Rick Borotsik

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say I have not seen that report nor have I read it. But there are a number of statistics that have been bandied about by the government used when selling this particular piece of legislation to the House.

I was also told at that time that there was support from the police association as well as the RCMP. However, false statistics were used in presenting that piece of legislation. Reports are reports and I have no reason to dispute the fact that perhaps there is less violent crime where there is stronger gun control.

However, for 60 years of gun control with handguns, which is very strict, there are still homicides being performed by handguns.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac.

I would like to come at this with perhaps a different perspective. I heard the fearmongering from the hon. member on the Liberal side just recently with respect to all these terrible antics of other organizations that are now going to throw the government out. There is going to be insurrection. That is not what I want to do, come to fearmongering. What I would like to do is give detail of some of the truisms that are out there in our society today.

Number one, I am not a member of the National Rifle Association. Number two, I do not belong to the National Firearms Association was mentioned by the hon. member. I do not even own a firearm but I do represent an area of this country where firearms and long rifles and shotguns are a part of daily living. It is a rural area. It is a rural economy and in a lot of circumstances firearms are still very necessary in order to deal with predators on agricultural land as well other requirements, one of which is of a recreational nature, duck, goose and dear hunting.

I do not do any of those activities either but I know of people who do and they enjoy them. We are Canadians and we do have rights and we do have freedoms and for those people who wish to do so I see nothing wrong with honest, law abiding citizens of this country having the opportunity to go out and take part in a pastime which they enjoy.

As part of that pastime they require a firearm. Firearms are not difficult to control in our society today. We in the Progressive Conservative Party, and I would suggest members from the official opposition, do not have any difficulty with control of firearms, with safe storage of firearms so that they are not going to go off accidentally, that they will be looked after carefully.

What we do have is some difficulty with the registration component to firearms. I learned from a long time in this business of politics that it is good to pass good laws. Good laws are laws that can be enforced and maintained. Bad laws are laws that cannot be enforced and maintained.

Let us touch on that for a moment. The registration component of Bill C-68 is what we are opposed to and have always been opposed to because it is bad legislation. It is not enforceable. It never will be and never can be.

There are people who own firearms in their homes who do not and who have not used those firearms for years, in some cases for decades. These people are law abiding citizens. They will not in most circumstances register that firearm.

Therefore at the date they have to register, if they have not they are criminals. That in itself is criminal and it is unenforceable unless the police departments are going to go into people's homes to look for a firearm that may well be there that is not registered. That is very dangerous.

In another venue in another government, we passed laws and we listened to the people. People said to give the rationalization for the law, tell them why we put it into place and is it working.

We went to some of the laws that we refer to as bylaws and we looked at them. They were not working. There were certain licensing procedures that we put into place in the municipality that were not working and we went back legitimately and said if it is not enforceable and if it is not working, then don't have the law.

We struck those laws from the book. What we are asking this government to do right now is to simply take a step backwards, look at the viability and the enforceability of this component of registration with Bill C-68 and say it will not work, it will not serve the purpose that it thought it was going to serve when it put this legislation into place. Take the step backwards and do the right thing for Canadian society. Do not take the police officers off my street to enforce a law that is unenforceable because I would prefer to have those police officers doing the job they are supposed to do.

I am not going to chastise the government for spending $135 million to this day and not in fact registering one firearm. I will not chastise its members because I think they thought they were doing the right thing.

Those members should take what they hear now from the opposition benches. They should take what they hear from the 20,000 people who were outside this House today who were like us, law abiding Canadian citizens who simply want to speak their mind and tell the government that the law it has enacted is a stupid law. Take out the registration component and everybody will be better for it.

I heard the fearmongering. I heard that we will overthrow governments. I heard that we have militia groups behind us. I am a Canadian. I do not own a gun. I do not belong to the militia. I do not belong to firearm associations and I believe it is a stupid law. There are thousands and thousands like me out there who believe the same thing.

I appreciate the regionality in this country. I appreciate the diversity of this country and I ask nothing more of the government than to appreciate the same diversity when I and my colleagues from this side of the House say there are serious flaws in the registration component of Bill C-68. Remember what I said. Nobody here is opposed to the safe control and operation of guns.

The previous speaker said it would diminish homicides if we have gun registration. We can use that argument and I can give a rebuttal on that as well but I am not prepared to do so right now.

Simply, listen to the people who are out there telling this government what they would like to see in legislation.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who spoke before me, I too have a petition to submit with respect to Bill C-68, the gun control legislation.

The petition comes from my constituents in Brandon—Souris who also disagree with the legislation put forward by the current government and feel that the gun registration will not provide what this government believes it will provide to the Canadian public.

I would like to table this petition on behalf of the constituents of Brandon—Souris.

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is simply one member's opinion. I would like that on the record.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. It is late not only in this sitting but in the evening. As hon. members across the way have suggested that perhaps I should give it to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, the only thing I will give the hon. member is marks for perseverance. I will give him marks for putting together an amendment that has been discussed ad infinitum at the committee level as well as in this august Chamber. It is an amendment that would make the legislation better.

I had the opportunity to speak to the Senate amendments. I spoke in favour and somewhat reluctantly to the Senate amendments. Frankly, a lot of the amendments put forward by the Senate were debated and discussed among the opposition members during committee. I give the Senate credit for being able to put a better piece of legislation forward. It is not the best piece of legislation by any stretch of the imagination but it is a better piece of legislation because it deals with a number of very sensitive areas. It has assisted in putting forward some not terribly major or substantive changes but minor changes that would assist in this piece of legislation.

As we all recognize, the government is the government and it will pass this legislation in some fashion. It is unfortunately a fashion that will not solve any of the problems in western Canada. When the legislation passes it will probably exacerbate the issues and the problems now faced by western Canadian producers.

In fact I would suspect that with the faces in the House now, it may well mean we will be dealing with this legislation before the 36th parliament is adjourned for good. I think it will come back before the House within the next three years.

I want to speak to the amendments that were put forward. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supportive of the amendments that were put forward for the simple reason that we have in general terms put these amendments forward ourselves in the House and certainly at committee.

The first amendment, which is the president appointed by the board, is not a new amendment. That has been discussed ad infinitum and is the right way to perform governance in any corporation. When the CEO and president is responsible for the board of directors, it is an organization that is accountable. When the CEO is appointed by a third party then there is no accountability by the board of directors to that individual and quite frankly, the responsibility and accountability of that individual is compromised.

I am glad that I finally have an audience. It is nice to see, after a little bit of a faux pas, that the whip of the Liberal Party does have a bigger whip now than he perhaps had previously.

The second amendment is with respect to the auditor general but it is not something new. This particular amendment was put forward previously. The auditor general is the check and balance that the public have, but in this particular case it is a check and balance that the owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, who are the producers, want. We are continually told that the ownership of the Canadian Wheat Board is the producers but unfortunately the producers do not have the opportunity of actually finding out what it is they do own and how the Canadian Wheat Board is being operated.

The Senate amendment that came forward is a better change to the act than there was previously. Now at least the government has agreed that the auditor general should play a role in the Canadian Wheat Board. However, it did not go far enough. I spoke to this and the amendment does take it to another level which is a much better level.

The auditor general should have the opportunity and right to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian public and the owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, the producers, should have a right to have access to what the auditor general says.

The auditor general goes into government departments and tells them they are doing the job wrong and tells them how they can do the job better. It is an operational audit, not just a financial balance sheet audit which producers are now receiving from the Canadian Wheat Board.

The amendment is a legitimate and solid amendment. It would make that particular organization much more accountable to the people who own the organization, the farmers.

We have discussed inclusion and exclusion ad nauseam, not just ad infinitum, that this is the most dangerous clause in this particular piece of legislation. I stand on record in this House in saying that if the government got rid of the inclusion clause, we would reluctantly accept the legislation that came forward.

With the Senate change to the inclusion clause, which is a minor change, it does have a protection and a check and balance. It always deals with plebiscite even in the original legislation. However, this now says that it is not just simply a decision of a minister, of the board of directors, the plebiscite, but the final resolution will have to come back to this House and be passed as legislation.

I can assure members that if there was a piece of legislation that hit the floor of this House that was going to include another commodity in the Canadian Wheat Board, there would be riots in the streets in western Canada. The producers would not allow themselves to be put in a position where they were forced to sell other commodities on a non-voluntary basis through the Canadian Wheat Board.

This is a good amendment and I congratulate the member from Peace River. It is a good amendment where it states that no inclusion clause should take place until producer participation in the Canadian Wheat Board is voluntary. It makes sense. We should not add any more commodities until it is a voluntary organization. However, add the commodities when it does become voluntary so that the organization can compete on a fair market basis with other competitors that are in the marketplace right now. It makes sense.

I hate to say it, it is the first time that the hon. member has really made sense with the four very good amendments. However, we will support the amendments as put forward. Unfortunately I believe, and I am sure the hon. member from Peace River also agrees, that these amendments, although very logical and will make a better piece of legislation, will not be approved. It is very difficult to stand and say that because they would make it better they are still not going to be approved by this government.

For the life of me, I do not know why the government will not approve these amendments. It will not. A couple of members over there are going to speak to it. They will tell us exactly why it is such terrible thing to give people a choice; it is a terrible thing to make an organization accountable; it is a terrible thing that the chief executive officer should be responsible to the board of directors. They are going to tell us why it is so awful to do that.

I am sorry that these amendments will not go any further than the vote tomorrow. These amendments, which have been tabled by almost every member of the opposition with the exception of the NDP, will come back to this House. We may not be here to deal with them, but they will come back because this legislation is flawed. It is not going to solve the problems that are out there in the marketplace. It is going to exacerbate the problem. The day after this legislation is proclaimed we are still going to have the problems that exist today.

In saying that, I will also say that with the Senate amendments and the legislation that will come forward, reluctantly we will support Bill C-4. I would much prefer to have it supported as amended but unfortunately, I do not think that is not going to happen.

This has been a very useful exercise. I know the hon. member from Peace River has given us the process, as have a number of other speakers, as to how this legislation got to the floor of this House. Even in that, I am a little disappointed that the government did not listen more to the producers that this affects.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the silly season. The Liberals did not listen to the amendments initially when they were tabled by the official opposition, by me and by other members of the opposition. It seems they do not wish to listen to logical amendments at this point in the debate of Bill C-4.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board would suggest in his comments a term called political will.

He talked about the wonderful economy that we have now.

There are three things that the Mulroney government put into place. One was the GST. The second was the low interest rate policy that we had in 1991, which was based on the low inflation rate policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The third was the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I ask the hon. member, did it not take political will to implement all three of those particular policies? Why does this government not have the political will that he speaks of to scrap the GST, as was mentioned in the red book, to rip up the NAFTA agreement and in fact to go back to a high interest rate policy with higher inflation than we have right now?

Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell me where the political will of this government is with respect to those issues.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

How about potatoes?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been opposed to any type of outside transparency to the Canadian Wheat Board so I understand why he would not understand why it is important that the auditor general have access to the Canadian Wheat Board. Although 10 out of 15 members of the board of directors will be elected, it is still important that the board of directors has the professional opportunity to bring in someone like the auditor general to look at the operations, to perform an operational audit.

This would make sure that what the board says is happening is in fact happening, that it is the best marketing system in the world. The auditor general has the ability and the professionalism to be able to bring that talent forward and to either agree or disagree with the statement being made by the Canadian Wheat Board.

As for the opportunity for competitors to be given an unfair advantage, I find that to be a very loose argument of those who are supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps they have something to hide and they do not wish to have those comments brought forward. The fact of the matter is that in this amendment the auditor general will report to the board of directors and to the minister but not to this parliament.

The member also heard in my speech that it has not gone far enough. I would have liked to have had that auditor general's report come to this parliament so we could also see whether the Canadian Wheat Board was providing the proper services that the producers are paying for in marketing their particular commodity. I wish they would have gone that far.

As it is now it is better than it has ever been. In fact there will be a report from the auditor general within the first two years. It will give the board of directors another tool to be able to say that they are doing the job right or if they are not doing the job right, how to correct the problem. That is all it is. It is another tool and a very important tool. I am very pleased that the amendment came forward.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to being surrounded by Reformers as opposed to Liberals, and the hon. gentleman suggests that I am not surrounded by enemies, I should rethink that one. In either fashion if I did not have friends from my own caucus surrounding me, I would suspect that perhaps they would be enemies. However, I do thank the hon. member. The member for Portage—Lisgar was a valuable member on the committee.

With respect to the inclusion clause the best solution as the member knows is to simply have taken it out of the legislation totally, not to have inclusion, not to have exclusion. That was the argument of the member from Prince Edward Island, that if you have exclusion you should have inclusion. That did not happen.

We tried. We put amendments forward to do that and the best solution that could come from this came from the Senate where it will now go to the minister. There will be a plebiscite. There will be a vote of producers as the member has indicated. I suppose it is positive that producers do have the right and should have the right to say whether it will be included in the Canadian Wheat Board. It is another check and balance.

The final check and balance is that it comes to this House. There is a protection there even for those producers who may still not want to have any commodities included. We are talking about commodities that in my estimation should not be included in the Canadian Wheat Board. It is important that we have that other check and balance, as the hon. member has put forward.

The best solution was not to have any inclusion as was suggested many times to the member from Prince Edward Island who actually put this thought forward although it was not included in Bill C-72 in the last parliament.