Jim Pankiw

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety, as demonstrated by their refusal to: ( a ) strengthen the Young Offenders Act; ( b ) abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and ( c ) introduce a Victims' Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

Today's supply day motion is aimed at strengthening Canada's criminal justice system. Canadians have lost faith in our justice system because it caters to criminals and it ignores victims.

The Liberal government has mismanaged our justice system so badly that the protection of society is not its primary purpose. The Liberal purpose for the justice system is the quick release of offenders and the protection of their rights. The justice system has become a revolving door for criminals. They go into prison knowing they will only serve a fraction of their sentences before being released, free to pursue their criminal activities.

The solicitor general, the minister in charge of prisons, said in January that he wants more low risk, non-violent offenders on the streets. Let us examine exactly what the Liberals consider to be non-violent, low risk offenders. Rapists and pedophiles have been released into many communities thanks to this Liberal government's conditional sentencing program. Conditional sentencing means offenders serve their time in the community subject to certain parole style conditions. The Liberals treat these despicable members of our society as upstanding citizens whom they consider to be low risk and not deserving of jail time.

On May 19 the Globe and Mail featured a story in which a Windsor woman was in a grocery store and ran into the man who was convicted of raping her. The man had been sentenced only a few weeks earlier and was given 18 months of house arrest. A 63-year old Kelowna man sexually assaulted his niece and received a conditional sentence. Two Montreal rapists received conditional sentences. The list goes on and on.

On December 8, 1997 the justice minister stated in this House: “We agree in principle that conditional sentencing is working well”. Working well for whom? It works great for the criminals, that is for sure. But there you have it. The Liberals are most concerned with criminal rights. The Liberal focus is on what is best for the criminals, not on what is best for society. The previous justice minister, now the discredited health minister, agreed to a victims bill of rights over two years ago and we are still waiting. Victims are still waiting and still nothing from the justice department.

The justice committee spent almost a year travelling across the country, consulting and hearing testimony on proposed reforms to the Young Offenders Act. It tabled a comprehensive report in April 1997. The Liberals have had that report for over a year but what has the minister done? Did she bring in legislation? No. Did she introduce tough new measures to deal with young thugs? No. Did she display a keen interest in taking on youth crime and defeating it? No. Instead, over a year later the justice minister released a glossy discussion paper complete with a colourful logo. She calls it a strategy paper but what it amounts to is more stalling and more delays in reforming the flawed Young Offenders Act.

I speak about the Young Offenders Act as a representative of a province that is all too familiar with the problem of youth crime. Saskatchewan has the highest rate of youth crime in the country on a per capita basis. Regina and Saskatoon are ranked first and third among Canadian cities when it comes to break and enters, most committed by teens.

Carol Wright of North Battleford was so sickened by the Young Offenders Act that she created a petition signed by 70,000 people. And what is the justice minister's response? What does the justice minister offer Ms. Wright and other residents of Saskatchewan plagued by youth crime? The minister released a pamphlet entitled “Canada's Youth Justice Renewal Strategy” which is coloured and designed like a fancy promotion piece. Typical Liberals, do nothing, just discuss, release a paper, discuss some more, study it, have a report.

How much longer do Canadians have to wait? How much longer does our safety have to be compromised before this government will act? How much longer must Canadians live in fear of walking down the streets in their own communities and in their own neighbourhoods? The minister's colourful PR package does nothing to make our streets safer or to address the concerns Canadians have about youth crime.

The minister's proposals leave too much discretion in the hands of judges. We have seen where that has led with conditional sentencing. In typical Liberal fashion it is left up to a judge to decide whether names should be published and whether a violent young offender should face an adult sentence. So-called special sentencing options will also be left to the discretion of judges.

Rather than ensuring young offenders face stiff sentences and penalties by entrenching them in legislation, the minister wants to leave everything to the whims of judges. Clearly leaving too much power in the hands of judges is not the way to proceed.

That type of open ended discretion has led to the mess we are in today where young offenders who murder and rob are given slap on the wrist sentences.

The minister states that adult sentences will be given to those who display a pattern of violent behaviour. What kind of pattern? How many offences make a pattern? None of this is explained so I assume this also would be left to the discretion of a judge.

The minister is also vague about non-violent offences. Is break and enter going to be considered non-violent? What about drug trafficking? Will these youths be sentenced to community work? Do we want burglars and drug pushers serving community sentences in our neighbourhood?

I do not want to waste the time of this House with a detailed analysis of the minister's strategy paper because it simply continues the consultations, the discussions and the debate that have raged over the Young Offenders Act for years.

Now all we get is a smoke and mirrors strategy paper from the Liberals to make it appear as though they are serious about cracking down on crime.

Let us look at what others are saying about the minister's paper. The attorney general of Ontario said: “I do not think beyond a couple of things that it really deals in a comprehensive way with the concerns that Ontarians have expressed over and over again”.

The justice minister from Alberta said: “From what I am hearing from Albertans every day, this will not fit the bill”. It will not fit the bill because this strategy is not about the protection of society. It is not about anything. It is just hot air, more talk and more debate.

Since the Young Offenders Act was introduced in 1984, the justice department has operated in a social engineering fashion and look at what it has got us. People are afraid to walk the streets at night. Violent crime by youth is at an all time high and some cities are contemplating curfews for teens.

The Liberal way is the wrong way and this new strategy paper does absolutely nothing to steer the youth justice system off the wrong path.

The guiding principle of the justice system should be the protection of society. The rights of criminals should be secondary. The maximum age for the Young Offenders Act should be lowered to 15 years for all offences and the minimum age for the Young Offenders Act should be lowered to 10 years in order to get young offenders into the system early.

We need truth in sentencing and the names of all convicted violent offenders should be made public regardless of whether they were convicted in adult or youth court.

There should be parental responsibility for their children's actions. The minister speaks of parents paying court costs but their responsibility should go beyond that in cases where it can be demonstrated that parents were negligent.

We also need to promote personal responsibility. Individuals must be responsible for their own actions. The Liberals believe that our environment is responsible for criminal behaviour. They believe individuals have no personal obligation whatsoever. Blame it on TV, blame it on alcohol, blame it on the humidity, the alignment of the stars and planets, whatever, but do not feel you are personally responsible. That is the message being delivered to criminals by this Liberal government, but that is the wrong message. Criminals must be held accountable for their actions.

The types of changes that Canadians wanted to see are not mentioned in the minister's new glossy package, but then this government has not done anything with respect to bringing our justice system into line with the views of Canadians.

They want to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. The Liberals bring forward this meaningless paper. They want truth in sentencing. The Liberals established conditional sentencing where rapists and pedophiles are released into society, into our communities.

Canadians want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals continue to champion the rights of criminals. I therefore urge all members of the House to speak in support of today's supply day motion.

To speak against it, someone must either be a Liberal or they must have an extremely warped sense of justice. I guess those are really one and the same.

This Reform motion reflects the opinion of average Canadian citizens and I know many members will want to support the objectives of this motion when they speak in favour of safer streets, safer communities and a more effective, functional criminal justice system.

[Motion For Papers, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning my Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-8 which deals with a $2 billion contract awarded to Bombardier.

Motion No. P-8 has been on the order paper for half a year. I have raised previous points of order on the matter on February 18, March 25 and April 24.

I demand to know from the parliamentary secretary on which specific date I can expect a response. Could he tell the House what is so secretive about the government doling out taxpayers' dollars to Bombardier? After all, the Liberals do it all the time.

[Spinal Health Care Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the conclusion of spinal health care week. Chiropractors from coast to coast have conducted volunteer health talks about the benefits of spinal health and wellness.

Each year more than three million Canadians seek chiropractic care, making it the third largest health care profession in Canada. Clearly chiropractic care is an important component of the Canadian health care system.

There have been at least six formal government inquiries into the profession of chiropractic worldwide during the last 25 years, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden. All have concluded that contemporary chiropractic care is safe, effective, cost effective and have recommended public funding for chiropractic services.

In addition, few health care procedures have been as extensively researched as chiropractic spinal adjustments. A wealth of scientific clinical studies have proven the appropriateness and effectiveness of chiropractic care.

Congratulations to Canada's chiropractors on the successful conclusion of this year's spinal health care week.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has ignored Justice Krever and created two tiers of hepatitis C victims, those who will be compensated and those who will be ignored.

Theresa Robertson of Peterborough, Ontario, was infected in 1984 and she cannot work. She has liver damage and she suffers from the side effects of medication.

Why is the Prime Minister using strong arm tactics to coerce his MPs into voting against innocent victims like Ms. Robertson?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will raise that on Wednesday.

However, my Questions Nos. 78 and 79 are beyond the requested 45 day reporting window and I have yet to receive a response. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary when I can expect a response.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I address my comments to the parliamentary secretary. I would like to draw his attention to my production of papers motion P-8 which has been on the order paper for five months.

[Young Offenders Act, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise. The bleeding heart liberals have no heart to get tough on crime.

In typical Liberal fashion the minister is sitting on the fence with her changes to the Young Offenders Act waiting to see which way the political winds blow. Meanwhile violent teens continue on their merry, destructive way with full knowledge that if the law ever catches up with them, they will be treated with kid gloves.

“Kids” do not murder or commit violent assaults, but the Liberals treat these criminals as harmless children. We need immediate amendments to the Young Offenders Act that hold violent youth responsible for their actions and which act as a strong deterrent.

Reform MPs have organized a public meeting on the Young Offenders Act to be held on May 5 in Saskatoon.

Residents in my home province have lost complete faith in the youth justice system. Canadians have lost faith in this justice minister who has no stomach to do what is right.

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today in the House and speak in favour of Bill C-216 which has been introduced by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni. Bill C-216 would make all crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act.

As it now stands, some crown corporations are subject to the act while others are not. For instance while the ports of Halifax and Montreal are exempt from access to information, other ports are not. Canada Post, the CBC, the Export Development Corporation and the Canada Lands Company are also shielded from access to information requests.

What Bill C-216 does is bring some measure of public accountability to these crown corporations. While they receive taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers have no right to delve into particular aspects of the operation of those corporations. Surely everyone can recognize the unfairness of the present situation.

During the 1993 campaign the Liberals promised openness and transparency in government. However, five years later they have still kept this veil of secrecy over particular crown corporations. The Liberal cabinet has consistently argued that some organizations cannot be open to access to information because it would place them at a competitive disadvantage. They argue that their competitors could access sensitive information about their operations. This is simply not the case.

As was pointed out in December when Bill C-216 was in its first hour of debate, section 18 of the Access to Information Act allows the withholding of financial, commercial, scientific or technical information. Anything the corporation deems to be sensitive or of substantial value does not have to be disclosed.

Section 18(b) of the act specifically states that what does not have to be revealed is “information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution”. I cannot see how this could be any clearer. I also cannot see how cabinet expects us to swallow its story about placing crown corporations at a competitive disadvantage.

Bill C-216 is about accountability and the public's right to know how their dollars are being spent. When Canada sold Candu reactors to China the financing was handled through the Export Development Corporation. The Export Development Corporation is a lending institution backed by taxpayers' dollars. Essentially we lent taxpayer money to China so that it could use it to buy Canadian reactors.

This unusual way of structuring foreign purchases of Canadian products raised concerns among many taxpayers. However, getting to the bottom of this deal and answering the legitimate concerns of taxpayers is impossible since the EDC is not subject to the Access to Information Act.

I have heard similar concerns in the west as it applies to the Canadian Wheat Board. While Bill C-4 will remove crown corporation status from the wheat board, the bill has yet to pass the Senate and so the board to this day remains a crown corporation and thereby is exempt from access to information requests.

Farmers cannot get any information relating to grain sales, sales contracts or administrative and general expenses. They cannot get any information as to why the board has been unable to collect some $7 billion in overdue payments from particular countries.

Canada Post has also come under fire because of its exemption from the Access to Information Act. Competitors have complained that the Canadian post office uses its mail monopoly to cross-subsidize its courier company Purolator. Canada Post denies that this is happening but it also refuses to completely open its books to public scrutiny. Canada Post is able to cross-subsidize and then deny it in the face of competitors' complaints.

The Radwanski report released in October 1996 did a complete mandate review of Canada Post. The report recommended that Canada Post be opened up to public scrutiny. Recommendation No. 30 of the Radwanski report reads “that Canada Post Corporation be made subject to the freedom of information act and to annual audit by the auditor general”. As with many recommendations in that report, the Liberals simply ignored it.

I was pleased to note that during the first hour of debate on the bill, the bill received support from most parties in the House. Liberal backbenchers supported it, the Bloc Quebecois spoke in favour of it and the Conservatives offered support in principle. It is encouraging to see that parties in the House can support good legislation coming through private members' business.

The situation reminds me of a similar circumstance involving a bill from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. The member introduced a bill that would ban negative option marketing. It had the support of the House but like C-216 it was denounced by cabinet. That is a strong statement in itself with respect to how government runs, its structure and the influence of individual MPs. That is a debate for another day.

I am just simply pleased that the majority of parties in this House can see the need for Bill C-216 and are prepared to support it.

John Grace, the information commissioner, said of Bill C-216 “It will make citizens better able to judge the performance of their governments and more informed voters. The guarantee of public access to government documents is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society”.

In a democracy there can never be enough public scrutiny, never enough accountability. Bill C-216 provides more public scrutiny and more accountability. It can only serve to strengthen our democratic system and our institutions.

I am looking forward to the vote on this bill. I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this very important piece of legislation.

[National Parks Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. This bill will establish the Tuktut Nogait national park in the Northwest Territories. The park will be 16,340 square kilometres and it resides in the Inuvialuit land claims settlement region.

The bill itself is very technical. It outlines in precise geographical terms the boundaries of the new park. However there is more to the bill than lines on a map and a lot of complicated geographical land descriptions. The driving force behind the creation of this national park was the protection of the calving grounds of the bluenose caribou. In fact in the Siglik dialect of Inuvialuktun, “tuktut nogait” means “caribou calves”.

In 1989 the closest community to the new park, Paulatuk, prepared a community conservation plan that recommended the creation of a national park in order to protect the caribou calving grounds. In 1996 an agreement was signed by the Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories and four representative groups of the Inuvialuit. That agreement set out the boundaries of the park as they are set out in this legislation.

The new national park not only protects the caribou but it also protects the fragile tundra landscape in that region. The creation of the park advances the objective of Parks Canada of establishing a national park in every distinctive natural region of our country.

The Tuktut Nogait park is located in region 15, Tundra Hills, as designated by Parks Canada in its national parks systems plan. This particular region is highlighted by a number of spectacular features. One is the smoking hills where smoke billows from cracks in the ash covered ground.

As well, more than 95% of this region is tundra, rock barrens where only the hardiest plants can survive. Wildlife in region 15 is mainly comprised of summer migrants. Muskox, wolves and as many as 500,000 caribou can be found in this region. According to Parks Canada this area is home to one of the rarest birds in Canada, the Eskimo curlew.

Tuktut Nogait comprises only a portion of region 15. However the new national park is an important step in preserving the wildlife and wilderness wonders which I have just described.

We live in a country that is extremely diverse in its landscape, temperatures and wildlife. It is incumbent upon us to act responsibly to ensure that the appreciation of that diversity is available to future generations. The creation of Tuktut Nogait is an important step in protecting that diversity and providing Canadians and our visitors with an opportunity to discover and enjoy the natural beauty of our country.

The Darnley Bay anomaly borders the new park on its western side. The anomaly area which covers 463,847 hectares is thought to contain nickel, copper and platinum group elements. There was some concern for the boundaries of the Tuktut Nogait park since this mineral find, or the proposed area where minerals may be, extends within the park's borders.

The company prospecting the anomaly had been given exploration permits by the department of Indian affairs that mistakenly included portions of the new national park. However in 1994 the company in question relinquished its exploration rights within the national park area so that the establishment of the park could proceed.

Last September the president of Darnley Bay Resources was quoted in the Edmonton Journal . What he said was that he would not seek a change to the park boundary if a major mineral deposit was found on the boundary. The company should be commended for that. It is encouraging to see that businesses in this country are willing to work with the government in preserving and protecting our natural heritage.

I look forward to reviewing this bill more closely in committee so that the exact costs of the establishment and maintenance of the park can be determined. I will be interested to learn how the park will be managed. I will be interested to examine any projected business or financial plans that may be available for the new park. While I am sure we are all in agreement as to the importance of establishing this park, we should also agree that the establishment of this park must be done in a fiscally responsible manner.

At this time I can see no reason for opposing the establishment of this new national park in region 15. It protects and preserves wildlife in an important wilderness area in the Northwest Territories. It preserves a part of Canada's natural heritage for us, for our children and for our grandchildren to enjoy. Surely such an objective can meet with the support of all members of this House.

[Taxation, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government needs to be condemned for its relentless attack on the cornerstone of our society, Canadian families.

Our current tax system discriminates against families who choose to have one parent stay at home.

A one income family earning $60,000 pays $7,000 more in taxes each year than a family with the same total income but both parents in the workforce.

Despite the fact that the majority of parents prefer family care to day care, one parent cannot stay at home because of the huge tax hit they face.

My private member's motion, M-369, addresses this very issue and calls for taxation fairness for families. Clearly, Liberals do not understand taxation fairness. They have raised taxes 37 times and hiked payroll taxes, all contributing to a $3,000 annual pay cut for the average family.

By contrast, Reform policies are family friendly. Our priority is the well-being of families, not larger tax grabs.