Randy White

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again debating the merits of political interference in the rights and privileges of the Canadian citizen.

It has always been that bad politicians make the assumption that the electorate cannot make decisions for itself and so they get involved in its everyday life and in its rights and privileges and make changes on its behalf. I thought that we were through with this and that this new Liberal government would make some changes in that regard.

There is a saying that if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it. That saying goes particularly well in this House of Commons. If this government forgets what happened with the last government it is condemned to go the same road in the next election. Let us look at how we got to this point in the history of electoral reform.

In 1964 the present system came into effect so that the Canadian citizen would always have the right of representation based on a specific formula. Is that logical?-yes. In 1974 the federal government amended that formula and with it the rules for the Canada Elections Act.

Unfortunately that formula would have resulted in an increase in the number of MPs to about 369 by the year 2001. We all know that more MPs are less desired than fewer MPs. Then we move on to 1986 when politicians of the day decided to simplify the formula. So important was this concept that the government of the time enshrined this right in our Constitution.

Let us briefly cover the basics of that right. The first basic right is the Representation Act in 1986 which retained the idea that certain provinces would be guaranteed certain levels of representation. This affects provinces with slow or declining population growth, like P.E.I. and Quebec, more than others.

The second basic right is after every election, to preserve one of the founding principles of our nation, representation by population, the system is re-examined and constituencies are readjusted according to the rules set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

Like all rules, they must be interpreted before they can be applied and this is where the government comes in. As we have seen in the past, when the government gets involved things tend to get a little muddied. It is amazing to me the similarities between this Liberal government and the Conservative government in this regard. Actually, it is becoming quite clear.

There are many similarities in many regards. For instance, their spending habits thus far indicate that both governments are more intent on leading us into bankruptcy than out of bankruptcy. However, let us look at a similarity between the dying Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.

[Child Care, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just about anything can be spent in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs.

The investors, small businessmen and Canadian taxpayers would be more interested in understanding if our economy should grow at 3 per cent why the government would not prefer to pay down the deficit and pay some of the bills rather than create more child care spaces and spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money.

[Child Care, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal campaign promises and the recent budget indicated that the government will increase the number of child care spaces once the real economic growth exceeds 3 per cent. The estimated cost to the Canadian taxpayer that I have seen for this is about $1.5 billion. I might add that expenditure amounts do not even reflect an increase in the estimates for 1995-1996.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the budget projects a 3 per cent growth rate, will the minister confirm the government's commitment to this $1.5 billion program?

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will give my position on both of those but all we are hearing today is that we are going to study, study, study, talk, talk, talk.

This is not a new phenomenon, the criminal justice program we have and the problems we have with it. This is something that has been going on for years. If we study this for another term there are going to be some serious problems in the country. Let us stop talking and discussing. Let us just get on with the job.

I suspect members opposite differ because they would be more liberal, but I think we have to stop worrying about trying to control the guns of recreation users, farmers and hunters and worry a lot more about the criminals and the guns they have. In fact if a crime is perpetrated by someone using a weapon while robbing a bank, in my opinion there should be two separate and distinct charges. Get off the backs of the recreation users, the farmers and the hunters and start worrying about the criminal for a change.

On capital punishment, I support capital punishment.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not intend to be so kind about the criminal justice system when I talk. I am not a lawyer but I am one who has been affected by such things as the criminal justice system and I live in an area with many prisons around it.

I want to refer quickly to a newspaper article that appeared not too long ago in the Abbotsford Times in my community:

Corrections Canada reports all 57 inmates granted temporary absences this Christmas from B.C. prisons have returned to jail.

But that doesn't impress local police.

I am going to refer to this point a little later. It is nice to see they came back from their Christmas break.

I rise today to speak to one of the most contentious emotional aspects of the Canadian criminal justice system, the reform of parole. The entire issue of the rights of victims revolves around the parole system and how it has let us down. Let us not mix words here tonight. It has let us down.

Parole horror stories have become so commonplace in the media that the majority of Canadians has completely lost faith in the system. Nowhere is this more evident than when we talk to people who have lost someone dear to them as a result of the breakdown of that system. When we sit in the living room with a family whose life has been forever altered, as I have recently in Langley, British Columbia, we see their eyes. These people are victims. There is sadness, despair and anger in their eyes. It has been a powerful, moving experience for me. I do not know if I would have the strength to be as forgiving as some of those victims are.

What drives me to distraction is the attitude of the bureaucracy responsible for the tragedy. There is no emotion in those eyes; just cold, hard, vacant stares, and endless recital of the regulations. No one is responsible. It is no one's fault. No one seems willing to do anything about it.

In my riding we are surrounded by federal correctional institutions, as I have said, and there are no shortages of incidents involving parolees. Also the article in the Abbotsford Times quoted local RCMP members saying that whenever they have an unsolved crime they just check the list of parolees loose in the street, find out what they were doing at the time of the crime and, bingo, the crime is solved. At the time of story their success rate for solving crimes in this way was 75 per cent. While there were not a large number of those cases, the lasting impression in the public's mind was that criminals were simply being let out too soon.

What response do we get from the criminal justice system when it breaks down? I realize the Parole Board and Corrections Canada are two separate bodies, but in a recent meeting with the head of corrections for the Pacific region I was told that the responsibility for improving the criminal justice system lies with Parliament. They simply follow the rules laid down by politicians.

Another common response is to quote surveys. The Parole Board likes to quote a particular number. It says that long term research shows that 75 per cent of paroles granted were concluded without any return to federal custody during the sentence. As we all know, statistics are a matter of perspective and in some cases outright deception.

Benjamin Disraeli said it better: "There are three kinds of lies: there are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics". If it is true that 75 per cent of paroles are successful, I want to know what the cost was to society of the other 25 per cent. In my eyes it is a failure rate of one in four and that is just not good enough.

It is time the rules were changed. It is time to stop awarding old friends and party hacks with appointments to the Parole Board. It is time to establish competency tests for board members which address the need for an understanding of the justice system. It is time there was a system of redress for victims who have been injured as a result of incompetence of the board. These board members must be held accountable. Most important, it is time criminals did real time for real crime.

At the heart of this discussion is the fact that somehow we have lost the resolve as a nation to stand and say that when a criminal is sentenced to 10 years he should serve 10 years; not 3, not 5, but 10 years. Sentencing reform is key. It must be mentioned in this discussion as an integral part of the solution.

Where do we start? One of the major hurdles is the way the public sees these issues as falling under one umbrella. In a sense they do. It is all in the justice system. What happens typically is that public outrage is diluted because it often takes a scatter-gun approach. People blame the police for not warning communities, even though they are handcuffed by the charter of rights. They blame jails for letting prisoners out, even though it is the Parole Board's job. Or they blame judges for not imposing stiffer sentences when it might have been a poor submission by a crown prosecutor who caused the miscarriage of justice in the first place.

As I mentioned before, no one is to blame. If the system is so complicated and intimidating to those not close to it, then the first step we must take is to make it clear. We must commit to allowing victims greater access to the halls of what now passes for justice. The public has the right to take part in the decision making process. It must be an integral part of parole hearings.

Before that, victims must be given greater opportunity to be heard at the trial stage. Victims' impact statements are not given enough credence in the system as it now stands. In short, the simple request we have for the criminal justice system establishment is "open your eyes and open your doors to the people whose rights have been trodden upon, the victims of this country".

I would like to close on a personal note which will help to explain why I referred earlier to the eyes of victims. I recently sat in the home of Mr. Chris Simmonds of Langley, British Columbia. There is a picture on his coffee table of two beautiful daughters. The picture and the memory is all that is left to one daughter, Sian.

She was brutally murdered by a hired killer who claimed he was only trying to scare her with a loaded gun. He was out on bail on his own recognizance at the time. I do not have time to explain this complicated case today but what is striking about Mr. Simmonds is his calm resolve to have justice done.

The latest travesty in this case is the decision of the court to move the trial of the man alleged to have contracted the killing to Port Alberni from my constituency. The court says that he can receive a fair trial safe from the influence of the media. Once again, the victim's rights are secondary. The criminal's rights come first.

Out of respect for the Simmonds privacy I will not detail the effect of this savage murder on the remainder of the family. Besides the financial strain, emotionally they are near ruin. However they fight on.

When Mr. Simmonds approached victims' assistance for some kind of compensation for the extra expense of travelling to and from Port Alberni he was told by another steely-eyed bureaucrat that he did not qualify because he did not witness the death of his daughter. This is the only point in the story where Mr. Simmonds eyes give him away. He told that man: "Don't tell me I did not witness my daughter's death. Every night when I go to bed I close my eyes and I see her die".

Madam Speaker, from time to time in this House, you are called on to witness a vote and say that the yeas have it. When it comes time for us to vote on the long overdue reform of the criminal justice system, I for one will remember the eyes of Chris Simmonds.

I call on every one of my colleagues to join me in saying yes to the reform of parole and no to those who would put the rights of the law breakers ahead of the rights of the victim of crime.

[Child Support Income, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is tax time once again and I implore the Minister of Finance to change the laws affecting the taxation of child support income.

A woman named Joan from my riding of Fraser Valley West is about to lose her home because she is being forced to pay $1,300 in income tax this year on the child support money she receives from her ex-husband. Joan makes only $9,800 a year in personal income and receives $12,000 a year in child support payments to raise her children. She has to claim child support as taxable income while her ex-husband, who has already paid income tax on the money, gets to claim the child support as a tax deduction.

Joan says the government is literally taking food out of her children's mouths and she will have to move out of her home to pay the tax bill. I agree with Joan and thousands of single mothers like her. It is simply not fair.

[Saint Lawrence Seaway, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that some of the things I have to say were already mentioned by the hon. member. He gave a very good speech indeed.

I rise to speak to the motion that the government take measures to ensure that St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis by reallocating icebreakers in operation in eastern Canada.

Before we get too excited about such an idea, it is necessary to determine the future of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system. We also have to look at the cost impact of such a move and whether once again we redirect much needed resources from the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario.

An essential part of the Great Lakes seaway system is the St. Lawrence Seaway proper. This was a joint venture of Canada and the United States which was opened in 1959. It extends from Montreal to Lake Erie and is composed of a system of 15 locks and canals divided into two sections, the Montreal-Lake Ontario section consisting of five Canadian and two U.S. locks, and the Welland Canal with eight Canadian locks.

Since the early eighties there has been growing concern and considerable debate over the future of the seaway. This has occurred for several reasons. One of the reasons is a significant decline in grain and iron ore traffic because of persistently weak and changing market conditions for grain and steel exports. Another reason is the fragile financial state of the lake carrier industry, and finally the continuing requirement on the part of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the pilotage authorities and ports to be financially self-sufficient.

Many a study has been undertaken on the future of the seaway and the redirecting of our east coast icebreaker fleet has little to do with the issue of demand for the ports along the waterway.

The motion before us suggests that the way to stimulate more traffic in the seaway would be through a significant extension of the system's shipping season beyond the current eight and a half to nine month operating period.

Many reports have pointed out that it is technically possible to do this even in heavy ice and poor weather conditions. However, it is acknowledged that there would be an increased cost to keep the system open. This is a cost which will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer once again.

Do we need an already overburdened taxpayer paying more for a cause that is somewhat dubious at best? Should we not clarify the future of the waterway before making costly adjustments to the way it is being managed?

The federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments have entered into an infrastructure program which will cost us $6 billion.

They are committed to a child care program that will cost us $1.5 billion. They are overspending their annual budget by $40 billion. I ask again whether one needs to give this government a licence to spend more money.

Since the seaway opened there has been an extension to the shipping season of four weeks on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and two weeks on the Welland. In addition, cost benefit studies have been done which indicate that an extension of the season cannot be justified on economic grounds alone.

It simply makes no economic sense for the seaway system to remain in operation during the period of cold weather and heavy ice. There is not sufficient icebreaking capacity to do the job and because of the narrow channels it is very difficult to keep them open as the ice closes in behind the icebreaker very quickly.

Furthermore, there are large questions regarding the required flow of water for hydroelectric plants during the winter season in periods of heavy ice. Broken ice is also a serious problem as it can damage hydroelectric generators. Ice booms are placed across the seaway under the control of the power authority to ensure that ice does not damage its generators.

Therefore the seaway is not opened until March 28 for that reason. What the authority is concentrating on doing is providing at least eight and a half months of safe, trouble free and efficient navigation while giving at the same time consideration to gradual incremental extensions of any season based upon the weather, facilities, costs and the amount of business.

This common sense approach to business is more practical and economical than launching a major effort to provide a longer winter navigational season. There would be considerable extra cost and it is by no means clear that a sufficient amount of extra traffic would be generated to justify the greater cost and effort.

Let us look for a moment at the two main responsibilities that the Canadian Coast Guard has. The first responsibility is to provide route assistance by escorting vessels through the ice on the St. Lawrence. The second responsibility is flood control on the upper St. Lawrence.

Flood control is necessary because when the ice gets thick it acts as a dam. It backs up the water and floods over the banks. Therefore it is necessary for the icebreakers to get through, open it up and release the pressure on the head of the ice.

Escorting costs $7.9 million each year. Out of a total of about 3,000 hours dedicated to escorts, 566 hours were attributed to vessels running into Montreal. The flood control costs are about $10 million a year.

There are various types of Canadian Coast Guard ships. Six types are classified as icebreakers providing year-round operations or heavy ice control. The others are used for small and medium vessel escort in light ice or shallow water conditions or

they are used for life boat class for all-weather operations in semi-sheltered waters.

Let us look at the actual number of ships and their locations. The hon. member from the opposite side mentioned similar numbers and I got mine from the coast guard this afternoon. The difference between the numbers from one speaker to the next is actually as fast as those ships are redeployed in different areas.

In the maritimes there are 26 vessels but many of those vessels are for shallow water or cannot really break ice. They are used for other operations. Six of those vessels are classified as icebreaking ships.

The maritime region is classified by the coast guard as the area around Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and some of New Brunswick. The Newfoundland region has 13 vessels, four of which are of icebreaking capability.

The west coast has 27 ships with only two icebreakers. In that climate icebreakers are not that necessary. The Laurentian region has 23 vessels and five icebreakers and the central region has 24 vessels and two icebreakers. That is a total of 83 vessels broken down into those various classes.

I want to emphasize some critical points in this discussion. The icebreaking fleet on our eastern seaboard totals 17. Of that total, seven are in central Canada and the others are in Newfoundland and the Halifax area. The ice is so dynamic where it shows up, and because of weather patterns and so on, the fleet is based in four places for ease of getting to the problem. The economy of these four bases is affected by redeployment.

Why do we have a motion before us that will have a negative effect on the maritimes to the benefit of the area located around the St. Lawrence, which is Quebec and parts of Ontario? The economy is not good in the maritimes and I do not think we should be trying to present a proposal that would harm the maritime economy.

The coast guard must have the say on temporary redeployment as the need arises, not the government. We should stay out of that business. It knows best where to redeploy its fleet. Perhaps if we concentrated on paying our bills, reducing our debt and eliminating our deficit we could expand the coast guard to look after such a problem and allow our young people the opportunities to restore the maritimes to its proud heritage as guardian of our seas.

I think the coast guard knows best. That is about all I have to say, except that I would not be in favour of this motion.

[Euthanasia, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, media seekers have recently jumped on the euthanasia issue with little regard for the risks down the road.

In my riding the non-partisan public advisory group which has a direct say through me in all issues has overwhelmingly said no to legalizing euthanasia. The same response was expressed by a vast majority of people attending our recent town hall meeting in Aldergrove, British Columbia.

However sometimes we need to listen to children to bring us back to reality.

In the words of nine-year old Dustin Chadsey of Clearbrook, B.C.: "I don't think people should be able to kill each other or themselves. Only God can decide if we live or die".

Before the media seekers do more damage, I urge all members to ask all their constituents their opinions on this important issue.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must come back on that comment as to how many municipalities and ridings will get involved with the infrastructure program. Why would they not want to because one third of the cost only is going to be attributed to residential taxation. They are going to pass the other part off on federal and provincial taxes.

I must remind the hon. member that there is only one taxpayer paying three portions at three levels of taxes.

My question is what is left after the two years of the infrastructure program after $6 billion has been paid out? What is left for the Canadian taxpayer other than some form of capital structure?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try once again-I have tried this several times-to go through this funding for the infrastructure program.

The infrastructure program is supposed to spend $6 billion, $2 billion from municipal sources, $2 billion provincial and $2 billion federal. At the end of the day through this exercise we have spent $6 billion.

The minister has indicated that the municipalities were in favour of this. Having talked to a mayor of a municipality his feeling was that "my public works program is going to continue as it always did". The difference here is that the residential taxpayer will only see one-third of the usual cost because the provincial and the federal governments are going to share.

No wonder the municipal politicians are in favour of it. We are going to carry a fair bit of burden at the federal and provincial levels. Nevertheless it is the same taxpayer who pays regardless of which level provides the funding.

My question I suppose is going to be obvious. What can the minister tell us that we have at the end of two years other than spending $6 billion and employing 60,000 people, I believe the number of their book was, over two years? What is left after the two years besides $6 billion in expenditures, some kind of capital structure and maybe a very few people employed to maintain the structure? What is left for employment, besides a very large bill to pay?