Grant McNally

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

The member for Mississauga West says it is not true. I would like to hear his suggestions about dealing with young people who are 10 and 11 and who get involved in some serious offences when the law excludes them from being dealt with, even through a diversion program which is working well within my community. I do not know if a diversion program exists in his community, but this bill does not look at how to deal with younger people.

The government should allow younger people to be involved in a diversion program. As a first time offender that would certainly help them before they get involved in the cycle. Yet, that suggestion is falling on deaf ears on the other side.

We see the theme. Whether it is youth justice or any other issue, the government seems happy with the status quo. The government does a bit of tinkering to create the perception that it is doing something about an issue, when in fact, when we scratch under the surface and look at the brass tacks of how the legislation applies to people, the government does not change the problem substantively.

While the government will not make these changes, the Reform Party will continue to champion proactive, positive solutions and work in this place to form government. We will make the changes, because the Liberal government will not make the necessary changes to address the serious problems, whether they be in youth justice or in any other area. It is wrong that the government will not take this approach. The Reform Party will continue to positively, proactively put forward solutions, which the government ignores.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue my speech on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

As I said before the House broke on this issue, the government likes to do a lot of talking. The Minister of Justice has talked about the youth criminal justice act for a number of years. She has used the phrase “in a timely fashion” and has done some tinkering with the youth criminal justice act, but has not made the substantive changes that are necessary to make it an effective piece of legislation to accomplish the task that it is being designed to accomplish.

Last week I talked about an initiative within my own riding being implemented and carried out by an individual named Lola Chapman, her youth diversion program, which is an excellent program that works very well because it involves members of the community. It sets the structure in place to involve young people, who are first time offenders of non-violent crimes, to have the option to appear before the youth justice committee in order to have a different process than the one that is currently in place.

We know now that if a young person is charged with a crime it can take up to a year or even more than that before the case even gets to court. The young person is in limbo for that period of time. The issue is not resolved and it is not dealt with.

This youth diversion program, which is an excellent program, happens within a matter of weeks and sometimes within a matter of days of the offence occurring. It brings the offender together with the parties against whom they have committed this act, along with community leaders, to come to a resolution of this incident, providing some consequences for the individual.

There is also some follow up with some community service work. A person works with the young person, almost in a big brother or big sister capacity to help that young person along the way and make sure they do not get into further trouble. It is a very excellent program. It is something that the government should consider.

I tried to present the report from this very excellent program happening in my riding of Maple Ridge to the House and table it here so that all members could be aware of this excellent program and take it back to their own communities and talk to individuals.

As a community leader within each riding, the MP has a sphere of influence and is able to talk to community leaders, mayors, council members, chiefs of police and all sorts of people to continue this kind of initiative. It is a shame, but that consent was denied by the government. It was a good, positive, proactive solution to the whole issue of youth justice.

We again see that the government's overall theme seems to be “We'll just say what we need to say in order to get the headlines and to create a perception that we are working on this area”, without putting the meat and bones behind it to actually take the action necessary to fix the problem. We see that with the youth justice act as well. That is the government's approach.

We also see that it has called time allocation once again on this piece of legislation. The government went ahead and did this rather than listening to ideas being suggested by other members or by taking a good report that was from within my community and having it available for all members to read. Instead, its response is to call time allocation. That approach is simply wrong.

The people of the country are waking up to the fact that the government has the wrong approach. While it is attempting to fix the youth justice system, this bill falls far flat in the area of addressing the serious issues and concerns.

One thing we have a major concern with is the issue of younger people under the age of 12 being helped and dealt with if they are running afoul of the law. Under the current act and the proposed act there are no provisions to help young people under the age of 12 who are led astray and become involved in criminal activity.

The government's response is to say that others want to just throw young people in jail. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to help these people at a younger age before they start on the path of getting involved in more serious offences. Under the current law there is no way to do that. This government has not addressed that. Government members stand in their place and make scurrilous comments to those individuals who suggest these proposals.

The member for Crowfoot, who is a long-standing member of the justice committee, has made many good proposals over the years in this place on this issue. Being a former RCMP officer, he knows that dealing with people at a young age would help to divert them from getting involved in more serious offences. Yet the justice minister and the government refuse to listen to those ideas and those suggestions. That is wrong. It puts individuals at the young age of 10 and 11 in a position of being possibly recruited by older kids to get involved in criminal acts because there is nothing that can be done to those younger individuals. Older teens, in some cases, are exploiting younger children to get involved in criminal activities knowing that these younger individuals cannot be touched by the law. That is wrong.

The Minister of Justice knows it but she does nothing about it. Instead, she and the spin doctors of the Liberal government try to create this perception that others who would suggest this idea are wrong when, in fact, police officers and people working with young people are saying that we need a way to help these younger individuals.

I know RCMP officers in my riding who say they know who these younger individuals of 10 and 11 are and that they are just waiting till they turn 12 so that they can hold them responsible for their actions. We know it is a small percentage of individuals, but a small group of people can cause a lot of damage and harm if there is no system in place to deal with them and help them so they do not get involved in these activities.

Without taking the necessary steps to make those changes through amendment to this bill, the government is missing a golden opportunity to solve a serious problem. It can say what it wants, create the spin and send the people out to carry the message that it is doing something about youth justice, but the reality is that there are so many weaknesses within the bill that the actions that will result will still lead to some serious problems. The government has the golden opportunity with this bill now before the House to make the necessary changes needed to help solve the problem. Instead, what did this government do? It brought in time allocation and ignored suggestions by others to fix this bill.

[Organ Donation Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on October 29 I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question about the APEC inquiry's chief lawyer, Marvin Storrow.

Mr. Storrow, who in his position with the APEC commission was supposed to remain at arm's length from the Liberal government, ended up dining with the Prime Minister at a $400 a plate fundraiser. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister why his government defined arm's length as being close enough to pass the pepper.

Mr. Storrow denied that his attendance at that dinner would compromise his impartiality at the inquiry, the same inquiry that may eventually call the Prime Minister to testify. Indeed it would have been Mr. Storrow who would have had the power of part of the decision making process to decide whether or not the Prime Minister should testify at the inquiry. Mr. Storrow still denied any conflict of interest but since then has actually done the right thing and resigned from the commission because of the perception of a problem there.

In response to my initial question in the House the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the commission was well equipped to deal with matters of this kind and to let the commission do its work, which we have heard over and over again from the government.

Let us take a look at the work the commission has done so far. This is not the first scandal to have led to a resignation in the APEC affair.

Just about a year ago we all know that the former solicitor general was overheard on an airplane explaining to a friend that Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart would take the fall for the pepper spraying of APEC student protesters. The then solicitor general categorically denied in the House day after day that he had done anything to undermine the important work of the arm's length commission, but finally he too resigned.

That is not all. Also last year the entire original three member panel resigned after an RCMP officer said he heard one of the members discussing the outcome of the inquiry at a Saskatchewan casino. That member denied the accusation but in the end it was he and two of the panel members who resigned.

The APEC inquiry is looking a bit more like a three ring circus. It has gone on now for two years. The government keeps feeding its media lines and spin about the commission doing its work rather than actually getting to the bottom of this incident, which could be cleared up very clearly by the Prime Minister's own testimony as to the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in APEC security arrangements. Instead of hearing these lines, stalling and jokes about pepper spraying, we would like some answers.

Why does the government continue to engage in this process instead of simply getting the Prime Minister to the point where he is able to testify before the commission? I am afraid my colleague on the other side will say that he has not been called yet.

Let us clear up once and for all what the Prime Minister's involvement was in this APEC security scandal. It has gone on for two years. It continues to go on. We have seen people resigning and it is going on and on. We want some answers. We would like them today. We would like the Prime Minister to testify and tell us exactly what his role was in the APEC security scandal.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thought the deputy whip herself was going to engage in giving a speech rather than asking a question. I was hunting and searching and looking for an actual question in those comments. I think what the hon. member wanted me to do was thank her. I say no thanks to everything that the Liberal government—

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was not quite finished with my answer, but I will wrap it up. If the member wants to ask me another question, I would be more than happy to respond to her question too.

As I was saying, this Liberal government has slashed and burned health care and education spending. It has done that. Those are the actions. The member for Oak Ridges talked about actions. Those are the actions his government is responsible for. People within the local ridings and communities are asking when the federal government is going to restore the funding. It has taken the approach of slashing and burning health care and education spending since 1993. When is it going to restore those dollars to the people who need them most, the people at the local level, within the municipalities and the provinces, rather than taking this hide and seek approach in Ottawa?

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Shortly after, as a thank you to those areas, and now we hear that there is another infrastructure program coming up. That is fine, but is it going to be coinciding with another federal election? I wonder.

The member talked about CO2 emissions and energy. There are a lot of CO2 emissions that need to be taken care of on that side of the House, right here in this place.

I wonder if the member could comment on the slash and burn approach to health care and education spending that this government has taken since 1993. That is what municipal councillors are talking to me about: When is the federal government going to restore the money it gutted from health care and education? The slash and burn Minister of Health likes to talk about the money reinvested in health care, and it is great that he has reinvested it, but he is hardly even at half of what he cut from health care and education spending.

I do not know how it is that this member and other members of the government can stand in their places and defend that kind of record.

He talked about trade missions with the Prime Minister. I am glad he had an opportunity to visit with the Prime Minister. Maybe the Prime Minister could take a trade mission out to British Columbia. Perhaps he could visit some of the communities that are talking about the Nisga'a treaty and maybe talk to individuals about concerns they have with that, or about the high rate of taxes he is imposing on people in British Columbia and across the country. Perhaps he could take a little fact finding mission on those areas of concern.

The member asked me to comment on those. He made wide ranging generalizations and I am going to respond to every one of them.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly love to respond to some of the comments made by my colleague.

He first said that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was given a full briefing. I do not dispute that fact. It was not aware that it was coming back for second reading in the House even just before the break week. There is also the idea of the infrastructure program, which he mentioned as being a good program. That was proposed by the municipalities, not by the Liberal federal government. Once again, that is what the government does. It takes somebody else's idea and passes it off as its own. That is what it did with the infrastructure program. That is exactly what it does. It is no different with this program.

He talked about the municipal infrastructure program. Guess what? The timing of those big signs that went up across the country just happened to coincide with the federal election. I am sure it was a coincidence—

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

The member for Peterborough seems to have awakened from his deep sleep on the other side. I am not sure if he will utter scurrilous remarks today as he has in the past. Perhaps he could listen to the people of British Columbia. They would like to have the opportunity to have a referendum on such an important issue as the Nisga'a treaty which will have great impact, not only throughout British Columbia but throughout the rest of the country. It will enshrine in law the treatment of people based on their racial background. That is clearly within the Nisga'a agreement. It is promoting the same status quo that Bill C-10 promotes. Bill C-10 which has to do with municipal grants perpetuates the same status quo attitude in this particular area. It does not address the discretionary power of the minister and the crown in several different areas.

The recommendations of the dispute advisory panel are non-binding. Bill C-10 merely maintains the status quo and entrenches into legislation common practices that were put in place 16 years ago. It keeps that particular problem with the old legislation going forward into the new legislation. That seems to be the approach of the Liberal government. It has to examine things as they are.

Members of the government and cabinet can stand in this place and tell us one thing. They can say whatever they would like in this place. What is more important is to measure the actions that go along with those words.

When individuals say something we tend to take their word for it right off the bat because we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, when we see over and over again people saying one thing and doing another, over time the credibility of the message deteriorates. We see that time and time again with the Liberal government. It says one thing but it does another. We see that happening with this legislation. We see it, as I mentioned earlier, with the Nisga'a treaty.

We can draw a lot of parallels between a municipal government and a government at least saying that the Nisga'a treaty sets up a municipal form of government when in fact it does not. It sets up a different order of government that attributes powers and rights to the Nisga'a government which used to be within provincial and federal jurisdiction. We think that is wrong headed.

We think that whole process has been skewed. It has not received proper treatment from the government. We saw how it dealt with that bill in the House. It limited debate through time allocation and closure. We see it in question period. When opposition members rise to ask important questions about that particular piece of legislation the government is happy with the status quo attitude. It says everything is fine and that we should trust it, that it will take care of this legislation. It is the same with that piece of legislation and this one over here. What has happened is that the actions that back up those words are simply not there. The credo of the Liberal government is to keep everything going the way it is.

The Nisga'a treaty is not even supported by the leader of the official opposition in British Columbia who happens to be a Liberal, Gordon Campbell. He put out a news release and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on the treatment of this legislation and said that the way it was handled was not appropriate.

Others have said that Bill C-10 is a piece of legislation that needs further scrutiny. My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River talked about how the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was not aware that it was to be the topic of debate. However, here it is. We would think there would have been more consultation on it before bringing it to the House because it will have such a big impact on local governments.

Some of my colleagues at the local municipal government level will ask me when I am back in the riding if the federal government has any understanding of the fact that they are neighbours with other individuals and other municipalities. Does it want to establish another order of government? This is with specific reference to the Nisga'a treaty and how it sets up another form of government.

The mayors of some of my communities have told me that they have to, by law, consult with one another when there is an impact along one of their borders with another community so that what is done in one community does not negatively affect another municipality. They may also work out an arrangement for the sharing of services, whether it is snow removal or whatever the particulars are of the local area.

A question that has been asked by some of the mayors in my community about the Nisga'a treaty is why this other form of government has been put in place with no structure in terms of consulting with the other local jurisdictions. They wonder how the sharing of services will work. They have concerns about when that template being used in the Nisga'a treaty will be applied to other jurisdictions, particularly around the lower mainland area of Vancouver and the surrounding areas where there is not a lot of land to be divvied up to different groups, that there will have to be some kind of an arrangement made. They are asking why it is that the government has not considered those factors in relation to the Nisga'a treaty.

We would say that perhaps it is a notion that again falls into that status quo, the status quo approach the government has to governing. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Municipal Grants Act, or any other piece of legislation in this place, the government seems to simply be on autopilot.

I would like to refer to some of the information that Gordon Campbell has directed toward the Nisga'a treaty. He is a member of the British Columbia legislature who got his start in municipal politics and who was the mayor of Vancouver. In referring to the motion the government made, he said:

The motion this morning...to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of democratic processes.

That was the B.C. Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, who said that. He said:

This is an egregious abuse of democratic process, and shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians. It's an unacceptable slap in the face to our province, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty.

On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our province and to our constitution, every Member of Parliament deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we wouldn't for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the government's doing to B.C.

It was a Liberal leader who made that claim. He goes on to say:

In just a few short hours, debate on this treaty will be slammed shut forever, and there isn't a chance in the world that anywhere near a majority of opposition MPs will be able to speak to it in that time.

It was appalling when the NDP government shut down debate on this treaty, and denied British Columbians' elected representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22 chapters. But the federal government's conduct defies description. Once this treaty is passed, it will be set in constitutional concrete forever and cannot be changed. We only had one chance left to speak to this treaty on behalf of British Columbians, and now the federal government is denying even that. The surest way to shatter public trust and confidence in the treaty process is to limit debate on what these treaties actually say and do. The federal government should be doing all it can to open up the treaty process. This is a dangerous step on the part of the federal government that will only further undermine public trust.

Those are the remarks of the leader of the opposition, the man who would seek to be premier of the province of British Columbia and who is a Liberal himself, and his opposition to the Nisga'a treaty. As I stated, he is a man who got his start in politics at the municipal level. Of course we are talking about Bill C-10 and municipal government and here is a man who has that notion of accountability, as many in this place do.

I know members of the Liberal Party who got their starts in civic politics. Some of them are here today. They did an admirable job at the municipal level. I think they are here because they have the purest of motives to make positive changes in this place. Yet the process is skewed against those who would want to make the positive kinds of changes they know are effective and work at the local level.

Under the Liberal government, there is a process in place that limits the role of members of parliament in terms of those who are on the backbenches. There is a limited role in committee and a limited role in other areas. They do provide an opportunity for some input and some debate on topics, but certainly not to the degree that most of them hoped they would have had as members of the government: to enact, direct and help their own government make the necessary changes within its own ranks to become more accountable and more democratic. I think some of them are truly disappointed. Those who have been here since 1997 are seeing that after two years that impact is not being made.

There are many members of the opposition who feel the same way. The accountability they sought, to work hard at the local level, is simply not a concept that seems to be getting through here to the Liberal government. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Nisga'a treaty or other legislation, the government has a status quo approach that everything is okay. We are to trust it, throw it the keys to the car and it will drive it. We can see that the car is going off the road. It is going to crash unless there is a change of heart by the government but we do not think there will be. That is why we will continue, as members of the official opposition, to put forward other ideas and another vision for the country. We will work to take the place of the government because that is our ultimate goal.

We can work from the opposition benches to make positive changes to impact on the government, but it is now at the point where after six years of governing the country, it is starting to show some of that same arrogance the government before it showed after being in office for a long period of time. It is time for a change.

If a group does not back up its words with actions, its credibility suffers. That was alluded to in the letter I read of the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. That is what people are seeing at the local level as well. If federal politicians are not going to do what they say they are going to do, how is it that we can trust them to govern the country?

The people of British Columbia and right across the country are getting to that point. It is unfortunate because cynicism works into the hands of the government. To those individuals who say, “What is the use? I cannot change the system. My voice cannot be heard”, we encourage them to stay engaged and involved in the process. As they do get engaged in the process, change can be made. There are other groups out there that do get involved in the process.

We know that the Liberal government is disengaging itself from the process. It has decided what its approach is going to be. When government members go out to consult, we really believe it is simply an exercise in public relations, an opportunity to go out and give their message to other people.

I spoke with an individual over the last break who sat in on one of these Liberal western alienation task force teams. I like to call it the western alienation rescue team, or WART. They came to western Canada. This individual said that at the public meeting there was a committee of Liberal senators and members of parliament and that there were three people in the room. The panel of MPs and senators were quite surprised that this individual was able to find the meeting. It had not been publicly advertised. It was a meeting they had set up so they could say they had a meeting. This individual had to go to great lengths to find out when and where the meeting was going to be. That is the kind of consultation the government has put in place when it visits western Canada.

The Liberals wonder why they are so lacking in members in western Canada. It is because they have simply stopped listening. The Nisga'a treaty and Bill C-10 are perfect examples of that. We wonder what kind of consultation process has been undertaken with the municipalities on that.

We think it is time for the government to either wake up or get out of the way and let another group govern that is going to listen to people, be accountable and make the changes necessary to put the country on the right track.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

The government says they would not agree to having it extended. I do not know why they would not.

Bill C-10 is an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Its purpose is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of compensation for untimely payments, defaults on tax obligations by certain tenants of the crown and by others in the legal system. It establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment amounts. It also amends the title of the act to the payments in lieu of taxes act.

My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River was a municipal politician and mayor for a number of years as were other members of the House who got their political start at the civic level. There is at that level a degree of accountability that perhaps others emulate to a certain degree.

Those who seem to be closest to the people at the municipal level also seem to be the ones who are the most accountable in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of delivering services to their constituents and people in surrounding areas. There are those at the local level who are calling on us, particularly the current Liberal government, to emulate our municipal counterparts in that regard.

I received a note yesterday from a constituent making that very point. When highlighting some of the wasteful spending going on by the government my constituent made reference to Bubbles Galore , a film produced not long ago and supported by some hard earned Canadian tax dollars. I share my constituent's concern in this regard.

He asked why the federal government engaged in these kinds of spending activities without giving it a second thought when his municipal government is accountable for expenditures of this type and knows that if it made these types of expenditures the constituents would be down at city hall knocking on council doors.

I ask that question of the government. Why is it that the government does not take the same accountable approach in terms of spending as do municipal governments?

The bill talks about several changes in the current act, one of them being interest payments made after agreed upon dates. It also talks about third party leases and property exclusions. The bill proposes to include some structures and improvements which used to be excluded from payment. However the bill does not drastically change the status quo.

We see that over and over again with the Liberal government. It seems to be willing to accept the status quo. The government wants to keep the status quo and use it as a model for approaching other topics and other situations, one of them being the Nisga'a treaty in British Columbia. Many people are concerned about the implications of that bill just as individuals are concerned about Bill C-10 and the application of municipal grants. The status quo is being presented in this bill.

The people of British Columbia are concerned that the Liberal government is promoting the same status quo in the Nisga'a treaty. It is making the same fundamental mistake, the same flaw, it made with the Indian Act, which it brought forward and has had in place for a number of years. It sets up inequalities and enshrines them in law, which is exactly what the Nisga'a treaty does in British Columbia as well.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-10. This was an unexpected event for us this afternoon. We were earlier debating a Conservative Party supply day motion. Unfortunately that collapsed due to the fact that there were not enough members of that party in the House, so we are moving on with government Bill C-10.