Garry Breitkreuz

[Agriculture, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to parade in front of the cameras to impress Canadians with how much money it is giving to struggling farm families, but let us look at the facts.

Only 41% of the money promised to farmers has made it out of Ottawa. In the two hardest hit provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 58% of the farmers have been rejected outright. Farmers have been waiting many months, yet administration costs are very high at $700 for each processed form.

When will the government live up to its two year old promise to farmers? Is this just another Liberal PR—

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked that I correct that and I would like to correct it. I personally have included it in the questions. It may not have that title in question period and also, that is not the only time.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is often difficult to sit here and have one's position twisted and made to appear very different than it is. I was listening to the NDP members talk about how many questions we have asked in the House of Commons. They did not do their math right. Somebody in their research department really could not count. I would ask them to go back and maybe withdraw the numbers they have there.

They try to indicate that we have not raised this issue in the House of Commons previously, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the member for Palliser, who said that we have not done anything in this regard, and the member who just spoke have not done their research. I personally have been raising this issue for more than three years. I have talked about it in speeches. In agriculture I have called upon the federal government to reduce the tax burden on fuel. I have said that this is an unfair burden that cannot be passed along. We have talked about the price of fuel for a long time. For them to indicate otherwise is totally false. I think the public ought to know that.

[Motions For Papers, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the excuses that the government has given with regard to this matter and I find them totally unacceptable. I would like to have this motion transferred for debate immediately.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for his speech. There was one contradiction in his speech that was glaringly obvious to me but perhaps not to anyone else in the House. He said that this debate is not about gun control but then he went on to make a big point about the fact that it was about resources.

I was cut off earlier in my comments with regard to the Ontario solicitor general calling upon the government to scrap this and put 5,900 more police on the streets instead. That is where this is relevant.

The latest information we have through access to information is the government is spending over $300 million on something that has really no measurable impact on organized crime. It does not affect the criminal element in this country in any way. Up to this point the government has only collected $17 million in user fees and it will have spent up to $300 million this year alone.

Should we not examine our laws to see if they are cost effective? If they are not cost effective should we not be putting those resources into areas where they would be very cost effective in improving justice in Canada?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my question as brief as possible, although I have some background information I would like to read.

I am sure the House will recall that back in 1995 we passed a bill known as Bill C-68 which required the registration of all firearms in Canada. What Bill C-68 essentially does is it lays a piece of paper beside every gun in the country. That law is not yet fully implemented. Less than 25% of the firearms in Canada have registration certificates beside them. In fact, that percentage could even be below 10% if we could get the information from the government.

Back in 1995 a man by the name of Bob Runciman, the Ontario solicitor general, made a statement before the committee. I will read it to the House because I think it is very indicative of the missed priorities of the government. Mr. Runciman said:

Our position is that the sections of Bill C-68 that provide for compulsory registration of all firearms will divert police resources from more important tasks. Those sections (of Bill C-68) will reduce the number of officers and the amount of money available to deal with serious crime. They will make the real task of gun control more difficult and more dangerous for the police officers who undertake it. And those provisions will ultimately have no significant impact on violent crime, or the use of firearms by violent criminals.

He then went on to say that if we were to spend $500 million on this registry we could put 5,900 more police on the street. Those 5,900 extra police on the street would make a significant impact on that. What is happening today?

[Grain Transportation, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year the government passed Bill C-34, the new grain transportation legislation.

Since it came into effect on August 1 our grain transportation system has begun to crumble. Rail cars are not being delivered promptly because the Canadian Wheat Board continues to control and dictate to farmers and companies where the rail cars will be delivered. This is costing farmers money as they incur increased storage costs and are trucking their grain further distances.

As part of the new legislation, the Canadian Wheat Board is to tender 25% of its annual capacity. The wheat board put out its initial tender asking for 250,000 tonnes of grain. It received contracts for only 7% of their proposal. This tendering system is not working because the wheat board has too much control over grain transportation. Tendering agreements will only work if there is a completely commercial and contract based system.

The government is completely responsible for the loss of $300 million to farmers because of this flawed transportation system. Farmers have lost $300 million and something needs to be done right now.

[Gun Registry, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in May 1999, PricewaterhouseCoopers presented the Minister of Justice with a report exposing huge problems at the firearms centre and in the gun registration scheme. Now another internal report warns, “We noted no major changes since the May '99 report. The future of the Firearms Act is presently hanging in the balance”.

Last fall we were told everything had been fixed. Now we find out the mess is bigger than ever and nothing was fixed. The system is collapsing. How much more will it cost taxpayers to clean up the mess at Miramichi and how much bigger will the deficit become?

[Gun Registry, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to say who was responsible for the $320 million deficit in the government's gun registration scheme. That deficit is 150 times larger than originally forecast.

Will the Prime Minister tell us today, was it his previous Minister of Justice who told parliament there would only be a $2 million deficit over five years, or was it his current minister who wrote the Toronto Star saying, “User fees will cover the entire cost of the program”?

[Gun Registry, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we do not even know what the latest advertizing and outreach blitz will cost, and only 5% of guns have been registered. If we reached this huge deficit with only a fraction of the guns being registered, how many more hundreds of millions will have to be spent, or is the justice minister trying to divert attention away from the HRDC minister with her own billion dollar boondoggle?