Leon Benoit

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to this government taking control of Canada's finances again and the importance of that happening. I applaud him for recognizing that.

When we look at the Liberal budget and examine where the biggest change in transfer payments has taken place, has there been an increase in transfers to provinces? No. There has been a reduction of at least $4.5 billion in transfers to provinces. Has there been an increase in transfers to individuals? No. In fact the biggest threat of this Liberal budget is in transfers to individuals through social programs. These programs are not sustainable because there has been no definite target for elimination of the deficit.

The largest change in transfers of government money in this budget is in fact in transfers of money to bankers. When this member talks about Canada regaining control of finances, how can that possibly be happening when this budget in fact involves an increase in transfers of $12 billion to bankers, some of which are foreign bankers. More and more are foreign bankers.

I would like the hon. member, who happens to be on the social programs committee, to explain to me how this budget fits in with his stated goal of Canada taking control of its finances. Being on the social programs committee, can this member explain how social programs will be funded down the road when $12 billion more will be spent on interest payments within two years, and then ever increasingly more beyond the two years?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the cuts in transfers to provinces under the Liberal budget. He talked about them as being downloading, which they are.

In the Reform taxpayers' budget, the alternative budget Reform presented, we also had reductions in transfers to provinces. We transferred the tax points along with the reductions. We transferred the ability of the provinces to raise the revenue to compensate for this reduction in transfers to provinces.

Let us use the analogy of a chicken and an egg. The government now transfers eggs to provinces so they can pay for some of their programs, done through transfer payments. Instead of transferring individual eggs to the provinces, the Liberals transferred a carton of eggs except they removed two. Therefore they transferred 10 eggs instead of the dozen. They cut the transfers.

There are also strings attached because of the regulations under the Canada Health Act. Instead of transferring the carton with fewer eggs Reform transferred the whole chicken. That is the program. We transferred the revenue producing ability to the provinces. Instead of transferring individual eggs and keeping the chicken as the Liberals have done in their program, Reform transferred the whole chicken so that revenue is in the hands of the provinces. They can fund these programs.

This would be popular in Quebec. Quebecers want more control of their future. Quebec generally is in favour of decentralization to the provinces.

I would like the hon. member to respond to what the Liberals have done in cutting transfers and not cutting the revenue producing ability as compared to what Reform proposed in the taxpayers' budget of cutting transfers to provinces but giving provinces the power to collect that revenue instead of the federal government and therefore giving provinces much more control over their own programs and their own resources.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he was proud of the government's budget, that he was proud it met the deficit target for the first year, and that the budget must be balanced slowly.

If the budget must be balanced slowly, how will the government explain to Canadians in two years when interest payments will have increased from $39 billion a year to $51 billion?

The member for Broadview-Greenwood asked the question a few minutes ago. What will we do when Canada faces federal government interest payments of $50 billion to $60 billion a year? His answer was that we would hold a world meeting like the one held after the second world war to deal with the problem.

Does the hon. member think the problem should be dealt with in a world meeting which may or may not happen? Or, should we face the reality of government overspending and deal with the problem in Canada by setting a definite target for deficit elimination, complete elimination, and meeting it, not just reducing the deficit?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley made an interesting comparison between the effect of the Reform taxpayers budget and the Liberal budget.

The hon. member said that the Reform budget has the motto short term pain for long term gain, whereas the Liberal budget takes the masochistic approach of short term pain followed by long term pain. It is a very interesting statement and I appreciate it very much. I know the hon. member explained it in her speech but perhaps she could explain it again so that perhaps the Liberals will understand why that is and why that comparison was made.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand in the House to speak on the Reform motion to split Bill C-68. It reads:

That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.

I concur with the motion and I encourage members opposite to support Reform in the motion to split the bill.

I will read an excerpt from a letter from a constituent, Mr. Ole Raasok of Irma, Alberta. He specifically asked me to mention his name and to read his letter if I had the opportunity. He wrote:

I was living in Norway when the Germans invaded our country in April 1940 and took control of government in June 1940 after Norway's capitulation.

In the fall of 1940 all gun owners were ordered to register their shotguns and rifles if they wished to hunt. As law-abiding citizens wanting to hunt, we were dumb enough to register our guns.

I am reading from a letter sent to me by a constituent who was raised in Norway and who experienced registration. I encourage all members opposite to listen carefully to what this gentleman has to say. I believe we should not make light of individuals who have had similar experiences. He continued:

The following year we received an order to deliver all of our guns to the police. There was no use in trying to hide them because the guns were already registered and the government had the numbers. The guns were never returned and no compensation was made for them. I believe this is the hon. justice minister's plan.

I became a lieutenant in the reserve army before I immigrated to Canada in 1951. In that capacity I had full command over 160 men who all had their own weapons in their homes. There was never any talk of registration or permits to transport or use guns. Statistics show that Norway has one of the lowest criminal use of firearms in the world.

I have read only part of the letter from my constituent. I have heard many members opposite say that any idea or any suggestion by Canadians that registration and tougher gun control would lead to confiscation is ridiculous.

Whether it is the intention of the government to move to confiscation after registration, I have no idea. I would tend to think not. However I believe it is healthy for people in a democracy to have a certain level of distrust for government.

My constituent has seen the effect of not having a healthy level of distrust. I ask hon. members opposite to understand that many Canadians have this concern. Some do not trust this government and others will not trust future governments. It is important to listen to these concerns and it is important in a democracy to have a certain level of distrust.

History has shown that Norway is a prime example that registration leads to confiscation. Is this what the minister has in mind for Canadians? This question is often asked of me in my constituency. It was not just every now and again but every day over the past 10 days. Every single day I had constituents ask me whether the minister had in mind confiscation after registration.

Earlier statements made by the minister suggested that he would prefer to have guns only in the hands of the police and the armed forces. The statement was made shortly after the House started sitting about a year ago.

I fully support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville because it will separate the so-called crime bill into two different parts. It is logical to split the bill because we are dealing with two different issues. On the one hand is the aspect of targeting crime and on the other hand is the anti-gun sentiment of the legislation which I do not support. The motion is necessary because it focuses on the real problem of crime.

We as members of the Reform Party support a crime bill. We support measures that would get tougher in dealing with the criminal use of firearms, including penalties for smuggling.

However we do not support targeting law-abiding Canadians simply because they own guns.

From day one Reformers stated that legitimate law-abiding gun owners were not the problem but rather that the problem stemmed from the criminal use of guns in the commission of crime. We need to ask why the minister has chosen to put these two parts of the issue together in the same bill. While I cannot answer the question for certain I believe it is a legitimate question. When we consider that Canada already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world it is particularly an appropriate question.

To link tougher gun control to crime fighting might sound politically appealing, but there is no statistical evidence to support the legitimacy of the idea. If the minister could provide us with some evidence we would not oppose the original legislation. The reality is that he cannot provide the information because it does not exist.

Several constituents have come to me saying that they had written a letter to the Minister of Justice asking specifically for any evidence he might have to show that more gun control would do anything to help prevent crimes committed with guns and to show that a registration system would prevent even one death. So far none of the constituents have had an answer to their letters. That is a shame. It is a serious question and they are not getting the answer.

Another concern has been raised often in my constituency concerning the computer system that will be set up to accommodate the central registry. The concern of my constituents in this regard is about the central registry and a hacker accessing the system.

We know hackers are very capable. They have accessed military secrets in the United States. They can get the names and use them in two ways. First, they can be used to find the locations of large collections of guns so that they can be more easily stolen. Second, criminals could determine from the lists where easy targets for break and enter may exist, where they feel the guns are not there and therefore they are easy targets.

My constituents have many other questions over past weeks and indeed over the past year. However I will close by saying that I would like answers from the minister to the two areas of concern expressed by my constituents. I do not believe he can give an answer in terms of the motive behind the registry, not necessarily the minister's motive but the motive of future governments. Also there is the possibility of the computer system being broken into and guns being stolen or a break and enter taking place.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadian farmers would expect a little better answer than that. Certainly any farmer would know that the minister better have a plan in place before cutting the WGTA funding.

How many years will it take the minister to hold the discussions as laid out in the discussion paper and prepare a plan to replace the current system?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget eliminates the WGTA subsidy by August 1 of this year, cuts the dairy subsidy by 30 per cent, cuts safety net programs by 30 per cent, and eliminates the feed freight assistance.

The government has taken away the funding but has not taken away the unnecessary regulation that would cut costs, allowing farmers to recoup some of these losses.

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. When will the minister reduce unnecessary regulation and specifically how will he make the system work better for less?

[Petitions, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour on behalf of the constituents of Vegreville and Alberta to table petitions in the House.

The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to deter young people from committing crime and making the Young Offenders Act tough enough to provide real justice. I understand several petitions are being presented totalling approximately 64,00 signatures.

I would also like to recognize Caroline Balisky of Concerned Citizens for her work in compiling these petitions.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this member and others before him make the comment that we are targeting spending better with this budget.

The most substantial spending measure in this budget is as a result of what was not done rather than as a result of what was done. That is the increase in interest payments on the debt.

Does that mean that it is the deliberate intention of this government to target spending more to interest payments than in the past?

[Agriculture, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers have always recognized the need to cut government spending and the need to empower people to take care of themselves when they are able to do so. Reformers also believe that before cuts are made, barriers should be decreased and flexibility increased so that people are able to do well in a freer market setting. Farmers share this vision.

Yesterday Department of Agriculture spending was cut substantially. Farmers and industry leaders say these cuts will be difficult but recognize they are necessary.

I am concerned however that in moving toward a more market driven system, the government has not removed regulatory barriers and has not allowed for increased efficiencies. Without these changes farmers and industry will be crippled instead of strengthened by these funding cuts.

In order for farmers to adapt to new fiscal realities they need stability, predictability and certainty. Farmers need the freedom to recoup some of the losses incurred by this budget. The government has failed to deliver.