Stan Keyes

[Violence Against Women, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the elimination of all forms of violence in our society.

In particular, members on this side of the House are truly concerned about the incidence of violence against women which has often been dismissed as unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada admitting drunkenness as an allowable defence for a man accused of sexually assaulting a 65-year old woman is an indication of the insensitivity that currently exists in the country.

Furthermore, as recently as last week in reference to the incidence of male violence against women the member for Lisgar-Marquette stated they were always taught at home as kids that when they went to get the cattle out of the pasture not to wear red because it would infuriate the bull in the pasture.

I fail to see the connection between violence against women and the herding techniques of the Reform Party member opposite.

It is my hope we will all work toward eliminating this type of insensitivity in our society.

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

If there was time allowed, I would get into much detail on this hon. member's riding. As I said, the hypocrisy I see here is that we are talking about reforming social security as part of our agenda for growth.

This is a concept that the Reform Party does not quite grasp. We know the Prime Minister, the Minister for Human Resources Development, all Canadians, those in my riding of Hamilton West, or in the riding of Lincoln, where the hon. member hails from, realize that these programs put together will put people and jobs together. The programs we have today do not do that well enough and we are making sure that it will be working for Canadians in the future.

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lincoln for his speech this afternoon. Obviously the hon. member has a firm grasp on the importance and relevance of this issue to Canadians and to his constituents in the riding of Lincoln.

As far as the member from Windbag, Saskatchewan, what is it, Gasbag, Saskatchewan, I have to say that I find it somewhat humorous if not ironic, maybe even hypocritical, when we hear the reforming social security part of this agenda for growth here in this great country of Canada-

[Tripartite Air Study, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport has embarked on a tripartite air study which will focus on the government's new national airports policy, the status of bilateral air negotiations with the United States, and the proposed commercialization of the air navigation system.

The future management and ownership of Canadian airports and their ability to compete depend upon the successful implementation of the national airports policy. Furthermore the successful conclusion of a new, more open bilateral air agreement with the United States and the modernization of the air navigation system are crucial to the future viability and competitiveness of our airport system.

As chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, I encourage all my colleagues in the House to inform the individuals and organizations involved in airport operations in various ridings across the country of our public committee hearings on the tripartite air study.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Vancouver South for his informative remarks.

I also want to take this moment to thank the member for York North who in his capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Human Resources Development is criss-crossing this great country visiting in ridings at the invitation of members of Parliament and listening to the people, hearing from groups and organizations on the subject of this important social security review.

When in Hamilton just a couple of weeks ago to hear from Hamiltonians on this social security review, the member for York North and I heard from a dozen organizations, groups and individuals at the beautiful Hamilton Art Gallery. We repeatedly asked the question at the end of their representations: Is the status quo acceptable? In each and every case the answer we got back was no, it was not, no matter what organization, no matter what individual spoke.

There does need to be change. Our current programs, while necessary, are not effective. They are outdated and simply not working, not doing the job they were intended to do.

I want to ask the member for Vancouver South if this has been his experience when he has heard from the people, groups and organizations in his riding and across the country?

[Civil Aviation, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as chairperson for the Standing Committee on Transport it is my privilege to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the opening of the international conference convened in Chicago to plan the post-war future of international civil aviation. I would like to note that the ICAO was created to ensure the orderly development of civil aviation.

In honour of the 50th anniversary the ICAO has convened another worldwide transport conference that will be held in Montreal on November 23. There are many global developments that will influence the future evolution of commercial air transportation in the years to come. These include changing trade patterns, technological advances and the growing affluence of countries that were once less developed.

It is therefore quite timely for the nations of the world to begin reviewing the economic rules and regulations under which international air services are operated.

The ICAO is to be commended for the leadership it has shown by organizing this conference. I wish all the conference participants every success in their endeavours.

[Social Security Programs, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to spend a few minutes discussing the provisions of Bill C-54 which deals with overpayment of old age security benefits and a time bar on the recovery of these overpayments.

This provision points out the challenges of administering our income security programs which comprise an extremely large enterprise, one which is vital to the well-being of more than six million Canadians.

To manage effectively a program that provides more than $20 billion a year to six million clients is challenging enough but the Government of Canada must also maintain the reputation of the income security programs as effective, efficient and equitable. After all the purpose of the old age security and other benefits is to help provide Canadians with a just reward for a lifetime of work and service to family, community and society.

The old age security program is designed to assist those whose retirement income is minimal or even non-existent. It is designed to contain elements that alleviate poverty among senior citizens. Inevitably with such an extremely large group of programs there will be anomalies. People may receive more than their entitlement. People may receive less than they are entitled to.

A vital part of administering these funds of such formidable size is to remedy abnormalities in a manner which is effective, equitable and, where appropriate, compassionate.

The Old Age Security Act contains restrictions which prohibit the recovery of substantial overpaid amounts and allow clients to retain unlawful gains. The act restricts the recovery of some overpayments aside from those arising from fraud or wilful misrepresentation. Collection can be made only for access moneys received in the current fiscal year plus the full previous fiscal year.

This is not the case with the Canada Pension Plan. It allows overpayments to be recovered regardless of the timeframe. The proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act reads exactly this way: "Where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which the person is not entitled or a benefit payment in excess of the amount, the benefit payment to which the person is entitled, the amount of that benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty".

This provision amends the Old Age Security Act to remove timeframe restrictions for recovery of overpaid moneys including payments for guaranteed income security and spouse's allowance. The change will provide greater accountability to the taxpayer and allow equal treatment of clients of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.

Under this change the minister will have the discretion to collect the entire amount overpaid to a client rather than a limited amount. However, in keeping with the policies and practices of the income security programs there would be no change to the existing authority to remit overpayments in various cases. These would include cases of hardship where administrative costs exceed the debt or where the debt cannot be collected within the foreseeable future.

Another new amendment incorporated in Bill C-54 will extend the minister's authority to remit overpayments where there was administrative error or erroneous advice. As a result of this amendment, recoveries of incorrectly paid funds are estimated to be approximately $1 million to $2 million every year.

I should mention that the time restriction has never applied in situations where charges of fraud were laid and proved but of course there are only a handful of cases of that type. Nevertheless, this amendment will enhance the ability of government to administer the old age security program in keeping with justice and equity.

No concerned Canadian wants to deny old age security benefits to a senior citizen who is deserving and in a difficult financial situation. Nothing in this proposed amendment will change that. The removal of this time restriction on recovery brings the old age security provisions into line with those of the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve commented that the government will collect debts incurred 15 years ago on the basis of erroneous advice from the department. This comment does not recognize the minister's ability expanded in this Bill C-54 to forgive overpayments incurred in such circumstances.

These amendments taken together will provide the minister with the flexibility to forgive overpayments where that is merited and to pursue the recovery of overpayments where that is merited. That is surely what is desired as opposed to the previous rules which were arbitrary and inconsistent with other government programs.

Where administrators have made errors, overpayments are to be forgiven. Where persons have made incorrect claims, overpayments are to be recovered. However, the government is determined to merit the reputation of the income security

programs as programs that respect both the taxpayer who provides these millions in benefits and the pensioner who deserves to be treated with sensitivity and dignity.

The old age security program is designed to help those who really need help. Through supplements, it is intended to help those senior citizens whose income is low. With more than six million people benefiting from all income security programs, there are bound to be anomalies.

I want to again stress that a vital part of administering these large sums of such formidable size is to remedy anomalies in a manner which is efficient, equitable and where appropriate compassionate. The amendment to remove time barriers to recover overpayments is an important provision and another reason why Bill C-54 merits the support of all members of this place.

[Committees Of The House, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport. This is a report on Bill C-38 which was referred to the committee following first reading. It is the first bill under this new procedure to be reported back to the House.

While this bill is the first to follow this unprecedented process, I would draw to the House's attention the fact that the committee study of this bill was done with professionalism and serious effort which is the proud tradition of the transport committee and the hallmark of its members.

[Social Security Reform, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just the other night I conducted a town hall meeting in my riding of Hamilton West to gain some input on the social security review from my constituents.

I would like to thank everyone who attended the town hall that evening including my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Several valuable messages emerged from that town hall meeting. Those who spoke agreed that the status quo is not acceptable. The Hamilton District Labour Council implored us not to rush the process. We were told not to place the burden of cost cutting on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged. Students at McMaster University asked us to work toward a more progressive tax system.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to conduct consultations in their own ridings on the social security review.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

The Reform Party should wait to hear my whole story before applauding.

In our society first degree murder has always been considered to be one of the most heinous crimes punishable by law. Despite our unswerving disgust with the premeditated destruction of another life, our approach to punishing first degree murderers has changed somewhat over the years.

With regard to convicted first degree murderers, the most significant change to take place in our criminal justice system occurred in 1976 when the members of this House passed Bill C-84. In addition to creating two new categories of murder, first and second degree, this bill also brought about two significant changes to our criminal justice system. It abolished the death penalty for Criminal Code offences such as first degree murder. It went even further by creating a legal loophole, section 745, that allows convicted first degree murderers to apply for early parole consideration after serving only 15 years of a so-called life sentence without parole for 25 years.

The actions taken in this House by my predecessors 18 years ago constitute what I call a double compromise. This double compromise is unwarranted and unjust. It serves only to confuse, frustrate and even traumatise the many families and friends of murder victims throughout this country.

When the death penalty was abolished 18 years ago, it was done in recognition of several key factors: one, the fact that capital punishment was not and is not an effective deterrent for heinous crimes such as first degree murder; two, the death/ penalty obviously eliminates the entire notion of rehabilitation of the convicted criminal; three, at the time this legislation was introduced, Canada's social conscience was more conducive to sentencing a convicted first degree murderer to life imprisonment rather than authorizing state sanctioned murder; and four, the legal and administrative costs associated with successfully carrying out a death sentence are often, I say to the Reform Party, far greater than the costs of incarceration.

Clearly the abolition of capital punishment represented the first compromise between two extremes. Those at one extreme were like our friends in the Reform Party who believe that all first degree murderers should be lined up and shot immediately. Those at the other extreme believed that we should simply rehabilitate first degree murderers for a few years instead of subjecting them to the harshness of long term imprisonment.

As though that compromise were not enough, section 745 of the Criminal Code allowed for what I call a double compromise. Not only would first degree convicted murderers escape the death penalty, they would also have a chance to escape their so-called life sentence by applying for early parole consideration after serving only 15 years of a minimum 25-year sentence.

I personally do not agree with the death penalty but let us be reasonable here. By compromising ourselves twice in this area we went too far. Whose interest does this second compromise really serve anyway? Does section 745 serve the interests of the victims who were brutally murdered in cold blood? Of course not. Does section 745 serve the interests of a society that is led to believe that it will be safe from first degree murderers for at least 25 years without parole? Of course not. Does section 745 serve the interests of a criminal justice system that aspires to be balanced, fair and effective when dealing with first degree murderers? Certainly not.

People across the country are asking us to say what we mean and mean what we say when a person is convicted of first degree murder. If an individual is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years then that is what should happen. If people think that life in prison without parole for 25 years is inappropriate for the same reason then we should debate what the actual sentence should be, reach an agreement and codify it in our laws. We should stick to it until we have reason to change those laws.

Under the current provisions of section 745, the sentence of life imprisonment is nothing but legal doubletalk. According to the statistics of the National Parole Board there are over 2,000 offenders serving life sentences in the Canadian correctional system. Furthermore over the next 15 years-and this is for the Bloc's edification-655 inmates in federal prisons will be eligible for this judicial review courtesy of section 745.

As of May this year there have been 60 judicial review applications made under section 745. A staggering 42 of them have been successful. That means 72 per cent of the convicted first degree murderers, first degree premeditated murderers who applied for early parole consideration, were successful under the current provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

To anyone who is thinking that I am just a vindictive individual, I ask them to consider this: crown attorneys, our public defenders, tell me they are not prepared to handle the sheer volume of judicial review cases that are about to come crashing down upon them. Most crown attorneys have little or no experience with this type of judicial review, which makes me a little concerned with the proper administration of justice in the country.

Canadians are fed up. They feel their rights are being superseded by the rights of the criminal. They feel that the scales of justice are no longer balanced but tipped in favour of the criminal and that there is not enough justice for the victim in society in general. For the benefit of those who may have forgotten why we need to seriously punish for heinous crimes, allow me to awaken their collective consciousness.

Daniel Gingras was convicted of murder in 1978. Nine years later he was released from a maximum security prison on a day pass for his birthday. He escaped his police escort and later celebrated his birthday by brutally killing two women.

Clifford Olson was convicted of murder in 1981. He still managed to murder 11 children while out on parole, one of whom was a young boy who was repeatedly raped for several hours before he was killed. He has the right under section 745 of the Criminal Code to be eligible for parole in less than a year.

Joseph Fredericks was convicted of raping and sodomizing a little boy in 1984. While on parole this man raped and murdered an 11-year old boy.

Patrick Mailloux was convicted of a long list of violent crimes. While on parole he walked into a corner store, pulled out a gun and murdered a 17-year old girl in cold blood.

Charles Simard killed two teenagers in Quebec. He had his parole eligibility period reduced by a judicial review from 20 to 15 years. Also there were Gilles Lavigne, Larry Sheldon and Serge Roberge.

Perhaps the most stirring case is that of Saul Betesh, Josef Woods and Ronald Kribs. In 1977 those three men lured a 12-year old boy into their apartment and raped him for 12 hours before strangling the little boy to death. Betesh and Kribs were convicted of first degree murder and Woods was sentenced to 18 years without parole, which means that he may be released as early as next year. All three prisoners are expected to seek judicial review courtesy of section 745.

Mr. Speaker, think about what that 12-hour torture was like for that little boy. Now think about what it would be like if he were your child.

In my own riding of Hamilton West there was the case of John Rallo who brutally ended the lives of his wife, his five-year old daughter and his six-year old son, whose body has yet to be found. Indeed the list goes on and on.

What exactly are the people of Canada saying to us about this issue? I have received a great deal of feedback from my constituents over the years that illustrates the public sentiment out there. I will give one before I conclude: "Only a politician and/or a lawyer could come up with a penalty which turns out to be not life imprisonment for 25 years but 15 years, and our politicians wonder why people do not trust their words".

How much longer must Canadians live with the double compromise presented by section 745 of the Criminal Code? Let us say what we mean: truth in sentencing. Life without parole for 25 years should mean exactly that and section 745 of the Criminal Code must be eliminated.