Bill Gilmour

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

They are sitting there whining and moaning. They are trying to defend a law that is not defendable. Fix it. That is why we are here today. Tomorrow this whole platform will move forward. It will be an absolute disgrace to Liberals and to Canadians.

My final words to the Liberals are: Fix it or the Reform Party will fix it during the next election.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Members opposite are saying that he will not get out. That is what the solicitor general said. That is what the Minister of Justice said. He should not get out. There should not even be an opportunity for him to get out.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the Reform motion which proposes:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Section 745 implemented by the Liberal government in 1976 deals with parole for convicted killers. It provides the notorious faint hope clause which enables murderers to apply for a judicial review of their case and the option of early parole after completing only 15 years of their sentence. Section 745 allows murderers like Clifford Olson, who molested and murdered at least 11 innocent children, to apply for early parole in only 15 years. Madam Speaker, you will notice that a number of my colleagues are wearing this ribbon today. On this ribbon are the names of the 11 victims of Clifford Olson.

This week section 745 will be seen in action when the Vancouver courthouse initiates the process of Olson's application for early release from his life sentence in prison. This is the Liberals' idea of justice. It is an absolute travesty. Murderers like Clifford Olson and others who have committed horrendous crimes should not be allowed to make a mockery of justice.

Let me describe Clifford Olson. He is a predatory vulture, a slime bag, a scum bag of the lowest order. Look at what he is getting through the system. The system is allowing him to come forward and have his parole heard.

The Liberals have accused us of using this as a media platform. We are responding to the platform. That platform was given to Olson by the Liberals and the social workers in the system. They are defending Clifford Olson. Who is defending the victims, the parents of the sons and daughters?

Just imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are in a court house. You have got Olson standing in front of you and he is cross-examining you. What is wrong with that picture? It is absolutely wrong.

The majority of Canadians, supported by the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence all support the elimination of section 745. Do not massage it, as the Liberals have done. Get rid of it.

However, this has fallen on deaf ears. The only change that the government has made is to deny multiple murderers section 745. What does that say? That means it is okay to kill once. That is just sort of a trial. Is this what it is? Give us a break. What has happened to our justice system?

First degree murderers can still appeal their parole ineligibility and apply for parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence with no parole for 25 years. Under the absurd law of our land Olson, convicted in 1981, still has the government guaranteed right to apply for early parole. This is absolutely beyond reason.

Why should Olson be given this platform? It is absolutely ludicrous. Why should taxpayers have to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to get him from Saskatchewan to Vancouver, to pay for the process? Why should the families of the victims be forced to relive their pain?

The noon news today had some of those families. The anguish and the agony that they have to go through is absolutely wrong. What is wrong with our system? That is what we are talking about. Olson is the trigger, but the system is what is at fault here. That is what has to be addressed. It is not being addressed by the Liberals across the way. They tinker with it but they are not addressing the actual problem. It is an absolute public outrage. It it is a public disgrace.

When Clifford Olson was convicted of the murder of 11 children he received only one life sentence of 25 years. What happened to concurrent sentencing? Eleven victims at 25 years is 275 years. What it means, Madam Speaker, is whether you kill one or eleven it makes no difference in our system. This is absolute lunacy. Yet this is what is going on.

Clifford Olson will receive, if he gets out, 1.1 years for each life he took. I ask the members across the way, is 1.1 years for every child he killed justice? That is a disgrace.

The previous speaker said that section 745 was brought in 15 years ago and it was not her responsibility. Whose responsibility is it? She is a member of the government. It was brought in by a Liberal government. For God's sake, fix it.

The Liberal members, as part of the government, are here to change the law of the land. They are not changing it and yet the member stood up and said that it was not her responsibility. I ask again: Whose is it?

First and foremost the goal of sentencing should be the protection of the public. That is not happening. It goes back to the bill of rights. In this case it could be called the bill of wrongs. That is what the bill of rights has done to us. The rights of the criminals are addressed but not the rights of the victims, the parents, the grandparents, the brothers or the sisters who have to go through the anguish time and time again. What is wrong with the laws of this land?

At present there are about 2,100 killers serving life sentences in Canada, which is about 15 per cent of the nation's prison population. As of September 1996, 63 cases were heard to reduce the term of the sentence. Fifty of the 63 were successful. Fifty of the 63 killers had their sentences reduced. What is wrong with this picture? Of those 50, two reoffended within a mere nine months.

What are we looking at? Is Olson going to be out on the streets? Can you imagine that?

[Petitions, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my riding of Comox-Alberni and contains 274 signatures. The undersigned bring attention to the fact that British Columbia has a senatorial selection act which allows the election of B.C. senators. They also draw attention to the fact that British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will resign his seat in the Senate shortly.

Therefore the 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.

I fully concur with the petitioners and endorse this petition-

[Senatorial Selection, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Glen Clark, the premier of British Columbia, indicated that he will back an elected senator. Where do we stand?

The people of B.C. want to elect their next senator. The premier of B.C. says he will back electing the next senator. The B.C. senatorial selection act allows that to happen in law. The only person preventing British Columbians from electing their next senator is the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister recommend to the Governor General the individual chosen by the people of British Columbia to fill the next Senate vacancy?

[Senatorial Selection, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has a law in place called the senatorial selection act which allows British Columbians to elect their own senators.

B.C. Senator Len Marchand was to retire March 1. However now the Prime Minister has coaxed the senator to stay on until after the next federal election. Despite Marchand's postponed retirement, we can be sure that B.C. will have a vacancy in the Senate very shortly.

Will the Prime Minister allow British Columbians the opportunity to elect their next senator?

[Kap'Yong Hill, March 7th, 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 was known as Radar Hill. It has now been arbitrarily renamed to Kap'Yong Hill and my constituents are furious.

The Prime Minister did not even have the courtesy to review the issue with the local residents in Tofino and Ucluelet before he went ahead with his announcement.

Radar Hill was named for its prominence during World War II and has significant historical meaning to British Columbians. The national park staff along with many other organizations has recommended to the Prime Minister that he allow Radar Hill to keep its name and instead establish a memorial site on Radar Hill dedicated to Kap'Yong. This is a fair compromise arrived at and supported by local communities.

On behalf of my constituents in Comox-Alberni, I ask that the Prime Minister agree to this compromise, reinstate the name of our historical landmark and establish a memorial site on the hill instead.

[Canada Post, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review completed last fall made a number of specific recommendations regarding the operation of Canada Post.

Upon release of the review the public works minister stated that Canada Post must operate with fairness, transparency, openness and accountability. Yet the minister still refuses to open the books of Canada Post, a crown corporation, to public scrutiny.

The minister promised she would table a report with proposals for Canada Post after the financial review was completed in January. That timeline has passed, yet Canadians have heard nothing from the minister.

The mandate review stated that the corporation is currently beyond any effective control by the government. None of the authorities entrusted with supervising Canada Post currently have the resources to provide the strong ongoing supervision needed to safeguard the public interest. Unfair competition and abusive practices continue unchecked every day.

Canada Post is a corporation in chaos. It is time for the minister to do her job, take responsibility for Canada Post and hold it accountable.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to bring the House up to speed, the motion we are debating reads:

That this House condemn the government for its approach to federal transportation policies, and in particular, the cancellation of the Pearson airport deal, the continued neglect of Canada's national highway system, costly inefficiencies in the grain transportation system, and the ongoing subsidization of VIA Rail at the expense of taxpayers and private sector passenger rail and bus operators.

My colleagues have dealt in depth with Pearson. I would like to deal with some of the areas within the national highway system and some of the VIA Rail issues.

I do not think we have to travel very far across this country, in whatever province we are in, to recognize that the national highway system is in a mess. It needs to be addressed but that is not being done.

I would like to take the time to compare our highways to the American model. Anybody who has travelled in the United States recognizes that its highway system is excellent. It is superb. Why is that? The American system is excellent because they dedicate fuel tax revenue to the highway system. I believe that is a notion that needs to be looked at because in Canada the fuel tax revenues go into a big bin and governments, being governments, tend to draw it out. We are now in a huge mess financially because no directions are given to the government.

If one or two cents per litre of gas was dedicated back into the highway system we would get what the driving taxpayers want, their taxes going back into the highways that they finance.

Another area of concern in British Columbia is the B.C. ferries. People have to pay to take the ferry from the mainland to Vancouver Island. It is paid for by the B.C. taxpayer and the province of British Columbia. The real rub is that people are saying: "This is part of the national highway system". Highway 1 goes across to Vancouver Island. It does not even cross Vancouver Island, it goes to Victoria whereas the west coast is Tofino. It truly is not a Trans-Canada highway because it does not go to the west coast. There should be some form of revenue to address British Columbia ferries, which is a huge ferry fleet simply because we live in a maritime climate.

I could go on and on, but I want to leave some of my time to address VIA Rail. My colleague has addressed the situation where Rocky Mountaineer was sold to a private enterprise company which has been extremely successful and is doing very well. What is going to happen or potentially happen is that the government, through VIA Rail, could go into competition with the very outfit that it sold.

What have we got? We have a private enterprise that bought a business and has done extremely well in turning it around. What is the government going to do? It is now going to go into competition with it with taxpayers' dollars. That is absolutely wrong.

My colleague mentioned that the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport agrees with my colleague that the government should not be going into competition. He stated that in writing. However, the minister, just a few minutes ago, stated that the chair for the transport committee does not speak for the minister. I find that rather odd because whenever a Reformer says something, boy, we speak for all Reformers. However, when it fits the government, it says: "No, this really is not going to fit. The fellow was just speaking out of context". That just does not fit.

I hope the minister sees fit to make the right decision. I would also like to remind the minister that we are going into an election. The transport minister is the key minister for British Columbia. If he is going to wander into an election abandoning British Columbia, he will pay the political price. I would just like to remind him of that.

Another area I would like to deal with concerns the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway in my riding. A little history is required here. VIA Rail runs it at the moment but the E and N Railway goes back to 1883 when British Columbia was entering Confederation. It was part of the Trans-Canada Railway, part of bringing the rail head to the west coast.

The original E and N Railway was to go across Seymour Narrows and down Vancouver Island to Victoria. That was changed and almost caused British Columbia to withdraw from Confederation. The terminus was changed from Victoria on Vancouver Island to Port Moody on the mainland.

Representatives of British Columbia went to Queen Victoria and said: "This is a key issue. If the terminus is going to Port Moody we are considering withdrawing from Confederation". British Columbia did stay in but it was a key issue.

The E and N Railway was built in 1883 by the Dunsmuir family. It went from Victoria to Nanaimo. In 1912 it was extended from Nanaimo to Courtenay. The key point is that CPR bought out the E and N Railway in 1905.

Part of condition of building that railway was huge land grant, two million acres of timber and land. To give a rough idea, it is a stretch of land about 150 miles long by 30 miles wide. This tremendous chunk of ground was deeded to E and N and hence CPR.

CPR, through VIA, does not run a decent railway on the island. Islanders are saying: "Come on, there is a wonderful potential for tourism". Actually rail freight works fairly well, yet the federal government and the British Columbia government do not have the political fortitude to pressure CPR to run the service well. CPR pops it off on to VIA but the point is that CPR received a huge land grant, a fantastic opportunity. It took over a billion dollars worth of timber through the years. They have sold through their Marathon Reality Agency a fantastic amount of real estate and it loses money. It loses $2 million to $3 million a year. That is why it got the land grant in the first place. The government must force CPR through VIA to run a decent railway.

CPR's point of view is that it needs a subsidy, some more money. The minister was talking about a VIA subsidy. In my mind not one cent of subsidy should be going to the E and N Railway because it was dealt with in the land grant. The Supreme Court has said the E and N Railway does not constitutionally entrench British Columbia, that British Columbia did not enter Confederation as part of the railway. That was dealt with by the Supreme Court. It was a side issue.

The contractual issue still remains. The contractual issue is that CPR must run that railway successfully through VIA. Yet the government refuses to push CPR. I wonder why it will not do it.

I would like to leave some time for questions and comments. However the issue my colleague was addressing about the Rocky Mountaineer is heated by today's discussions. The minister must make the right decision. The government cannot sell off a railway to private enterprise and then turn around a few years later and have VIA Rail compete against that private enterprise using taxpayers' dollars.

Therefore I would like to move:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "operators" the following:

"and most specifically, even considering allowing VIA Rail to re-enter the market to compete against the business it sold to the private sector".

[Justice, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a fair and responsive justice system. Yet for the past three years the apparent lack of justice in the Patrick Kelly case brings to light serious problems within our justice system.

Kelly, a former RCMP officer, was convicted of murder when his wife fell to her death from their 17th floor balcony. The police investigation into the Patrick Kelly case is being conducted by the same police force and the same homicide squad that has been accused of wrongdoing in the original investigation.

How can Mr. Kelly have an independent review when Ed Stewart, the primary officer in the original investigation, is staff officer with the police department reinvestigating the case? Ed Stewart apparently lost the tape recording that would verify or refute many of the allegations made by the key witness who later recanted her statements. This brings into question any impartiality in the investigation.

In the name of justice, the Minister of Justice must arrange for an independent body to conduct the Kelly investigation.