Darrel Stinson

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-55. The function of the board will be to resolve disputes between parties concerning surface rights and access to subsurface rights.

As the House knows, this bill is linked to two previous bills passed-let me rephrase that, rammed through this Chamber-that dealt with land claims and self-government agreements in Yukon.

Unfortunately, the passage of Bill C-55 will allow these previous bills to come into force. One of our reasons for opposing this bill is because of its close association with the other two bills. Further reasons to oppose Bill C-55 are derived from its potential to increase bureaucracy, increase government expenditures and create conflict of interest situations.

The umbrella final agreement between the Government of Canada, the Council of Yukon Indians and the Government of Yukon was signed on May 29, 1993.

Chapter 8 of that agreement sets out the requirement for establishing the surface rights board and outlines some of its duties and powers.

Bill C-55 is the enabling legislation to create such a board. I am pleased to see within schedule II, clause 2(1), the use of waterfront right of way on settlement land for recreational purposes is guaranteed and cannot be limited by the powers of the board.

Further, the board cannot deny a person the right to cross and make stops on undeveloped settlement lands in order to reach adjacent lands for commercial or non-commercial purposes. As well, people will have the right to enter, cross and stay on undeveloped settlement land for recreational purposes.

In all, I am pleased that an individual's right to travel across lands in Yukon for recreational or non-recreational purposes will not be subject to stringent entry and exit parameters as established by the board.

As well, another important aspect of the bill is that it does not change the legal rights of miners. I would like to turn to some of the problems that I see contained within Bill C-55. Let us first look at the bureaucracy.

At a time when the government is drowning in deficits and debt, we have to be extremely cautious as to any possible increase in government expenditures. What we see issuing forth from DIAND in the form of land claim and self-government agreements are increased expenditures through increased bureaucracy.

This is demonstrated in the umbrella final agreement and Bill C-55 is simply one piece of a larger, bureaucratic maze yet to be constructed in Yukon. The Yukon surface board is one of five boards, panels, councils and subcommittees yet to be established in Yukon pursuant to the umbrella agreement and previous Yukon legislation.

Yet to be created are the following: Yukon land use council; Yukon heritage resource board; Yukon geographical place names board; fish and wildlife management board and its salmon subcommittees, all to be funded by the federal government. Let me rephrase that as well, all to be funded by the taxpayers of Canada.

In all, when we speak of expenditures and when we consider that Bill C-55 is an agreement dealing with matters within Yukon territory and specifically dealing with matters relating to Yukon Indians, I believe it is only fair to ask these two parties to pay for the operation of the board.

Yukon Indians have been awarded power over resources, power in taxation and they have been given financial compensation for a 15-year period. Given these abilities and given the fact that 50 per cent of the membership of the board are Yukon Indian

nominees, it is only reasonable to ask them to pay their fair share of the costs of the operation of the board.

Our amendment at committee stage would have achieved this cost sharing agreement between Yukon Indians and the territorial government but it was soundly defeated by the Liberal majority. Therefore Bill C-55 will pull more money out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer everywhere in Canada since the federal government has so generously agreed to fund the entire cost of the new board.

Let us look at finance. I am pleased to see that clause 23(5) allows the Auditor General to review the financial statements and financial transactions of the board annually. Unfortunately past experience has demonstrated that while the Auditor General has raised concerns over the lack of accountability and expenditures of moneys at DIAND, the department has displayed complete disregard for the Auditor General's recommendations.

However, it is curious that while Reformers proposed amendments to Bill C-34 that would have allowed the Auditor General the ability to review the financial transactions of self-governing institutions making use of federal moneys, these amendments were defeated by the Liberals at committee and in this House.

As well, with respect to the expenditures of the board, I am concerned with clause 23(2) and the notion that the board's budget will include moneys for cross-cultural orientation and education. This seems to be wide open for abuse. I am looking forward to seeing the guidelines for cross-cultural orientation and the expenditures that such an orientation will incur.

Let us now turn to patronage. Other portions of this bill which concern me are clauses 8 and 19. Clause 8 stipulates that members of the board are to be appointed by the minister of Indian affairs. This is a board that is ready for a whole multitude of Liberal patronage appointments. The Liberals have shown no fear in their first year in office in appointing their own cronies to various positions within government or awarding government contracts to the party faithful.

Then again maybe we are being too critical. After all, perhaps it is all a coincidence and like the Prime Minister said they are qualified individuals, they just happen to be Liberals.

Old line parties like the Liberals are incapable of raising their political morality above this age old tradition of appointing old friends and confidants. Accordingly we have proposed an amendment which would allow half of the members of the board to be appointed on the nomination of Yukon territorial government. This would be similar to clause 9, section 2, which permits Yukon Indians to put forward nominees to be appointed. Again our amendment was voted down, thereby ensuring that 50 per cent of the board will be ripe for patronage appointments from Ottawa.

The possibility of patronage does not end with appointments from the federal government. Clause 19 of the bill allows the board to hire consultants and advisers and fix the terms of their employment as well as their remunerations. Again the possibility exists whereby members of the board may seek to employ their closest associates as consultants or advisers.

When and if these people are hired board members can use the Prime Minister's excuse; yes, he is a consultant hired by the board, yes he is very qualified and yes he just happens to be a friend and, best of all, he happens to be a Liberal.

Let us now look at conflict of interest. Following closely on the heels of this possible problem with patronage is the bill's wilful disregard of problems surrounding conflict of interest situations. Subclause 10(3) is very specific in assuring that neither appointments nor an individual's membership on the board shall be affected by the fact that they have an interest in land in Yukon territory.

Therefore it is possible that a conflict of interest may arise since a member of a panel of the board may have a direct interest in the outcome of a case brought before him or her. Again we put forward what seems to be a reasonable amendment to ensure that board members may not sit on panels that are considering matters which may have a direct impact on the interest of that particular member. Again this was voted down by the Liberal majority.

However there may still be hope since clauses 18(a) and 18(b) allow the board to enact bylaws relating to the grounds for removal of members and the assignment of members to panels, respectively.

I would hope that the board in its wisdom and in drafting these bylaws would ensure that a member can be removed for blatant conflict of interest activities and that panels of the board will not consist of individuals who have a direct interest in the outcome of the cases before them.

We in the Reform Party have continually argued for public involvement in these agreements between Indians and government. The government of B.C. appears to have recognized the discontent the populace is feeling with respect to the secrecy of land claim negotiations and has taken some small steps to open up the process.

The public wants to be consulted on these matters and it wants to know how these agreements affect it. As residents of B.C., as residents of Yukon and as citizens of Canada they have a right to know, a right to participate. It is the crown's land that is being dealt away and it is their money that is being scattered about.

While the province of B.C. may be waking up to this reality this government has made no meaningful attempt to include the public in negotiation of these agreements.

DIAND briefing material with respect to Bill C-55 states that the public was consulted by sending the guidelines to major interest groups in Yukon. Not enough consultation? Then how about this: An advertisement was placed in Yukon newspaper announcing the availability of the guidelines for review by the public.

The bottom line is that there was virtually no public involvement and no information relating to the board, its operations, its duties, its powers and how it affects the residents of Yukon. We hear similar complaints over Yukon land claims and self-government agreements.

There were only a chosen few who were aware that such legislation was ready to be tabled. Indeed even as parliamentarians we were not alerted until 48 hours before the legislation was to be tabled in this House.

This government promised consultation. This government promised public input. This government promised to listen. These were hollow promises. Obviously this government is not concerned about the public input. This government is not worried about the public's concerns.

This government is simply worried about expediency in passing legislation that creates more bureaucracy, more patronage, more conflict of interest and costs the Canadian taxpayers a ton of money. With these goals and with the present financial health of the federal treasury it is apparent as to why this government attempts to keep the public in the dark.

While I recognize that industry supposedly favours this bill simply to settle native land claims in Yukon and therefore remove blockades to investment, I cannot support this bill for the reasons cited and its link to Bills C-33 and C-34.

[Grain Export Protection Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain is legislation which has been needed for many years in the often stormy climate affecting Canada's reliable supply of grain to the hungry world.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to support this private member's bill. Shortly after the newly elected 35th Parliament was opened early this year, the people of Canada were asking us to do something about the prolonged strike of nine locals of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union known as the ILWU and the accompanying lockout by British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association representing 70 different west coast companies.

By the time this matter came before us, the economic impact of this major disturbance in the workplace had spread to some 3,500 west coast grain handlers as well as approximately 200 employees of railroads while the cycle of rail car movement also suffered major disruption.

A great many prairie farmers whose grain was not yet being moved suffered major financial losses. Included were demurrage costs of some $10,000 per day for 26 ships in port plus the threat of even more demurrage for 38 ships due to arrive during that week and the next.

The disrupted labour contract had been the subject of prolonged negotiating sessions from July through December 1993, but rather than prompting a settlement the threat of strike erupted into job action at financial costs which were estimated as high as $300,000 per day for wheat alone.

However, perhaps the greatest loss was to the reputation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the port of Vancouver as being reliable suppliers of grain.

We should be aware that both our Canadian production of wheat and world demand for it are increasing. For example, according to figures supplied by the Canadian Grain Commission in its publication, "Grain Statistics Weekly", at the close of business January 9, 1994 farmers delivered 20,900 tonnes of durum wheat; 95,700 tonnes of other wheat; 10,200 tonnes of oats; 85,900 tonnes of barley; 71,100 tonnes of canola; 6,400

tonnes of flaxseed and over a tonne of rye for a total of 291,400 tonnes, all for export.

But the previous week the totals were nearly three times as high; 912,900 tonnes, the vast majority also headed for export. International demand for wheat, especially among customers living around the Pacific rim is growing.

According to a letter from the Canadian Wheat Board called "Grain Matters": "The Far East and Oceania, home to 3.2 billion consumers, could account for 40 per cent of the world wheat trade by the end of the century. Population and income growth, increased urbanization and the resulting dietary shift away from rice, are expected to lead to greater use of wheat based products. Canada could secure as much as 30 per cent of this market".

Such growth in both Canadian productivity of wheat and growth in Pacific rim demand for that wheat could be good news for farmers and for the Canadian economy as a whole. We must ask ourselves what happens in corporate board rooms around the Pacific rim when chief executive officers and boards of directors see shipments expected from Canada being delayed for two weeks or more due to a labour dispute?

Unlike a current TV commercial for coffee, those ships cannot simply be turned around en route. Instead they sit in port while we pay penalties called demurrage. According to figures supplied from both the department of agriculture and the department of human resources the Japanese cancelled some of their barley orders for April over the strike in January. Unfulfilled or seriously delayed orders cause serious damage to the willingness of our customers to buy from us, if they can possibly obtain sufficient grain for their needs in either Australia or the United States.

Nor was the grain handling disruption in January this year a one time occurrence. On the contrary. The need to settle grain handling disputes has been the most prominent issue requiring recent federal back-to-work legislation, starting with the West Coast Ports Operation Act, providing for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and grain handling operations, rushed through Parliament on August 31 and September 1, 1972 and even earlier on the St. Lawrence in 1966.

From then onward until earlier this year the list reads like a sad litany to mourn the failure of the labour negotiation process as regards this perishable commodity: in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and again in 1994.

In part the blame must lie with the excessive taxes caused by a quarter century of excessively high peacetime federal government budgets. As proof of these excessive taxes, in British Columbia tax freedom day according to the Fraser Institute has advanced 49 days during that period of time until in 1994 the average B.C. worker must put in fully half a year's wages to pay his taxes before he can finally draw a full breath and start to work for himself and his family on the first day of July.

Seeing less and less of his pay cheque being left to spend on the necessities of life for himself and his family, at the same time as the prices of goods have been relentlessly driven upwards by the same causes, the average employee wants a bigger pay cheque when it comes time to negotiate a new contract.

Likewise, British Columbia employers continue to be saddled not only with the highest personal income taxes in Canada on the profits, but also as business people with high levels of taxes not related to profits, including business licences and insurance, plus premiums paid for things like unemployment insurance and workers' compensation.

These factors, influencing both sides of labour negotiations, make it harder and harder for all employers and all employees to readily reach new terms once an existing contract expires.

Given the size of our federal debt, now in excess of $530 billion, it is clear that high taxes are not going to go away in the near future. It must also be clear that we need a new method for settling disputes such as the one involving west coast grain handlers whose economic consequences are so widespread. Indeed many members of Parliament, including myself, have received representations from the elevator operators asking that some long term resolution of their dispute be legislated as it has become apparent that the present system simply does not work.

My fellow members of Parliament in the Reform Party caucus and I voted in favour of the government's back to work legislation last February with the understanding that a long term solution must be found so that the federal government need not continue to interfere on a case by case basis in the collective bargaining process.

It was therefore with a great sense of relief that I first read this private member's bill, C-262. It lays down a simple method of settling future disputes precisely along the lines employed in the government's back to work legislation earlier this year as embodied in Bill C-10 passed on February 8. The only difference I can see between the actual dispute settlement mechanisms outlined in private member's bill C-262 and the government's Bill C-10 is that C-262 asked an appointed arbitrator to make his recommendations within 60 days, but allows the arbitrator to appeal to the minister for a longer time if needed, whereas Bill C-10 starts with 90 days instead of 60.

Both of these bills use the last best offer method of dispute settlement whereby either the final offer of the union or the final offer of the employer's association must be accepted in its entirety for matters on which the two have not previously been able to agree. However, nothing in the legislation would prevent the two parties from negotiating peacefully together and possi-

bly never needing to use the new legislation at all. It would be in place if it were needed rather than requiring Parliament to once again rush to interfere if the two parties should again find themselves unable to sign a collective agreement and the shipment of grain again become jeopardized.

In view of the widespread and long term economic consequences of possible future disruptions in handling Canadian grain, I hope that all members of this House who joined together in support of government Bill C-10 will once again be able to join together to support Bill C-262.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions and signed by 36 citizens of my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.

It asks that Parliament not change criminal law against assisted suicide and euthanasia because such actions would lead to degrading the value of human life. It also asks Parliament to increase pain relieving care for the terminally ill.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. First I am sorry that the member is upset about the word native being used so many times. I use that term about myself and about my colleagues, that we are all native Canadians. I use that word a number of times in conversation with anybody in the country. We are native Canadians. I can under-

stand the member's concern because of the misconception of that.

I agree that over the last years the native population in Yukon has not been treated that well by white people. This has been an injustice. We have to be careful that we do not try to cure this by another injustice. We have to do it properly at this time. Now is the time when we have a chance to do things that will be set in motion for centuries to come hopefully.

Our concern and my concern is that we must do it properly the first time around so that we can go forward and not have to keep going to court or run into the similar problems we have today 100 years or 200 years down the road.

Our obligation in the House is to the Canadian people and the future of Canada as a whole. Let us try to do it properly this time, not like we have done it for years. I hope that answers the member's question.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-55.

The bill is the handmaiden of Bills C-33 and C-34, two pieces of legislation debated before the summer recess and passed despite the serious objections of many well-informed Canadians, including the opposition of the Reform caucus.

I am told that Bills C-33 and C-34 cannot take effect until we pass Bill C-55. I would like to be able to support all three pieces of legislation because I support the progress of native Canadians toward taking full responsibility for themselves and for their future. Unfortunately a number of concerns with this bill prevent my supporting it.

However, I wish to mention some positive aspects. First, given transportation problems in the north for so much of the year, I applaud the bill's provision that board members can attend their meetings by telephone.

Second, I was also pleased to see that this board can only intervene on matters brought to it by others and cannot just insert itself willy-nilly into negotiations which the parties are settling on their own.

Third, because delay of rulings can cause real hardship, especially due to the very short work seasons for mineral exploration and development north of 60, I was especially pleased to read section 27 which states:

An application before the board shall be dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.

Fourth, faced with the probable administration nightmare generated by Bills C-33 and C-34, at least the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted widely and publicly among the many affected groups and general public of Yukon as to how the expected conflicts of interest ought best to be resolved through new legislation in Bill C-55.

It is my understanding that 16 months ago some 11 interest groups were sent draft copies of the proposed legislation including the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and two groups representing Yukon trappers and outfitters. Coupled with advertising in area newspapers, the government apparently has made a sincere effort to bring all parties immediately concerned into the discussions, a praiseworthy method of proceeding.

However, I also believe it is my responsibility in opposition to point out the shortcomings of these pieces of legislation and my firm belief that no native group should be granted self-government rights greater than those of municipal type governments. The very amount of land to be covered by Bill C-55 together with certain riches of natural resources involved makes the subject far too large for municipal type administration

It is my hope that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will listen and improve the process of dealing with what will be among the most long lasting and consequential actions of Canadian federal government for all time. I say for all time because these land claim settlements and dispute settling mechanisms will no doubt set precedent for the entire process of settling native land claims still outstanding, especially in the province of British Columbia.

In addition, they obligate Canadian taxpayers far into the future. This latest piece of legislation, Bill C-55, if we include all the lists and guides needed to find particular topics, requires some 64 pages to sort out the mess created when the government decided to hand over jurisdiction for many thousands of square miles of Yukon territory to be administered by the so-called First Nations.

I have great admiration as well as sympathy for Canada's native peoples. Moreover, as our native people demonstrated the readiness to take over the running of their own affairs, I strongly support dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and handing those rights over to the natives themselves.

Because I believe in full equity among all Canadians with special status for none, I also believe we must take great care to ensure that Canada does not create by this kind of legislation the very sorts of racial homelands and racial biases for different treatment of our people, which the government and people of South Africa have been struggling for generations to root out of their country.

Therefore, I also believe that any further federal responsibility that in any way differs from the way the federal government deals with each and every other Canadian should also stop, cease and desist at that point, when by passing legislation like Bill C-55 we hand over the running of native affairs to natives themselves in a reasonable and efficient manner.

However, these three pieces of legislation go far beyond anything I can call reasonable and efficient. The legislation also maintains special federal responsibilities to Yukon First Nations, including large cash grants and creating separate living areas and entitlements based solely upon race.

At the same time, the legislation package gives virtually all the rights and responsibilities of a full fledged modern nation to these groups whose total population is approximately 7,300 divided into 14 bands and scattered across some of the least populated land remaining on our planet.

Even Canada's smallest cities have populations larger than the total population of these groups, which are now to be considered nations. Nor can it be any secret to any citizen concerned about public affairs in their own municipal governments that cities like Vernon and Salmon Arm in my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap often are hard pressed to provide the personnel and pay for the services their residents require.

It is more than ridiculous; it borders on the tragic to heap so much responsibility upon so few. The only thing making it possible is the ongoing financial support of all Canadian taxpayers; support for an inefficient administrative rat's nest, here boxed and wrapped as Bill C-55.

Bill C-55 creates a group to resolve land use conflicts certain to arise because of this government's decision to transfer responsibility for all "use, management, administration, control and protection" of some 16,000 square miles of land equal to about 75 per cent of the province of Nova Scotia to those 7,300 Yukon natives.

Included are natural resources, businesses, professional and trade licensing, responsibility for all construction, zoning and land development, sanitation and planning, operation and use of vehicles, prevention of pollution and protection of the extremely sensitive Yukon environment.

We all know that the Liberal government likes to brag about the number of jobs that Canadian citizens and entrepreneurs have managed to create in the year since the 1993 election despite federal government overregulation, mismanagement and overtaxation.

There can be no doubt that some of those jobs have been directly created by government. It seems apparent that native land claim settlements will become a big player in the job creation scenario because there will be administrative jobs for anybody who is not busy testifying about the many disputes likely to arise from changing the status of this parcel of land equal as I mentioned above to about three-quarters the size of the province of Nova Scotia, land now being divided into category A settlement land, category B settlement land or fee simple settlement land.

The major purpose of Bill C-55 is to create some group that would have the authority and resources to settle the many disputes springing to life when miners, trappers, big game guides and many ordinary Canadians suddenly realize that areas where they may have thought themselves previously legally entitled to earn their living now have been handed over from either federal or territorial jurisdiction to control by the First Nations.

That dispute settling body is to be called the Yukon surface rights board consisting of a chairman and from two to ten other members, a majority resident in the Yukon Territory, with half the members appointed on the nomination by the Council of Yukon Indians.

I note that neither being a member of the Yukon First Nations or having an interest in their land shall be considered as grounds for disqualification. I have some concerns that this Yukon surface rights board may become a nesting site for that well known political species, the patronage appointed bird.

I believe it is important in all government groups to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, and so I hope that all concerned will take special care on that point.

Beginning on page 33 of the legislation, this act deals with mineral rights disputes on non-settlement lands. I must question the logic of this legislation doing so many things on the basis of race only but then granting authority over non-native lands to a board half composed of natives.

Additionally, because there are so many different pieces of legislation involved, namely the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, it seems that the Yukon surface rights board will have to develop some fairly sophisticated methods of weighing the various claims because virtually nothing is spelled out in Bill C-55.

What principles should the board apply to settle disputes? Is time of filing important? How long must a person have filed a mineral claim for natives to recognize it? What amounts of royalties will bands be allowed to request from proposed developers of mining property? What environmental protection bonds will be required? What percentage of band funds can be devoted to develop a mine that may employ natives?

I am sure that all of us hope that the Yukon chiefs and band councils are going to be fully responsible to their local band members in a democratic fashion. Where is the board's responsibility to either native or non-native people spelled out? Bill C-55 does require the board to make an annual report but it does not state in cases of conflicts of the best interests of natives with the best interests of non-natives whose interests should prevail. Can we today not envision such disputes lasting for many years?

Finally, I was somewhat surprised to see that this board has been given discretion regarding awarding any and all costs of hearings they undertake. It is all well and good to direct that the hearings shall be conducted on the native lands wherever possible and also that the hearings should be dealt with as quickly and as informally as possible.

Nevertheless, I believe past experience should warn us that hearings involving serious conflicts of interest with native land claims have been known to drag on for many years to the delight of lawyers and other hangers on of the Indian establishment. The legislation proposes no limits, for example, on the number of legal advisers or other so-called experts which either side to a dispute might wish to summon. To that extent I am afraid that we are once again committing taxpayers to sign and pay for a blank cheque.

Some people are saying that the majority of disputes will arise and be settled shortly after Bills C-33 and C-34 come into effect. However, as population increases and resources become scarce during the next century on this planet, I believe that the people of Canada and the Yukon First Nations may well see themselves tied up in virtually endless administrative wrangling over surface rights in Canada's north.

I sincerely hope that Bill C-55 provides an adequate framework for the settlement of such disputes. However I see no clear evidence to make me reasonably certain that peace, order and good government for all people of Canada, including other provinces and future generations, will be well served by passing Bill C-55. Therefore, I ask the House to support me in opposing it.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and the answer to my colleague's question.

We are after the 10 best people from Yukon to address these matters. It is in no way to be implied that it is a racial question that we are bringing up here. I would like the hon. member on the other side to understand that.

[Pensions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a request from my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I call on this House to support the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners in their fight to get their United Kingdom pensions indexed here in Canada. These British pensions are already indexed in the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe.

Were these pensions indexed to today's levels, Canadian taxpayers would be relieved of some of their responsibility to support many of these people who may receive as little as $10 a week after a lifetime of mandatory contributions.

Many British pensioners living in Canada today were our allies or support personnel during the second world war but today find themselves in poverty despite their own best efforts because of worldwide inflation which has eaten away at the value of their retirement income.

Their cause deserves our support.

[Tobacco Taxes, October 20th, 1994]

Did you report him?

[Young Offenders, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in May I received an appeal from 16 of the high school staff at Lumby, B.C., for assistance in deterring criminal acts such as those committed against Rodney Bell, an Oyama who had his skull smashed by an axe wielding youth, or an RCMP officer who was crippled for life after he was intentionally struck by a vehicle driven by adolescents.

My constituents are asking what the government is going to do about the non-enforcement of our laws, particularly against young offenders.

In their own words the Liberals stated in their red ink book that "dealing with the growing incidence of violent crime will be a priority for a Liberal government".

While the people of Canada are calling for crime control this government instead has moved toward further regulation of guns owned by responsible citizens.

Specifically these teachers and staff of Lumby ask the Liberal government to consider caning as a viable option for legislation.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

No.