Jim Silye

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

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

What we are trying to find out here is the price of a human life. The member has said that in her mind it is 15 years. If somebody plans to murder another person, first degree murder, that person would get only 15 years. In my humble opinion that is far too low.

When this whole debate took place 25 or 30 years ago in the 1970s when they changed from capital punishment to a new sentence for life, it was life subject to parole after 25 years. That was the sentence. That was the trade-off. That is what the politicians of the day thought they had agreed to. Life with parole after 25 years was the price for taking a life.

Where is the truth in sentencing, the deterrent to or the punishment for taking a life, instead of capital punishment, which obviously the member abhors and says would not be a deterrent? There are lot of people who share that point of view, which is fine. The replacement was a life for a life. We will not take another life but we will put a person away for life, away from society. "We do not want you to do that. You cannot do that. Your punishment is life. However, if there is a chance that you can be rehabilitated, we will take 25 years to find out if you have learned your lesson and if you can make a contribution to society again".

Now the person gets another lowered tier opportunity to enter society after 15 years. The judge heard the evidence and pronounced a sentence. Where is the truth in sentencing when after the judge and the jury have declared the punishment for the crime, life subject to parole after 25 years, when the criminal after serving time in jail can apply to a parole board which had nothing to do with the case or the trial, was not there when the evidence was given, was not caught up in the emotion of the situation but which can then after 15 years decide to lower the sentence or let them out earlier?

That is an injustice. It is cruel and it is placing the lowest possible value on a human life. We need truth in sentencing. If we do not favour capital punishment, then a life sentence should mean a life sentence and 25 years should mean 25 years. This 15 year stuff has to go.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, speaking of extremes, which political party's extreme ideas did the government adopt? Which party ran a campaign on cuts and deficit elimination and that cuts lead to jobs, better opportunities and make this country better? Which party ran on jobs, jobs, jobs? Which party has stolen the other party's ideas? We want nothing to do with its ideas and we are glad it is stealing ours, our extreme views, our extreme positions and our extremely valuable contribution we have made to this country.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what she really thinks about the selection of vice-chairs, especially only from the ranks of the separatist, break up the country party.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about tradition and what we suggested should be used in the standing committees.

He referred to tradition. I would like to refer to the rules, and the rules are clear. We wish the standing committees would operate according to Standing Order 106(2):

Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government-

The wording does not preclude members of the third party in the House from filling these positions.

Since 1958 the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been a member of the opposition, following British parliamentary tradition. Even Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms citation 781 states it is customary for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to be chaired by a member sitting in opposition to the government. That does not preclude any opposition party. It does not refer to the official opposition, the tradition he refers to.

Procedurally no party member is precluded from assuming the position of the chair in any committee. A precedent was set during the third session of the 35th Parliament when members of the NDP, the third party-the third party in the House like us-served as vice-chairs to standing committees and subcommittees and chaired legislative committees.

This party is recommending a push for real openness and real free votes for chairs and vice-chairs, not the set up that the government perpetrates on each of the standing committees. That is what we are recommending. Allow the members to be masters of their own destinies and vote for their own chairs and vice-chairs.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

And I will be held accountable.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

In the member's commentary he spoke for a long time and virtually said nothing of substance except to praise the status quo, which is not what we are here to do. We are here to bring about positive change. The member also made an implication as to my role when I was whip and about free votes. Let me explain to him very briefly what free votes are all about in the Reform Party.

A free vote means that we vote the party line, the platform and policies that we represent to the people, unless we have clear evidence from our constituents, even those who did not vote for us, to vote otherwise. The way we find that out is to do polling, talk shows, town halls, surveys through householders and scientific surveys. I did that on gun control. I live in an urban riding and there is a greater mix there. Therefore, I voted the wishes of my constituents which were with the government on that issue. My colleagues are proud of that. That is a free vote.

That is the way we would do a free vote if we were government, not the way the member claims a free vote should work, which is that on private members' bills we have free votes. That is a sham and that is not what free votes are about.

On sexual orientation, I did the same thing. I voted with the government because there was a clear indication from my constituents to vote with the government on that bill instead of with my party. My party did not kick me out of any position. I resigned the position of party whip voluntarily and freely.

For the member to use an argument of convenience is once again misleading the public which not only he is doing today but the finance minister and every minister across the way has done, except for the current human resources development minister. He is doing the best job of all.

I will now put my question to the hon. member. As the whip for the government, as a man who bragged about his 20 years of experience in the system, as a man who has honesty and integrity, as a man who I know will tell me the truth to this question, as a man who I know will not shirk from his responsibility to answer this question, does he, when these committees are set and struck, tell the members of his committees who are assigned to those committees how to vote and whom to vote for in terms of vice-chairs? Will he answer that question with conviction, honesty and courage on chairs and vice-chairs? On public accounts we cannot have a member of the opposition party as a chair. On that issue, would he give me the benefit of his 20 years of experience and be honest with me?

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the last session of Parliament I stood in the House to voice my opposition to what the justice minister was doing with section 745. I have listened to the justice minister over the summer and I have come to the conclusion that the minister just does not get it.

Instead of talking to my lawyer friends in Calgary and the inmates and criminals that the justice minister wants to coddle, I talked with some of the people that Bill C-45 would affect: my constituents. I sent out surveys to see what my constituents thought and I have never received more responses in the three years I have been an MP, 1,702 to be exact.

Of the people who responded, 85 per cent felt that the people who were convicted of first degree premeditated murder should not have their sentence reduced at all. Eighty-five per cent. Not only that but two-thirds of the people who responded felt that those who committed first degree premeditated murder should be subject to capital punishment. Based on the questionnaire, I believe that a nationwide referendum on the issue is becoming more and more mandatory.

One question asked was: What do you believe should be the penalty for first degree premeditated murder? This does not need much explanation. Most people know what premeditated first degree murder, the taking of a life, is. The response was that 1,144

favoured capital punishment, not the lifetime with parole after 25 years which is being bandied around in the House by the bleeding heart government members.

The second question was: Do you think that people convicted of first degree murder should have the ability to go before a jury after 15 years and present a case to have the time they are required to serve in jail reduced? In response, 1,469 said no. A high number of those responding said no, serve the full time.

The third question was: Should people serving a sentence for first degree murder have their sentence reduced at all? After all, in the wisdom of the House back in the seventies the penalty was supposed to be life. One thousand, four hundred and fifty-three said no, the sentence should not be reduced.

The public is scared. Our streets are not safe. Violent crime is on the rise. Even the justice minister admitted that in the House. Canadians expect and deserve a country where they can feel secure in their homes and communities and where they can grow old without fear. Canada has been shaken by crime and a defective criminal justice system which the Liberal government has been slow to fix. When will the minister get this?

Why does the government place less value on one life than it does on two or 20 lives? Corrections Canada's mission is to contribute to the protection of society by exercising lawful control. The government will send peacekeepers around the world to prevent people from murdering one another, yet it will release rehabilitated murderers onto Canadian streets. Why do two people have to die before the government will step in to lock these criminals up?

Where are the government's priorities? Has it forgotten that its first responsibility is to law-abiding Canadians and that it must do everything to protect their safety? Is it any wonder that people do not trust our justice system?

It is time to place the rights of victims, the survivors of crime, and law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals. Let us remember that a victim's sentence is forever; it is a lifetime sentence served in a graveyard. The murderer gets life with a reprieve, an opportunity to get out.

The justice minister has never offered the Boyd or Rosenfeldt families compensation for the horrific murders of their children, but the government will give inmates compensation for slipping in a stairwell. The government paid Clifford Olson compensation to the tune of $100,000 and will even allow him to publish books and to make videos while in jail. What a slap in the face to those families. Where is the justice in all of this? There is none. This is protecting the criminals' rights more than the victims'. It is not a strong enough deterrent.

Despite the justice minister's claims, the public interest will not be served by keeping first degree murderers in prison for any less than 25 years, even if they just kill once. The government must repeal section 745. The safety and the lives of Canadians depend on it.

When we were debating the gun control bill, Bill C-68, many members on the government side stood and talked about the justification of the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars which will be sucked out of the system in order for law-abiding citizens to register their firearms. The argument was an emotional one which came from the heart: If it saves just one life the gun registration system is well worth it.

If that is the logic the government used to justify the gun control bill, why does it not apply the same logic in this instance and repeal section 745? If by repealing section 745 a murderer must serve the full life sentence with a parole opportunity after 25 years, why not do that? Why not try it to see if it would be a stronger deterrent? Why not implement that?

If the repeal of section 745, despite all the great arguments on both sides of the House, saves one life, then why not? If it saves one single life then why not repeal section 745? Why is the government not consistent? The justice minister speaks about the multiple murderer syndrome. The life I am talking about that could be saved with the repeal of section 745 is that life the murderer would not get a chance to murder.

The member for York South-Weston said that most murderers do not repeat their crime. Notice that he said "most". If after the passage of Bill C-45 a murderer who has killed once does it again, if it just saves that one life, the repeal of section 745 is worth it.

I have one other objection to this whole farce and fiasco that this justice minister perpetrates on the House of Commons and the way he operates his department, this business of sending bills after second reading to the House. Even when they come back from the House and the standing committee and they are in his hands, for example, Bill C-41, the so-called tougher sentencing bill and Bill C-68, gun control, it sits in his department and then eight days before we leave or break he has to force it and limit debate for opposition members, not allowing them to fully discuss the issues at hand.

That is not the way you do justice in this country. That is an injustice to Canadians. That is not the way he should be running his department. He did it on Bills C-41 and C-68 and now he will probably end up doing it on Bill C-45. He did it as well on Bill C-33.

There is one other injustice that is being perpetrated by the justice minister of this government. The private member's bill, Bill C-234 from the hon. member for York South-Weston, was sent to committee. That is supposed to come back from the committee and be reported. In the wisdom of the standing committee on justice I

understand it is not going to report it back to the House. It is going to ignore it.

As members of the House of Commons we sent that bill to that standing committee and it is supposed to come back. It is not allowing this member of Parliament representing Calgary Centre to speak to Calgary Centre constituents about the fate of that particular bill, the status that it is at and what this government thinks about it. That is an injustice and this justice minister should be applying what his title calls for, justice, not injustice.

[The Senate, June 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about abolishing or not abolishing the Senate and the value of a Senate.

I feel that the original motion which was to abolish the Senate is not good enough and we could not support it. However, I feel that by adding the amendment to the motion, in its present form, definitely has some merit. After having abolished the Senate in its present form, we replace the Senate with a representative body that is equal across the land from province to province, that is effective and that is elected.

Imagine a Senate where the people of Canada get to vote for its members. Imagine a Senate where there are three representatives from each province, or the territories when they get in, and they are elected by the people. Imagine a Senate that is so equal that it could now concentrate on its effectiveness in representing the regions of the country. Imagine a Senate which is allowed to protect the interests of the Atlantic provinces. Imagine a Senate that is allowed to protect the west. Imagine a Senate that is allowed to protect Quebec. Imagine a Senate that is allowed to effectively represent the province of Ontario.

Imagine if we elected senators who were effective and equal across the land, a Senate that could have some powers and truly be a chamber of sober second thought, that could send back to this House legislation which is ineffective or distorts the balance across the country or which unduly or unfairly, because it perhaps was overlooked by the House of Commons, hurts one region of the country too much while maybe helping another region of the country.

We are a country with five or six distinctive and different regions. We have a House of Commons which is elected on the basis of representation by population. Sometimes we miss, distort and hurt certain parts of the country because of that. Representation by population is a sound and the basic fundamental of democracy. It is necessary, important and must always be upheld.

However, there has to be a balance brought into rep by pop through regional representation. The only effective way that can be done is through the Senate. However, the Senate, in its present form, that is appointed by a Prime Minister who appoints only his political cronies and friends and then says "your there to represent my party", like this Prime Minister has said, is not the purpose of a Senate.

I am not questioning the quality of some of the people in the Senate. I am questioning how they get there. I am questioning whether their loyalties are to the party that is in power or to the

region and communities they come from, where they have grown up, made their living and have many friends. Would it not be far more effective and reasonable to have senators representing the areas they come from because they know those people and understand them?

It would enable them to send bills back to this House if they unduly affect the francophones outside of Quebec who are afraid of being assimilated. Could not those three senators from Quebec stand up and look at the Official Languages Act or an official languages bill and say: "Look, this bill is not good enough for Quebec and this is why. We want to send this back until the House recognizes why this is not good enough for Quebec." Would that not have a better balance of power than we have right now?

Our system is weak. It is weak that we freely elect a dictator every four years, somebody who, with his or her little cabinet, can do at will whatever he or she wants to do. That is democracy at its worse if it is abused. We have opposition members and backbenchers to keep them in line. However, we can swing the pendulum too far in one direction.

What we need is systemic change. Imagine a democratic system where Canadians could finally have a system of government, which we are close to having now, that would truly be effective, one which would not only have the principles of representation by population, which is fine the way we have it now as our electoral system is good, but one that would contribute and add a Senate that would be equal, effective and elected across the land so that we also know that these people have some strength, some force and some say.

What about effectiveness? What powers should senators have? The House of Commons should be supreme. Representation by population should be supreme. As a check or a control and a chamber of sober second thought, just in case, however inadvertently it may happen, something comes into the Senate which the senators know is wrong for the people whom they also represent, something that the masses of the House of Commons has ignored or overlooked, they then look into a bill.

Hypothetically they say: "On this bill, we say that this language act is unfair to Quebec and therefore we need to protect the francophones outside of Quebec a little better and this is how we recommend you do it". They make an amendment. They send it back.

Let us say that the Senate holds free votes. If two-thirds of the Senate says no a bill would come back here. We fix it. If the House then says: "No, we disagree", it goes back again. Then both houses will have listened to the debate and everyone understands everyone else.

On money bills, however, the House of Commons should be supreme. Senators would not have the right to deny the funds that the federal government needs to spend, which it thinks on behalf of Canadians is the way it wants it. The Senate could not affect money bills or money bills would need a higher percentage of votes to send them back in case the government is doing something that the Senate feels is unfairly hurting one region.

On money bills the Senate should have no say or need a higher percentage of votes to send them back. However, the budget is another matter. Bills that affect an allocation of funds and on other bills like gun control, Pearson airport, Official Languages Act or anything like that, senators would have the right to improve them if they need improvement. What would be wrong with that kind of system?

Imagine a system where we had a second check or control and that chamber of sober second thought said: "This is a good bill. This helps everybody across the country". Can you imagine the harmony, Mr. Speaker, and the unity and the national pride that we would create with a system where both houses work together as a team? I know, Mr. Speaker, your son knows a lot about teams and teamwork. That is what we have to do in this country.

We are creating a system that is divisive. We are supporting and defending a system that pits region against region. The funds that we are trying to redistribute to help those people who need help are not being spent in a way that gathers and earns respect. Why do we not look at the system and change it?

Here is an opportunity for people who believe in democracy to throw partisan politics aside and to think what is in the best interests of all Canadians. I would suggest it is a system that works. It is a system that Canadians could support. We need that. Even in the House of Commons we can do some systemic changes here to improve things. That is not the issue here today. It is the Senate.

We need to have an equal, effective and elected Senate, have the best Constitution and have the best legal minds work together on a parliamentary system that would complement this House of Commons, not fight the House of Commons.

I am sick and tired of making fun of the Senate. I should not have to make fun of the Senate. I do not want to make fun of the Senate. However, I will as long as we have a Prime Minister who abuses, misuses, misrepresents and openly, defiantly tells Canadians: "I will select whomever I want to select and he will represent my party over there". That is not what a senator is supposed to do.

I would be embarrassed to be the senator so named. I would want to come from Alberta as a senator and say: "I represent Alberta. I am glad the Prime Minister appointed me but I am going to represent Alberta, even if, like Senator Sparrow, I have to vote against a Liberal bill". That is effectiveness. If something is wrong with a bill, send it back here and we will look at it to see what is

wrong. Take this Pearson airport bill. It would be our job to fix it, get it through, so it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

That is what democracy is all about. That is what we should be working toward instead of this strict, biased, prejudicial, narrow-minded, self-serving, democratic dictatorship that we elect freely every four years. We pretend that it is working but it is not. I challenge all of those in this House, the 295 members of Parliament, to look at our democratic system and put their best efforts, put their thoughts into how it can be improved.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

And 50 per cent said no.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke did some very emotional finger pointing on this whole issue.

The issue that the member for Macleod and myself are really concerned about is this. There was a referendum. A question was posed during the referendum. That question was ambiguous. It indicated or implied that if it was a yes that the Quebec government would negotiate for a year for some kind of association and give the federal government a year's time in which to do everything. Yet the letter written by the member, which is what this whole motion is all about said, implied, indicated that the day after a yes vote, it was time to move on over; the day after switch your allegiance.

Was the question in the referendum misleading and was it all along the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to declared Quebec sovereign the day after a yes vote?