Jay Hill

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments about the bill. As he said, this is not the first time we have debated the potential banning of the substance MMT in this Chamber. I am quite appalled, as I am sure he is, that this piece of legislation is back before us in an unamended form.

I would like to quickly point out that it is very unusual for the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada to agree on anything. In this case, we are in agreement that this is a bad piece of legislation. Any time it was to happen that both opposition parties were united in their opposition to a piece of legislation, I would hope the federal government would take note. Maybe some alarm bells would go off and the government would say that maybe there really is something wrong with the legislation. I put that forward for the hon. member's comments.

[Agriculture, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are noted as masters of understatement. Therefore suffice it to say that 1996 will not go down in history as a banner year for agriculture in western Canada.

Farmers in Prince George-Peace River are accustomed to tough years and hard conditions. As someone who has been directly involved in agriculture for most of my life, I am well aware of what a year like this means to a farm family.

After suffering years of low returns the future was finally beginning to look a bit brighter with the improvement of grain prices, but then crop year 1996 came along. A long cold winter and a late wet spring, followed by almost continuous rain over the growing season, have resulted in a dangerously late harvest.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast depend on the successful grain harvest for their livelihood. Farmers not only in my riding but across Canada are struggling to bring in the crop. I ask all colleagues to join with me in wishing them the very best in their endeavours.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I want to ask the hon. member the same question I asked one of his colleagues earlier for which I did not get an answer whatsoever.

When this bill was before the House at report stage, the Reform Party put forward seven specific amendments to better the bill. The thrust of what we were trying to accomplish with those amendments was to make the point that we feel it is crucial that any and all fees are implemented only after a full socioeconomic impact analysis has been carried out, that they reflect the level and cost of the specific service and are discussed and implemented in a fully transparent manner with fully ongoing consultation with affected resource users.

The hon. member mentioned the importance of consultation and that this bill will allow that. Why then would the hon. member's party vote against those amendments?

I asked this question of one of his colleagues earlier and I did not get an answer. I would ask how this member voted and if he knows why his party voted against those amendments which would allow for that consultation.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Delta indicated, the hon. member who just spoke seems to think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am not exactly sure why.

I know time is short for questions and comments. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Reform Party put forward a number of amendments at report stage about which I spoke a few minutes ago. We feel it is crucial that any and all fees brought about by the legislation should not be implemented until a full socioeconomic impact analysis is done.

The member spoke quite eloquently in her presentation about how co-operatively the minister and the government would be in implementing this national strategy. I wonder why her party voted against the amendments which would have made it necessary for the minister and the government to initiate a full impact study before the fees were put in place. The people in her riding involved in the industry would have a say about what the fees would be and whether the fees would would have a positive or negative impact on their industry.

How did she vote? Why did the government members vote against this?

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the comments and critique of the hon. Bloc member on Bill C-26, the oceans act.

In light of the fact that my hon. colleague from Skeena had made a number of amendments, I believe seven, at the time the bill was before the House at report stage, what specifically is different about the amendments the Bloc is bringing forward?

I heard his concern about the fee structure for the coast guard marine services fees. It sounded very reminiscent of the same concerns that were being put forward by my hon. colleague from Skeena at that time, and certainly support his concerns about that section of the bill and the amendments he has brought forward.

Reform was concerned about the dedication of costs to ensure that the costs that were attributed to the provision of certain services were actually documented. Therefore the fees would be structured in such a way as to be specific to those costs being incurred by the government, that they would not go beyond that.

Could the hon. member enlighten me and the House regarding what specifically is different about the amendments being brought forward and debated at this time by the Bloc? What is different from the Reform amendments that were brought forward at report stage, which unfortunately were subsequently defeated in the House?

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1996]

Oh, oh.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech on this important piece of legislation.

I wonder if it would be possible for the member to perhaps clear up a misunderstanding that arose in this House yesterday when we were also debating Bill C-55. The member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was talking about an unfortunate incident in a riding in Canada where there was a dangerous offender released in that community. It was not until the general public got involved in drawing the attention of the authorities to the fact that they did not want this individual loose in their community that something was done and pressure was brought to bear. Eventually Mr. Oatway voluntarily went back to jail in British Columbia.

It is my understanding that Bill C-55 cannot retroactively apply to dangerous offenders, no matter how bad these people are, no matter whether they do not voluntarily undertake treatment while they are incarcerated. It is my understanding that it simply will not apply.

The hon. member from across the way led the House to believe yesterday that it would apply to individuals who are currently incarcerated.

That is a great concern for Canadians at large who understand that we have a lot of inherently evil people presently incarcerated who are coming up for either parole or the end of their terms in jail. They will be released into society.

Can the member shed any light as to whether Bill C-55 is really going to help society in that regard? It is my understanding, once again, that under the present system the crown prosecutor has to apply for the dangerous offender designation at the time of trial, that Bill C-55 will expand that window to be six months after conviction but that it will not apply to anyone who is in the system and has been there for longer since their conviction. I want to know if he agrees with that.

[Canadian Heritage, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the flag giveaway is nothing more than blatant electioneering by this government.

Is it not true that the Deputy Prime Minister thought her reputation was so badly damaged by her broken GST promise that she had to rob $23 million from Canadians to prop it up?

[Canadian Heritage, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many byelections it is going to take for this minister to learn the importance of honesty in politics.

[Canadian Heritage, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has summed herself up quite well over the last two days. She blows $160 million on flags, propaganda and TV advertising while her government taxes books and cuts medicare. Her only response to Canadians is to wave her little list. Canadians deserve a whole lot better from their Deputy Prime Minister.

Let me try again. The minister has been building a list of voters' names from flag order forms. Is that list to be used for Liberal election mail-outs?