Jim Silye

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I do not fail to grasp this issue. I do understand this issue. It is the consumers I am talking about, the people who buy the product. They are the losers right now and they would be the winners. I understand the system.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member.

I have been dying to ask this member a question because I have a concern. This is a trade agreement and he knows full well that, as my colleague mentioned earlier, there is a protective tariff system in effect in this country, especially with subsidizing the dairy industry in Quebec.

We pay over and above the next lowest price we could get our dairy products for, 350 per cent supply management tariff. We subsidize that product in Quebec. It is a huge component of Quebec's economy.

The member was sent to this House by the people of his constituency to break this country up. The people in his riding say they want to go on their own and they want him to fight for that. They also say they will be better off once they leave and that they will not have to pay for this expensive overhead that Ottawa generates. They will be able to do it better themselves and economically they will be better off. The people his riding think they will be better off if they separate. A large component of their industry is the dairy industry which is subsidized by consumers across Canada, including Quebecers.

Does he believe that if Quebec separates we are going to continue to buy our product at a 350 per cent subsidized price from the province of Quebec, from the new country of Quebec or whatever it will be called?

I feel that the issue of trade, of economics and of separation can be reduced to a simple argument which may be a reality that might sink in to the people of his riding as to the cost of separation, to whether the burden of proof should be on the separatists to prove to the people of Quebec that they will be better off in trade after separation.

The Liberal member earlier asked why Israel. I ask, after separation why Quebec? We can get our product from ourselves. We can be the dairy industry to the rest of Canada. We can get it from the United States. They will become a competitor. Competition creates the best marketplace. The competition will reduce the revenue to the people in Quebec and Quebecers will have to compete. They will no longer be subsidized. The reality is they will be worse off. Would the hon. member like to comment on that subsidy?

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we support free trade and we support bilateral trade agreements that are negotiated by our representatives.

I find it interesting to listen to the hon. member from the government side using such flowing and glowing eloquent language when describing this trade deal, but I wonder about the hypocrisy from the other side.

When the Liberals were in opposition and when they had a leader by the name of John Turner, they ran a whole election campaign which caused me a lot of grief. I had to hold my nose while I voted for the Conservatives because I favoured free trade.

I did not want to vote them in for another session. I did not want them to be here for another four years because they were incompetent. They were running the government very poorly. They were overspending. They promised tax cuts and did they give us tax cuts? They gave us tax increases. They promised integrity in government and what did they give us? They gave us nine cabinet ministers who quit in the first four years.

In opposition they debated how free trade is not good and in the best interests of Canada, and how North American free trade is no good for Canada. We just have to go back into Hansard .

John Turner ran a campaign against Brian Mulroney on free trade. That was the issue and the people over there, many who were in that campaign, were against it. Now we have every one of them, including the Prime Minister, saying free trade is great, quote the trade statistics.

Thank goodness we have free trade because that is what is saving their butt in terms of jobs and job creation. The only reason our economy is growing is our trade agreements. That is what is making it grow. Domestic growth is nil. It is next to nothing. There are no jobs in Canada. There are 1.4 million people out of work.

Thank God the jobs that are being created, those 600,000 jobs they brag about, over half of them are probably due to the trade.

What I do not understand is the hypocrisy of politicians who say one thing in opposition and then when they get on the government side they flip-flop. I am not sure if this member has flip-flopped. I am not accusing this member of flip-flopping. I am sure based on his speech, I am positive based on his speech, that he believed in free trade when he was in opposition. He believed in free trade when John Turner was running against it. He believed in free trade all the way. I am sure he did because you cannot use language like that today, having argued against it yesterday.

The hon. member is anxious to get up and I will let him get up, but I want to make a serious comment. I want to repeat it so that everybody understands my point.

My point is why say that you are against something in opposition, then go over to the government and be in favour of it and in such a way that they always believed in it? It does not make sense to me. Thank goodness for the wonderful rebirth of the Liberal Party in terms of understanding the economy of the country and I compliment it for flip-flopping.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

The member also said that the punishment should meet the crime. In saying that, does he believe that the penalty for premeditated first degree murder is a review after 15 years? After someone receives a lifetime sentence subject to parole, subject to a

review after 25 years, another relaxation for a first degree murderer, a killer who premeditated gets a review after 15 years.

This is the kind of legislation the Liberal government has brought in and all the Liberals voted for. All the Liberals support the view that the punishment should meet the crime. Is that what he believes is an example of the punishment meeting the crime?

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the members of the third party, the Reform Party or whatever, as having an attitude on crime of lock them up and throw away the key.

I would like to know which member said that. I would like the member to refer specifically to whose opinion that is and who said that. I do not like a general comment that all Reformers are this or all Reformers are that. Not all Liberals are incompetent, just 95.5-

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to summarize this bill in one word for the hon. parliamentary secretary who spoke with such glowing words. It is a mistake.

It is a mistake in a lot of ways. There were some misconceptions within her statements that I would like to clarify. The parliamentary secretary is concerned about child support and how children are important and I agree 150 per cent. However, the way the government is going about will hurt the children more than help them.

In that tax grab that we talk about, which she has now identified, in the neighbourhood of $.5 billion, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of that goes, as she admitted herself, into overhead, into a federal bureaucracy, into a federal administration. She said initially it will take $50 million of that. That is not helping children. That is creating jobs in government. That is what it is doing. It is hurting the children, at the expense of children.

The parliamentary secretary talks about how the person who pays used it as a tax deduction and a person might as well get a divorce because they got a tax deduction if they have children. The adjudicator determined between the couple divorcing in the case of children the amount of money paid based on need and ability to pay and an amount was set. Yes, it was deductible and taxable. What that really is, if the parliamentary secretary considers this for a moment, is if the amount is $10,000 and the individual makes $50,000 to $60,000 in income, it is a deferral of $10,000 of income to the person who is looking after the children.

The principle of taxation is that we tax income. That deferral from the $50,000, $60,000, $25,000 or $100,000 is a deferral to the custodial parent. That parent paid the tax. Do you know what? In that system, that is a tight system. There is no leakage there. There is no government bureaucracy taking 30 or 40 per cent of that money. All the money is going to the children. The taxes paid on that are paid at a lower rate.

I submit that the single biggest mistake in this bill is doing away with deductibility and taxability of child support. Arbitrarily setting amounts across the country no matter where a person lives-this is the amount-is a good principle. It should be applied to UI as well.

Why should somebody in Alberta paying $1 get 75 cents in benefits and somebody in Newfoundland paying $1 getting $3.75

in benefits? If the parliamentary secretary would apply that same principle to UI, then the government might be making some sense.

This bill is a mistake. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people in a way that will just support more government bureaucracy. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people and say that government will now look after the children, not the parents. Government is taking money away from the parents' ability to look after the children.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before the Liberal government became involved in the issue of child support payments, the system was that the payer deducted the amount of child support payments and the recipient paid the tax on it. The logic for that was that usually the person who received the child support payments was in a lower income bracket and consequently would be taxed less and would therefore have more money available. Also, the person who was making the payments would be more willing to give the maximum because the payments would be deductible.

The justice minister has changed that system and now child support is non-deductible and non-taxable. The non-deductibility aspect of child support payments will mean that the government will receive an additional $300 million in revenue. The government claims it will put the money into some form of child support subsidy or child care benefit for the Canadian public. We will have to wait and see.

My concern is, with the government having made these changes, eliminating deductibility will encourage those people who have to pay to give less. Ultimately the children will suffer. They will receive less in benefits because less money will be given to them.

I recognize that my colleague does not wish to pick sides on the issue between mother and father, but let us pick on the government a bit. Let us see if in its wisdom the government has actually done a great service or whether it has made it worse with its half measures and tinkering.

I wonder if my colleague has a comment on the effect of the impact of what appears to be another tax grab by the government to generate $300 million in revenue at the expense of children.

[Olympic Athletes, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to think that when in opposition the Liberals were against free trade.

Today we are honouring Olympic athletes, some of whom are with us today on Parliament Hill. The value of their participation and contribution to Canada should not be underestimated or unrecognized.

In my opinion, athletics are as important in one's life as is academics. In some way or another sports have been or will become a part of every Canadian's life. Athletic competition prepares the individual for life and the real world.

An Olympic athlete reaches the epitome of success by not only striving to be the best in a particular sport, but also in wanting to represent his or her country. Hours of practice go rewarded by making the Olympic team and the height of ecstasy is reached if the athlete manages to win a medal for themselves and their country.

To all who aspire to be an Olympic athlete, to all who dream, past, present and future, and to all those who represent their country, congratulations.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 makes some significant changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

It addresses three major changes. First, a murderer serving time for murder must appear before a superior court judge and prove to the judge that he should be allowed this glimmer of hope and that he has a reasonable prospect of success before this proceeds. That is just fluff. That is part of a routine procedure that I am sure judges will allow to happen. How does the judge know? He will let the jury decide.

Second, this bill introduces different classes of murderers. A person who commits first degree premeditated murder for the first time, or just once, will be given this opportunity. However, if a person does it twice or more, they will no longer be given that opportunity. This change is not retroactive to serial murderers, to people who are already in jail for multiple murders. It is lacking

severely by not addressing the 58 multiple murderers who are in prisons now.

Those people will be allowed to come forward for a review. Those people will be considered for a review. Those people will bring agony to the lives of the families of the deceased and bring back the emotions of fear and hatred.

The Liberals are supposed to have such huge hearts and be so caring that they will spend billions of dollars just to save one life. Yet they do not seem to care or be aware of what they are potentially doing emotionally to the families of the victims of these 58 people. That is what is wrong with that section.

Third, the bill introduces a requirement that the parole board bring down a unanimous decision rather than just a two-thirds majority. I will return to that issue.

The justice minister is tinkering around the edges with this bill. He is trying to satisfy his legal buddies in the system that he is allowing them to continue with the high cost of defence and high cost of the defence justice system, yet also trying to satisfy the Canadian public that he is addressing a serious matter.

I believe it will be revealed, as I am trying to do, as a sham. He is trying to suck and blow at the same time and it does not work. He has created different classes of murder. Some are not as bad as others. He said that changes to section 745 are to enhance community safety. But how does it enhance community safety to allow murderers to walk our streets?

The minister also said that section 745 will be available to those who are deserving. Consider a person who commits a crime with intent to murder. He plans, knows what he wants to do and does it. Yet somehow he knows before he commits this murder that he will be deserving through a glimmer of hope clause, section 745. He is only allowed to do it once, though. He knows that he has a chance to get out. Deserving?

The Minister of Justice is using the word deserving and making it synonymous with premeditated, with murder and with criminal. That does not sound right to me and it is not what he should be doing when he is trying to address the deterrent and punishment for crime and focusing on the criminal. He says he is preserving this section for those who should have access to it in a way that makes sense.

Premeditated first degree murder does not make sense but it happens, and the punishment for that is life with parole after 25 years, which is the kind of truth in sentencing we need. A person must know, as my colleague from Edmonton Southwest said earlier today, that if the penalty is 25 years, they serve 25 years. If the penalty is life with no parole, it is life with no parole.

We should have the punishment meet the crime and truth in sentencing, but we do not have that now. We keep having these escape clauses. That is why our streets are not safe and why the perception is being created for Canadians that they have lots to fear from these criminals who are being coddled more than the victims and victims rights.

It does not make sense that when someone takes the life of another human being in a premeditated manner they are still given a carrot or, as the justice minister puts it, a glimmer of hope. When these people killed another person they took away their glimmer of hope. They ended all their dreams and all their plans. They took away any chance that these people had to contribute to society.

To worry about the rights and democratic freedoms of murderers I do not believe is as much of a high priority as the rights of the victims and of their families. The minister is not recognizing the emotional needs of the people who are left behind. Let us not forget that a victim's sentence is forever. It is life six feet under in a cemetery. Therefore life should mean life and a life should mean a life.

Under the charter of rights all people are supposed to be equally and are to be protected equally under the law. The justice minister has created different classes of Canadian citizens, telling people they may be valued more or less depending on how they die or how many people they die with. If one person is murdered, that murderer is deserving of a glimmer of hope. However, if two people are murdered at the same time by one person then that murderer does not deserve a glimmer of hope and is put away for the full sentence.

It gets more complicated. If two people kill two people are they deserving? In other words, one person's death is not proof enough. Is not one person's death in a premeditated, planned fashion proof enough of the criminal tendency of that individual? It takes two deaths for this government to act and then it will get tough.

Our first priority must be the law-abiding, taxpaying decent citizens. Government must respect that Canadians have the right to demand that their government give them safe streets and communities by cracking down on hard criminals, especially those who have been convicted of first degree premeditated murder, no matter how many people's lives they affect.

Parole boards are supposedly set in place for the purpose of rehabilitation after an individual is subject to parole and goes before this parole board. This is a quasi-judicial body. For many who serve on it the qualifications are vague. They are not really based on merit and no real knowledge is required to serve on this board.

This board is given the power, 15 years later or 18 years later, to overrule a judge's decision years after the fact. Years after the fact the circumstances are different and the evidence is somewhat forgotten. A prosecutor and a defence lawyer argue the case in a more detached and arm's length fashion. I know this to be true because I witnessed one this summer in Calgary.

I went to a section 745 hearing-I believe the man's name was Ramsey-and listened to Ramsey's defence lawyer trying to justify why this person deserved to have his sentenced reduced from 25 years. He had already served 16. He had been in there for 16 years but he was a model prisoner. He was rehabilitated and he had applied to get out early.

The prosecutor said: "No, this gentleman does not deserve to be let out. This gentleman is manipulating the system. He is playing games". There was a very descriptive and vivid explanation given of the crime. It was a drug related crime. He stood over his drug partner and shot him twice in the head. The jury listened to the description of the crime. I reacted to the evidence. I said to myself: "No, you stay in there and serve your 25 years".

That gentleman got 18 years because of the two-thirds rule. He got it reduced from 25 years to 18 years. By doing the right things in jail and by following the advice of his lawyer he was able to get his sentence reduced, despite the brutality of his crime.

This bill should be repealed, just like the prior bill that was introduced by the member for York South-Weston. We should get on with other legislation.

[Government, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a letter which was forwarded to me by a constituent, Mr. Doug Leitch, Sr. The letter reads:

This country was built by its people, not the government. Let's get the country back in the hands of the people through less government. Let the citizens determine how they will live and determine their own destiny-not a few people in Ottawa.

This means empowering that level of government closest to the people to deliver the services, allowing people to make their own decisions versus government making them for them. It means a smaller federal government of 250 MPs, not expanding it to 301. It means less duplication and overlapping and red tape of federal and provincial government services. It means that governments should govern the country at arm's length, not compete directly with their citizens and businesses through selective subsidies and grants. Finally, it means less power to the politicians and more power to the people.