House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
National Parole Board May 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the words, but this government has frequently congratulated itself for having the courage to cancel multi-billion dollar helicopter deals and Pearson airport deals to save taxpayers money.
Why does the Prime Minister find it so difficult to cancel some $100,000 governor in council appointments that may save taxpayers' lives?
National Parole Board May 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
In 1972 Valmond Lebouthillier received a life sentence for second degree murder. During 19 years of incarceration he had a history of violence and unco-operative behaviour but he was still given full parole in September 1991. In June 1992 he exposed himself to women, but a suspension warrant was cancelled. Two months later he stabbed and sexually assaulted a woman.
Despite a number of internal inquiries critical of the board's decision, one of the board members involved in this decision
was given a job at the parole board's Ottawa headquarters evaluating the work of other board members.
Will the minister acknowledge to this House that problems with the National Parole Board go beyond just one or two isolated incidents and that the entire parole system must be re-examined?
Justice May 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is also reported that since the death penalty was last used in 1962, and granted it is a figure used in 1962, the murder rate in Canada has more than doubled.
Is the minister going to attempt to convince Canadians there is no crisis in the justice system by using selective statistics? Or is the government prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to ensure the protection of society?
Justice May 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister is on record as stating that he fundamentally disagrees with the proposition that there is a crisis in confidence in the Canadian system of justice. He has also stated he thinks the justice system works well and that it is fundamentally sound. Today it is reported that the minister has been selective in the use of his statistics to back up these claims.
Does the minister truly believe that a 61 per cent increase in violent crimes over the past 10 years does not constitute a crisis in Canada's criminal justice system?
Justice April 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government if it is prepared to commit to a philosophy that the rights of victims must come before the rights of criminals, or does it believe that the rights of the Jason Gamaches of this world should take precedent over the rights of the Dawn Shaws?
Justice April 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Jason Gamache of Courtney, B.C. was recently convicted of the first degree murder of six year-old Dawn Shaw. Evidence shows that Gamache was a repeat sexual offender who was not allowed to be with children. However, this fact was not known to the local authorities or to Jason Gamache's neighbours because of the protection of privacy sections of the Young Offenders Act.
Will the parliamentary secretary and the ministry advise the House if it is the government's intention to eliminate this section of the act?
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act April 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, having read through the Nixon report and previewed statements made by the Minister of Transport and other government members, it is very clear to me that the government and the leader of the Liberal Party were wise in raising concerns during the election about this agreement that was struck between the previous government and the Pearson airport authority.
It brings to mind how this deal came about. It was signed October 7 in the middle of a general election. When the deal was signed it was made very clear by the Leader of the Opposition, who it was evident was going to be the next Prime Minister, that when he became Prime Minister the deal would be reviewed and perhaps rescinded. The people who came together and invested in the Toronto Pearson deal knew in advance that it was a risky venture. They knew at that time there was a very real possibility that the deal would be struck down. We applaud the government's decision to revoke this agreement by bringing forward Bill C-22. I quote the minister on the reasons why he felt the need to revoke this deal: "The deal was surrounded by a reliance on lobbyists, by backroom dealings, by the manipulation of bona fide private sector investors and the lack of respect for the impartiality of public servants".
We can appreciate the reasons why the minister made this move, why the government made this decision. It causes me concern and it causes the Reform Party concern that anyone would expect to get reimbursed for having put together a proposal for government to consider, and for any out of pocket costs that it might have incurred after submitting the tender.
It causes me concern that the government is asking the House to give it a blank cheque to compensate for out of pocket expenses those investors when the investors knew it was very risky in the first place. My experience with government contracts and tenders is that a cost is involved in preparing documentation for a proposed contract, and that for all those many people who put proposals forward before government, they
never get reimbursed for the expenses incurred in putting the proposal together.
I am concerned in this instance that we have a clause in the bill that allows for compensation to be paid. We have to continually remember the date that this contract was signed, which was October 7, in the middle of a general election. Is consideration being given for out of pocket expenses prior to that date or are we talking about after October 7, after the contract was actually signed? It is very important that the government remember that companies making a proposal for government do so at their own risk and at their own expense. They should not be compensated.
I would suggest that anybody who was made well aware by the media and by the statements of the soon to be Prime Minister that the investment was very risky, going ahead and spending more money after October 7 did so at his or her own peril.
This government, if it is truly committed to rejecting the previous government's way of doing business, the Tory way of doing business, will send a loud and clear message today that if you involve yourself in a questionable arrangement with a government in the dying hours of its mandate, you do so at your own peril. If the government wants to show this group and others in the lobbying business that it was wrong and that government has to take a firm stand, half measures will not do. I would like to suggest to the government that it take out any concept of reimbursing the private sector for doing business with the government.
The minister went on to say that the Minister of Transport may, with the governor in council, approve appropriate payments to the partnership for its out of pocket expenses. I mentioned before that it sounds like a blank cheque. We have no idea what these out of pocket expenses might be. It is definitely going to be in the millions of dollars. I do not think that Canadian taxpayers owe anything to a group of investors that got involved in a risky venture at best.
Canadians want their government to reject the type of patronage that was shown in this instance. If it pays this group, it is completely undermining the message that it is trying to send to Canadians. I do not think this bill should provide a consolation prize.
When one gets into the discussion of the appropriate place for government to be, there are other options of how government can remove itself from direct control of airport operations. It has done so successfully in the Vancouver International airport, the Edmonton International airport, the Calgary International airport and Montreal by establishing local airport authorities, non-profit organizations, with the ability to provide the service that Canadians expect with no consideration for making money for themselves.
Although I am not an expert in civil aviation, I am a frequent customer of the Vancouver airport. It is not because I want to be, it is because I have to be. From a consumer's point of view I am really quite impressed with what the private sector is doing at that airport.
The Vancouver airport is the second largest airport in Canada. It is undergoing major expansion. A second main runway is being built. The terminal is being greatly enlarged. The local authority there is planning ahead to capitalize on the ever increasing Pacific rim market. While this expansion is actually taking place, the Vancouver International airport appears to be running smoother than ever before.
The services in the existing terminal are better and more accessible than they were in the past. Despite some early objections to the airport improvement fee, which is payable by everybody using the airport, it is being used for expansion of the airport.
Canadians are quite prepared to see a user pay system come into play so that the people who are actually using the services are the ones who are paying for it, not the general taxpayer who if ever or very seldom uses the airports under consideration.
The airports have to provide a service but it is best left in the hands of the private sector. The government has to consider this as an option when it is finished with the contract for the Pearson airport. The government has to remember what the role of government should be in the operation of an airport. I feel the government's role is to ensure that the flying public has a safe, affordable and convenient means of travel. It is not to make profits or have politics as a priority.
The non-profit airport authorities appear to be a good way to ensure that public interest comes first and that the service is there for the public.
If the previous government had taken this approach we would not be in this mess with Bill C-22. If the current government wants to avoid problems in the future it should do two things. First, it should scrap any payments to the Pearson Development Corporation and second, it should carefully examine the effectiveness of a non-profit authority running Pearson International airport.
Young Offenders April 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General.
It was recently reported that despite the fact Danny Perrault has twice terrorized the greater Vancouver area by being unlawfully at large, current parole legislation would permit him to go on unescorted day parole as early as December this year.
Is the minister prepared to change the parole legislation to ensure the Canadian public that protection of society is a primary concern of the criminal justice system?
Young Offenders April 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Four years ago a young offender by the name of Danny Perrault was convicted of manslaughter in youth court and received a three-year sentence. Last year he was transferred to minimum security in an adult provincial institute to serve a sentence for being unlawfully at large from the youth detention centre.
Mr. Perrault walked away from the minimum security facility and before being arrested he committed a brutal sexual assault. Earlier this year he received a 14-year sentence for that crime, which he is appealing on the grounds the judge gave undue consideration to the protection of society.
Will the minister send an unequivocal message to the Canadian legal profession, as well as to the Canadian public, that the protection of society is a primary concern of the criminal justice system?
Petitions April 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, along with my colleague from the opposite side of the House, to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
This section is called faint hope. It allows a convicted murderer sentenced to life without parole for 25 years to apply for parole after 15 years.
I support this petition. I feel that when a judge and jury make the determination that somebody should not have access to parole for 25 years it should be respected, and I support this petition 100 per cent.