Jay Hill

[Firearms, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, immediately after firearms were stolen from a store in B.C. a man arrested with them was only charged with possession of stolen property. For this he received a six-month jail term. In Ontario an individual apprehended with a fully automatic sub-machine gun received a $1,000 fine.

Could the Minister of Justice explain to Canadians demanding sentences that would prove to be a real deterrent why the penalty for the theft of firearms or the possession of prohibited weapons is so lenient under the government?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-50 and the amendments. In particular, I would like to address my comments to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. First I would like to go back a little bit and share with the House my history of involvement with a check off program in the riding I am pleased to represent.

One position I held prior to being elected to this exalted place was with an organization called the B.C. Grain Producers Association. I was a founding member of the organization. I was the first vice-president when it was first formed and subsequently became president of that organization. Over the years, as any struggling organization does, we had to try and sell memberships and raise money to keep the organization running. We had a number of ongoing projects.

One we always wanted to get involved in was in the area of varietal trials and research at local levels. There were always problems with the government operated research farms in areas that did not necessarily conduct research applicable to the Peace River region of British Columbia. We wanted to carry that

research one step further by conducting trials in our area on a field scale.

Over a number of years we came up with a plan to lobby the provincial government to allow the B.C. Grain Producers Association to enact a check off that would automatically come off producers' cheques at the time their product was delivered to the elevators. This check off is now in place and has been for a number of years. It is working quite well, I might add.

I would like to address some concerns that have been raised by my colleague from Vegreville and other members. One real strength of the operation of the check off in the B.C. Peace has been that it is local and is administered at a local level. In other words, the farmers have the option of electing councillors to a regional council that oversees how the money is spent. The problem my colleague from Vegreville mentioned was that once you go beyond that and have a bureaucracy in some distant place administering the money, there is concern with the local producers that they lose control of how that money is spent and whether they get the best bang for the buck, so to speak.

Local producers supported the check off because they could visibly see how their money was being spent. As we moved forward and were able to purchase specialized equipment for plots to expand different varieties of wheat, barley, canola and other grains, we could readily drive by the fields in our area and see how different varieties were producing in comparison to one another. That was a real benefit to the producers.

Subsequently we found that there were very few people who opted out at the end of the year because the check off was and is fully refundable. However, what we found, because it was a local organization, was that at our annual meetings we could certainly do a good selling job to the local producers of what they were getting for their investment. Subsequently we found that very few wanted their money back out of the check off pooling fund.

I am certainly in support of the fact that this check off is totally refundable, as is the one in B.C. However, I am very concerned about the process. I think that is addressed in amendment No. 4 put forward by my colleague and the amount of the extra paperwork. In other words, make it as easy as possible for farmers to opt out of it because after all if it is not easy for them to get their money out they will view this as just another form of taxation, just another expense for them. They have to be convinced to see it as an investment in their future.

All of us in the agricultural industry certainly understand that we have to have and have to find the funds in these days of increasing problems with the government funds being available for research and development. We have to find them elsewhere. Producers are willing to do that as long as they can see the results. To do that we certainly want to pass amendment No. 4 which would allow that there would be as little paperwork as possible to allow the producers to opt out should they decide they are not getting the best investment for their dollar.

The other thing I would like to briefly touch on is the amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie in allowing certain groups that already have a check off in place an exemption from it. We had concerns when we were holding meetings in our area of the B.C. Peace region trying to convince producers to come on board and support this thing. We actually had to pass a referendum of the producers before the B.C. government would pass the legislation to allow that check off. They insisted, and rightly so, that the producers supported the concept. To do that the B.C. Grain Producers Association had to go out and hold meetings and actually convince the farmers of the necessity of this and that it would certainly be worthwhile over the long haul.

We did that but one of the real concerns that was expressed to us time and time again was if we vote in favour of this what is to prevent next time another check off by the Canadian Wheat Board or the prairie wheat growers and the list could go on and on. That was the major concern that they voted for with the understanding that there would be no further check offs.

I am quite insistent that we should oppose amendment No. 5 put forward by the member for Mackenzie because it does allow those areas that already have an existing check off the option of trying to get the exemption and not having a double check off put in place.

With that bit of history with my involvement with the check off I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a western farmer it is a special privilege to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-57. This bill as has already been noted provides the legislation to follow through on Canada's commitment to participate in establishing the World Trade Organization. I am pleased to support this legislation.

For farmers who have struggled through many years of depressed grain prices caused by the grain subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States, the completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations last spring after more than seven years of seemingly endless negotiations was as welcome as the first spring rain.

While all of us recognize that this agreement is just another step toward the ongoing liberalization of international trade regulations and not the end of the process, we must not forget it is a very important step for Canada and the other signatory countries. As I have said Canadian grain producers in particular applaud this step because it at least brings the world a little closer to restoring some sanity to the international grain trade.

The establishment of the World Trade Organization as the successor to GATT is especially encouraging. For the first time against the powerful lobbying efforts of the European farmers the GATT negotiations included agriculture. The dispute settling mechanism and appeals process is a long awaited ray of hope for Canadian farmers. So much for the good news. Does this bill go far enough to eliminate the trade distorting inefficiencies in our agricultural sector?

My oldest daughter turned 16 today. I wonder what the future holds for her and other potential farmers. If she chooses to stay in agriculture, without restructuring our programs will she and other Canadian farmers be able to survive in the next century?

Although it is a good first step the Uruguay round just touches a fraction of the unfair subsidies our farmers face in the international marketplace. Bill C-57 amends 31 statutes toward the implementation of GATT. However it fails to achieve the spirit and the intent of GATT which is the elimination of trade distorting policies built over decades of government interference in the market.

What has this government done with the bill? Instead of a complete overhaul of the agriculture programs to create a truly internationally competitive industry, this government is doing the absolute minimum to be in compliance with GATT. It looks at GATT green programs but does not touch them even if they create a further distortion in our domestic market. It looks at the Western Grain Transportation Act for example which is not GATT green and searches for an easy out to redesign WGTA just enough to make it less objectionable to the international marketplace.

Canada has been blessed with some of the finest agricultural land in the world. Due to a combination of factors such as the short growing season and the long distance to potential markets our prairie grain farmers face unique conditions that influence their decisions on what to grow, how much to grow and where to send it.

The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 to provide some stability as well as equity of prices and export market shares to the grain producers spread across the prairies. Because of the size of its purchases this virtual monopoly has led to a system of dependency and distortion.

Lately the Canadian Wheat Board appears to be moving far beyond its traditional mandate as a central marketing agency for Canadian farmers. Just as Canada Post competes with private courier services, we now find the Canadian Wheat Board operating in direct competition with grain trading companies.

While the establishment of the CWB may have been necessary to ensure the survival of Canadian grain farmers when it was first set up, we live in a different world today. As GATT reduces agricultural subsidies in other countries we cannot afford inefficiencies in our marketing and transportation system if we want to be successful internationally.

We have all read the news. Entrepreneurial farmers in border zones are prevented from trucking their grain a short distance south across the border. Instead they must sell their export grains to the CWB which will probably load it on a freight train and ship it thousands of miles to a Canadian port.

About 90 per cent of the grain produced by Canadian farmers is exported. We must remain internationally competitive if we are to keep our market share. However, we are not playing on a level field. Domestically, grain transport subsidies have distorted the costs of production and delivery to our markets and internationally, producer subsidies abound.

Over the last few years Canadian grain producers were caught in the middle of the subsidy war between the U.S. and the European Community. They have poured billions of dollars into their war in an effort to steal each other's market shares but they only succeeded in driving international grain prices down to levels not seen since the depression.

Despite Canada pouring billions of dollars into aid for grain and oilseed producers, thousands of grain farmers still went bankrupt. In addition to the billions spent directly on stabilization and insurance programs for farmers, the government also spends over $700 million a year in grain freight subsidies to the railway companies through the Western Grain Transportation Act.

Under the WGTA the federal government pays the railways an annual subsidy on a dollars per tonne basis to cover the transportation of eligible grain from prairie shipping points to Thunder Bay, Churchill, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. As a result of GATT's analysis of our transport subsidies, Thunder Bay is not subject to the GATT sanctions but the western ports and Churchill are.

Already, valuable rail cars are tied up backhauling grain from Thunder Bay merely so the grain qualifies for the subsidy. Does this make sense? Yet this government's minister of agriculture has indicated it may take him until next summer to halt this ridiculous practice.

Because only the WGTA payments for grain transport to the west coast and Churchill have been deemed export subsidies by the GATT community, this means we will have to substantially reduce export shipments of grains and oilseeds through these ports within the next few years. In addition to a volume reduction, a portion of the total tonnage would also be assessed at the full freight rate.

This creates yet another distortion in our agriculture transport sector. There will be a major incentive for detouring grain shipments through Thunder Bay. This is despite the fact that grain markets have changed and the Pacific rim countries constitute a growing share of our grain market and it is the western ports that will be subject to the volume caps. Even though some of the grain going to Thunder Bay is also destined for export, the GATT has deemed those WGTA payments part of the domestic support program and not subject to GATT sanctions and countervailing measures by other countries.

Considering two of the targeted ports are in British Columbia, I question the fairness of this section of the agreement. British Columbians overwhelmingly rejected the Charlottetown accord because of the special status awarded to some citizens and

provinces. This is merely another example of special status being granted to central Canada.

Signatories to the GATT have agreed that by the year 2000-01 they will reduce their export subsidy levels by at least 36 per cent in dollar terms and by 21 per cent in volume terms below the 1986 to 1990 average levels.

The 36 per cent target does not eliminate major subsidies to our competitors. Instead the export subsidy reductions are tied directly to average support levels during the height of the grain subsidy war between the U.S. and the EEC. At that time subsidies for some European grain exports reached levels at least twice the price of the product. Reducing these subsidies by 36 per cent would still leave a subsidy in place worth more than the cost of the grain, hardly what I would call a level playing field for Canadian farmers.

We cannot afford to tinker with our subsidy programs in the hopes that they might comply with future GATT agreements. We must act now to eliminate disincentives inherent in our system which prevent more efficient handling and transport of grains. We must act now to give farmers the information and tools necessary to make sound management decisions based on real market prices and transportation costs.

Given a fair chance I believe Canadian farmers can compete successfully on the world market. However we must go much further than this bill does when it merely modifies our programs to meet with current international approval. As subsidies are brought down over time we must restructure all of our programs to prevent more internal distortions from creeping into the domestic decision making process.

[Health, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker since 1986 thousands of cattle in Great Britain have contracted what is commonly known as mad cow disease.

Mad cow disease has an incubation period of up to eight years and can be detected only in its advanced stages. There is no evidence that it can be spread by animal to animal contact, but to be safe Agriculture Canada started banning the importation of cattle from the U.K. in 1990.

Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada without being screened for HIV. Although many years can pass before HIV carriers develop full blown AIDS, the virus is readily detectable by a cheap, effective blood test.

Is it not in the best interests of the immigrants themselves and their families, as well as the Canadian public, for them to know if they are carrying the deadly HIV virus?

In light of the vote taken two hours ago on Motion No. 285, it is now apparent that Agriculture Canada's concern for the health of Canadian cattle is greater than the health minister's concern for the health of the Canadian people.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Better green than red.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about what it means to be Canadian. In 1993 when the Right Hon. Kim Campbell announced the reorganization of her government, the big selling point was the reduction of federal departments from 32 to 23 and the elimination of all minister of state positions.

She further justified the new structure by selling it as a significant step toward streamlining government. This was going to give Canadians a leaner, more accessible government. Multiculturalism was placed under her new Department of Canadian Heritage together with a mishmash of other programs and responsibilities.

Recognizing the level of public support for reducing the size of federal bureaucracy, the new Liberal government kept most of her changes and multiculturalism remained quietly buried in a new superministry of Canadian heritage.

This Liberal government failed to inform the Canadian people that the public perception of a government commitment to downsizing is unfounded. We have fewer ministers than we had under the previous government but now we have nine secretaries of state in addition to the full fledged ministers.

One of these new secretaries of state has a portfolio solely devoted to multiculturalism and the status of women.

The only major difference between a secretary of state and a minister is the name. Secretaries of state are not allowed to sit in cabinet and must report through the minister, but they have offices, staff and responsibilities for policy development in the departments to which they are assigned. They also receive an extra $35,000 a year salary and a car allowance.

This is not downsizing. What about the Canadian heritage department itself? Will taxpayers save any money through this restructuring and reorganization? Apparently not. When announcing the official establishment of this new department, top bureaucrats made it very clear that there would be no layoffs. Civil servants are being shuffled between new ministries but their jobs are secure, even if the future of some of the programs is not.

The number of employees in the multicultural program will remain at approximately 6,000, the same as 1992-93 levels. Multiculturalism now falls under another department but it is possible to compare current funding to that of previous years. In 1992-93, $39.8 million was spent on multicultural programs. Last fiscal year it was $36.9 million, and this year's forecast is $38.8 million. This does not include some of the spinoff programs that fall under the government's multicultural agenda.

For example, although the proposed Canadian race relations foundation is not functioning yet, the federal government

earmarked $24 million for it. This is hardly what I would call a stellar performance in cost reduction or downsizing.

Why do we have the multicultural policy we do? Why do we spend money to support special interest groups to maintain or rediscover their differences, rather than for the promotion of our shared symbols and positive Canadian qualities?

Immigrants have come to Canada for countless reasons over the years. For many it represented a place of safety to rebuild lives shattered by wars. For others it was a land of opportunity; if they worked hard they could become financially secure, send their children off to university and express their will within a democratic society.

These people came to Canada to become Canadians. They willingly left their country of birth and chose Canada as their new home. They came here to build a new life and a new reality for themselves and their children. To them, Canada symbolized hope. It was not just a place where they could become rich. It represented freedom from oppression or tyranny, from hunger or civil strife.

It was a land that, for the most part, accepted them as newcomers and tolerated their differences until they learned more about their chosen country and its culture.

Refugees come to our shores for many of the same reasons. Because Canada is isolated from refugee generating countries by vast oceans and by the United States, refugees must make a conscious decision that this is the country they want to move to. They must make extensive plans and pool their resources just to get here to claim refugee status. I believe they choose Canada for the same reasons that immigrants have in the past; an opportunity to get ahead in a country they are proud to be part of, a country that respects human rights and freedoms, a country where they will not have to live in fear.

Although immigrants and refugees left their homes to find the Canadian dream, what do newcomers to Canada find today? They discover a government that promotes cultural diversity, that tells them it is more important to maintain the identity they left behind than it is to become a Canadian. How many years is it before they are truly considered a Canadian? With our multicultural policy, how many generations will it take before people start thinking of themselves as Canadians rather than as outsiders? How can we eliminate racism or ghettoization if we perpetuate hyphenated Canadianism? How much time will it take for this government to understand that being a Canadian to a Canadian is more important than where you or your ancestors came from?

Everyone should be proud of their roots but they should also be proud to be a Canadian. We should be working toward the creation of a single national identity that we can all live with. Being Canadian is more than holding down a job, it is people pulling together for a common purpose and a common goal. This country is built on the efforts of people who came from all over the world to help create a nation they are proud to call home.

Throughout our history immigrants have worked hard to help forge the country we see today. They started out as immigrants but they built it as Canadians, for Canadians.

We are among the most tolerant people in the world. Regrettably, we have also had black periods in our history during which certain groups were not respected for their contribution or were denied access to our institutions and to some fundamental human rights.

We have grown a great deal over the past several decades. We have abolished institutionalized discrimination and promote respect for human rights at home and abroad. We must remain vigilant to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians but we must not let the pendulum swing so far toward accommodating special interests that we lose sight of who we are.

By promoting all cultures we will end up with none. What glue will hold our nation together?

As the make-up of our population changes, our national culture will naturally evolve to reflect that diversity. It is not something government can legislate or control. When government steps in, as it has, to encourage differences between people rather than fostering unity by encouraging common Canadian values other segments of our society will feel threatened because they will perceive their cultural values to be under siege.

When the cultural make-up of our population has changed to the point that our institutions no longer reflect the Canadian identity then there will be overwhelming public support and pressure for those changes to occur.

Government cannot dictate culture and government cannot control its expression. The government's role should be to clarify our similarities, not aggravate our differences. Cultural change occurs over generations but a nation must have a touchstone for its national identity, a reference point that immigrants from other countries can refer to.

We leave them floundering, having to rely on our multicultural policy of celebrating diversity as a guide to what it is to be a Canadian.

Canada has a distinct identity. We can all feel it. We know it is there but most Canadians cannot articulate it. When asked what it is to be a Canadian, many people used to respond that it is not being an American. We are more than a negative. We have our own positive sense of national identity and it must be communicated to all newcomers to this land.

To me being Canadian is many things. Being Canadian is truly believing in our inherent right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully, freedom of the press, tolerance for differences and respect for human rights and democratic institutions. These are some of the common values I believe make us Canadians.

There is also an expectation held by the majority of Canadians that we will continue to support and, if necessary, defend our individual and collective rights to these freedoms.

[Avro Arrow, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Royal Canadian Mint recently issued a set of coins commemorating milestone aircraft in Canadian aviation history.

To my surprise missing from this series is the Avro Arrow. As we all know, the Arrow was an aircraft decades ahead of its time and its cancellation resulted in a setback to the Canadian aviation industry from which it has yet to recover.

Most of the talented Canadians who worked on its development were forced to move to the United States where a great many were snapped up by NASA to work on the Apollo space program.

In 1958 the Arrow achieved speeds nearly twice that of sound and altitudes approaching 60,000 feet. Despite this the government of the day cancelled the project and ordered all tooling, plans and aircraft destroyed.

By allowing the exclusion of the Arrow from the series this government has effectively reinforced the shameful decision of a previous Conservative administration.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents.

The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted suicide be enforced and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Health Care, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the health care crisis we are currently experiencing in northern and rural Canada.

The government is proud to talk about the sanctity of our universal health care system. However, when one of the towns in my riding advertised to replace a retiring surgeon for over a year it met with no success.

By and large Canadian doctors seem unwilling to settle and work in the north. Consequently northern communities have had to increasingly rely on foreign physicians who must weigh the opportunity of working in Canada against an uncertain future caused by short term work visas.

Our patient to doctor ratio is around 1,700 to 1, compared to about 160 to 1 in Vancouver.

Northern natural resources contribute billions to government coffers, yet our hospitals are being shut down or their services drastically cut back, resulting in northerners travelling hundreds of miles to receive adequate health care.

Is this an example of the accessibility promised by the Canada Health Act?