Howard Hilstrom

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 28th, 1998]

Given that veterans of Canada's Merchant Navy who served in World War II do not receive the same benefits as veterans of the army, navy and airforce, what actions, if any, has the Minister of Veterans Affairs taken to make equal benefits available to Merchant Navy veterans?

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the last member speaking from the government side was from the Eglinton—Lawrence riding. I also believe that is a member who called out no when there was a request for a votable motion here today.

Listening to his comments and remarks with regard to this motion, it borders absolutely on being anti-police. It was nothing more than a self-serving discussion, a brag of what is perceived to be great accomplishments in the area of crime fighting and support for our police forces and peace officers.

This is a very important motion and I do not intend to dwell on the kind of speech I heard. The mover of this motion has devised an important motion for all of us in Canada because there is no one in this country who is not either related to a police officer, has been served by a police officer or has supported police officers as they go about trying to do their work.

As such, I can assure the member that the Reform Party totally supports his motion and that it should have been allowed to be a votable motion. A special day should be set aside for these people who serve our communities so well.

In my comments today I will not go over the slightly more technical, historical, chronological events that have occurred to bring this about. I would like to expand a bit on the human face that was put on this motion by the presenter and just expand a bit on his comments in support of him.

As members know, I am a former police officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have attended these memorial functions, not in Ottawa here on the Hill but in other divisions, and attended the funerals of members slain on the duty days when they went to work not expecting anything unusual.

Who are these police officers who serve in front of us every day in uniform and in plain clothes? They started out as boys and girls in our high schools thinking about the occupation they would like to take up. The ones who lean toward public service, toward helping their fellow man, recognize right from wrong, these are the people who have traditionally joined police forces across this country.

I speak of all police officers and peace officers designated by the various provincial and federal statutes and who serve with every municipality, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Surete, the Ontario Provincial Police.

Of course we should not forget either those members of yesteryear police forces that are no longer in existence. Those members also gave up their lives on occasion for the Canadian public and the Canadian good.

These young boys and girls graduated from high school in days past and currently graduate from university and then continue on to police work. They do not realize at the time they go into police work the full extent to which they are dealing with the most unpredictable animal on the face of the earth. That happens to be a human being.

These people go into cadet training and training at the RCMP academy full of idealism, hope and a sense of service, little expecting and little knowing what lies ahead. While they are in training they begin, through the studying of the Criminal Code and the training programs they go through where instructors start to speak of the reasons why they are hammering home self-defence and the law, to fully understand their rights and authorities in carrying out their duties.

This is done for two reasons. One is obviously so that the maximum quality of service can be given to Canadians, and the second is for the protection of those peace officers as they go about their duties.

It is certainly a concern of mine that these future members of our police forces not be lulled into a false sense of security through government propaganda about all the protection they are going to get out of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, that they will somehow know before going into a dangerous situation, a family dispute or whatever, that so and so is not the owner of any guns or in possession of any firearms. That is not true and I sincerely hope that the trainers of these young police officers do not put forward the government's propaganda with regard to Bill C-68.

I was putting a human face on these young police officers, that first patrol when they are first assigned to their duties, whether it is walking in the tough end of a city or driving their first patrol car at night. As they pull over that first car for a spot check or attend that first alarm indicating the possibility of criminals in a building, their hands start to sweat a bit and there is a knot in their stomach. They know at that point that their safety is not guaranteed and cannot be guaranteed. Relying on their training and knowing they have in essence volunteered to put themselves on the line on behalf of the rest of us so we can sleep safely at night, they proceed along with their duties taking the best precautions possible but knowing they cannot protect against everything.

As they go through their service in the police force they end up doing specialized duties such as highway patrol duty, traffic duty. They are exposed to more dangers than just firearms, knives and being assaulted. They are subject to contamination from blood and other bodily fluids at different scenes.

When a member is killed on duty a terrible situation obviously arises for the family, and there is always family. These people need a place to go from year to year for the rest of their lives to make sure they can see their son or daughter is being recognized. Such a place is in Ottawa, such a place is in their home provinces and towns. It would be really nice if there were one day that everyone could point to as being the day that recognizes their sons' and daughters' contribution to Canada.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-12.

I happen to have been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when we were sending members over to dangerous situations in foreign countries. Bosnia and Namibia come to mind. At that time we survived on the good graces of the solicitor general and the government in that if something did happen to one of us while we were over there, the government would stand behind us and our families.

I and my party certainly support Bill C-12. It will ensure that members of the force and their families are taken care of in the event of a tragedy.

We can certainly look at the performance and the service the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has provided to Canada since 1873. This year is the 125th anniversary. The service overseas in foreign countries, the latest one being Haiti, is a good example of the dedication these men and women from every province provide in serving their country.

Today there has been a lot of talk about Quebec and the Northwest Territories. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is well positioned and very prominent in those provinces in enforcing federal statutes.

There are no problems with Bill C-12 itself. There are some issues surrounding the peacekeeping and peacemaking role which Canada has assumed. For the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, there is always the question if they are injured or hurt whether or not the compensation will come automatically through the pension and benefit scheme, or whether they will have to fight for the rights and the benefits if some disagreement arises. This was raised earlier.

The member, the member's estate or the family must receive a commitment from the government that it will pay the family to hire their own lawyer as opposed to being appointed one by the Canada pensions benefit scheme. A lawyer who was appointed would obviously have a conflict of interest in whether he takes the government's side or the member's side. That is definitely a concern.

Another issue which has been of concern is very evident in the case of Haiti. Our Canadian military pulled out of that country by agreement. Our policemen were left there. The question was whether or not they had adequate medical services after the Canadian military left. I raised this in question period but I did not get a satisfactory answer. There is no doubt the health services officer for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did go to Haiti. I believe the RCMP will ensure that the government does provide proper care for its members.

There is also the problem of members being exposed to strange diseases or chemicals. We have seen this happen in countries that harbour those kinds of weapons. There is concern that these members be taken care for their lifetime. Perhaps this falls under the policy but I would have to look further into the pension act. I raise this to indicate everything is not as simple as a policeman going to a foreign country, coming back home and expecting everything to be all right.

There is another point the government did not mention today. There are police officers from non-RCMP forces such as city police forces, and provincial forces from Ontario and Quebec going to foreign countries. During our committee hearings we did not have anyone attend from these police forces or provincial governments to indicate whether or not those officers would have adequate benefits, for example compensation and medical care, if they were injured or killed.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being taken care of but I do question whether police from the city of Toronto for example have medical benefit coverage for 24 hours a day. The government would be wise to look at this issue. When a city police officer is asked to go to a foreign country, the issue of health benefits should be discussed to avoid the government being sued in order that non-RCMP officers can get compensation.

When a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police goes overseas to one of the specially designated areas, the RCMP detachment from which he came is left with a vacant position. There is no backfilling of the position for the period the peacekeeper is away, which is usually six months. It causes a problem in the community which is short an officer for that length of time.

There is special funding available under the peacekeeping initiatives. The RCMP is being paid from government funds for the cost of the member while he is on peacekeeping duties. The question I have for the government is if the position is empty, is the budget still receiving the money for that officer's salary and benefits?

This is not a problem for the RCMP. I raise it for the government to clarify that the Canadian taxpayer is not paying for that position twice, once through the peacekeeping initiative and again through the budget of the RCMP.

There have been occasions in the past when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was able to leave positions open in a provincial contract. The way it is worked out financially, there is a cost saving. It saves the province money and it saves money in the RCMP's budget. This helps it come in on budget or a little under budget, and it certainly is good for the commanding officer when he can show the government that we was able to save money in a given year.

The primary thing in Bill C-12 and for our communities in Canada is the safety of the members who are overseas and compensation if they are injured in dangerous situations. That is the paramount issue. For the people at home, the paramount issue is that we maintain safety and security at a reasonable cost.

I would like to close by commenting once again on what a tremendous job the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other city police forces have done over the years. I wish them well as they continue with further peacekeeping missions in the future.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a pleasure to walk down to that other place to receive a blessing of sorts for duties that we do here.

I would like to finish off with the education theme. The basic concept is that money has to be spent in the most efficient, effective way possible. The things we are doing in Canada and in the government should not be simply for our political benefit. We should be doing things for our constituents and our provinces that are in their best interest.

In the case of education, the best interest of Manitoba as I was explaining—I will not speak for other provinces—would be to have that money flow directly to the provincial government as opposed to being put through the millennium fund or through other federal government programs that require duplication of administration, extra boards, extra audits and those kinds of things.

The priorities in government spending can be seen differently by different parties, but some basic truths and beliefs should always be adhered to. One of those is that if we spend ourselves into a big hole and get into big debt over the years, at some point we will have to get out of it. The province of Manitoba has taken its budget and shown the way for the federal government. It has done this by attacking the debt at the start of a budget surplus or a balanced budget.

By doing a front end attack on debt the amount of interest that has to be paid at the start is lowered. The government seems to want to do it at the end. Things change over the years and maybe it will never get done.

I would like to comment on the Manitoba budget, not because it is a perfect budget but because of the instruction it can give to the House. I understand Manitoba's debt is around $6.8 billion. The provincial government put $150 million against the debt in its last budget some few months ago. It kind of promised, as did this government, to do something about the debt. In fact it had promised $75 million toward the debt. It doubled that because of the compound effect of paying off the debt.

When the compound effect of the extra $75 million was factored in over the 30 year debt repayment plan it was worth $300 million and knocked nine months of payments off the books. Hon. members will notice that it has an actual plan. It is not just some promise that it is maybe going to happen or that it will work out.

That type of investment, if members want to look at it like that, will pay big dividends in the area of social programs, education, health or any of the things as I explained earlier are the basis of society and have to be in place for anything else to work.

At the present time interest on the debt is costing Manitobans about $520 million every year, which works out to $450 per person. If we did not have to pay the interest and that money were left in the hands of Manitobans, most people would spend it and the first thing we know jobs would be created and everybody would be better off.

I was pleased to speak on a couple of points. I hope the government in future budgets will take heed of our words.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the last speaker I certainly do not intend to be supporting the budget implementation act. The problems with it are quite massive. However, we cannot deal with everything at one time in one speech; 10 minutes is just too little.

There are good things in the budget but there are a lot of things that could have been done differently, that could have been done properly, that could have been done in keeping with what the provincial governments around Canada would like to have seen.

The duplication and the wasted money were just dripping from the last member's speech. I could see it and feel it. I believe that had this budget been properly prepared we would see a lot of benefits going to Canadians in actual dollars that are now going to be wasted.

I would like to deal with education for a minute since that was a topic recently brought up. We have in Canada two essential elements to our society that are really the basis for everything else. Those two elements are health and education. Without a good solid health program properly financed, people are not capable of working, and without education they will not know how to do the job in the new economy that has developed after the industrial revolution.

The federal government has great taxing powers and is able to use those tax powers to take a lot of money from all of us. That is not a bad thing in itself because some provinces certainly need a bit more help than others. However, when the federal government takes money away from taxpayers and from provinces, as it flows through Ottawa a certain amount is going to stay in administrative fees, in commissions, regulations and all kinds of things. In this balanced budget the funding for education was to go through the hands of the federal government.

I have made a point of speaking in Manitoba with students, provincial politicians, municipal politicians, teachers and average citizens. There is absolutely no doubt that to benefit all students in this country the money for education should not have gone into this millennium fund, this $2 billion, $3 billion, I cannot remember the exact figure now that we start talking billions of dollars.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, certainly there have been some examples of this kind of decision making by judges that has adversely affected law enforcement.

One of the most recent examples was the requirement for police officers to obtain a warrant to arrest someone they knew had committed a crime. The officers would approach the house and see the offender's car parked there. They would go to the door and his boots and hat would be sitting inside. His wife would be there and they would see the bathroom door closed. The officers knew the suspect was there but could not go inside to arrest him. They had to try to get a warrant and come back later. Of course when they returned he was gone.

The judges making decisions that result in new law is a serious concern. We have seen a couple examples recently where provincial government justice ministers were talking about the primacy of parliament being usurped by the courts. In fact, they are being pressured so heavily and so badly that they are considering using the notwithstanding clause of the constitution in order to have some control over judges.

Judges have to be independent. However, parliament is the rule of law of the land and judges come under parliament. It seems like parliament is becoming second place, which forces us into the use of a club, the notwithstanding clause, to swat a little mosquito.

The comments I am making regarding the accountability of judges are that while they are independent they must be accountable to someone. They cannot be a law unto themselves. If things continue the way they apparently have over the past years, eventually parliament will have to come up with a radical surgical solution to correct the situation.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I lived through that personally. Over those six years I did see the morale of the people working for me decline seriously. It will recover a little bit now.

It is not only the serving uniformed members that cause a drop in the policing on our streets. The government is failing to take care of the non-uniformed people, the public servants who still have not had a raise. These are the people with the lower salaries I was talking about earlier. Their poor morale reflects up to the members. The members' poor morale reflects to the general public. There are more complaints against the members. Everything the government should have done it did not do over the past two or three years and now we are in the situation of trying to fix everything.

There is no real change in the government's attitude. It is still one of keeping the rich and elite happy and letting the little guys fight for themselves.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to continue on with the facts on a bill and the fact that the government tends to waste a lot of money and does not have its priorities straight.

In addition to the issues my hon. friend raised, we also have a serious street gang problem. There is organized crime. Pedophiles are out on the streets. Some jails are filled to overflowing. Priorities are all around this government and it fails to recognize them.

In the last Parliament the government had the great idea of bringing in useless Bill C-68, the firearms act. It spent millions and probably billions in the end. We are going to need all these judges plus a few hundred more in order to handle the court cases that will come from that.

When the government gets the priorities wrong, it has a snowball effect all the way down. It ruins a lot of good things in society which could have benefited by the government setting its priorities properly.

I agree. The government should set its priorities better. It should spend the money better. Let us get on with making Canada a better place.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-37. It deals with the salary and the annuity benefits for our judges along with establishing a judicial benefits and compensation commission. It also authorizes additional appeal court and unified family court judges.

I believe that judges should get a raise and that the increases in the number of judges are probably justified according to the government's recommendations. We cannot always believe all the statistics, as was recently seen in the firearms act trial in Edmonton. However I will believe them this time that we could use more family court judges.

A government's legislative actions should always reflect a consistent and fair approach to everyone in the public sector. I agree that judges' pay should be set by an independent council. However their salaries are the ultimate responsibility of Parliament. The setting of salaries can be delegated by the government but once again ultimate responsibility and accountability rests with the government.

I find it hard to support this bill because judges are getting a much larger raise than those employees on the lower rungs of the public service who make $30,000 a year. Public service employees will get maybe a 2% raise which is around $600 on $30,000. Previous governments have taken and the current federal Liberal government takes a very extremist view on these kinds of issues. They prefer to take care of the higher echelons and forget the little people who are trying to get pay equity and a better raise to feed their families.

The independent pay council is of concern to me. I refer to it as independent but I do not think that is quite the word when I look at its make-up. The council should be made up of more middle income people who could better reflect what the average person sees is a justifiable salary for judges. They would be more inclined to give raises in keeping with what the rest of society is collecting.

I am not talking about the gross amount paid. Certainly judges have a very responsible job in society. A salary in the $140,000 range is very acceptable. It is the times that count. It is the percentage of the raise that the average person gets compared to the percentage of the raise that those in the upper strata of society get that is the problem. I will probably get a question later on about members of Parliament on that issue and I feel the same way about members of Parliament. We should not be setting ourselves above the average person who is struggling to make a living in Canada today.

Let us look at the judicial compensation and benefits commission. Under section 26.1(1), one person will be nominated by the judiciary, one person will be nominated by the Minister of Justice and one chairperson will be nominated by the first two nominees. If any member can convince me that is going to be an independent committee, I would like to have a long discussion with that member.

In addition we certainly do not need to appoint five people to sit on a committee to decide compensation. Three is plenty. They are certainly going to be well compensated so costs will go up the more people we have on the committee.

Where is the independence and fairness of this judicial compensation and benefits commission? As was pointed out, it really is not. As I said before, the patronage and payment of higher increases are more extremism on the part of the Liberals. They take care of their own and to heck with the little guy.

Once again I agree that judges should get their raise. The salaries of the commissioners who will sit on the independent pay commission, as I like to think of it, should not exceed $60,000 to $80,000. They too must understand what the average person is trying to get by on.

The question of how the other two members could be appointed was dealt with a little bit by a Progressive Conservative member. A case could be made for having one judge on this board to reflect the judges' view. Maybe the government would even look at having the official opposition and maybe the second largest opposition party appoint the other two. We might see a little independence there.

I will comment on the surviving spouse situation. In the annuity section, section 44(4) it is stated under subsection (5):

No annuity shall be granted under this section to the surviving spouse of a judge unless the surviving spouse

(a) married the judge before the judge ceased to hold office; or

(b) commenced cohabiting with the judge in a conjugal relationship before the judge ceased to hold office.

There are a couple of good things. It will address these gold-digger marriages that happen to come along after the judge is out of office. Also, in the definition under subsection (2), the surviving spouse has to have cohabited or have been married for a minimum of one year before the judge's death. That is a good part of the bill. The surviving spouse definition confirms what is the law in Canada today, that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex and then it goes on to cohabitation.

The total salary for all of the increases in the number of judges will have a significant impact on our judicial system. I have made rough figures which indicate that the added judges will bring the total salary compensation up into the $5.5 million range associated with all the other expenses in setting up the courts.

Justice is certainly not cheap. We do not want to try to get by on a real cheap court system but we do want to keep it reasonable. Salaries, particularly raises, should be in keeping with what the average Canadian gets.

In conclusion, the government may want to consider the suggestions I had for this bill before it pushes the bill through.

The government should amend the section dealing with appointment of members to the commission and to try to eliminate the patronage that will be going on.

The second amendment is to try to have the salary increases more in keeping with public sector pay raises. Fairness is really important. In court the judges tell us that not only does justice have to be done but it has to be seen to be done. I think a lot of people would say that a $600 raise for a person at the low end and a $5,000 raise for the person at the high end in the salary scheme of things is not fair. The government should not be reflecting that type of unfairness to Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has failed to take timely action on two major issues affecting the well-being of grassroots aboriginal people living on the Fairford Indian reserve in my riding.

The chief and council have mismanaged the band's finances. One serious aspect of this is that the band has not paid the Lakeshore school division for off-reserve schooling to the tune of $121,000. The children will not be allowed to attend school this fall if the payment is not made. The children are under emotional stress and the local taxpayers are under financial stress.

The second situation involves the appeal of the October 4, 1997 Fairford band elections. Political instability on the reserve is causing massive problems.

These are only two of the problems on the reserve but they are two that the minister has a direct responsibility to resolve. The minister has been aware of these problems for a long time and still no resolution.

I am asking the minister of Indian affairs on behalf of thousands of my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to make payment to the school division and to adjudicate the election appeal forthwith.