Bill Gilmour

[Justice, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Patrick Kelly, a former RCMP officer, was convicted of murder when his wife fell to her death from their 17th floor balcony. The key witness who convicted Kelly has subsequently admitted that she lied in her testimony.

Finally, after years of mismanagement and stalling by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Kelly's case is coming before the courts for review later this year.

Mr. Kelly has a five day hearing commencing October 7 and a question and answer hearing on December 2. Yet it appears that Mr. Kelly's fight for justice will be blocked once again by the Minister of Justice because the Attorney General of Ontario cannot access records held by the minister.

In the name of justice, the minister must allow the Attorney General of Ontario to access the records of Patrick Kelly held by the minister's department.

All Canadians deserve and must receive fair and just treatment by our justice system.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

A member across is saying it is false. We do not share that opinion. We feel this clause should be deleted. It is redundant.

Who does this penalize? It penalizes the students. I also address my comments to the nine pages in the House. These students spend time in the House learning about our parliamentary system and at the same time they attend university. These pages should not have to pay double for textbooks.

However, there is a deeper picture here. Why is the government penalizing students? Why is it not letting business take place? Business should operate on its own and should not be subsidized by government. If it cannot do that, it will go under.

On the one hand the government is saying it is going to charge students $5 million more for books. On the other hand there is an $87 million gift to Bombardier. What kind of picture does this paint of the Liberal idea of business? It is absolutely wrong.

This will be pushed forward. The Liberals will have loaded up the Senate. There will be no restriction in the Senate because the Liberals will push it through, another dysfunctional system.

I would like to go back to my university days. When I was in university books were a major cost. The fact that I was able to sell those books the next year either back to the university or to other students was part of my accounting for going into the next year. If I was not able to sell those books it would have been an additional cost, a cost I could not afford.

I again go back to where the Liberals are coming from. Why penalize students? Look at the pages here. Why should they be forced to pay another $5 million because the government wants to penalize them? It is absolutely wrong.

There is nothing wrong with recycled books. A book can be used many times. Why should it only be used once? It is because these people across the way are saying they will subsidize the publishing industry. That is basically wrong. This motion is redundant, wrong and should be deleted.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the vein of my colleague on used books.

The government is proposing a penalty on used books. Used text books which are largely used by college students or universities could not be imported.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 498 signatures.

The petitioners bring attention to 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 British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will resign his Senate seat shortly.

Therefore, these petitioners call on Parliament to urge the Governor General to appoint a duly elected person to the forthcoming vacant British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada. I fully concur with my constituents.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents of Comox-Alberni.

The first contains 516 signatures, which brings the total number of signatures to over 6,000. This is significant since it represents over 10 per cent of the voters in my riding.

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.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That the Senate estimates vote 1(b) be reduced by $2 million which is the increase being provided in the supplementary estimates to the unelected, unaccountable patronage heaven.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 11th, 1997]

You have it. It really is. My colleague is on the right track. The Liberals are onside on many of the issues. However I suspect they will be told once again to vote in block against the bill. They will be told it is not a good move because it is not a good move for Canada. It is not a good move for them because it is not a good move for the Liberals.

I support my colleague. A four-year fixed election date is the way to go.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the bill put forward by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister. Bill C-250 deals with fixed election terms, a fixed date of four years for Canadian elections.

I would like to address our current system because it is extremely skewed. The Prime Minister and only the Prime Minister is the person who calls the date. Sometimes I am sure even he does not know. It appears to be the case these days. However it skews the system.

The Liberals who happen to be in power this time, or the Conservatives who were in power before them, know when they want to call the election. They look at the polls. If they are high in the polls and things are looking fine, they call an election. However, if it is the reverse as the Liberals are seeing these days and they are on a bit of a slide, the chances are they might not call it right away. They will look at the polls and suggest perhaps putting forward a few bills or a feel good budget such as the one from the Minister of Finance last month.

This is the kind of politics Canadians do not need. We need to have a level playing field. We need to know when the next election will be. The Prime Minister could call a snap election if the polls are right for the Liberal Party. He could delay it if the polls are not right for the Liberal Party.

The bill is about accountability and democracy. It is not democratic. The system is skewed. It is not accountable. When the Prime Minister calls an election he is not accountable to Canadians but to the Liberal Party, which is absolutely wrong.

The Liberal member who spoke before me said that the Canadian system was the way it should be and that other countries did not have fixed dates. I remind him that the fixed term was established in England in 1694. Successive parliaments in England differed in the length of term but the fixed term stayed. The New Zealand Constitution Act, 1852, followed that tradition fixing the maximum life of Parliament at five years. In 1875 it was reduced to three years but still the date was fixed.

Our American neighbours have as their election date the first Tuesday of November. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, members of the Senate every six years

and presidents every four years. The Americans have been able to live up to these election facts for 210 years. I suggest to my colleague across the way that perhaps he has not been looking in the history books or across the waters. The idea of a fixed election is a trend that goes back hundreds of years. The Canadian system is a system that is out of whack.

What about the time and expense? It is costly when snap elections are called. If we had fixed election dates we could plan for them. We would know exactly when the election would be. All parties including the opposition parties would know what would happen.

Some will say that this is just the Reform Party whining because it wants to go forward. We are not suggesting that we will be the opposition party all the time. We will be in power. Any opposition party in any parliament needs a level playing field. This is not just for Reform but for the sake of Canada stepping forward.

I also point to some of the red book promises: more accountability in government and a level playing field as we would say. What is happening across the way? The Liberals promised parliamentary reform. What about free votes? Less than an hour ago we saw what free votes were in the House. We were voting on section 745 of the Criminal Code and what did the Liberals do, to a man and a woman? They stood and opposed the motion. If there were free votes in the House I am sure a number of Liberals would like to support the motion. They did not support it because they were told not to support it. That is what we get with free votes.

The House of Commons needs to be democratized. The Senate needs to be democratized. I have to take my chance for a shot at the Senate. Senator Len Marchand from British Columbia is due to retire. British Columbia has an act in place that allows for the election of a senator from British Columbia. The precedent has been set. Senator Stan Waters was elected in Alberta in the mid-eighties. What is stopping it? It is the Prime Minister. British Columbians want to vote for a senator. The act is in place. The premier says he wants it. What happens? The Prime Minister says no. Again it is democracy Liberal style and it simply does not work.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the rules is that when I am asked a question I should have the opportunity to respond.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about honesty and grief. The member says that grief cannot be turned on and off. That is exactly what this legislation has done. It has dragged the whole thing forward 15 years for these families. They are trying to put it behind them. They cannot do that because the legislation the Liberals now have in place allows for this animal to come forward 15 years later to make them relive the whole situation. Not only that, but Olson gets to cross-examine these people. He gets to question them. This is absolute lunacy and it is just inhuman.

The member said that under the new legislation Olson could not apply, which is fine. We asked the members during consideration of the legislation to make it retroactive. They knew Olson was coming up. The justice minister knew that Olson was coming up within a year yet he would not make it retroactive. The Liberals are saying that they cannot do it. These are the people who make the laws and now they are saying that they cannot do it. It is a very selective set of laws.