Eric C. Lowther

[Foreign Investment, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the finance minister's company here. What is very clear is that when it came to his company's pension plan, the finance minister's company ignored the spirit of his own regulations. He did not want to be limited to the normal—

[Foreign Investment, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families not only have to worry about this government's onerous tax burden and feeding and clothing their families, they also have to try to scrape together RRSP contributions for their retirement.

However, the finance minister's rules limit the amount that families can invest in foreign owned companies to 20%. On the other hand, interestingly the finance minister's own company skirted the spirit of those rules by investing 40% of its pension fund in foreign owned companies.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why do the rules that are imposed on every Canadian family not apply to the finance minister's own company?

[Rcmp, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the solicitor general does not, then I wonder who over there does.

Why is this government concerned about what is going on in the living rooms of the nation? It is hard to explain the justification for the RCMP spending scarce resources—and we have heard about them today—on tracking down wayward TV watchers when it cannot afford to track down murderers.

Why is the government more interested in cracking down on what Canadians are watching on TV than cracking down on real criminals?

[Rcmp, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting one. The RCMP headquarters has directed all detachments to crack down on grey market satellite TV viewers and dealers. Canada Customs, on the other hand, is collecting duties from the import of grey market equipment. People are taxed on the way in and then they are charged for possession, all because the government wants to know what they are watching on TV.

Why is the solicitor general directing the RCMP to spend scarce resources to crack down on channel surfers instead of trying to catch real criminals?

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I generally appreciate the comments from the hon. member opposite. He made many very good points that were agreed upon by people in the committee.

There is one area on which I have a bit of an issue with him. We need always to try to apply credit where credit is due when it is possible. I think the committee did a good job but I think there are the yeoman's efforts that were put forward by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley that were largely responsible for bringing this issue forward.

I heard the member opposite say that the Liberal government has shown much strong initiative on this. Yet I am reminded, and would be curious to hear his comments on this, there was a motion on this put forward by the opposition led by the member just mentioned back in 1996 that was unanimously adopted by the House and no action was taken. We brought it forward again in 1997 and it was adopted by the House. There was no action by the government and then again in 1998. Finally we got some agreement to get some action on it if we would delay the deadline until 1999. Now finally we have some legislation before us.

I see this largely driven by the Reform Party and the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. The justice committee did eventually respond. But I would just like to hear the member opposite recognize the contribution made by the member mentioned.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the previous speakers, but earlier this afternoon the House leader gave notice that there would be closure on the debate on the Nisga'a bill. I am not clear on this so I just want to ask the Speaker whether after one day of debate it is appropriate to invoke closure.

There are 469 amendments. I do not see how we will be able to deal with them in one day. Can I have some advisement from the Chair in this regard? It seems inappropriate.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting today a number of petitions with thousands of names of people who draw the attention of the House to the significant contribution that adoptive parents make.

The petitioners call on the House to recognize the contribution and costs that are often incurred in adopting children. They are seeking House support for a private member's bill that I put forward, Bill C-505, that would recognize the costs to adoptive parents and allow them a tax deductible expense.

[International Day Of Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is the last International Day of Disabled Persons for the 20th century.

According to statistics, more than half a billion people in the world are disabled as a result of mental, physical or sensory impairments. Today is the day to recognize the contribution that those with disabilities have made to our society and the dignity and value of each and every person.

We have seen the incredible spirit and character of those in the Special Olympics, and they can be proud of their example to us.

People like Terry Fox and Rick Hansen have been an inspiration to millions, but we must also not forget all those with disabilities who strengthen the meaning of human life and make our country a better place to live.

Today, I and my colleagues salute our friends, families, neighbours and co-workers with disabilities and we thank them for the joy and inspiration they bring to the lives of us all.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18. I heard the member opposite applaud the standing committee and the work it has done. I too concur that the work that has been done on this particular bill is very positive and serves to protect the lives of Canadians from the tragedy of harm and death that can come from impaired driving.

This particular bill, as the member opposite has just stated, is intended to increase the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment, providing for the taking of blood samples for the purposes of testing for the presence of a drug and making a number of other amendments as detailed here.

I want to draw attention to the excellent work of my colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley on this particular initiative and the long persistent road that he has been on to bring this forward to the House of Commons. The very reason that this issue was even before the standing committee was largely due to the result, effort and the determination of one particular member of the Reform Party, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Let me allow the House to reflect, and those watching today, on the long road it has travelled to actually get this bill to the House here today. It was more than three years ago, February 1996, that a private member's bill was put forward by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley with the Reform Party, Bill C-201. It was an act to amend the criminal code to provide for a seven year minimum sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death. At that time there was no minimum jail term. The maximum sentence was unclear. The bill was defeated in the House by a margin of 31 votes.

Mr. Speaker, you might think that might be the end of the story, that the hon. member might have quit there after having finally got his bill to the floor and votable, which is not an easy thing to do in the House. There is a long series of lotteries, in effect, that one has to go through to get to that point. He got his bill to the floor with great public support and yet it was defeated in the House.

That was not going to deter the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. On December 2, 1996, because of the great public support for what he was doing, he proposed a private member's motion, M-78. The motion read that pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the criminal code which deal with impaired driving in order to (a) enhance deterrents and (b) ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.

He did not give up on the bill and he went ahead with a motion. That motion then was unanimously adopted by the House of Commons on February 7, 1997, a year after he had started this initiative.

That started the ball rolling in a sense here in the House of Commons. On October 30, 1997, another motion, M-78, was introduced as an opposition day motion. Nothing really happened on the first motion but to keep the pressure on, this member again brought it forward in our caucus. He brought it forward as an opposition day motion. The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley proposed Motion No. M-78, which again asked for the unanimous consent of the House and with further instruction that the justice committee carry out a review and report back to the House of Commons with legislation by May 15, 1998. Unfortunately, the government took no action at all even though that motion was given unanimous consent. Nothing happened even though it was approved by the House of Commons. There was no movement by the government opposite. There may be a variety of reasons for that.

The main thing here that was important to people who supported this initiative of the Reform Party member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley was that they wanted to see some action and there was none. It was not until the fall of 1998 that an extension to the deadline was agreed to just to keep it alive until November 30, 1998.

It was because of not wanting to let this die, because we wanted to keep it alive, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley negotiated to extend the deadline to May 15, 1999. More than three years from when he started this initiative he would not let go of this much needed legislation to protect the innocent from the damaging and sometimes life terminating effects of drunk driving.

The committee conducted hearings throughout February and March, 1999 and tabled its report in the House in late May. The resulting legislation, Bill C-82, which was part of a package, was passed by the House and came into effect on July 1, 1999. It was a long road to see a good section of what was called for by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. It was strengthened, admittedly, by the committee and was adopted by the House.

On December 1 the bill we are debating today was introduced, Bill C-18. It deals with some sections that some members of the House were not comfortable having included in Bill C-82. We are moving ahead today on Bill C-18. We are hopeful that Bill C-18 will be passed by the House and this will complete the long road that the Reform Party, led by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, has championed.

This whole persistent determination to see good legislation brought forward to protect Canadians and the lives of Canadians by a member of the Reform Party reminds me of other pieces of legislation that this party has brought forward in the House and has caused changes to occur that have subsequently been adopted and championed as their own by the Liberal Party opposite. I do not begrudge that. I suppose that is part of the dynamics here. But today I want to reflect on some of the other impacts the opposition has had on positive legislation in the House.

For example, some of the changes to the Young Offenders Act that have occurred recently in the new youth criminal justice act were largely brought about by members of our party. I know there are many members opposite who would agree with that. The requirement to have parents in the courtroom when juveniles are being sentenced is an initiative of the Reform Party. The requirement to have some degree of accountability for parents when a charged youth is released into their custody was an initiative of the Reform Party that has been adopted in the youth criminal justice act. There are many other initiatives as well. I suspect we would not even have seen the changes to the youth criminal justice act that are being proposed had it not been for the pressure that was put forward by members of the Reform Party responding to the concerns of the public, of grassroots Canadians.

We are all celebrating a balanced budget but I can remember back in 1998 looking at the information put forward by the Reform Party that showed a huge debt hole that had been dug by previous Tory and Liberal administrations. Just as Bill C-18 and Bill C-82 were initiatives of members of the Reform Party, so it was that it was the Reform Party responding to the deep debt that had been incurred by these previous governments that pressured for balanced budgets which today we have.

I had a bill that was designed to better protect children from sex offenders, particularly when those sex offenders want to work for an institution that cares for children, allowing these institutions or volunteer organizations to better do a complete assessment if there was any record of this person who wants to work with that organization.

That bill was passed by the House twice, made it through committee and, in fact, went on to the Senate. Unfortunately, after prorogation I do not believe that bill has been resubmitted by the Liberal government into the Senate and it now floats in the ozone. However, that does not mean we are going to give up on it. Again, a particular initiative brought forward by the official opposition to better protect children.

Again, another member of our party brought forward the whole initiative on organ donation, organ transplants and saving of lives through appropriate legislation to allow for that activity. Once more the Liberal government has responded to another good idea from the Reform Party and the official opposition.

One I know we will all remember, it is recent, is the call right across the country from families calling for fair family taxation. Last year we had a public outcry from those tired of tax policies that discriminate against certain family choices of child care. There was a call by single income parents across the country for fair family taxation so that the dollars and the choices are left in the hands of parents. What happened with that was it forced the subcommittee of finance to actually look at this whole issue. A report came out of that committee that contained a number of good recommendations.

Again, that whole issue was brought forward and brought to light in the House through the Reform Party responding to public pressure from across the country.

Let me return to Bill C-18. I want to conclude my comments by applauding again the Reform Party member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley who met with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving from coast to coast and attended many of their meetings. He brought forward their issues in the House during question period and during statement time as well as their petitions from across the country.

There are a lot of things that demand our time here in the House of Commons. He could have chosen to do other things, but he responded to the outcry of parents who have had children killed or spouses maimed by drunk drivers. He said “No, I am not going to let this go”.

He persisted until today we have legislation in the form of Bill C-82 that has been passed by this House and is going on to be made law, and now Bill C-18 to complete the package. It makes me proud to stand among my peers in the Reform Party. We are responding to the concerns of the grassroots. We are bringing forward issues and getting them into committee where they can be heard by committee members and witnesses can be brought forward. In effect it demonstrates that, collectively, in the House when we can get a good idea into committee and the members opposite hear the witnesses, it can result in excellent legislation.

Again, I applaud the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and the Reform Party for the leadership shown on this particular issue.

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that we did not get unanimous consent to make this bill votable.

I think we will make a note of the fact that the government specifically would not agree to a simple suggestion to make this bill that would protect 14 year olds and those under 16 a votable bill.

I know I only have a few minutes to speak because I want to leave time for the mover of the motion to be able to conclude. It strikes me as amazing that in a day and age when we are so aware of the health risks that are associated with sexual activity, it is like Russian roulette. We had here on the Hill a few days ago a big display on the impact of AIDS and sexual diseases and how they are killing millions of people in Africa and around the world.

We insist that our youth take driver education before they can drive a car. We do not let them vote until they are 18. Yet we will let them play Russian roulette with older men that would entice a 14 or 15 year old girl into sexual activity. It is unbelievable.

Here we have a bill on the floor. It is a horrendous gauntlet that a private member's bill has to run to even get to the floor. I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for bringing it forward.

We just had an impassioned speech about a life that was being destroyed and was saved by a principal who was courageous enough to get the girl out of that.

Let us make the change. Let us at least vote on it. The government says no. That is unbelievable. That is what we are faced with here in the House. That is why this party is here. We have been so frustrated with that kind of garbage that people left their normal work life and said, “Let's go down there and see what we can do about it”, as my hon. colleague just said.

Perhaps the government members have reconsidered. Perhaps it is time to think about it again. Let us try it again.

I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to make this bill votable.