Bernie Collins

[Farm Improvement And Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to address this very important bill, Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Marketing Co-operatives Loan Act. This act facilitates credit on farm improvements for processing and distribution and marketing of farm products. I am sure we can all agree the bill is very important to the agricultural sector.

The program has been quite a success, giving many farms and marketing co-operatives a hand in improving or starting new operations. In the year 1994-95, FIMCLA, as the program is called, was used to facilitate more than 17,000 loans totalling some $475 million. The average loan size in 1994-95 was $27,000 and the five-year average is $22,000.

It has been very advantageous to the agricultural group in Souris-Moose Mountain. My riding is concerned about the impact of recent GATT agreements and the World Trade Organization on the day to day lives and operations of our farmers.

It is very important to take a look at some of the restrictions farmers in our area may face now that we have to make our grain forwarding and other export practices acceptable to world markets. To improve our opportunities we have to turn to value added products.

I will tell the House about a group of people in my riding who have embraced this idea. A group of six farm families in Souris-Moose Mountain have formed a co-operative to begin a joint venture with a Holland firm to establish a nucleus hog breeding farm in Saskatchewan. It will be the first entry of continental European hogs into Canada in 37 years.

With the assistance of the loan through FIMCLA the co-operative farm has been formed. The joint venture is positioned to address the new opportunities brought about by the World Trade

Organization. The venture pioneers the process of the co-operative approach to improving the hog industry in Saskatchewan.

Farm members will be provided with superior animals that will increase the productive capacity of their existing operations and improve the profitability of their hog operations. The co-operative will be the first to introduce the Dalland hog to North America. As well it will be the first artificial insemination facility for hog semen in western Canada.

The co-operative will create spinoff employment and stabilize the incomes of farm members. Those in the Kipling area appreciated the opportunity to become partners with the agricultural sector in making sure the program moved forward.

For example, the distribution of semen and the marketing of breeding animals require transportation. The needs of transportation will enhance the use of one farm member's existing trucking equipment, creating additional returns for him. The co-operative will require production, management and clerical personnel that will be supplied by farm families to enhance their farm incomes and to improve individual farm returns.

The co-operative will be more than a primary producer of farm products. As a group they will market a product of high value to the benefit of their members. Their natural geographic advantage and lower cost of production make their product competitive in the North American market. This venture pioneers an innovative process of efficiently distributing new genetics to the North American hog industry and is very important to my riding.

None of this would have been possible if FIMCLA had not been there to guarantee the loans to meet their needs and to meet their new ideas, the new and better ways of doing things. With due diligence and proper assessment techniques, FIMCLA guarantees do not have to carry a high amount of risk. The past record shows that. Over the last 25 years net losses under the act have approximated 1 per cent of total loans guaranteed. In the terrible years during the 1980s when interest rates were high, low farm income and land devaluation caused more defaults than usual. The program is an excellent one. This is why the current legislation is required. It is a safe and inexpensive way for the government to help farmers help themselves in changing times.

As I drive around my riding talking with people I realize these sincere, bright, hard working individuals have hundreds of good ideas. Given a start, they could go far on their own. We need only to open the door for them.

Furthermore, the amendment includes measures to offset the natural extra expenses that would come with an increase in the cap. The amount of offsetting needed is small. For example, an increase of only one-quarter of 1 per cent in the registration fee would sufficiently offset the extra costs and maintain the current level of liability for at least five years. For an average loan of $27,000 it would be $64.

By not proceeding with the suggested amendment, lenders would have to stop and discontinue programs once the cap reached $1.5 billion. It would be irresponsible. Can we imagine saying no to the co-operatives in Saskatchewan I just mentioned? Can we imagine telling them that we understand the project will stabilize income, create employment and enhance Canada's exports but that some arbitrary cap says they cannot continue?

That we must increase the cap is positive. It means the program is doing well. More people are finding out about its successes and are deciding to use it. It makes possible what once seemed impossible for them.

With sustained lower interest rates and the improved farm debt situation approximately 600 new designated lenders and better marketing of the program have contributed to the success of FIMCLA. In simple terms, the aggregate limit can be increased at little or no cost to government and should satisfy program demand for the next 10 years.

This positive measure is supported by the agri-food sector and commercial lenders alike. The program has become increasingly important to rural lenders such as credit unions that offer credit to farm producers. The Canadian Bankers Association and Credit Union Central in Saskatchewan support the proposed increase. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other major farm groups have been consulted and support the proposed amendment. It is inexpensive and supports the agri-food sector.

Taxpayers are well served. Improvements made under the program contribute to the strength of Canada's economy and decrease dependency on government subsidies.

I ask members to support Bill C-75. By increasing the aggregate principal amount of loans that can be guaranteed, the program will continue to be offered to farmers and co-operatives and will make a difference.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains 315 signatures of people who oppose physician assisted suicide.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 300 signatures of people who oppose Bill C-68 and ask that Parliament refrain from implementing any further firearms legislation.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present the following petitions on behalf of constituents of my riding of Souris-Moose Mountain and other parts of Saskatchewan.

In the first petition, 238 people support the retention of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-68 and the proposed amendment.

An item of the bill that I really feel needs to be addressed is the issue of non-compliance. Many citizens of Canada would be put in a position of being criminals if they did not register their

guns. I hope as we review the bill that we will not allow this to fall into the Criminal Code with regard to registration.

I have some very serious reservations about the search and seizure provision. It needs to be looked at thoroughly. Can it be put in another framework in the bill? If the police want to enter on to one's property, then a search warrant should be obtained. That document would identify the reasons why a search is deemed necessary.

I have some concerns about heirlooms, those items that may be passed on from generation to generation. We have to make sure that we clear up in the minds of the people writing the bill what constitutes an heirloom. Do citizens have a right to pass them down through the family from generation to generation?

I really feel very strongly about collectors and museum pieces. If expensive museum pieces have been collected and retained in families, and they are going to be removed through confiscation, then fair compensation should be paid.

I have a tremendous problem with the five year and $60 fee licensing provision. I would rather see a licensing provision of $5 a year and $25 for five years. That way we can at least indicate to the public that it is not a tax grab.

As I have said before and I reiterate, I am prepared to register my firearms. I believe many people are. However, I would much prefer to see voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in period. At the end of the first year of the registration period we should evaluate whether it is doing what we wish it to do, that it is efficient, affordable and enforceable for everyone involved.

I have some difficulty with the taxpayers of Canada paying approximately $85 million, as suggested, to go through the business of registering firearms. I am not so sure that at the end of the day we will be able to show that the criteria are met.

The committee was completely unified in its position that it would go with voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in period. I would like to think we could go back and look at that one again.

Everyone in the House supports the minister wholeheartedly in those aspects of the bill that deal with the criminal element. We support wholeheartedly the four-year mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would rather see a two-year mandatory sentence for the use of a fake firearm in the commission of a crime. I could support that.

With regard to the bill overall, I feel this is the place to voice my concerns. I say today and I will continue to say that as the present bill is put forward, I am not prepared to support it.

[Rail Strike, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my riding and right across Saskatchewan are watching with extreme anger as the members of the NDP and the Bloc hold up our settlement of the rail strike. Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grains and oilseeds is tarnished. We are in danger of losing our international markets.

The NDP and the Bloc refuse to co-operate for the good of our country. What will the minister of agriculture do for Canadian farmers?

[Rail Strike, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with the events yesterday wherein the Bloc, supported by the New Democratic Party, refused to allow the House to bring an end to the economic chaos that has enveloped our country due to the rail strike in progress.

What is frustrating about this is there is no honourable basis for the actions of the Bloc party. It is simply sticking to its agenda of separation by allowing the Canadian economy to take a beating. Bloc members will not lose any sleep over that. They might see it as helping their battered agenda.

As for the NDP members, they continue to close their eyes to the real issues, the needs of farmers, manufacturers and many others negatively affected across Canada.

What does the premier of Saskatchewan say about their actions? Does his NDP government support what they are doing to the economy?

We have had a chance to act together for the good of our country and the Bloc and the NDP let us down for an alternate selfish agenda.

My constituents, my government and I are extremely disappointed.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to rise this morning and speak on Bill C-262 which is before the House. As a former member of a trade union for many years, I find it interesting that this bill would be put forward at this time, although the issues before us are very serious.

The bill calls for amendments to some sections of the Canada Labour Code which impact labour dispute settlement mechanisms. Specifically, the title of the bill states that it is intended to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.

I strongly suggest the bill is not appropriate both in the legislation and in its timing as it would introduce an unfortunate mechanism. The government is currently in the process of making unprecedented changes to the grain transportation system which will have far reaching effects, rather than bringing yet another complex mix and not bringing about the change we are looking for.

This is not the way we want to solve the problems we are experiencing in the grain handling system. It is important to note that we already have the means to alleviate the problems. Recently introduced legislation meant that dock workers had to return to their jobs in Vancouver and grain and other shipments were moving.

The issue demands more than just a temporary measure. The labour minister has introduced a commission to study labour relations at established ports. The commission will look into the long term solutions to this dispute and similar ones in the future. The commission, I should add, is only part of the government's ongoing efforts to streamline Canada's grain handling system.

These problems do not go unnoticed. As a result the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 16 gathered a group together to examine many of the issues. The group was formed to look at short term grain movement, the problems of long term resolution and of recurring difficulties. It included labour unions representing the grain handling and transportation system.

The movement of grain is not done in isolation by any one collective workers group. That is why the team approach has to be taken. For further proof we need only to look at the records or the grain shipments to many terminals in this crop year.

We recognize that we have had labour problems in the past with grain handling. I believe the way to resolve the problems is not by providing arbitration to prevent strikes and lockouts. Rather labour must be productive and constructive and become a partner in developing an effective process for the movement of grain.

There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. We are prepared to respect the collective bargaining process to promote co-operation between the parties in a dispute either through mediation or conciliation.

My colleagues at human resources development have indicated that 90 per cent of collective agreements referred to conciliation are resolved without a work stoppage. In instances that result in negative impacts on entire sectors the government has demonstrated as recently as in the past week it is prepared to step in and break deadlocks. As such there is no need to introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code. If we look at the experiences of countries in which compulsory arbitration is widely practised we see that strikes continue to occur.

Grain transportation is a very large and very complex industry involving numerous trades. For instance, 12 companies are operating terminal elevators, 14 companies are operating transfer elevators and 19 elevator companies are in the prairies. In addition we must add the two major railways that move our grain products by vessel to the Great Lakes and to our external ports.

Are we prepared to remove the collective bargaining rights of all these people? There is an enormous degree of complexity and we understand the concerns of all. To single out one group of men and women, the vast majority of whom have never had an industrial dispute through Parliament, strikes me as less than fair. Co-operation is the way to establishing partnerships fundamental to the economy and the well-being of society.

The adoption of Bill C-262 is not likely to produce results even close to what is desired. Rather I would suggest members support the efforts currently under way to reduce problems in our grain transportation system.

It is fundamental that changes have to take place in the western grain transportation system. These changes were recently introduced in the federal budget. They will create a less rigid and more responsive operating environment in which a faster, lower cost and more efficient system may evolve, the benefits of which will be shared by all.

Therefore, for all these reasons I do not feel I could support introduction of new legislation at this time.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, having served on the committee and being a member of the wildlife federation and coming from a rural riding of Saskatchewan, I am very concerned with the bill in its present form.

I support the minister with regard to the criminal element, the four-year mandatory sentence for the commission of a crime with a firearm. The use of a fake firearm in the commission of a crime and a one-year mandatory sentence I support wholeheartedly. Those actions that would take into consideration smuggling and other offences involving guns and other illegal activities I support wholeheartedly.

However, I have some strong reservations with regard to registration. If I am going to ask the citizens of Souris-Moose Mountain or any other area to spend $85 million, we have to consider what we are going to do for that cost.

I am prepared to register. I have owned guns all my life. I am a wildlife member and a firearms safety instructor. I was never impressed with the FAC formed some years ago. Now we have a four-page document. The government might as well have made it 30 pages and we could have had a light history of each of us as we own handguns.

In Saskatchewan most of the people who own handguns handle them safely, especially those who are members of handgun clubs. They have to adhere to all the rules and regulations.

As wildlife members we have to make sure that under Bill C-17 we store our guns and ammunition properly. We do have a responsibility to one another. As a hunter, in order for me to go on any other person's land I have to respect it. That is a privilege, not a right.

Many of us think it is a right and not very many farmers post their land because they expect that each of us going on that land does respect each other's property.

However, within the framework of the legislation as it comes forward, the reservations I have are that if we impose the opportunity for someone to enter into my home and check to see whether I have certain compliances, I would rather they do that with a search warrant.

Make no mistake. Legislation is not easy but it is all encompassing. Friends of mine have smaller barrelled guns that are virtually at the end of their time. They have spent great amounts of money on them and treasure them as relics. Those will now go to the criminal element because they will not register them or they will have to get rid of them.

If we are going to confiscate, compensate. People would accept that. When I was on the committee I did not say anything about handguns. I think we have to very careful of the direction we take in this regard.

I am very concerned. Rather than speaking to the media, this is the place where we should exercise our opportunity as members of this House on both sides to speak very clearly about how we feel.

I do not believe I would gain any points by going before the news media, trying to unravel where we are going. I credit the minister and the justice committee will review both the directions of my friends opposite and members on our side.

I will have the opportunity to vote against this bill. I cannot support it in its present form. However, that does not mean to say that I will not take a look at the changes that will come forward and address them to see if they meet the needs of the Canadians I represent.

I appreciate the opportunity to be frank and honest about a bill that I know the minister has great concern for, and great concern for all Canadians. Let us take a look at the changes and let us register our concern and our final judgment on it.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the questions directed to me concerning the Canadian Wheat Board, the member will find that our party is on record as being in support of the farming community at large wanting to make some changes. That is the direction in which we would want to go. The farming community should be able to do that. We are certainly not in opposition to that kind of approach.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board and the structure that is in place now, I feel the process is a good one in terms of those who are elected and serve.

The hon. member is right, though. Those members who served on the Canadian Wheat Board have a commitment. We know that their job will be carried out properly. We feel as well that the Canadian Wheat Board like all boards needs to be reviewed from time to time and improved.