Roy H. Bailey

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this debate because of a number of incidents which have happened across Canada in the last year.

A year ago we were just getting over the terrible devastation of the Red River flood. The devastation not only took away people's income, but in many cases it destroyed their property, it destroyed their lives and in some cases it destroyed families.

We just recovered from that and last winter we had a terrible ice storm which again took millions of dollars and ruined peoples' lives for one year, two years or even more.

While the effects of these two national calamities go on, we stand here today debating a proposal to give people who are servants of the people an approximate 8% raise in salary. This going on while hundreds of people have not even started to pick up their shoelaces from the disasters. It is incomprehensible. Does the government not realize that we are elected as members of Parliament to serve the people?

How can I possibly respond to a letter I received the other day? It was from a single parent with two children whose income is slightly below the poverty line. Are the people who are in dire need about to get a retroactive 8% increase? The answer is no.

There are hundreds of people who have to file income tax returns who should not even be on the tax rolls. When they see people being appointed to positions and receiving an 8% raise in salaries that are already $140,000, they cry out in a loud voice from ocean to ocean to ocean. They do not cry “no”; they cry “no way”.

We need to follow the advice of this motion. We need to listen to the words of my colleague from Calgary who says “Let us take this back. Let us have a review of what we are doing”.

I well recall when the famous charter of rights and freedoms was implemented. I recall the statement being made that now we have the ability to make the laws. Therein is the danger which the people have echoed throughout this country for the past two years. They are saying “I thought we elected our MPs and our MLAs to make laws”.

In the newspapers in the past three months I have seen terms like “The tribunal orders the government”. The word “orders” is used. The tribunals are telling us what definition such terms as spouse and marriage will take. This government has nothing to say about it because of the courts? Democracy is wavering on some of these issues and it is wavering badly.

I want to talk about my constituents. At this time last year, between the two cities I represent, we had a very fierce hail storm. The people out west could not tell whether it was crop or summer fallow. That is how bad it was. They did not lose $140,000. Many of those people lost an amount which is double that of the wages of a federal judge. Did they get retroactive pay?

They have not pulled up their bootstraps from that and now they are facing a drought. To add to that, there are hundreds thousands of acres, including those in the neighbouring province of Manitoba, that have had six nights of killing frost. Seventy thousand people are sitting out there not knowing what their income will be this fall. I am just referring to western Canada. But we are going to give a handful of judges an 8% raise on incomes of $140,000. I cannot believe it. I hope that all the people of Canada from coast to coast to coast who are listening to the debate today are aware of that.

About 18 months ago Maclean's magazine did a poll on what bothered Canadians the most. Up near the top of the list was our court system. They said that they were losing faith in our court system and now we are going to reward judges with an 8% salary increase.

Any member of this House, on any side of the House, who represents any party in the House, should be thinking about the real producers of wealth in this country. They should be thinking about the miners and about those who provide the food. They should be thinking about the people who are raising families, the unemployed and the youth who cannot find jobs. But what are they saying? We have a great country. We just gave our judges an 8% raise.

This is wrong. This bill, as the amendment says, should go back to committee. The government should have no fear of sending it back. I do not care whether the session is almost over. For the government to move closure on this bill will ring out across this land like no emergency has ever rung out. The people will say “The government has done it again”.

The government is robbing from Canadians to pay people a salary in excess of $140,000. It is saying that the rest of the people can work it out for themselves. The farmers, the people who live in the Saguenay, on the prairies, in the Red River valley and elsewhere will just have to pick up their own bootstraps. It may take them 10 years to get back to normal.

I beg the House to support this motion. If anything, stall it. Send it back. I think the judges can live on $140,000 without due concern. I think that can happen. I do not think our justice system is going to fall to pieces. This is a good motion and I beg everyone to support it.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-25 to be called.

Motion No. P-25

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, and briefings between the Government of Canada and SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier Inc., AGRA Moneco Inc., GEC Alsthom Canada, Axor and Ellis-Don concerning a potential high speed-rail service in the Toronto-Quebec City corridor.

[Rail Transportation, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport for months has been studying rail passenger travel in Canada. The emphasis has been on the core area from Windsor to Quebec City.

Recently the Lynx Consortium made public a plan to build a high speed service between Toronto and Quebec City. Obviously this group would not have gone public without having some private consultations with government officials. These government officials would be from the departments of transport, finance, the environment and probably others.

In order for Canadians to be more informed and before the parliamentary committee can make comment, it is incumbent upon this government to provide as many details as possible on its position, its funding and any other commitment it has.

If Canadians are going to be expected to contribute in a financial way then there should be openness and transparency so the public can understand it before—

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I assure you that my hon. colleague is quite correct. We did arrange for me to speak first because I have to be in committee.

I strongly support Motion No. 7. I want to take some time to explain to this House why. In the first place it should be known that this motion came about after the committee was warned not to deal with this motion, clause 36.1.

Members on the government side of the House in committee were warned by the justice minister and her officials. However, it was put into the bill anyway.

I want to explain the situation as it relates to Saskatchewan's newest national park, Grasslands National Park. It is situated entirely within the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Cyprus Hills—Grasslands. However, it is only about 30 miles outside of my constituency and I know the area well. My daughter and her family ranch right up against it.

This motion relates to subcontracting and the use of the Official Languages Act. I have often gone through state and national parks in the United States. When we get to the lower part of the United States, into Arizona, into Texas, there is no mandatory use of language. Wherever the second language is needed it is there. If we go to the post office and the second language is needed, it is there. If we go to the tendering process and the second language is needed, it is there. There is no gouging, there is no arbitrary decisions to irritate people in that country over language.

For example, at the western end of Grasslands National Park let us say we were going to tender and four sections of that park were to be fenced out with limited grazing for that period of time. With the drought situation in that area right now, that may well become a factor.

To even tender in that part of Saskatchewan under the guise of the Official Languages Act, all that would do is irritate everybody within that whole area of Saskatchewan. First we would not get a contractor to come that distance who would qualify under this motion. We would eliminate all those people there who have all of the equipment, the post pounders, the wire stretchers and everything else. They would be eliminated because this has been injected into this bill.

What the government is doing by putting this in the bill is taking a peaceful group of farmers and ranchers and gouging them a little deeper and then maybe saying the rednecks show up a little more. Why do we do this? It is absolute nonsense.

Where it is necessary, let us follow the example. No one on this side of the House, no one in the Reform Party, objects to the application of the Official Languages Act. But when it gets to an area which would eliminate the local population totally, all the government is doing is putting more fuel on the fire and it is not calming anything in Saskatchewan or in areas where the one language dominates.

In this park, and I am using it as an example again, there are certain roads that have to be built. Not many roads are being built anywhere in Saskatchewan right now.

Imagine putting out a tender for a contractor to build so many kilometres of roads in that park but the contractor must have and make use of the stipulations under the Official Languages Act. They would not even get a contractor. Nobody would even apply because there are none there. What would they do? I suppose they would import one. I do not know where they would come from but in order to live up to this clause in the bill they might have to import a contractor from outside the province altogether. Why? This is why I strongly support my colleague's motion.

I think the government itself knows this is wrong. Where it is necessary, use it. Please do not let this motion die. Please support this for the sake of our national consciousness and for the sake of local people. I think there is enough common sense on both sides of the House to indeed support this motion. I certainly look forward to supporting it.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining four minutes of my previous address, I will raise four very serious questions.

If the House adopts my hon. colleague's bill these questions will not have to be answered again or at least not as frequently.

The government has a fundamental role to ensure the protection of its citizens. This is particularly true for those who are innocent and most vulnerable, our children. Protecting children is the ultimate responsibility. They must be allowed to grow up free from abuse and free from molestation.

First, what does one say to console parents who have had a child molested? There is no answer that can be provided unless we take steps at this time to pass the bill.

Thirty-one per cent of sex offenders released from federal correctional institutions commit another violation of some sort within three years. Pedophiles are at greater risk than rapists. It is likely that pedophiles, especially those men who offend young boys, are at greater risk to reoffend sexually than are rapists. As a matter of fact statistics show it is 19% to 8%.

Second, what does one say to parents after a child has been molested by someone who has already served time for a similar offence? Bill C-184 introduced by my colleague would provide measures so that employers and parents would know the past of the people they are hiring and thus provide protection to the most precious possessions they have, their children.

Currently when someone receives a pardon for summary or indictable offences there is no record accessible to the public that there was ever a criminal conviction or that pardon was ever granted.

Third, how would a parent or an employer feel knowing that the information was withheld from them when they hired someone who they did not know was a convicted pedophile?

Bill C-284 is specific in its intent. In order to protect our children from this type of element in society it is incumbent upon all members who sit in the House to make the right move to do that.

Fourth, why is Bill C-284 so important not just to my party, not just to the parties opposite, but to every member of the House? The responsibility now falls upon them. Essentially it sends a message. If the House wants that message to go out all across Canada to our constituencies in every province, we are saying by passing the bill that the protection of our children is important and is the most paramount thing we could do at the present time.

[Hepatitis C, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all victims who contracted HIV tainted blood prior to 1986 were compensated.

Could the minister explain why hepatitis C victims who contracted their disease by the same tainted blood during the same period of time will not be compensated?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the morale. I would like to ask him the following question.

With approximately 60,000 troops in the Canadian forces and 60 generals we have more commissioned officers per soldier and per military personnel than any country in the world. No wonder the NCOs are in the mood they are in. Would the member not agree with that?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Sixty-five.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just spoken. This has been perhaps the most open and honest approach we have heard from that side all day. I commend him for that. At least he alluded to the problems we face. I assure him that this side of the House and the committee to which he referred will be looking forward to his report.

I have read in newspapers and magazines about the problem of the Department of National Defence in relation to NCOs and commissioned officers.

I come from a part of Canada which has the RCMP as the provincial police force. I have been in the same area for a long time. The highest ranking officer that has ever been in our detachment, albeit this is the RCMP, is a corporal. Imagine having three sergeants and one constable.

If I heard correctly today, and this is part of the problem that the government should be addressing, we have something like 65 generals in the Canadian army.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Absolutely, there should be the same procedure in place within the military which I know exists within the RCMP and police forces. Even the lowest recruit has a right to issue a complaint. In doing so they know full well that the complaint will reach its proper source and they will not be penalized for putting their reasoning forward. We found out in the Somalia inquiry that when they got to the touchy political part that is when the problem started.

The member is right and it is a good question. We should get the politics out of this and let the military run it and reach solutions without the politicians getting into it.