side of the fence, and Quebec is on one side of the fence, and western Canada. I just say to Jean Charest, to the federal PCs and their apologist, of course, in this Manitoba Legislature on key issues, you cannot be on both sides of the fence. You are either for the registration or you are against it, and all the puffery of the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) and all of his newfound knowledge of Dauphin--and I am sure he is going to be coming up to Thompson doing the same thing, discovering the broad expanse of rural and northern Manitoba.

Hey, some of us have been there already. We know what is going on. We took a stand, and I tell you, his party refused to take a stand, and the people of Manitoba are going to remember that in the next 36 days. [interjection] Yeah, you have to take a stand. I say to the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), I wonder if he will stand beside Jean Charest on an election platform. I think he has enough sense not to do that.

Some over there may want to stand beside Preston Manning. We are never quite sure with the Tories. You know, they are schizophrenic, and one day they support one side; the next day they support the other side. I do not blame them. It is pretty tough being a Tory in this country federally after the Mulroney mess.

But, you know, Jean Charest found a way to get out of it. He is trying to reinvent the old Liberal trick. Is this not the way the old Liberals operated--and I do not mean to pick on the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) here because--

An Honourable Member: He is a new Liberal.

Mr. Ashton: He is a new Liberal, that is it, yeah. But that is the way it always used to work. You say one thing in one part of the country, and you say another thing in the other. You know, it worked not too badly for a while. The problem was, after a while people could learn from what was going on in other provinces.

We have telecommunications now. Some of us are somewhat fluent in other languages, and you can pick up when two things are said differently. Brian Mulroney was a master of that. Brian Mulroney, the friend of western Canada, would then go into Quebec, and I remember listening to him in French, and, you know, it was interesting because his whole tone changed immediately.

I believe a country is built on a strong foundation, and the way you build a strong foundation is you say one thing in one part of the country and you say the same thing in another part of the country. You cannot keep a country together by trying to be a political chameleon, the political chicken like Jean Charest was.

I think we are going to see that as we get into this federal election. [interjection] Well, MacKenzie King, yes, gun registration if necessary, if necessary gun registration. That would be what MacKenzie King would have said.

An Honourable Member: Conscription if necessary; conscription if not necessary.

Mr. Ashton: That is right and when we revisit this, I think this is exactly the Jean Charest attitude. [interjection] Well, it was interesting that--I had not realized Mackenzie King was the member for Lakeside's political hero. Well, okay, I take that back. I think that is going a bit too far.

I do say to the minister responsible--[interjection] Oh, now the other Liberals are here, and I just want to say to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I actually was giving the Liberal caucus credit for taking a stand on this. To the member for The Maples, I think this is fairly important, but, Mr. Acting Speaker, I really think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has set a new high in this House for political thin skins. We saw, as the Minister of Labour, in his previous reincarnation, how he actually went to casino workers, and Clint Eastwood again, go ahead, make my day; you picket me and it is going to be another week on the strike.

We see the same thing here. This minister, instead of coming in here and debating the issue, takes the pretext of comments that were expressed--and read what was said. All the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) say is if the law is the law, you have to follow it.

By the way, there were some points in which the Attorney General was correct in terms, if you read the act, of the enforcement. There are different questions in terms of administration and enforcement, and you run into difficulties again when the police force--this is federal legislation, but you have provincially funded police forces, and I think the minister will be the first one to recognize that this is not as clear-cut an issue as he would like to make it out to be. [interjection] Indeed, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that is all--and it is interesting. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) got up and said, well, you know, we are saying it is constitutional, and then afterwards he said, well, actually the enforcement is federal and it may be constitutional, but we have the option. What did the member for Dauphin say? The member for Dauphin says if you have to follow it under the Constitution, you have to follow it, and if it is not constitutional, then obviously that is not going to take place.

I mean talk about splitting hairs here. But, no, wait a sec, if you have to go as far as the Attorney General does to justify the record of the Conservative Party, I can understand you had to find straw people to poke holes in here. So he found a new one today. I mean the Attorney General getting up and embracing the Liberals. I would be afraid for the Liberals, especially for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), with that kind of political embrace here--I mean giving tribute to the Liberal Party on C-68.

It is obvious, Mr. Acting Speaker, what the real agenda is here. We have got a federal election coming up and, you know, some of us I think--and by the way, I am proud of our federal leader for having the sense to call off the campaign, particularly in Winnipeg and southern Manitoba, until we get out of this flood situation. I do not think anybody thinks it makes any sense to have a federal election right now. But you know it is interesting because I think everybody knows one thing in this province; the party to watch is the New Democratic Party. When you see the Conservatives putting all their efforts into attacking the federal NDP through attacking the provincial NDP in this province, you know one thing. The New Democratic Party in the next federal election, which is only 34 days away, is going to make major gains in this province, and it is because we were there. Even though we only had nine members, we used all nine of them.

The Tories were down to two members, and do you know what? One of them voted. I have said in a lot of places throughout the province that I thought they were lucky in the last election to get two members. I thought that was two members too many. Well, as it turned out, Jean Charest proved that point because he was not even there on one of the most controversial issues we have seen in the four years. I mean Elsie Wayne did vote. I cannot even remember which way she voted. Does anybody here remember? Which way did Elsie Wayne vote?

An Honourable Member: Oh, she was all for it.

Mr. Ashton: She was all for C-68. Did she vote for or against it?

An Honourable Member: Against it.

Mr. Ashton: She voted. So it was one against and one abstention. It is interesting because you know you look at the federal Tories, they had a choice, they could have taken a stand. I just say this; this is a buyer-beware warning for the next 34 days. You know when Jean Chretien came here on Saturday and did his media event, and I think it was probably well intentioned, but I just say to the member for Inkster he might have been somewhat more advised to be not in the picture. I thought there was--and I talked to people who were very offended by what happened, and I say with a--

An Honourable Member: We needed all the help we could get.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the one bag. I happen to think, by the way, that there is an important role for the Prime Minister to see what is happening, but not given the circumstances, going into an election, you know, to use it as a media--and I say, quite frankly, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it is absolutely shameful that we actually have a federal election in this province. There is no reason why they could not have delayed it at least two weeks.

An Honourable Member: What did he say when you gave him the sandbag?

Mr. Ashton: Jean Chretien said what? He said, when he was handed the sandbag, what do I do with this?

You know I find it interesting because you are going to hear now, you are going to hear some pretty bizarre statements over the next 34 days. You start with Jean Chretien with his great concern for Manitobans. He was so concerned he visited the flood and called the election. I mean has nobody looked at the map. Has nobody looked at the fact there are close to 25,000 Manitobans who are not going to be able to vote in the normal way? You will not be able to campaign. I mean even a delay of two or three weeks would have made all the difference, but I say, it is going to be interesting because the next thing is watch the desperation of the other two right-wing parties. We have the Liberal right-wing party, and we are going to have the other two right-wing parties attack each other. They are going to try and raise the ante, and I see this today. The Attorney General is going after actively for the Conservative Party.

Now, there may be members on the other side who will endorse Reform. I think a lot of them will put their finger up to the wind and see which one of those right-wing parties goes up or down over the next few weeks because they have been playing that game. But, you know, the next time anybody comes to you, like Reform does or the Conservatives, that say they were tough on C-68 or tough on anything--I mean just look at the record and you will find, and I say this specifically to the Attorney General, that there are parties which took a stand. Yes, indeed, most of the Liberals took a stand. The New Democratic Party, you elect nine M.P.s, you get nine votes, and you know in the end you get courageous votes, people who stood on the principle.

Indeed, we respected the fact that there was a disagreement within that caucus. I think that showed the strength in the New Democratic Party, unlike the Tories and unlike Reform who go around and say we are going to get rid of C-68. But you know what it is interesting is there were more Reform M.P.s voted in favour of C-68 than NDP M.P.s. There were three Reform, including the deputy leader, only one NDP M.P.

* (1520)

So if you want to get into litmus tests, I think the NDP could get into this, but I am not interested in that, Mr. Acting Speaker. Quite frankly, I think what the Attorney General does is similar to what the previous Attorney General did on justice issues, all talk and no action and not only that, exaggerated talk.

Who can forget the in-your-face Justice minister, the former Justice minister? Those Headingley inmates, they are going to get in there and they are going to clean up the jails. I do not have much experience in Justice matters. I have not been Justice critic or Justice minister, but the average person on the street could have seen that it was not feasible and did not make sense. I had a guy today, I was in my own constituency, and he said, well, we should be putting all these convicts out doing sandbags. I just thought, well--and there are some in Milner Ridge who have been doing that, and I appreciate that by the way because we are all Manitobans, even people who run on the wrong side of the law. But, quite frankly, when my brother was diking his property here in the city of Winnipeg, I do not think he would have necessarily wanted attempted murderers and murderers diking outside of his house. I mean, it does not make sense. You have security issues, but, you know, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) got these great photo ops on this sort of tough-sounding talk.

I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is doing the same thing. He is doing a disservice, because I think there is a role for a debate on C-68. By the way, I say to the Minister of Justice, if you are against C-68 or in favour of it, you vote for an M.P. and a party that represents your views. The main thing is you deal with it where it should be dealt with, in the federal House of Commons, and that is, if you are against C-68, you vote against it and you repeal it.

You can huff, you can puff and you could blow all the houses down, but the only way in which C-68 is either going to be there or not--and I recognize there are our people on both sides of this issue--the only way that you are going to deal with it is by dealing with it in the House of Commons. I say that as a cautionary note to the Minister of Justice because I have been on the record on the registration portion of C-68. I think it would impact on First Nations in particular, many sports hunters. I think it is an ill-advised use of resources. I do not want to see police resources used in terms of the registration that could be better used on the street, which is what he said.

But what is interesting, instead of trying to build on consensus in the Manitoba position--and by the way, the provincial New Democratic Party supported the court challenge which involved a number of other provinces including Saskatchewan and Alberta because of some serious questions about the constitutionality, but Mr. Acting Speaker, let us get some perspective on this. I have not seen the Minister of Justice get up in this House and talk about some of the other key issues that we are going to be dealing with. He wants to campaign on federal election issues. What about the terrible situation in this country in terms of jobs, in terms of inequality, in terms of poverty?

In northern Manitoba, C-68 is of significant concern in a lot of my communities, but do you know what the No. 1 concern is? You give them the real question. It is about the lack of jobs, lack of economic development, lack of education and training and problems with health care.

Let us not turn ourselves into an extension of the United States. I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), I have seen the Willy Horton ads in the United States in 1988. I have seen this hang 'em high exaggerated rhetoric that the Americans have devolved into a fine art. I have seen these attack ads of one candidate not being tough enough on crime and the rest of it. What I find interesting is, I remember the Willy Horton ads because they were used to attack Governor Dukakis who was running against George Bush in 1988, when basically he had nothing to do with the Willy Horton decision. It did not matter. It was his trigger for something else. We all know what that--the funny part is I cannot even say in this House what the Willy Horton thing was all about because the Speaker has prevented us from saying that.

But the Americans have developed the fine art of the political attack and the exaggerated rhetoric to the point where 50 percent of Americans do not even vote in their presidential elections--50 percent. I think what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is doing is simply becoming a branch plant of the American political culture. You know, it is interesting because this is an issue where presumably he and I should be on the same side, but I am disgusted that a Minister of Justice whose main job in this province should be the promotion of justice in terms of law enforcement would be trying to use Bill C-68 to use his position as Attorney General, to use it in a federal election. That is absolutely, I believe, despicable on that member's part, and it will do nothing to benefit our political culture.

By the way, I am equally as critical of some of the comments Allan Rock has made and some of the federal MPs in various different parties. Let us get some perspective on C-68, and I have said this to people in my own community. Even though I oppose the registration portion, it is not an issue that is going to be an issue that will be dealt with in any other way than in the House of Commons by the parties in the House of Commons, and indeed perhaps it should be an election issue, but let us not put this ahead of unemployment and health care and education and the other issues, and let us not go down the garden path of the American system. You know, I say this to members opposite because I believe--and I find it ironic, because this government's record on crime is one of the worst in the country, the highest number of car thefts for example, the greatest concentration of gangs.

I want to throw out the different vision of the future between us and the Americans. I was watching the governor of Michigan give a state of the state address a couple of years ago. It is interesting, a Republican governor--but it does not really matter the political label in some cases in the United States, unfortunately. Do you realize in that state right now that $1 in $4 is spent on corrections and within the next five years $1 in $3 in the state of Michigan will be spent on the prison system? Mr. Acting Speaker, I know what has happened. You start off and you get this rhetoric and then another party has the same rhetoric and you raise it and you raise it and you raise it to the point where now, you know, the three strikes and you are out. Have you seen some of the people that have been put away for life imprisonment? I have got no problem with being tough on crime, and indeed having sentences that mean something. We saw that happen last year. But let us not get into the hang 'em high sort of system of the Americans. Does it work? It does not work. The Americans have one of the highest crime rates in the world, one of the highest crime rates in the world, and yet they have got more people in jails. Jails do not solve the problem of crime. They have got more guns. I mean, they have got people down there that can make the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) look like he is totally soft on crime, that he is really--he is just a--well, I will not even repeat some of things he is.

An Honourable Member: You can carry a concealed handgun in Texas.

Mr. Ashton: You can carry a concealed handgun in Texas, I am advised by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

The way down that garden path started, I believe, with a mentality, and it has been fuelled by rhetoric. When we discuss C-68, let us discuss it on its merits. Let us take a stand, and in this House let us try and build consensus where there is consensus. Until it was politically convenient for the Tories, there was consensus between the two main parties. The Liberals, to their credit, took a stand against it, a matter of principle. I appreciate that. But let us not Americanize this debate, and when I see the Minister of Justice doing that, I say he should rethink not just the rules of this House but his role as Minister of Justice.

I believe his No. 1 responsibility in this province should be to ensure the utmost respect for the justice system, and I believe that he can achieve this best when he deals with an issue, an important issue like C-68, to deal with it professionally, deal with it without playing politics. [interjection] I thank the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the terms of "playing politics." I say to the member for Lakeside, we do not need this so-called Minister of Justice two days into the election getting up and venting his spleen for 30 minutes, trying to play politics on C-68. I say to members opposite, if there is one person in this House who should be above the cheap politics we have seen from the Minister of Justice, it is indeed the Attorney General of this House.

If you want respect for the justice system--you know, I remember Justice ministers who whether you agreed or disagreed with the government policies, you respect it. I go back, even the current government House leader (Mr. McCrae), I had some respect even when I did not agree with him. I thought the previous Justice minister played politics day in, day out, was more interested in photo ops than the operation of the justice system. In this case, I think this is the ultimate we have ever seen where the Minister of Justice now wants to go and leap into the federal election and become one of the key players. Well, I say to the Minister of Justice, that is absolutely wrong.

We in the New Democratic Party--I have responded today, and we raised concerns yesterday, and what a terrible thing that people said: If it is the Constitution, it is the Constitution. I do not understand what the big concern of the minister was about what the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) said.

* (1530)

You know, this is not the United States. We do not have people in this country, like we have seen in the United States, who have openly challenged the government. I do not want to see any militia mentalities like in the United States; you know, the United States mentality applied here. Ninety-five percent of the people in the United States, I believe, are reasonable people, 99 percent, but there are people in that country who have views I do not want to ever see exported across the border, and I say you export those kinds of ideas when you make it politically acceptable for these kinds of ideas to take root.

You can be opposed to C-68 without buying into the American mentality on gun control, Mr. Acting Speaker. You can be opposed to C-68 without buying into this political rhetoric about who is the toughest on crime. It is an issue that should be dealt with in itself, and quite frankly, should be dealt with by the people of Canada in the federal election.

I would suggest that after that, and I have said this in my own community, we should keep it in perspective. When I have someone who supports C-68, and many of my friends do--I had to take a stand, and it was not easy because, as I said, I support gun control but not the registration.

You know what though, Mr. Acting Speaker, what disturbs me is the lack of respect I have seen on both sides of this argument, and part of it is we are trying to convert it into an American-style debate, that if you are against C-68, you are somehow not in favour of gun control, and that is a distortion because that is not true. Similarly, if you are in favour of C-68, you are trying to deny people their rights. We in this country can respect our opinions, and I say that to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) because he has shown some of the most incredible disrespect I have seen.

I understood that there were members of our party who raised concerns, but that is their role. That is their role in Estimates and when you go into Grievance. It is their right as a member of the Legislature. He has a different responsibility, I say. He is a Minister of the Crown, one of the most important positions, the Attorney General.

The proper thing to have done yesterday was to have listened. The proper thing for this minister to do today, instead of worrying about what the media did or did not say about his speech, instead of trying to go and inflame the passions on this issue--I think if anyone in this province should be above politics and passions, it should be the Minister of Justice, and if he continues down that path, I would suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that just as we did, just as this Premier (Mr. Filmon) was forced to do with the previous Justice minister, the only appropriate thing to do would be, if this minister cannot keep out of the worst end of politics of these kinds of issues, let us get a Minister of Justice in who will have the respect of all members of this House and ensure we keep politics out of those very important debates.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) in the Chair for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; and the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Children and Youth Secretariat and the Department of Environment.