Philip Mayfield

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the comments on MMT it occurs to me that just about the time the Liberals are getting around to banning it, the United States lifted the ban about a year ago. I wonder why the Liberals are trying to play catch-up on this now.

A consequence of eliminating MMT as an additive is a 20 per cent increase in nitrous oxide emissions, which is the smog we are trying to avoid in our cities. What the member said does not make a lot of sense. I wonder what her comment would be in the light of these two facts.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am in need of a reality check here this morning.

The Bloc Quebecois brings in an amendment to deal with fraudulent use of marriage and then the first speech is on student loans and student bankruptcies. The amendment tabled dealing with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, as the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned, deals with the fraudulent representation of marriage. The amendment proposes that Bill C-5 repeal section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Reform opposes this Bloc amendment. Before I discuss why we oppose it, I believe it is important for the House to understand the purpose of section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Section 177 sets out two situations that could result in a court refusing, suspending or granting a conditional discharge from bankruptcy.

These situations are: first, where the bankrupt made a settlement before or in consideration of marriage and at the time of making the settlement he or she was unable to pay all of his or her debts without the use of the property involved in the settlement; second, where the bankrupt made a covenant or a contract in consideration of marriage for the future settlement of property that would and should be available as security for creditors.

Where it appears to the court that this type of settlement, covenant or contract was made to defeat or delay creditors or was unjustifiable at the time it was made because of the poor financial state of the debtor, the court can refuse, suspend or order a conditional discharge.

This seems entirely appropriate to me. If section 177 is repealed, the door is left open for people to commit fraud, to play fast and loose with their creditors. In fact, are we not saying if section 177 is repealed that fraudulent behaviour is okay, that our society accepts this kind of behaviour.

I do not think anyone would agree that tolerating this kind of behaviour is a good idea. Fraud is a crime. I believe that the legislation should more and more point to the open and straightforward method of doing business that all people understand, appreciate and can live with.

Prevention of fraud can be insured through deterrence. Deterrence keeps this kind of activity from occurring when potential offenders, considering the consequences, decide that to honour their obligations is the best course of action to follow.

Section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a deterrence against those who would unfairly short change their creditors under the circumstances outlined in this section of the act. People should not be using marriage as a means to avoid creditors. Section 177 is consistent with other sections of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act dealing with transactions that take place prior to bankruptcy.

For example, section 91(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides that any settlement of property that takes place within a year before a bankruptcy is still open to the trustee. Section 91(2) provides that any settlement that takes place within five years before a bankruptcy is void if the trustee can prove that the settler required the property included in the settlement to pay his or her debts at the time of making that settlement.

These measures along with section 177 are designed to deal with situations where debtors transfer property to defeat or delay or defraud their creditors.

If we eliminate section 177 of the BIA, what does it say about these other sections of the act as well? It really creates a double standard. It seems to me that what we are saying here is use marriage as a means to unfairly shelter assets from bankruptcy. But it cannot be done under the circumstances outlined in sections 91(1) or 91(2).

Section 177 is needed to safeguard against people using marriage inappropriately to commit fraud. It is also needed to protect

the standard that says no fraud under any circumstances will be tolerated. Section 177, however, does leave the court discretion. The courts may decide.

As members of the House and particularly of the Industry committee will know, I am one of the people who believe that our legislation should not always leave discretion to the minister, to the superintendent of bankruptcies. I would like to see these sections tightened up. But the committee of the House has decided against that. However, I am in favour of this discretionary aspect of section 177.

There are circumstances where the court may decide that what the debtor has done is entirely fair, but this discretion should be left with the courts and section 177 should remain.

[Petitions, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present to the House today a petition from constituents residing in Williams Lake, 150-Mile House and other areas of British Columbia.

The petitioners point out that over the past 10 years the excise tax on gasoline as risen by 466 per cent and that a committee of Parliament has recommended another 2 cent per litre increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and comment on Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Before I begin, I want to tell the House a story about what happened not long ago in my hometown of Williams Lake, a city of about 20,000 people in the central interior of British Columbia. On July 16, 1996 a wife and mother was innocently riding her bicycle in a wooded area near the city one afternoon. When she did not come home that night, police were called to investigate. Two days later they found her body. She had been sexually assaulted and murdered. To this day her killer has yet to be found despite the outrage in the community and the thousands of dollars which have been put aside as a reward to those who might point to the killer.

I tell this story to the House today, not to sensationalize another murder case, but to give an example of what people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and all Canadians I might add, live with every day. People do not know who or where this murderer is and they worry about their safety.

How does this deep concern that Canadians have for their physical safety relate to Bill C-55? The bill deals with changes to the criminal justice system and Canadians want criminal justice reform. They want to be safe. They want to feel safe in their homes. They want to walk down their streets without fear and they want their neighbourhoods restored for themselves and their children to places of peaceful activity.

Will this legislation restore people's basic freedoms and allow Canadians to experience greater freedom from fear? This is the test we place on the legislation as we consider it today.

Let me briefly outline the contents of the bill. Bill C-55 consists of three components: first, a dangerous offender provision; second, a long term offender provision and, third, a judicial restraint provision. I want to examine each of these in turn.

First, let us look at the dangerous offender provision. Bill C-55's dangerous offender provision would give the crown a window of six months after conviction to bring a dangerous offender application based on newly received information. Presently a dangerous offender application must be made at the trial. This new provision does not go far enough in protecting people from dangerous criminals.

As the proposed dangerous offender provision now stands, the crown could find evidence to support a dangerous offender application after the six-month period, but the crown would be unable to bring an application against the criminal because the six-month time period had expired. Consequently, a dangerous offender could still be back in society too soon, still a threat, still causing fear and concern. This provision does not go far enough to protect Canadians and provide them with the safety they seek.

Therefore, Reform proposes that Bill C-55 be amended to allow the crown the right to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal harm at any time during that offender's sentence.

To offer Canadians even greater protection from violent criminals, Reform also proposes that Bill C-55 be amended to require the courts to automatically place a dangerous offender finding on any person who commits on two or more separate occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence. I refer to Criminal Code section 752.

Under the present system, the crown has the option to bring a dangerous offender application against a criminal after any number of offences. This Reform amendment would give Canadians greater confidence that all violent criminals would be incarcerated for an indefinite period of time or until that person poses no danger or threat to anyone else.

I want to consider the long term offender provision. The second component of Bill C-55 would create a new class of criminals called long term offenders. These criminals would be supervised by the justice system for up to 10 years after their sentence and the completion of parole. They would be designated long term offenders if it can be determined among other criteria that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend. They must also be convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm.

This provision does not go far enough in protecting society against these very brutal crimes. To help Canadians feel and be safe in their homes, in their neighbourhoods and in their communities, long term offender status must be broadened to apply to a wider range of offences committed by sexual predators or pedophiles.

Reform proposes that Bill C-55 be amended to include under the proposed section 753.1(2) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code: householder permitting sexual activity by a child relating to section 171; living off the avails of prostitution by a child, subsection 212(2); obtaining sexual services of a child, subsection 212(4). I could mention a number of other offences but I list these to make the point that Bill C-55 could be amended to go much further in protecting society from persons convicted of sexual crimes.

The third component of Bill C-55 is the judicial restraint provision. This provision would add to the Criminal Code a process that permits provincial attorneys general to apply to a judge when they have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual will commit a serious offence, a violent crime. The judge would have the power to place those individuals under police supervision, prohibit the possession of firearms, ammunition and firearms acquisition certificates and require them to wear electronic bracelets so that their movements can be monitored.

The Canadian people cannot accept this provision of Bill C-55 because it makes the wrong approach in attempting to reduce crime. The judicial restraint provision can be applied to people who have no criminal record or even to people who have been acquitted of any criminal charges.

I believe that greater physical security can be ensured through deterrence but I certainly do not believe that deterring crime means constituting a broad, indiscriminate and unreasonable infringement of a person's right to a fair trial before his peers.

The minister's proposal is tantamount to conviction without trial and Canadians want nothing reminding them of star chamber proceedings in our judicial system. Monitoring innocent people will not reduce crime. In fact, are we not innocent until proven guilty and not guilty until proven innocent?

This is not the first time we have seen such legislation from this justice minister who is so willing to disregard civil liberties. The first instance of his willingness to ignore Magna Carta civil liberties was Bill C-68 calling for universal gun registration. This legislation penalizes law-abiding gun owners and users and could mean the future confiscation of their firearms. This bill also moves against ancient rights preventing unwarranted search and seizure and the right of a person to not give evidence against himself.

Why does the justice minister distrust law-abiding Canadian citizens so much? How can the government punish people for something it cannot prove or punish them for something someone might do in the future? This judicial restraint provision would be a violation of fundamental human rights and would further break down the trust level between government and law-abiding citizens.

When introducing this legislation last month the justice minister told the House: "We are taking steps to prevent crime before it happens". The way to do this is not by monitoring innocent people but by getting tough on criminals who have committed serious violent crimes. This means bring in truth in sentencing for violent, repeat serious offenders. Bring in tougher sentences. By this I mean sentence every criminal who is convicted a second time for a violent crime to life imprisonment without eligibility for early release or parole. Make prison time hard time, no free time, no law libraries, no holiday pay, no fun experiences at all.

The judicial restraint provision of Bill C-55 must only be contemplated in matters where individuals have been convicted for offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. Clause 9 of Bill C-55 which allows for the surveillance of innocent Canadians must be struck in its totality from the bill.

In closing, I want to re-emphasize that the Canadian people are concerned about their physical security. They want criminal justice reform. They want to feel safe in their homes. They want to be safe in their homes. They want their streets free for their children to play safely and they want their communities restored to them without fear.

Bill C-55 does not go far enough in protecting people's basic freedoms and allowing Canadians to experience greater freedom from fear. However, if the amendments I suggest to the dangerous offender, long term offender and judicial restraint provisions were made to Bill C-55, I would not oppose passage of this legislation.

[Gun Control, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Liberals have no respect for the personal rights and freedoms of Canadians.

But thank goodness there is hope on the horizon. The Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Yukon governments will challenge the constitutionality of the federal government's universal gun registry.

These five governments will ask the courts whether the registry violates the civil and property rights of Canadians. They will also argue that the registry will be an ineffective means of reducing crime, an inappropriate use of scarce tax dollars and will unfairly penalize lawful gun owners and users.

If it is clear to five different governments and if it is clear to most every Canadian that a universal gun registry will not reduce crime and will waste millions of dollars, it should be clear to the Liberal government. But it does not seem to care.

I challenge the Liberal government today to repeal its plan for universal gun registration. I challenge the British Columbia government to join with other provincial governments to help protect the personal rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member of the Bloc Quebecois does not take credit for raising this issue. It is the auditor general.

I would like to express my appreciation for his acknowledging that. The auditor general does have an extremely important role in holding the government accountable.

This issue raises for me the lack of accountability of this government and its intention to be even less accountable as we proceed through its mandate.

I think of the changes in legislation that are coming through where the government is seeking to have more discretion in its power as it governs. It is interesting how power seeks power.

There are little changes like changing in the legislation a "shall" to a "may", which leaves more discretion; a comment such as "in the opinion of the minister" in the legislation, which leaves no latitude for appeal.

There are a couple of issues that I would like to raise about government accountability in my own constituency. There is the appointment of returning officers. What is the accountability of the government in this?

In my constituency there have been two returning officers appointed by this government. As far as I can tell neither of them has had any public input.

As I read the qualifications, I read that the work is by nature impartial, non-partisan: "The returning officer must conduct all business accordingly. Returning officers must abide by the government's conflict of interest code and Elections Canada code of professional conduct and must abstain from all activities of a politically partisan nature".

Yet it is well known in my community that both people who were appointed-one has since resigned and the other remains appointed-are indeed part of the Liberal organization. Where is the accountability there?

I would also like to raise the issue of the Nisga'a treaty and the agreement in principle where a large portion of the province of British Columbia has been set aside without consultation of the people of British Columbia. Included in this agreement are educational matters, justice matters, infrastructure matters, commercial fishing matters. Where did the government include people in this? Where is the government's accountability to the people who elected it? This is the issue.

As we talk about family trusts, people are extremely nervous because of the way the Liberal government has gone about governing the nation, not in a fair manner at all.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments of the minister. There is another side to this. She mentions there are two sides to the argument. I intend to follow that for just a moment.

We have listened to the minister and other members of the government side speak of the due diligence they have paid to this problem in the revenue department. We have heard the chairman of the finance committee mention how they have called witnesses. They have invited the opposition parties to call more witnesses. They have looked at it as thoroughly as they could in depth.

There has been a lot of talk, talk, talk about this issue. I am pleased they are coming to some resolution. The issue is not entirely family trusts. In my mind the issue related to that which is perhaps more important is government accountability. To whom is it accountable?

There is a disturbing trend. For example, as legislation is being amended I hear members of the legal community saying that one of the concerns that they have is that the government is seeking less and less accountability in rather small and obtrusive ways.

For example, little words like "shall" are being modified to "may" where there is less accountability, and phrases like "in the opinion of the minister", which is not challengeable in any court because how does one challenge someone's opinion?

Relating to the issue of revenue generation and family trusts, and going one step beyond that, I have seen how the government has looked carefully over a long period of time at this issue, but there are other instances also.

For example, when a farmer took a truckload of grain across the border, he was taken to court. There is nothing wrong with that. When the judge said there is nothing wrong, the regulations were changed in a flash. It did not take weeks and months and years. The government acted immediately.

Another example: Shortly after this Parliament convened after the election, we were confronted by a crisis of smuggling tobacco products. What happened? The government acted very quickly by lowering the duties collected on tobacco products and dealt with the smuggling problem in this manner. It acted very quickly. The consequence of that however is there are thousands of young people now involved in smoking. They have taken up this highly addictive habit and face years of suffering trying to get away from it. The medical costs of caring for them later on have not been calculated but they will be high.

The difficulty is not simply family trusts, it is government accountability and to whom it is accountable. Is it willing to be accountable to the law as all citizens are, or is it seeking to be less and less accountable? It is my contention that this is the case.

In this instance the Liberal government has spent a long time talking about the issue. I will be interested to see exactly what the outcome is. Hopefully it will be that large family trusts will not be able to leave the country without paying due taxes as the rest of us do.

The government is quite properly looking to claim all legitimate revenues. Forms are being sent out to people to tell stories about other people who may not be paying their taxes, who may be escaping their taxes through the underground economy. Are we asking our citizens to be stool-pigeons while other people are quite legally removing their money from the country? There is a matter of fairness that Canadians really object to.

These are the concerns which I have as I talk about government accountability. I ask the minister if she would please respond. Is the government prepared to be accountable in all areas, or simply in the areas where it is most convenient for it?

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

I want to ask how members of the Bloc would have the legislation changed to prevent the government from doing this.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member and the Bloc for bringing this motion to the House today.

I want to know if the members of the Bloc will be pointing to the ongoing thrust of the government for more and more-

[Points Of Order, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will accede to your request, sir.