Myron Thompson

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

I guess I am not used to hearing myself so much in here; there is an echo.

It is neat to come into a debate on this subject. I hope some day we truly can get into some good honest hard debates about issues rather than some of the examples of what I am seeing this morning where we are bringing in closure on certain things. I like to have debates like we are attempting to do with this bill.

The ideas the agricultural minister is bringing forward in this bill certainly have merit. They are things we have been looking for in the Reform Party. They are things some farmers have been looking for but they are only little tinkerings, a start.

I am sure we will not have any difficulty in supporting this but I draw to the attention of members of the House that we need to really get into a serious debate about these issues regarding the Wheat Board, especially when we go across the country.

I am talking about not just my riding, but Vegreville and other ridings in other provinces. When we hear people saying scrap the wheat board, farmers are saying this and others are on the other extreme, that is why it deserves such a good debate. It is time viewpoints were brought forward and discussed so that we can come up with some ideas which will genuinely answer the causes of all the farmers across the country.

I echo once again what I had hoped to see in a bill when it came down regarding the wheat board. It would be more than just the pooling points and the minor change regarding the shipping calculations.

I would like to see some changes indicating the House was interested in having an elected, democratic board in the wheat board. It would be elected by farmers who then would have more input into what happens at the wheat board level. The board should be more relevant to the problems facing producers, changes the producers so much need that they would be able to seek help in getting those changes. The wheat board should be a producer oriented operation rather than another patronage appointment haven for the friends of the Liberal Party.

Upsetting farmers is that their input is so small. Then we see bills brought before the House, not too long ago something to do with access of information, which would require the wheat board and other organizations of that nature to open the books for examination, to see how they are operating and what they are doing. We would get a little more information that people who are paying the bill are entitled to.

Unfortunately it seems we are getting further away from that instead of being more accountable to the people who pay the bills, in this case the farmers who support all the funding for our wheat board.

It is only sensible that we should pick up a bill and hopefully see some positive changes that would give farmers more input, more say and certainly some knowledge about where their money is spent. No, when we suggested that, when we put it in the form of a motion, it was soundly defeated by our colleagues across the way.

It makes me sometimes wonder what is so secretive that they cannot open the books of a government body to the people paying the bills. I have a hard time understanding that.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was rather anxious to speak on this subject today when my colleague from Vegreville asked me if I would be willing to address a bill on the Wheat Board. I certainly am willing. It gives me an opportunity to express the views of what I hear when I am in my riding talking to the farmers on which these bills have such a direct effect.

It must be funny to some people in the gallery who come to listen to what we call a debate and they see all the empty chairs. They sometimes must wonder if we are debating with the security guards.

[Young Offenders Act, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in amendments to the Young Offenders Act the justice minister included a provision to have 16 and 17 year olds tried in adult court.

Provisions in the Criminal Code and carried on in Bill C-41 stipulate persons under 18 convicted of first degree murder are eligible for parole after serving between 5 and 10 years. Adults convicted of first degree are not eligible for parole until serving a 25-year sentence.

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. What is the purpose of having 16 and 17 year olds in adult court if they are not going to receive adult sentences?

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians continually hear the government and the minister state that they will change legislation to enhance public safety. It has been 19 months and I have not seen it yet.

Canadians should have confidence in the justice system. We are waiting for the drunkenness defence bill. Now we are waiting and waiting for this legislation, which will definitely serve a purpose in the country and solve the problems.

How could the minister dare speak of justice when he completely abandoned the most basic concept of humanity, that when a person is murdered society must punish the murderer?

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian knows full well the story of 15-year old Tara Manning from Quebec and how she was sexually assaulted and stabbed 47 times.

Every Canadian's heart goes out to her family and is outraged that a killer may go free if a court upholds the claim that the killer's rights were infringed by a judged granting a warrant for a DNA search.

Since the minister knows full well that in order for the perpetrator of the crime to be held accountable legislation must clear the House before the summer break allowing a judge to grant a DNA search, will the minister immediately bring the legislation before the House?

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains 40 signatures from the Kingston, Ontario, area, wherein the petitioners pray and request that Parliament delete section 718(2) entirely from Bill C-41.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 96 signatures, wherein the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that would re-evaluate and amend the Canadian justice system to provide protection to and give precedence to victims rights, which require stricter sentencing guidelines, stronger penalties for major crimes, deportation of convicted non-Canadians, and all juveniles charged with major crimes to be tried in adult court.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first is from petitioners in and around the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, where the petitioners request that Parliament recognize and address the concerns of this petition regarding the Young Offenders Act and that action be taken immediately to bring about results that would improve the situation.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail in cases of assault with weapon or criminal harassment).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to present this private member's bill.

The bill is an act that would amend the Criminal Code regarding bail in the case of assault with a weapon or criminal harassment. There have been a number of cases throughout the nation where people have been released on bail who have committed some very serious violent crimes and have followed through on their threats after bail has been issued. This bill would be an attempt to assist the victims so they would not be vulnerable in the future.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Gun Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if he agrees with me, he should have agreed with me 18 months ago and got off his backside and done something about it.

I will ask the justice minister one simple question. Since he is fully aware and has been made aware by a number of people that registration will do nothing to curb crime, why does he not scrap that whole idea and save the taxpayers a lot of dollars?