Jay Hill

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say at the outset that it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but the simple truth of the matter is that it is not. A vast majority of western Canadian grain farmers whom the bill will affect and I hoped the minister and his government would have listened to them.

Just to digress for a moment, I noted during the brief remarks of the hon. minister of agriculture a moment ago he referred to some 20 amendments the agriculture committee had made that were ultimately incorporated into the bill before the House today, Bill C-4.

It is important for people watching the debate today to realize that those amendments are very superficial. With the possible exception of the so-called inclusion clause, there is not a lot of substance to those amendments. They do not go nearly far enough to address the real concerns being echoed across the prairies by Canada's western grain farmers.

As with the bill's predecessor, Bill C-72, the minister has accomplished the near impossible by alienating everyone. Where is the support for what he is about to do? If this is the way to proceed and the majority of grain producers support his latest retread legislation, why are they not applauding him? One has to speculate the point of consultations, submissions and hearings undertaken by the minister and his government over the the past year if in the final analysis they do not intend to listen to and incorporate those ideas.

I note the western grain marketing panel and all the debate that took place, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food just mentioned, on Bill C-72 both in Ottawa and during the travelling show across the prairies. Where are the substantive arguments put forward by the farm groups and farmers that appeared before that panel? We do not see them in the legislation.

The simple truth is that farmers will not substantially benefit from the legislation, and the Liberals know it. The government is intent on forging ahead despite the cries of the vast majority of producers that it simply does not address their needs.

Part of the government's strategy is to bring forward the bill for 180 minutes of debate with 10 minute speeches and no questions and comments. We in the opposition ranks cannot do an adequate job of discussing such a comprehensive piece of legislation in a 10 minute speech.

In the few moments I have left I will touch briefly on a number of points. I certainly applaud the intervention of the Progressive Conservative member. It is interesting to note that he and his party have picked up on the lead that Reform took on Bill C-72 in the last parliament. They are now basically in line with some of the main points we are raising.

The bill does not include anything that would take the Canadian Wheat Board toward being a voluntary organization. We see a real demand by producers for freedom to choose. We do not see any real options in the bill. That has to be one of its most fundamental flaws.

The minister may bring about the total demise of the Canadian Wheat Board with the legislation. With its all or nothing inclusion and exclusion clauses, a future board of directors could gradually exclude grades and types of grain until eventually the wheat board would be just a shell that does not market anything.

Farmers may divide on their support for the Canadian Wheat Board. Other speakers have referred to the two extremes. The bulk of farmers are in the middle. Between 75% and 80% of farmers want to see some change which ranges from minor change to very substantive change. I have found the majority of farmers are opposed to the contingency fund. They view it as simply another tax being imposed upon them by the government. In a situation where it is mandatory to belong to the Canadian Wheat Board this contingency fund is another tax at a time when farmers cannot afford any more input costs.

Another perplexing part of the legislation is the question of how elected directors will ultimately be held accountable, as my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party noted.

Like CSIS this organization is highly secretive, ultra secret. It does not have to adhere to access to information and it cannot be audited by the auditor general of the country. We think those are major flaws. Again this was an opportunity for the government to address very real concerns, to open up the board and make it more accountable. I would ask all hon. members and people viewing this debate to answer this question. Can they imagine any other corporation, club, or charity to which they belong answering questions concerning decisions made at an annual general meeting by saying “I can't answer that” or “If I told you that I would have to kill you”. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We have to open up the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers are demanding it. For the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to suggest that this bill is going to make it more accountable is actually ludicrous.

Fourth, yet another anomaly contained in this legislation is the issue of the legal liability for directors, officers and employees of the Canadian Wheat Board. If directors act honestly and in good faith, as it states they must in this legislation, then why do they require protection from criminal activities? If they have shown that they have complied with clause 3.12, then could they not simply prove that in a court of law as other Canadians are required to do without having this other clause 3.13 which basically exempts them?

I also note that one of probably twenty changes that the minister was bragging about a while ago is the deletion of the term “employees”. Yet we find that other persons are also covered under that clause. In view of that the clause stating “person or persons acting at the request of the corporation” would certainly include the employees, at least I think it would.

Finally, there are a lot of concerns across western Canada about the timely and efficient movement of grain to market. This was an opportunity for the government to include in the bill or some other bill the removal of the Canadian Wheat Board from the present position it has across the country with transportation. I support that we should be looking at ways in which we can decrease the bureaucracy inherent in the grain transportation sector. One of those ways would be to have the board take an at port position.

I have one underlying question. Is this the best the Liberals could come up with? Earlier the minister took great pains to justify his rush to get this recycled bill back through the House. He said that extensive consultations had already taken place regarding the legislation. He is correct on that point, but obviously, as I said earlier in my presentation, the simple fact is that he is not listening. He is not responding to the very real needs of producers.

Those producers are crying out for fundamental change and some freedom to choose. In a free and democratic country like Canada it is absolutely ridiculous that we still have this mandatory monopoly left over from the second world war.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, every member of the Reform Party could go on and on at great length about the lack of real representation that has come from the opposite side of the House over the life that we have been here which is only one Parliament for most of us with the exception of our deputy leader.

This Liberal government is not representing the wishes of its constituents by and large. Something interesting was pointed out in the 35th Parliament which I am sure we are going to see repeated in the 36th Parliament. Time and time again when a member who sits on the government side truly tries to represent the best interests and the wishes of his or her constituents, if those interests run contrary to the position of the government or that of the cabinet and the prime minister, what happens?

What happens with the old parties? We saw it under the Mulroney Tories before the Liberals. Members of Parliament were disciplined, at times even thrown out of their parties for trying to represent the interests of their constituents. That is also what happens with the Liberal Party. We saw that in the last Parliament with the hon. member for York South—Weston when he tried to represent his constituents.

He ran his campaign on the issue of abolishing the GST, as did a lot of members in this House who sit opposite on the government benches. He had the integrity to vote against a budget measure because he said it did not fulfil that campaign promise. He was bitterly disappointed in the government for not taking decisive action, for not living up to its campaign promise. Therefore he voted against it and what happened? He was thrown out of his party and sits now in this House as an independent. It is a credit to him and to the Canadian electorate in his riding that it re-elected him as an independent. It is a tough job to get elected as an independent.

The question dealt specifically with the representation provided by Reformers versus the representation of Liberals and Tories and the other parties in this place. I suggest that we really need some reform of this place. We need to see many more free votes in this place, real free votes, where individuals regardless of partisan political stripe can really represent the interests of their constituents.

Backbench Liberal MPs I believe if they were not so muzzled by the party discipline in the Liberal Party would be crying out along with us for those types of reforms so that they can really represent the interests of their constituents and not worry that the big broad axe is going to fall on their necks and they are going to be publicly disciplined and chastised by their leadership and perhaps even ultimately thrown out of their party.

I spoke earlier in my remarks before question period about the fact that Reform is in this House despite the fact that in the last Parliament they said we would not be back. But we are back and we are going to continue to come back until this place is reformed and we have real democracy in this House of Commons.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before the important business of question period, and it is too bad there is not a little answer period as well, I was on a bit of a roll and it is really hard when interrupted to get back up to speed.

During my brief remarks I was congratulating you, the other speakers and all members of Parliament on their election or re-election to this august Chamber. I was remiss in not congratulating the new minister of agriculture on his appointment. He has a very difficult job ahead to convince his cabinet and his caucus colleagues to develop a new vision for the industry that will keep pace with the vision that is being developed out in the real world by the farmers.

Our party has been quite critical of the so-called 50:50 arrangement in the throne speech that has been put into place with a commitment by the government once we move beyond a balanced budget.

Two days ago an open line show was conducted in my riding of Dawson Creek. There were about 69 calls from Canadians. About eight and a half were in favour of increased spending for social programs, and about nine and a half favoured tax relief. Interestingly enough, 51 calls favoured debt reduction. That says to me this government is on the wrong track, that the majority of Canadians recognize the huge threat to the Canadian economy, indeed to the security of all Canadians, that $600 billion of debt represents.

They recognize it out in the real world and I suggest this government wake up and recognize it not only in the throne speech but in the way it governs this country.

Farmers in Canada will not survive because of government action but because of their own ambition, innovation and initiative. That is the way it has always been, that is the way it will always be. But this government can take some leadership, show some vision and help the farmers not only in my riding but across the nation to achieve their goals, and it is not doing it.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech of the 36th Parliament I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will do a fine job in overseeing the sometimes rowdy debates which take place here.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker, the hon. member for Niagara Centre, on for his election to that post, as well as the assistant Speakers from Edmonton Southwest and Saint—Lambert. I am sure they will all do a wonderful job and do honour to this place.

I would also like to congratulate the other 300 MPs who were elected to Parliament on June 2 which will bring a wide divergence of opinion in this place and across the land. However, that does not detract from the fact that we have one common goal, which is to represent our constituents as best we can. Congratulations to all members of Parliament.

I noted with some sadness that yesterday we heard of our first vacancy of the 36th Parliament created by the resignation of my colleague, Sharon Hayes, the past member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. She will be sorely missed.

As is customary in making the first speech of a Parliament, I want to begin by paying tribute to my riding and my constituents.

I have been honoured three times in 1997. It has been a pretty good year for me. On January 18, knowing that an election was in the air the Reform Party in the riding of Prince George—Peace River held a nomination meeting to choose a candidate and I was chosen by acclamation. Some would say, surprise, surprise. What is the big surprise in that? Those people would be somewhat ignorant of the procedure in the Reform Party of Canada. Two of my colleagues from the 35th Parliament learned that in the Reform Party every nomination is an open process. As a result of that process, we now have two rookie MPs sitting in the Chamber.

I thank the Reformers of Prince George—Peace River for allowing me to carry our banner through a third election campaign.

Second was the huge honour bestowed on me by the electorate in Prince George—Peace River. Fully two-thirds of the men and women who chose to cast a ballot on June 2 voted for me and the Reform Party. It is my pledge to them today to continue to build on the experience that I gained during the last Parliament, to continue to work as hard as they do and continue to work toward my goal of becoming the best MP possible in representing my constituents here in Ottawa.

I would like to digress for a moment and speculate on the increase in support that was given to me because even though I was very pleased and honoured to be supported by about 56 percent of the electorate in the 1993 election, that grew to somewhere close to 67 percent on June 2.

Maybe not a lot of people in the House know that 13 Reform MPs out of a caucus of 60 had 60 percent support or over at the polls on June 2. Almost half of our caucus received 50 percent or more. I am sure members know how hard, in Canada's multiparty system, it is to get a majority win.

I would ask members who were present last time to reflect back on the 35th Parliament. Reform was constantly accused by the government and the two other old parties of being a one election anomaly. We were, supposedly, a protest vote. “You won't be back” echoed in these chambers. No more. We are back, bigger and stronger than ever. A third of our caucus are fresh recruits eager to join the veterans in the verbal battle in this place.

The third honour I had was when the Reform leader asked me to be the chief agricultural critic in the official opposition shadow cabinet. In addition, my colleague from Fraser Valley, the official opposition whip, asked me to serve as his deputy.

Despite the fact that some of my colleagues started calling me the half-whip, I consider it to be an honour to serve in those two capacities. In the weeks and months ahead, I will endeavour to live up to the expectations and trust that these people have shown in me.

In the three minutes that I see are remaining in this, my maiden speech, I want members present to be assured they can look forward to many more great speeches by me in this place over the next four years.

Now I turn my attention to the throne speech. Never in the history of throne speeches has so much been said about so little to so few. If members recall the throne speech—it is quite a while ago—it seemed that even the Prime Minister appeared to be having trouble staying awake.

From an agricultural perspective I will be blunt. I think the throne speech was absolutely pathetic. It very clearly showed that the government is picking up where it left off in April, ignoring the needs of farmers.

While the term aboriginal was heard 17 times during the 51-minute speech, agriculture was mentioned once. I commend the government for its apparent commitment to our country's natives, but other Canadians require attention as well. I say apparent because like most of the rhetoric coming from the government, all is illusion. If money could solve the problems facing native Canadians, it would have done so long, long ago. Where is the vision?

All we find is continued support of the Indian industry, the chiefs, councils, government bodies, the lawyers, the accountants, the consultants but mostly the bureaucrats. It is my contention that DIAND should be renamed the department of Indian and northern dependency.

What about the people? There is no vision for the people. Other people too require some vision, require some leadership from the government. Where is the vision for agriculture to carry this vital industry into the new millennium? It is not there.

[Privilege, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would like to say to other members of this House that I take points of privilege very seriously and have only decided to pursue this course of action after giving it a great deal of thought.

On Tuesday, September 30 the first draw for Private Members' Business in the 36th Parliament was held. A bill that I wished to have in that draw was not eligible because it has not gone through first reading yet. There were very few changes to be made to this bill as it had been submitted in the last Parliament. However two and a half months after I requested it, the bill has not materialized.

My ability to discharge my parliamentary duties has been severely hampered due to the reduction in House staff responsible for the production of private members' bills. Private Members' Business is a means by which public matters the government is not dealing with can be brought forward by private members of this Chamber.

There are 301 members in this House most of whom may wish to have bills drafted, but there are only two legislative counsel on staff plus one on contract to do all the necessary drafting. The support staff who translate, edit and format the bills are not dedicated only to the production of private members' bills. Other House business can take precedence, including for example amendments to government legislation in committee. It is possible that most of their time could be taken up on other business and Private Members' Business would literally grind to a halt.

On July 9 I notified the House that I wished to reintroduce two bills from the last Parliament with minor or no modifications. Because House staff worked a great deal of overtime while the House was sitting, they were on holidays over the summer. This means no one was available to work on these requests for two months. During that time numerous other members also submitted requests for the drafting of private members' bills creating an enormous backlog. At the time of the draw there were around 170 private members' bills in the system with only 23 of them having reached the stage where they could be introduced in the House to be eligible for the draw. That means that there were almost 150 bills tied up in the backlog.

I wish to stress that I am in no way finding fault with the existing staff. To the contrary, they have done an extremely exemplary job under the circumstances and deserve to be commended in the highest manner possible. However despite their best efforts this happens every year and even more so at the beginning of a new Parliament or a new session. The House knows it is going to happen, yet this dire state of Private Members' Business has not been addressed. The inadequate resources devoted to private members' bills especially at peak periods adversely affects the ability of all members of this House to perform their parliamentary duties.

I would request that the House immediately allocate additional resources so this backlog of Private Members' Business can be cleared up as quickly as possible.

I conclude that this is not a point of privilege only for me. It is for all private members in this House.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).

Mr. Speaker, first I want to recognize and thank my hon. colleague from Blackstrap for seconding my bill.

A Reform government would hold a binding national referendum on capital punishment. This Liberal government however refuses the people that much power.

As the next best thing today I introduce a bill to reinstate the death penalty for adults convicted of first degree murder. In addition the bill also imposes a range of stiffer minimum sentences for youths convicted of murder.

Three times in the last Parliament I introduced this legislation and I will continue to do so until the government allows a real free vote on capital punishment where all MPs vote the wishes of their constituents. I believe that once convicted a murderer such as the Abbotsford killer should face a punishment that matches his crimes.

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

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary had the opportunity to speak. I only wish he would answer the question. Looking at the bill it is certainly highly questionable whether the board of directors will ever be able to make the Canadian Wheat Board voluntary.

In addition to CSIS, another government agency not held accountable under access to information is the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary explain how the new board of directors themselves will be held accountable to the farmers who elect them when they will not be able to tell them anything about the top secret Canadian Wheat Board operations?

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, or shall I say the compulsory wheat board. Rather than his monopolistic all or nothing exclusion and inclusion clauses, why does Bill C-4 introduced by the government in this House yesterday not provide western Canadian grain farmers with real freedom of choice in how they market their very own wheat and barley?

[Criminal Code, April 18th, 1997]

Would the hon. Minister of Industry just kindly hold his comments? He had ample time a little while ago to spout all sorts of nonsense for as long as he wanted. Now he is trying to do it again.

I wonder if he would comment on the contradiction between a government that holds itself up as being concerned about victims, concerned about gang violence, concerned about all these things and is rushing this bill through, when in reality that is the furthest thing from the truth. The government is not concerned about victims. That is clearly shown in the legislation it has introduced and passed. That legislation has done little or nothing to benefit the victims of crime and lots to benefit the criminals themselves.

[Criminal Code, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this bill has come forward very quickly. Considerable attention has been paid to this issue in Quebec. Canadians are concerned about the increase in crime, especially violent crime in some cities in Quebec, directly attributable to the actions of gangs, the drug trade, the illegal trafficking in guns, gambling and prostitution, in short, organized crime activities, not only in Quebec but across the nation.

Canadians who are watching the debate today in its abbreviated form are perhaps scratching their heads wondering about the use of section 745. I heard a comment recently about Clifford Olson being the multiple murderer who is hiding behind a rock.

There was a hue and cry across the nation from victims, victims groups and the general public. Organizations like the Canadian Police Association had passed a resolution asking for the repeal of section 745. There seemed to be a genuine consensus that something should be done to prevent this individual who has admitted to the horrible torture, rape and murder of 11 children, from using that section, the so-called faint hope clause and getting another day in court to make his points and revictimize the families of these young children.

I am sure Canadians are wondering how the government can move in such a speedy fashion on a bill such as C-95 and yet pay virtually no attention to section 745 and the cries of victims and victims groups to repeal that section.

In February the judge had no option but to grant Clifford Olson his day in court. He will be flown from Saskatoon to Vancouver on August 18 and the whole country will once again be treated to the spectacle of this predator, this disgusting degenerate, having another day in court.

I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on what I see as a terrible travesty of justice, that something like this could be allowed to happen and it has received virtually no attention.

The government brought in some minor amendments and tried to sell them to the Canadian people by saying that it did not really believe that it should repeal section 745 because there are some people who perhaps deserve early parole. They did not want to cut that off. What we were saying is that 25 years is not too much for the Canadian public to expect first degree murderers to serve.

Polls taken across the country consistently show that about 65 per cent to 70 per cent of Canadians support the return of capital punishment for people like Olson and Bernardo.

Previous governments have been able to sell abolishing capital punishment for these types of animals by telling Canadians that they would serve 25 years. I cannot help but wonder what will happen to someone like Clifford Olson who I am sure the majority of Canadians believe cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated. What happens when his 25 years are up?

We all hope and pray that he will never be eligible for early parole, despite the government allowing him to have the luxury of going through this farce of a section 745 hearing. However, what happens after 25 years? We are not talking here about parole. He will have served his sentence and theoretically he is going to get out because this government has not addressed that type of concern.

Something has to be done to keep these predators locked up forever. They cannot be allowed back into society to select more victims. It cannot happen. We have to find a way to prevent that from happening.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on what I see as a clear contradiction on the part of this government.