Bernie Collins

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of gun owners of Saskatchewan.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I wish to present on behalf of residents of Saskatchewan.

The first one has to do with the repeal of section 745.

[Theresa Stevenson, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House a constituent of Souris-Moose Mountain of whom we are justly proud.

Theresa Stevenson is a member of the Cowesses Indian band. She will receive the Order of Canada today for her personal conviction to improve the condition of life of all people in her community by helping them to receive the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing and education, the necessities many of us take for granted.

Theresa is a woman of action. She is involved in providing hot meals to needy children, working as a literacy volunteer, assisting patrons to provide low cost housing, and much more.

Theresa lives by the credence: If you are honest, fair and work from the heart, you can do almost anything. Her humanitarian efforts are not reserved for her own people. She says: "God has made me colour blind. A person is a person and I will never close my door or my heart to a person in need".

We congratulate her.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite. I commend him for having the wisdom to support Bill C-50 and in supporting Bill C-51.

As he went through his presentation we came to a summary. In the summary on one hand he wants to allow the farming industry and farmers in general to have some input into the direction that we are to go and we are committed within the red book to maintain the process that we support the Canadian Wheat Board.

We have here an opportunity on behalf of the member to say why does the government not just go through and hold a referendum. What I would like to know from the hon. member opposite is would he not sooner have that total input from the farming community and say: "In our opinion there should be a referendum and we would like you to move in that direction"?

As it is now, he is saying government, back off. I support that. We have to. Some of our comments in Bill C-51 are directed in that response. I would like to know how we can as a government move through and hold a referendum when we are at this point allowing the opportunity for the farming community through the minister of agriculture to have it place its input before us before we would start with the legislation.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act.

Bill C-51 contains a variety of necessary changes to the Canada Grain Act. I believe that producers, the grain industry and Canadians in general will find measures to address their specific concerns.

The aspects of Bill C-51 that I wish to comment on are those which enhance the international competitiveness of Canada's grain industry. Canada is a trading nation and competitiveness is essential.

In the world of free trade that we see before us, our ability to compete will directly affect our capacity to sustain and improve the living standards of Canadians. Few Canadian industries depend on international trade more than our grain industry. Every year we export 25 million to 30 million tonnes of grain, more than half our annual production. In wheat and barley we rank second among the world's top exporters. In other grains, canola and flaxseed for example, we are world leaders. There is no question that we depend on our trade for continued help to our grain industry. Our grain industry's success is central to the health and well-being of rural communities throughout western Canada especially.

Part of the role of government in this regard is to create a regulatory environment that adds value to the efforts of Canadians to create, to produce and to compete. This includes developing new laws that support our shared interest and also includes removing laws which no longer are useful or purposeful.

An important initiative contained in Bill C-51 concerns the deregulation of maximum elevator tariffs. Elevator tariffs are the fees that grain elevator companies charge for their services. They cover the cost of handling, storage, cleaning and the drying of grain. Under the current Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission is required to regulate elevator tariffs by establishing maximum allowable levels. As well, companies are required to provide 14 days notice of any change they wish to make to these tariffs.

Bill C-51 will remove the requirement that the CGC place a ceiling on tariffs. Companies will be allowed to adjust their tariffs without giving prior notice to the CGC.

Critics of this legislation may charge that the government is abandoning producers, exposing them to excessive charges by elevator companies. However, a close examination will demonstrate that regulation of tariff maximums is no longer needed and that ample safeguards exist to protect producers from

excessive charges. Government regulation of tariffs dates back in time to when producers were less able to protect themselves from the setting of unfair prices. However, because producer owned or controlled companies now control the majority of elevator capacity in Canada, we believe that there is less need for government to regulate tariffs on behalf of producers.

On the west coast, producer owned or controlled companies own 54 per cent of terminal capacity. At Thunder Bay the figure is 75 per cent. It stands to reason that these companies will act in the interests of producer owners by offering competitive prices. With no competition there will be no need for government to set prices.

Even though we are confident that elevator companies will behave responsibly, Bill C-51 contains numerous safeguards for producers. Deregulation of maximum tariffs will proceed in stages. Initially, the commission will retain the authority to set tariff ceilings by order of a two-year transition period. After this transition period, the commission will continue to have authority to set maximum tariffs by regulation if needed. During and after the transition period the CGC will perform a mediation role responding to complaints and seeking remedies.

Based on the responsible behaviour of the companies involved, we have reason to be optimistic in the current crop year as terminal elevator operators receive power by commission order to set their own elevator tariffs. For the most part their increases were minor and on the whole, very fair. This augurs well for the future. I am confident that allowing the market to function more freely will provide more benefits for all. These benefits will include more capital investment by elevator companies and a more flexible, competitive elevator industry.

I should note that regulation has not prevented a high tariff system. For example, for a variety of reasons, U.S. rates which are less regulated are lower than Canada's.

This amendment arises from our commitment to removing regulations which restrict the competitiveness of Canadian industry. Bill C-51 contains other similar initiatives. For example, process elevators will no longer be required to undergo weighovers. A weighover is an audit conducted to verify that the weight and grade of grain stored by an elevator corresponds with what is recorded. Weighovers help maintain the integrity of grain transactions when conducted at a terminal and transfer elevators because in those instances the elevators are often handling grain they do not own. However, process elevators own the grain they have in stock. Therefore weighovers saddle them with an unnecessary cost and thus hamper their competitiveness.

Earlier I spoke of the need for laws which add value to the efforts of Canadians. I said that this involves removing unnecessary obstacles such as maximum tariffs and weighovers at process elevators. It also means that new laws are required from time to time.

In the context of Bill C-51, there are provisions which strengthen the role equality plays in Canada's grain industry. As well, Bill C-51 sets out the responsibility of elevator operators for the safe handling of hazardous compounds and the safe disposal of contaminated grain. It confirms the CGC's authority to set standards for the drying of grain. All of these measures add value to Canadian grain and serve to enhance our competitiveness in the world.

In conclusion, Bill C-51 is the product of lengthy, detailed discussion with stakeholders throughout the grain industry. Producer organizations played a major role in these consultations as did elevator companies, processors and marketers. Because Bill C-51 reflects a broad industry consensus I believe it deserves the support of all members of this House.

[The Environment, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, climate change represents a real and growing threat to Canada's economy. It threatens our forestry, fishing and agricultural industries, worth over $50 billion. The unabated growth in greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more frequent and severe weather events costing billions of dollars for all Canadians.

The government recognizes the nature of the threat and is committed to having an action program in place on greenhouse gas emissions by 1995. Furthermore, Canada is committed to table its plan. A draft report on options for such action will be before the Canadian public. Consultations are being held this week and next week and comments collected then will be incorporated into the report.

Once a credible program for stabilization is achieved the government will work with urban and provincial governments with the aim of reducing emissions. Climate change represents a tremendous opportunity for Canadians to propose creative and credible solutions. Our children's children are looking to us. Let us not let them down.

[Canada Elections Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay special tribute to my colleague from Don Valley North. I commend him in this House where we have members opposite with simplistic answers to some very difficult questions.

I hear the proposals they put forward, that there is no vision. The people of Canada spoke in the last election and they elected 175 Liberals. They asked us on behalf of all of Canada to come forth with a vision.

This private member's bill is there specifically to deal with the problem that has arisen in this House. Never in the history of Canada have we ever had the arrangement where the Leader of the Opposition did not want to be Prime Minister of this country.

We are reviewing this bill today, a bill that puts forth a challenge to our democratic process. However it does not challenge the definition of what constitutes a party in a federal election and the obligation that party carries to all Canadians.

Members opposite may say to be careful of regionalism. I say that perhaps we should challenge the definition of a party in a federal election. After all the taxpayers carry a heavy burden for the election and the benefits the official parties are allowed.

Presently the system allocates a spending level for parties which directly relates to the number of candidates in the field in any given election. If that party spends more than 10 per cent of its spending limit it is entitled to 22 per cent return.

Should the taxpayers pay for parties which either fail or refuse to represent themselves on a national scale? How can we ask the entire country to support a party that has no desire to represent the views of Canadians from coast to coast? Our Parliament assembled here in the House today strives to achieve the best for all Canadians, or at least that is how it is supposed to work.

It leads us to ask the question: What is an effective Parliament? Does an effective Parliament have an opposition that fails to effectively scrutinize the government's actions in the interests of the majority of Canadians? I would say no, no indeed. There is an important role to be played by the opposition to any government. The government needs to be asked tough questions and be made to answer them.

However what happens when the questions being asked are continually only for the benefit of one interest group and not in the interests of all Canadians? In that scenario I do not think the Canadian people get a fair bang for their buck.

In this proposed amendment a party or an individual can certainly enter into the political process, which was mentioned a minute ago as not being the case. The fact is that they can, but they must be obliged to offer up their ideas to a majority of Canadians if they wish to be supported by the taxpayers' money as well as receive all the benefits of the House of Commons.

This bill proposes that if a group applies for party status in an election and cannot fulfil the requirements as stipulated under the amendment, then that said group cannot enter into the House of Commons as an official party and subsequently will not receive the rights and privileges normally ascribed to official parties. That does not preclude the fact that parties can begin.

In summary, we have to ask: Can regional parties be permitted to dominate a national Parliament? Can our country remain united if the presence of single issue parties grows in size and consequently further hinders the chance for effective consensus? Finally, can the government continue to afford the money it provides through political taxation deductions to those parties which fail to provide a national platform?

I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. I believe these are changes that will benefit our national process and better the value of government to the people of Canada.

[The Environment, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on September 15, 1994 the Government of Canada entered into two administrative agreements with the province of Saskatchewan. These agreements provide for the more effective administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act and the complementary Saskatchewan legislation.

The agreements are among the first of their kind in Canada. They apply to the areas of environmental protection and are jointly regulated by federal and provincial groups. The agreements will lead to more effective environmental protection programs by reducing duplication. The agreements ensure co-operation and reduce duplication in areas of reporting spills, spill response, inspections, investigation and information gathering.

The agreements reflect the federal government's goal to effectively protect the environment through federal-provincial harmonization and to ensure wise use of our limited resources.

[The Late Edward George McCullough, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Edward George McCullough passed away peacefully on June 17, 1994 at his Cannington Lake home with his wife Madge by his side.

Ed was born in 1909 in Moose Jaw and grew up and farmed at Ponteix where his parents homesteaded. He and Madge moved to their farm in the Moose Mountains during the 1930s. He farmed there for the rest of his life, enjoying in his words "the most beautiful spot in the world".

He was keenly interested in politics and served as a CCF member of Parliament for the Souris-Cannington constituency during the 1940s and 1950s. He had a busy and fulfilling life. He was involved in the co-operative movement, the wheat pool and community affairs.

His family and friends were very important to him. He will be remembered kindly by all who knew him. A great Canadian who contributed greatly to his country, we remember Edward George McCullough.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with enthusiasm to the member opposite with regard to his presentation. However, I find that having been here the same length of time that he has we must be attending different meetings of this House.

As I remember we have had some free votes. I think the member opposite was likely here when we voted on Bosnia. We have had other discussions that are going to lend to free votes. Yet there seems to be the impression that the 35th Parliament is not going to provide that mechanism.

I would like to know from the member opposite if he was in attendance. Has he seen that happen? Is he aware of the fact that

yes we have changed in this House? I feel the operation of the other place is likely going to change as well.

I would like to know from him what his feelings are with regard to this whole implementation of the 35th Parliament and the voting procedure and free votes that will come forward.