Jan Brown

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The president of the CRTC has said that if private carriers do not voluntarily choose to carry French CBC Newsworld then action will be taken to impose it.

This decision is another example of misguided government intervention. Why will the minister not let the free market determine what Canadians want to see on television?

[Dangerous Offenders, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with nothing. I am asking, I am beseeching the Solicitor General who has the legal opportunity to intervene in this situation. I have had a legal opinion given to me and indeed he can do this. Why will he not do this before another innocent victim is murdered? Excuses of shackles mean nothing.

[Dangerous Offenders, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Investigations after the fact are meaningless. This is the 11th hour for Helen Leadley and her family who live in my riding. This is also the fifth time that I have risen in this House to challenge the rationale for giving Robert Paul Thompson an escorted temporary absence tomorrow.

Will the Solicitor General explain to victims everywhere why such a dangerous criminal who has killed before while out on a day pass has been given the opportunity to do so again?

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-240. This bill, introduced by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, offers important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

Once again the Reform Party has taken the initiative to ensure that dangerous offenders are not permitted to walk free and commit more deadly crimes and to threaten their victims' families. Reform policy supports tougher punishment of crime and the protection of law abiding citizens before the rights of criminals. It is unfortunate that members on the other side of the House continue to be so reluctant to introduce substantive reforms to the justice system.

The intention of Bill C-240 is not to lock up prisoners and throw away the key. Instead this bill protects Canadians by keeping the most dangerous inmates behind bars. As my colleague stated previously in the House: "This legislation is targeting individuals who are not designated as dangerous offenders at the time of their original sentence but their behaviour subsequent to incarceration coupled with their criminal record has led Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board to deem them too dangerous to be released into society".

On this side of the House we have often spoken of the need for widespread criminal justice reform and Bill C-240 would do just that.

Look again at the fear that Helen Leadley and her family face daily while they await word of the date of Robert Paul Thompson's escorted temporary absence. This House is well aware of the history of this man and his criminal record dating back to 1969 and I am not going to let go of this issue.

By 1983 Robert Paul Thompson had served time for aggravated assault on a former girlfriend and was incarcerated for two hit and run incidents. Even then with his record of criminal activity and violence he was issued a day pass from prison. While on this day pass Thompson went to the home of his former common law spouse, Brenda Fitzgerald. He tried to kill Brenda's male friend by beating him with a hammer and stabbing him. He then brutally stabbed Brenda Fitzgerald to death. How stupid, how irresponsible that he was issued this day pass.

For this brutal murder and attempted murder Thompson plea bargained and pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was never classified as a dangerous offender. He was sentenced to life which made him eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Is that not a flagrant contradiction in terms: sentenced to life yet eligible for parole.

The case does not end with Thompson's conviction and sentencing. Two and a half years later Thompson stabbed two prison guards and took a 63-year old prison nurse hostage. During the hostage situation it took 10 guards to restrain Thompson. For these subsequent attacks Thompson received a sentence of 11 years to be served concurrent to his original sentence with parole eligibility still in April 1995.

Even after these violent offences Thompson was still not classified as a dangerous offender. What does it take? What does it take for such a violent criminal to be considered a dangerous offender? The parole board recently approved an ETA for Thompson. His brother has a non-life threatening illness and is in hospital. Thompson wishes to visit him for two hours.

It was an irresponsible decision to grant this man a day pass in 1983. It is even more reprehensible that the parole board has elected yet again to grant this ETA. Despite the pleas of his victim's family who live in fear of this man, despite the fact that I have spoken in this House on this matter four times now asking that this man not be released on an ETA, despite all of this, the Solicitor General has chosen to ignore these requests. Apparently the parole board, correctional services and the Solicitor General do not consider Thompson's proclivity for violence to be sufficient to keep him safely locked away.

A member of the parole board in New Brunswick admitted that about 70 per cent of parole requests are granted and stated publicly: "Honestly, we would like to see 100 per cent". Vengeance is not part of the mandate of the board. Does the parole board not have a moral obligation to prevent vengeance against the victims and their families? That is what this is all

about. Thompson has been able to reach beyond his prison walls and terrorize Brenda Fitzgerald's mother. My colleagues and I are fighting daily to ensure that victims' rights are not compromised for the rights of the convicted.

The parole system allows offenders such as Thompson to serve only one-third to one-half of their sentences. The board even admits that fully one out of three violent offenders will re-offend, yet classifying an offender as dangerous can only occur at the time of sentencing. Even then current legislation only allows the correctional service to keep dangerous offenders in prison until the last day of their sentence. Then they must be released back into society.

Convicted serial rapist Larry Fisher served his entire 23 year sentence never once taking any rehabilitation program and he is now free to offend again.

Bill C-240 would put a process into place that would permit the re-revaluation of an inmate's release. Bill C-240 would allow the crown attorney to apply the dangerous offender provisions when recommended by correctional authorities.

When the evaluation of an offender suggests the likelihood of reoffending, the offender would face continued detention. The option for continued detention would include the imposition of a definite or indefinite sentence or long term intensive supervision of up to 10 years. Provisions such as these would permit the detention of offenders beyond their sentence for those who demonstrate their continued violent tendencies even while imprisoned.

Canadians are frustrated at the government's lack of real action to make criminals more accountable for their actions. They are growing tired of watching the government tinker with the edges and not make real changes. They are beginning to question the government's ability to keep Canadians safe on their streets.

This weekend is Thanksgiving. I find it appalling that the corrections system would choose today as the date to decide on Robert Thompson's ETA. It hardly seems fair that Brenda Fitzgerald's family will have nothing to be thankful for, while her murderer celebrates the holiday.

Bill C-240 introduced by my colleague introduces real changes to the corrections system. It is time the Solicitor General re-establishes some credibility and supports this bill. I will not let this rest. Thompson's parole comes up in April 1995 and I will be back.

[Breast Cancer, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge the medical community to assume a more aggressive approach to breast cancer research.

Women are asking why it is taking so long to answer questions about breast cancer. No one even really knows what causes it.

The cancer establishment continues to focus on basic research, treatment and diagnosis. We should be exploring further than that: toxins in the environment and their effects, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer.

I know what it is to feel the abject terror of a potential breast malignancy. There is nothing lonelier or more fearful and there is not anyone who can remove that fear.

We need to consider this statistic: one in nine women will get breast cancer. Look around this Chamber, that means six of us here.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is time to refocus our energies and find a cure.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be quite blunt this morning in my response to the question from the hon. member on the other side of the House.

All that happened yesterday during question period was an attack on the opposition side by the Liberal side of the House. Genuine questions were placed yesterday during question period and all we saw was an attack.

I am going to give an answer this morning to the hon. member and ask him to look at the big picture because this government has failed Canadians financially, socially, economically and constitutionally. Quite frankly, Canadians are fed up, like I am, with this kind of approach to social reform. That is my answer.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the social policy review, the discussion paper, the Liberal plan tabled by the Minister for Human Resources Development.

The credibility of the political process right now in Canada remains very low. People are looking to politicians to be specific, to demonstrate that they at least know where we are going, but what a lackluster performance; a discussion paper which makes a vague attempt to shape a social system which is collapsing.

The minister acknowledges the obvious, a desperate need for change, but how do we get there? We diverge substantially. I would like to see a plan that recommends some courageous and creative changes but the minister obviously prefers to consult, discuss, review and study for another year before he institutes any changes at all.

Adding to the confusion of the Liberals' plan for social reform is the damage created by the leaked details to the press regarding the $7 billion cut to support programs. The Liberal agreement has now been reduced to merely an issue over money. There are no numbers in the plan to support any defence the government may put forward to stem this challenge to its credibility.

How can the minister in all good conscience continue with his consultation process until all of the questions have been answered with hard numbers to validate his approach to social reform?

This government continues to spend taxpayers' dollars, giving the appearance of action, but it continues to be the Liberal version of action, continued overspending while doing nothing to reduce Canada's deficit and debt load.

The Reform Party has always supported the idea of listening to the voice of the people, what we call the grassroots of Canada. We listen to what they have to say and we have tried to do for them what they have asked.

Canadians are being quite clear. They want leadership and they are challenging government to produce real legislation to reform a shockingly wasteful and battered social safety net. We cannot afford to wait. Canada's debt and deficit are lodestones around the necks of Canadian taxpayers.

The government spends $110 million a day more than it earns on programs that are antiquated, misguided and that Canadians no longer believe in or support. Given this mindset the government now has an excellent opportunity to begin to overhaul the system and to redirect funds to individuals who need it.

The Reform Party believes that the people of Canada are this country's most valuable resource and that the nurture and development of human knowledge, skills and relationships are the keys to full participation in the 21st century.

We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

Page 9 of the discussion paper states: "As too many older workers and young families have been squeezed out of the middle class our society increasingly has begun to be polarized between well educated, highly skilled Canadians in demand by employers, today's economic elite, and less well educated people without specialized up to date job skills who have been losing ground. Thus the key to dealing with social insecurity

can be summed up in the single phrase, helping people get and keep jobs".

How specifically are the Liberals going to ensure people get back to work? It is evident in Canada that the median family standard of living is falling even with two wage earner families. The number of people living in poverty is growing and within that group the number of those who work full time but are still poverty stricken is growing even faster.

The number of unemployed, even counting the part timers as fully employed and not counting the 100,000 who are too discouraged to seek work, is at a shocking 1.1 million Canadians. It is time to get to the root of the problem facing Canadian families and their children.

This problem is ultimately the state of the nation's finances. The reason so many children are reported to be living in poverty is that many are the children of parents who are unemployed. Unemployment still remains above 10 per cent in this country. Even though the Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars into the so-called infrastructure program the unemployment rate has only dropped two-tenths of a point.

Why is the infrastructure program not working? The government is giving billions of dollars to infrastructure projects. Yet here we are one year after the election, billions of dollars poorer and the unemployment rate has barely moved.

We are experiencing an economic polarization that affects everyone.

Canadian taxpayers are less able to buy the products that big industry produces. Industry consequently has fewer opportunities for further expansion. The rich consequently have fewer opportunities for investment. Workers consequently have fewer job opportunities. Less money now flows into normal projects and investment cycles. Wages are affected and further restrained and the end result is reduced employment. Who suffers? Our families.

The Liberals continue a status quo approach to Canada's employment dilemma and divert attention from this problem by calling it child poverty. The Liberals suggest that Canada's children live in poverty. The Campaign 2000 group issued a report that condemned the Canadian government and indirectly the compassion and generosity of Canadians. It is alleged that our child poverty rates are higher than all other countries in comparison except for the United States. The statistics that are tossed carelessly about would have us believe that fully 20 per cent of all Canadian children live in poverty. This condemnation leaves a very graphic image in the minds of all who hear it. Children are seen to be living in a deplorable state: malnourished, poorly clothed, poorly housed and under loved. Such careless statements damage the image of Canada both within the country and internationally. This repeated suggestion that 20 per cent of children in Canada live in poverty is not defined. What does this really mean?

The report of the standing committee on health and welfare, social affairs, seniors and the status of women stated on page 5 of its report that the Statistics Canada measures are continually and deliberately misused as poverty measures.

When the Liberals state that 20 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty they are using a definition of poverty that does not conform to what most people think it to mean. This is where the confusion begins. This government is purposefully perpetuating this confusion and is misleading the Canadian public in terms of what the real problem is. Perhaps it has become easier to create a problem that does not really exist than to fix the real one.

Let me explain to the House how this interpretation has been purposefully and carefully crafted. When the Liberals refer to poverty they are referring to a financial state measured by StatsCan low income cut-offs. Each year, StatsCan produces a series of income cut-offs that marks the level of gross income below which families must spend disproportionate amounts on food, clothing and shelter. The cut-offs are commonly referred to as poverty lines. They are adjusted for family size and size of the community in order to reflect differences in basic expenditures. StatsCan considers those whose incomes fall below these lines to be living in straitened circumstances. A poor child is one who is defined as one who lives in a family whose total income is below the low income cut-off.

When StatsCan states that 20 per cent of children live in poverty what it means is that 20 per cent of children live below the low income cut-off point. This LICO is purely relative and does not relate in any way to actual comparable standards of living. Fully 18 per cent of Canada's LICO population own their own homes mortgage free. This issue becomes a matter of responsibility on the part of not only government but Canadians. My party supports the legitimate role of government to do for people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all-or do as well for themselves-individually or through non-government organizations.

The solution to Canada's dysfunctional social support system is less government interference. Provide assistance in meaningful ways. We need to offer incentives for parents in determining the best choices for child care. Social engineering policies that force parents to place their children into day care are intrusive and discriminatory. Treat all families fairly and remove the day care expense allowance.

Support single parent families by allowing private collection agencies to go after deadbeat parents delinquent on maintenance payments.

Provide good jobs for Canadians and cut their tax burden, creating a climate of initiative and investment. Stop overspending, balance the budget and begin to pay down our debt which now totals over $533 billion.

While I recognize the attempt that has been made to wrap some protective arms around Canadians in the name of social reform, the discussion paper is mere rhetorical flourish, long on words, short on numbers and devoid of any plan.

[Government Expenditures, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister answered a question from my colleague from Calgary West regarding the reimbursement of $34.5 million to the Government of Quebec for its 1992 provincial referendum.

In his answer the Prime Minister stated he was committed to pay the Quebec government $34.5 million because of a promise made by the previous Tory government.

It is interesting that the present Liberal government arbitrarily chooses the contracts, whether verbal or written, it will respect. It chose to permit the sale of Ginn Publishing to Paramount on the basis of a verbal agreement but cancelled the Pearson International Airport contract and the EH-101 deal which were both written legal agreements.

The carryover process for contracts negotiated by the Tory government remains very unclear. The government has an obligation to Canadians to explain what criteria are taken into consideration when respecting or abrogating a contract. This action will haunt it. The Canadian taxpayer has a right to know on what basis the government makes its decisions.

[``Octobre'', October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the film "Octobre" is an example of extreme tolerance to protect the free expression of opinions in Canada. Tolerance in this country is being stretched to the limit with daily threats of separation.

"Octobre" is a separatist film, funded once again on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. The federal government spent $1.4 million to propagate a lie. The National Film Board gave $400,000 and Telefilm Canada gave a million dollars to fund this flimsy stab at accuracy.

The facts are simple: Pierre Laporte was murdered by separatist terrorists and now federal tax dollars are being used to glorify and distort this senseless murder by a separatist gang of murderers and thieves.

To reduce the cold-blooded murder of Pierre Laporte to something as intellectually fraudulent as "Octobre" is appalling and to provide Canadian tax dollars to accomplish it is scandalous. The pathos and emotions of his murderers are irrelevant.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am a westerner and I am from Alberta and I heard-

Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Remarks such as those are out of order. I have an opportunity to speak on this floor.

In my view the hon. member who just spoke did not speak of a long term vision that addressed all of us in Canada. Is his view that what is required now is to continue to increase program spending to pacify Quebec? Quebecers appear to have made a decision here. The hon. member is suggesting that indeed we have not yet spent enough to facilitate and support Quebec to keep it in this federation, which quite frankly is falling apart.

This bill is about legislating and entrenching multiculturalism which we cannot afford, national bilingualism which we cannot afford, and special interest group funding which we cannot afford. As an Albertan and a westerner I take great exception to the fact that this debate keeps wallowing in the issue of Quebec separation.

I would like the hon. member to address these points and to remember that Canada does extend beyond the Ontario border. There is a whole other part of this country called Canada and it is the west. The west is getting really fed up with all of this talk as well because it is all just talk. I am equally as disgusted and fed up as the hon. member from Quebec who just spoke. I am fed up with this whole debate as well, because it is going nowhere. It is grinding down into a ridiculous discussion about more spending and Canadian taxpayers will not tolerate any more spending.