Ray Speaker

[The Late Bert Hargrave, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would certainly like to pay tribute to someone I thought was a great man, Bert Hargrave, a man respected by all people who knew him.

I was personally involved with Mr. Hargrave on a number of occasions, at a variety of meetings, a variety of delegations and a variety of presentations not only in the provincial legislature but in other meetings across the province dealing with agricultural issues.

Bert's constituency of Medicine Hat overlapped with the constituency of Little Bow, my provincial constituency, and as two elected persons, although not of the same political party, we often dealt with issues together.

One of the qualities of Bert Hargrave was that he was able to step over partisan barriers and deal with issues in a very common sense way. In my memories of Bert Hargrave that will be the marquee of his gentlemanly, sophisticated and rational way of dealing with responsible matters for his constituents in southern Alberta.

If we recall part of Bert's history, he was born in 1917 in Medicine Hat and attended school in that city. He received a bachelor of science in agricultural engineering from the University of Saskatchewan in 1942. Bert served the country in World War II in the Canadian army RCEME corps from 1942 to 1946, serving in northwest Europe.

After returning he married Amy Reinhart and they lived near Walsh, Alberta. Often in our conversations we talked about the beautiful rolling hills, that gem of the southeastern part of our province of Alberta.

Bert was an active member of the agricultural society, in particular the cattle industry. Once in a while I would say to Bert: "You come to meetings and you are so proud that you would even wear a little bit of that on your shoes for us". He was known for that. He was certainly an active member of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and gave that organization good leadership.

Entering politics was something that Bert had not really thought about until the early 1970s when he became increasingly concerned over Canadian agricultural policy. Thus at that time he sought the Progressive Conservative nomination for Medicine Hat. He never looked back, winning in 1972 by a margin of 5,600 votes, and won re-election in 1974, 1979 and 1980.

In 1979 he was appointed as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture where his firsthand knowledge of agricultural issues and his common sense shone through. He fought for the average farmer, whether it was urging tax relief for drought stricken farmers or fighting for the rights of cattle farmers against U.S. beef bans or the injustice of the Crow rate.

Bert retired from Canadian politics in 1984, citing his own failing health and the loss of his beloved wife one year earlier. He returned to his farm which was never far from his heart but kept abreast of federal politics. Bert served as a member of the senate of the University of Lethbridge during the period when my wife Ingrid was the chancellor. He made a common sense contribution to the institution's success.

In 1993 he was inducted into the Alberta Agricultural Hall of Fame. He lived on his farm until this past June when he moved to the Central Park Lodge in Medicine Hat. He passed away in his room on Tuesday, September 24, 1996. Bert is survived by his son and his daughter and four grandchildren.

On behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to extend my sincere sympathies to his family and his friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with you as you remember Bert this afternoon.

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments with regard to the Canada Marine Act.

The parliamentary secretary has outlined the objectives of the act. The objectives are very noble and I certainly congratulate the parliamentary secretary for setting them out in legislation. It is time that our ports were more self-sufficient, self-determining in their goals and objectives and in financial accountability. I want to place on the record my support for the parliamentary secretary's outline of the objectives of the bill.

I have received representation with regard to this issue a number of times since I arrived in Ottawa. As a person who represents a rural constituency in Lethbridge, Alberta, we usually do not talk about the seaway too much, or oceans, travel or marine life at all because we always are worried about having enough rain for the crops, never mind worrying about oceans, lakes and seaways.

Pilotage on the Great Lakes has been brought to my attention. There are certain shipping lines that travel the lakes day after day, week after week, month after month. The captains of those boats are very aware of the travel patterns. They know how to be safe on the lakes and they know how to move from one port to another and avoid any kind of disaster or cause any difficulty in making their way and taking their cargoes of grain, coal or other materials from one port to another.

As I understand it, in the past it was compulsory that they take on pilots at some of the ports. These pilots, either one or two or three, board the boat, find themselves a comfortable seat but the captain is still in charge. He knows where the boat is going. The pilots really do not contribute at all to that passage.

The concern is the major cost that is incurred by that pilot entering the boat, taking a nice comfortable chair, riding from one port to another and supposedly fulfilling his or her commitment in determining what is a safe route and the best way to go.

I can see that this may be necessary when foreign boats comes into the seaway, perhaps from the European continent or some other country. When they enter the seaway it is new territory or it is territory they may only travel a few times each year. Under those circumstances the regulations should require that those vessels should take on pilots as it ensures safety on the Great Lakes. It ensures that the correct route is taken and that the necessary requirements are met. I do not understand all of those requirements.

I do see the case for a shipping company-the hon. minister and the parliamentary secretary certainly know the companies to which I am referring-that is consistently on the lakes and has been for years. They have experienced captains. Perhaps that is another requirement. Perhaps the captains have to travel the lakes so many years. After they have been travelling the lakes and navigating the ship on the seaway for some many years, they have the right to be their own pilot. Maybe some regulations could be put in place to deal with that issue.

Why should the shipping company incur the extra cost of pilots when they are not needed on the boat at that time? It is a major cost to the industry. Certainly it employs somebody and creates a job. I understand that some of these pilot jobs are passed on from one family member to another. There are three or four families in their third or fourth generation of pilots so it is an industry for them.

Under the regulations the shippers on the Great Lakes have to use them. They have a guaranteed income, a wonderful thing, and I know they would not want to upset that. In practical terms it just does not seem right.

I recommend to the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the government that they look at this and maybe set up categories of where the requirements of a pilot are necessary and where they are not necessary. That makes some common sense as I see it.

I am making a judgment, maybe as a prairie gopher. I do not understand all of the things that happen in terms of navigation on the Great Lakes. But after standing back and looking at it in a common sense way, in terms of efficiency and the shipping companies not incurring costs that are not necessary, I think that would be very right.

As a farmer in western Canada, some of the grain I grow travels on the Great Lakes. It is moving on those boats. The Upper Lake Shipping Company, for example, moved some of my grain on the Great Lakes. I guess I am paying something extra because of the pilotage cost that is built into the system.

I certainly appreciate the new objectives that have been set out for the port authorities. It is good that is being done. They sound excellent. The accountability that is built into it is certainly supportable and of merit.

I ask the minister to have a second look at pilotage when regulations are designed to look at what is right and what is not right.

The third objective that the minister set out in his remarks is that the new act will be more responsive to the users. That is a good objective. It is the consumer, the user that really needs it, not the government. It should not be a bill for government. It should not be a bill to protect the bureaucrats of the system and enhance their jobs. It should not be a bill to protect the pilots. It should be a bill that enhances the opportunity of the users, that allows them to be

efficient, to keep the costs down and to have safety as their utmost responsibility. I believe that is built into the bill.

I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this bill. On that basis I am prepared to support it as an individual member from western Canada.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45 and also to comment on the amendment that was made by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

Bill C-45 in the discussion that is going on here is only a part of a much larger discussion. The real question we should be looking at in this House is whether the government is being tough enough on the criminals and those who break the laws of this country and fair enough to the people who are victims of those crimes.

We should examine the three years of the Liberal record, this Liberal government's record, led by the Prime Minister who was once a minister of justice, as to whether it is dealing with the criminal issues of this country or whether it is continuing this soft, easy, be kind, rehabilitative approach that the Liberal Party has used over the years which has brought us to the state of affairs we have in Canada today where criminals are out of hand.

They are not afraid to break the law. They are not afraid to commit a crime. Youth are not afraid to commit a crime because they know the punishment will not be severe.

That is the environment this Liberal government and this attitude of the House of Commons for the last 10 to 15 or 20 years have brought as a consequence to the citizens of Canada.

In the three years that have passed, the Reform Party came to this assembly saying: "We must be tough on criminals. Those who misuse a firearm in the act of some type of crime should be punished severely. Throw the book at them". That is what we said.

What happened? The government decided that it would punish the innocent citizens of Canada by making them all register, pay money, put in a bunch of red tape, and the criminals still have access to the guns that are unregistered, committing crimes.

A crime that was just committed in Abbotsford, the report for which came out yesterday, indicated that the person who took the lives of a family used a registered gun. This was after the authorities were told that this person was a threat to the family.

Now we are going to register six million guns and it will not do a thing against crime in this country. That is one issue. Again, the Liberals are soft on criminals. Register the guns of the innocent people but leave the criminals alone. They have the guns anyway and will use them.

Let us look at young offenders. We have raised the issue over and over again in this Parliament that we must be tough on young offenders, that they cannot get away with what they are doing. Young people of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age are committing adult crimes. The courts cannot deal with them. We cannot give them adult sentences because the system, the law of the country, does not allow it to happen as easily as it should.

Again, that is a symptom of liberal attitude, a liberal approach to dealing with crime in the country, to keep peace order and goodwill in this country. You be kind, you rehabilitate, you spend a lot of money on social workers, counselling and talking, but you do not deal with the issue.

Young people are out of hand; not all of them, the percentage that wants to break the laws and take advantage and run in the drug trade and the sex trade and whatever else is going on, to steal and to violate other people's property. They are out there without a threat of what will happen to them. That must change.

What about those who violate families in any way? Do we have tough laws with regard to those who would violate members of their families in any way? Do we have laws in place that would say to a father who violates his children or his wife in a negative way that there will be severe punishment? Our books do not say that.

I had some faith in our Minister of Justice when I first came here. For the first three months I listened to him and I thought here is a person who is progressive and ready to change the system, to deal with the issues. But what has come out since then is this soft, rehabilitative, counselling, easy on the criminal approach that is not dealing with the problem of our country.

I could list issue after issue. Bill C-45 is a typical example of that where we are in a different era. One would think the Minister of Justice was in the 1950s or the 1960s when there were a few crimes. There were a few murders. But there was nothing as violent as what exists today. There was nothing at all in the system. Those old ways will not deal with the matters now.

Here before us is one opportunity to toughen up the laws. For those who murder someone, considered as first degree murder, we can change section 745. We can talk about Olson, Peters and others in a long list. We say to them that if they commit premeditated murder, if they take the life of someone else for their own exploitative purposes, we want to give them access to the right to serve a sentence of only 15 years rather than 25.

The two people I mentioned happen to have murdered more than one person, so the law before us, which would be hoisted by the amendment I am addressing, would not deal with those people. It would not deal with them because they have committed two murders. That is certainly a shortcoming of the act.

But where did this Liberal government begin to go soft and feel it had a better approach than the people of Canada? It was back in

1975 and 1976 when the matter of capital punishment was under discussion in this assembly. I recall that discussion very well.

At that time in the legislature of Alberta we also had a discussion. Many members of the Alberta legislature took polls in their constituencies to see how they should vote on this matter and what kind of a recommendation the legislature of Alberta should make to the House of Commons of Canada.

A member of Parliament at that time, an Alberta member who later became prime minister, took a poll in his constituency. The people that day voted in favour of capital punishment. In my constituency it was around 90 per cent. Most constituencies in Canada voted over 80 per cent in support of retaining capital punishment.

What did the Liberal government of the day do back in 1976? It abolished capital punishment. Member after member stood in the House and said: "Canadians do not understand. They do not understand. They do not realize that capital punishment may mean that we take the life of an innocent person". They thought capital punishment should be abolished because an innocent person might lose their life.

Many of the people who are charged with first degree murder are obviously murderers. Let us look at Olson and Peters. They committed murders. Should they have the right to continue to live on this land, supported by us in rather lavish facilities in the prisons of this country? I believe that is wrong.

I believe if we took a vote today in Canada on the issue of capital punishment there would be no question. Canadians would say, with at least a 90 per cent majority, that capital punishment should be reinstated.

We could categorize who it applies to and who it does not. We could protect ourselves as legislators against using the instrument of capital punishment on someone who may be innocent. That is very easy to do. We could define to whom capital punishment would apply. Canadians would accept that.

The point I want to make in this debate is that the Liberal government is not listening to Canadians who want to be tougher on criminals and fairer on victims. They want rights for the victims of crime in the country. Canadians want that and the government is not delivering.

The Reformers are that voice for Canadians. We are saying we want to be tougher on criminals. We must deal with the issues. If someone commits murder, whether they murder once, twice or more, they should be sentenced to 25 years in jail. That is the most severe sentence we can apply at the present time because the Liberals softened their whole approach in 1976 and changed the law so we could not take more drastic measures. That is the way it should be, 25 years and no less. There should be no right to appeal the sentence after 15 years.

As legislators and as Reformers we will fight for that position during this Parliament and certainly in future Parliaments. When we become government that is one specific thing which will change.

[Department Of National Defence, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it in that context.

My question is very straightforward to the minister. Will the minister table the names of those officials who were involved in drafting and recommending the terms of reference for the inquiry so that it is clear to the Canadian public who is involved and so that we clarify the matter that there was no conflict of interest and that there was no inferred, assumed or perceived cover-up in any way? Would the minister table those names next Monday in the Parliament of Canada?

[Department Of National Defence, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly to the Minister of National Defence that by not answering the question there is a cover-up.

[Department Of National Defence, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The Minister of National Defence has been asked very clearly whether General Boyle was involved in drafting the terms of reference for the inquiry. The minister has not indicated the names of any officials who were involved. By inference General Boyle was involved in drafting the terms of reference.

Would the minister confirm that, if not, confirm very clearly that he was not involved?

[Liberal Party, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Prime Minister and listening to my constituents in Lethbridge I could swear we were living in two different countries. The Prime Minister says it is the best of times. He says: "Relax. Everything this fine". He thinks things are okay just the way they are.

That is not what I heard this summer. These are not the worst times, but there is a deep uneasiness with the people I talk to. There is sort of a gut feeling that things are not as good as they should be.

What these people sense that the Prime Minister does not is that Canada can do better: better than the mess that the government has made of the armed forces; better than the laws that say only multiple murderers get a full sentence; better than the national unity plans consisting of flag giveaways; better than a debt that will reach $600 billion in a few weeks; better than a 9 per cent unemployment rate every single month for the last six years.

To those who know in their hearts that Canada can be more than this I say the following. Just because the Liberals have settled for second best does not mean they have to as well.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention that Beauchesne says when a member rises on a point of order, that member must be recognized by the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House at that time must hear the point of order before making a judgment whether or not the member can be heard.

I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, that you reconsider your position with regard to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville at the present time.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to the have the opportunity to speak in Parliament about such an important issue but in a sense it is a very sad day because we have to witness again the Liberal government not dealing with the issue. The Liberals have spent three years with a platform of doing nothing and that is not good enough in dealing with the problems of Canada.

Today we have the opportunity to show that we are going to be tough on those who take the life of someone else. We have people charged with first degree murder, given a 25 year sentence and the Liberal government wants to rehabilitate, to be soft, to be kind and to allow them to go free after 15 years. That is unacceptable and

disgusting in the least. It should not exist that way in our country. When someone takes a life and the courts have proved that has happened, that person should serve at least 25 years in prison. Never mind waiting until they take two lives to serve 25 years.

Many of my constituents say that is still too lenient and that we should have brought back capital punishment. They believe those who take a life should lose their life. It may happen one of these days but it will not be under a Liberal government. It will never call for a referendum on capital punishment because it knows that Canadians, with at least an 80 per cent majority, would come out in droves to vote on this issue. Eighty per cent of Canadians would support capital punishment for any murderer.

The government does not want to do anything. It is too lenient. It does not want to accept its responsibilities.

We should look at some of the statistics. Statistics from 1994-95 and 1995-96 have proven that one out of ten parolees, and now murderers who will be allowed out on parole after 15 years, reoffend in a very serious way. This means that 10 per cent of parolees go out and again commit very serious crimes.

I would like to look at this Liberal record of parole since they came back into power. I am sure this was the same under the old Tory Party which was equally as bad. However, because the Tories and the Liberals always had this friendly relationship in the House where one covered for the other, the general public did not know how bad our justice system was. They really did not know how bad the defence system was, which is unbelievable. Finally, as a Reform Party, we are getting that up on the table for the public to look at.

Let us look at the Liberal record from Statistics Canada. About one in ten federal prisoners released on parole last year was charged with a new crime. The numbers were about the same for 1994-95. In 1995, 984 parolees were charged, including 165 violent offences such as 15 murders, 22 sexual assaults and 71 armed robberies by those people who were in the justice system. The Liberal government lets them out to corrupt and offend in our communities.

It was just as bad in 1994-95. There were 1,097 parolees charged. That is 10 per cent of them, including 256 violent offenders who again committed murder, sexual assault and armed robbery.

Today we are going to be lenient again. The only way we can stop these murderers and send a message is to to really be tough. Twenty-five years is not tough enough in my opinion and in the opinion of many Canadians, but if that is the way it is today then we should stick to the 25 years. However, the legislation that is before us does not do that. It sort of states that maybe they will try to do that in a back-handed way but one has to kill two people first in order to receive an automatic 25 years. That is about as ridiculous as it comes.

I would like to talk about a personal experience in my constituency when I was a member of the legislature and a representative of an area south of Calgary. This deals with Darlene Boyd's daughter. It deals with another young lady from the community of High River, a lady who was at a social function in Calgary. While driving home to High River she ran out of gas. One of my constituents, who happens to be the murderer and is in jail at the present time with a 25 year sentence, now comes up for the opportunity of parole in February 1997. Luckily for the government, he murdered two people so he is not going to get the opportunity to have a parole just by having this legislation put in. However, if he had only murdered one person he would have had the right to parole. He would have had kindness, the opportunity for rehabilitation, education and put back into the community as an upstanding citizen through Liberal programs. That is the way it would have been.

However, this lady who was driving home ran out of gas. A car driven by this individual from my community and his buddy from Calgary stopped to help her. What did they do? They grabbed her and threw her into their van. They drove off into fields about five or six miles away where she was raped, brutally beaten and killed. After they beat her with a tire wrench they threw her out of the van and then burned her body so that there would not be any evidence.

Two or three months later at the Red Rooster in High River, Darlene Boyd's daughter, a lovely young lady with a future who had something to contribute to the community became the target of these two same individuals. They decided they needed another victim. They entered by the back door of the Red Rooster, took her at knife point into the van, drove about 12 miles east of High River into the Blackie area, stopped the van, raped and beat her with a tire iron. She tried to get out the van but she was killed in the field. They threw gasoline on her and burned this young lady. This Jim Peters could possibly have come up for parole, but he had killed two people, luckily for the government.

There are sad situations which continue to take place. I would like to add a little more to that story. Once or twice a year I visit all the communities in my constituency, spending half a day or a day. I happened to be the community of Blackie which is only a few miles out of High River.

When I arrived in town I stopped to speak to some friends who owned a store there. I was told: "I would like to come to your meeting today, Ray, but I am scared to leave my wife in the store because there is a killer out there somewhere". We visited for a while and then I went over to the hotel which was right next door to have dinner. It is a small hotel restaurant about 18 feet by 18 feet. I visited with everyone in the restaurant and we talked. And guess who was sitting at one of the tables having dinner? The killer, the

murderer, Jim Peters. But we did not know that. My friend had a right to be afraid.

We held a very short meeting in the town hall and everybody said: "I have to go home and protect my family". The tension and concern in that community was unbelievable.

As legislators the Liberal government has done nothing since 1993. Once again it is not dealing with the problem. It has a head in the sand approach. That is unacceptable to Canadians. I do not know when it is going to change. Maybe we have to have an election and get rid of the Liberals like we got rid of the Tory party. The only lesson the Tory party learned was that if you do not smarten up and do your job the people are going to turf you out.

Well, the worm can turn for the charade that is taking place across the floor, this facade of a Liberal government. I would think that in the late part of 1996 or early 1997 the worm will turn and Canadians will begin to judge the incompetence of the government. When it does and the government changes, maybe there will be common sense policies in the country.

[Privilege, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the intention of possibly coming to the assistance of the Chair in some manner.

I know that the government and the private members of this House are very concerned about this issue and would like to see it dealt with. It is a very important decision and I know, Mr. Speaker, you will bring back a decision with regard to the presentations that were made here today.

On the point of order in terms of the order of business, I was wondering if there would be any consideration by yourself, Mr. Speaker, through government, with regard to Bill C-45 which is on the Order Paper today. Possibly the House leaders could get together with members of the justice committee and request that

they report back on Bill C-234 and we could then deal with that bill in terms of that principle. Following that, we could deal with Bill C-45. We would then be able to make a judgment with regard to the matter of that substance.