Bill Gilmour

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-55 dealing with high risk offenders.

In a couple of words, this legislation is not enough. The categories need to be expanded. My colleagues have given numerous examples of the areas that need to be addressed.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is the 15 to 20 per cent of high risk offenders, those who cannot be trusted not to reoffend, are the ones who need to be dealt with and are not dealt with in this bill.

Once again we see the Liberals tinkering with the problem and not really addressing it. We have seen that in the three and half years that we have been in this House. I would like to go through a number of these bills and show where the government has played around on the edges and has not addressed the issue.

I will start with Bill C-68, gun control. Canadians want crime control, not gun control. I have been a hunter for 25 years and I wonder why I am the target of the Liberal legislation when the criminals will not register their guns.

In my mind it is very much a tax grab. It is a $100 million registration. It is more money into the coffers of this government and the bottom line is that it will not solve crime. We would have been behind Bill C-68 100 per cent if it solved crime but it does not do that.

The government was very short in its thinking. About 25 per cent of Canadians are gun owners. These people have long memories. It is a rural versus an urban issue. It is not a party issue. As we saw when the government was voting, a number of government members who were largely from rural areas voted against this bill. They represented their constituents and they were punished. That is what happens to a Liberal member who votes for his constituents against poor legislation. Reform will repeal this bill because we want to deal with the crime aspects of guns, not implement a registration system that does not work.

Another issue is victims rights. Over a year ago my colleague from Fraser Valley West brought the victims rights issue to this House. It was voted on and passed at second reading by this House and then it sat for over a year in committee. All of a sudden we are getting into an election, so what does this government do? It is trying to rush through the victims right issue which will not pass because there is not enough time. The government is trying to gain ownership on an issue. It must have done some polling and recognized that Canadians are fed up with a system that gives rights to the criminal that are over and above the rights of the victim.

My colleague was just commenting on the issue of the DNA data bank. DNA is like a fingerprint. Every individual has a different DNA imprint. Whether it is a bit of saliva, a drop of blood, a hair or a drop of semen, the DNA imprint can be taken and placed in a data bank. The government is now bringing this through at the last hour knowing that it will not pass as full legislation. For the life of me I cannot understand why a tool like DNA testing is not at the top of the justice minister's agenda.

Consider Bill C-41, conditional sentencing. My colleagues have brought up many examples to illustrate that conditional sentencing simply does not work. They are letting people out on the streets who are reoffending. People are committing horrendous crimes and they are not spending a day in prison. The judges are letting them off. Conditional sentencing is not working.

On section 745 of the Criminal Code two words sum up the Liberal justice program: Clifford Olson. The government had the opportunity with section 745 to keep Clifford Olson behind bars but it did not do that. In my mind the government is going to pay for that come election day. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing an individual who murdered at least 11 children playing and tinkering with the justice system. He is using it and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. He is laughing at each and every one of us, which is absolutely wrong.

Reform would hold a binding national referendum on capital punishment. Let Canadians decide. This is far too important an issue for politicians. During the Mulroney era, 80 per cent of Canadians said that they wanted the return of capital punishment. What was the Tory answer? Canadians do not really know, they do not really understand the issue. The Tories would not bring it in. Let Canadians decide. Hold a binding national referendum on the return of capital punishment for first degree murder.

This is a long list of legislation the government has brought in. The Young Offenders Act is another example of where the government has tinkered with the edges but has not dealt with the problem. There must be accountability in our youth. Young people who commit crimes must be accountable, as must their parents. That is not happening. Their names have to be disclosed. The community should know what these young people have done. They are laughing at the system. They know exactly how far they can go.

My 17-year old son will tell me exactly what goes on in school. The kids sit and talk about it. They know where the limits are. The ones who want to break the law play the system.

The justice system is in a mess, from the Young Offenders Act to the judges to the parole system to plea bargaining. The government is not addressing the issue.

Canadians are tired of seeing offenders walk free, victims being abused and a government that does not deal with this issues. These will be election issues. Gun control and the Young Offenders Act will come back. The government will have to account on election day for its poor performance.

Bill C-55 concerns high risk offenders. It is another example of the government not going far enough. We need to go further.

[Petitions, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni. It contains 2,400 signatures and brings the total number of signatures from my riding to over 10,000.

The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.

[Petitions, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition from concerned citizens across British Columbia contains 138 signatures. The petitioners believe that the existing 7 per cent GST is unjust taxation of reading materials and they urge the government to demonstrate its support of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading materials.

[Petitions, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first petition comes from people across British Columbia and states that the undersigned bring to the attention of Parliament the fact that British Columbia has a senatorial selection act which allows for the election of British Columbia senators.

They also draw attention to the fact that the British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will resign his seat in the Senate shortly. Therefore, these petitioners call on Parliament to urge the Governor General to appoint a duly elected person according to the forthcoming vacant British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada.

[Crown Corporations, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was also going to move a very similar motion. I would like to amend Motion No. 260 by adding after the words "Privacy Act" the words "and the Access to Information Act".

The table officers ruled that this was not an acceptable amendment because it would introduce a new concept. I question why my motion was rejected when my colleague's was accepted.

[Crown Corporations, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion by the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

Motion No. 260 proposes to include all crown corporations under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act. I put forward a very similar motion to this in the last session with respect to crown corporations under the Access to Information Act. This one is on the Privacy Act. It is very similar.

The right to privacy is a significant issue and important to many Canadians. Privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. Privacy is a basic human value that Canadians hold as a right central to their freedoms and sense of human dignity and autonomy. Most Canadians believe they should have the right to control their personal information and to choose to remain anonymous if they should so wish.

Our privacy rights come from many sources. They are entrenched in international law, constitutional law, federal and provincial legislation, professional codes and guidelines. All the largest provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, have provincial privacy acts and freedom of information acts

The Privacy Act took effect July 1, 1983 and replaced some limited personal information rights set out in part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. These rights were expanded in the Privacy Act to deal with the growing impact of computers on government record keeping. The act increases the transparency and accountability of the process and gives Canadians greater individual control over their personal data in the government data banks.

In its day to day operations, federal government departments and agencies collect personal information from almost all Canadians. The Privacy Act gives Canadian citizens and people present in Canada the right to have access to information that is held about them by the federal government. It also protects against unauthorized disclosure of personal information.

In addition, it strictly controls how the government will collect, use, store, disclose and dispose of any personal information. The act gives Canadians the right to examine information about them that is held by 110 federal departments and agencies subject to some specific exceptions. Individuals may request to have any errors corrected and if the request is refused individuals may require that a notation be attached to the information describing any corrections requested but not made.

According to the act the government can only disclose personal information to someone else with consent or when one or more of the criteria in the Privacy Act are met such as to comply with a subpoena. The act also establishes an information code to regulate government handling of personal records.

Clearly standards for the use of personal information must be imposed on all federal departments, agencies and crown corporations. This is basic to the principle of responsible government that Reform upholds.

However there are many problems with the Privacy Act both with its enforcement and its abuse that must be addressed. Our rights under the Privacy Act are meaningless unless there are enforcement measures to ensure that the violation of these rights are deterred.

However, as it stands, there are no enforcement measures built into the act which means clearly the act is not as effective as it should be. Our privacy rights can be abused and there is nothing to prevent it.

A clear example of this point was recently reported in the newspapers when the Prime Minister's friend and political appointee, Bob Fowler, broke the Privacy Act. Bob Fowler improperly issued documents in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Colonel Michael Drapeau. Fowler sent poison pen letters about Colonel Drapeau to CSIS, the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue. These letters clearly broke the Privacy Act.

The privacy commissioner looked at the case. When he confirmed that in fact Bob Fowler had broken the Privacy Act what happened? Nothing happened because Bob Fowler is a friend of the Prime Minister and there is nothing in the Privacy Act to enforce its provisions. This incident clearly illustrates the ineptness of the Privacy Act. It is not working.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada may investigate complaints about violations of the Privacy Act by government institutions. Yet when the commissioner finds a breach of the act, as he did with Bob Fowler, he can only recommend changes to the

government and bring to public scrutiny institutions that do not accept the instructions.

The provincial privacy acts in Quebec and Ontario, on the other hand, contain enforcement provisions which allow their privacy commissioners to make orders. These provincial acts and their effectiveness should be examined by the government to make our federal act more effective.

Despite the ineffectiveness of our federal Privacy Act, the main concern which I share with many Canadians is the abuse of the Privacy Act by government and its departments. The privacy and access to information acts work hand in hand. One is to protect information and the other is to ensure that information is open and available. There must be a balance between privacy protection and freedom of information.

Canadians have a right to see government files. At the same time they have a right to protection of personal information. Yet time and again the Privacy Act has been used to prevent individuals from accessing information that should be public.

The information commissioner has noted many problems and abuses of both the privacy and the access to information acts in his 1994-95 annual report. According to the information commissioner, the Privacy Act is used by the government as "justification for keeping secret embarrassing details about misuse of public funds or position".

The information commissioner also notes that "officials in the system have sometimes sought to protect the privacy of their colleagues by withholding the portions of records and reports which questioned their actions or competence".

The commissioner also says that "such a selective and seemingly self-serving application of privacy rights in the corrections and parole systems increases the cynicism of the news media and Canadians about the value of the right to privacy".

One example he gives, which I support wholeheartedly, is the government's refusal to disclose the names of former MPs in receipt of pensions. The government defended this decision by citing protection of privacy.

At present the Red Cross is fighting the Krever report and wants to go to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than have any of its members publicly named for their role in this scandal. In our criminal justice system we are also faced with the need to balance the public right to know how the corrections and parole system are working on the one side with offenders privacy rights on the other.

The right to information should be a fundamental block of democracy. There should be a spirit of openness and honesty practised by the government, not deceit and cover-up as we witnessed in the Krever and Somalia scandals the government continues to cover up. The destruction, withholding and disguising of information have become an everyday part of the government.

The government has an elaborate and sophisticated early warning alerting system that warns departments and ministers of requests under the Access to Information Act and that damages the public right to know about government.

Several pre-release administrative practices assist the government in monitoring, manipulating, delaying and holding back the release of information to the public. Clearly the system has been abused and exploited to the extent that Canadians no longer trust the integrity of their government. There is no question this has to change.

Many issues need to be addressed regarding the Privacy Act. It is important all government agencies be covered under the act. At the same time it is vital that the abuses of the act be brought under control. The Privacy Act must be a tool of individual protection, not an agency of political cover-up.

[Government Contracts, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is tinkering around the edges. He has not dealt with the meat of the issue. We are talking about $9 billion in contracts. That is nearly 10 per cent of total government spending and yet the government has not addressed the key issues.

The committee report recommends that Treasury Board address four areas of abuse by the government: sole source contracting, contract splitting, contract tailoring and contract amendments. These abuses fly in the face of government policy and are contrary to the standards of fairness and transparency that Canadians expect from their government. The committee report calls for strong sanctions to be imposed to prevent such abuses from continuing in the future.

Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that his department will follow the committee recommendations and put an end to contract splitting, contract tailoring and excessive contract amendments?

[Government Contracts, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations tabled its report on contracting yesterday. The report was particularly critical of the government and found that Treasury Board was not following its own rules. It was found that fully 37 per cent of contracts worth over $3.2 billion were sole source or non-competitive contracts.

In the red book the Liberals promised accountability and integrity in government. What do we see? Millions of taxpayers' dollars being squandered by the government. It is not following its own Treasury Board policies and guidelines regarding the awarding of contracts.

My question is for the minister responsible for Treasury Board. Will the minister guarantee that Treasury Board will follow its own rules with respect to the awarding of contracts and, in particular, drastically reduce the number of contracts awarded without going through the competitive bidding process?

[Radar Hill, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was on his last trade mission to Asia, he took the liberty of renaming a local landmark in my riding. Our local landmark is known as Radar Hill.

Radar Hill was named for its prominence during World War II and has historical significance to British Columbians. It has now been renamed Kap'Yong Hill, a Korean name, and my constituents are furious.

The Prime Minister overstepped his authority. He failed to consult local residents. He ignored the recommendations of Parks Canada and, to my knowledge, has failed to receive the required agreement of the province of B.C.

Will the Prime Minister agree to a compromise put forward by Parks Canada, and reinstate the name of our local historical landmark, and establish a small memorial to Kap'Yong on the hill instead?

[Somalia Inquiry, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the independent inquiry into the Somalia affair was gagged by the Liberal government because it was getting too close to the truth for the key players.

To save face and gain votes before the upcoming election, Liberals and Tories have now come up with a public relations scam they hope will cut off public criticism over the mockery they have made of the public inquiry.

The special Senate committee review of the Somalia mission is nothing more than an election ploy. It is simply a waste of taxpayers' money.

The Senate review of the Somalia affair is hardly independent. How will we get to the truth when Liberal and Tory politicians will

be judged by Liberal and Tory senators? What we are now witnessing is a whitewash of a cover-up.

The public knows about the cover-up. It wants the truth. Canadians will not be fooled by a dog and pony show being led by the Liberals first in the House and now in the Senate.