Jay Hill

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the second group of amendments.

As I said in my intervention on the first group, which comprised only one motion, the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville to create a preamble, it is very confusing. I am sure it is not only confusing to us, but it must be confusing for the viewing public to follow how these 48 amendments have been grouped. However, we will try to work our way through them.

Group No. 2 consists of three amendments. Motion No. 2 is an amendment put forward by me. Motion No. 31 was also put forward by me. Motion No. 41 was put forward by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

In speaking to these three motions, Motion No. 2 quite simply would delete the clause that makes Bill C-4 binding on the provinces.

In actual fact this clause would block a province from making changes which could be demanded by the majority of farmers in that province.

The official opposition believes quite strongly that this is undemocratic. We point to a possible example in the future where one province might want to bring forward its own wheat board or wheat marketing board. For example, Alberta might choose at some time in the future to have an Alberta wheat marketing board similar in structure to what exists for the farmers in Ontario. The case can really be put that by having this binding on the provinces, this would prevent a province such as Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba from doing that.

This particular clause further entrenches the inequity and the inequality of the Canadian Wheat Board. What one province is free to do, in this case Ontario has its own wheat marketing board, another province in western Canada would be denied from doing.

The second motion in Group No. 2 is motion 31, also put forward by me. It has to do with removing all the references to the contingency fund. This is where it really gets odd as to how the exact amendments are grouped. This particular amendment No. 31 goes hand in glove with amendments and Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27 which are found in another group. All of those amendments deal with deleting any reference in Bill C-4 of the contingency fund.

At committee and while travelling throughout western Canada and speaking to farmers and farm groups in my riding and other ridings, it has become painfully obvious that the majority of farmers view this contingency fund as simply another tax on already overtaxed farmers. That is why we have put forward these four amendments that would delete any reference to the contingency fund, the farmer supported, the farmer paid for contingency fund which currently exists in Bill C-4.

It is interesting to note that one of my colleagues earlier referred to the need to survey his constituents, his farmers in his riding. He referred to the fact that he is prevented from doing this at the moment because of the postal strike.

I did survey the farmers in Prince George—Peace River when this bill's predecessor, Bill C-72, was before the House last winter. It was interesting to note that while the farmers in my riding were, as I think they are across western Canada, very split on this highly divisive issue of reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, the one thing they were not split on was the issue of the contingency fund.

The one question I asked was would you support a compulsory farmer check off to help establish a capital base for a contingency fund? An overwhelming 76.7% of respondents, the actual farmers, Canadian Wheat Board farmers in Prince George—Peace River, said no they would not support that concept.

There are other polls which other members have done and that other entities have done across western Canada that would indicate a similar conclusion. This contingency fund, as long as the Canadian Wheat Board remains mandatory, a compulsory, government state run organization which farmers do not have the chance or freedom to choose the option of marketing their product outside of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers are going to resist very strenuously another input cost being hoisted upon them in the form of a contingency fund, especially when it is not defined in the act in Bill C-4 how much it is going to be allowed to grow to, how quickly they are going to accumulate the funds, how much it is going to be taken off every time the farmer markets wheat or barley through the board.

It is a major concern. This is why it is accompanying Motions Nos. 25, 26, 27 which are in a subsequent group. We need to pass that and remove any reference to the contingency fund. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order regarding the issue of relevance, I would call the attention of the Chair to Motion No. 1 where it says that such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain. It must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority must be accountable to them for its performance.

I would consider that the whole issue of the board of directors is very relevant to Motion No. 1.

[Division No. 26, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder about the process here. We were forced into a situation where we had to hold a standing vote, yet it carried unanimously.

I wonder what precedent has been set today because of the Bloc.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as with the hon. member from the fifth party who just spoke, I am almost reluctant to speak to this bill in light of what has transpired over the previous month.

As the hon. member articulated, this bill has been rushed through from beginning to end. For the government to try to pretend to the viewing public, to the Canadian people and in particular to western Canadian farmers that it has used this process to bypass second reading and to hustle this bill off to committee, and it has used this process in order to try to better the bill, is an absolute fallacy. It is totally ridiculous when people take the time to view what has really transpired over the last while.

The way these amendments have been grouped is very odd. At some point in time I would like to have it explained to me how they came to be grouped the way they are. It is hard to rationalize how they have placed some 48 amendments into the various seven groupings.

Motion No. 1, which is the preamble, totally comprises Group No. 1 and was put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville. Part of the motion states:

Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.

That is the key part of the preamble put forward by my hon. colleague for Yorkton—Melville. It sets the tone for the entire bill. I am very pleased on behalf of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville to note that we have support for his Motion No. 1 from the other three opposition parties. That is important.

The public recognizes that it is sometimes very difficult to get unanimous support from all four opposition parties in this place. All parties view this as a very important preamble. Although some on the government side would say it is just motherhood and apple pie, it does set the tone for the entire bill.

I will read a letter into the record that came to me from the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association that was sent to the hon. Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. This letter indicates the level of dissatisfaction with this bill that exists within the farming community: “I append a copy of a news clipping listing the organizations which support the inclusion clause in Bill C-4. They are: the National Farmers Union, Family Farm Foundation, Catholic Rural Life Ministry, Concerned Farmers for Saving the Wheat Board and `several' Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates of which there are 123 in total”.

It goes on to say: “The coalition against C-4 has the following membership: the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, Flax Growers of Western Canada, Oat Producers Association of Alberta, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Associations”.

Then it poses the interesting question to the minister: which of these groupings do you feel better represents the interests of western Canadian farmers? If you believe—and it is hard for me to think otherwise—that the second group better represents the views of farmers, could you please explain to me why, against the opposition of these groups, Bill C-4 still contains the inclusion clause?” The letter is signed by Mr. Larry Maguire, President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Maguire did not write the letter on behalf of one organization that the government would care to discount by saying that it had always been anti-wheat board and pro-free choice, pro-free marketing. He wrote it on behalf of a coalition of many groups that represent literally tens of thousands of farmers who are concerned not only about the inclusion clause but about a lot of clauses and the very scope of this legislation.

First let me say at the outset that we will be debating seven groups of amendments and many members I am sure will get up seven times to speak to various facets of the legislation.

I hesitate to keep saying this because to a certain extent it angers me as a former grain producer who grew grain for 20 years under the Canadian Wheat Board. Reform is not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. I say that because at times it seems that some of our political adversaries like to paint us in that light. Reform is not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to see it improved, strengthened and address the real needs of western Canadian grain farmers. Above all, we want the wheat board to be accountable to the farmers. However, we do not see that in this legislation.

I indicated during my 10 minute intervention before this bill was shunted off to committee that first and foremost we want the Canadian Wheat Board to be made voluntary. Until farmers have the ability to opt in or opt out or market their grain through the board or through the private sector, I do not think farmers will really be supportive of the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it now.

There were comments made earlier by my colleague from the New Democratic Party about the groups of witnesses. I think all of us on the opposition side at committee were very disappointed in the process there, where witnesses who had travelled at considerable expense and time to appear before the committee were lumped together and there was not really an adequate chance to listen to them and have an honest open debate and exchange of information. It really puts pay to the argument by the government that the reason why it superseded second reading and put the bill off to committee was to try to better the bill. That simply did not happen.

To show how divisive this bill is, it actually accomplished the near impossible. The minister has accomplished the near impossible. He has managed to alienate almost every single Canadian farmer, every single person who is involved in grain production and transportation in western Canada with this one piece of legislation. To show just how divisive it is, imagine the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee of 11 farmers itself being split and the majority of those producers calling for the complete withdrawal of the legislation.

I want to read an excerpt from the November 6 front page of the Western Producer newspaper quoting the remarks of the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee: “Macklin disputed government claims that one of the results of the legislation will be to democratize the wheat board and turn power over to farmers thought the two-thirds of board members they can elect”. Then there is direct quote: “We think this new structure will be more subject to political manipulation than the old structure”.

I completely agree with that assessment. I think this bill is not going to address the needs. In fact, it is going to continue to sow the seeds of divisiveness in western Canada instead of addressing the real needs out there.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent from the House to replace Motion No. 5 on the notice paper with a revised version. This motion as it appears on the notice paper is incorrect as a result of a typographical error.

The other parties have been consulted and I believe the Chair will find unanimous consent to replace this motion with the correct version.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague. I listened to his remarks very closely. I never want to refer to it as the justice system because it is viewed across the land as injustice, which seems to be inherent in our legal system today. He was driving at the fact that in today's judicial system there is a lack of holding people responsible and accountable for their actions.

Could he elaborate a little more on where he was going with that reference to drunk driving and to all people who commit horrendous crimes when we do not yet have a victims bill of rights in place in the country to address the victims of crimes?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.

At the start of my presentation, I want to draw attention to the fact that in this debate we want to clearly understand that many thousands of victims are killed every year. I think the number is up to 1,700 victims of drunk driving or of accidents involving alcohol. I noted in my brief remarks a few minutes ago that all too often it is the young.

We are rapidly approaching one of the worst possible times of the year for drunk driving. As the incidents of drunk driving go up, unfortunately so do the fatalities and the injuries around Christmastime. Another time of the year is at graduation time with our young people.

Last year a poem appeared in the Alaska Highway News in my hometown. I want to read a couple of excerpts from it because it quite pointedly cuts to the real problem.

I went to a party, Mom, I remembered what you said. You told me not to drink, Mom, so I drank soda instead. I really felt proud inside, Mom, the way you said I would. I didn't drink and drive, Mom, even though the others said I should.

I started to drive away, Mom, but as I pulled out into the road, the other car didn't see me, Mom, and hit me like a load. As I lay there on the pavement, Mom, I hear the policeman say, the other guy is drunk, Mom, and now I'm the one who will pay.

Why do people drink, Mom? It can ruin your whole life. I'm feeling sharp pains now. Pains just like a knife. The guy who hit me is walking, Mom, and I don't think it's fair. I'm lying here dying and all he can do is stare.

Someone should have told him, Mom, not to drink and drive. If only they had told him, Mom, I would still be alive.

My breath is getting shorter, Mom, I'm becoming very scared. Please don't cry for me, Mom. When I needed you, you were always there. I have one last question, Mom, before I say goodbye. I didn't drink and drive, so why am I the one to die?

That really sums up the issue here. It is the innocent who are being killed by drunk drivers time and time again. I do not think this government or previous governments have even begun to adequately address this issue. It is critical that the House act on this motion.

Impaired drivers have been literally getting away with murder, with little or no consequence for their deadly habits. We have all heard the statistics echoed time and time again during the debate today. Too many families are suffering because the lives of loved ones were cut short by drunk drivers. Too many convicted impaired drivers get behind the wheel again and again, never changing their drinking and driving behaviour. For some, even killing a child does not stop them.

Scott Wilson was only 15 when he was killed by a drunk driver in 1985. The driver, Owen Bradshaw, hit a hay wagon loaded with a minor hockey team, their friends and families. Bradshaw fled the scene as Scott lay dying and 18 other people lay injured by his criminal act.

This was not the first time he had been caught drinking and driving, it was the third. He had two previous impaired convictions. He only received a $175 fine for his first conviction and spent 30 days in jail for the second. For killing Scott, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment plus one year for fleeing the scene of the accident, but he only served one-third of the three year sentence before being paroled in December 1987.

You would think his conscience would not let him continue to drive and drink, but he was convicted of drunk driving again in 1991. On his fourth offence he received a six month jail term and was prohibited from driving for three years. Did he change? No. On his birthday last year Bradshaw backed a van into a police cruiser that had pulled in behind him. When it went to trial the crown recommended locking him up for three years but the judge gave him only nine months and recommended that he be granted immediate temporary passes so he could continue to work during the day. His ex-wife had told the court how important his child support payments were to put food on the table for their children. He should have thought about his family before he picked up the beer. He should have thought about Scott's family when he picked up the keys. He has been convicted of drunk driving five times. How many times has he driven while impaired? I would doubt that even he knows.

Bradshaw is just one of many drunk drivers with multiple impaired offences still on the road today. They do not change even after fines and prison terms. Many continue to drive with their licences suspended, still drinking and still driving, hoping the police will not catch them.

Bradshaw, unfortunately, is just one but not even the worst example. Sadly there are countless others. One man killed five girls in Winnipeg on his 51st offence.

There are at least two types of impaired drivers, the ones who get charged once and never drink and drive again, and the ones who get charged but continue to drink and drive with extremely high blood alcohol levels. It is the second type in particular that our laws must focus on, the hardcore drinkers. They will drink and drive until they injure or kill themselves or someone else. Yet they refuse to change.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 12% of hardcore drunk drivers killed around 1,300 Canadians last year alone. For these people we must consider an alternative that will save lives.

Other people here today have talked about the need for stiffer penalties, and I certainly concur with them. However, I would like to focus on another deterrent for drunk driving, something that has been proven effective in both the United States and Alberta where it has been available since 1990. On Monday last I introduced Bill C-266, a bill that would empower judges to sentence impaired drivers to ignition interlock programs. I believe it is one part of a deterrence package that this House should seriously consider.

For members who have not heard of it, an ignition interlock is an electronic device with a breath alcohol analyser, a micro-computer and an internal memory that interconnects with the ignition and other control systems of a vehicle. It measures the blood alcohol level of the driver and prevents the vehicle from starting if the alcohol level exceeds a certain level. In other words, it only lets the operator drive if he or she is sober.

It has been proven that current methods of sanction and rehabilitation do not work for most hardcore drinking drivers. However, the interlock is an immediate and effective deterrent against drunk driving for the participants in the program. People in the program have a licence that only allows them to operate vehicles with an ignition interlock. Every 30 to 60 days the internal memory of the interlock is read and recorded. The report details every driving event, the results of all tests and any attempts to circumvent the system. Where other members of the family must have access to the vehicle they too can be taught how to use the device.

There are currently programs in Alberta, in 30 U.S. jurisdictions and Quebec will start a program on December 1.

Michael Weinerath, currently teaching at the University of Winnipeg, evaluated the results of the ignition interlock program in Alberta. He concluded that the ignition interlock cases were 4.4 times less likely to record a new serious driving violation and 3.9 times less likely to be involved in an injury collision. Clearly the interlock system teaches impaired drivers to modify their own behaviour much more effectively than jail or other treatment programs. Not only does the interlock keep impaired drivers off the road when they have been drinking but, more important, it teaches them to keep themselves off the road when they have been drinking.

Where a person requires their vehicle for work and a judge thinks a suspension would be an undue hardship, the ignition interlock provides the public with an added measure of safety.

The police cannot be everywhere but the interlock can be there every day and every night, all the time. In most jurisdictions the interlock is installed for a set period of time but I believe there is a better alternative. We could make the program mandatory until such time as the drunk driver changes his or her behaviour. Some people modify their behaviour within a couple of months, but others never learn. Those are the ones we need to stop.

People convicted of impaired driving, particularly those who have killed or injured someone, should not be able to start their cars let alone drive if they have been drinking, and the interlock stops them. If they cannot start their car, they will not be on the road killing people. And if they are caught driving a vehicle without the device, then lock them up.

We do not give a lethal weapon to a known sociopath who has been convicted of murder. So why do we let impaired drivers who have shown no regard for human life continue to drink and drive? I say let us consider the ignition interlock as part of an overall deterrence package. We owe it to Scott Wilson and the hundreds of other Canadians who are killed by drunk drivers every year.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, apology accepted. It is too important an issue to start playing petty partisan politics, regardless of the fact of whether someone feels they have been provoked. Certainly I could respond to the long list the member just rattled through and say that I was provoked. However that would detract from the spirit of this debate today, which is to address one of the most serious criminal actions in our country which is killing thousands and thousands of Canadians and unfortunately all too often they are very young Canadians.

What specifically is the hon. member prepared to do to ensure that we bring the issue of drunk driving to its proper conclusion? What concrete action is she prepared to take? That is what my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was getting at. It is fine to support a motion, but what concrete steps will the government take and which this particular member will support?

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol sensing ignition controls for automobiles).

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Crowfoot for seconding the bill.

Alcohol is involved in more than 40% of all traffic fatalities. As Mothers Against Drunk Driving noted last week, on average 4.5 Canadians are killed each and every day in alcohol related crashes. Even when their licences are suspended many impaired drivers continue to drive, endangering more lives.

This private member's bill promotes the use of ignition interlocks in the sentencing of drunk drivers. If they cannot start their car because they have been drinking, they will not be on the road killing innocent people.

It has been demonstrated that the use of interlock reduces the rate of reoffending by up to 70%. That will save a lot of Canadian lives.

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