Morris Bodnar

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about matters such as the federal government abandoning farmers. In his second breath he talked about the federal involvement being too great in the farm community, that we should get out of wheat boards and let farmers decide everything on their own in those matters instead of the representatives of farmers who have been sent to the House.

The Reform talks about abandonment and how the Liberals and Conservatives have not done their jobs and that is why the Reform are here now.

I have a question for the hon. member. Last year we had a rail strike and farmers were suffering greatly because they could not get their products to market. The whole Canadian economy was losing $200 million per day.

Could the hon. member indicate to us why only six representatives of his party showed up in the House to vote?

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Saskatoon who request that Parliament desist from passing legislation legalizing the use of BST.

They further request that legislation be passed requiring mandatory disclosure on all imports produced from BST treated cows.

[Regional Development, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last fall a group of western MPs consulted with western Canadians on regional development. Important matters were recommended to the minister in charge of western diversification, including export promotion and helping high growth sectors.

What is the Minister of Western Diversification doing to implement the recommendations to help strengthen the economy of western Canada?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions the bankruptcy of farmers. The bankruptcy of farmers in Saskatchewan, should any arise, will be as a result of the provincial NDP policies not as a result of Liberal policy at the federal level.

Let us not forget that some policies in Saskatchewan which the hon. member has been espousing as being so wonderful are by the NDP government. It is the same NDP government in Saskatchewan that would not lower the provincial sales tax, which chased away business into other provinces. It is the same government that would not reduce the aviation fuel tax until pressured to do so, again chasing jobs away. This is because the NDP government in the province of Saskatchewan did not want to lower its equalization payments from the federal government.

The NDP government in Saskatchewan has been living like a welfare bum off the federal government. That is what it has been doing. As fast as we have been creating jobs in Saskatchewan under infrastructure and other programs, the Government of Saskatchewan has been destroying those jobs.

I do not believe the hon. member is in a position to be commenting on the devastation of the agricultural industry, which is not occurring in Saskatchewan. In fact, production is going up in other sectors such as hog production and cattle production. The whole industry will benefit rather than suffer, as indicated by the hon. member.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

The motion before the House today suggests this government is providing western farmers with an unfair advantage over farmers in eastern Canada. Our job has been and always will be to work with all sectors of the agriculture and agri-food industry to create opportunities and advantages, not to promote one sector at the advantage of another or one region over another, as my hon. colleagues would suggest.

This government's first and foremost priority is to win the national battle against the deficit. Within that reality of fewer government dollars, this government is working extremely hard through the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to help position the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector to increase Canada's share in every available marketplace, at home and abroad. That work has not been at the expense of one part of the country over another. Western and eastern farmers alike have said repeatedly that they do not want to be subsidized; they just want good markets and fair prices.

The changes outlined in this government's budget will help farmers reach that goal while helping reduce the overall cost of government through changes that are designed to improve our efficiency and competitiveness, to remove impediments to development and value-added production and processing, and to take maximum advantage of the world's new trading environment.

This government recognized that structural reform in our transportation system was long overdue. Reforming the Western Grain Transportation Act will eliminate barriers to value-added opportunities, diversifications and economic growth. Eliminating the WGTA will provide Canada and the agri-food sector with a faster, lower-cost and more efficient transportation system. Transportation reform can help us more effectively comply with the new international trade rules under GATT.

There is a big difference between subsidies for grain transportation and dairy producers. In fact, eliminating the $560 million subsidy addresses competitive concerns raised by farmers in eastern Canada. The annual subsidy, which has already been reduced by over 23 per cent in the last two years, is now being completely eliminated as of August 1, 1995. The dairy subsidy meanwhile is being reduced by only 30 per cent over a period of two years.

The adjustment package this government is offering to the grain industry reflects the potential impact of eliminating a 96-year-old commitment to the western grain sector. To eliminate the subsidy with no funds to help the sector adjust would seriously disrupt the prairie grain economy because it has traditionally represented an important source of land value for prairie producers. An ex gratia capital payment of $1.6 billion will be paid to owners of prairie farmland in recognition of the impact on land values that may result from the termination of the long-standing freight rate subsidies. This one-time payment is not tied to production or marketing decisions.

A multi-year adjustment package of $300 million has also been established to address specific issues arising from the transportation reform. The amount is not excessive. It does not give western farmers an unfair advantage. Rather it is necessary to help adjustment of the industry and the transportation system in the west.

It should also be noted that while the GATT agreement has brought some discipline to export subsidies, the prairie grain sector will face considerable competition from subsidized exports of grain. While the dairy subsidy is being reduced, it is not disappearing. In fact, our national supply management system, one of the great advantages of our federal system, ensures a reasonable return to efficient producers, and this management system will be maintained.

It is rather ironic that the hon. opposition member calls our approach to transportation reform an unfair advantage for western farmers. Some western provinces and producers have argued the budget cuts to western Canada are substantially greater than to eastern Canada. They have argued that eastern Canada is receiving a greater share in adjustment transitional funding relative to the magnitude of the subsidy programs that are being eliminated or reduced.

What this tells us is that all farmers, and indeed all Canadians, are sharing equally, as we must, in the responsibility for deficit reduction. It is a responsibility we must all shoulder to ensure the future growth of our agriculture and agri-food sector and to maintain our competitiveness on a global scale.

This government is creating opportunities for western and eastern Canadian farmers alike. As my hon. colleagues know, this government has set aside considerable funding for adaptation initiatives. While the overall budget for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada may have been reduced by 19 per cent, the department has initiated a 20 per cent increase in its adaptation funding. This reflects the industry's shift in direction toward acquiring financial security from the marketplace rather than from government programs. This adaptation funding is available equally to farmers in eastern and western Canada to help improve the sector's ability to grow and capture markets.

This government's package of reforms to grain transportation is not inconsistent with the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA in December 1994. The package of subsidy reform is fair and balanced with respect to different situations in different regions of our country and in different sectors. All will have to do their share in contributing to deficit reduction and all will share in reaping the benefits.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak on this matter when you come from Saskatchewan. In that province the provincial government is opposed to the proposed legislation. The opposition parties are opposed to it and there is a vocal element that does not seem to quit in opposition to the legislation. However, it is important to look at and dissect the legislation and examine the different aspects of what is being proposed.

Over the past year the Minister of Justice has travelled the country and talked to different groups and individuals. In effect he has been consulting with people as to the proposals individuals want or do not want in the legislation.

Whenever one comes down with such legislation, few are generally happy even though the legislation is generally good legislation. The problem which arises is that emotions take over. Then neither side wants in any way to give in on any of the aspects, to discuss the matter and to determine whether society as a whole would benefit from such legislation.

The problem the minister has had is to come up with a balanced approach. This approach would help to ensure the safety of Canadians and would crack down on the criminal misuse of firearms. At the same time it would respect the needs of hunters and farmers and would respect the rights of legitimate gun owners.

Quite often one has to be pigeon-holed as to whether one supports the legislation or one is against the legislation. There are good aspects of this legislation. The parts of the legislation calling for increased penalties for use of firearms in the commission of offences obviously is very good. It is long overdue and certainly will now be in effect. Hopefully the provinces will enforce these provisions and not treat them the way they have in the past by dealing these penalties away.

Those aspects are commendable. One then has to look at the other aspects. What about the initiative for controlling the

illegal importation or smuggling of guns into this country? There it appears everyone is in agreement. That aspect is good.

However, one has to look at that aspect practically. How do we control such a provision? Such a provision cannot be effectively dealt with without registration. Without registration such an aspect cannot be dealt with whatsoever. It appears a phobia has taken over with respect to registration, that this is a restriction on legitimate gun owners.

I own a gun. How the filling out of a page, signing it and sending it in to the appropriate authorities is going to restrict me in any way with that gun is a matter I do not understand to this day. There is absolutely no restriction on legitimate gun owners.

We have to deal with the question of registration and what its possible benefits are. Sure, we have many legitimate gun owners. There are people, the criminal element, who use guns and obviously do not register them after they have stolen them or come to have them in some other way.

We have to make sure the legitimate gun owners show some responsibility. Being a legitimate gun owner means storing guns properly, which matter has been often overlooked in this country. Storage is crucial in keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal element which has used this as a source of getting guns. There are break-ins to homes where guns are not properly stored. Guns are stolen from homes of legitimate gun owners who do not properly store them.

They have to pay a price for that. That price is an offence if they do not properly store their guns. If they do not properly store their guns, they will be charged. That matter has been in effect for many years, but has not been properly enforced or the mechanism has not been in place. With registration there will be more responsibility on the part of the gun owners.

As the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police put it, the registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse of legal firearms. It continued to explain what is meant by this.

The association indicated that with respect to smuggling, guns do not have to be smuggled into this country; they can be brought in legitimately. Any member in this House who has a proper certificate can bring a dozen guns into the country.

Under the current system, the type of guns, the number of guns, and the serial numbers of the guns are not tracked when they come into Canada. A recent report indicated that customs officers are more focused on the value of the gun shipments than on any other aspect.

Once these guns are in the country, we do not know what happens to them. We lose complete track of them as to whether they get into the hands of illegitimate gun owners, et cetera. That matter will be taken care of if registration comes about.

Registration will leave a paper trail. The guns will be traced back to the source to determine how they got into illegitimate hands, if they have transferred to such hands, once they have come into the country.

Not always but generally, guns that are stolen have not been properly stored. Registration will promote safe storage which will reduce gun theft as well as reduce suicides and accidents.

One may say, how will it reduce suicides? Safe storage generally prevents the gun from getting into the hands of a person who is in a temporary state of depression. Again, as the chiefs of police so eloquently put it in their report on this matter, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

A person with a problem becomes depressed and if there is easy access to a gun, deals with the problem on the spur of the moment. If access to the storage container is just a little more difficult, especially for young people, and if they do not have access to the ammunition, a temporary problem may pass and the permanent solution will not occur.

Certainly that is an important factor. If we can save some lives from suicides, that would be an important factor for us. That aspect and the suicides in this country are matters we have to look at very closely. It is important to prevent the senseless loss of young people's lives, those people who have been unable to deal with temporary situations and have immediately dealt with them by ending their own lives with a gun.

Of course, there is the question of collectors. No one believes that collectors should be disarmed of their gun collections. That matter can be dealt with in committee. No one indicates that firearms safety is not an important factor.

What we have to understand is that registration will in no way whatsoever cause any restrictions on legitimate gun owners. The filing of the certificate once in a lifetime for a gun is not a restriction but it is certainly a help to the authorities in enforcing the laws. It is not a restriction whatsoever on anyone in society. The question really is, what is the problem?

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, people from Saskatchewan, especially farmers, are very concerned about the effects of the rail strike on their ability to get their products to port.

Farmers across Saskatchewan were quite disgusted with members of the NDP when they put the interests of their union masters ahead of the needs of the grassroots farmers, whom they claim to represent, when they did not give their consent to fast track Bill C-77 on Monday.

As for members of the BQ, farmers are not surprised that the Bloc would stoop to such tactics. No doubt they have realized that the strong economic growth and the excellent government provided by the Liberal Party are convincing Quebecers to remain in Canada. Then the rail strike came and they realized they could damage the economy of Canada.

Farmers and industries in Saskatchewan need the rail lines. Without efficient rail service, any chance of economic growth will be lost. I appeal to all members to allow the bill to proceed as quickly as possible.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition wherein the petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code 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.

[Order Of Canada, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the accomplishments of Peggy McKercher and Dr. Louis Horlick of Saskatoon who received the Order of Canada on Wednesday, March 1.

Peggy McKercher was made a member of the Order of Canada for her voluntary service to the residents of Saskatoon. She has spent many hours volunteering for many organizations, including the Meewasin Valley Authority of which she has been chair since its inception. Under her leadership Meewasin has created one of the most beautiful riverfront areas in Canada and has established Wanuskewin Heritage Park which is world recognized for its historical and archaeological importance.

Dr. Louis Horlick was promoted to officer of the Order of Canada. Dr. Horlick, a cardiologist at Royal University Hospital and Professor Emeritus of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, is well known for his advocacy in the area of community health and cardiac care. He is respected by students and colleagues alike as an inspiring teacher. As a researcher he has made many contributions to the science of cardiac care.

Let us all take the example of Dr. Horlick and Mrs. McKercher to heart. Their dedication to the community, the fellow citizens of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and to raising the standard of quality of life that we as-

[Uranium, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, uranium production employs hundreds of Canadians in Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada. Exports to the United States last year amounted to $500 million.

The industry has been concerned that recent U.S. arrangements with Russia might threaten to destabilize the U.S. uranium market by providing for U.S. imports of large quantities of low cost Russian uranium.

Would the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of International Trade advise the House what steps his minister is taking to protect the Canadian uranium exports to the United States.