Len Taylor

[Petitions, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many Canadians from all parts of the country.

The petition collected by members of the Council of Canadians notes that the petitioners have a right to health care if they are sick, to education if they need training, to a pension if they are senior, to insurance against joblessness if they are a worker, to assistance if they are poor or homeless, to day care services if they are a parent working outside the home and to access to cultural institutions.

The petitioners note that social programs form the very fabric of Canada and that cuts to social programs are not necessary since tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy individuals and profitable corporations have caused close to half the debt while social programs have caused less than 6 per cent.

The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain and enhance social programs which are the right and heritage of all Canadians.

[Petitions, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

The first, certified pursuant to Standing Order 36, is signed by residents of Ontario and Saskatchewan, some from the town of Wilkie, Saskatchewan, North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

The petitioners note that Robert Latimer of Saskatchewan was sentenced to life in prison for second degree murder with no chance of parole for 10 years. The petitioners believe the law should be flexible and based on the individual. They believe that his sentence is unfair and out of proportion.

The petitioners request that Parliament grant Robert Latimer a pardon, conditionally or unconditionally, for his conviction of second degree murder in the death of his daughter.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on March 3 in question period I brought to the attention of the House the report of the federal environmental assessment panel which reviewed low level military training flights in Labrador and Quebec. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000 low level training flights a year are currently being conducted out of Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

These flights are allowed under a 10-year multilateral memorandum of understanding agreement signed by Canada and the NATO allies which expires in 1996. The assessment panel report recommends that the government accept the Department of National Defence proposal to negotiate a new agreement that would more than double the number of flights, establish a new practice bombing range and expand the flight training area.

This would effectively concentrate the flights over traditional lands that have been used and occupied by the Innu nation for more than 9,000 years. After 10 years of experience observing the effects of these flights, the Innu contend that the noise adversely affects the wildlife, especially caribou, which they rely on for food.

The noise also causes the Innu mental and physical stress and disrupts their culture and traditional way of life. Many Innu boycotted the hearings because they felt these concerns as well as issues relating to aboriginal rights and land claims negotiations were not being adequately dealt with by the panel.

Although the panel did not adequately address the issues raised by aboriginal people, it did acknowledge that research concerning environmental effects on the flights was lacking. On this point the report is very clear: "So little is known about much of the wildlife in the training areas and the effects of overflights on them over the longer term that much uncertainty and hence concern remains. As a result the panel could not draw conclusions on the longer term effect of low level flying on the natural systems".

The panel therefore recommended that the project proceed only if key conditions are met and certain issues are dealt with. The first condition is that before a new low level flying agreement is signed and the flights are allowed to continue, the government must establish an independent institute to study and monitor the effects of the flights.

The panel also recommended that as soon as possible the government establish a joint management board for the George River caribou herd and settle aboriginal land claims in the affected area.

In question period the Minister of National Defence gave no indication of whether he agrees or disagrees with the report, if he would recommend that cabinet accept the report or what measures the government will take to ensure that the panel's conditions are met.

The government's own assessment panel admits the impacts on the environment and aboriginal rights are unknown and DND's avoidance procedures probably will not work. Does the government think that these flights should be allowed to continue when their effects are unknown? When one does not know the impact of something, it may not be wise to proceed.

It is important for the Innu people whose lives will continue to be affected by this program to know now if the government will accept the panel's report and, if the government does accept the recommendations in the report, what steps will be taken to address the issues identified by the panel and ensure that its major conditions including land claims negotiations will be met. This is an important point, especially since it appears clear that the provincial government of Newfoundland, because of the land claims dispute, will not enter into land claims negotiations with the Innu people. It is very important to know how the Government of Canada will respond to this very important matter.

The government must ensure that it does not address the economic interests of one group while ignoring the economic interests of another.

[Low Level Flights, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The federal environmental review panel has recommended that the Department of National Defence be allowed to double the number of low level training flights over Labrador and Quebec. However it has imposed a number of conditions, including the early settlement of land claims, the establishment of an institute to study and monitor the effects of the flights and the establishment of a joint management board for the George River caribou herd.

The minister is aware that the panel refused to listen to issues raised by aboriginal people relating to their land. Is he prepared to recommend rejection of the report? What steps is he willing to take to ensure that the conditions are met as established by the panel?

[Freshwater Fishery, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian freshwater fishery has an important role to play in the economy of the country, in particular the economies of the northern regions of the provinces.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has completed a much needed review of the operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and has made recommendations to the minister of fisheries.

Those recommendations go too far according to reports I have received from groups involved in the fishery in Saskatchewan concerned about the future of the industry and therefore the future of those regional economies.

Changes can and must be made to the freshwater fishery that will improve participation, opportunity and income for the people involved.

The minister of fisheries has received a request for a meeting with Saskatchewan fisheries groups. To ensure a complete understanding of this important issue from the perspective of those involved in the fishery and the communities dependent upon the freshwater fishery, I urge the minister to accept that invitation and meet with them as soon as possible.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons I expressed my concern and outrage over the pending loss of the Crow benefit.

As far as a great number of Saskatchewan farmers and I see it, the federal government's abandonment of its responsibilities under the terms of the Western Grain Transportation Act is the single most damaging element of this week's federal budget.

In fact the headlines in Saskatchewan newspapers this week bear this out. The Regina Leader-Post states it best with its single word headline Devastated'', followed by the subheadingBudget leaves farm leaders reeling''.

In today's newspaper the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, is quoted as saying:

If this goes through in the next four or five years we will see the most massive restructuring of rural Saskatchewan with respect to trading patterns, towns, villages, cities-since 1905.

We all remember it was the Liberal Party that originally began the process of getting rid of the Crow rate. The names Otto Lang and Jean-Luc Pepin still bring out emotions full of hard feelings on the prairies.

Although the Liberals failed originally to destroy the Crow, they did succeed in weakening it enough so that today just one decade later they could finish it off. This is absolutely horrible.

The loss of the Crow benefit is bad enough by itself, but the government has compounded our prairie anger in two other ways. First, it has abandoned the farm economy without any plan or structure in place to help the economy recover. Second, it has offered a one-time payout which is not only inadequate but is inappropriately targeted only to land owners.

I have already argued elsewhere that loss of the Crow benefit without a long term plan to replace it could lead to the erosion of land values, a loss of farmers and farms, a reduction in the rural tax base and therefore a reduction in the support for the maintenance of the rural infrastructure, and with this a further loss of quality of life in rural Saskatchewan.

The Crow benefit just two years ago was providing a net annual benefit to the province of Saskatchewan of $400 million. It will take a pretty hefty investment in diversification and value added production to replace that $400 million just to remain economically stationary.

The Liberals have made no provision for that investment. Our problem on the prairies has never been the Crow rate. It has been a lack of investment capital. The will has always been there for value added production but the money to make it happen has been absent.

The fight to save the Canadian Wheat Board has not been considered in all of this and if the supply of wheat is threatened then so too is the future of the board. Can we consider this in our long term equation?

I want to know if the federal Liberals have taken any time at all to properly think out the long term implications of this decision. If they have, I want to see their documented evidence and reasoned conclusions. If they have not, shame on them.

At the same time I want to note that the Liberals are preparing to pay out $1.6 billion in compensation, even though they know that $7 billion to $9 billion is required if there is to be any fairness in the system at all.

Not only has the government failed to meet this fairness test, but it has also said that the money will be paid only to land owners. Does the government not realize that about one-third of the seeded acreage is currently under lease to banks or other financial institutions including the Farm Credit Corporation?

The people who have been paying and will continue to pay the freight costs of grain sold for export and are leasing their land from a government owned corporation will not see a single cent of this payout, no matter how important it is.

The Liberals have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the prairie farm economy. With this single move in the budget I hope they are prepared to reconsider now what they have done before it is implemented and before the ultimate damage is done.

[Points Of Order, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, just to add briefly to this information session in the House, last week when I raised the issue in the Chamber and the member speaking on behalf of the board responded to me, he gave information about additional copies being available should I wish to purchase them out of my office budget.

I inquired about the purchase price and discovered that although I was willing to purchase copies from my office there were not enough printed in any case for me to purchase them. Then I found that the price itself would be exorbitant to absorb within my budget.

I approached the printing office on Parliament Hill and asked how much it would cost to print that number of pages, double-sided, one staple in the top, and I was informed the cost was roughly one-third the cost of buying it from the government.

I can print through the House of Commons. I have a quote from the House printing unit to print enough copies to satisfy my demands in my constituency for close to $400. I am prepared to pay that amount if the House will allow me to ask printing to produce that copy.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the single most damaging element of this week's federal budget will be the devastating effect on the regional economy of the prairies, that is the elimination of the Crow rate including declining land values and the lack of investment for value added production.

Has the minister given any thought at all to the long term implications for the prairie economy of the decision to end the transport subsidy? If so, could he identify the sources in which he has so substantially misplaced his optimism?

[Points Of Order, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on that confirmation I wish to lodge a protest on behalf of many members of the House.

Nothing could be more important to the public than the opportunity to read the words that are contained in a bill before the House. I am not asking for the bill kits. I am asking for the opportunity to go to the printing office of the House of Commons to have a number of copies printed. This would not be the $22 that the board has determined this would cost.

It is imperative that all Canadians have access to the bills of the House. As a member of Parliament, I would like to supply my constituents with a bill presented in this Chamber.

[Points Of Order, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week the House will recall that I rose on a question of privilege to request that the House allow for additional printing of Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, again called for debate on Friday of this week.

I was told at that time that on Tuesday of this week a decision would be reached concerning the additional printing of copies of Bill C-68 for members of Parliament who require the bill to properly inform their constituents.

I have been informed informally that a decision has been reached. I have been told informally that decision means members of Parliament can have a measly 10 extra copies of the bill.

I would like to know if the House or a member of the government could confirm that in fact that decision has been reached and, if indeed the decision means 10 copies, I would like the opportunity to protest the decision to the House.