Darrel Stinson

[Indian Affairs, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after a year of this happening and the minister having had lots of time to look into it, could he assure us this is not happening anywhere else?

[Indian Affairs, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In 1992 the Auditor General's report warned the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development needed to get a grip on what was happening in forestry practices on the reserves. That potential was there for what has happened on the Stoney Reserve.

Did you read that report? Did you pay any attention to that report?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, beside the Rideau Canal there are some information panels from the National Archives. One panel shows the beautiful Parliament Buildings when they were first completed in 1866.

The text explains that when they were built, Centre Block, East Block and West Block were supposed to house not only this place and the other place but also the entire federal public service.

Clearly, successive governments have vastly inflated the federal role compared to its image at the time of Confederation. If a percentage of that increase of federal size was due to things like population growth, I would guess that same percentage of expansion of the federal government could readily be offset today by a full and thorough application of new technology. Personally, I am strongly opposed to having so much federal government with too many employees processing far too many forms and thinking up even more rules and regulations to tie up the private sector in red tape rather than producing real wealth.

How do we stop this expansion? One way would be to support the motion of the Bloc Quebecois to hoist Bill C-76 for six months, presumably leaving the federal government with no way to pay its bills. However, I regard that suggestion as very irresponsible and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. A much better way to downsize the federal government is to eliminate federal interference in areas which the Constitution clearly says fall under provincial jurisdiction.

As forestry critic for the Reform Party, I want to focus on the ending of federal moneys going to industry on a 50/50 cost shared basis with the provinces under the forestry resource development agreements, or FRDA. They expired in most provinces last week but have one more year in British Columbia and Quebec.

FRDA II in British Columbia had a five year budget originally set at $200 million, half from B.C. and half from the federal government. One way to judge the probable impact of FRDA II is to compare its budget to other spending on forest management activities in the province responsible for roughly half of Canada's forestry production.

This is according to the Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics for 1993, the national forestry database as published by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. On page 138 it shows a B.C. total of public funding spent on forest management including silviculture, protection, resource access and other management expenditures for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 of $1,518,956,000. Net expenditures by industry in B.C. for those same purposes across the same years was an additional $1,837,027,000.

In other words the $181 million which FRDA management committee correspondence indicates will be its total expenditure across five years must be compared to the $3,355,983,000 of total public and industrial spending for just three years. Clearly, the budget of FRDA II was only a tiny fraction of overall spending on management of B.C. forest lands.

According to the midterm evaluation of FRDA round two in B.C. by Deloitte & Touche: "The major impacts, which can be quantified during the agreement period, should come from the incremental silviculture investment projects. Approximately $100 million worth of these activities are planned over the five year agreement period".

Regarding overall program evaluation, Deloitte & Touche wrote on page 18 of the midterm evaluation: "The total net extra returns over costs and social return on investment or economic gain expected from these silviculture operations to June 30, 1993 is in the order of $46 million".

In other words, the major activities undertaken under FRDA II have produced an economic net gain rather than a cost to the public purse. Therefore, it should be no economic hardship for the provinces to take over these activities themselves. At the same time it frees the provinces from federal interference and frees private industry from federal-provincial overlap in this area which the Constitution clearly says comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 specifies the power of the provinces in the areas of "development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources" including "the rate of primary production therefrom". Nevertheless, because forestry is the number one industry in Canada and produces a significant part of the entire federal government revenue, the federal government has shoved its way into aspects which really should be provincial.

When I say forestry produces a significant part of the federal government revenue, I base that on a Price Waterhouse study published in May 1991 entitled: "The Forest Industry in British Columbia 1990".

Based on cubic metres of B.C. coast 1990 log harvest, the total of all taxes and payments per cubic metre was $69.19 including $1.44 for municipal government, $29.47 for the provincial government and $38.28 for the federal government for direct taxes, employee taxes and payments like UI and CPP. Although more than one-half of all government revenues per cubic metre went to the federal government, it is the province which bears the major costs of administering regulations for day to day forestry practices.

This example is according to a brief entitled "The Cost of Regulation in the B.C. Coastal Forest" prepared by the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. in September 1992 for the Vancouver region for 1990-91. The actual provincial costs of regulating the industry were: harvesting, $9.97 million; basic silviculture, $20.42 million; inventory, $1.2 million; integrated resource management, $2.7 million; research, $750,000; and administration, $22 million. The total is $57,065,000.

If my mathematics is correct, the province picks up the costs but the federal government's share of income received from the coastal crown allowable annual cut of 19.02 million cubic metres, which was the average of 1988-91 was $728,085,600. I remind my hon. colleagues, that is the federal take from only one B.C. region out of a total of 36 regions. This should provide ample federal funding for the international role on forestry as well as help the overall economy.

Of course, since this study was completed, the B.C. government has introduced a whole new program of forest regulations in an entire series of booklets which makes earlier regulations look like child's play.

Although many B.C. municipal councils have been writing to complain about the ending of the federal funding to FRDA II, I am also hearing from my constituents that they want a balanced federal budget as soon as it can be achieved without undue hardship for those truly in need.

Based on the figures I have mentioned today, I believe I have demonstrated that ending federal funding for FRDA should not have a significant impact on the forest industry, nor impose undue hardship, generally speaking. Moreover, by helping to get the federal government out of day to day forest management, ending federal funding to FRDA can help downsize our bloated federal bureaucracy. Since long term returns from FRDA activities are a net asset to the public purse rather than a liability, this is one way to downsize the federal government at no loss to the provinces.

Finally, last year's report by the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources said in recommendation number 11 that a possible third round of FRDA should go to "development of forest ecosystems and landscape management techniques and the continuation of financial assistance to private woodlot owners". Even the private woodlot owners in Nova Scotia when I visited there were complaining about the bureaucracy and overlap of FRDA and did not expect FRDA to continue.

In conclusion, I wish to oppose the BQ amendment to Bill C-76 on budget implementation. I give my support as the Reform forestry critic to federal downsizing in the realm of natural resources as demonstrated by the ending of the forest resource development agreements.

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 1995]

How long will it take?

[Agriculture, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion that should be addressed by every natural resource in Canada, how to eliminate the overlap among three major forces, namely industry, and provincial and federal governments.

I have given this matter considerable thought due to my role as forestry critic for the Reform Party of Canada. Today I want to address my remarks primarily to what I believe should be the federal government's unique role regarding agriculture.

Agriculture is important in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, employing nearly 6 per cent of the workforce in the north Okanagan regional district and 4.5 per cent in the Columbia Shuswap regional district.

Central and northern Okanagan has 2,252 farms, producing last year 21,000 pigs, plus 3.46 million chickens and 2.3 million dozens of eggs.

In addition to B.C. cattlemen, we have dairymen producing milk from some 5,850 dairy cows. Part of the milk goes to the major brand name cheese in my neighbouring town of Armstrong. Chicken processing is also important with Colonial Farms handling five million chickens in 1994. We also have local hatcheries, seed companies and feed mills.

Small scale and home business suppliers are becoming the mainstay of farmers' markets like the one at Vernon with 180 members drawing big crowds every Tuesday and Thursday, excluding the winter months.

Perhaps the most obvious agricultural aspect of life in the Okanagan and our entire region of British Columbia are the 2,000 tree fruit growers that employ over 5,000 people on farms plus 2,500 in packing houses and support industries. Direct returns to the B.C. fruit industry include annual sales exceeding $140 million, generating over $700 million in B.C. economic activity. Even at the north end of the commercial tree fruit activity, the Vernon area has 3,270 acres of orchards, mostly in McIntosh and Spartan apples.

Those orchards of blooming trees every spring transform the rolling hills of the 200-kilometre long Okanagan valley into a kind of beauty one must see to believe. It is a big tourist draw.

In round figures, the Okanagan valley supplies 100 per cent of Canada's apricots, 39 per cent of its plums and prunes, 38 per cent of its sweet and sour cherries and 34 per cent its apples.

Of course Canadian consumers also buy fruit originating outside Canada. On the west coast during Christmas holidays people eat tons of Japanese oranges. That was one of the surprises of my coming to Ottawa, finding Christmas oranges called Clementines coming from Spain and Morocco.

I mention these points to lead into the fact that agriculture today is experiencing an earthquake in changes regarding the very foundations of trade.

The Minister for International Trade gave a speech March 14 in Australia. He mentioned the many recent developments, including the birth of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum has agreed to reach free trade among its developed economies by the year 2010 and free trade among its developing economies 10 years later. The countries of the entire western hemisphere have set the year 2005 as their target for free trade. Therefore 10 to 15 years from now, Canadian farmers will be marketing their products in a totally free trade environment.

When the movement of goods, of capital and ideas was limited to the speed of a sailing ship or a camel caravan, individual rulers could hope to run their countries in whatever fashion their local people would tolerate. Today, technological innovations are rebuilding the world of trade from the bottom up. Children in our schools are logging on to the Internet and learning to communicate almost instantly with people all across the planet.

If a supplier cannot get the desired product quickly, reliably and at a reasonable price from one farmer, he not only can ask the neighbouring farm, he can even phone or fax the neighbouring country or even the neighbouring continent.

As an illustration of what is happening in international trade, the March 10 issue of "Export News" listed some coming agricultural events: Foodaworld `95, the third international food processing systems fair; the 11th international ice cream show; the third international bakery show. None of these international events in agriculture or in agri-food is taking place either here, in Europe or North America. China, Turkey and Argentina are the places.

International trade in agriculture is a far cry from the day when Sir Walter Raleigh told Queen Elizabeth I of England that natives in the new world were growing a peculiar leaf so they could roll it up and smoke it.

The Reform Party supports free trade and has supported it for many years. However, we also demand that free trade mean fair trade. The federal government must work for a level playing field.

During these transition years there will be many international disputes involving natural resources; some because of short supply like the current fish war with Spain. Many other trade disputes will involve claims like the apple dumping dispute last year in which many Canadian growers faced bankruptcy because the dispute settlement mechanisms involved a delay far too long for something as fragile as apples.

No body but the federal government can straighten out these international trade disputes and ensure that dispute settlement mechanisms built into all our free trade agreements provide adequate protection for Canadian growers.

The federal government must assign top quality people to handle all agricultural trade disputes which certainly lie ahead for our nation.

I see this international trade expansion as being the primary and permanent role of the federal government regarding agriculture.

A second federal role derives from the first one. In recent years the dismantling of the Berlin wall has become a symbol of what will happen to our farm marketing boards. Quotas, tariffs and subsidies to farmers will certainly soon become as rare as grand-daddy's pocket watch. International free trade will require them to come apart brick by brick just like the Berlin wall.

Farmers must be assisted in making the transition from Canada's old supply managed economy to the fast paced world of free trade. Farmers' voices must be the ones heard when government asks how to proceed. Monopolistic and non-democratic groups made up of government appointees such as the Canadian Wheat Board will become as outdated as the old steam thresher parked at Three Valley Gap's ghost town in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.

Therefore, the federal government must not only negotiate well to start with, it also must provide gradually reducing income support for farmers being hit by these changes.

It has been the position of the Reform Party that Canada must move to free and fair trade and that policies and programs to support the agricultural sector during this transition must be developed by the federal government.

A third role for the federal government in agriculture flows from the unpleasant probability that worldwide free trade may reduce suppliers to the least common denominator. By that I mean that if agricultural workers in any one nation can be forced to handle toxic agri-chemicals, agricultural workers around the world will suffer.

It is a sad fact that agricultural workers in the United States today suffer from the highest incidence of skin cancer in North America. They have the highest exposure to toxic industrial chemicals used as herbicides and pesticides. Agricultural workers need protection. Treaties must be negotiated to ban toxic agri-chemicals and encourage environmentally safer controls. Therefore, the federal government must do essential testing, precommercial research and regulating regarding chemicals.

Consumers around the world also must be protected regarding honest labels accurately listing all agri-food ingredients. Therefore, the Canadian government and all national governments must strive to achieve international agreements about safety in the agricultural workplace as well as consumer protection standards and enact the needed regulations to support the treaties.

These areas should summarize the federal government's long term role in agriculture: negotiating treaties and settling conflicts arising from the movement toward worldwide free trade; negotiating and legislating necessary protection both in the agricultural workplace and in the production facilities, advertising and labelling for agri-food.

I see a temporary role for federal income support for farmers and growers. It would assist them in adjusting to moving away from the supply managed protectionist kind of trading, and I do mean temporary.

First and foremost, according to the Constitution natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction. My personal wish would be to greatly downsize the federal role in all natural

resources and therefore reduce the burden on the people caused by excessive regulation and taxation.

[Sex Offenders, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap have been especially concerned about an assault committed by a previously convicted sex offender near the beautiful resort area of Malakwa.

To express this concern, Sicamous council sent a letter to the justice minister which included the following:

Whereas persons convicted of many types of sexual offences will be repeat offenders upon release unless they have been given counselling and treatment to prevent further offences, therefore be it resolved that at the end of the prison term if that person has not sought counselling or treatment, and therefore in the opinion of the national parole services or prison authorities will reoffend, that person shall not be released from prison for parole or even at the end of their full sentence until such time as they will no longer be considered a threat to society.

I believe that local government demonstrates far greater concern for the safety of its citizens than anything demonstrated by the minister in Ottawa.

[Young Offenders Act, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently I received a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Brian Gregory of Enderby, B.C. Although I have never met Mr. Gregory, I would like to quote from his letter. He says in part:

As time passes, it appears that more and more people are developing a lack of respect for the law and even outright indignation- If laws are unfair or unjust, then it is up to you, the lawmakers, to change the laws. This brings me to the main purpose of my letter: the criminal justice system.

The terrible tragedies recently involving Rodney Bell, Mindy Tran, and now, Melanie Carpenter, have exposed a weak, tattered criminal justice system.

Last night, my wife and I sat down and brainstormed a list of changes that we think would improve our criminal justice system.

Here is our list of changes which we'd like you to consider bringing to the attention of Parliament.

1. The law-abiding citizens must be protected at all costs.

2. An environment must be created where people regain respect and trust for the law. Justice must prevail.

3. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not apply to any criminal (including white collar) who is incarcerated. A separate set of minimum rights for criminals should be legislated.

4. Young offenders should attend adult court and their identities must not be hidden. Teenagers who are old enough to perform criminal acts are old enough to attend adult court and do "adult time". I do believe, however, they should be segregated from adults in separate prisons. These kids are old enough to know right from wrong.

5. Prisons should be located in remote areas.

6. Sentences for violent crimes must be increased and there should be no early release for "good behaviour".

7. Life sentences must mean life with no parole.

8. The law requiring mandatory release after serving two-thirds of a sentence must be rescinded.

9. If a prisoner refuses rehabilitation counselling, he should not be released even if he serves his entire sentence.

10. The public has the right to know if a violent offender lives in their neighbourhood.

11. Work camps should be reinstated so that criminals could put something back into society.

12. While I am not a big proponent of capital punishment, this may be necessary for violent repeat offenders or serial killers. An alternative would be life sentences with no parole.

As we have seen recently, the human element of the justice system makes it too risky that an innocent person will be put to death.

Mr. Gregory went on to write that these are the views of an average, middle class Canadian citizen. However, I am convinced that most Canadians share similar viewpoints:

Please do not be influenced by a few elite academics who say that the crime rate is decreasing. One preventable murder is one too many. Let us bring common sense and justice back to our justice system.

My staff phoned Mr. Gregory at 7 a.m. B.C. time this morning to ask if I could quote his letter today. His wife said that she was sure he would be tickled to have me do that. I was tickled to get such down to earth letter on the complex subject of the reforms that ordinary Canadians want to see enacted by Parliament so that law-abiding citizens will once again feel safe in their homes and in their communities.

By contrast, the puny little baby steps that are proposed by Bill C-37 do not begin to answer the need people have to see our young people regain respect for the law.

The Young Offenders Act today does just the opposite. It makes young people look at the law as if it were a joke.

In November many of us attended the justice for Joshua rally. We met here on November 3, which would have been Joshua's fifth birthday except that he died September 15 from head injuries received when a 16-year old in a stolen car fled police at high speed and rammed a van driven by Joshua's grandmother. The young offender was sentenced to one year in closed custody for criminal negligence causing death, one year in open custody, served at the same time, one year of probation and a five year driving prohibition.

In Ottawa-Hull some 10,000 motor vehicles per year are stolen, mostly by young offenders. Many of them will try to get away from police, thereby threatening public safety. Even in my own relatively law-abiding riding of Okanagan-Shuswap last year nearly 200 motor vehicles were stolen in the Vernon area, and more than 50 motor vehicles were stolen in Salmon Arm.

At the justice for Joshua rally Ottawa talk show host Steve Madely claimed that 20 per cent of young offenders have reoffended five times or more. For young victims like Joshua, there is no second chance.

Canadians are fed up with going easy on young offenders and especially violent offenders. Repeatedly they have called on us as law makers to put the justice back into our criminal justice system. Instead, Bill C-37 will not permit 10 and 11 year old offenders to be charged at an age when there is still hope of setting them straight.

[Dangerous Offenders, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in January I was starting a public meeting at Sicamous in my riding when a woman handed me a bag full of yellow ribbons. She said that the abduction and murder of Melanie Carpenter in mid-afternoon from her place of work was something Canadians should remember by wearing or displaying a yellow ribbon.

I then spoke about private member's Bill C-240 which would make it easier to designate convicted criminals as dangerous offenders. Had Bill C-240 been in force, Melanie Carpenter would be with her loved ones today.

Last week I received a fax from Sicamous saying that there are hundreds of yellow ribbons along the Trans-Canada Highway and down Highway 97A. People want to see a highway of yellow ribbons reaching all the way to Ottawa to prompt Parliament to act now.

I ask all hon. members to speed Bill C-240 through the justice committee and third reading so that others are protected from the tragic fate of Melanie Carpenter.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our hon. colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast, I rise in the House on day 10 to present petitions.

These petitions are being presented on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making the streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that the streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to forget about you either.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how long it would take the police force to respond to his home in case of an emergency if he was to dial 911 like we normally can in most cities?