Gordon Kirkby

[The Arctic, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns Canada's circumpolar arctic region. This area contains rich natural resources and extremely fragile but vitally important ecosystems which can potentially affect the global climate.

Furthermore, this arctic region is home to and provides an important economic base for many of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Will the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what the government is doing to safeguard Canada's interests in the Arctic.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I present a third petition on behalf of my constituents who express the desire that the present Criminal Code provisions against doctor assisted suicide be strictly enforced and that Parliament not change the law.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I present a second petition on behalf of my constituents who do not wish sidearms to be banned.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. Very briefly I present one petition on behalf of constituents who wish the Criminal Code to be amended to prohibit abortion.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the fees that will be charged, first, open competition at the ports for different shippers is going to ensure that the rates charged are reasonable. However the grain commission retains the ability to regulate this issue.

Does the hon. member believe that it is wise for farmers to pay for ships to sit empty and have grain not move or does he believe it is wise to pay and have the grain move so that we continue to be a reliable supplier of grain to all our world markets?

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his questions.

The deal reached by the minister of agriculture concerning the wheat dispute with the Americans is an excellent deal for Canada. If we look back at the historic relationship and the historic levels of wheat exports to the United States Canada came out of this negotiation very successfully.

First, the minister ensured this very high level of continued export, well above the historic levels. However, in addition to this, and most significantly, the minister of agriculture achieved a moratorium from both countries in future trade action which could have very detrimental effects on the grains industry in western Canada. This delay allows the GATT provisions to come into force and prevents the American government from implementing these very draconian, heavy-handed trade provisions in the future. As an interim step this was an excellent result

obtained by the minister of agriculture and he should be commended.

With respect to the hon. member, the minister of agriculture is doing a lot of things to ensure that the grain transportation system is improved. Some of the examples of this are in this bill. The government is going to continue to support the farmers of western Canada. When we hear statements from the leader of the hon. member's party saying there are too many farmers in western Canada, let me say that the Liberal Party does not agree with that. We ask that hon. member to retract the statement he made about two years ago in Halifax. That is the kind of support they get from across the House.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in favour of Bill C-51, which contains amendments to the Canada Grain Act. This is a government of action. I am very proud of this government, particularly the actions and successes of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his important role in the successful completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT talks. For years the international community has been engaged in a grain subsidies war that has had a very negative effect on grain prices and therefore a very negative effect on Canadian farmers and the economy, particularly western Canada which is so dependent on grain.

Canada had a much more limited treasury than our friends in Europe or the United States. As such we could not compete with the subsidy levels offered by those countries. Therefore, our minister had to fight hard at the GATT talks to reduce these levels of subsidies around the world and was successful in the pursuit of that endeavour.

Over time we are going to see grain prices rise as these subsidies fall. We can all be very grateful for that. This is going to be good for farmers in my riding of Prince Albert-Churchill River and for all the farmers of Canada. That is something we can all be very happy about.

In addition, our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has shown negotiating skill and leadership in striking a good deal for Canadian farmers in the recent wheat export dispute with the United States. Limits on exports were obtained that are far above any levels of wheat export that we have seen in history.

Second, we obtained an agreement that repressive trade sanctions contained in American trade law would not be implemented for a year. This will allow the GATT to become effective, thereby blocking the use of these heavy handed trade tactics in the future.

These actions by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food typify the way this government deals with issues. The government identifies the problem. The government consults with all of the stakeholders who are affected by the issue and the government works hard with these stakeholders to fix the problem.

In spite of this heavy agenda, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has not stopped there. Through the mechanism of actively seeking public input and the input of farmers and farm organizations, grain companies, all of the people involved in grain transportation and the grain industry, the minister has proposed effective amendments to the Canada Grain Act intended to improve the operating and administrative efficiencies of the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry.

The world is changing. Technology is improving. The international marketplace is increasingly competitive and the deficit of the federal government and the protection of our taxpayers are things we all need to be concerned with. These are problems we must deal with. Our taxpayers, our farmers, all of us must be protected and looked after.

Generally speaking the proposed amendments are quite varied but not insubstantial in consequence. Some of the changes are of a bookkeeping or tidying up nature, which change definitions contained in the act or change some of the translations to increasingly make the act more internally and externally consistent.

Other changes give the Canadian Grain Commission the authority to establish by regulation, subject to cabinet approval, what constitutes a hazardous substance, which financial documents licensees must submit, the types of insurance an elevator must hold and how elevators must dispose of contaminated grain.

New authority also has been given to the Canadian Grain Commission rather than the cabinet to establish allowances to be paid to members of grain appeals tribunals and grain standards committees. There is no doubt that Canada produces the best quality grain in the world. The international community recognizes this fact and when a choice is given it will pick our grains every time, provided we continue to be competitive and reliable suppliers.

Amendments to the Canada Grain Act reiterate and recognize Canada's longstanding commitment to grain quality. Quality is a very important factor in the marketability of our grain. We must continue to do all we can to maintain that.

The amendment also gives the Canadian Grain Commission the authority to establish by regulation, subject to cabinet approval, the time limit for realizing on security posted by licensees with the Canadian Grain Commission and provides a limit of 30 days to the time following the default on payments that a producer has to claim on CGC held security.

Also the amendments provide the authority to establish by the Canadian Grain Commission, subject to cabinet approval, a percentage limit on the value of the claim against the grain commission held security. The amendments make clear that the Canadian Grain Commission is only liable to producers who deal with Canadian Grain Commission licensees and who obtain the prescribed documents upon delivery of their grain only up to the amount of security posted.

These provisions among other things provide certainty and security for the taxpayers of Canada as well as the farmers of Canada. During the recent consultation held with all the stakeholders who have an interest in grain transportation it became apparent that in order to achieve reliability of supply and to keep intact Canada's well-deserved reputation as a reliable supplier of grain products, the Canadian Grain Commission requires the flexibility to eliminate the requirement of establishing maximum elevator tariffs.

In all probability these amendments will ensure that grain will keep moving through our ports and on to our ships and will save the payment of demurrage fees that have been paid in the past when we have seen a lot of ships sitting in harbour empty and not moving our grain.

We all want to have payments made to keep the grain moving. This is a very progressive action. In addition to this we have the safety valve that the commission still maintains the authority to impose maximum tariffs if necessary.

Other amendments to ensure balanced enhanced competitiveness, better financial security, more protection for taxpayers and greater operational flexibility for the Canadian Grain Commission are contained within the legislation.

I wish to commend our minister of agriculture for bringing forward these amendments to ensure the continued success of the Canadian agricultural industry. I think the hallmark of this government and our minister of agriculture is that when there is a problem we move to fix it and our government will continue to support our farmers and our taxpayers by sensible regulation, of which this is a fine example.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indicated that people engaging in white collar crime should do the time. Earlier today her colleague from the constituency of Wild Rose indicated that perhaps there are mechanisms other than incarceration to deal with non-violent offenders.

How does the hon. member explain the inconsistency that has been brought forward by her party on a single day?

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak in favour of Bill C-45 which was given first reading in the House last June.

Since 1984 there has been a marked increase in violent crime across the country. Dealing with this growing incidence of crime was certainly listed as one of the priorities of the Liberal Party and the new government as set out in the red book.

There is no doubt that for many years Canada was viewed and is still viewed, and rightly so, as a non-violent nation. It was a nation in which all of us could carry on our business, our daily affairs, without fear for our personal safety or for the personal safety of our loved ones. However in the last decade Canadians have become less certain about that reality as we have seen example after example played out across our television screens and in our newspapers of violent crimes being perpetrated within our communities.

Our government believes the issue of safe streets is not achieved simply by strengthening legislation in relation to criminal behaviour such as the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act or the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the present legislation. There are some in the House who tend to simplify the issue of public safety to the extreme by saying that by making harsh incarceration rules, by sentencing people to long sentences or by introducing corporal or capital punishment our streets will suddenly or magically be safe.

Some would have us believe that if we toughen our parole release provisions to the extreme in all cases suddenly there would be no more crime and we would not suffer from violence to our person and to our families. The government disagrees with that approach.

We recognize that in order to reduce the incidence of criminality within our society that society must provide meaningful employment opportunities for all people. The direct link between economic hardship, lack of opportunity and criminality is well known. To that end the government has implemented policies which allow for economic growth.

Roughly 275,000 new jobs have been created since the new government took office. The Canadian economy has grown by 4.2 per cent annual growth rate in the first quarter and an astounding 6.4 per cent in the second quarter. This assists to reduce the incidence of criminal behaviour within our society.

Another factor that certainly helps reduce the crime rate and the violence within our society means doing something to alleviate underlying social conditions which create an environment where criminal behaviour can flourish, whether it is poverty, racism, hunger or whatever the social issue might be.

We have begun to address those issues as a government. We must continue to alleviate negative social conditions which create an environment where crime can flourish, whether it is fighting racism or increasing educational opportunities or providing our young people with experience in the workplace through the Canada youth corps. We are moving toward safer communities in our nation once again.

No doubt there are other things that governments and communities can undertake to increase public safety. The creative nature of our communities will make this happen from coast to coast. I am not saying that the government cannot move to improve the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act or the legislation currently before the House where it makes sense to do so.

The government recognizes that action to combat crime must be a multi-pronged approach involving the enhancement of criminal laws, the Young Offenders Act, the parole legislation where it is reasonable to do so and demonstrably justified. Where flaws are located in the current legislation we must move to correct those flaws. We have a responsibility to do so.

Not only must our economies be strong, not only must our social programs be relevant and scratch where the country itches but also we must deal with our criminal legislation through these various criminally related statutes and to fix them where they have proved inadequate.

We see this approach being taken whether it is in this bill brought forward by the Solicitor General or whether it is other bills such as the Young Offenders Act being brought forward by the Minister of Justice or amendments to the Criminal Code. These types of approaches allow for the House and our society to improve, to enhance the laws which govern our land, the laws which make it safe for all of us to enjoy our communities and to enjoy our homes without fear of violence.

Within this specific legislation a number of changes have been made which will make our parole system better, our criminal justice system better and will ultimately improve the safety of our communities across the nation.

The individual legislative proposals which I support make it easier to detain in penitentiary until the end of sentence sex offenders who victimize children by removing that serious harm must be established as a criterion for detention in these cases. There is no doubt that the young person by having to provide testimony as to serious harm is revictimized and we certainly see no need for that. The fact that an offence has been committed

certainly establishes beyond doubt that serious harm has been done.

This legislation will also establish a mechanism for the removal from office of National Parole Board members who become incapacitated from executing their duties by infirmity or misconduct or have failed to carry out their role in a manner that is expected of them. This is to maintain the integrity of the system. We certainly will reduce the number of errors that are made in releasing people who should not be released.

In addition to these types of changes, we are also expanding the list of offences for which an offender could be referred for detention until the end of sentence. These offences include serious drinking and driving and criminal negligence offences which result in bodily harm or death. In addition there will be more emphasis placed on the rehabilitation of people through programs. This is also a very important step forward.

What is typical of the government is that we are utilizing some of the parliamentary reforms we have brought forward in this term to allow individual members more say in the development of legislation.

I want to commend the Solicitor General for referring this bill at this stage to the committee so that we can, as individual members, provide input and make additional changes. Certainly where it is clear and obvious that changes ought to be made the government has made those changes but it is allowing the opportunity for further changes, for further amendment, as the bill moves along.

This is a very progressive step. Through the committee stage we can hear what Canadians think of these changes and write a bill that reflects the desires of our people for a safe society but one balanced with our desire always to ensure that people can have the opportunity to be rehabilitated.

I am very proud of the efforts the government has made so far and will support these legislative changes as the bill moves on to committee.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of 84 constituents to present a petition regarding doctor assisted suicide in Canada. The petitioners call upon the government to maintain the provisions of the Criminal Code which prohibit euthanasia in Canada.