Wayne Easter

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present petitions on behalf of 183 people in Prince Edward Island.

The petitioners humbly request and call on Parliament to desist legalizing the use of BST or rbGH in Canada. They further request that legislation be passed requiring it to be mandatory for all imports produced from BST treated cows be so identified. I so support.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. In particular, I welcome the opportunity to speak to some of the points raised a moment ago by the leader of the third party. I will come to that in a moment.

This is an extremely important discussion, and strong feelings are being expressed by all sides in the House and by many Canadians.

Approval of second reading will in fact send this bill to committee for discussion and amendment, and then the bill will come back to the House for a final decision and we will all know what the facts are surrounding the bill.

What happens at committee will be extremely important in relation to concerns that Canadians are raising and the concerns that I have expressed with regard to this bill.

Constituents have raised their concerns with me with respect to their views on Bill C-68 and I have expressed them to members of my party. They also point out that they support certain measures in the bill to control crime, promote public health and safety and to impose stiff mandatory minimum jail sentences for a range of gun offences. There is strong support for that among my constituents.

My constituents also agree that the government should enact measures to strengthen border controls and amend the Criminal Code to address the problems of smuggling and the illegal

importation of firearms. Let me relate two of the four principles of the Firearms Act they strongly support.

I will come to splitting the bill in a moment. The splitting of the bill that the Reform Party talks about is nothing but misleading the public on the real intent of their amendment. The leader of the Reform Party stood up a moment ago and talked about moving toward safety measures. He had some good suggestions, I will admit, but the real intent of the amendment put forward by the Reform Party is not to split the bill but to destroy it. The good suggestions that the Reform Party leader talked about will not be put in the bill because the bill would be gone if we went ahead with the amendment.

Let me come back for a moment to the principles that have strong support in this bill. The criminal misuse of firearms will be dealt with through amendments to offence and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, including mandatory four-year minimum sentences for 10 specific violent offences committed while in the possession of a firearm. That is a good point.

The 10 offences are attempted murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, extortion and the discharging of a firearm with intent to cause harm. Upon conviction, the offender will receive a lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted or a prohibited firearm.

The second major important principle that there is strong agreement on is smuggling and illegal importation. Smuggling and illegal importations will be dealt with through legislative amendments and the development of programs for controlling the import-export and domestic transit of firearms, including border registration and new Criminal Code offences for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms. Those are good principles and I and many others in the House support them.

I will admit other aspects of the bill are much more controversial. They relate to the impact on legitimate gun owners, hunters, collectors and sports people using firearms. I have previously presented a petition on behalf of my constituents opposing the bill as currently drafted.

Let me go back to the points I raised then. The petition called on Parliament to "desist from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons".

My constituents feel very strongly that the bill would not accomplish what the minister intended as currently drafted. They are concerned that law-abiding Canadians are already overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun legislation. They believe that the new proposals as currently drafted with the introduction of mandatory gun registration would punish the wrong people. Many of my constituents and other Islanders have concerns with this legislation.

I tabled that position and raised those concerns. Now I want to see that my constituents have the opportunity to go before a committee in the proper forum to express those concerns themselves or through their national organizations. I do not want it to be the same as what we have been seeing in the past where the Reform Party is using misleading amendments and holding meetings across the country for political reasons.

The party talks about crime. Every day its members stand in the House and say they are concerned about crime. The effect of their amendment would, in fact, destroy the opportunity of the bill going to committee and seeing that crime is controlled, including the misuse of firearms.

This is how misunderstood the Reform Party amendment is. Some of my constituents have suggested to me that I should support splitting the bill, believing that the Reform Party amendment will do that. It will not.

I listened closely to the leader of the third party. In his speech he went through a litany of suggestions to improve public safety. The amendment destroys that opportunity. I would suggest that the leader of the Reform Party re-read the amendment. Allow me to take a moment to emphasize to the leader of the third party what the amendment states: "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68". That would have the effect of destroying the bill. They know it. They are misleading the Canadian public. For the party that talks about crime control, it would have the opposite effect.

In conclusion, I want to see changes to the bill. Those changes can be made in committee. I suggest that the process is not all that it could have been; however, we have a bill before us that must be improved.

In discussions I have had with fellow MPs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I feel I have been given assurance that the bill will be decriminalized with respect to legitimate gun owners, collectors, sports people and hunters, at least on their first offence. With that assurance, I am willing to support the bill going to committee to be improved so that it meets the needs of all Canadians.

I am really disgusted that the Reform Party has tried to turn this, by its amendment, into a political game. However I guess that is life in the world of politics. Reformers are misleading Canadians as to where they really want to go.

By this bill going to committee it will give Canadians the chance to voice their concerns in a public forum, before a legitimate committee, so that the bill can be improved to meet the needs of all Canadians.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that I am one federalist who is not trying to scare Quebecers or Quebec farmers. I am trying to make sure the farmers understand the facts as they relate to Canada, especially in terms of the supply management system.

I am assuming it was an oversight on the part of the member when he talked about 12.4 per cent of the direct moneys to Quebec farmers and that he did not think was a fair share. Quebec has 48 per cent of the dairy quota.

Has the hon. member done any calculations? If he has could he table any calculations on the real benefit to farmers in Quebec of the Canadian supply management system in terms of dairy, poultry and eggs?

The member talked about the loss of the subsidy. I will agree that is a loss. I am a dairy producer and I accept the cutback in the subsidy in terms of my contribution to deficit reduction. At the same time I know full well, as does the member, the dairy industry operates on a cost of production formula which assures efficient farmers reasonable returns on their cost of production, labour and investment. That is a pretty good deal. We know they are getting that deal from Canada.

I have a last point I want to make. It may just be a factual error, but I would not want the member to leave the wrong impression. The member said there was no compensation for the loss of the feed freight assistance program. Adjustment moneys have been put in place for the loss of the program. We face that in Prince Edward Island as well. In fact $60 million has been set aside for farmers to use in order to adjust to the loss of the program.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend talked about the future as being frightening. I would certainly agree with him. The future is extremely frightening for Quebec farmers if they listen to the misinformation which I heard coming from the other side relative to what would happen if Quebec separates.

He is absolutely right in saying that supply management has been the only viable income system for farmers. He should admit up front that this viable income system will be put in jeopardy should Quebec move toward separation. That supply management system is one of the benefits Quebec farmers have gained from being a part of Canadian federation.

While I am on my feet, I might as well ask a question about my concern with the resolution put forward by hon. members opposite. They are leaving the impression that converting the grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western farmers is an advantage at the expense of Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a government, we have admitted that changing the WGTA, which has been the cornerstone of agricultural policy in western Canada, is extremely hurtful to western farmers. The fact of the matter is that farmers in Quebec got off relatively lightly with the budget as compared to those in the west.

How does the member opposite explain to farmers in Quebec that they are not going to lose the supply management system should they move to separation? Is he not willing to admit that Canada has been extremely good to farmers in Quebec over the last century and in fact the budget has really been relatively light in targeting Quebec farmers?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget. In the week immediately following the budget I had two public meetings with constituents, two meetings with farm groups, and one meeting with the forestry industry.

My purpose in holding the meetings was to set out as well as I could the facts arising from the budget so that together with the constituents in my community we could understand the impact in a real sense and manoeuvre and develop policies to address the future.

In so doing I believe we were able to examine critically the budget and to obtain constructive feedback. I will come to the feedback later in my remarks. It is no secret that the priority of the government is to restore Canada to fiscal health and meet the

target of deficit reduction we campaigned on in the last campaign: 3 per cent of GDP by the end of 1996-97.

The budget takes strong action to deal with the deficit. It is tough and it encompasses painful program cuts. The government strategy required savings on government expenditures, program review, and some tax changes.

In so doing programs that many of us, myself included, hold near and dear have been cut. We have attempted as a government to be balanced across the regions and across the industries on both the social and the tax expenditure sides. Regardless of the facts it does not make dealing with tough fiscal measures any easier or make the impact on those affected any less.

Turning to the meetings I have had with constituents, farmers and especially my former organization told me in no uncertain terms that they felt the budget was tougher on the agricultural sector than on other sectors across the land, especially so when the transportation changes are brought into the equation.

The loss of ARFAA and MFRA rates within Atlantic Canada will impact upon primary producers. We have set aside considerable adjustment moneys, $321 million. By providing that money to the provinces there was concern expressed that the provinces may not address the needs of producers as a result of the changes in the budget.

We as MPs have a responsibility and must be involved in the process. I intend to be involved. At the very bottom line we certainly do need to have a national transportation policy in place. The loss of the feed freight assistance in Atlantic Canada could have a very negative impact on the Atlantic livestock industry if we do not provide other compensating policy initiatives to the livestock industry.

I will lay out the facts. I will not put a spin on them. I accept the facts as they are. When the feed freight assistance program in Atlantic Canada and the changes to the WGTA in the west are combined, the cost of barley in eastern Canada as compared to the west will be at approximately a $42 per tonne disadvantage. That is the reality. I do not believe we should despair over the facts.

The secretary of state for agriculture and agri-food will be setting up consultations with the farm community. Adjustment moneys are in place. The secretary of state and the Department of Agriculture are certainly discussing with industry and looking at new ways of developing the competitiveness of the livestock industry in Atlantic Canada.

In the meetings with farmers I attended in eastern Canada some concern was expressed about proposed changes to Agriculture Canada, especially in the area of privatizing the economic branch. There is a firm belief with which I agree that the minister needs a division within the department to do the economic analysis and the economic impact studies prior to policy changes being made.

I am one who firmly believes that we should be holding outlook conferences where the department has to put on record where it thinks the movement will be in agriculture over the next year and then come back and account for its prediction a year later.

By privatizing the economic branch there will be no real savings to farm out to economic consultants. In my mind it would be much more preferable to get rid of some of the paper pushers at the top, the people who do not really understand primary producers in terms of getting their hands dirty in the soil and understanding at the primary production level. We need some discussion in that area.

There is no question the minister had difficult choices to make. He will attempt to address the impact through improved safety nets, adaptation programs and new policy thrusts.

Turning to some other meetings I have had in my riding, on the Canada social transfer there were questions raised whether it would be an effective vehicle to equally deliver social programs such as post-secondary education and health care across the country. Questions were raised on what effect block transfers would have on the fight against child poverty.

I outlined to those in attendance that we had a very successful hearing on HRD and social security reform review. Many good points came out of the paper from the committee. I congratulate it on its work. The committee did good investigative work, held hearings and has come up with some sound recommendations that the government and members of Parliament can look at in terms of future initiatives in the social security area.

The debt and the deficit were discussed in great detail. The main focus of discussion with respect to the debt and the deficit was centred on the percentage of Canada's debt owed to foreign investors. I am very concerned about that area. When a few speculators basically playing computer games on the stock market floor can bring down a country in terms of its financial security, we have to look seriously at the issue. Whether it is a new Bretton Woods agreement or some other measure we have to look at it seriously. I believe the Prime Minister has put the matter on the agenda for the G-7 in Halifax.

Public service reductions were talked about at the meetings as well. Representatives from the public service expressed their anxiety with regard to what many public servants are undergoing and the demoralizing effect on the workforce. Representatives questioned why the compensation, the early retirement package, could not be offered to all public servants so the resulting vacancies could be filled by surplus workers who do not qualify for the package. We will be raising those points with the ministers responsible.

I must speak for a moment on the WGTA. It is widely known that I have spent the better part of my life defending the so-called Crow rate. I still believe there is an obligation the railways have never met in all the discussions and changes over the years. Regardless, the change is being made which will affect western producers and communities.

Adjustment measures are in place, the $300 million adjustment and the compensation for land prices. I underline the fact that the WGTA has been in effect since the turn of the century. It was the cornerstone of agricultural policy in the west.

I accept the changes but we must recognize the impact. There will be impact in areas other than financial areas such as highways, car allocations, quality control, the wheat board, et cetera. We have to listen to the producers so they can outline to us the changes they want.

These are different times. We must get our financial house in order. The real solutions will be found in the country, in the hearts and minds of the people who will be affected. We as MPs must continue to consult with constituents to find solutions.

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are no strangers to the hardships of climactic extremes. As our economic climate becomes increasingly competitive, farmers are confronting a growing storm of cutbacks and continuing trade wars, especially downward pressure from the American export enhancement program.

At the eye of the storm is the Canadian Wheat Board, one of Canada's great institutions. In such a climate the board plays a critical role by supporting the principles of orderly and fair marketing and in essence works on behalf of farmers.

I have received copies of several hundred letters written by Canadians from ridings across western Canada who feel the same way. All of these letters say the board should remain a strong selling agency for the Canadian farmer. Many suggest it should be given an even stronger mandate.

In the truest sense, the Canadian Wheat Board is an organization that works for Canadian farmers. I congratulate those farmers and support their initiative.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of P.E.I.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to desist from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the message I have heard from Reform members opposite today. It is difficult to believe that a party would be so irresponsible as to easily play the game for international monetary traders and talk about problems that do not even exist: rhetoric and no specifics.

I have read the document and I have seen no specifics in it. I would call the paper put forward by hon. members opposite Reform draconianism. That would be a good description.

The facts are contrary to what the motion states. We have the first Minister of Finance in ages who has set targets and is prepared to meet them. He is willing to take the tough measures in a reasoned and planned way.

Could the hon. member opposite name the cuts specifically in summary? Could he bare them to the bone so that we can see what he is specifically talking about in the paper he mentioned?

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Kootenay East could tell me if in the proposals, they have made any suggestions to close some of the tax loopholes. Does he have any suggestions to deal with the speculative trade in the dollar that is happening in the international financial markets.

I recognize that speculators are playing games with the Canadian dollar, but does he not see the need to try and control that in a global sense so that countries can retain some sovereignty over their finances?

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see this alternate budget to which the member referred in his remarks.

I did see an alternate budget put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives last week. It looked at balancing the budget by looking at the expenditure side and some of the tax loopholes, the foundations that have been set up for the wealthy and the tax breaks there and so on.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to go through a paper put out by the Council of Canadians which looks at the question: Are social programs to blame for the federal debt? It clearly points out in the analysis that program spending as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively constant in social programs over the years.

Your remarks seem to indicate an attack on the social program side. I am wondering if you in your budget, do you have any-