Bob Speller

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the impact of the budget on my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, and I would also like to talk a bit about agriculture.

We have heard over the last few days statements made by members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and members of the Reform Party in terms of fairness in the budget. They are trying to suggest that in agriculture the cuts seem to be either in Quebec or in western Canada and that they are not spread fairly across the country.

When the Minister of Finance set out his budget proposals, and when the debates, negotiations and discussions with various groups were occurring beforehand, within this caucus and in talking to constituents in my riding, understanding the significance of the debt and the deficit and the problems we have there, what has been emphasized is the fact that there needs to be fairness. People across the country are prepared to do whatever is necessary to deal with the government's finances, as long as it is shown that what the government does, it does fairly across the country.

Let us take a look at agriculture. There were three significant areas that were cut in agriculture. The dairy subsidy was reduced by 30 per cent over a two-year period, the WGTA was cut, but,

significantly, there was the centralization of research and development projects.

In terms of the dairy subsidy, obviously, given what is happening with the GATT and given the changes within supply management that are required, all dairy farmers realize that there will be changes and that within the next 20 years they will have to develop ways to compete internationally and not only within the Canadian market. This dairy subsidy reduction of 30 per cent is going to be a hit on dairy farmers. Certainly, dairy farmers will have to do their share in bringing down the deficit.

When I talk to the farmers in my riding, and in fact across Canada, most of them are willing to make that sacrifice to help reduce the debt and the deficit. However, they want to make sure that the sacrifice is also being made by other Canadians.

They speak particularly about social policy reform. They want to ensure that our social policy programs are doing what they need to be doing, that they are doing it efficiently, and that they are not just leaving a whole class of people relying on government handouts. They also talk in terms of trying to cut back on some of the spending we do in that area. I think if they see a firm commitment from the minister and the government, they will be more than willing to take a cut in what they are receiving.

We have seen somewhat of a hiatus there. The minister has indicated we will probably come back sometime in the fall when some of the necessary changes will be made.

I had a very big meeting in my riding with a number of concerned people on the whole question of social policy reform. I received a lot of good ideas. I am sure many members on all sides of the House also held these forums. I know my colleague across the way always likes to hold these open public forums. They are a good thing for members of Parliament to do because they give us an opportunity to hear from our constituents on very important subjects with a wide range of diverse ideas.

A lot of dairy farmers who were in attendance were telling me they understood what the government did. They were not particularly happy that it came out of their pockets but they were prepared to take it as long as they saw the government making firm commitments in other areas.

The Reform Party throughout our earlier discussions on the WGTA gave us an indication it wanted us to scrap it. We wanted to make sure, given some of our GATT commitments, there was adjustment available for those farmers and that the system would still work.

I have a number of concerns in that area as chair of the standing committee on agriculture. We got together with all parties. We decided there should be a subcommittee on transportation to look at these issues. Farmers in western Canada and people who rely on the St. Lawrence seaway have a number of concerns. Hopefully the members of Parliament on the subcommittee, chaired by the hon. member for Malpeque, will be able to do something in that area to make sure the concerns of these farmers are taken into consideration and that the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister hear first hand some of these concerns.

The $1.6 billion payment, essentially a payment over a two or three-year period, is an adjustment period. The farmers I have been talking to are not very happy it is coming out of their area but they are prepared, as are farmers in other parts of the country and all Canadians, to do their share in terms of bringing down the debt and deficit.

That theme was pretty much what I heard in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk after I went back after the budget and talked to my constituents. Normally after a budget, even as an opposition member, one should receive about 20 or 30 calls. After this budget I received three calls from constituents. I felt this was an acceptance of the fairness of the budget.

After the budget, as I went around to the different events in my riding I began to learn people accepted the budget, grudgingly granted, but they understood the need to deal with the debt and deficit and the need for cuts. They were prepared to go along with it as long as they felt there was to be more and there was a commitment of fiscal responsibility by the government.

I have talked to the Minister of Finance in caucus and know the commitment is there. We have to deal with the fact that 43 per cent or 44 per cent of our debt is controlled outside of the country and our current account deficit is a problem.

The Minister of Finance indicated he will take the tough steps necessary to deal with that problem. It is a problem for all Canadians. It is a problem for my children and children all across the country. It is something they do not look forward to. We will deal with that problem. We will deal with the question of fairness not only in future budgetary expenditures in terms of the country but also in agriculture as we move along with the co-operation of the opposition and the third party to help Canadian farmers in the future deal with the uncertainties of the new reality in world economic trade.

[Petitions, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions from constituents in my riding who have concerns about the present firearms legislation.

These constituents call on the government to support laws that will severely punish violent criminals, which of course the minister has, but to also support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws, which have not improved public safety or have not proven to be cost effective.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I return to the Criminal Code provisions and registration. A number of members have raised concerns about people who do not properly register their guns and therefore get a criminal record. I hope the committee will look at the issue. I know the minister has indicated to the Canadian Police Association that he would be willing to look at it. I know that members of the Liberal caucus will be working with the minister over the next little while to make sure that is a fact.

I would like to see a sunset clause on registration. We have found that there are difficulties with the handgun registration system. Frankly, I am not sure how this one is going to work. For instance if it is not working in 10 years, let's hoist it and get rid of it. If the minister can prove it is working, then leave it alone. However, something like a sunset clause may not be a bad idea.

Handguns are prohibited, however certain handguns are used now in gun clubs. I know the minister has indicated his willingness to work with national associations concerning handguns they say they should be able to use. I also hope that the minister and perhaps the committee will listen to other clubs whose members use handguns, but which may not always follow national association criteria.

I also have a real concern with how this bill deals with regulations and how it will look at an area that is not normally considered, that of long arms. An example is the Ruger Mini-14. I know it is not considered in this bill. However, there will be a provision created under which the minister can deal with the Ruger Mini-14 and prohibit it from being used.

In my area a number of farmers use it to shoot coyotes. It is the gun of preference to get rid of the coyotes. A number of people will be concerned with that area. Should these guns still be used to hunt or at gun clubs? I hope the minister will allow us time to deal with that issue.

I have listened to members of the Reform Party over the last while talking about the bill and how their constituents are against it. As members of Parliament we must deal with that. It is the Reform Party that says it has to represent the wishes of its constituents. I agree with that. That is why I talk with my constituents and try to get to as many areas as I can.

All members have to look at the results of national polls. I refer to a poll that was done by the minister of justice of Alberta. I want to quote from that poll. Obviously, everyone knows that the polls taken showed that Albertans were against this. It did not show that in the rural areas, which is of a concern to me because a lot of areas of Alberta are somewhat like southwestern Ontario. We have a lot in common.

If we look at the question: "Do you strongly agree or strongly disagree with registration of rifles?" The numbers were 50 per cent said they agreed and 48 per cent somewhat agreed or disagreed.

However, in some rural centres the numbers were: strongly agree, 58 per cent; strongly disagree, 43 per cent. It clearly shows that even in rural Alberta they support the minister in the registration of long arms.

As members of Parliament we not only have to consider our constituents but we also must take into account the importance of the bill.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that you gave our hon. colleague a going over for heckling before.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a number of members on all sides of the House would support a motion like that. I hope that maybe we can work as this bill goes through its other stages to convince the minister to do something like that.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

I will make a motion. I wonder if I can have unanimous consent to move this motion. I move:

That section 80 on page 36 through to section 112 on page 51 could be removed from this bill and brought back as another bill under the name of the Canadian firearms registration system.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion. I have been spending the last few days listening to the debate on it.

I must say that some good ideas came from across the floor. Some good ideas also came from this side of the House of changes we could make to really reflect the concerns of some of my constituents.

Over the past few months I have been talking to a number of my constituents who have been hearing a lot of misinformation concerning this bill. It has been very difficult to really debate the bill in an open and meaningful way. I end up spending half of my time trying to explain to constituents parts of the bill that they believe are there but actually are not. I find that a very difficult way to deal with the legislation.

I have a number of concerns with the legislation but before I get into that I want to talk about those areas which I think everyone in the House supports. When Bill C-17 came into the House under the former Conservative government I could not support and voted against the sections on the increased criminal sanctions for the illegal use of firearms. One of the reasons I voted against the bill was that I did not believe it dealt with the criminal use of guns. My constituents did not feel these issues were properly dealt with.

I brought those points forward and I want to thank the minister for at least listening to Canadians who felt there was not enough being done to sanction people who use guns in the commission of crimes. I appreciate that he and the Prime Minister are taking our ideas and moving forward with them.

As members know, the average sanction across the board is about 16 months. The minister has increased it to four years. I would rather have seen it go higher but I see that as a positive step and a good way forward.

I also agree with what the minister is doing with the whole question of smuggling. I have talked with the Minister of National Revenue and he has indicated to me that he, along with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, have a task force together. They are going to focus on smuggling.

This will not work unless smugglers are stopped at the border. There is one major place at the border where the majority of these guns are coming across. I call on the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to deal with that situation and to get the guns off the street. I also agree with the seizure of the assets of those people who smuggle. If assets are seized and smuggling is stopped it will go a long way in dealing with some of the problems.

I have not heard anybody on the other side thank the minister for dealing with the whole situation of young offenders with regard to handguns. I see that as a positive step forward and something we could support.

I want to get into those areas that I feel are not very well represented. Specifically, there is the whole area of registration. It is probably the area that concerns most of my constituents. When I was putting forward proposals on that, I always said that registration would have to be proven to me to be effective, efficient and affordable. When I look at some of the proposals put forward by the minister, I am concerned whether they actually meet that criteria.

I hope the members of the committee on justice will tear the bill apart, get the minister before them and get the proof whether these sorts of criteria are met. I see that as an important role of the committee and I hope it will take that challenge on.

I also wanted to split the bill. A lot of members wanted to split the bill but I have to say to my colleagues across the way that their motion does not split the bill.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish to take the last couple of minutes to state my disapproval of the motion being put forward by the opposition.

I am surprised that my colleagues in the agricultural sector of the Bloc Quebecois would actually put together such a motion. I know and work with them very well in our committee. I am surprised that they are trying to suggest to the House and to the Canadian people that those areas of the budget related to agriculture are anything but fair to all areas of the country.

Everyone in the agricultural community recognizes that we require fairness in dealing with our debt and deficit situation. That part of the budget prepared by the Minister of Finance dealing with agriculture certainly was given a great deal of input by the minister of agriculture. They tried to deal in a fair and equitable manner with the areas of supply management and the western grain transportation issues.

One disappointment I have had since becoming chair of the standing committee on agriculture has been hearing hon. members in the House claim that one part of the country is getting a better deal than another part. I also was disappointed that a number of commodity groups and farm organizations spend too much time arguing over who got what rather than working and pulling together not only as commodity groups but putting together different aspects of an organization to help Canada in our commitments to export trade.

It will be in the export sector that agriculture and rural Canada will find the jobs in the future. The government has made a large commitment to exports. I feel that if the different groups get together and if the Bloc Quebecois put aside its partisan political interests, it would want to co-operate with all Canadians to make sure that Canada's agricultural products are exported around the world.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the other set of petitions is regarding same sex benefits and the amending of the Canadian Human Rights Act. People in my riding in these petitions are suggesting that the government should not amend the Human Rights Act.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the two same subject matters, the first one regarding assisted suicide. The petitioners call upon Parliament to make no changes in the law that would sanction assisted suicide.