Debates of March 1st, 1995

The Budget

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

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

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, I asked the Minister of Justice if he would ban two new hyper-destructive handgun bullets developed in the United States. One of these bullets was designed to do maximum damage to human tissue, while the second could penetrate body armour. We are told this rhino ammunition, as it is called, is designed to break into thousands of razor-like fragments when it hits flesh. The creator of these bullets stated that: "These fragments become lethal shrapnel as they are hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart and other tissues. The wound channel becomes catastrophic and death is nearly instantaneous".

I was pleased with the answer given to me by the Minister of Justice when he told the House that these two new types of ammunition had been banned in Canada. However this incident reminded us that if we are serious about gun control, we must also control ammunition. Without ammunition, you cannot do too much damage with guns.

It is especially important when you consider that 65,000 guns have been lost or stolen since 1974. The RCMP report that about 3,000 are lost or stolen each year. If you cannot get the ammunition with which to use a stolen gun, then you might be preventing a crime from taking place. That is why it is so important to control ammunition.

I would like to ask the government tonight whether in the new legislation which is before the House-I have examined the said legislation-it is correct that in order to buy ammunition in the future, a person will require a firearms possession certificate or a firearms registration certificate.

I ask this because in some of the publicity material accompanying the bill, there was a suggestion that a person might be able to buy ammunition simply with a driver's licence. I could not accept that but since it will be necessary to obtain a firearms possession certificate or require one to own, use or purchase a gun then I do not see why it could not be presented as well when purchasing ammunition.

I would like to have some clarification on that.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, last December newspapers reported that a United States company had produced two highly destructive bullets; the black rhino, a plastic bullet allegedly capable of piercing armour and the rhino-ammo, a highly fragmenting bullet designed to cause maximum damage to human tissue.

Government officials have been in contact with U.S. officials and in fact the black rhino does not exist and technical experts highly doubt that an armour piercing plastic bullet could be produced.

As regards the rhino ammo bullets, the potential destructiveness was highly inflated and in fact they resemble hollow point bullets currently available in the United States markets and under limited conditions in Canada.

Armour piercing and exploding or incendiary cartridges are now prohibited in Canada and have been since October 1, 1992 under prohibition order number 10. The possession, sale or import of such ammunition is subject to Criminal Code penalties of up to 10 years.

I want to particularly address the question of the hon. member with respect to how ammunition is to be purchased. To purchase ammunition, it will be required to have the registration certificate once the registration certificate period of five years ending December 31, 2003 has elapsed.

Until then everybody may not have a registration certificate. In the interim, where possible it will be the requirement to provide another certificate, a driver's licence or perhaps a firearms acquisition certificate. This is yet to be determined exactly but there will be requirements.

This will be brought forward and stipulated in the regulations.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on my question of February 24 to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry on the matter of tourism.

Tourism plays a major role in the lives of my constituents on the south shore of Nova Scotia. It is important that tourism continue to be promoted as it is serving to revitalize communities that have been devastated by the downturn in the fishery.

In the South Shore tourism generates $100 million annually while providing employment for thousands of people. It is an industry that can and will play a leading role in the economic recovery of my area.

For instance, in 1994 the South Shore experienced a 20 per cent increase in room sales. This was the largest percentage increase in Nova Scotia. More than 127,000 people signed guest books at the South Shore tourist bureaus. This represented an increase of 19 per cent over 1993. The South Shore is popular but it has potential to be even more so. I say this because 30 per cent of visitors were from inside the province of Nova Scotia, 29 per cent were from other parts of Canada, 28 per cent were from the United States and 5 per cent were international visitors.

There is so much to see and do along the South Shore. I am partial to the charms of Chester, having chosen to settle down there over 20 years ago. There is colourful Lunenburg, home of the Bluenose and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic currently seeking a designation of world heritage status. There is Oak Island with its hidden treasure which is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year.

In Queens county there are spectacular white sandy beaches and several ecotourism sites, including the Keji seaside adjunct and the bird sanctuary in Port Joli. These treasures have been left largely untouched for the public to enjoy. At the western end of my riding is Shelburne with its historic waterfront which is gaining a good reputation as a destination for movie makers.

As a representative for an area like the South Shore, I am sure members can understand that I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce last fall that he had accepted the recommendations made by his special advisor on tourism. The creation of the Canadian tourism committee and the allocation of base funding totalling $50 million certainly has the potential to allow for effective marketing of Canada at home and abroad. I do, however, have some concerns about how this is all going to work.

First, in addition to the very successful South Shore Tourism Association, there are many local tourism committees that have been established to formulate strategies to increase the amount of tourism traffic in their respective areas. I am constantly being asked if and how they can access this tourism promotion money. I am having difficulty answering these questions because that has never been made clear. Media reports make it sound like there is a pot of money for these people to access. Yet the material I have received is vague on how the money will be allocated.

Second, I would be interested to know how the Canadian tourism commission will benefit rural areas like mine when to date efforts seem to be rather metro driven. Will the interests of small businesses, which comprise a large proportion of the tourism industry, be appropriately represented?

Finally, I am concerned about an overlap of effort. The Canadian tourism commission seems to be just a larger scale version of the Atlantic Canada tourism partnership which was established in late 1993. I would hope that these groups will be working together rather than at cross purposes.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I support the intent behind the establishment of this commission. Because I have seen the positive benefits that tourism can have in an area, I want to see Canada eliminate its tourism deficit. However, first I want specifics on how this will be done.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for South Shore for his question and also his keen interest in a sector of our economy that has been sadly neglected over the last 10 to 15 years.

The tourism industry is a sector of our economy which, after automotive, employs more Canadians than any other sector. This government has made a serious commitment to not only maintaining but virtually quadrupling the tourism budget.

We did not just quadruple the budget, we also gave guidelines and said to the Canadian tourism commission that we wanted this money to be levered, joint ventured. In other words, it is not Industry Canada and the tourism team going out and doing work on their own. It is this commission which is made up of private sector experts from the tourism industry from all over Canada. The Minister of Industry appointed these people on February 1.

I have to say to the member for South Shore that this is a new commission and no doubt there will be some glitches until we get it operating perfectly. If the member, in his community of South Shore, is having difficulty in partnering or accessing his tourism operators with the commission, I would invite him to come to the House of Commons industry committee. About two weeks from now the executive of the Canadian Tourism Commission will appear before the committee. We will deal with the overall plan and objectives but, more important, we will deal with the specific concerns and the specific challenges the member for South Shore raised this evening.

I do not want to suggest that at the moment the commission has all of the answers. It is a new commission. It is a new experiment where we are partnering with the private sector.

However I invite the member to the committee. His specific concerns will be addressed. There is great hope for this sector putting Canadians back to work, which is the number one responsibility of the government.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise now at the end of the day to point out that, in my question of February 28, I spoke of the gross injustice in the budget which the Minister of Finance brought down this Monday.

To clearly define this injustice, I would like to repeat part of the question I put to the Hon. Minister of Finance this week. My question was for the finance minister and was more or less as follows: Yesterday, the finance minister announced that grain transportation subsidies would be eliminated, adding that a generous compensation of close to $3 billion, which includes direct subsidies, would be given to western producers.

I have done some research since then and have in fact found that grain producers in the west, and only in the west, would be offered between $15 and $18 per acre, or an average of some $15,000 to $18,000 per grain producer.

Of course, the Crow rate was intended for grain transportation from point A to point B, with point B located near the ocean, most often in Vancouver. Looking again at WGTA issue, we found that many producers stockpiled their grain in railway hopper cars. The railway cars went to Thunder Bay to be eligible for the subsidy before returning to Vancouver. This was costly to the government.

I would like to talk about the unjust and unfair way that farmers in the east of the country have been treated. On the one hand, the government cuts $560 million in subsidies to farmers in the west and, to clear its conscience, offers them a compensation package of close to $3 billion to help them diversify their crops; on the other hand, in the same budget, it trims industrial milk subsidies by 30 per cent.

I did my math and realized that a 30 per cent cut will result in losses. As we all well know, Quebec and Ontario produce 80 per cent of Canada's industrial milk and the cut will result in losses of anywhere from three to five thousand dollars. What compensation will farmers in the east get from the Liberal government? None.

This inequity in the budget is noteworthy, and I expect an explanation now and not a canned response.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the question of the member for Frontenac.

Yes, the annual $560 million western grain transportation subsidy is being completely eliminated on August 1. However I point out to the hon. member-and I know he realizes it-that the dairy subsidy is only being reduced by 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent next year. As of August 1, 85 per cent of that support will still be there.

Eliminating the so-called Crow subsidy addresses a longstanding equity concern that has been raised by eastern farmers. The adjustment package reflects the potential impact of eliminating a 96-year old commitment to the western grain sector.

In addition to the $1.6 billion, a multi-year adjustment package of $300 million is being put in place to facilitate the transition to a more efficient transportation system. The amount is not excessive. It is necessary to help grain producers adapt to the change and to compete effectively in international markets against subsidized foreign competition.

It is important to note the dairy industry does not face international competition because of supply management for 90 per cent of its production. Equally important, this government package of reforms to grain transportation is consistent with the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA.

The package of reforms is fair and balanced with respect to the different situations in different regions and different sectors. Everyone has done his or her share in contributing to deficit reduction. The government does not have a double standard as the hon. member for Frontenac has suggested. It is not true.

Rather, through the budget we offered all Canadians a single standard to strive for that will ensure future growth of the agriculture sector and maintain our competitiveness on the global field.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 7.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)