Jay Hill

[Criminal Code, December 13th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Criminal Code (summary conviction penalties).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to summary convictions.

Earlier this year the Minister of Justice introduced sentencing reforms but he did not go far enough. Many charges that should not be are all too frequently plea bargained down to summary convictions.

This bill provides for the maximum imprisonment on summary conviction to be increased from six months to two years. For minor offences a judge could still hand down a short sentence but for more serious crimes he or she could give up to two years.

Criminals need to be sent a message that the judge has the discretion to send them up the river for a two year stay at the Crowbar Hotel.

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

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said Canadians should look at the quality of people that he has appointed. The one thing all his patronage appointments do have in common is their close personal friendship with the Prime Minister.

LeBlanc, Gauthier, Bryden, Nixon, Carstairs, Wright, Longstaffe and Stevenson. Mr. Speaker, it is like a roll call for Santa's reindeer. In fact Rudolph would probably get a patronage appointment because of his red nose.

My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the continued use of partisan patronage compatible with the red book promise of integrity in government?

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal gravy train is still chugging along. Its latest stop is at the Rene Cousineau station. The former Liberal MP

and close personal friend of the Prime Minister has just been appointed to the Canadian Pension Commission. For this privilege Canadian taxpayers will now be paying Mr. Cousineau a paltry $86,000 a year.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said that all his appointments would be based on merit alone? If so, how is Liberal patronage any different from Tory patronage?

[Northern Tax Allowance, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the solution to our growing debt is not to increase revenues but to reduce government expenditures.

Northerners use a greater percentage of their disposable income for the bare essentials of food, shelter and clothing than do Canadians living further south. Northerners must pay more for food because it has to be trucked over longer distances. They pay more for fuel to heat their homes over the longer, colder winters. They pay more for medical care and education when they send their children south to specialists or universities.

We know the Minister of Finance is looking for easy tax grabs to fund continued overspending. Although it does not begin to compensate for all the differences, the northern residence deduction helps offset some of these additional costs.

On behalf of all northerners I ask the Minister of Finance to carefully consider the positive impact this tax deduction has provided toward assisting northerners to meet their basic needs.

[Criminal Code, December 5th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal Code (use of a firearm in the commission of or attempt at an offence).

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley West for seconding introduction and first reading of the bill.

Today it is my pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. It will increase the minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime to five years.

Canadians are demanding stiffer sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms but the recently proposed four-year mandatory sentence of the justice minister is only restricted to 10 offences and is not consecutive.

He is merely introducing a minimum sentence for four years for these crimes, and with parole it may be less. Although the tougher sentences in his reaction plan are a step in the right direction the bill would go even further. It would make the minimum five-year sentence consecutive to any other sentence and would apply to any accomplices who had access to the firearm during the crime or attempted crime whether or not the gun was fired.

Canadians want deterrents and I believe the bill would provide some.

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

[Firearms, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a young man in my riding had his .22 stored under the seat of his truck as the current storage regulations call for. When he lent his truck to a friend who was stopped for speeding the young owner was charged with lending a firearm to someone who did not have a valid FAC. This can be an indictable offence punishable by up to two years in jail.

While it seems harder to get a straight answer from this minister than it is blood from a stone, would he care to comment on the gross inequity whereby a criminal possessing stolen or prohibited firearms receives a slap on the wrist yet this young man is facing a criminal record because he lent his truck to a friend?

[Firearms, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, immediately after firearms were stolen from a store in B.C. a man arrested with them was only charged with possession of stolen property. For this he received a six-month jail term. In Ontario an individual apprehended with a fully automatic sub-machine gun received a $1,000 fine.

Could the Minister of Justice explain to Canadians demanding sentences that would prove to be a real deterrent why the penalty for the theft of firearms or the possession of prohibited weapons is so lenient under the government?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-50 and the amendments. In particular, I would like to address my comments to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. First I would like to go back a little bit and share with the House my history of involvement with a check off program in the riding I am pleased to represent.

One position I held prior to being elected to this exalted place was with an organization called the B.C. Grain Producers Association. I was a founding member of the organization. I was the first vice-president when it was first formed and subsequently became president of that organization. Over the years, as any struggling organization does, we had to try and sell memberships and raise money to keep the organization running. We had a number of ongoing projects.

One we always wanted to get involved in was in the area of varietal trials and research at local levels. There were always problems with the government operated research farms in areas that did not necessarily conduct research applicable to the Peace River region of British Columbia. We wanted to carry that

research one step further by conducting trials in our area on a field scale.

Over a number of years we came up with a plan to lobby the provincial government to allow the B.C. Grain Producers Association to enact a check off that would automatically come off producers' cheques at the time their product was delivered to the elevators. This check off is now in place and has been for a number of years. It is working quite well, I might add.

I would like to address some concerns that have been raised by my colleague from Vegreville and other members. One real strength of the operation of the check off in the B.C. Peace has been that it is local and is administered at a local level. In other words, the farmers have the option of electing councillors to a regional council that oversees how the money is spent. The problem my colleague from Vegreville mentioned was that once you go beyond that and have a bureaucracy in some distant place administering the money, there is concern with the local producers that they lose control of how that money is spent and whether they get the best bang for the buck, so to speak.

Local producers supported the check off because they could visibly see how their money was being spent. As we moved forward and were able to purchase specialized equipment for plots to expand different varieties of wheat, barley, canola and other grains, we could readily drive by the fields in our area and see how different varieties were producing in comparison to one another. That was a real benefit to the producers.

Subsequently we found that there were very few people who opted out at the end of the year because the check off was and is fully refundable. However, what we found, because it was a local organization, was that at our annual meetings we could certainly do a good selling job to the local producers of what they were getting for their investment. Subsequently we found that very few wanted their money back out of the check off pooling fund.

I am certainly in support of the fact that this check off is totally refundable, as is the one in B.C. However, I am very concerned about the process. I think that is addressed in amendment No. 4 put forward by my colleague and the amount of the extra paperwork. In other words, make it as easy as possible for farmers to opt out of it because after all if it is not easy for them to get their money out they will view this as just another form of taxation, just another expense for them. They have to be convinced to see it as an investment in their future.

All of us in the agricultural industry certainly understand that we have to have and have to find the funds in these days of increasing problems with the government funds being available for research and development. We have to find them elsewhere. Producers are willing to do that as long as they can see the results. To do that we certainly want to pass amendment No. 4 which would allow that there would be as little paperwork as possible to allow the producers to opt out should they decide they are not getting the best investment for their dollar.

The other thing I would like to briefly touch on is the amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie in allowing certain groups that already have a check off in place an exemption from it. We had concerns when we were holding meetings in our area of the B.C. Peace region trying to convince producers to come on board and support this thing. We actually had to pass a referendum of the producers before the B.C. government would pass the legislation to allow that check off. They insisted, and rightly so, that the producers supported the concept. To do that the B.C. Grain Producers Association had to go out and hold meetings and actually convince the farmers of the necessity of this and that it would certainly be worthwhile over the long haul.

We did that but one of the real concerns that was expressed to us time and time again was if we vote in favour of this what is to prevent next time another check off by the Canadian Wheat Board or the prairie wheat growers and the list could go on and on. That was the major concern that they voted for with the understanding that there would be no further check offs.

I am quite insistent that we should oppose amendment No. 5 put forward by the member for Mackenzie because it does allow those areas that already have an existing check off the option of trying to get the exemption and not having a double check off put in place.

With that bit of history with my involvement with the check off I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a western farmer it is a special privilege to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-57. This bill as has already been noted provides the legislation to follow through on Canada's commitment to participate in establishing the World Trade Organization. I am pleased to support this legislation.

For farmers who have struggled through many years of depressed grain prices caused by the grain subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States, the completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations last spring after more than seven years of seemingly endless negotiations was as welcome as the first spring rain.

While all of us recognize that this agreement is just another step toward the ongoing liberalization of international trade regulations and not the end of the process, we must not forget it is a very important step for Canada and the other signatory countries. As I have said Canadian grain producers in particular applaud this step because it at least brings the world a little closer to restoring some sanity to the international grain trade.

The establishment of the World Trade Organization as the successor to GATT is especially encouraging. For the first time against the powerful lobbying efforts of the European farmers the GATT negotiations included agriculture. The dispute settling mechanism and appeals process is a long awaited ray of hope for Canadian farmers. So much for the good news. Does this bill go far enough to eliminate the trade distorting inefficiencies in our agricultural sector?

My oldest daughter turned 16 today. I wonder what the future holds for her and other potential farmers. If she chooses to stay in agriculture, without restructuring our programs will she and other Canadian farmers be able to survive in the next century?

Although it is a good first step the Uruguay round just touches a fraction of the unfair subsidies our farmers face in the international marketplace. Bill C-57 amends 31 statutes toward the implementation of GATT. However it fails to achieve the spirit and the intent of GATT which is the elimination of trade distorting policies built over decades of government interference in the market.

What has this government done with the bill? Instead of a complete overhaul of the agriculture programs to create a truly internationally competitive industry, this government is doing the absolute minimum to be in compliance with GATT. It looks at GATT green programs but does not touch them even if they create a further distortion in our domestic market. It looks at the Western Grain Transportation Act for example which is not GATT green and searches for an easy out to redesign WGTA just enough to make it less objectionable to the international marketplace.

Canada has been blessed with some of the finest agricultural land in the world. Due to a combination of factors such as the short growing season and the long distance to potential markets our prairie grain farmers face unique conditions that influence their decisions on what to grow, how much to grow and where to send it.

The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 to provide some stability as well as equity of prices and export market shares to the grain producers spread across the prairies. Because of the size of its purchases this virtual monopoly has led to a system of dependency and distortion.

Lately the Canadian Wheat Board appears to be moving far beyond its traditional mandate as a central marketing agency for Canadian farmers. Just as Canada Post competes with private courier services, we now find the Canadian Wheat Board operating in direct competition with grain trading companies.

While the establishment of the CWB may have been necessary to ensure the survival of Canadian grain farmers when it was first set up, we live in a different world today. As GATT reduces agricultural subsidies in other countries we cannot afford inefficiencies in our marketing and transportation system if we want to be successful internationally.

We have all read the news. Entrepreneurial farmers in border zones are prevented from trucking their grain a short distance south across the border. Instead they must sell their export grains to the CWB which will probably load it on a freight train and ship it thousands of miles to a Canadian port.

About 90 per cent of the grain produced by Canadian farmers is exported. We must remain internationally competitive if we are to keep our market share. However, we are not playing on a level field. Domestically, grain transport subsidies have distorted the costs of production and delivery to our markets and internationally, producer subsidies abound.

Over the last few years Canadian grain producers were caught in the middle of the subsidy war between the U.S. and the European Community. They have poured billions of dollars into their war in an effort to steal each other's market shares but they only succeeded in driving international grain prices down to levels not seen since the depression.

Despite Canada pouring billions of dollars into aid for grain and oilseed producers, thousands of grain farmers still went bankrupt. In addition to the billions spent directly on stabilization and insurance programs for farmers, the government also spends over $700 million a year in grain freight subsidies to the railway companies through the Western Grain Transportation Act.

Under the WGTA the federal government pays the railways an annual subsidy on a dollars per tonne basis to cover the transportation of eligible grain from prairie shipping points to Thunder Bay, Churchill, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. As a result of GATT's analysis of our transport subsidies, Thunder Bay is not subject to the GATT sanctions but the western ports and Churchill are.

Already, valuable rail cars are tied up backhauling grain from Thunder Bay merely so the grain qualifies for the subsidy. Does this make sense? Yet this government's minister of agriculture has indicated it may take him until next summer to halt this ridiculous practice.

Because only the WGTA payments for grain transport to the west coast and Churchill have been deemed export subsidies by the GATT community, this means we will have to substantially reduce export shipments of grains and oilseeds through these ports within the next few years. In addition to a volume reduction, a portion of the total tonnage would also be assessed at the full freight rate.

This creates yet another distortion in our agriculture transport sector. There will be a major incentive for detouring grain shipments through Thunder Bay. This is despite the fact that grain markets have changed and the Pacific rim countries constitute a growing share of our grain market and it is the western ports that will be subject to the volume caps. Even though some of the grain going to Thunder Bay is also destined for export, the GATT has deemed those WGTA payments part of the domestic support program and not subject to GATT sanctions and countervailing measures by other countries.

Considering two of the targeted ports are in British Columbia, I question the fairness of this section of the agreement. British Columbians overwhelmingly rejected the Charlottetown accord because of the special status awarded to some citizens and

provinces. This is merely another example of special status being granted to central Canada.

Signatories to the GATT have agreed that by the year 2000-01 they will reduce their export subsidy levels by at least 36 per cent in dollar terms and by 21 per cent in volume terms below the 1986 to 1990 average levels.

The 36 per cent target does not eliminate major subsidies to our competitors. Instead the export subsidy reductions are tied directly to average support levels during the height of the grain subsidy war between the U.S. and the EEC. At that time subsidies for some European grain exports reached levels at least twice the price of the product. Reducing these subsidies by 36 per cent would still leave a subsidy in place worth more than the cost of the grain, hardly what I would call a level playing field for Canadian farmers.

We cannot afford to tinker with our subsidy programs in the hopes that they might comply with future GATT agreements. We must act now to eliminate disincentives inherent in our system which prevent more efficient handling and transport of grains. We must act now to give farmers the information and tools necessary to make sound management decisions based on real market prices and transportation costs.

Given a fair chance I believe Canadian farmers can compete successfully on the world market. However we must go much further than this bill does when it merely modifies our programs to meet with current international approval. As subsidies are brought down over time we must restructure all of our programs to prevent more internal distortions from creeping into the domestic decision making process.

[Health, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker since 1986 thousands of cattle in Great Britain have contracted what is commonly known as mad cow disease.

Mad cow disease has an incubation period of up to eight years and can be detected only in its advanced stages. There is no evidence that it can be spread by animal to animal contact, but to be safe Agriculture Canada started banning the importation of cattle from the U.K. in 1990.

Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada without being screened for HIV. Although many years can pass before HIV carriers develop full blown AIDS, the virus is readily detectable by a cheap, effective blood test.

Is it not in the best interests of the immigrants themselves and their families, as well as the Canadian public, for them to know if they are carrying the deadly HIV virus?

In light of the vote taken two hours ago on Motion No. 285, it is now apparent that Agriculture Canada's concern for the health of Canadian cattle is greater than the health minister's concern for the health of the Canadian people.