Philip Mayfield

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is one other element I would like to ask my colleague about.

It occurs to me that since I have become a member of parliament, the people I represent have a very definite view about the laws and that those laws are to represent them in a whole variety of ways.

What I am concerned about and what I would like to ask my hon. colleague is what does he see as the consequence of what I would consider the illegitimate degradation of the law by those who do not represent the people but who have been appointed by someone and they see their responsibility to something besides the Canadian people? What does he see are the consequences of the supreme court changing these laws?

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what we are talking about here is based upon tradition and history.

I am reminded that our system did not just get thought about and invented by a handful of people as they came together. The history of our parliamentary and judicial systems goes back to a time when there were kings who had absolute authority. It is a very interesting history. The English people began to push and encroach upon the authority and the power of the crown and out of that the process of parliamentary democracy evolved to the point where we have it today.

I find it paradoxical. We are talking about parliament in Canada beginning to lose its power to the supreme court and at the same time I read in the papers that the English system is working toward eliminating or reducing the power of those who sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their birthright. I find it interesting that we are in a position now where we have a government that is very critical of following the American example yet the American example is one in which the supreme court has the authority to change, amend and erase laws. We have followed this.

Has my hon. colleague given any thought to the long term consequences of this erosion of parliamentary authority at the hands of the supreme court?

[Delgamuukw, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada's Delgamuukw decision will have a long lasting and far-reaching impact on British Columbia.

Section 13 of the British Columbia terms of union laid out that the federal government was responsible for “The charge of Indians”. In 1924 the federal government, through an order in council, stated that the province had successfully completed all the requirements under this section.

One constitutional expert goes to the very heart of Delgamuukw by saying “This court decision goes to the very question of B.C.'s sovereignty and the right of its government to conduct its publics affairs”. With the provincial government's hands tied and the federal government's unwillingness to take responsibility, combined with the Supreme Court of Canada's activist approach, a solution does not appear to be close at hand.

British Columbians must insist that the federal government accept its legal responsibility and the cost of reaching a permanent solution with all B.C. aboriginal people and, if necessary, offer a legislated solution to the legal mess that the Supreme Court has thrown us into.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the difficulties that we as Canadian citizens are having in dealing with those who choose to commit crimes we are compelled to begin to try to understand how we can protect ourselves and look after the interests of those who are hurting, which perhaps results in them committing crimes, and those who have been affected by the commission of those crimes.

What we need in Canada is a fair and consistent system that applies to all citizens, where everyone knows the rules.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my party has begun by trying to establish some guidelines to support victims in a victims' bill of rights.

We all agree that the rights of people need to be respected and that the rights of those who have been charged and convicted need to be looked at carefully. However, the rights of those who have been caught up in circumstances of other people's criminal intent or action, through no fault of their own, have received no support from the government.

The victims are there for the charge, the trial, the appeal and the re-appeal if that is the case. The scabs are opened and re-opened. They are continually reminded of their pain.

The Reform Party of Canada is absolutely determined that wherever there is a choice to be made between the rights of the victim and the rights of the criminal that the rights of the victim will always come first.

With regard to the subject of the ombudsman, that is something that I believe should be duly considered after we have come to a decision on the rights of the victim. At this point, how can an ombudsman act when we have no idea how the government will respond to legislating the rights of victims? I think that is the first step. Following that we should then look at the means for providing those rights and ensuring that they are secured for victims.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking the remainder of the time of my hon. colleague for Wild Rose.

I am honoured to rise once again to speak on behalf of the people of Cariboo—Chilcotin and to speak on the official opposition supply day motion:

That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety, as demonstrated by their refusal to: ( a ) strengthen the Young Offenders Act; ( b ) abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and ( c ) introduce a victims bill of rights.

A couple of weeks ago, in my hometown of Williams Lake I hosted a town hall meeting dealing with exactly these issues. Ironically, this was the very same day the Minister of Justice finally introduced her response to the standing committee on justice report explaining her strategy for the renewal of the youth justice system.

Over a year after she promised a swift introduction of massive changes to the Young Offenders Act she outlined a strategy which appears on the surface to make only cosmetic changes to this act, one of which is getting rid of the name. There are many serious things that need to be done. I am sure that getting rid of the name is very important too. This is a name across the country which prompts negative comments and stories of horrific crimes committed by young people who merely get a slap on the wrist for the crimes they have committed.

Over the past five years I have heard my constituents' concerns about the current state of the criminal justice system. These concerns cover all aspects of the system, how violent and repeat offenders are treated in the system, how all too often victim rights are completely ignored, how the current federal government time and again ignores the safety of the average Canadian citizen, how it ploughs ahead with legislation not at all consistent with the needs of those law-abiding citizens who are directly affected by this legislation.

The clearest example that comes to mind is the government's handling of the gun control issue, Bill C-68. This is a bureaucratic mess where the budget was blown long ago. The government's experts are saying the registration system will be filled with inaccurate and useless information. All the while law-abiding citizens will be held accountable for this failure.

The Reform Party has proposed an excellent approach to deal with the complex issues surrounding youth crime. Before I comment on this approach I take this opportunity to thank the chief Reform justice critic, the member for Crowfoot, and his colleagues on that committee for their long and dedicated service to this issue.

Reform's approach to dealing with youth crime has three components. The first component concerns early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime prevention. The second component deals with community based resolutions and sentences for non-violent offenders, and the last component deals with substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Included in the amendments are changes to the age range for those who fall under the act from 12 years to 10 years for the youngest and from 17 years to 15 years for the oldest, as well as the publishing of names for all violent offenders charged as adults.

Our party also proposed that a distinction be made between non-violent and violent offenders. We feel that less serious offenders can be diverted from formal court proceedings and incarceration while at the same time we want to ensure that violent offenders are held in custody.

After she was sworn in as the justice minister last June, the minister stated that one of her top priorities was to reform the Young Offenders Act and that we could expect changes shortly. It is almost a year later and we are told that legislation will be introduced this fall after further consultations this summer with the provinces, the territories and various stakeholders. Although I welcome the federal government consulting the grassroots of our country when changing legislation, there comes a time when consultations have to result in some action, and that time has come.

The justice minister is armed with an extensive report from the standing committee which was tabled before the election call last April. It was accompanied by a comprehensive list of recommendations. She also has the minority report submitted by the Reform Party. It is a thorough report which also provides the justice minister with well thought out and comprehensive proposals to significantly reform the youth justice system. The justice minister also has at her disposal the recommendations of several provinces for reforming the system.

With all this comprehensive information what does the justice minister do? She admits that the current system is flawed and needs to be changed. Did we not know that already? After a year of inaction she introduces a framework with no real specifics, no real details on how the system is going to be reformed and restructured. There are no concrete proposals for change.

The government has proposed to spend approximately $32 million on crime prevention programs, but as we have seen before with this Liberal government it does not have any concrete plans as to who will be in charge of these programs and it cannot provide details on what programs will be available. Included in this mess of disorientation, disorganization and lack of leadership, the minister has also failed to assure the provinces that there will be the necessary funding for any new programming initiatives.

Gauging from the various provincial responses in their own reports on reforming the youth criminal justice system, it looks like the provinces do not share the justice minister's vision. For example, the people of Cariboo—Chilcotin have told me that they want change to the youth justice system that is fair, that works at preventing youth crime and that looks at alternative measures for dealing with and rehabilitating youth who break the law.

On the issue of conditional sentencing, the changes made to section 742 of the Criminal Code in June 1995 under Bill C-41 have made it possible for a variety of offenders to serve their time in the community. This provision has been applied quite liberally. It applies to anyone from those who have committed fraud to those who have committed sex offences. Although the previous justice minister acknowledged the problems with the legislation in allowing certain sex and violent offenders to have conditional sentences, he took no action to amend the legislation. The current justice minister has not taken action on this issue either, despite repeated calls from the opposition and from the Alberta court of appeal. Violent offenders are still being put back into the communities.

Finally I would like to take a moment to comment on the issue of victims' rights.

It has now been over two years since this House passed a motion introduced by my colleague, the official opposition House leader. The motion read as follows:

That the House urge the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to proceed with the drafting of a Victims' Bill of Rights, and that, in such areas where the committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.

This motion received widespread support from all parties in this House: 154 yeas; 24 nays. Since that time it has languished in the justice committee.

Earlier this month the committee finally started formal hearings and will hopefully submit a report to the House sometime this fall.

I am happy that these formal hearings are finally taking place, but I wonder why it took the government so long. I am sure it has heard from many Canadians, as have I, who want the government to move forward on this issue of establishing a victims' bill of rights.

The justice minister of the day was in support of a victims' bill of rights, but what does today's justice minister think?

During her appearance before the justice committee last month she announced a national office for victims of crime to help them navigate through the justice system, but was lukewarm to the idea of a victims' bill of rights.

She said that often these bills are rhetorical and that she was not interested in rhetorical flourishes, but in actually improving the services and programs for victims.

Given the recent proposals by the Minister of Justice, I think she is far more interested in those rhetorical flourishes than she is in delivering on her promises for actual change.

I would like to close by conveying the comments I received from my constituents at the town hall meeting at Williams Lake earlier this month.

Canadians want fair and comprehensive change to the criminal justice system, change not only to provide alternative programs to rehabilitate those young offenders who commit less serious crimes, but also adequate and effective punishment for the more serious offenders.

These constituents call for safe streets and for victims to have as many rights as those criminals who commit crimes against them. Canadians are demanding change and it is past time for the government to listen. It must act with concrete proposals and substantive changes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to take part in the debate on the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.

I am sure Canadians will be pleased to know that once again we are being pushed to limit the debate on this important topic by the time allocation motion that the government has introduced to the House. Many speakers who were planning to take part in this debate will now be prevented from doing so.

I was happy to speak on this bill at second reading. At that time the millennium scholarship foundation was one of the hottest issues of the budget. It has now been three months since the federal government announced its budget and the $2 billion legacy to our current Prime Minister, also known as the millennium scholarship fund, is still a hotly debated issue particularly in the provinces.

From day one the government was criticized for entering into an area of provincial jurisdiction, especially by the province of Quebec. The government was strongly criticized not only by members of the official opposition but by parliament's watchdog, the auditor general, whose job is to keep an eye on the government's questionable accounting methods.

I would like to spend some time on this issue because this is an important issue which needs to have some emphasis. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I am well aware of the work of the auditor general. As I have stated on several occasions not only in committee but here in this place as well, I hold the Office of the Auditor General in the highest esteem for the integrity, perseverance and determination to see that value is received from every dollar that the government spends. It is largely because of the work of the Office of the Auditor General that the government has worked toward cleaning up its act in the spending of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. I am sorry to say there is still a long way to go in this.

This government has shown Canadians all too frequently that if given the opportunity it loves to tax Canadians to the very hilt while providing them with useless programs having little if any tangible benefit. As I speak on this issue I am reminded of the distribution of $15 million to $20 million worth of flags. I would like to know what tangible benefit that had to the economic well-being of Canadians. Some of these programs do not provide Canadians with good value for their money, something on which as a member of the public accounts committee, as a member of parliament and perhaps most of all, as a Canadian taxpayer I work to hold the government accountable.

The auditor general has criticized the finance minister for his accounting practices in previous budgets and has gone so far as to offer a qualified opinion on last year's budget. It is obvious by this qualified opinion that the government is not producing a transparent picture of the nation's finances. The year before, the auditor general also questioned the manner in which the government crafted its budget.

Canadians need to know and have a right to know and have a clear picture of the financial situation of this government, how it intends to spend the money and not have those numbers fudged by moving figures from one year to another.

The finance minister has responded by saying that the government has to evolve and change as events change. However as the auditor general has reminded the government time and again, the finance minister does not have the liberty to make the rules up as he goes along for his own political purposes. The federal government blatantly ignored standard budget guidelines and tried to brush off legitimate criticism by changing the rules for its own political purposes.

We have heard the same line of reasoning in the hepatitis C debate that this government is doing what is best and right. We all know how the general Canadian public feels about the government's idea of what is best and right in the hepatitis C debate. Here also in the budget what is best and right falls far short of the standards set up in the general rules of accounting.

Group No. 1 deals largely with the millennium scholarship fund. I am happy to support many of the amendments in this group. I would like to spend some of my time talking about the amendments proposed.

The motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois delete all the clauses which establish the millennium scholarship foundation. As I mentioned earlier, those in Quebec have made it perfectly clear to the federal government that they do not want the federal government intruding in matters of provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec government is also worried that this will detrimentally affect its system of grants and loans. I can sympathize with Quebec's complaint.

I can also assure the government that there is a growing chorus of dissatisfaction from British Columbians. This growing chorus must not be ignored.

Every province has experienced similar problems. As the government has waged its war on the deficit, it did not cut out inefficiencies in many government departments and eliminate needless grants and programs; rather it cut transfer payments to the provinces. Now that the federal government is continuing to meddle in provincial affairs instead of restoring transfers, after the millennium fund is spent many students will not benefit from it. The provinces however will still be responsible for all these students, even though they lack the money that should be theirs to fulfil this responsibility.

Cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces over the past few years were brutal and swift. That was money the provinces needed and counted on to ensure that their people would receive adequate programming in areas such as health and education. We have clearly seen the effects of the federal government's approach to balancing the books in the province of British Columbia. Services have been dramatically reduced due to the reduction of these federal payments.

Motion No. 67 speaks specifically to the provinces being able to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and to enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that would have been spent in a particular province allowing the province to use these funds for their own purposes. This would help the provinces make up for some of the lost funds from the cuts to these transfer payments.

Before my time is finished, I would like to touch on several other motions which touch on the accountability issues surrounding this initiative.

Motion No. 66 from the fifth political party, the Progressive Conservatives, would make the millennium scholarship foundation subject to the Access to Information Act. This would be a great idea.

Canadians demand that the government provide them with value for their money. Having federal departments and programs subject to Canadians having access to information explaining how each department spends its tax dollars in essence makes it more accountable to the public.

I would like to comment on several of the amendments put forth by the Progressive Conservative Party which deal with the appointment of an auditor for the foundation. Motion No. 56 would have the auditor general be that auditor of the foundation, something which I wholeheartedly support.

As I mentioned earlier, the office of the auditor general has done a splendid job in evaluating how various departments and programs operate and, in cases where value for money is not achieved, the office of the auditor general can present that program or department with several options on how to improve its operations. That evaluation would surely benefit the operation and spending of the millennium scholarship foundation.

Government Motions Nos. 55, 57 and 58 are a different story. They give all the power of appointing and terminating the auditor of the foundation to the government. Motion No. 55 allows the government to appoint the auditor of the foundation.

The difficulties we have with Bill C-36 are headlined in the last Hill Times . The headline reads “The decline of the Canadian Parliament and the escalating deterioration of public information and debate in Canada's Parliament”. This is a serious issue that cuts through this debate and the bill that is presented here.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the federal Department of Health and Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food got together and established a new research facility in Winnipeg. It has been commissioned and declared safe for studying the most exotic and dangerous diseases. I believe it has a class four designation.

I want to ask the Reform health critic if he is aware of this new facility being involved in any of the research in testing for hepatitis C or any aspect of improving the well-being of hepatitis C victims. Is this research facility involved in any of this at all?

[Petitions, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 75 residents of the city of Quesnel in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin who request that parliament deny the right of any board of group to remove or confiscate natural herbal supplements until public hearings are held across the country.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is signed by 75 residents of the city of Quesnel, British Columbia in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin. They request that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their opinion about it.