Howard Hilstrom

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the non-tariff trade barriers from South Dakota, Americans have initiated anti-dumping action against our beef, dairy and the transparency of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Yesterday the agriculture minister stood and told the House he would take action under NAFTA and the WTO. Twenty-four hours have elapsed. What NAFTA or WTO action has been taken?

[Agriculture, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada will not be judicious in their words when they ask this minister questions outside the House.

In any event, we have seen for six days now that the South Dakota government has been rejecting our imports even though they have been passed at the international border.

When will the minister solve this and what is he doing today?

[Agriculture, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister and his weak-kneed sister, the trade minister, have shown that—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, no. When officers attend these domestic disputes or any other allegation of any kind of criminal activity, they go in there knowing that it is a volatile situation. The very facts of the situation cannot be know beforehand either by some computer, if it is accurate, or by the information they receive. In that area the hon. member is listening simply to chiefs of police.

He spoke also of fearmongering. Let us talk about fearmongering. He can take a look at the city police in Winnipeg and at the courts. In the newspapers the other day there was an article about a gang rape of a 15 year old girl by four bikers. This young girl refused to testify in court. She was terrified of the criminal and refused to testify, and the police could not protect her.

Fearmongering is on the side of those who promote gun registration. The moneys being spent on firearm registration should be spent on working with victims of crimes and fighting the biker gangs. There is nothing being spent on biker gangs, and $150 million would help. Fearmongering is on the side of the Liberal government. It is not on this side.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what we have come here today to discuss and debate is a matter of utmost importance. That goes without saying. I have heard comments in here in the last few minutes about whether this is supported, safety and these various issues that come up.

With regard to support, I would like the members in the House, if they have not already done so, to take a few minutes and step outside and look at the Canadians standing out there, average Canadians. They are not people who are looking to break the law. These are average Canadians who have come here en masse with one of the biggest demonstrations certainly that has been seen here for a long time, if not ever.

For every one of those people out there I can assure members that there are hundreds and possibly thousands represented by each one of those. The question of support for this bill, for the abolition of the Firearms Act, is represented by these people, and let us just talk about additional support for abolition of this bill.

I met the other day with the minister of justice in Manitoba, Mr. Vic Toews. If he does not represent one million Manitobans on this issue, I will eat my shirt.

The fact is he will not be appointing inspectors under this legislation. He is saying that this legislation is bad, it is wrong, he does not support it, the province of Manitoba does not support it, the premier does not support it nor do the people of Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal people.

How many more do the Reform Party have to identify as Canadians who are against the Firearms Act to convince the members opposite that they are out to lunch on their exaggerated numbers they claim support this bill? As referenced in the court case which happened in Edmonton, the justice department, on behalf of the Liberal government, took the RCMP statistics and built them up to a point where they were plain untrue. There was a lot of correction over that. They finally got the RCMP to admit that the figures had been misinterpreted or something. That is not true. They were outright changed.

The question of safety is one that has been debated here for some time. I will go back to my experience in life as a police officer. The question of safety with firearms was already addressed fully before the Firearms Act came into place. There was safe storage. There were firearm training programs. I was an instructor at one time. There was registration of handguns. The registration was inaccurate but it was there. I never seized any registered guns from the criminals I arrested.

With regard to safety in family disputes, you did not know whether there was going to be a firearm in the house or whether the fellow or wife was previously known to have firearms. The computer systems the RCMP and the Ontario provincial police had already had the capability of entering and tracking these people as dangerous. There were already provisions for serial numbers of stolen firearms to be entered. Residents and people who were known to be active criminals or who were known to be suspects capable of violence were entered. The computer systems were there.

The idea that this is going to increase safety it wrong. I hesitate to use these words, but the hidden agenda of this government is clearly to make up enough rules that the average law abiding Canadian is going to break some of those rules either in transferring a firearm or registering it wrongly. The government can then take that act and say they have made a mistake. From then on they will be prohibited from owning a firearm. The ultimate goal would be to remove as many or all guns from legitimate law abiding Canadians. That will leave the criminal with the guns. There is one other group of people who are going to have guns in this country, the military and the police. They have them now and it is a good thing they do.

This government is proceeding along the road of arming more of its departments. The question I ask is will this hidden agenda ultimately end up with only the government and the criminals owning guns and the average Canadian having nothing. To back that statement up, the government is arming Canada Customs. The conservation officers are being armed. There are all kinds of these things happening. It all translates into more government control.

Before this act came into effect the Criminal Code indicated that a criminal who used a weapon during the commission of a crime could be sentenced for that offence. The sentence could be harsher. These things were all in place. It is frustrating to know that the only impact of the act put in place by the government will be an increase in costs for average Canadians to own firearms. People who require firearms like me and the rest of the farmers and hunters in the country will have increased costs. It will also cause people to quit a hobby they enjoyed.

I will relate an experience I had the other day. I was attending a clay shoot which involves aiming at little clay targets with shotguns. There were about 60 to 70 people there from my riding. It was a beautiful sunny day. We had a nice time. I am sure we were not hurting anyone. I did not see any criminals. There were none. We are talking about support for this type of legislation. The talk that day was that the legislation would add costs for firearms and ammunition to a hobby that already had costs built into it.

As young people no longer join this hobby there will be spin-off costs. They will not buy ammunition. They will not buy firearms. They will not spending money on gas. They will not be spending money which helps the economy. More than that, what is irking a lot of us is that we have the right to enjoy ourselves. If we are doing it in a lawful manner, why should the government put hindrances and expenses on us which are not needed and will do no good other than for its belief that Canadians should not own firearms and that only governments and foreign powers that come to the country with their security guards should be the ones to have firearms?

I stand by my right as a Canadian to own a firearm without harassment from my government. I intend to fight for that. I support the motion entirely and I invite every member, particularly those on the Liberal side who know what their constituents want, to vote for the motion.

[The Senate, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has long campaigned for a Senate that is equal in representation for all provinces, elected by the people and effective in operations. Our appeals for Senate reform seem to fall on deaf ears as the Liberals ignore the obvious problems in the Senate and continue to make patronage appointments.

Even the Prime Minister has begun to recognize the need for change. On June 3 the Prime Minister said “When there will be an elected Senate there will be an elected Senate for all Canadians at the same time. If we want reform of the Senate we need a complete one with equality and effectiveness”.

The Prime Minister has not yet seen the light. Canada deserves an equal, elected and effective Senate. The Prime Minister knows this but is unwilling to make that necessary first step of recognizing the democratic will of the people who want to elect their next senator.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people who are subject to violent crimes, home invasions, crimes against the elderly and crimes committed by street gangs in Manitoba, thousands of petitioners cry out that something be done with the Bail Reform Act and that we get tougher with violent criminals.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first involves the firearms act.

The petitioners are crying out that this act is a waste of money and it is a waste of police resources. They indicate that there are insufficient police officers per capita compared to 1972. They feel the money should be better directed toward that.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, all this back slapping and patting on the back is really great. It is nice to hear. Everyone in here is of course a great parliamentarian. I would like to keep things in perspective however.

The member was speaking for some length about gun control. My recollection of a lot of history of the gun control issue is that Bill C-17 was simply the first step in a long progression that led to the gun control we see today.

I recall that when the vote came down, the Conservative caucus, in the Senate in particular that certain senators voted in favour of the gun legislation bill. I would like the member to comment on that because the veracity of the truth of his words has to be seen in the context of the whole picture if we are to believe that on this issue. We are also waiting for ex-parliamentarian Jean Charest to make his first comments from Quebec on that issue.

Has the member any comments on that?

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for those word of wisdom in guiding the House along a proper path of decorum and wise speech.

It is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-37. When I rose to speak to the bill on March 30 I suggested several areas of the bill that should be considered for amendment to ensure its stated intent could be achieved. I rise today to emphasize to members of the House the need for such changes.

Many of Canada's judges may well deserve a reasonable raise of certainly no more than 2% which is what lower paid employees are getting in the public service. By way of general comment, 2% on $20,000 is much less than 2% on $140,000. The lowest and the most needy in society are getting a much lower dollar to take home and buy the basic necessities of life than the higher paid in society.

Low salaries are typical of the justice sector in general, especially in the area of law enforcement. I understand a new mechanism for determining salaries of Canada's judges is needed. As one of my hon. colleague's pointed out earlier, the bill will increase the salaries of judges by 8.3% over two years. Most Canadians would agree this is an unreasonable proposition, especially when we consider judges' salaries in comparison to those of other members of the law enforcement community.

The lowest paid in this public sector still suffer financial hardship due to the broken promise of the government for a resolution, for example, of the pay equity issue. Here again we are dealing with people making in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to $28,000 a year.

I also speak specifically about Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Along with that group, I suppose, one could include crown attorneys, clerks and paralegals.

RCMP officers put their lives on the line pretty well every day, but have only received their first small raise since approximately 1991. Police officers make headlines by saving lives.

The House knows how Canada's judges have taken over parliament's role in changing, through interpretation, legislation. The current issue that is of great concern is the change in the definition of spouse. The Rosenberg case, which was referred to previously, has taken it out of the hands of parliament, which should rightfully deal with an issue as major as determining the definition of the word spouse. I would like to think that at some point, possibly in the fall, we will be back debating that particular issue on behalf of Canadians to come up with a resolution out of this House as opposed to the courts doing it.

I would like hon. members of the House to consider how a rank and file RCMP officer will feel when this bill is passed. Officers work every day in dangerous circumstances. Many of our judges seem to be out of touch with the current standards of the average citizen in our community.

I recently brought a petition to the House in reference to the Giles case in Manitoba. One of the primary statements that I made in regard to that petition was that judges have to reflect the standards, the morals and the current beliefs of a society. Otherwise, what are they doing on the bench?

This brings me to another point with regard to Bill C-37. It seeks to establish an independent mechanism for salary determination in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary. There are two problems with this. I agree in part with the intention of this because we certainly want judges to be independent. However, they also have to be accountable and, as I said, reflect the society they are judging.

Canada's judges should certainly not fear salary cuts if they render decisions against the government. However, the commission to be established under this legislation cannot hope to provide that independence. I believe that the appointment process of one representative by the judges, one by the government and one by both to make up the tribunal does not lend itself to that independence.

The government must move to prevent patronage appointments in the case of government appointments, which are undoubtedly going to occur under this legislation. While it may be agreed that the judiciary should be independent of the government, this should not mean that judges are unaccountable.

I know that hon. members opposite can mention the systems in place for judicial review. I realize that many feel that appeal courts provide all of the accountability necessary in our judicial system because they provide a mechanism whereby bad decisions can sometimes be reversed.

However, this does little to address the deeper problem, which is judges who make decisions that are offensive to their community standards. In that case there is no mechanism for any accountability back to these members of our society. It is here that the question of judicial accountability becomes tricky. Judges should, as we have already agreed, be independent of parliament, which might otherwise manipulate their decisions for political purposes.

The judges should not be totally independent of the communities and the people they serve. Judges who render decisions in keeping with Canada's laws and who use the flexibility provided them under these laws to render sentences in keeping with the expectations of their communities should be recognized for doing so.

Local communities should have greater opportunity to give direct feedback to judges' associations outside of the courtroom. If we cannot move to a system whereby judges are elected by the people for fixed terms of office, we can at least give communities a voice in the process.

This legislation should be amended to allow for the input of victims groups and community leaders in the salary determination process for individual judges. The judges would receive this feedback on a yearly basis which would help to ensure that they reflect the values and standards of the public they serve. The point is that there would be more immediate feedback in the instance of an extremely lenient sentence being given to a child molester or a probationary sentence being given to someone convicted of manslaughter. The judges would find out right away that a large segment of society is against that kind of sentencing.

The fact that judges actually are public servants should not be lost on the House or on the judges themselves. It seems that the concept that they are public servants is a missing ingredient in our society today.

When I consider the legislative action which has been taken and, in particular, the bill which we are debating today, something becomes obvious. The government is not reflecting community values, standards and current thinking on appropriate compensation for public servants, the judges, who are the subject of this bill.

I would like to comment on Motion No. 1 and the rationale behind the motion. Clause 5 pertains to the increase in judges' salaries which will be 4.1%, retroactive to April 1, 1997. No one is getting an increase retroactive to April 1, 1997 and the judges should not be getting one either.