Lee Morrison

[Agriculture, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an agricultural economic crisis is sweeping the prairies, but this lawyer-infested government is oblivious to it.

The United States and the European Union value and protect their farmers, but the Canadian agriculture minister has yet to acknowledge the existence of a crisis here. So far his only strategy to save producers from bankruptcy is to point to NISA, even though the average NISA account would not even pay for a farmer's fertilizer and chemical bills, let alone fuel, taxes, freight and so on.

I urge the minister to take his head out of the sand and listen carefully on November 4 when he meets with farm leaders and his provincial counterparts. I am sure he will get an earful. Perhaps then he will be persuaded to take the farm crisis seriously.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 23rd, 1998]

How much money was collected for each of the user fees levied by Transport Canada and its agencies for fiscal years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98?

[Extradition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a prominent urologist in my riding. He is a professional of very high standing. He has the misfortune of being a Libyan national. For three years this very fine medical practitioner has been trying to get landed immigrant status in this country. He has been declared clean by CSIS, he has been declared clean by the RCMP, but the people in immigration are still bracing their feet.

Does the hon. member believe that if this physician were a known terrorist or perhaps a fugitive serial rapist that he would have a better chance of staying in Canada?

[Agriculture, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with the disastrous cost price squeeze that farmers are facing, it will be a very tough year for them.

In the face of near record low prices, this government continues to increase farmers' costs through agencies such as the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

All Canadians benefit from the services of those agencies. Will the government make a tiny little start at addressing the farm income crisis by ending the extortionist cost recovery programs?

[Transportation, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the prairie highway system was designed to supplement the railroads, not to replace rail hauling. It is being destroyed especially in Saskatchewan where it is already a shambles. Each year $635 million is being sucked out of the prairies in fuel taxes while $13 million is being put back. Does the minister want us to go back to moving our grain with horse drawn wagons, or will this government put some of its fuel loot back where it belongs, into highways in the provinces—

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.

I gather from his recent reply that the answer is yes, but would he please confirm for this House that Canadian taxpayer dollars are indeed going to be used in the lawsuit against Mr. Dussault?

[The Late Paul Tardif, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to honour the memory of Mr. Paul Tardif, a former MP, who died on August 3, 1998.

Born and educated in Ottawa, Mr. Tardif devoted his life to serving the people of his native city. In 1959,, he was elected to the House of Commons for Russell in a byelection, and returned in 1962, 1963 and 1965. He retired undefeated in 1968. From 1968 to 1978, he was a citizenship court judge.

Before entering federal politics, Mr. Tardif sat on the school board from 1937 to 1943, and served in the municipal government as alderman, controller and finally deputy mayor.

Mr. Tardif was known for his lively wit, charm and public-spiritedness. He clearly understood the saying that all politics are local politics. An attentive listener, he could always find time to talk with anyone, anywhere. He was a true man of the people.

Mr. Tardif's efforts have been very much appreciated. On behalf of the Reform Party, my deepest sympathies to his family.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes primarily from residents of Mount Albert, Ontario.

The petitioners call upon parliament to recognize that Bill C-68 was supported by misleading statistical data when it was presented to parliament, that there is no evidence that the criminal use of firearms is impeded by restrictive firearms legislation, that the enforcement of Bill C-68 would be a major burden on police officers and that the search and seizure provisions of Bill C-68 would constitute a breach of traditional civil rights and would be an affront to all law-abiding Canadians.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms and ammunition and pass new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon.

This brings the tally to 4,026 signatures on petitions of this nature which I have recently presented in the House.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first petition, with 175 signatures, comes from my constituency, primarily from the districts of Leader, Prelate and Mendham in Saskatchewan.

The petitioners wish to point out that the concept of marriage is a voluntary union of an unmarried male and an unmarried female and that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it has been known and understood in Canada should be preserved.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is touching on something peripherally which has bothered me for a long time. I would like to ask him about it.

Bearing in mind that we are the largest trading partner of the U.S. both ways, import and export, I would expect in the normal course of business affairs that we should have some influence down there but we do not seem to have much.

The reason is that we are so eager to play by the rules, to lie down and let people walk all over us. Sure, we have these trade disputes and we win almost every time but the hearings go on and on and on. We will win a dispute but they come back at us immediately on the same matter and do it all over again. In the meantime producers, employers and employees in this country are being crucified because we do not as a nation have the huge economic base to fall back on that the United States does.

There is a situation right now in my riding and in neighbouring ridings. Exporters of agricultural products are being subjected to what can only be described as harassment by the governments of the border states. They are using state troopers to stop goods which have legally entered into the United States at the border crossings. We have complained. We will go to NAFTA and the WTO. This will take weeks and months before it is resolved. I think we will win but in the meantime there are people who are really hurting.

I wonder if my colleague would give his opinion on my suggestion that when we are bitten we should bite back. Every week thousands of tonnes of American beef cross the border coming north into Ontario and Quebec. Why do we not find a pretext similar to the ones that are being used by the governors of North Dakota and Montana and say “Sorry fellows, but the packages are the wrong colour. We are not going to let that garbage into the country until you straighten up your act”. I think we would find that the border problems on the other side of the country would very quickly be adjusted. How does my colleague feel about that?