Werner Schmidt

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

It was very interesting, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggested we should prevent crime in the first place. I do not think anybody would ever disagree with that. Of course we would rather not have any crimes committed at any time, much less murder.

I was rather interested in the rehabilitation statement the hon. member made, that we should rehabilitate these criminals and make sure they become productive members of society. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.

The concern that I have, and I would like to ask the member to address this, is after we put all these special programs into place, after we put all these rehabilitation mechanisms in the place of work or the prison where this person is incarcerated and we go through all these machinations, what assurance would the hon. member require before the individual was released from prison that would give to society the assurance that person will not be a repeating offender?

Could the hon. member tell us what are the tests he would apply? What are the indicators that future behaviour will be fundamentally different from the behaviour that got the person to perpetrate a crime of killing someone else?

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to be able to enter the debate this morning, especially on the motion that would have the effect of taking away the essence or the substance of Bill C-216 which was presented to the House by the member for Sarnia-Lambton.

I join my colleagues and also the member opposite in congratulating the member for Sarnia-Lambton for bringing this to the attention of the House and also for providing an opportunity for each of us to express ourselves and to vote on this issue and the motion before us which destroys the essence of the bill.

I am going to oppose that motion and suggest why I want to support the bill and why I must oppose this motion. In the context of making this presentation I will address three questions: What would the benefits be of supporting Bill C-216? Why is the bill being opposed at this time? Why am I supporting the bill?

What would the benefits be of this legislation if it were to be passed by this House? The number one benefit is that the freedom of choice would be given to the consumer. Recently the CRTC approved 23 new channels. The effort and the impact of those 23 new channels is to give to the consumer a wide variety of choices in what they can pick off the air waves or in this case, from the menu that is being offered by the cable companies.

If there is one thing we need in this world today, it is the opportunity to choose with so many different programs available. There will probably be very shortly through direct to home television and various other options some 200 channels available to the consumer. The consumer wants to choose not only what the service is that shall be provided to them but also the quality and the price at which that service or opportunity ought to be given to them.

There are today many many providers of television programs in the world. We can get all kinds of information from cable companies. We can get all kinds of information from the grey market where companies are taking the signal directly off the satellite and beaming it out into the marketplace to the consumer.

One could argue that the grey market is really not a legal market; it is a market which in fact is illegal because there is no legislation covering that issue. People are taking programs, using American addresses or some kind of vehicle that allows them to come into the Canadian area. They are watching these programs. The time has come for us to choose clearly and directly what it is that we want.

There is fierce competition in the cable industry, in the satellite industry, in the whole area. As that competition becomes more aggressive and as that competition becomes more intense, the reason for interference by a commission of government is increasingly bad.

We need to have a place where the consumer ultimately begins to rule what will enter his mind. It is through the mind that we finally determine our actions and the thoughts that take place. Members know that the actions we enter into are first of all thoughts in our minds. It is absolutely imperative that consumers be given the opportunity and the legislative protection to allow them to choose what will come. The cable company or any other group does not have the right to decide for the consumers what they will see and the price they will pay for it.

What happened last January was the suggestion that the cable companies would present new packages and the consumers would pay the new prices. If consumers did not want the new package, then they could write, phone or communicate in some fashion to the cable company to indicate they did not want the service in their homes.

People are busy. People are not always aware of some of the things which are happening around them. There is a habit of using automatic withdrawals from the banking system to pay for these items. Otherwise the consumer looks at the invoice and says: "All right, I will pay it".

More significantly, in this busy world there are certain deadlines. People are given an option. They can say they do not want the new service, but they have to do it by a certain date. If the deadline is not met, the consumer receives an invoice for the new service.

That is not a good idea. Consumers should know exactly what it is they are paying for. They must know exactly when they must make their decision. The point at which that ought to happen is the point at which we make the decision to buy a particular service. It is not the point at which the company says: "This is what you are going to get and it will cost you another $5 per month after this date. The only way to avoid it is to tell us you do not want the service".

There is another thing which comes into play here, that is, there are more and more wireless television transmissions appearing than there are cable. Our cable companies have provided a tremendous service to Canadians. I want to congratulate them. I want to commend them for the quality and for the price at which they deliver the service. It has been excellent. However, a new era is rapidly dawning. We are going to move into the wireless transmission of television programs to an ever increasing degree.

Why is this bill being opposed at this time? Could it be that this bill is being opposed because the current operation actually preserves the monopoly of the cable companies in certain areas? Could it be that it would require the cable companies to become

more aggressive in their marketing? That would cost a little more money than it does now. As a consequence it would reduce their revenue.

Are the cable companies actually afraid of the wireless transmission? Will it make their installations obsolete? Could that be the case? Could it be that it will reduce the power of the CRTC to pick winners and thereby extend certain power to the commission that they would lose if negative option billing were to be outlawed?

We can ask all kinds of questions. One begins to wonder what is the real reason behind this sudden shift in thinking on the front bench.

Could it be that there is a fear that French programming would become uneconomic to transmit and therefore we would have to preserve that facility? Will we now force other people to subsidize that programming? Is there a concern that certain parts of Canada would resent subsidizing the television programs designed for a selective audience?

If the programming is good enough, if the entertainment value is strong enough and if the people feel deeply enough about the issue, they will pay for the programming. We have all kinds of evidence to show that is the case. The issue of forcing people to pay for something that somebody else wants is not in the interests of the consumer generally speaking.

These questions need to be addressed and they have not been addressed.

Why am I supporting the bill? The time has come for us to recognize that the consumers must be able to choose to the greatest degree possible the kind of programming which they desire. It should be my choice. It should be the choice of every individual who has a television set and wants to subscribe to a service as to what it is they will choose. If they need to pay for it, they will pay for it on the basis of what they want.

Second, I am supporting this bill because technological advances increase the number and kind of choices available to consumers. The consumer today has a far greater number of choices available, and should be able to choose them. There should be no legal infringement on his ability to choose among these various kinds of programs. The motion before us will do exactly that.

Monopoly protection also prevents the marketplace from operating and allowing individuals to have a level playing field as consumers and on the industry side as well.

In light of the consumer, in light of a free marketplace and the people of Canada, I suggest we oppose this motion and support Bill C-216.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter the debate on Bill C-45. I wish to ask three questions this morning. First, what is the value of a life? Second, what message does Bill C-45 send to the Canadian people? Finally, what are the Canadian people saying?

Not too long ago a young little girl was playing on the street. She disappeared. Her name was Mindy Tran. She was found dead. I got a phone call about six months ago from a man whom I did not know. It was from the employer of Mr. Tran, Mindy's father. He said Mr. Tran was afraid to come and talk to me because he was a new immigrant to Canada and did not know exactly how to approach an elected government member. I told him to bring him in. He said: "He wants me to come within. Is that okay?" I said: "That is more than okay, please come". Mr. Tran sat across the

table from me. He said: "What can we do to make sure that my other little girl is not killed like this one was?"

It is an extremely difficult situation when the father of a young girl comes to a member and asks what the government is doing to protect him, his family and his little girl. It is serious when one looks at this kind of a question and one has to ask the question: What is the value of a life? What is the value of this little girl's life, Mindy Tran?

Mindy Tran in her death mobilized the community like I have never seen a community mobilized. There was not a police officer who was not personally stirred in trying to find the person who had perpetrated this crime. All kinds of neighbours, relatives, friends and the whole community got together to search first of all for the body because it was lost. Somehow they could not find it. It took days and nights. Twenty-four hours a day there was a search going on throughout that community. Finally they did find the body of Mindy Tran. The community is still in sorrow over that particular incident.

I ask the question again: What is the value of that life? According to this bill the life is worth 15 years of imprisonment for the perpetrator.

One can look at the value of a life in economic terms, which is what insurance companies do. It is what judges do in determining the liability when someone has been killed in an automobile accident. The economic value of a key man in a business is determined when key man insurance is purchased to replace the money that person would provide for that company in order to replace them.

There is an economic value to a person when they take out loan insurance, mortgage insurance and things of that sort. Insurance companies provide for personal insurance so that the individual who is the main breadwinner or the two breadwinners can supply food, clothing and shelter to the persons remaining after the death has occurred.

There is more than an economic value to a life. There is also the value of emotion, the feelings that we have, the love that we have for one another; parents, one for each other and parents for their children, as demonstrated by Mr. Tran and his young daughter who was killed. How does one replace that?

Yesterday we heard the story of Laurie Boyd and the trauma that created in the lives of the parents who had to recall that incident when they heard that Bill C-45 said that section 745 was not going to be deleted from the Criminal Code because the bill had not been allowed to be presented to this House.

Mr. Tran is thinking today about the possibility of parole for the person who murdered his family member. He says: "Mr. Schmidt, will you allow that to happen?" I said: "Mr. Tran, it is not for me to decide. I wish I were in that position. I am not".

We have a government in this land that was elected. Its members have decided and they are the ones who are responsible. "But Mr. Schmidt, can you not do anything?" I said to Mr. Tran: "I will do what I can".

He broke down and cried. He said: "Is that all my daughter's life is worth, you will try?" This is the question I ask every member of this House. Is that all Mindy Tran's life is worth, and the other person who has been murdered?

Parole creates that second trauma again for the indirect victims, not the ones who have been killed but the ones who remain who have the emotional tie. It is for them that the trauma is repeated.

There is another cost to a life, the life to the nation. It destroys the talents and takes away the skills and the abilities that person would have brought to our society, the untold talents and abilities found in these people, especially in the children who have been killed. The question we need to ask ourselves is what is suitable punishment for that kind of behaviour.

It draws me to the second question which is what message does Bill C-45 send to our people. What message does it send to other criminals? It says there is the hope of relief after 15 years. Really, the consequences of first degree murder are really not so great. Society paid with a life and now the criminal who did that says that society will pay to keep them and eventually release them back into society.

What is the message that it sends to our young people? It sends to them the message that life really is cheap. It is worth 15 years. It does not really matter very much what the victim's rights are. It does not really matter very much that all the victim's rights, the person who was killed, were taken away.

Society protects the rights of the person who perpetrated the crime. That is protecting, but it does not seem to matter that the rights of the person who was killed are destroyed.

Therefore the young people can say to themselves: "I can commit almost anything and get away with relative impunity". Where does that kind of thinking end? What does it do to all the other crimes that are not as severe as killing another person? It ultimately creates disrespect for law and order. The end result of that is chaos.

If this government or any government has any role to play, it is to push back the walls of evil and to prevent evil from taking over in our society.

Finally, what example does it set for our children? If that is how we as government officials behave and treat the worst possible crime that one person can perpetrate against another with 15 years of incarceration, what message is that to our children?

I want to ask why does the government not let the people speak. I cannot believe the kinds of responses I got from a recent householder where I asked: "What is bugging you about the government? What are your concerns about the government, the present government?" The response that came through hundreds and hundreds of times was: "When will you do something with the justice system? We do not feel safe in our streets. We do not feel safe in our homes. We feel that the time has come for us to do something serious about crime in our society".

They came up with some suggestions. They asked why we do not conduct a referendum on capital punishment in this country. "Let us tell the government clearly and unequivocally what it is we want".

Yesterday morning Parliament stopped Bill C-234 from entering the floor of this House. The member for York South-Weston understood very very clearly what his people were telling him. He listened to them. He presented to this House a private member's bill.

I support that bill. There are many of our constituents who are speaking the same kind of language. I am sure that his constituency is not an isolated example. And so I would urge the government to bring that bill back. Pass it. That would eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code.

We need to recognize that with Bill C-45 we have an indication that the government is really not serious, that it is a wimpy, snivelling flirtation with what is just and fair. It sends a message that is symbolic of justice but which lacks the essence of all that is noble, upright and fair. It should not be passed.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, September 16th, 1996]

For each of the last 15 years, what grants, contributions, and/or loan guarantees made, either through a crown corporation, department, and/or agency of the government did each of the following companies receive: Air Canada, Bombardier Inc., Canadair, De Havilland, and Airbus Industrie, specifying the source and value of the grant, contribution, and/or loan guarantee, date made, reason(*ros) for providing the assistance, and present status of the grant, contribution and/or loan guarantee (whether repaid, partially repaid, or unpaid-including the value of the repayment)?

Return tabled.

Question No. 50-

[Petitions, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in accordance with Standing Order 36. It has to do with Bill C-7.

The petitioners suggest that although herbs, botanicals and natural extracts and other natural remedies are not explicitly mentioned in Bill C-7, it is ambiguous. For that reason the petitioners herewith call on Parliament and the parliamentary subcommittee to either drop the bill or implement wording that would clearly protect the traditional use of classic herbs and the right of Canadians to use the herbal remedies of their choice.

[Robert Thirsk, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when Robert Thirsk was a student at Glenmore Elementary and Dr. Knox in Okanagan Centre he had a dream. He wanted to become an astronaut. On June 20 that dream becomes reality. The official payload on mission 78 will be microgravity and the effects of space on the human body.

Dr. Thirsk will also conduct a number of experiments designed by young Canadians while talking directly to them from space by two-way radio.

The enthusiasm of our young scientists must be encouraged for Canada's economic future depends on our excellence in science and engineering. As Dr. Thirsk said to me, we have succeeded in developing our natural resources, but we have not fared as well developing our intellectual resources.

Bobby Orr's hockey jersey will also be on mission 78, a tribute to Canadian excellence.

I have no doubt that if Canada can produce the best hockey players in the world, then we can produce the best scientists and engineers too. All young people have dreams. We must encourage them and give them a place to go.

[Financial Administration Act, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I commend both previous speakers for recognizing the word accountability. It is really what this is all about.

That there is a function of auditor general suggests there is a need to occasionally review what has happened. I think we need to know how the money is spent, was it spent in the manner indicated in the budget and did people get value for their money. These are exactly the kinds of questions an auditor general is supposed to address.

The auditor general's report identifies areas where changes should be made, and the departments so affected are expected to respond. That in effect is the thrust of this motion.

However, it goes beyond the auditor general. Both previous speakers indicated the auditor general would be saddled with all of the responsibility. I draw the attention of the House to the last part of the motion: "Such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and any other relevant standing committees". That becomes very critical in this regard.

There are standing committees on industry, agriculture and health, et cetera. These are the committees that really have a working knowledge of what happens in the department and what the auditor general is referring to when the auditor says something out to be changed.

Each of those department should respond in three major areas: yes, the recommendations are useful; no, the recommendations are impractical, do not work and therefore will not be implemented; or the recommendations will be implemented in part and state the timeframe in which it will take place and provide a detailed plan of exactly what is to be done.

I will address this from two perspectives. I will use the science and technology experience and I will to refer briefly to the regional economic development programs.

First is science and technology. In this area the auditor general made some rather interesting observations. He suggests there was a lot of money spent. We agree. It was some $6 billion in 1995. Who is spending that money? It is the granting councils like NSERC, SSHRC and several others and scientific departments and agencies.

How are they spending it? They are spending it to some degree through government labs. There are 150 of these. I will not take time to read them all.

There are the Agri-food Diversification Research Centre in Borden, Manitoba; the Air Traffic Services Research and Experimentation in Gloucester, Ontario; the Canadian Centre for Geomatics in Sherbrooke; the Centre for Information Technology Innovation in Laval; Chalk River Laboratories in Chalk River; the Defence Research Establishment; the Lacombe Research Centre in Lacombe; the Lethbridge Research Centre in Lethbridge; the NRC Centre for Surface Transportation Technology in Ottawa; the Pacific Geoscience Centre in Sydney, British Columbia; the Sum-

merland Research Centre in Summerland, British Columbia; the West Coast Vancouver Laboratory in West Vancouver, British Columbia; the Winnipeg Research Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

There are 150 of those labs. They are not the ones involved in NSERC situation. What we recognize is there is great variance on the kinds of labs just going through the labs I have given.

We need to look at some of the categories of labs. It is a little easier to do if we follow by provinces. In Newfoundland there is the St. John's Research Centre. I do not have a clue what that centre is all about but on the left hand side of my document it suggests it is in agriculture. That is fine.

There are natural resources, for example the Canadian Forestry Services in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a number in agriculture.

It is interesting that a lot of the agricultural labs would not be recognized as agricultural labs because they are identified by the name of the place where they are centred. It goes on through the various centres. These are the labs that do the various work and in which the research is done.

Ontario has 13 different labs that deal with environment. There are the Canadian Wildlife Service, the water and wetlands branch; Atmospheric Environment Service, Ontario region; Environmental Conservation Service; the National Water Research Institute; the National Laboratory for Environmental Testing; the Waste Water Technology Centre; Dry Deposition Research Centre; King Radar Research Facility; the Centre for Atmospheric Research Experiments; Atmospheric Environment Service, Downsview; the Environmental Technology Centre, and so on. The list goes on.

The purpose of reading these lists is to show the auditor's observation of the subject of science and technology in Canada and how research dollars were being spent is accurate or at least not surprising when we go through that list.

He said science and technology go beyond contributing to economic growth; they contribute to our quality of life. I think we all agree this is so. He shows that the government has demonstrated that it obviously believes science is a major contributor to our economic well-being and to our standard of living. It spends 11 per cent of its annual budget in this area.

However, when it comes to answering the question about value for money spent or whether the money is being spent in those areas that are strategic to advancing Canada's international competitiveness, he concludes: "The present allocation of funds among various fields of science and technology is more incidental than the result of a well formulated strategy". That is not much of a commendation for spending $6 billion.

The auditor general then goes on to suggest there ought to be a framework. He suggests four questions: what are the greatest needs and opportunities; where must the government be involved and why; where should and could the government be involved and why; what should and could the government's involvements be.

The Department of Industry began to answer these questions. It produced a booklet earlier this year "Science and Technology for the New Century". It was promised to the House 12 months earlier. It was delayed one year and then another year. Following that document came another document "Highlights of Department S & T Action Plans in Response to Science and Technology for the New Century". The motivation for that came from the auditor's statement saying the allocation of funds was more incidental that the result of strategy.

What are these action plans? The action plans resulted in a further booklet "A Framework for the Human Resources Management of the Federal Science and Technology Community Science and Technology for the New Century". There are five projects in that framework: training and development, rewards and recognition, workforce and mobility, classification compression, and recruitment and rejuvenation.

Not a single one of those task forces in those five areas has anything whatsoever to do with science and technology but with personnel, its reclassification and how to look after the people who are to be involved in the research department.

Where is the science strategy for Canada in all of this? There is not one. That was the thrust of the auditor general's concern. If we do not come to grips with these kinds of things we will lose the competitive advantage we want.

I have had time to deal with one illustration of how significant the auditor general's observations are and how they can direct a whole department to what it ought to do so that the people can get the places identified where the money ought to be spent and then spent in an efficient manner so they can say that money was well spent.

[Petitions, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of well over 500 petitioners from Okanagan Centre, resident primarily in Kelowna, Westbank and Winfield.

This petition asks and prays that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other non-constitutional procedure.

I present this to the House and I support the petition.

[Food And Drugs Act, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present on behalf of well over 500 petitioners from Kelowna-

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like the record to show that I made a mistake in my vote on the Motion No. 5. The record will show that I supported that motion. I want to be on record that I oppose the motion.