House of Commons Hansard #126 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was harmonization.

Topics

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare Motions Nos. 114, 118 and 125 negatived.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberalfor the Minister of Finance

moved: That Bill C-70, as amended, be concurred in at Report stage (with amendments).

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

The members of the official opposition will vote no.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members present this evening will vote no on this motion.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC Party will be voting no.

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Independent

Gilles Bernier Independent Beauce, QC

No, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Excise Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been asking for the government to give some consideration for some time now to a gun amnesty bill for the nation. I am back again now to encourage the government to move on. I was led to believe there was some provision in the new gun control bill for an amnesty.

It would be rather simple to do. I would not require any new legislation. There is already a provision there for a gun amnesty. It would not require a lot of funding. Indeed, it might save some money. It would save considerable money for people who have guns they do not need and who would like to see them disposed of in a systematic way.

A couple of experiences we have had in this country would support the wisdom of a gun amnesty law at this time. Back in the period of November 1 to December 15 in 1992 the minister of justice announced a gun amnesty and 30,000 firearms, both handguns and long guns, were surrendered in Canada.

A little later there was another gun amnesty. This quotation from the Globe and Mail , which is always very accurate and precise. On April 18, 1994 that paper reported the success of a gun amnesty in metro Toronto. According to the Globe and Mail police said at that time that most of the people turning in weapons were just average Joes. They were people who just wanted to get rid of their guns, the guns that were in their basements, behind kitchen doors and in the attacks of their homes. They had some fear at that time, and the situation would be prevalent today, that these guns might at some point be stolen or misplaced or might fall into the wrong hands.

Gun amnesty has been very successful in this country and I would like to see this government proceed with a national gun amnesty. It is no good to announce that amnesties are permitted. We need the government to put some national focus on gun amnesty instead of depending on municipalities to do it independently of one another. That would give the project some thrust. They could suggest through various forms of media that there was a national gun amnesty. If we got a few thousand more guns out of our society we would have a safer society. It would be a mark of progress to us as a society and as a culture to make this effort.

I am looking forward to the government response on this matter. I know that municipalities could go ahead and do it, but that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for a national focus and a national thrust to this because of the successes we had when gun amnesties were declared on a smaller scale.

That was my question to the minister several weeks ago. I am back again at the late show tonight to emphasize it. I am committed to this. Indeed, I will be the first one to turn in guns. I have guns which I no longer have a use for and I would be glad to be the first one to contribute a couple of rifles to a national gun amnesty.

Excise Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Prince Albert—Churchill River Saskatchewan

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, amnesties could be declared as part of the implementation of the firearms act and the new part of the Criminal Code. In 1992, for instance, an amnesty was successful in removing over 28,000 firearms and 700,000 rounds of ammunition. The declaration of amnesty, however, must be made with the support of provincial authorities and local police. An amnesty would be costly, as it would involve the manipulation of firearms and the issuance of receipts.

In the past, the purpose of amnesties under the Criminal Code was to encourage people to surrender unwanted firearms or ammunition without liability, whether they were lawfully or unlawfully held. The power to declare amnesties under the Criminal Code may be used in the future in the implementation of the new part of the code or the firearms act.

There are advantages and disadvantages to amnesties. The advantages are that amnesties have resulted in the turnover of numerous unwanted firearms. They allow people to turn over unwanted and potentially dangerous firearms. They reduce the number of unused firearms which could ultimately end up being stolen and in criminal hands. The disadvantages are that they can be expensive to administer and the guns must be carried manually. They require the participation and co-operation of police services and provincial authorities. The disposal of the firearms can be costly and problematic.

The firearms initiative is planned on a cost recovery basis and the impact of several factors, such as compensation, must be carefully considered before an amnesty is declared.

The new legislation already provides for transitional periods for individuals who will be able to apply for a licence and register their firearms.

There is no immediate need for an amnesty and officials from the department will monitor the implementation of the act and advise the minister accordingly should the need arise for an amnesty in the future.

Excise Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to raise again the question which I asked on February 6. It is a question in which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is very interested because he has said that he is interested in keeping grain moving. I do not think we have gone far enough in getting the grain moving.

The news last week had a number of people from the grain industry, including representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board, arguing that poor performance by the railroads is costing prairie farmers tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues and upsetting export customers. The Canadian Wheat Board has estimated that about $65 million will be lost in demurrage costs while grain sits on the prairies and ships sit in the ports because the grain is not moving to the coast.

I asked my question last week, but since then I have had a chance to look at CN Rail's numbers for 1996. I thought it important to put them on the record tonight in the light of this question.

Grain traffic was down 5 per cent in 1996 over 1995. Despite that drop in traffic, CN Rail reported a $1.2 billion improvement in net income in 1996. In a press release the CN president and chief executive officer, Paul Tellier, said at the end of the year that 1996 was the best year ever in the history of CN Rail. Revenues were up 1.5 per cent while operating expenses declined.

In terms of movement of product, industrial products brought $866 million to CN; forest products, $790 million; intermodal traffic, $710 million; coal, sulphur and fertilizer, $622 million. These are all more than grain and grain product traffic which brought in $570 million.

It is very obvious that CN in particular did a very good job in 1996 of moving all the product except grain. Now we are continuing to have difficulty in moving grain to port.

I first discovered the problem with grain movement around December 1 after elevator agents throughout my constituency had been phoning since mid-November to get cars spotted so that the grain could be moved to port. That was before the major snowfalls, before the major cold occurred. We were experiencing difficulty getting cars spotted at the elevator points throughout my riding, and I have since found out, throughout Saskatchewan.

Throughout November and December the railways were telling the elevator agents that cars would be spotted the next day. They would be told, tomorrow. The cars would never come. The agents would phone. "Tomorrow" they were told. They would phone me. I would be told the grain cars would be there tomorrow. They never arrived. As a result, the Canadian Wheat Board is now estimating $65 million in losses to farmers as a result of all of this.

Government policies over the last couple of years have contributed greatly to the ability of the railways to run their own show. Governments have lost the ability to put pressure on the railways. Everything from the privatizing of CN, the deregulating of the rail line industry, changing the car allocation policy, allowing the abandonment of rail lines and condoning the inappropriate downsizing within the railroads have all contributed to the problem that keeps grain moving to port.

We heard over the weekend the announcement from Manitoba that the CP double tracking from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay is being torn up. This is, to my mind, an absolute abuse of the privileges that we have given to the rail lines to move our product to port.

The minister and the government have the responsibility, indeed the obligation, to ensure that grain moves from the farm to the port. I would like to ask the minister to ensure that he exercises to the full extent of his authority everything that he can to get that grain moving again.

Excise Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Essex—Kent Ontario

Liberal

Jerry Pickard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, the problem being faced by the prairie grain industry in getting grain to port position this winter is a very serious one.

The Canadian Wheat Board now estimates that it will have to roll 1.5 million tonnes from its January shipping program into the February program. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates this rollover may result in a deferred cash flow for prairie farmers of $285 million and that selling the 1.5 million tonne shortfall outside the premium old crop price months may result in a loss of approximately $50 million in revenue to the 1996-97 pool accounts.

This has been one of the worst winters in the last 100 years with respect to snowfall in the Rockies and the extreme cold on the prairies. While I agree that this has exacerbated the shipping problem, it does not account for the entire delay being experienced.

It is my understanding the current problems relate to the availability of locomotive power in the railway system.

Clearly this is a railroad responsibility and the railways have indicated they are taking steps to increase the availability of locomotives and to make the shipping of prairie grains a priority for them.

Rather than finger pointing and laying blame to the industry, we should take steps to working out this current problem and making certain that we deal with it on an urgent strategic action base to make sure that backlogs to not occur as they have in the past.

As members know, the legislative rule of the federal government is limited. However, the federal government can have a role in leading industry toward both a long and short term solution.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already been in touch with many of the key players in the western grains industry. He is now pursuing further discussions on an urgent basis to get the grain moving faster through the system.

Canada's customers and prairie farmers should not be subjected to such recurring problems in our grain transportation system.

Excise Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Dear colleagues, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.11 p.m.)