Garry Breitkreuz

[Division No. 354, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a displeasure to stand here once again. I am not happy that I have to stand up and again speak on behalf of prairie farmers, my constituents, with regard to this issue. We have had this before us now for quite some time. I will again refer to a bombshell that I released last week when we talked about this.

One of the key points that needs to be made is that the government is not sincere in dealing with this issue. It is looking for an excuse to bring in legislation and blame everyone else for the fact that it is in this predicament. With the things I will bring forth it will become quite clear that this is not the case.

When I got back to my riding I started getting phone calls from farmers in my area saying that Reform is to blame for all this. I asked why they said that. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been spinning out this whole scenario in such a way that the opposition, namely Reform, is responsible for the predicament in which the government finds itself. It is blaming us for the delay and all the concerns that people are raising. That indicates to me quite clearly that the government is not sincere in dealing with this and wants to make political points on it by blaming Reform. This is something the Canadian people must realize. The opposition parties can hardly be blamed for the whole mess that has been created because of the government's lack of action.

Recall last week that the government brought in a motion without informing the opposition as to what that motion was. It brought in a motion and asked for unanimous consent for a bill it would not even show us in advance.

Mr. Speaker, would you buy a pig in a poke? Would you agree to something you knew nothing about? Hardly. That demonstrates clearly the government was not sincere in dealing with this issue of the strike in a manner that was above board and wanted to resolve it. It wanted to be able to blame the opposition in some way for not having action on this more quickly.

About 15 minutes before government introduced that motion, the minister for the Treasury Board, under whose purview this whole thing is, said he would consider all options. We had just put forth the option of final offer selection arbitration, which the government is quite familiar with. If the minister was sincere in his comments that he would look at all options, to have a bill submitted or ask approval for a bill 15 minutes later indicates that the government had in mind all along what it wanted to do. It was clear that it simply wanted to find an excuse to introduce legislation to order the workers back to work.

I referred to a letter last week. I called it my bombshell that I would release. That letter clearly indicates that this did not happen just in this last week. The government received a letter on January 27, 1999. That is more than six weeks ago. It indicates that the strikes were already creating a problem on the west coast, that PSAC had been on strike. The weighers, the 70 people who weigh the grain that is being shipped from the prairies, had already had some rotating strikes and had effectively closed down the Vancouver port operations.

The letter goes on to indicate that the Canadian Grain Commission had provided six supervisory personnel. They were doing their best to cover all the regular contingent in excess of the 70 weighmen who were on strike and if no picketing action is taken by the weighmen, the numbers this small would have effectively closed port operations.

The President of the Treasury Board received this letter. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Transport, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister for International Trade all received a copy of this letter. The government knew well in advance that this problem was developing.

The letter indicates that the results of such work stoppages have stopped the unloading of over 700 rail cars per day, eliminating the loading of approximately 275,000 tonnes of grain. The back-up caused by not unloading the rail cars will cost Canadian grain producers millions of dollars and impact our critical trading relationships with foreign buyers. This was all in that letter.

Let me pause for a moment, because there seems to be a few puzzled looks as to why I am dealing with this when we are talking about a strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada workers. The point I am making is that a third party is being severely impacted. The economic loss is in the tens of millions of dollars to the farmers in Saskatchewan, the farmers of the prairies because of this strike, because of 70 people being off work. The government has taken the opportunity to order all the PSAC workers back to work because of the concerns that we have expressed about the farmers in my riding.

If a third party is being hurt by a strike of this magnitude, something has to be done. We are holding our noses and voting for this legislation. What else can we do? We have to get the grain moving because of the severe impact this is having on the entire country. Yes, something has to be done.

The letter also went on to say that the Canadian grain industry and in particular western farmers are at the mercy of the weighmen. That is the point I am trying to make. That was included in the letter that I dropped as a bombshell last week.

The letter goes on to explain, “We are asking for the co-operation of all parties including the federal government in ensuring that the impact to western farmers is minimized during this time. To this end, WGEA members are committed to finding appropriate solutions to the present situation”. They are looking for solutions.

For the government to suddenly come up with legislation to order them all back to work when this has been going on for more than six weeks just shows that it had the opportunity to do something and it did nothing.

I will give a bit of an explanation on the proposal we put forward. I am hoping at some point the government will seriously look at this. Then we would not have to be back here every few months dealing with similar legislation to order some other group of workers back to work.

Final offer selection arbitration is a method by which parties on both sides of a dispute that they cannot resolve put in their final offer. Then an arbitrator selects one or the other offer. He cannot take some middle ground between them. He has to select one or the other offer.

The key thing is who the arbitrator is going to be. Both sides have to select an arbitrator from a pool of arbitrators. It is critical that it is an impartial person who reviews the final offers.

Why are we supporting this legislation? We really have no choice. We have to get these people back to work. The government has dilly-dallied. It has not dealt sincerely with this and has put us in this mess. We have to hold our noses, as I say, and vote for it.

Farmers are being adversely affected and have no control over this situation. It is between the government and the PSAC workers.

The government has the power to run roughshod over anyone in society and unfortunately it has used this power. That has been of great concern as I have watched events unfold.

The bill has closure stamped all over it, which means we deal with this issue now. We do not go through the normal process of having first, second and third reading with the bill being sent to committee and so on and having all of those things available to us. The government said this was the way it was going to be and it is ramming it through.

Farmers are being impacted. The Canadian Wheat Board put out a news release saying it lost $9 million in sales in just two days last week. I am hoping the wheat board is not going to use this as an excuse for its poor sales.

The wheat board controls all wheat and barley sales. Farmers do not own their own grain. They have to sell it through the wheat board. I just found out today that export shipments of grains, wheat and barley, over which the wheat board has a legislated monopoly, so far in 1998-99 wheat and barley sales are down 41% from a year ago and are down 30% from the five year average. Exports of non-durum wheat are down 44%. Durum is down 18%. Barley sales are down 64%. Farmers have bins full of wheat and barley which they cannot sell themselves and the wheat board is not moving it.

Canada's share of the world market for wheat could drop to below 12% this season. How does that compare? At one time we were up to 21.5%. The 10 year average of Canada's share of grain sales is 20% and we are down to 12% of our share of the world market. That indicates how serious the situation is for western farmers. They are locked in because they cannot sell their grains, wheat and barley, outside the wheat board.

The exports of leading western Canadian crops that the wheat board does not handle are up 39%. Canola exports are 63% higher. In these other areas that are not handled by the wheat board, the sales are up a great deal.

There is $2 billion to $3 billion of grain sitting in prairie bins that remains unsold. Had these off farm sales of grain been running at the rates of a year ago, there would be $600 million to $700 million more in the pockets of prairie farmers.

Not only are we prevented from shipping out that grain right now, sales have clearly been down through the wheat board already. How is that impacting on my riding? The various elevators in the northern part of my riding are plugged. The grain is there and it cannot be moved because the rail cars are not available to send the grain out to the west coast. It does not get more serious than that, especially if one completely depends on the sale of these grains.

I also want to clearly indicate for all those who are watching this debate on television how much this impacts on prairie farmers. The government has put us in the very awkward position of having to choose between the PSAC workers and the farmers. It has pitted one group against the other because it failed to resolve this situation. An innocent third party is being hurt, and we have to clearly explain to people how much that work stoppage at the Vancouver terminal has hurt.

Way back on January 24 of this year the first stoppage of services occurred. As I have already revealed, the government knew about this. A letter was sent asking the government to do something about it. That was quite some time ago.

The workers are on strike. They are picketing all five terminals. Five or six ships are waiting in berth and eleven more waiting outside to pick up grain. Sixteen grain vessels are waiting for a total of 370,000 tonnes of grain. It is a lot of money when we take into account that each tonne of grain may be worth $300. These boats are waiting in berth. Millions of dollars are being lost.

I should also mention that these contracts to sell this grain were made when the grain was at a high price. Now these customers have an excuse to buy this grain at a much lower price because we have not fulfilled our part of the contract in failing to deliver the grain. That is all part of the equation. It indicates that farmers are hurting and another nail is being pounded into their coffins.

The Canadian Pacific Railway will not deliver grain cars to any of the country elevators. It has cancelled all its car allocations for the next week. The Canadian National Railway, one of the two railways that services the prairies, is saying that it will spot only a few cars at a few elevators. That is virtually grinding to a halt as well.

CN has 13 trains waiting in Vancouver as we speak. It cannot move any of them forward. CN has 700 loaded rail cars and CP has 850 loaded rail cars waiting in Vancouver. They cannot do anything with these cars because of the strike. Seventy workers are holding up a huge economy. That is totally unacceptable.

Canada's reputation as a supplier of grain is severely affected. We are going to suffer immensely because of this work stoppage. This reputation affects the entire country. Many people do not realize the economic importance of agricultural products and grain sales on our balance of payments and on the whole economy of Canada. All of this is being severely impacted.

Productivity is declining. We talked a lot last week about the decline in productivity. Canada is now below the state of Mississippi when it comes to the level of productivity. This strike impacts that and further declines that productivity level.

It is unreasonable for 70 employees who are part of a much larger group to be allowed to hold up all of these people. We are asking the government not just to solve this problem today but to solve it for the long term. If there is anything I can say at the conclusion of my speech it is that we must do something to solve this for the long term. This legislation is not the answer to the problem on the west coast. The government should seriously consider implementing legislation that will solve this for the long term.

Let me quickly summarize the essence of what Reformers are saying. A number of stories have been printed and broadcast across the country about the strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada workers at the grain terminals in Vancouver. There was some misinformation in the stories. I would like to clarify that.

The report stated that the government was ready to introduce back to work legislation and that Reform blocked a motion to get 70 PSAC workers who were stalling shipments of grain on the west coast back to work. That is not true. I will tell the rest of the story.

Reform would like to get the grain flowing immediately at the terminals in Vancouver. We want to get the PSAC workers back to work permanently. We called for an emergency debate on this matter twice last week. The first time it was refused. The debate was then held on the evening of Thursday, March 18. The government neglected to recognize that there was a problem until Reform pushed for an emergency debate in the House of Commons. We had to ask for the debate twice before the Liberals agreed to discuss the issue.

What is even more astonishing is that the Liberals knew six weeks in advance that severe problems were going to occur as a result of this PSAC strike at the west coast terminals. In the emergency debate I revealed that five Liberal ministers were sent a letter on January 27 that specifically stated that the backup of unloaded grain cars could cost Canadians millions of dollars and could severely impact our critical trading relationship with foreign buyers. Reform asked the government to adopt a permanent dispute settlement mechanism rather than to rely on back to work legislation as a method of settling these work stoppages.

Time and again Reform has suggested final offer selection arbitration. It is a dispute settlement mechanism in areas where there are no alternative services and labour disruptions damage the national economy and harm innocent third parties. This procedure would ensure the continuous flow of grain to market.

The Treasury Board minister was even asked if he would support the idea of final offer selection arbitration. He responded by saying that he was looking at all the options. Not even 15 minutes later, without notice or consultation with opposition parties, the government asked for unanimous consent to introduce this legislation without telling us what it was.

The issue of removing someone's collective bargaining rights is quite serious and should be done properly. Let me emphasize that because that point has often been lost in a lot of the discussion. This is a very serious matter we are dealing with and the government has the power to do as it wishes. It is really ridiculous, as I explained previously, to blame the Reform Party for holding this up.

PSAC workers are asking for 3%. The Senate gets 10%. That is basically unfair and it is unfair for us to pit farmers against unions.

[Agriculture, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as if farmers did not have enough problems fighting for their survival, the minister of agriculture has now created a bureaucratic nightmare.

The disaster application forms are 40 pages long and accountants are charging farmers $500 and $1,000 to fill them out.

Why is the minister giving western grain producers more bills to pay instead of the disaster assistance they desperately need?

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I listened to the minister's speech and there were no solutions offered in that speech.

The government is perfectly aware. It quoted from a Canadian Wheat Board news release that said the wheat board had lost $9 million in sales to Asian buyers in the last 48 hours. It has to forgo sales to several more customers in other areas because timely delivery for nearby shipment positions could not be guaranteed.

The wheat board goes on to say either the two direct parties in this dispute must find a solution or the government needs to take action immediately. The strike action is affecting Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier. As of today there are 11 ships waiting at the port for wheat from the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a lot of grain, just for the wheat board.

The head of the wheat board also says the loss of customers is costing not only western farmers but the Canadian economy as a whole through direct revenue losses, uncertainty in the ocean freight market, loss of shipping capacity and loss of customer confidence. These things cannot be recovered easily. This is serious. This affects all Canadians and they may not even be aware of it.

I have some confidential sources. I will reveal some of the things they have said regarding this matter. The first withdrawal of services commenced at 11 p.m. on Sunday, January 24. I remind members that today is March 18. On January 24 there was already a withdrawal of services. On January 28, 1999, the grain companies appeared before a Canada Industrial Relations Board with Paul Lordon in the chair for a ruling on subclause 87(7) of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

We have been given the impression that this is just happening now. The government had lots of notice about this a month and a half ago. Also this source says that the Canadian Grain Commission weighmen are on strike and picketing all five terminals. These are just some facts. There are five vessels at berth and eleven are waiting. The 16 vessels represent some 370,000 tonnes of grain that could be shipped. Of these boats, two are at berth belonging to the wheat board and five are waiting, belonging to the wheat board, and seven additional vessels are due this week.

CP Rail will not spot empties in the country as of today and I have given some examples already. It has cancelled all car allocations for the next week. CN advises that it is only spotting empties today in locations that do not already have cars and CN will not be spotting empty cars next week.

CN has 19 trains built and staged in Vancouver that cannot be moved forward. CN also has 3,400 cars under load near Vancouver while CP has 2,300 cars waiting with grain. In Vancouver CN has 700 cars. CP has 850 loaded rail cars sitting in Vancouver at the moment.

Neither railway is lifting cars for Vancouver. To date 2,935 rail car unloads have been lost at Vancouver. The industry expects to lose 4,200 rail car loadings this week and next if the strike and picketing continue. Each week after that 2,750 cars per week will be lost.

The losses are in the millions and most Canadians cannot comprehend how much this affects prairie farmers. The accumulated lost tonnes at this time equal some 642,150.

What are the ramifications? Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain will suffer immensely. The results of such reputation loss may be lost sales in the future. That is very serious. We will not just be affected for the short term. This will affect us well into the future. This statement is made as a result of conclusions drawn in a number of government reviews and statistics. It is not just us or this source saying so. The Sims task force, the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Western Grain Marketing Panel all made that very clear.

Currently grain companies are experiencing operational costs considerably above normal in order to handle less tonnes. Some 50% of productivity was lost during rotating strikes. Some 700 third party employees, that is grain workers, stevedores and ship pilots, are unable to earn a living at this time. This backup in the rail system will plug primary elevators costing producers the opportunity to deliver grain, which will adversely affect their cash flows at a time of year when they need it to prepare for spring seeding.

It is unreasonable for 70 employees as part of a much larger group to be allowed to provide such a large negative impact on 100,000 grain producers, in excess of 700 company employees and hundreds of rail employees. Seventy grain commission employees should not be allowed to put third party grain producers, farmers, sales contracts at risk well into the future.

The President of the Treasury Board has to be asked to consider options that would allow or direct these employees to continue working. The minister also needs to consider amending the Public Service Act with regard to part 1, subclause 87(7).

I said I would drop a bombshell and here it is. Back in January the minister knew in advance the result of these work stoppages, that they would happen, and he could have done something six weeks ago. In a letter dated January 27, 1999, he was informed, as was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Transport, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of International Trade. They were given in a letter clear indications of this problem, and they did nothing.

The Canadian Grain Commission has provided six supervisory personnel who are doing their best to cover a regular contingent in excess of 70 weighmen. Even if no picketing action is taken by weighmen, numbers this small have effectively closed port operations. That was told to the ministers. The results of such work stoppages have stopped the unloading of over 700 rail cars per day, eliminating the loading of approximately 275,000 tonnes of grain. The backup caused by not unloading rail cars will cost Canadian grain producers millions of dollars and impact our critical trading relationships with foreign buyers. This is all from a letter that was sent on January 27.

The Canadian grain industry and in particular western farmers are at the mercy of the weighmen. The minister was told this. We are not suggesting that back to work legislation is the only alternative. We are asking for the co-operation of all parties, including the federal government, in ensuring that the impact on western farmers is minimized during this time. To this end members are committed to finding solutions to the present situation. The government knew well in advance and could have acted, and it did nothing for six weeks.

Indirect costs to farmers could mount to millions of dollars, while the cost of the damage to Canada's competitive position is really hard to determine. AgriCorp agreed several months ago to send canola to China at prices that are $60 per tonne higher than current values. The buyer might use this stoppage to break the contract. Who will suffer? It will be farmers. Sixty dollars a tonne is big bucks.

We may see a couple of million dollars loss on just one vessel. One ship means several hundred million dollars. The customer would be happy to break the contract that he had made.

Deanna Allen, spokeswoman for the Canadian Wheat Board, says:

If the dispute prevents the board from filling an order for high protein wheat that fetches a premium, the cereal will go to lower price contracts and reduce the netbacks to growers. We could be looking at a direct revenue loss because of our inability to execute our sales program.

Amendments to the labour code last year designated grain shipments as an essential service, preventing most dock workers from going on strike or being locked out. However, the changes did not apply to the PSAC members who are in a legal strike position and the 700 unionized employees who work at Vancouver's five terminals refused to cross the picket lines.

If members need more examples and more facts to back up the extent of this problem, Japanese buyers of canola have already expressed concern about the build-up of ships in Vancouver. Deanna Allen from the wheat board said that nine million sales was only part of the picture. They are regularly losing sales in the $2 million to $10 million range in Latin America and Asia. These are very real dollars which are not making it to western Canada or Canada as a whole.

There is obviously something wrong with our negotiating system. “We are not part of that system but we pay the price. If the people who do the negotiating were affected in their pockets they would feel it differently”. Those are the words of a farmer from Manitoba. He goes on to say: “The shutdown definitely affects our reliability as suppliers. We could lose customers forever”.

Deanna Allen from the Wheat Board said that there would not be late shipment penalties known as demurrage. That will not apply because the Vancouver Grain Exchange issued a declaration that freezes the whole process because of the strike. “This means demurrage cannot be levied until 14 days after a strike has ended and no customer can cancel a contract”, she said, adding that many people assume automatically it will be levied because that happened a couple of years ago when there was a cause for delay and it was not identified immediately. Just because demurrage cannot be charged does not mean our customers will come back. We will be losing grain sales and it will affect us greatly.

As Reformers we have proposed final offer selection arbitration as a mechanism for settling outstanding issues in sectors where continued service is essential to the national economy. We would like to ensure that there is a continuous flow of grain to market. There have been estimates that the grain handling and transportation system in western Canada is at a disadvantage of about $500 million in my province alone. This is one of the problems which illustrates that something must be done.

I am very appreciative of the fact that I was able to address this problem this evening. I am speaking on behalf of the farmers in my area. We would like the government to do something, not just solve this in the short term, not just do something to get these workers back to work. We have to address this in the long term so that we are not back here every few months dealing with another aspect of the problem. We need to solve the grain handling and transportation problems in the long term. I urge the government to do that immediately.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are back on your favourite topic again, agriculture. It is very important to me as well. It is very good to see you hanging on every word being said tonight.

We as Reformers are raising this issue in this emergency debate. The whole point of my speech is that innocent third parties such as the farmers are being hurt by the strike that they have no control over.

Farmers on the prairies are hurting already. Now they are being hurt terribly by this. The government must accept responsibility for allowing this situation to develop time after time. We have done this before, déjà vu.

This situation must not continue. We have proposed solutions for several years such as final offer arbitration. We cannot blame any one party or person for all the problems. Some blame the problems farmers are experiencing on the railways, the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain companies or the unions.

The buck stops with government. It could have put in place a solution. It did not do this. Government has the power to bring all the players in the game together to solve our grain handling and transportation problems.

It may not look like it on the outside but on the inside I am jumping up and down and screaming. We have done this over and over. There is a solution and we are not solving the problem. Something must be done to solve the grain handling and transportation problems we are experiencing on the prairies.

People have trouble hearing me when I get too excited therefore I will remain calm in my speech. Really I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to my constituents.

I will be dropping a bombshell a little later in my speech, so members can be waiting for that. The minister responsible for the Treasury Board said that this strike will begin to cause problems for the grain trade on the prairies. I could hardly believe my ears. They have been feeling the impact for a month. I made some phone calls in my constituency today. My staff in Yorkton contacted various people.

Here is what is happening today. In Foam Lake, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool says the calls for the Canadian Wheat Board grains have been completely stopped. For the last two weeks they have not accepted any board grains. Their elevator is full. The result is that producers are taking their grain to other elevators like the ConAgra in Yorkton. He estimates this west coast strike is costing his elevator 100 tonnes a day. They cannot move it. That is happening already.

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in Sturgis has not loaded a single rail car since the start of January. He says the strike means there is no way this elevator will be able to receive any grain cars.

They move most of their grain out of the elevator by truck now. However, with the road restrictions coming up very shortly they will not have this option. The big trucks will not be able to haul grain on the grid roads. This means a complete shutdown of the operation unless they can get some rail cars.

In Kelvington the United Grain Growers said its contract calls and car allocations slowly declined over the last couple of weeks. Canadian Wheat Board grains have basically ground to a halt.

They are not moving any canola. It goes to the west coast and the strike has stopped sales altogether. He adds that they have only 19 rail cars filled from their elevator since January. They have moved 6,000 tonnes less grain than they did at this time last year. This is all in relation to the slowdown in the movement of grain and the strike that is occurring right now.

Many people listening across Canada do not realize the ramifications of this strike, how far down the line the impact goes when this occurs at the west coast.

Here is a story of a trucker from Invermay in my riding who had a week's worth of hauling grain lined up. Everything from oats, barley, wheat and canola were all picked up at farmers' yards and shipped to local elevators. The elevators have now called the farmers and this trucker has been told to cancel his week's worth of work.

The elevators do not have the room to take all the grain he has to haul. This, however, has more than just the implication of a lost work week. This trucker uses a large Super-Bee truck and will soon not be able to haul this unit on secondary and grid roads as a result of the road restrictions which come on every spring. This means the farmers who want to get rid of their grain will have to do so through smaller tandem trucks and probably with half loads. It costs producers a fortune to truck small amounts of grain back and forth from the farm to the elevator. The large trucking companies have lost more than a week's worth of work because they will be off the road soon and will have no income for the next couple of weeks.

This grain strike is not just affecting farmers. It is affecting transportation and many other people. I hope the government is listening and will act immediately. I am very upset the government does not resolve the problem of grain movement stoppages. There are no ministers here right now—

[Firearms Registry, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week when I accused the government of bureaucratic bungling and wasting $200 million, the minister's mouthpiece said “the firearms registry was operating very effectively”. So effectively that a firearms owner in B.C. got his new firearms licence and was shocked to find someone else's picture on it.

How would the justice minister like it if her face showed up on someone else's firearms licence?

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while I commend all the members for their work in representing their constituents and while I commend all members for their efforts to make Canada's laws better, I really cannot agree with the motion introduced by the hon. member.

She made the point that this is a women's issue and I immediately remember reading the paper put out by the justice department. Here is what the justice department's own figures show, that this really is not a women's issue. In fact, it is the opposite.

The Department of Justice's own research shows that in 64% of the cases where a man killed a woman the defence of being provoked was rejected. In the cases where men were killed by women 43% of the cases rejected this defence. Obviously women benefit more than men from this law.

I too consider carefully what my petitioners are telling me. Tens of thousands of petitioners have written to me with their concerns about the government's gun registration bill, the defunding of abortions, parental rights and property rights. I have introduced private member's bills and motions on these issues and I am not as fortunate as the hon. member for Yukon to have one of my bills or motions made a votable item. Perhaps my bills and motions are not closely aligned with the agenda of the Liberal Party. I have personally introduced petitions with more than 43,000 signatures calling on the government to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, but the government continues to ignore these requests by Canadians.

Why do the Liberals respond to issues from some petitioners and not others? Maybe the government will listen and act if the Liberals happen to agree with the petitioners.

Putting politics aside, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to participate in this debate about the defence of provocation. I hope to expand the debate about the need to retain self-defence sections of the Criminal Code as they are currently written.

The first thing I did when I saw this motion was to reread section 232 of the Criminal Code. The justice department claims this section has remained virtually unchanged since 1892. My initial reaction is to reject any demands to abolish a law that has been serving Canadians for so long. I do not have a closed mind about this but it makes me very wary. The longer the law has been in force is directly proportional to the level and seriousness of the debate the House should have about the abolition of such an old and fundamental defence.

From the synopsis in the Criminal Code it is clear that the interpretation and application of the defence of provocation has not remained static. Many cases before the courts have set legal precedents to determine the sufficiency of evidence to raise this defence, the nature of the objective test of the term ordinary person, the instructions or charging of a jury, the applications of this defence to attempted murder, the definition of self-induced provocation, and constitutional considerations. This section of the Criminal Code has been in a constant state of change by the judicial process, as it should be.

Let us look at the hon. member's Motion No. 265. It is not simply a motion to have a legislative committee investigate or review the defence of provocation. If it were, we might be able to support it. If the House approves this motion, it directs the committee to prepare and bring a bill to abolish the legal defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I cannot accept that.

Not even the justice department's own consultation paper, “Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property” released last year goes that far. The justice department's paper asks for public input on a range of nine options with respect to the defence of provocation.

I will list these nine options so they are on the record for Hansard : to abolish the defence of provocation; to reform the defence of provocation by removing the phrase “in the heat of passion”; to replace the term “wrongful act” with “unlawful act”; to remove the ordinary person test to reflect the mixed subjective-objective test; to reform the defence of expanding the “suddenness” requirement; to reform the defence so that it is not available in cases of spousal homicides; to reform the defence so that it is not available in cases where the victim asserts his or her charter protected rights; to reform the defence to limit it to situations where excessive force was used in self-defence; to leave the Criminal Code provisions on the provocation defence exactly as they are.

Before the House can support this motion, each of these nine options has to be seriously considered and debated. Eight of the options proved unworkable beyond any doubt. That is what has to happen and that is why we cannot pass this motion. The justice consultation paper even outlined the pros and cons for each of these options.

The duty of the House before we approve a motion to abolish the defence of provocation would be to look at each of the arguments for and against abolition. It would be reform or no change to section 232. We would have to be convinced that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We would have to examine each of the arguments against abolition or reform and rule on each.

Look at the justice department's own arguments against abolition as stated in the department's consultation paper. The defence of provocation might be useful for women in situations of domestic violence who kill in self-defence but with excessive force in response to the provocation of physical or verbal abuse. That is a very important point. There could be an increase in acquittals by juries that no longer have the alternative to a murder condemnation in cases where they view the accused as morally less worthy of blame. Murder might be considered an inappropriate term for killing under provocation. The reasons to abolish the provocation defence put forward by my hon. colleague from Yukon do not adequately address these arguments raised by the Justice Department, let alone the arguments that have yet to be raised by the legal community and the general public.

Finally, I want to comment about the tendency of some to clamour for changing or abolishing a law because of the circumstances of one case. For every case the member raises which seems to support abolition, I could rebut her position with another court case that supports the opposite view.

For example, last year in my home province a 29 year old, James Allan Tomlinson, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 10 years for the second degree murder of a 67 year old farmer, Stacey Clark. Mr. Tomlinson alleged that Mr. Clark grabbed his genitals and that this provoked Mr. Tomlinson to stomp Mr. Clark to death, breaking most of the bones in his chest.

Tomlinson claimed that he should be found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter because he did not intentionally kill Mr. Clark. Justice John Kelbuc shot down the argument, saying the defence of provocation was not intended to create an open season on homosexuals who act unlawfully. We have an example of a case that completely contradicts the examples given by the hon. member.

I firmly believe the facts of each of these seemingly contradictory cases are best left in the hands of judges and juries. If mistakes in the law are made, these individual cases are best left in the hands of crown prosecutors and provincial attorneys general to appeal all the way to the supreme court if necessary. If the supreme court rules contrary to the wishes of parliament or the people, then we must amend the law. So far this has not happened.

The Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to review a case on defence of provocation as recently as 1996. I quote from an article that appeared in the February 19, 1996 issue of Western Report :

Chief Justice Cory clarified when it [section 232] can be invoked. There is an objective and a subjective test. The former determines whether the insult was severe enough to deprive the killer of his self-control. The latter requires that his subsequent response was sudden, before his passion cooled. Prior to leaving this defence with a jury, the judge must find some evidence of provocation. It is then up to the jury to determine if the defence holds up under the facts. The jury must take into consideration the age, sex, and racial origin of the accused, to determine whether an “ordinary person” of reasonable self-control would, under similar circumstances, be provoked by the act or insult in question. The supreme court also endorsed for the first time the finding of a lower court that the history of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator should also be considered.

Mr. Justice Cory stated in his judgment:

Obviously, events leading to the break-up of the marriage can never warrant taking the life of another. Affairs cannot justify murder. Still any recognition of human frailties must take into account that these very situations may lead to insults that could give rise to provocation. The good sense of jurors will undoubtedly lead them to consider all the facts, including the presence of a loaded gun in the car.

This does not sound like a section of the criminal code that has outlived its usefulness. I will vigorously oppose this motion. I hope all members of the House will take these arguments into consideration that I have presented and make their decisions to support or oppose this motion.

I compliment the member for Yukon for raising this issue. It has been very good for me to do the research and to find out the background about this. We really should have legislation before the House that can be debated. Some expert witnesses could then be called and we could spend our time debating the legislation. As this motion is worded, I cannot support it.

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the application for an emergency debate.

[Division No. 336, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before Your Honour announces the result of the vote I would like to be sure that my vote is cast in the affirmative to support the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my second point is that on December 9, 1998, I placed Question No. 185 on the order paper asking for a list of contracts between the government and the consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days and my constituents have now been waiting 99 days.

I have been waiting twice as long as the standing orders require. Why do I have to raise multiple points of order to get answers to my questions? The government is interfering with my ability to do my job. If the government answered one question every 45 days, I would get eight answers in a year. If I used all four of the order paper questions to full advantage, I would get 32 questions answered a year. As it is, I am getting fewer than two answers per year.

At what point does this become a question of privilege? When can my constituents expect an answer to Question No. 185?

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of order. The first point is that on November 23, 1998, I placed Question No. 169 on the order paper asking how many gun smugglers and illegal gun traffickers have been identified, prosecuted and convicted in Canada using the gun registration system.

In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have been waiting 112 days.

The disconcerting fact here is that this happens every time I ask a question.

Every time I put a question on the order paper I have to wait beyond the 45 days. Why can the government not answer our questions in 45 days as promised? When can my constituents expect an answer to Question No. 169?