Grant McNally

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated listening to the comments from the hon. member to the right. I know he was not here from 1984 to 1993, but his former colleagues were given a strong mandate by the people of Canada to get the House in order and to take some fiscal responsibility with the country. However they continued in the same vein as the previous government they replaced. In fact they went from such large numbers to two, as my hon. colleague mentioned, because of that.

My hon. colleague mentioned a plan of action. His former colleagues were given a plan of action and they did not follow through on it and were reduced to two members.

I just have to ask my hon. colleague how it is that he can talk about the policy of our party when in fact they are not willing to even look at the information and see what it is. To hear half truths and to say something does not mean that it is going to become true.

I would just ask my hon. colleague to take a look at the information and make an informed decision because that is what Canadians across the country are doing. They are taking a look at the facts and past performances and asking for a plan of action and some vision and people are coming to Reform. That is what is happening.

Take a look at the numbers in the House, my hon. colleague, in your caucus and in this caucus. Then we will see what will happen in the next four years.

I will just wrap up my comments and question by asking the regional party to the right what it is that it would propose to do to alleviate taxation in this country and to stimulate the economy. What is its plan because it did not do anything in the nine years it was here previously.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

British Columbia, as well.

[Immigration, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the immigration minister reappointed Stéphane Handfield to an $85,000 a year patronage plum with the IRB. Mr. Handfield was originally appointed to the IRB right out of law school but surprise, surprise, surprise. His mother just happens to be a key Liberal organizer and fundraiser.

Was it Handfield's years of experience in immigration law or was it his mother's long term service to the Liberal Party that won him his $85,000 a year patronage position? Canadians want to know.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for Skeena for the question.

Yes, I would say that there is a definite problem with the system. We are charged by our electorate to make laws in this place. We are accountable to our constituents. However, when we see the application of law such as in this case, there is a imbalance. There should have been a common sense finding, but there was not. More and more Canadians are wondering why such an obvious case was found the way it was.

There is a body of unelected officials interpreting the law and making decisions on the law which more and more seem to be getting away from what the majority of Canadians would find to be reasonable answers. We need to overhaul the system and look at more accountable ways of appointing judges so that they would be held accountable for their decisions. We respect the supreme court, but in cases such as this we have to question the findings of such a decision.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we will support Bill C-16. However, the fact that this bill must be brought forward is a symptom of bigger problems with the entire justice system, as my hon. colleague just mentioned.

We often hear the government saying that things are going well, that crime is down and that things are looking better. That is simply not the case.

In my previous capacity as a teacher, we had an acid test for the sign of a good teacher which was whether we would be willing to put our own child in a classroom with a particular teacher. If we were, then we knew that teacher was a good teacher.

The acid test for Canadians is the effectiveness of the justice system. Is this a case about which Canadians are going to say that is a fine finding and they can live with it? In the Feeney case it is obvious that is not the case.

I do not think that Canadians are feeling any safer today than in the past. There is a great deal of trouble with our justice system and Canadians are telling us that.

The travesty here is that Feeney will walk in this case. As my colleague from Crowfoot mentioned earlier, the community in which Feeney lives is certainly not feeling safer. Those people certainly do not feel that the justice system is working well in their area.

What is troubling in this case is the larger problem of the entire justice system. Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in her dissenting opinion in the Feeney case, stated that the warrantless arrest was justified given that a very violent murder had occurred, that the arrest was made in a field and that it was extremely impractical to obtain an arrest or search warrant. The arrest was in the midst of a fresh pursuit, which was continuous and direct, and there was reasonable fear that the killer would commit further violence. We believe this test should be applicable in all cases.

I would like to tell two short stories about some of my constituents who have told me about the problems they are encountering with the justice system.

One of the stories is about a man whose son, unfortunately, was one of the victims of Clifford Olson. He lives in my community of Maple Ridge, which is the largest city in my riding.

As a young man of 18 I lived in the community in which Olson prowled. That community was Coquitlam. In fact, that very summer I taught a Bible club in the apartment complex where Olson lived. One of Olson's victims was a young man of 18. I was 18. I know the fear that gripped my community when that man committed those heinous acts. It affected not only my community but the surrounding communities and our country as a whole.

I saw the pain and the anguish on a man's face whose life had been changed forever. Mr. Ray King talked to me just before the farcical trial which took place in Vancouver. He told me about all he had been through. His son had been lost. His son had been taken from him. It has ruined his entire life. For 15 years he has remained rather silent but now is starting to speak out for the victims of crime. He is asking for changes to be made to the justice system.

We cannot lose sight of victims. If we do we lose sight of what our justice system is about. It is about the protection of our society. It is about the protection of Canadians.

We saw the lack of foresight and vision when Bill C-45 was introduced by the government in 1996, only eight days before the end of the summer sitting. With further vision and further foresight in correcting the problems of the justice system this could have been brought forward sooner so that Mr. King and the other victims would not have had to go through what happened in Vancouver. They would not have to relive that pain and anguish. It certainly is a sign that there is some trouble with our system.

We support Bill C-16. We support our police. We support their being able to do their job, to have the tools to be able to do their job, to arrest criminals, to protect our society.

I will relate one more short story about one of my constituents who came to tell me his story about the problems he has encountered with the justice system. His father was brutally murdered by his own step-brother in the early 1980s. It was a terrible act, a heinous crime. The individual was convicted of first degree murder. This criminal has been streamed from maximum to medium to minimum security, and now Mr. McGillvary is faced with the fact that the person who committed this crime has been placed in an institution just 20 minutes away from his own home. This inmate, this criminal who committed this act, who had taken Mr. McGillvary's father from him, also threatened Mr. McGillvary's life. Yet now he is placed in an institution just 20 minutes away from his own home in a minimum security institution where there is a great chance he could get away.

There was a case in another minimum security institution setting five minutes from my house a few years back. Inmates left and committed a murder in Seattle. We would hope this is not a place people are going to leave from daily but the fear is there for Mr. McGillvary. He has been through the system to ask for changes. Understandably he is fearful, yet he has been offered counselling services to deal with his irrational fear. I do not see this as irrational. Not at all.

We apply the acid test to that case. What would we do if we were in Mr. McGillvary's case? We would be just as fearful. We ask who holds the keys to the criminal justice system. In Mr. McGillvary's case, he has been told that it would be a problem to transfer this inmate because the inmate could bring a court case against correctional services, a case which he would likely win.

Who holds the keys for where he is going to be? The justice system should have the opportunity to put an inmate where he is deemed to be best placed. We need a balance and the victims need to be remembered. While we support this bill, we point out that the government needs to listen to Canadians and their cries for a substantive overhaul of the criminal justice system, to provide a balance, to provide truth in sentencing, and to restore Canadians' faith in the criminal justice system.

[Goods And Services Tax, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has begun its second mandate with the mission statement “We never met a tax we did not like”.

One of the first times I ever wrote to a politician was to oppose the GST on what was deemed a luxury item, diaper rash cream for my daughter. My daughter is now seven years old and that GST rash is still burning butts across the country. Now the Prime Minister has adopted that diaper rashed baby as his own and Uncle Brian is smiling.

Last week the government stated that it would turn this lemon into lemonade. All the sugar in Canada cannot make GST lemonade sweet enough for any hardworking Canadian to swallow.

We ask what is next. Tainted HST Kool-Aid?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address the comments of my hon. colleague. I thank him for the compliments at the beginning of his comments. I do not thank him for his comments after.

I do not see Mr. Harper today. I guess he was not supported by his people in a re-election bid. The hon. member talked about ramblings and he actually called aboriginals savages. We would have nothing to do with that kind of comment.

He talked about power structures and abuses of former governments. We agree with that. We are looking for a change in the balance. We are listening to rank and file aboriginal people. There are people that are concerned with power structures within their reserves. Not to acknowledge that is to ignore the facts and needs to be addressed. Equality is not a buzzword here. It is something we believe in and it is something we are moving and working toward. That is where our policy lies.

We have treaty advisory committees in British Columbia. I had an opportunity to talk to all the mayors in my riding and they have great concern about the process. Their great concern is because they have a minor part. The municipalities are living hand in hand with the aboriginal communities but they do not have an opportunity to sit down at the table with each other. The process is structured so that they have observer status but not participatory status. They are concerned about that.

When the federal government leaves, the people of both communities are left to work out the relationship between them. We would like to see that addressed so that they would have an opportunity to work together.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

I thank the hon. member for his question.

First, I would look at the leadership versus rank and file aboriginal peoples. We are focusing on the relationship between the two and the fact that while the elected leadership of the area may be in favour of this bill we are looking at the actual process, the actual implementation.

My colleague opposite mentioned returning power to the aboriginal people in the area. We would question, then, why this great bureaucracy, this great number of people involved on the boards from the federal government side? Perhaps we should be turning it over to the local people, with accountability and responsibility being placed on the people within that area, similar to a municipal type of government. That is what my response would be.

It is basically the process we are talking about. The power structure and the implementation of the plan are what we are concerned about. We are not concerned about the intent of the bill. We are concerned about its implementation and its practicality to the people of the area.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House for the first time. I would ask for a little latitude to mention a few things before talking about Bill C-6.

It is certainly an honour to be in the House to represent the good people of Dewdney—Alouette. May I begin by acknowledging the people who chose me to represent them in parliament.

The riding of Dewdney—Alouette encompasses a number of diverse communities which stretch from Pitt Meadows in the west to Mission, to Harrison Hot Springs and to Agassiz in the east. It is a diverse mix of urban and rural settings. For many people in the riding it is the last frontier of affordable housing so that they can work in Vancouver.

The forestry and fishing industries are vital to the economic make-up of the area. I salute the people of those communities involved in that work. It is certainly a beautiful place to visit. I would say it is the most beautiful riding in Canada.

I acknowledge a few of my constituents, in particular a few who live in Mission and those who live right in my house. Those are the most important constituents, my wife Wendy and my children Jordana, Reanne, Kaelin and Graedon. It is this support, as it is for all of us who sit in the House, that make it possible to make this commitment to our country. I thank them personally for that. Family is a very important part of my life. We all make sacrifices to be in the House. Members of all parties appreciate those who are at home supporting us. Family is the life of our country.

It is time for those who have been silent for a long time to get involved. I talked to a number who were disillusioned with the governance of the country. Apathy is at an all time high. People are disillusioned. I believe it is time we restored the commitment of the House to the people of the country.

I am proud to be a member of a party committed to restoring the confidence of people in their government through real structural parliamentary reform. That is where Bill C-6 can be addressed. While it is well intended it does not deal with real structural reforms needed to address the concerns of the Mackenzie Valley.

My own riding has eight bands represented, the Sto:lo nation being the largest in the area. Several bands are part of the Sto:lo nation: the Chehalis, the Douglas, the Katzie, the Lakahahmen, the Samahquam, the Scowlitz, the people of Seabird Island and the people of Skookum Chuck.

As my colleagues have mentioned before when talking about the bill, we recognize the validity of the goals of the legislation and the need to implement commitments made by Canada under land claims agreements. Land and water management and protection of the environment in the Mackenzie Valley are issues of importance both to the residents of the region and to Canadians in general.

Our objection and what I would like to focus on is the creation of another level of bureaucracy as was mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues. I received a phone call during the election campaign from one of my own constituents, a member of the aboriginal community. As my hon. colleague from Skeena mentioned, a co-dependency relationship seems to have been established between the federal government and many aboriginal peoples.

The young lady phoned me and said “I am really tired of the process I have been through. I just want to be a Canadian. I just want to be someone who is treated the same as all other people in Canada”.

Our party's focus on equality and the establishment of equality for aboriginal peoples and all peoples of Canada strikes at the heart of this young lady's comments and a need for real structural change.

When people bring forward legislation they have an idea of what they are doing, at least we hope they do. We argue that the level of bureaucracy to be created would not serve the people of the area well. It would hinder true economic development of the area and the needs of the people there. It is certainly something that needs to be addressed and examined.

Members on this side would like to focus on a new relationship with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, one that focuses on the equality of all Canadians including aboriginal peoples. We have seen and heard from a number of a constituents in ridings across the country of terrible things that have happened in their personal lives. We think about the fact that real people are affected by legislation. We see the effects of legislation on many people in our aboriginal communities and the co-dependent relationship which seems to have developed over the last several decades.

I have spoken with people from aboriginal communities, the rank and file people on different reserves in my riding. People are looking for involvement at the grassroots level and at the governing structure of reserves.

Because the rights of each individual on the reserves are not the same we all know of different stories of people who have been abused. Those are things that need to be addressed. The best way to address them is with fundamental changes, structural changes to the system, the implementation of programs and the implementation of an aboriginal affairs policy that addresses all people of all communities and has a primary function of equality.

Members on this side fully support honouring treaties according to their original intent and court decisions. We also support that aboriginal people be part of the process. We see some trouble with the bill as was mentioned by some of my colleagues before. The levels of bureaucracy would hinder the involvement of rank and file individual people of the Mackenzie Valley. We see the principle of the implementation of the boards as a problem.

The structure of the proposed legislation does not address the real concerns of changing the system to address the needs of individual people. That is where our objections would lie. Many times people will say different things about different groups of people. We fully support aboriginal people.

We look at different people who have come to our offices with troubling circumstances. We shake our heads and wonder how it could have happened. We want to focus on helping all Canadians to achieve equality and to add to this great country.

We support aboriginal people, rank and file individuals who often tend not to have a real voice in their own communities. We see leadership in some bands—not all of course—that does not fully recognize the contributions of all members of the local community.

We object to Bill C-6 on the basis of a number of principles that were mentioned earlier. We look forward to being able to see real parliamentary reform and structural reform in our aboriginal communities to give them a real say at the local level.

As my colleague from Skeena mentioned earlier in his analogy of kingdoms and fiefdoms, the power structure disables the people at the rank and file level from being involved. In essence it shuts down the ability for real involvement by people. It was a very good analogy. We on this side of the House would like to work with the government toward looking at fundamental structural changes for the good of our aboriginal people. The equality of all Canadians is important.

Another person I did not mention or thank at the beginning of my speech whom I would like to thank now is not with us. It is my father. He was a veteran. He served the country and fought in World War II. He really instilled a sense of democracy in me personally. We had many debates about freedoms and democracies. I saw the scars and the pain he carried with him from the horrors of war, the things he saw and had to endure. In fact he lost many of his friends. Even 50 years after the fact tears would well up in his eyes as he thought back to the friends and mates he had lost in the war.

The battles fought by our veterans were for the equality of all Canadians, so that all people would have a say. That is the principle for which he and his colleagues fought.

We would like to see that implemented. We would like to see expressed equality for all Canadians and our aboriginal people who have not had that full opportunity, the full rights and privileges as all other citizens of Canada have had.

I will close by restating our concern for the aboriginal communities and the fact that in Canada we would like to see equality for all people, to bring about a healing, to bring about concern for all people, to help solve the injustices of the past which previous structural policies have put in place. It is time for a change, as my hon. colleague mentioned, not a time to go down the same road. It is time to address these factors of equality and that all Canadians are equal before the law.

The Mackenzie Valley is a great area, part of a great country. While legislation can be well intended, we see structural problems with the implementation of these boards. We need to have that in place in order for it to work well and it needs to be right before implementing it. That is where my main objection lies.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for listening intently to my comments. It is an honour and a privilege to be here and I hope I have many opportunities to speak on different bills.

[Goods And Services Tax, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that because he wants to adopt the tax as his own. In fact the Prime Minister tells the world he loves the GST and yesterday he actually said “We introduced it”. He wants to take credit for it.

Which Prime Minister should hardworking Canadians and hardworking taxpayers believe: the 1993 version who hated the GST, or the 1997 version who tells the world how much he loves it?