Paul Forseth

[Justice, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Sex offender Gordon Mathieson walked out of court without getting any jail time. He received what is called a conditional sentence. It is so bad now that judges are giving no jail time for drug trafficking, sexual assault and armed robbery, all because this minister and her predecessor gave a soft on crime message to the courts.

Will the minister fix the mistake so this new conditional sentence category can only be used for non-violent crimes?

[The Family, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in view of national family week we recognize that nearly a million men came to the Washington, D.C. mall on Saturday to publicly state their promise to take greater responsibility toward their community, church, workplace and, most important, their family.

In what is described as the single largest religious gathering in American history, the promise keepers rally proves that the institution of the family is not a thing of the past but a stronghold for the future.

Even U.S. President Bill Clinton stated he cannot deny the sincerity of the men at the rally. Seeing the photo in Sunday's Ottawa Citizen should silence the critics who denounce the sincerity of the men, including many Canadians, who pledged to keep their families strong, healthy and together.

Last week one of this Parliament's greatest family advocates resigned her seat in an effort to keep her family strong. The sincerity of Sharon Hayes equalled that of the men who marched on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Above all, family matters.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, while there is much on which I would like to comment, I will make a comment and then pose a question and ask for further expansion from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

Earlier today we heard a member from the NDP talk about fairness in taxation. I call their use of the phrase tax fairness a buzzword. We know the buzzword of fair taxation from that party brings with it a political agenda that somewhat represents the politics of envy, taxing the rich and what they used to call the corporate welfare bums and all the philosophy that goes with it.

However, now there is a Reformer talking about fairness in tax load. I would like the member to explain and expand on the difference between the Reform approach to tax fairness versus the typical NDP approach.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East used the term fair taxation a number of times. That is typically one of the buzzwords or the mantras of the NDP. Perhaps it is, from that particular perspective, the code word for a political agenda. We should really know what the hon. member means when she says fair taxation so that it can be revealed for what it really is.

Here is a grand opportunity for the member to expand on the NDP version of what it means to have fair taxation.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that the constituents of Sydney—Victoria riding are a strong and resilient people. The member spoke about giving and sharing rather than calculating what we can get from society. The Bloc often uses the word demand specifically rather than talking about the nation as a whole and how we can all flourish, be together and share.

Despite the harshness of the land, we have seen some great accomplishments in Canada. It is indeed generous and has been aware of the solitude the member spoke about. But what does he propose? Does he propose more of the same while he admits that what he has had in the past really does not work? Will he not admit that some of the problems of the past have been that the people of Cape Breton have sent the wrong people to Parliament and when they do this they get more of the same that he is asking for? He mentions 36 years of anger yet the solution I hear him proposing is more of the same.

I will say that he is right about the Sydney tar ponds issue. There is a point where things can be done. However for him to say that we need more of the same and indeed much more of it will probably not bring the kind of solutions he is looking for.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

No vision.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member made specific reference to the loss of his son but he talked about the particular offender in that regard, and a peculiar gap in the law.

Then he mentioned parallel examples of other individuals who committed heinous crimes while they were already before the justice system on other matters. I believe he has introduced a private member's bill related to that.

I would like him to expand on this issue where we have individuals who are law breakers, who are in process. The justice system should be aware of them and yet it is inadequate, apparently, to stop their cycle of offending while they are still before the courts.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in the brief 10 minutes I was given I did touch, in broad generalities, about confidence in government, integrity and so forth.

To take one specific example from my riding, when I was a child going to school on the streets of New Westminster I did not see prostitutes standing at bus stops. There was a social context in my riding, and in most cities of this country, where street prostitution was not pervasive because there was a legal context which prohibited it.

We may not ever remove the problem of prostitution from our society, but the law changed and capacity creates its own demand. When this Parliament made the mistakes and changed the law, we now have street prostitution from one end of the country to the other.

In the last Parliament there was a fairly significant effort of the federal government to consult with the provinces and many reports were produced and many suggestions for particular amendments to the criminal law were made. One specific one that appears to have agreement from all attorneys general across the country is simply communicating for the purposes of obtaining sexual services in a public place. That specific offence should not merely be a summarial offence but it should be a hybrid offence. It should be an electable offence.

This would provide the needed tools to the local police forces and the flexibility they need to arrest if necessary and allow an offender to appear before a justice and be released on some kind of recognisance order. It also helps with the identification of those on the street.

This is a very minor first step and I introduced a private member's bill specific to this. I understand the previous justice minister acknowledged the need for this but gave the excuse of why he did not introduce that he was still consulting with the provinces.

It is time we begin to take some steps that all provinces across the country are asking for.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time.

The role of government is to provide a level of social order and progress that we cannot individually provide for ourselves. Canadians have expectations from government but they also have needs. Therefore the government's throne speech in view of this reasonable standard is a disappointment, especially from a justice system perspective.

It has been a long voyage for society, from tribalism to this Canadian Parliament. We indeed have accomplishments in Canada. We have built a country out of a harsh but bountiful land. However nation building is a passage, not an arrival. Canada must continue to live, renew and flourish. Canada is our home and our community but we just cannot take from it. We must give back. We must respect and nurture what has given us life by regarding basic principles.

Unfortunately a downward spiral of cynicism has gripped many. They have given up on politicians because they have come to believe that average Canadians are too powerless to change anything as large, amorphous and detached as the way things are done in political Canada.

In the current context of this House, the throne speech is said to outline the vision of the new government. However our society needs both sustenance and a hope to go forward. The throne speech sadly is a mere chart for interim crew duty on the ship of state and not a bold course for our ship to sail through the winds of change. The Liberals have charted a course with their statement. If it is a vision at all, it looks like we are sailing into the fog with faulty forecasts, with a ship they have not maintained and with an ill-prepared crew. The bunch cannot be trusted.

Canadian democracy as imperfect as it is has nominated this Liberal crew and they have now tried to reassure us in this throne speech that we are on a voyage somewhere.

There is a proverb that says that where there is no vision, the people perish, but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Where there is no vision, the people get out of hand; blessed are they who keep the precept. Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law. Another proverb says that righteousness exalteth the nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

I have risen to respond to the throne speech because I care deeply about our country and I despair at the kind of leadership and competence observed from the government. Many Canadians watching here today do not feel very good about politics. They have become very cynical about politicians and the process of elections. They do not know who they can trust.

However, I say that we can launch out, guided by love for our country, our community and a sincere concern for our neighbour. Joined together for the common good, we can discover what we can give to build this country rather than just calculate what we can get from the government which are really just other taxpayers.

One thing is for sure. If we in this House keep doing what we are doing, we are going to just keep getting what we are getting. It could be so much better.

Canadians do not ask for the impossible. They have reasonable expectations for their representatives. Although historical deference to Parliament is gone, Canadians basically expect three things: they want members of Parliament simply to be honest, to be competent and to have some leadership qualities to inspire. It is basic principles that matter, for by living by principles and receiving the humility that comes from them, we are empowered to learn from our history, act with confidence in the present and have vision for the future.

First we want our politicians to be honest. We want leaders to be forthright and have character. We want to be able to believe and trust what we hear. It has been said that character is what carries a person beyond adversity to the finish after the initial emotional reasons for doing the right things have faded.

Canadians deeply value honesty. Integrity in political life must come first. Therefore on this point do the Liberals have any integrity left in view of what they did to the Somalia inquiry?

Second, Canadians want competence. We want politicians who are qualified to look after our national affairs and to have depth of wisdom and a commitment to principles.

When there are no easy answers forthcoming on the issue of the day, it has been said that federal politics is conflict resolution at the national level but it is also taking care of the business of the country in a wise manner for the long term welfare of future generations, not short term special interests or for only those who currently have the inside track.

We have much incompetence in government. Therefore we need our leaders to be competent, to be able to get Canadians to pull together and then wisely administer. However, on the topic of competent governance, we have a prime minister who has never given the country a balanced budget or had the courage to stem the rising tide of hurtful taxation. And now he wants to lead a spending charge again. Some competence, some leader.

In Canada the crime rate is too high. Victims are still not paramount in law and the Young Offenders Act remains in disrepute with the public and the provinces only have the broken promises of YOA funding. Tragic 745 hearings continue to tear communities apart. Our youth are enticed through a wide open legal door into prostitution and the supply of dangerous drugs has not been stemmed. Immigration fails to protect our borders and Canada is embarrassed before the world with the existence of the slavery pipeline. Federal jails cannot seem to hold dangerous offenders and we cannot even prosecute war criminals. That is the sorry Liberal administrative record. They are not competent.

Third, Canadians desire real leadership. We need inspiration and leaders who can lift us up. We need real leaders who can look beyond today and inspire us with a vision of substance of a better Canada, with hope and real belief that we can do so much better than what we have politically. After hearing the feel good banalities of the throne speech, does any Canadian really feel inspired and believe that we are being wisely led or being protected from the criminal and given community peace? Public acceptance for what the courts give is at an all time low.

However, there is a reformist alternative of democratic free market principles that rigorously defends equality of opportunity, denies discrimination in any form to keep a foothold and trusts the common sense of average Canadians to do what is right and just for the country.

Reformers say the ultimate authority of the government rests in the people and full democratic power should be given to everyone. The people are competent. Average Canadians can be trusted to do what is right for the country if they are told the complete truth and are finally given real political power. Reformers strive for responsible and accountable government rather than merely the current representative government.

I come back to three things in respect of vision for the country, honesty, competence and leadership. I am part of an honest, sincere group of colleagues who are competent and ready to govern and who are ready to inspire to take this country to a new level of democratic freedom, justice and social and economic prosperity.

On leadership, I remind my colleagues in the House that there is a vision of a new Canada. It is an exciting vision of a country that can finally become fully democratic and forever put aside the injustices from the old line political parties. We have a vision of a new Canada. Someday it will voters themselves who will decide how our country is run rather than four or five year dictatorships. Someday all Canadians will truly be equal when there are no more special deals for categories, groups and insiders.

Someday the justice system will represent mainstream Canadian values where we protect our children and properly denounce discrimination and violence. Someday the federal government will be an enabler rather than an oppressive tax taker. We can lead the way from the scourge of unemployment, for a good crime prevention program is low unemployment.

Someday we will shape a federation that is attractive enough for the discontented who say they want to separate to want to stay be fulfilled, lest they are left behind our dynamic and yet diverse society.

I say we can protect our children from the criminal. We can support those who need our help, not with another handout but with a hand up. We can finally say to the world community that Canada is a haven of freedom where we can be secure in our homes and have every opportunity to be fully engaged in the building of our national home. We can make our country fit for heroes to live in.

Our opposition benches will do their part to lead us to that new Canada. We will compliment the wise government policy, criticize the bad and propose constructive alternatives.

In conclusion, I say that the vision for the national voyage must be based on honesty, competence and leadership. May the legislation which flows from the government be honestly presented. May the government administer with the highest standards, guided by real accountability measures, and may the prime minister find himself and begin to lead, for whatever enlarges hope will exalt courage, for if he faints from these principles the nation knows that we on this side of the House are more than ready.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trespass).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. There is a serious gap in the law for public order and community peace. If a mall security guard legally removes a problem person for public disturbance, that person can return only moments later provided they do not resist when originally being escorted off the premises. This can happen in an unending cycle.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code, making it a summary conviction. A person who has already been legally removed from real property or dwelling House would not to be able to lawfully return for a minimum of 24 hours.

The amendment would simply prevent repeated and unnecessary mischief without consequence. It is one of the practical tools that can help the public overcome its cynicism concerning the absurdities of the justice system. I urge its adoption as it reflects public expectation of the law.

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