Daphne Jennings

[Ports Canada, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at its last meeting the board of directors of Ports Canada decided to close down the grain elevator at Churchill.

A draft of the minutes containing that decision was sent to the Minister of Transport, not a popular decision for the Manitoba Liberal leader with a provincial election looming. When the official minutes came out, magic-no mention of this Ports Canada decision.

Can the Minister of Transport tell this House who is responsible for doctoring the minutes, the long time Liberal Party loyalist who chairs the board or the minister himself?

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-55, an act to establish the Yukon Surface Rights Board.

I do not speak often on aboriginal matters but I thought this bill merited comment. In fact the last time I spoke on aboriginal matters in the House was to argue for an amendment to the private member's bill which declared ice hockey as Canada's national sport. The amendment which was accepted declared the great aboriginal sport of lacrosse to be Canada's summer national sport.

Aboriginal issues are important to me in particular and should be important to every member from British Columbia. As we know, most of the territory of the province of British Columbia is the subject of some form of land claim by our aboriginal peoples. It is my belief that the precedent set in Yukon may become the precedent for settling claims in British Columbia. Therefore it is important for me to address these issues.

I have a few preliminary comments to make before I get into a detailed discussion of the clauses of the bill. The bill is the third in a trilogy of bills dealing with the settlement of land claims in Yukon. The Reform Party opposed the first two bills which established the settlement of the land claims. Logically, therefore, we oppose Bill C-55 which establishes the mechanism to implement these settlements, or alternatively to settle disputes relating to the claim.

I understand the feeling that a mechanism should be found to resolve disputes without the necessity of going to court. Courts are expensive. Justice usually is not swift. However this leads me to make two comments.

First, perhaps the inefficient slow moving courts would be useful in these circumstances because the possibility of going to court would be seen as such a detriment that settlements may be more easily achieved by the parties involved. I think that is what we would want. Perhaps in this instance the threat of going to court is one to be preserved, not put aside.

My second point deals with the courts themselves. If the courts are in such a state that even the government does not want them involved in settling disputes of the kind presented by the Yukon land claims, maybe we should take a hard look at reforming the courts of the country.

Courts were established to settle disputes between parties. They exist. The infrastructure is there. The salaries of those involved are already paid. Why should we not then use them to settle disputes such as the ones presented here? If the courts because of inefficiencies are not seen to be the appropriate vehicle then maybe we should streamline our judicial system

instead of establishing a new board. We should address reform of our civil law courts.

However I realize that judicial and court reform will not happen before the bill is passed. The government has a majority in the House. We will soon be stuck with the Yukon Surface Rights Board. For this reason I wish to make the following general comment.

I particularly wish to address the fact that this board will only deal with disputes after the parties themselves, the people involved in the dispute, have failed to reach an amicable solution. How will the board know the parties have failed to reach such a solution? Would it not be better if representatives of the board met with the parties prior to the parties going to the board? Such representatives could work with the parties in order to achieve an amicable settlement.

I am suggesting a two step process. In this two step process the first step would be the disputants contacting the board requesting mediation or help from a representative of the board. A representative or a staff person, not a board member obviously, would be dispatched to meet with the parties. If this person was not effective in helping the parties resolve the dispute then the matter could go to the board for a hearing.

Such a two step process, first by mediation with the help of the board representatives and second by a a board hearing if mediation failed, might tend to speed up the process. Let's face it, a board such as this will build its own bureaucracy. Let us give these people something to do beyond shuffling paper. They could engage in mediation.

I wish to comment on some of the provisions of this bill which are especially disturbing to me. My first point, perhaps not surprisingly, is on the subject of clauses 8 to 15 which deal with the establishment and organization of the board. Some of my colleagues have commented on these clauses so I will keep my comments brief.

The composition suggested in the statute seems to be a recipe for divisiveness and eventual disaster. Half of the members other than the chairperson are to be appointed by the Council for Yukon Indians, the others by order in council on recommendation by the minister.

I hope it works and I wish those who designed this all the luck in the world. It seems to me that we are putting forward the possibility that the Council of Yukon Indians is simply going to become the judge of its own causes, conflict of interest or, if not the judge, then certainly an interested party at all hearings.

Virtually all disputes will involve one or more bands of Yukon Indians. Yukon Indians will be in a position of strength on the board and there is the possibility of block voting. As well we are establishing another organization to which Liberals can appoint Liberals. Surely we have enough of those already.

It might be more appropriate to mention here that the Government of the Yukon Territory should have input into the selection of the board members. Perhaps even the chairperson and some of the board members should be appointed through a nomination of the Government of the Yukon Territory. The rationale would be similar to the territorial government being more likely to appoint people who represent the interests of the public at large than is the minister who might appoint Liberals. They could be Liberal loyalists and probably will be who might stack the board full of members of one politically correct interest group. The Yukon government is considerably closer to the people of the Yukon than is the minister. Hence it is far less likely to make poor choices.

Barring the selection of board members through that process I offer an idea for a second selection process. The membership of this board could be appointed by the minister but on the approval of all three parties in the House of Commons. If the minister does not agree to appoint the whole board in this fashion at least the chair of the board should be approved by the two opposition parties in this House.

I also do not like the fact that we are setting up another body to be paid out of the public purse. Surely if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had been listening recently to the Minister of Finance he would know how badly in debt the country is and how we cannot afford any more expenditures.

Clause 19 gives the board the power to hire staff and consultants. Here we go again. We just cannot afford to give this kind of blanket authority without limiting the numbers to be hired. As well under clause 21 the board can acquire personal property in its name and dispose of it. This may be all right if we are talking about furnishing an office, but it might not take too long for this to be stretched into a major acquisition program. There should be some stipulation as to what the personal property is to be used for.

Clause 23 deals with the financing of the board. We on this side of the House would feel more comfortable if the matter of annual financing was referred directly to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I know it will be contained in the estimates, but we want to know specifically the moneys allocated to the board and how they are spent.

Clause 24 of the bill requires that the board report to the minister upon his request. I would suggest that this clause be

changed so that the board reports to the minister on an annual basis and that these reports be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to committee.

Clause 26 on the subject of jurisdiction does not refer to the fact that the board should exercise its authority observing the rules of natural justice. Interestingly, this is one of the grounds for the appeal of ruling by the board, but it is not specifically listed as a requirement for its hearings. For greater certainty this requirement should be spelled out.

Clause 40 gives the board the right to set fees. I am torn between suggesting that the fees be low enough so as not to prohibit anyone from taking advantage of the jurisdiction of this board or suggesting the fees be high enough to ensure the board pays for itself. I find my last suggestion to be quite interesting even though it comes from me, and in keeping with my remarks on the affordability of this board, perhaps we should pursue it.

Clause 41 requires the rules made by the board to govern its operation to be published. I think this is a good requirement. However I am concerned that there may be significant disagreement among the stakeholders regarding particular rules.

I believe a method should be found by which these rules could be objected to by major groups and a hearing held on the fairness of the rules. Perhaps the board itself could hear these complaints.

Clauses 42 through 64 contain many areas which would better be the subject of discussion in committee. These clauses describe the main tasks which will be undertaken by the board. I am sure representatives of my party will have comments to make on them as the committee proceeds to clause by clause analysis.

Clauses 74 and 75 give the board the final authority in relation to findings of fact and establishing an appeal procedure to the Yukon Supreme Court. I hope this right of appeal is not abused. We are looking here for quick settlements and the board is established to effect such settlements.

It would be counterproductive to allow too many appeals to the courts. Also in relation to the issue on some judgments, perhaps the minister could consider placing a limit on the time the board has to make a decision, perhaps 30 days from the time the case is concluded.

Clause 79 gives the governor in council authority to make regulations dealing with the board. Again, as with the rules of the board, a procedure should be suggested whereby these regulations could be the subject of objection by the major stakeholders and the objections heard and subsequently dealt with.

Finally, I would suggest that this bill contain an automatic review clause so that we can be assured that it will come back before us so we can assess how effective it has been; perhaps a review in three years.

We are opposed to this bill. It has many deficiencies, but most of all the content is wrong. There should be no need to spend taxpayers' money to set up a body which is designed to do what courts are in existence to do, resolve disputes.

[Literacy, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in my capacity as literacy critic for the Reform Party. This is a position which I do not like to have because as long as it exists it signifies there is a literacy problem in Canada.

What is being done about this problem and what should be done about it? For those youngsters in the school system today, which is within provincial jurisdiction, let us hope all education reviews stress the necessity to teach the basics.

For those who have slipped through the cracks in the education system, it is important that they have access to literacy programs which will help them to learn to read and write. I believe it is my job to ensure that whatever literacy programs be established they be effective in this attempt to address literacy.

This is where the national ad hoc literacy group comes in. It stresses helping the whole family to ensure there is an appreciation of books and reading in the home.

In this international year of the family groups such as this which stress the strengthening of the family unit through an appreciation of education deserve our praise.

I wish all participants in the National Family Literacy Conference well in their deliberations and I look forward to joining them for some of their sessions.

[Conference On International Civil Aviation, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to thank the hon. Minister of Transport for bringing the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Conference on International Civil Aviation to the attention of this House.

In the absence of our critic for transport, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, I too would like to extend the best wishes of my party to former Ambassador Reid, Monsieur Jean Fournier, and Mr. Stanislav Krejcik.

We as Canadians can be proud of the fact that the International Civil Aviation Organization is located in Montreal. We should never take for granted the high esteem in which our country is held in these matters.

International Civil Aviation Organization standards, more commonly known as ICAO standards, affect safety and security standards even at airports serving many of our smaller communities. These same airports are now in the process of being transferred from the federal government to local authorities and in some cases even to private operations. I hope the minister will ensure that reasonable standards are maintained both at privatized airports and in the potentially privatized air navigation system, while also ensuring that the system does not become overly regulated with bureaucratic policies.

I am sure that ICAO will continue to lead the way to ensuring safe international standards throughout the aviation world and that other organizations, both governmental and private, will recognize the need and capabilities of countries to work together to resolve items of conflict in other areas.

On a personal note, all of us in this House, especially those of us from ridings that are basically only accessible by air realize the importance of safe air travel.

I wish to congratulate the International Civil Aviation Organization for its fine work on behalf of all of us. I wish it well in the future.

[Financial Institutions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the secretary of state that Canadians need to know that the Liberals will actually implement the proposals of John Palmer.

More specifically, will the government support John Palmer's proposal for separation of the chair of the board of directors and the chief executive officer in order to help eliminate conflict of interest and, if so, when?

[Financial Institutions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions.

Following the recent hearings into the demise of Confederation Life by the Senate banking committee, is the government prepared to make recommendations or bring forward legislation similar to that discussed in the presentations made by John Palmer who is the superintendent of financial institutions?

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

This is a private member's bill and we are debating it at second reading with the hope that it will be sent off to the justice and legal affairs committee of the House. Private Members' Business is one of the few opportunities members who are not in cabinet have to bring forward ideas in the form of bills or motions. They are debated and on some occasions are even put to a vote by members of this House.

I mention this because it was not so long ago that my private member's motion on relaxation of the confidence convention thus allowing freer voting in the House came forward for debate. It was a votable motion. Due to the support this motion found among members opposite it passed.

I mention this now because I believe it is important in the period called Private Members' Business that we as members should be able to use our own best judgment when determining how to vote on a particular matter. The whip should not be on for any vote in Private Members' Business. Members should be able to study the legislation on its own merits, not on the basis of its origin. That is the suggestion that all bills introduced by the government are good and must be supported and all bills and motions proposed by the opposition are bad and by definition should be defeated.

This idea is not conducive to allow parliamentarians to do their job which is to listen to the people of Canada. It prevents members of this House from truly working together in the best interests of our country's government and in the best interests of all our constituents, the Canadian people.

I remind members that this House did approve the motion I sponsored which endorsed freer voting. I hope members opposite as well as members of the Bloc will find this bill worthy of their support.

On the law and order issue which is being debated across this great country, there is no question where the Reform Party stands. It stands squarely in favour of law and order. That is why this bill is coming forward at this time.

Bill C-240 is one more initiative by Reform members to bring the necessary changes to our justice system to protect Canadians. It is a response to a need in our society, a need which has been eloquently expressed by those who are the friends and relatives of persons killed by criminals who are being let out of prison and who we all know will commit violent crimes again.

My hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast spoke a few minutes earlier about the need to retain such criminals as Robert Paul Thompson who murdered Brenda Fitzgerald in 1983 while out on a day pass. This offender has been sentenced to life and is eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Such a bill as C-240 would allow corrections to keep dangerous criminals such as Robert Paul Thompson in prison.

As my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has mentioned, under current legislation corrections officials have the power to keep dangerous criminals in prison until the expiration of their sentence. However, there is no legislation in place to allow the federal corrections system to keep high risk offenders in prison upon the expiration of their sentence.

At present there are high risk offenders who still retain violent intentions toward society but will be released on the Canadian public. The need for change is also expressed by families of murder victims and by those few who have survived brutal attacks by criminals who should have been kept behind bars for the rest of their lives.

This bill is similar to a bill that was introduced in the last Parliament and seems to be similar to proposals now being put forward for discussion by the present government. If that is the case, then why would any of us oppose it?

Let me take the time now to deal with two criticisms that have been raised. First, the government proposal is that public discussion and action on this matter should wait for the conclusions of this consultative process.

My riding has provincial institutions such as the Fraser River Correctional Centre, Alouette River Correctional Centre, Boulder Bay and Stave Lake Camp. It has federal institutions as well, such as Mission Institution and Ferndale Minimum Security.

Between the riding of Mission-Coquitlam and adjacent ridings we have provincial institutions such as Surrey Pre Trial, Ford Mountain, Mount Thurston, Centre Creek (Youth) and Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre. There are also federal institutions such as Matsqui, Kent, Elbow Lake, Mountain, Regional Psychiatric Facility and Harrison Mills. That is a lot of prison institutions.

The people of my riding and the surrounding ridings know of whence they talk. The people who work and live in the cities and towns found in Mission-Coquitlam want this type of legislation put in place immediately. They do not want violent offenders who have caused sufficient trouble in prison and therefore have been required to serve their complete sentence getting out and living unsupervised in the community. This bill only applies to the most potentially violent of incarcerated prisoners. I am sure the people in my riding would much prefer that such offenders stay in jail.

My householder contains a questionnaire to my constituents with questions relating to reform of the criminal justice system. I received what I believe is a very good return, over 6 per cent, on questions relating to criminal justice reform, particularly 87 per cent and 95 per cent who wanted changes to respective criminal justice reforms.

What is even more interesting is in the top concern in the general comments, over 76 per cent commented on changes to the Young Offenders Act, to sentencing, the parole system, victims' rights and it goes on and on.

Canadians want change.

Listening to my constituents is all the consultation I need to convince myself that this is a necessary piece of legislation. Moreover, with whom is the government going to consult if it asks the person in jail what to do as part of the consultation process? It is quite likely the response would be that that legislation is not needed.

If government consults with the friends and relatives of those who have died at the hands of recently released offenders I am sure the response would be that legislation is needed.

In her speech on this bill presented to the House on June 10, 1994, my friend from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley eloquently pleaded the case in support of her bill by giving us details of the murder of an 11-year old boy at the hands of such an offender. I believe his parents would support this bill. Therefore I believe the people with whom the government is going to be carrying on discussions have already spoken and spoken eloquently in favour of this bill.

The second criticism raised against this bill is that it might contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, I suppose a bill which deals in a harsh manner with dangerous offenders could be found in contravention of some section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but is it? The charter has a saving clause, clause 1. By virtue of clause 1 the charter may be violated by a statute but if such a statute would be acceptable in a free and democratic society then that statute is valid.

This is one of the compromises that went into the charter when it was drafted and I believe it is helpful in relation to Bill C-240.

I submit that in a free and democratic society that it would be unacceptable to deal in the way proposed by Bill C-240 with society's most dangerous offenders.

My Liberal friends will say that such treatment violates the convicted person's individual rights. That would be the classic argument raised by Liberals but is it not time that we looked at the rights of the community as a whole? Is this not a case where the greater good for the greater number of people in our society should win out over the rights of an individual, the rights of a person who is so dangerous to society?

I believe in cases such as this the rights of society as a whole should be protected and, yes, protected at the expense of the rights of a very few to whom this bill would apply.

I endorse what my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley said when she first spoke in support of this bill, that if this bill can save even one life it is worth it.

I believe the time to act on this matter is now. There is no point in consultation on this matter. People are demanding that we deal in a tough straightforward manner with society's most dangerous offenders. I urge all hon. members to look carefully at the purpose of private members business and if they believe this bill is necessary then vote for it, regardless of the party whips.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this important matter for the safety of all Canadians.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present petitions on behalf of my constituents and others to request Parliament to enact legislation against permanent appointments of justices.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to the hon. member opposite.

What I would like to stress is that I find this whole situation very disturbing because I have respect for every member in this House. I try to think that you say what you honestly mean and you honestly believe, as I try. When I say that I mean we have in Canada today responsible gun owners. Every time we put laws in force on firearms we hit at them one more time. That is not acceptable. We have to find another avenue. You can never justify putting more laws in place that will withdraw rights from law-abiding citizens. You cannot justify that in a just society.

As far as this business of overcrowded prisons goes, is the answer because we have overcrowded prisons to open the doors and release them? Did that not happen in Russia in 1917? Are any of you aware of what happened in the small villages around the steplands in Russia to all of the innocent people? Think about it for a minute.

No, we do not open the doors. We do not let prisoners out. We try to convince even the young people of today who because they are under age can go ahead and commit any crime they want because they cannot be held responsible. We do not start a new slogan: "Do the crime and spend less time". Instead of that we stick with what we have and we make it better. We show that people have to be responsible. There is only one way and that is to serve your time. If you are not guilty of a violent offence then it is possible to look at other avenues of serving. I think we can do that but we have to work together seriously on it.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

You mentioned two or three things. First, I was very concerned every time you mentioned control of firearms. What you are really saying is that we prevent law-abiding citizens-