Eric C. Lowther

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to be that close to debate on the bill, although I have certainly been aware of it. For those who are watching I ask the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to explain.

As he has articulated today, with the way the bill is structured right now the DNA sample is taken after conviction. It is like shutting the door after the horse is already out of the barn. There is not much point in doing it. Whereas if a DNA sample could be taken at the time of indictment the benefit of this would be greatly increased. The current state of the bill almost makes it ineffective and not that beneficial. The change the hon. member is calling for makes it worthwhile and effective. Is it really even of much benefit the way it is compared to the amendment we have been calling for?

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the final speakers to Bill C-20 I want to approach this from a different perspective.

I appreciate the intent of the amendment put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc. As I understand it his intent is to make it easier for people to bring their concerns and complaints before the commissioner and the competition bureau. We have to look at this in a larger context to really understand the impact and to see if that is really achieving the goal that we were trying to do in the first place with this bill.

If we look at the thrust of the bill we can see that the key things this bill is trying to do is to make sure that telemarketers give fair and reasonable disclosure of information at the beginning of each call, including the identity of the company, the purpose of the communication, the nature of the product, business or interest, the price, material restrictions and any terms and conditions applicable to delivery. The key thing in summary is that those who are involved in this kind of business are forthright, totally honest, provide all the information to the consumer and that there is no misrepresentation.

That is what the bill is trying to do. It is trying to protect those who have been abused by those who have not followed the rules in the past. If that is what we are trying to do, then maybe it is good that we have it clearly laid out in the legislation. For those who violate those criteria or cross the line, perhaps it is better that we have the tools in place to bring swift conviction and have appropriate penalties to serve as a deterrent.

The goal here is to have people adhere to the principles of honest business. The answer, I propose, is not to make it easier to complain and grow the regulatory quagmire and cost all Canadians more, including the consumers, to deal with all these complaints. Instead, the more cost-effective answer would be to have clear guidelines with a clear process for penalties for those who breach the guidelines and when warranted, significant penalties that serve as a deterrent.

This kind of approach results in less abuses and a lower cost to the consumer and the marketplace in general. I think it is prudent upon all of us here as we face the debt we have and the taxes we have not just to cut taxes and not just to pay down the debt, but even before all that to ask ourselves in every piece of legislation that comes before the House, are we doing it in the most cost-effective manner? Are we approaching it in a way that achieves the results with the minimal regulatory and bureaucratic quagmire that can result? Are we driving it home and achieving the results in the most cost-effective manner?

That is what we have to be asking ourselves today with the state of our national economy and the taxes that Canadians are paying. That is what they are expecting us to be asking here and that is the reflective position the Reform Party is taking on these particular amendments. We do not think it is a move in the right direction. It is not serving the Canadian taxpayer. Let us make sure the rules are clear and that if the rules are broken there is a significant enough penalty to serve as a deterrent.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, September 21st, 1998]

Could the government provide a complete list of all the “rights” (political, social, human) that Canada promotes through international organisations or has formally recognised through international agreement (including those through United Nations forums)?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

With respect to the child tax benefit, CTB during this and the last fiscal year for this program: ( a ) how many cases have there been where the same child was being claimed for the CTB by more than one individual at the same time: ( b ) what percentage are these cases of the total number of cases in the CTB program over the same period of time: ( c ) what was the total amount of overpayment for all of these double payment cases: ( d ) what was the average dollar value per double payment case: ( e ) what was the average length of time of such double payment: ( f ) how are such cases handled after they are discovered: ( g ) how many cases have there been of CTB payments being paid for an extended period of time after the deth of a child: ( h ) what percentage are these cases of the total number of cases in the CTB program over the same period of time: ( i ) what percentage are these cases of the total number of cases of child deaths where the child had been in the CTB program: ( j ) what was the total amount of overpayment for all of these cases: ( k ) what was the average dollar value per overpayment case: ( l ) what was the average length of time of overpayment: ( m ) how are such cases handled after they are discovered: ( n ) what were the costs to the department in discovering and correcting the above errors?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

With respect to the granting of pardons by the National Parole Board during the 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 reporting years: ( a ) how many decisions with respect to pardons did the National Parole Board make during these years: ( b ) how many total pardons were issued or granted during these years: ( c ) how many pardons were revoked during these years: ( d ) how many applications for pardons were denied during these years: ( e ) how many pardons were issued or granted for sexual offences during these years, including, but not limited to, the offences listed in sections 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 170, 212, 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code or any of the earlier provisions of the Criminal Code which these sections replaced: ( f ) how many of the pardons that were revoked during these years had previously been granted for sexual offences: and ( g ) how many of the applications for pardons that were denied during these years were application to have one or more sexual offences pardoned?

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of being part of the industry committee that reviewed Bill C-20 at some length and had some input into our party's actually deciding to support this bill and go behind the bill. We are in agreement that it should be passed through the House as quickly as possible.

Why would our party support this bill? I am looking at some of the statements we put together in recommending that our caucus support this bill. With respect to this bill the industry staff has made sure that telemarketers give fair and reasonable disclosure of information at the beginning of each call. This is an important point. It must include the identity of the company, the purpose of the communication, the nature or product of the business interests, price, material restrictions and any terms or conditions that apply to delivery. Those are the kinds of things my party and I support, fair and reasonable disclosure of information and accountability throughout.

The one issue we have with this motion is that it places the responsibility in the wrong place. It is calling for the telemarketer to be responsible for the manufacturer's product claims. We are suggesting that is going a little too far. The responsibility should be in the correct place and left with the manufacturer. If the manufacturer is giving certain guarantees and warranties, that is where the responsibility should lie.

Along with this bill I encourage the House to consider some of the principles behind it. It is the desire of my party that we see the principles for the open, complete and reasonable disclosure of information, as we see in the bill and as addressed in Motion No. 6, exercised by the government.

There is an area where we have failed in reasonable disclosure of information. For a fleeting instant there was a surplus at the end of the last budget year. That surplus was applied quickly and before anyone knew what had happened to a millennium fund, billions of dollars. It is interesting that the auditor general picked up that this was not in keeping with the kinds of principles we see in this bill. The auditor general said that it is not right to expense to a millennium fund in which you have not actually spent the money but are going to spend it some years hence so you will not have a surplus today. The thrust of his comments was that it was not a fair and reasonable disclosure of information.

This is doubly tragic when we look at some of the red book promises of the Liberal Party. It said it would apply some of the surplus to debt and tax relief. Yet it took that surplus and expensed it for some future fund that is intruding on provincial jurisdiction and is going to benefit only a very small number of students. It did this so there would be no surplus and Canadians would not see debt and taxes reduced as this party has long been calling for. This debt is sucking the lifeblood out of our country.

We see the Liberals talking a little about debt and tax relief. Yet when I heard the throne speech and when I read the red book there were between 25 and 30 new spending initiatives. It is pretty hard to reduce debt and give Canadians the long needed tax break they have been crying for. Canadian taxes are the highest of the G-8 countries. In a comparison of Canada and the United States, my hon. colleague from Skeena pointed out the gross taxation in this country and what it is doing to us.

We may hear more in the House about some of the things that happened at the APEC summit which I would say are not at all in keeping with the principles in this bill. This bill tries to make sure the purpose of communication is clear. There was a situation at the APEC summit where it seemed the prime minister's office was more concerned with protecting the rights of a known harsh regime as far as human rights go. It was more concerned with protecting him and putting some of our own quiet and reasonable protesters under abuse.

These kinds of things fly directly in the face of the intent and the kind of principles upheld by Bill C-20.

We see the good in this bill and that is why we support its principles and precepts. Our hope would be that someday there will be a government, and I suggest it would be a Reform government, upholding these principles and precepts.

Once again for hon. members opposite, we would hope that there be fair and reasonable disclosure of information, making sure that the purpose of communication is clear, that the nature of the product or business interests, the price and material restrictions are there for all to see. That is what we call accountable government and that is what we have been calling for.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to introduce from Calgarians concerned about offences related to prostitution. They feel that section 213 of the Criminal Code should be a hybrid offence so that these offences could be prosecuted as either a summary or indictable offence.

They call on the government to make such a change and give authorities greater flexibility to address the problem of prostitution.

I currently have Bill C-397 which proposes to make these very changes and the petitioners encourage every member to support Bill C-397.

[Bill C-397, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers in my riding of Calgary Centre expect safe streets in their communities when they step out of their homes, day or night.

That is why when street prostitution and the intimidating criminal element it attracts surfaced in one of these communities these resourceful Calgarians said “No way. Not here”.

They went to their elected officials at all levels of government. They made it clear that they want results, not buck passing.

After consultation and review of the recommendations from the experts, I have submitted Bill C-397. This bill has the documented support of all three levels of government, the Alberta justice minister and local and business communities.

On May 19 I contacted other municipalities across Canada to see whether they felt their communities would benefit from Bill C-397.

The response has been encouraging, including a letter of support from fellow Canadians in the city of Rimouski, Quebec.

Calgarians and Canadians urge every member of this House to support this bill and contribute to safer Canadian communities.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's comments. They are always straight to the point, refreshing and very clear.

I know a bit about the member's riding, about how much he is appreciated in his riding and how much the people in his riding respond to him personally, to his approach and to how well he is respected by the people there and his personal commitment to represent those people in this House.

I think the House should be interested to hear the voice of the people of Wild Rose. What would those people say? What are their concerns? What would they say about this motion and judicial activism or whatever we want to call it in general? Let us hear the voice of the people of Wild Rose on this issue if we could.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of the previous speaker. When I listened to the arguments he so passionately put forward I was concerned that he was skewing the issue. He was muddying the waters. He was making it confusing for people. I would like to clarify a few points and get his perspective on them.

The particular case we are bringing forward is just a representative case. There are many others. I have a list of them: the Feeney case, Delgamuukw, Eldridge, five or six different cases I could go into details on. However this case is a good illustrative example because the courts have added words to the law in place that was approved by the House. The court actually read in or added words. The hon. member knows how much work goes into determining the exact wording of every piece of legislation that comes through the House. We are concerned about the reading in or addition of words.

I was confused when I listened to the member opposite. I compared what he had to say to what I heard from other members of his party say, in fact some of the leaders of his party. In the last parliament, for example, the justice minister of the party he is from said that we should not rely on the courts to make public policy in matters of this kind, that it is up to legislators and we should have the courage to do it.

I fully endorse that statement as I think all Canadians do. That same justice minister went on to say that the court should not make policy or rewrite statutes, that it was the role of parliament.

What happened in this case was that the court rewrote. It added words. It is not a matter of interpretation or application. It is a matter of writing legislation in the courts. Their own minister clearly said the courts should not do it. Yet I sit here incredulously listening to the member across the way telling us that this is what the courts should be doing. I ask him to please clarify.