Len Taylor

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Maybe more so.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be recognized but not very happy to be speaking at second reading stage of Bill C-68, the federal government's ill-conceived firearms control legislation.

I am especially not happy to be here speaking today now that the government has invoked closure on the bill. It has cut off debate in the House so the parliamentarians who have been talking to their constituents about the bill will not now have a chance to share all they have heard in their constituencies with other members of Parliament and, more important, with the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. Shutting off debate on the bill at this point is quite a shameful act. First, the government restricted access to the bill and now it is restricting debate.

I have listened carefully to much of the debate since the legislation was introduced. As emotional as it has been at times, there has been much said that is worthy of note. I hope the minister has been listening with a mind which will accept change. Unfortunately I find that the minister, like many Canadians, simply accepts the idea of firearms control as an end in itself.

The legislation addresses firearms control. Therefore the minister seems to be saying, for that reason alone it is worthy of support. It does not matter if this is a good bill, a bad bill or an inadequate bill. It should be worthy of support simply because it deals with gun control. We are all supposed to stand up and support it because of the premise. Whether it addresses all the problems facing Canadians and their personal insecurities does not seem to be relevant in the debate.

I believe these matters are relevant and I want to look at some of them today. I have heard many stories told in this Chamber over the past weeks, personal stories and quoted newspaper accounts of stories affecting people in various communities throughout North America. Each of these stories is told to gain support for the legislation. The stories are about individual tragedies of friends, relatives or people whose names appear in the paper because of some firearms accident or wilful event.

If one listens closely and reads between the lines, these stories are telling us that if we want to prevent the personal tragedies outlined, we must get rid of firearms and not register them.

The people who raised those stories in Parliament and the minister know that getting rid of firearms is not an option in the legislation before us today. For all intents and purposes the illustrative stories that have been brought to the debate, as important as they are to the individuals affected, are diverting attention from the real debate in front of us. The tragedies that they represent-and tragedies they are-can occur just as easily with a registered firearm as an unregistered one.

There is not enough time for me today, in 10 minutes, to outline everything that the legislation does. I will support the amendment before us which splits the bill into two parts because a good argument can be made for debating the two issues separately. My complaint with the legislation is the registration and the way in which it is being presented to the Canadian public by the government.

The universal registration of firearms is being presented for something that it is not. Persons with legitimate and legal uses for their firearms are being asked to pay for this misadvertised purpose.

The government is telling Canadians that if all firearms are registered they can feel safer and have more security in their homes. They can feel safer and more secure on the streets. This is simply not true. Peddling false hope while doing absolutely nothing else to alleviate the fears of the Canadian public or to attack the root causes of crime and violence in our society is practically dishonest.

As members know, I believe in gun safety. Just because I do not support the legislation of the Minister of Justice, I have been criticized for not supporting firearm safety. Members will remember that this was one of the reasons why I supported the previous government's legislation on firearms. I supported that legislation against the wishes of many of my vocal constituents because it dealt with firearm safety. Today many of those who criticized me in the past have agreed that the safety course being offered is a good one, that the safe storage, handling and transportation regulations contained in that legislation were reasonable.

Bill C-68, the registration provisions in the legislation in front of us today do nothing to enhance or improve on the existing safety provisions already in place. The new legislation should not be promoted as if it does. Also, we must reduce the amount of violent death and injury. We as a nation must confront this issue from all sides, including its social and economic roots.

Bill C-68 and its registration provisions by themselves will do nothing to reduce violent injury, death or suicide for that matter. If as a nation we are serious about suicide, spousal violence or criminal street violence we have to do much more than talk about creating a registry.

We have to do all that we can to reduce suicides and homicides but as everyone in this Chamber knows, these suicides and homicides will occur with registered legal firearms as well unless other social and economic issues are dealt with.

Members of the Chamber will recall, because it was released a few weeks ago, that the royal commission on aboriginal peoples released a report on suicide among aboriginal people, particu-

larly among aboriginal youth. To date the federal government has done virtually nothing to respond to the recommendations in this important and crucial report. The report indicated this issue has been before the government for more than 10 years.

If the federal government were truly interested in dealing with the issue of youth suicide it would respond in the affirmative to the recommendation of the royal commission report immediately.

It is a bit surprising the government says firearms registration is critical to the reduction of suicide and violence and yet at the same time is proposing a delay in the full registration process until the year 2003. Surely if the government were serious about this false contention and about the issue, if registration were actually important to the reduction of suicide and violence, would it not make compulsory registration immediate?

Why wait eight years if this is so important? The answer is simple. There is no evidence to support the government's claims. Registration is not important to the reduction of suicide and violence, and the government knows it.

I also support the police dealing with real criminals in our society. I have no trouble accepting the argument that those who commit crimes against the rest of society must be sought out, convicted and punished. However, I must remind the House and the minister that every police officer from northwest Saskatchewan I have spoken to and all the police officers I deal with on a regular basis in my own constituency tell me registration is not the answer for them.

When they are called to a domestic dispute or a location where they are uncertain what they might find when they arrive, they already assume every home they visit has a firearm. They already take no chances when they visit a scene. The bill gives them no additional security in this regard.

The police tell me that anyone who will shoot them is as likely to use an illegal weapon as a registered firearm. The police in northwest Saskatchewan tell me they need more time in the field, better support services and more sustained opportunity to work on preventative community strategies. There is a need to work on programs that will help them prevent violence rather than programs that respond only once violence has been committed. The bill and government comments to that effect offer no hope that this is being contemplated by the government.

If I had more time today I would happily put more concerns on the record. Fortunately a few members in the House have already begun to do so. Rather, I stress I remain critical of this legislation. I am critical because the Liberals have set out an agenda that they say will deal with safety and security and they are asking the residents of my constituency who happen to own legal and useful firearms to pay for them through the registration system.

The government is doing this without offering any evidence that any part of its plan will work any better than existing rules which have not yet been fully evaluated. I find this wrong and to a certain extent shameful politics.

I have already demonstrated that I do support firearms control measures that have a real and meaningful impact on our nation and its citizens. As I said earlier, while there is a role for legitimate critique of Bill C-68 and the critique of the false hope the Liberals are setting up with its passage, I trust the nation, the House and especially the minister will not only allow room for that critique to be articulated but also will take it to heart.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Every one of them?

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the fine motion presented today by my colleague from Kamloops. It is a motion to recognize a day of solidarity with aboriginal peoples. It shows a lot of understanding of the challenges that face our societies.

I would like to think that every day I stand in solidarity with aboriginal peoples. However, that is not the case across the country. It would be very useful to have a day to specifically remind ourselves of the injustices to native people and that there are specific things we need to do to address those injustices and meet future challenges.

The royal commission on aboriginal peoples has released an interim report on suicide. We must actively work to address the recommendations on that issue.

The Senate has just released a report on the treatment of aboriginal veterans from World War I, World War II and the Korean war. We must as a nation actively work to address the grievances of aboriginal veterans.

The House of Commons standing committee on Indian affairs has in the past reported on the lack and the inadequacy of housing in aboriginal communities. This issue must be immediately addressed.

An environmental panel looking at the acceptability of low level military flight training over Innu land in Labrador reported that land claims in jurisdictions must be dealt with quickly. This is a critical issue which the government must pursue as soon as possible.

The list goes on. Currently committees of the House are examining the issues of self-government, of aboriginal education, of aboriginal fishing and economic development, of mental health among aboriginal people and the future of resource management in areas where aboriginal communities are located.

There is an urgent need for Canadians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds to acknowledge the history, heritage and future of Canada's first peoples. The adoption of a day of solidarity is certainly one small step in the right direction.

In my own constituency much is happening in this regard. Within the aboriginal communities chiefs like the late Big Bear, Poundmaker, Ahtakakoop and Seekaskoch are focal points for the development of interpretive and educational centres. Non-aboriginal communities have begun to sponsor or jointly host powwows and other cross cultural activities.

Individuals like the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nation's Chief Blaine Favel have talked about the need to foster stronger human and economic ties between non-aboriginal and aboriginal communities and people. Tribal councils like the Meadow Lake Tribal Council are demonstrating that successful aboriginal businesses can contribute a great deal to the success of neighbouring non-aboriginal communities. There are negatives and positives in the relationships that exist between our societies. If we are ever to overcome the negatives and make the future positive we must take a few small steps first. This bill sponsored by the hon. member for Kamloops and supported by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and other members of the House provides us with just such an opportunity.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.

I have just come from a luncheon here on Parliament Hill in support of the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar, where 4-H members have an opportunity to learn about parliamentary activities. They are young agricultural enthusiasts who can communicate very well to parliamentarians about the need to support agriculture.

Can the member, representing an agricultural area of our country, tell us about his support for Canadian 4-H and how important that program is to all Canadians?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to address questions to the government which the people of Saskatchewan, particularly farm people and the communities they support, are concerned about.

On March 17, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport answered, inadequately, two important questions I put to the government in regard to the Liberals' plan to eliminate the Crow benefit.

First, I want more information with regard to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and its request for regulatory control over freight rates. The minister was aware that the Canadian Wheat Board asked the federal government to give farmers a short term break on freight rates and I agreed with the board.

There is no debate about how the elimination of the Crow benefit will affect the increased costs of shipping grain by rail. Those costs will increase dramatically. In fact, for the benefit of those who are uninformed here in the Chamber tonight, it should be noted that when taken to its lowest common denominator, the average benefit of the Crow rate to a Saskatchewan farmer in 1994-95 terms is $15.63 per tonne out of a total grain freight cost of $30.35 per tonne. On an average sized farm this means an average increase in costs of $10,000 to $12,000 per year per farm as of August 1, 1995. As members heard me say in my speech in the House last week, this means a community increase of about $1 million for every delivery point in the province.

Given no other changes, the government's decision to eliminate the Crow benefit will result in a doubling of farmers' shipping costs at the same time that farm income support from the federal government will drop by 30 per cent over the next three years. There is nothing to say that when the federal government removes itself from the business of helping to move grain to port by rail that the railways will not immediately increase the cost of the freight. The Canadian Wheat Board, most Saskatchewan farmers and I would like to see some sort of regulatory control put in place to ensure that there are no immediate or later unnecessary increases imposed on farmers during this most vulnerable time.

On March 17 I also raised the question of the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because no studies have been done on this subject. The government is eliminating the Crow benefit with the stated intention of reducing the amount of grain grown on the prairies in favour of more crop diversification. With less grain, especially wheat, and with the need of the Canadian Wheat Board to have a secure supply of product on hand for our many customers around the world, I want to know if the government has spent any time studying what the long term implications of the decision to eliminate the Crow rate will have on the Canadian Wheat Board and the security of its supply.

In a supplementary question I expressed concern about the pending payout of $1.6 billion. It is already acknowledged that farmers' costs will be increased by the elimination of the Crow benefit and it was speculated from day one that land values would decrease. Now it seems that the Liberals are acknowledging that land values will decrease and, as a result, they are putting in place a financial compensation package which seems to only address the decrease in land values.

[The Environment, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has representatives in Berlin today to engage in more talk about the need to improve the way that we as nations respond to the world's growing environmental crisis. At the same time here in Canada the media is speculating about the possible dismantling of Environment Canada because the department has become ineffective in dealing with our own domestic environmental problems.

Can the government confirm today that it will stand with the same political will to strengthen the federal role on domestic environmental issues as it has shown in the defence of turbot conservation and in support of the country's well-meaning but nonetheless meaningless position at the Berlin conference?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 27, 1995. For my constituents the bill should be known as an act to kill the Crow or an act of unfairness to the prairie economy.

Bill C-76 is the legislation that will allow for the payment of compensation to the owners of farmland in the absence of the Crow benefit. I quote National Farmers Union President Nettie Wiebe:

The federal budget delivers a double hit to Canadian farmers. They are increasing farmers' costs by cutting transportation subsidies and then hitting us with fewer funds for farm safety nets, less money for dairy subsidies and reducing the budget overall.

I will direct my remarks to two points. First, I will look at the principle of withdrawing federal support from grain transportation. Second, I will address the specifics of the payment of the $1.6 billion outlined in the legislation before us.

I have said previously in questions in the Chamber, in comments to other speakers and in response to inquiries from the media that the elimination of the federal financial commitment to the transport of grain destined for export is the single most devastating element in a very difficult budget.

On February 27 the federal finance minister announced the elimination of the transport support program which, just two years ago, was providing $720 million a year. The grain on the prairies is grown on land that is farther from port than in any other export oriented grain growing country in the world.

I have been consulting with farmers and community leaders in areas supported by the farm economy. During the consultations we took out our pencils and calculators and looked at the implications of the elimination of the Crow benefit in real, personal and community terms. The only word to describe the implications of the federal government measure was devastating, the word I used earlier.

In the province of Saskatchewan the loss of the Crow benefit will mean that delivery costs from virtually every delivery point in the province will increase by about $1 million a year. Producers who deliver grain to local elevators will have additional freight costs deducted at the elevators equalling collectively about $1 million a year. With reduced incomes of some significance there is a net community loss that is unlikely to be made up elsewhere.

That is the point the federal government failed to address in the budget. The withdrawal of federal support will have an immediate effect on countless communities, most of which will have neither the resources nor the ability to make up the lost funds.

In spite of my questions and the questions of others, the federal government has not produced a single page of study, evaluation or analysis to indicate or prove the contention of the finance minister that the elimination of the financial support will lead to greater crop diversification or enhanced value added production capacity in these communities.

I draw attention to the speech yesterday of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who talked in glowing terms about the elimination of the subsidy encouraging the development of value added processing and the production of higher value goods. He said that the elimination would result in a more efficient grain handling and transportation system. He said that the elimination of the Crow benefit would help maintain our market access for grain sales in foreign countries.

No evidence has ever been produced to prove these contentions. What is there? What analysis has been made to substantiate these claims? Absolutely none. Not one shred of evidence has been produced to give us any confidence that the investment to replace the lost income from increased freight costs will magically materialize. Every delivery point in Saskatchewan must find $1 million a year in new revenues just to remain where they are today. How many more peas can we grow? How many more pigs or cows can we produce? How many new flour mills, ethanol plants or breakfast cereal plants can we build by this time next year to replace the $1 million per community that is being taken out of our province by this single move in the budget?

There are a lot of unanswered questions which deal with the future of my province and even the uncertain future of the Canadian Wheat Board that are not being answered. Yet the government is proceeding with great abandon to ensure that the Crow benefit is gone before the end of the crop year. It is sheer madness.

On virtually every other issue the Liberals talk about their election promises, the red book promises, the guide to direct them in policy matters, but nowhere in the red book do we see a promise to get rid of the Crow benefit and bankrupt agricultural communities with such swiftness. I quote the red book: "Our goal is reducing input costs to make farming more valuable". What have the Liberals done? They have increased costs, not reduced them as promised in the red book.

I have asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and the Minister of Finance to postpone any actions on the elimination of their commitment and responsibility to the west until the long term implications are well known, thoroughly reviewed, and mitigating measures are outlined and debated. It is absolutely crucial that we look at what the long term implications will be before the decisions are taken in the Chamber by the members who are sitting here today.

In the legislation before us the government is barrelling ahead with the decision to kill the Crow without knowing what it will mean to those most affected. The legislation gives the government the authority to make a transition payment to the owners of farmland in western Canada in lieu of the Crow benefit. Once the legislation is passed and the process of making the payments is in place, it will be very hard, indeed it will be impossible to go back and assess how bad the damage will be. We have to defeat the legislation if we are to make the proper assessments.

At the same time it is important to look at the specifics of Bill C-76. There are three main problems with which I would like to deal: the principle of the idea, the payout, and the process of regulations. In principle the idea of providing $1.6 billion in a payout is wrong. First, as I said, it should not be done. Second, if the government insists on making the payout obviously it is very inadequate.

Every member of the Chamber is aware that the Crow deal was originally a condition of building the railway in return for being given a lot of land on which they have made a lot of money over the years. In return for the government building the railway itself, the railway companies promised to ship grain from the

prairies to the port. It was a very simple condition. It can almost be called a condition of Confederation for western Canada.

Many farmers are very upset the government came along and out of the blue announced the deal was no longer in effect. The farmers have to pay once again for a service that was paid for long ago, and the railways once again get off scot free. In principle that is grossly unfair.

The $1.6 billion is an arbitrary figure that means virtually nothing. "Where did the government get this figure from", farmers ask. The prairie pools have made their calculations. They said if the Crow benefit were to be eliminated and replaced with a fair payout to farmers the bill should be providing authority to pay $7 billion rather than the inadequate $1.6 billion which will do very little to compensate the landowner or the shipper, no matter how we look at it.

Another problem with this section of the legislation is the fact that it proposes to pay the $1.6 billion to landowners rather than to producers. It seems the Liberals think that compensating for the loss of land value, which they acknowledge will result from the loss of the Crow benefit, is more important than compensating farmers for the additional costs associated with increased freight rates. Paying money to landowners means that about 40 per cent of the payout destined for Saskatchewan will go to the banks and other financial institutions such as the Farm Credit Corporation.

Although the Liberals say that these institutions should pass along the payout to those who lease land from them, there is no guarantee, no certainty that anything will get passed on. At the same time the legislation makes the payout to landowners including the banks tax free; but money that finds its way to farmers who lease their land, if the money gets to them, becomes taxable. Obviously this means that the Liberals seem to have much more sympathy for the poor banks than they do for the poor farmers.

Third and last in this section, the legislation before us leaves virtually all the details about how this is going to be handled to the regulations. All the questions about who qualifies, what kind of land will be paid for, when the cheques will be written and mailed and so on will be decided in the minister's office. The specifics will be settled in the regulations. The decisions are left to the bureaucracy and there is virtually no public input through this Chamber and members of Parliament.

In conclusion, there is much wrong with this idea. This legislation should not be supported by the members of this House.

I once again appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I ask that all this stuff relating to the elimination of the Crow benefit be put off until such time as a complete evaluation of the consequences has been written and reviewed. We cannot afford to abandon the farm economy and the communities that depend on that economy.

[Health Care, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the financing of medical care in Canada has become a challenging task that the federal government is about to make even more challenging. The current federal proposal to change the way cash is transferred to the provinces will create a patchwork of different delivery systems in different provinces across Canada. Fortunately, some provinces have a progressive view of health care delivery.

Thanks to good economic management, the Government of Saskatchewan will introduce this year new and expanded health services at the community level. These will include home care and increased support for respite beds, and day programs that provide some relief for family caregivers when needed.

Saskatchewan's health minister, Lorne Calvert, says that these and other initiatives represent the most comprehensive and people sensitive approach to community based health care in Canada.

It shows that even in the face of financial difficulties a province that cares for people can meet its health challenges. I urge the federal government to ensure provincial initiatives such as these are not undermined by a shortsighted and poor-

[Aboriginal Veterans, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after months of public hearings, consultations and study, a Senate committee has concluded that aboriginal soldiers were poorly treated after they returned from the two world wars and the Korean war.

The committee now recommends that the federal government apologize to aboriginal veterans and create a scholarship fund in the name of the thousands of aboriginal soldiers who fought for Canada in overseas theatres of war.

I have followed the Senate hearings closely and have listened to the testimony of the many veterans who spoke of the difficulties and discrimination they faced after they returned.

Now that the Senate committee has confirmed what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has long denied, I hope the federal government will take its own initiative and begin the process that will adequately address the grievances so well articulated by aboriginal veterans during the past year.