Joe McGuire

[Fisheries, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, "conservation is our main issue", cried Emma Bonino, spokesperson for the European Union. However, the activities of the Spanish fishermen off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks give the lie to that statement.

While the world community works toward a treaty in high seas fishing, the Spanish continue to pillage fish stocks. While tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadian ground fishermen can no longer earn their living from the sea, the few remaining groundfish stocks are being overfished by foreigners. We cannot simply stand by and watch this happen. We first and foremost have an obligation to defend the interests of our people and our marine environment.

The European community's own report in 1992 condemned the Spanish for violating fishing regulations. We must have effective international agreements, one providing for legitimate international inspection, one providing for legitimate international enforcement and one dealing with our real conservation concerns.

I commend the minister for his efforts to achieve such an agreement. At the same time I encourage him to stand firm in protecting Canada's interests in this dispute. He can do so confident that Canadians stand with him.

[Agriculture, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Motion No. 314 sponsored by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I will use my time in the debate to discuss how the federal government has been working closely with the provinces, municipalities and industry to develop a new Canadian food inspection system responsive to consumers and industry.

We set out to achieve common standards in legislation and delivery for food safety and quality at all levels of government. At the same time we are committed to maintaining the high safety standards Canadians have come to expect. Our high national standards and systems have ensured that Canadians from coast to coast enjoy a food supply among the safest in the world.

The standards earn Canada a quality reputation that often provides Canadian industry with a competitive advantage in international markets. Our current food inspection systems involve all levels of government and their regulatory organizations. As a result, there is some evidence of duplication of inspection services.

For someone in the food industry there is nothing more irritating than to be visited by two or three inspectors from different levels of government, and worse still from different departments of the same government.

This is what the federal and provincial governments, in conjunction with industry, are trying to correct with the Canadian food inspection system.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has already entered into pilot projects for sharing inspection responsibilities with a number of provinces. The department is negotiating with other provinces, and arrangements will provide for one agency to be responsible for inspection in any given plan.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and other federal departments involved in food inspection are working with provincial agriculture and health officials, representatives of municipal authorities and agri-food industry representatives to develop a new Canadian food inspection system, a system with common approaches and standards and an emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness.

The benefits of a Canada food inspection system would be to streamline delivery of inspection services and to enhance market performance and industry competitiveness. Progress is being made in eliminating duplication in food inspection and we expect to have a fully integrated system in place in the near future.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Justice announced his firearms control program in November 1994 he did so after extensive consultation with individuals, groups, organizations and various government departments.

The overwhelming support of the Canadian people for the program shows that the minister listened well and responded to the concerns expressed during that consultative period. Headlines, editorials and columns in newspapers across the country almost unanimously repeat the theme "Gun control law on target".

When we look at our neighbours to the south we see a society that has enshrined in its constitution the right to bear arms. This emphasis on rugged individualism is characterized in part by the fascination with guns in the United States. Its citizens have embraced an all-pervasive, gun-toting culture.

Canadians do not share the American fascination with guns. Our society is essentially different from theirs and in an overwhelming fashion this has been communicated to the Minister of Justice. The minister has proposed legislation which is a reasonable response to the desire of Canadians to maintain a different social and cultural attitude toward guns. Canada must not slip into the gun mentality of the United States. As the minister said: "Canadians do not want to live in a society where they feel they need to own a gun for protection".

I do not believe it is possible to devise gun control legislation that will satisfy all Canadians. However, I do believe that with this legislation the minister has taken a colossal step in the right direction. He has used a two-pronged, balanced approach in attacking the public safety problem on the one side and the use of weapons in criminal activity on the other. The law will not resolve all our problems, but as a Montreal Gazette editorial

stated: "It is a superb and courageous proposal for gun control. It is almost everything that anti-crime advocates could ask for".

The legislation is also a reflection of the wishes and even the demands of the Canadian people, that we toughen our laws and our positions, that we make things tougher for criminals and that we improve the level of safety in the streets and homes of our nation.

The government was given a mandate in the last election to strengthen gun control laws. The Liberal program made that promise. It is most appropriate that the Minister of Justice, with the support of Parliament, move to fulfil it.

Debate on this legislation will provide opponents with the opportunity to seek changes in the areas to which they object. However at the end of the day the will of the majority must prevail. It is most distressing to have Reform Party members indicate that they are not content to seek change but that they will flaunt the will of the majority and put themselves above the law.

It is distressing to hear statements that reflect a kind of wild frontier mentality. "I do not like the law, therefore I will break it". At this point, it is not simply a question of guns or gun control but rather a question of democracy.

The legislative proposals have been dealt with in detail by members who have spoken previously but I feel I should mention some of them again in brief. On the get tough on criminals side of the ledger, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison for the use of a firearm in the commission of any of 10 specific violent offences. This is not only a suitable penalty for such crimes but should also serve as a deterrent to the use of a firearm in the commission of crime.

There will be increased penalties for illegal importing and trafficking of firearms. These will be accomplished by increased border controls and surveillance measures.

On the other side of the ledger-the enhancement of public safety-there are two main items: a law applying to certain types of handguns, the restricted buying and selling of others and a national registration system for all firearms.

This registration will be administered by the RCMP in co-operation with the provinces and territories. Virtually no one has a problem with the get tough on criminals part of the legislation. If there is a criticism, it is that the mandatory sentences are not severe enough.

However when we get to the area of handguns, opposition grows. I believe that the treatment of handguns is eminently defensible. Target shooting and collecting are both legitimate exercises and adequate provisions are made for both of them in the bill. These handguns and certain other prohibited firearms are also able to be bought and sold among existing owners. On the issue of handguns, I want to include a quote from Ontario Judge Hugh Locke.

When delivering a decision involving possession of a restricted weapon, Justice Locke said: "Handguns are the scourge of the human race and their unlawful possession must be totally discouraged. Such weapons are useful for one purpose and one purpose only. They are employed to kill and maim human beings. Our society is plagued with those who feel handguns are a normal part of one's equipment. They are not".

On the subject of registration, nowhere in the legislation does it say that Canadians have to give up their guns. However it does say that Canadians must register all of their guns. Granted, registration is an inconvenience and will have a cost attached but the whole registration process allows for seven years before it is fully mandatory and the cost is minimal.

The minister recognized that the proposed legislation may not yet be in its best or final form. There are concerns about cost, about the treatment of relics and heirlooms and the legitimacy of certain types of guns. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will hold hearings so that concerns such as these may be addressed.

Opposition on the basis of slogans such as "registration today, confiscation tomorrow", promoting the idea that a tyrannical government is disarming its citizens to make it easier to suppress and oppose them is nonsense. It is fanatical nonsense and seriously diminishes the credibility of those who espouse such beliefs. When we discuss legislation of this nature, I believe it is important that we talk to the people on the front lines, the ones who live it on a daily basis.

P.E.I. is considered to be quite a peaceful society even by Canadian standards. I would like to put the following letter on the record. This letter is from Transition House and was written by Joanne Ings, executive director:

As you are aware, the P.E.I. Transition House Association operates Anderson House, the Island's only emergency shelter for women and children seeking refuge from family violence. Since Anderson House opened in 1981, we have sheltered 1,800 women and over 2,000 children.

The impetus for gun control legislation came from the shocking murders of women engineering students in Montreal in 1989. The P.E.I. Transition House Association has been a strong supporter of the legislation since its inception. We believe that stricter controls will save lives, particularly lives of women and children who live in violent family situations where unregistered firearms are present.

Many of the women and children who stay at Anderson House are from rural P.E.I. and we have learned from these families that the threat of the use of firearms is a real fear. We understand that the registration of shotguns and other firearms will not stop family violence but statistics prove that registration is a deterrent and does result in fewer deaths by firearms.

If one life will be saved by the passing and proclamation of Minister Rock's legislation it will be worth it. We ask that you support this bill for the safety of women and children in violent family situations and in memory of the women of Montreal.

I believe that the sentiments expressed in this letter are those of the vast majority of Canadians. I believe that the legislation being debated is a compromise which advances the cause of public safety in the community without imposing unreasonable constraints on anyone's personal freedom.

[Canadian Potato Marketing Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this morning on Bill C-266 sponsored by the member for Mackenzie.

I must tell the member for Mackenzie that this bill is really an untimely gesture in the history of the potato industry. Usually there is a demand for this type of legislation from producers or from the provinces. In this case I do not detect any support for a bill of this sort from producers, from provincial governments, or from departments of agriculture. It has been some time since there has been any kind of demand for an orderly marketing system for potatoes.

I remember back in the 1980s during an election campaign there was a move by the producers in Prince Edward Island and eastern Canada to set up an orderly marketing system. At that time there were some difficulties for a number of years in marketing potatoes for a fair price or for marketing potatoes for any price.

An effort was made by Parliament to initiate discussions that might lead to an orderly marketing system for potatoes. That effort died rather quickly. The demand for potatoes and the marketing problem they were experiencing in the late 1970s disappeared and the enthusiasm the producers had for an eastern potato marketing board waned pretty quickly. Basically the effort went nowhere.

In the early 1990s I am told, although I did not realize this until we looked into the background material for the bill, an effort was made nationally for an orderly marketing of potatoes. It also died because of lack of support.

Why is the bill being brought forward at this moment when the marketing of potatoes has never been better? The demand for potatoes has never been better and the prices paid to producers have rarely been higher. If we had twice as many potatoes in Prince Edward Island as we do now, we would be able to sell them all.

There is demand from Europe. We are getting calls from countries that until this year probably never knew Prince Edward Island existed. They are phoning our exporters looking for potatoes.

This is an unusual year for that kind of demand. Even without the drought or whatever affected the potato crop in Europe, the demand for the processing of potatoes is growing steadily year after year. The demand for table potatoes and for P.E.I. seed potatoes has rebounded from the PVY-n crisis.

The industry is in a very healthy position. There is no guarantee it will always be in a healthy position but if there are any free market farmers in Canada, the eastern Canadian potato producers have to be in that group. They have very rarely had to rely on government for any kind of stabilization or bailouts for their industry. They grew their own potatoes. They marketed their own potatoes. They exported their own potatoes and developed their own markets in South America and overseas in Algeria and the Middle East. They have been doing a tremendous job. They do not really see how government could assist them in any way in the selling of their crop.

In the whole situation mentioned earlier by a Bloc member with respect to free trade, GATT, NAFTA and so on, the potato industry is probably more ready for these efforts in bringing down trade barriers than any other commodity group in this country. It is that those in the potato industry have never been in favour of trade barriers. They have always had to rely on a free trade spirit in order to market their crop.

Even with that, since 1980, the last time there was a demand for this type of legislation, the number of acres of potatoes grown has come close to doubling. That is in the last 15 years. They have not only been able to market those potatoes; on a yearly basis, they have been able to increase their production and to sell everything they have had.

The only experience they have had with government has been as a result of the PVY-n crisis and it was thought they would not be be able to market their potatoes in 1991 and 1992. The government assisted the growers in destroying thousands and thousands of pounds of potatoes for a certain price in order to relieve the market of potatoes in storage.

What happened a few months later was that there was a demand for the potatoes that were destroyed. They would have received a lot more money out in the marketplace than they did out of government. Any time the government has been associated with the market it tends to distort it. It is better left to the market system, especially these days. It is a free market commodity and has been doing quite well.

I am sorry I cannot lend any support to my colleague from the NDP for this bill. Basically there is no support from either the potato producers or the governments in eastern Canada.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the hon. member for Laurentides. I noticed that in her speech she took a shot at our present Minister of the Environment on her handling of the Irving Whale .

This is a very peculiar criticism because the present minister is the only minister in over two decades who has taken any action at all on the Irving Whale. She met with the fishermen and residents of Prince Edward Island and Îles-de-la-Madeleine .She met with scientists and found the money to remove the hazard from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Yet she is under criticism because she is actually doing something about this environmental hazard.

I am curious to know what the hon. member would do. Would she remove the Irving Whale ? Would she pump it out? Would she leave it there? What would she do? She seems to have become involved in this project only after the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine got some publicity on it. If the minister is not doing a good job on this particular issue, I am curious to know what the member would do in her position.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1994]

In the last petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners humbly pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of my constituents of Egmont. These petitions are very similar to others presented today.

In the first petition, the petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Fisheries, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association has recently expressed great concern over proposed new fish licensing fees. I believe it has a copy of the proposal from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I would like to ask a question of the minister. Is it true that Island fishermen may go from paying tens of dollars for a fishing licence to paying tens of thousands of dollars under this new proposal? If so, how will individual costs per fisher be determined?