Val Meredith

[War Criminals, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because her department came up with 250 suspected modern day war criminals, and representatives of the Bosnian government have stated that Canadian officials did not consult their list of suspected war criminals before accepting refugee claimants from Bosnia.

Now that some of these individuals have been identified as being in Canada, it does not appear that they will be brought to justice soon because of the lack of an extradition treaty with Bosnia.

Will the minister assure the House that action will be taken immediately by the government, or is the government prepared to repeat the five decades of embarrassment Canada experienced with the handling of Nazi war criminals?

[War Criminals, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two months ago when I asked a question about modern war criminals in Canada the parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration stated: "Action is being taken. These people will be removed. They will not be allowed to stay in this country". We now learn that when Canada generously opened its doors to genuine refugees from the war in Bosnia a number of suspected war criminals were accepted as refugees.

Can the minister inform the House what action is being taken against those suspected war criminals and when they will be removed from Canada?

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to speak to Bill C-55, although I feel the government's response to dangerous offender legislation falls far short of what it should be.

In my 3.5 years in this place I have concentrated a great deal of my time and energy in looking at dangerous offender legislation, its shortcomings, and ways we could improve upon it. I introduced a private member's bill to the House in the first session in April

1. It passed unanimously at second reading and then was buried in committee by the Liberal government for over two years before it was dealt with when Bill C-55 came into play.

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River made some inaccurate statements in the House earlier when he said that none of the witnesses at the committee studying both Bill C-55 and Bill C-254, my private member's bill, supported my bill. He is correct in that the Liberal members of the committee did not support any element of it. They completely gutted it and refused to bring it back into the House for consideration.

There were witnesses that did support it. I would like to give representation from the committee that studied the two bills. I quote Chief Julien Fantino of the London Police Force who said that Bill C-55 and Bill C-254 were a significant steps in the right direction and that high risk offenders must be differentiated from the rest of the inmate population and handled accordingly.

He went on to say:

If a person is deemed to be so high risk, so dangerous and so likely to reoffend, I quite agree there ought to be some state imposed controls and conditions, some governance of such an individual, to the point where communities are absolutely guaranteed that person will not constitute a risk to anyone.

I will share some evidence from Professor Hart and Professor Hare from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia who are experts on violent offenders. These men have spent their careers studying dangerous offenders and psychopaths. I will share some of the comments of Professor Hare to the committee. He stated: "The evidence was very strong that the psychopathic offenders in fact did not follow the pre-release plans. They did not follow the rules and regulations of the program. They were violating them all the time".

Professor Hart went on to say: "-psychopaths commit significantly more violence overall, but they actually commit very different kinds of violent offences as well-psychopaths tend to make decisions quite quickly to commit violent crimes that are instrumental for economic gain or other reasons. It's not simply a result of strong emotional arousal or things like that-you find they are actually much more violent and violent in a different way".

Professor Hare goes on to say: "Their violence is predatory, planned, premeditated, dispassionate and cold-blooded when compared with the intense emotional arousal that often leads to a violent act for the rest of the offenders". They are speaking about the 15 to 20 per cent of the population that can easily be assessed as psychopaths.

I want to go on to what the victims of violence groups have to say. Mr. Sullivan stated: "It is unfortunate that the committee could not have dealt with the bill sooner," speaking of Bill C-254. "It would have been very valuable had the committee dealt with that two years ago rather than waiting for Bill C-55-Bill C-254 is not whether or not it is a good idea. I hope we can all agree that it is a good idea. Strictly on a public safety platform this bill would save lives. Make no doubt about it, this bill would save lives". He is not talking about Bill C-55. He is talking about my private member's bill C-254.

He goes on to talk about the charter. He talks about who the charter is protecting, the victims or the offenders and took very great exception to the argument that Bill C-254 would not survive a charter challenge.

It was very clear from the testimony of many of the witnesses that they fully supported an attempt by this government or any other government to identify-and they can be easily identified-those 15 to 20 per cent high risk offenders who do not respond to treatment, who are not likely to be able to go back into society and lead meaningful lives. One of the experts in these matters said that you can detect with the same accuracy a psychopath as you can that treatment for a heart condition is going to relieve angina pain. I would suggest that heart patients are not going to refuse treatment, the angioplasty or whatever, if the high percentage of them know that it is going to help them.

The witnesses supported this government or another government taking a much stronger stand in keeping dangerous offenders, the 15 to 20 per cent who are a high risk of reoffending, off the streets; not long term offenders, not giving them an extra six months after the time of sentencing, but when they are identified right up to the last year of being released from prison, of being designated or of allowing the system to keep those high risk offenders off the street to protect our society from people who have been tested and who have been selected as individuals who cannot be treated, who cannot be trusted to not reoffend.

When questioned by the committee on how reliable was the test and when can we start using it, we were told that it is very easy. The success rate for juveniles age 13 and 14 is just as great as it is with adults. The testimony of the expert witnesses suggested that you have a much greater chance for treatment of a juvenile who has been assessed than you do with an adult and that rather than wasting the resources on trying to change the behaviour of an adult, where you are not going to succeed, those resources should be placed where they can do the most good.

There is no question in my mind that the government, as with many other pieces of legislation, has taken the easy road. The legislation is not prepared to do what it should to protect society.

The government is fooling itself when it claims to be making all these substantive changes in the justice field, for example, in the Young Offenders Act and the areas of sentencing and high risk offenders. It is fooling itself if it thinks those changes will make a meaningful difference in society.

In the next few weeks and months people will have to make a decision. They will have to decide whether the government's weak approach to all these issues is what they want or whether they want a government that is solely committed to the protection of society. Unless I am naive, I thought that was what government was all about. I thought government was governing for the people, that it would make sure the majority of the people in society were being cared for and provided for and that their protection was being guaranteed to them.

I did not come to this place thinking we were here to make sure a few people were going to get preferential treatment, that the offenders were going to get better treatment than the victims, that high risk offenders were going to be put back out on the streets to reoffend, to cause more grief and heartache for innocent victims in society. I assure the House that is not why I came here. That is not why I have spent three and a half years trying to get the government to understand the concerns of Canadians.

Canadians want somebody to be concerned about them. They want a government that will look after them, their wives, their children, their families, not the 15 per cent to 20 per cent high risk offenders who have committed violent, vicious acts, sometimes murder, sometimes not. The emphasis of government should be on the protection of society.

This legislation needs to be amended. If the amendments we are presently dealing with at report stage will help in any way to add some weight and protection to society, then members should consider them. The government had an opportunity three years ago this month to deal with this issue but it chose to sit on it for over two years before it brought in other legislation. It did this in order to take credit for being concerned about the needs and the protection of society.

This is a joke, the government is a joke and the people will have a chance to change that in the next coming months.

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition I would like to present today, the petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate their support of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading materials.

The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST. As the provinces and Ottawa are considering harmonizing the sales taxes, reading materials must be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as GST.

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity that was denied me the other day by the government to present a couple of petitions.

I have two petitions. In the first one, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament introduce mid-term disability benefits legislation which allows working Canadians who suffer from a debilitating illness or injury to receive continuous sickness benefits in the following form: 15 weeks of unemployment insurance, mid-term disability and Canadian disability pension plan.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if my right as a member of Parliament to present petitions has been taken away from me today?

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the second amendment on Bill C-17 which was given unanimous approval in the House today. This is the second amendment which the justice minister has thrown in at the last minute to rectify oversights or mistakes he has made in previous legislation.

It does not give me any joy to be responding to a government which has time and again ignored the input of the opposition, ignored the input of Canadians at large, who have spoken to legislation which the government has brought forward for consideration. They have pointed out flaws in legislation which is before the House.

Time and again consideration should have been given to recommendations at committee stage. Letters have been received from experts of certain aspects of the law who have recommended changes. Time and again the justice minister and the government have ignored that input.

A private member's bill dealing with section 745 succeeded in passing second reading in the House. Seventy-nine Liberals voted in favour of that private member's bill so that it could go to committee for consideration. That private member's bill dealt with section 745 of the Criminal Code, which is known as the faint hope clause. That section allows a person convicted of first degree murder who is given a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years an opportunity 15 years down the road to seek a change in their eligibility for parole.

That private member's bill had the support of colleagues in the Liberal Party. It successfully passed second reading. However, over the past year the bill has been gutted, mainly by Liberal members of the justice committee. It has not been reported back to the House to be dealt with at report stage and third reading.

Perhaps if the government was more willing to allow honest and open debate, honest and open criticism and honest and open recommendations for improvement, it would not find itself in the situation it has found itself in today, having to work in amendments after the fact to an omnibus bill to correct mistakes which it should have known it was making in previous legislation.

It certainly does not give me any satisfaction to be a part of a system where there is not honest and open debate. Legislation is rammed through the House, rammed down the throats of Canadians and they are left to deal with the consequences.

What would have happened if the justice minister did not realize that these mistakes needed to be corrected? What kind of situation would we find ourselves in next year or the year after?

It says very little about the justice minister and his government when they need to come in after the fact and make amendments to a bill which is totally unrelated to a bill which has been passed. Bill C-45 was passed last year. It is not something that was done four or five years ago. It was something that the minister put through the House four or five months ago. Now we are correcting a mistake that he made to totally deny the rights of victims to give their position in court, to give their side of the story, to indicate the harm and the impact that these horrendous crimes had on their families and on themselves.

I agree with my hon. colleagues for Calgary Northwest and Okanagan Centre. The victims in these violent offences are not just the families, they are not just the children, the husband or the wife, it is the whole community.

I am facing that in my community of Surrey. In case people do not realize it, Clifford Olson is making a mockery of the justice system this summer. As hon. members have pointed out, Clifford Olson is coming in August to Surrey to have his hearing. Surrey does not want him. The city of Surrey has asked that Clifford Olson not be allowed in the city.

My office has received more phone calls and more letters on the issue of Clifford Olson coming back to Surrey than any other issue since I came to the House of Commons three and a half years ago. The people in my community are outraged that the justice system would allow a man who tortured and murdered at least 11 children, 4 of those children from the city of Surrey, to have access to the court system.

It would be interesting to know how much time and money this hearing is going to take up. People are waiting in line to have cases

heard in court because of the lack of space, because of the lack of facilities, because of the lack of prosecutors and others to handle their cases. People are waiting for months or years to have a court case heard and we are tying up our justice system by allowing this monster to use up valuable court time and valuable tax dollars to apply for a section 745. To my mind and to the minds of the people in the city of Surrey that is a grave injustice.

It completely undermines the whole concept of who and what is the justice system supposed to be representing. Is it the convicted criminals? Is it the convicted killers? Is it the victims? Why are we now, months later, recognizing that the victims must have the right to present their case to the jurors who are going to make a decision on what effect or impact this individual has had on their lives?

The real travesty of justice is that Clifford Olson will be his own lawyer. He has the right to cross-examine the victims' families. How just and how humane is it to have this person who killed one of their children or one of their loved ones cross-examine them? It is insane. That is how Canadians see our justice system.

To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is how Canadians are starting to see their government. They are starting to question the sanity of a government that allows this kind of thing to occur not once, not twice, but on a regular basis. What they see is a justice system that is constantly letting them down, constantly putting their concerns, their protection behind that of a convicted offender.

It distresses me to no end to know that I am standing here speaking and supporting this very weak attempt of the justice minister to undo his past mistakes. I do not take any great satisfaction in saying that I am going to support this. I am supporting it because I am backed up against a wall. I know this is as good as we are going to get from the government.

Given the opportunity in the very near future I would like to think Canadians will take time to measure just what the government has provided for them and what the government has done to them over the last 3.5 years. I would also like to think that before Canadians go to the polls this spring or next fall they will take a good look at what they will get in the future if they return the government to power. They will get more of the same: giving more attention to the offender, ignoring the rights of victims, ignoring the rights of society and putting Canadians last rather than first.

Canadians should seriously look at the issues and at who is fighting for them. They should look beyond the reports and accusations of the justice minister that it is the fault of the opposition party that did this or did not do that. I hope voters will look at the issues and at what the government is ignoring. If Canadians look very closely they will be looking to the Reform Party, a party concerned about justice and safety of all Canadians, to give them the governance they deserve.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the amendments being proposed to Bill C-17 this morning.

I was sitting in the justice committee when we dealt with Bill C-41 dealing with changes to the sentencing act. Not only Reform members of that committee but also some Liberal members pointed out that the changes to the sentencing act could cause problems. Some of the problems would be in the area of specific crimes or offences and alternative sentencing. Alternative sentences or the use of other means other than incarceration were not specifically for non-violent crimes. It was left open for the courts to consider its use for all crimes. Not only Reform members but also some Liberal members were very concerned about leaving this section wide open for the courts to use.

Over the last number of months we saw in a riding next to mine where a violent rapist was given an alternative sentence without any days of incarceration. He was let back into the community to carry out his sentence in his own home. If I remember the comment, it was that being confined to his own home was like being jailed. If that is the case, if there is no difference between being confined to home or locked away in a prison, there is something wrong with our prison system.

That problem was indicated at committee stage before the legislation returned to the House at report stage. Why did the government not consider those amendments at that time? Why was it that the justice minister and his department went ahead with the bill in its written form rather than seriously consider amendments proposed at the committee stage that would have dealt with the issue before the bill was read for a third time and passed?

The justice minister and his department were remiss. They were close minded in their consideration of committee recommendations that would have made it a better piece of legislation. The justice minister and his department were very set on seeing the bill go through as it was written.

I find it ironic that probably a year later the justice minister realizes he had made a mistake and should have listened to the committee input. Now he is rectifying that by amendment. As a matter of fact he is looking at it as an amendment to an omnibus bill that was written before. He did not even pick it up when the omnibus bill was written.

We are dealing with an amendment that is only been dealt with by unanimous consent of all parties in the House. We recognize the importance of the courts knowing that limitations should be set. I am very disappointed that limitations are not being set and that the justice minister is cautioning the courts. I cannot say how many times the House has had to deal with legislation because the instruction through our laws has not been clear enough for the Federal Court to make a clear and concise decision.

Once again an amendment to a bill is being proposed. We are supporting it, knowing that it is not the right way to deal with the issue. All we are doing is cautioning judges. We are not giving them specific and exact law under which they can make their decisions. We will still have problems with the alternative sentencing aspect of the criminal justice system. It frustrates me to no end when we have input from very capable members of the House of Commons who can foresee these types of instances coming up and make recommendations to solidify it or to tighten up the law so that it is very clear to all who deal with it. Yet that is disregarded.

I support the amendment but I caution the government and the Minister of Justice that it will not solve the problem. He has stopped short of identifying definite areas where alternative sentencing should be used. There is no way that Canadians will support the use of alternative sentencing for dangerous offenders. There is no way Canadians will support this kind of alternative sentencing for people who have caused physical harm to another human being such as the sexual assault offence in my neighbouring constituency. The people of Canada will just not accept the fact that a person can physically and viciously assault another individual and be confined to home. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

In my riding Clifford Olson is coming back this summer for his hearing. That was another issue the committee dealt with in Bill C-41 to prevent it from happening and to make sure there would not be an opportunity for such an individual to obtain a section 745 review. Did the minister listen at that time? Absolutely not. It was not just opposition members bringing in amendments. It was government members sitting on that committee who felt it needed to be dealt with.

Once again we have an issue before the people of Canada because of the inability of the justice minister to do what is right for the country. I look forward to the day when he wakes up one morning, realizes something more needs to be done on that issue and presents another amendment. Hopefully it can be in the omnibus bill before we adjourn the House.

We support the omnibus bill very reluctantly because it will not solve the problems. It just puts them off for another day. Rather than stand in the way of any movement in the right direction, we

find ourselves forced to support some very weak attempts at correcting some problems in the justice system.

I would like to feel that the justice minister is beginning to realize that Canadians across the country are looking to him and to the government to do something to protect them, to change the laws, and to put emphasis on penalizing the offenders and recognizing the rights of the victims.

Canadians would like to think the justice minister and the government are concerned about their safety and the safety of their children. We really do not get that feeling. We find a hesitation on the part of the justice minister to react. He reacts only under pressure instead of dealing with the issues when they first come to committee and are first drafted in legislation.

The justice minister should and could be doing something to ensure that Canadians are safe in their homes and on their streets. We in the Reform Party find he has fallen far short of ensuring Canadians of that protection. He has fallen short in giving specific guidelines to our courts in areas such as alternative measures and impact statements from victims.

Why is it after the fact that he realizes victims should be guaranteed the right to make an impact statement and to be heard so that courts and juries can understand the impact of the offence committed against them. Why is that kind of concern after the fact? Why does that kind of concern seem to be a second thought?

Canadians expect a lot more from the justice minister and from their government.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to share with Canadians that he is right, 51 out of 52 Reformers did opt out of the pension plan for members of Parliament. It was not easy as a single parent without any pension to walk away from it. However, I felt was not right and because it was not in the same vein as pension plans for the average Canadian in the private sector, I could not in good conscience remain in that plan. Yes, at great sacrifice to myself and my colleagues, we opted out when the opportunity was there. We will not be ripping off Canadians down the road as far as the pension is concerned.

It shows the leadership and the vision we have for the country. I hope that when the voters go to the poll in the very near future they will consider that as an indication of what kind of government we will provide after the next election.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in the budget debate today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to shed some light on one of the most deceptive documents I have ever seen. Watching the Minister of Finance perform in this house is like watching one of the greatest illusionists since Merlin the magician.

There are claims of no tax increases when the finance minister has introduced 35 tax increases, taking an additional $25 billion out of the hands of Canadians. Imagine what would have happened if that $25 billion had been left in the hands of consumers. Imagine all the spending Canadians would have done with that $25 billion. Imagine all the jobs that would have been created with that $25 billion. For some reason this Liberal government does not want Canadians to spend their own money. Instead the Liberals want to spend Canadians' money.

A movie about a sports agent, "Jerry Maguire", contains the line: "Show me the money. Show me the money". The finance minister and the Liberal government have adopted a slightly different version of the line. The government's version is "Give me your money. Give me your money".

Another example of the minister's smoke and mirrors is how he arrived at the $19 billion deficit.

Let us take a look at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In the main estimates which were tabled after the budget the department's spending decreased by $40 million. However, less than two weeks later, the department tabled its supplementary estimates. Instead of a $40 million decrease there was an $88 million increase. It is no wonder the finance minister can claim fiscal responsibility when government departments show their spending has been cut by 7 per cent the week of the budget and then increased by 15 per cent two weeks later.

The finance minister's greatest sleight of hand involves the Canada pension plan. I will go through this really slowly so government members, if they are around to listen, will be able to follow.

With the recently announced increase in CPP premiums, in six years Canadians will see 9.9 per cent of their salary going into the plan. For someone paying the maximum amount, that will mean the individual will pay $1,635, with the employer paying a matching amount.

Let us imagine that we have someone under the age of 30 paying the maximum amount for the next 35 years. That person and their employer will pay about $110,000 in premiums. I have heard that the average length of collecting CPP is 19 years. That means, in today's dollars, that individual would collect $165,000.

Is $165,000 a good return on an investment of $110,000 over 35 years? I would suggest that 99 per cent of Canadians would laugh at the idea that it is a good investment.

It gets worse. Under the provisions of the seniors' benefit which the Liberal government introduced last year, the first $12,500 of income over and above the seniors' benefit will be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent. That is right, 50 per cent. This poor soul who paid $110,000 into the Canada pension plan will not get that cheque for $724 a month; rather they will only receive $362 a month.

If this poor soul lives to collect his pension of $362 a month for 19 years, he will collect a grand total of $82,500. That is an $82,500 return on an investment of $110,000. I do not know what kind of mathematics it takes to show that is not a good investment. Only a member of the Liberal government would think it is a good deal.

Actually under this government's pension policies, it is a good plan for Liberal and Tory MPs. The Liberals have ensured that they will not have to worry about little things like the CPP. No, they do not have to worry about the Canada pension plan when they have their own gold plated pension.

While the average Canadian in the future will be struggling on their skimpy seniors' benefit and half of their CPP, these Liberal MPs will be basking in the glory of the richest pension plan in the country, so rich that it is illegal for any other Canadian to have a similar plan.

The finance minister has made sure that he and his fellow Liberals will enjoy most of their obscene pension.

One may ask, why is that? Under the provisions of the seniors benefit, that 50 per cent tax on pension income only covers the first $12,500. The next $12,500 is taxed at the rate of zero. That is right, there is no income tax on the next $12,500. That means it will completely cover the benefit that someone will receive from the Canada pension plan, but it will only touch a small portion of additional pension income, like the members of Parliament pension plan.

This means that the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to collect her full pension of over $50,000 a year when she reaches the age of 55, a full 10 years earlier than the average Canadian. When she turns 65 her CPP payments will be taxed at 50 per cent. However, that will be just a pittance to her because $12,500 of her gold plated pension plan will be tax free and the rest is only going to be taxed at a rate of about 20 per cent.

So while the average Canadian will have his or her CPP taxed at 50 per cent, these Liberal MPs will be laughing while paying less than 20 per cent tax on that outrageous pension. No wonder the Liberals think that this is a really great budget. For them it is.

No wonder the finance minister has refused to answer the Reform Party's tough questions about the budget. Instead, he uses a typical Liberal tactic of attacking Reform, of diverting people's attention from the real issue, his sham of a budget. Instead of paying his people to come up with a decent budget, he has them all working scouring everything the Reform Party has ever said about finances and then figuring a way to distort them.

Here is something that is not in Reform Party policy that I think I could get my colleagues to approve. While we normally are not in favour of tax increases, we would be prepared to support a very heavy tax increase on Canadian shipping magnates who register their ships in Panama so they can avoid paying Canadian taxes. We would be more than happy to tax these Canadians who export jobs out of Canada and would rather pay taxes in Panama than in Canada.

Perhaps it is time for the finance minister to lead by example. Perhaps it is time for the finance minister and his fellow Liberals to put their hands in their own pockets instead of the pockets of Canadians.