Ed Harper

[Recall Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-210, a bill introduced by my colleague from Beaver River.

To my mind this is one of the most important bills that we may be discussing in this Parliament because it is a very small but important step in restoring confidence in the system and restoring trust in politicians.

I am particularly pleased to rise and speak on this bill today because I recall it as being one of the major reasons why I joined the Reform Party in reading over its policies and positions on political reform and on freer votes, referenda, citizens' initiative, recall.

Back in 1990 when I first was exposed to those policies they rang very true with me. I said yes indeed that is what is wrong with this country of ours today. Politicians have lost touch with the people they are representing and the system is in great disrepute.

Recall is one part of political reform, but as I said earlier, it is a very important step in the direction to make politicians more accountable to the people who voted them into office. Referendums can encourage the common sense of the common people to be brought to bear on some of the major issues we are and will be facing in this 35th Parliament.

Canadians have lost faith in the system. They have lost trust in the politicians. The results of the last election in having 205 new members of Parliament elected to this House speaks very clearly to the feelings of the Canadian voters that there must be change. They are not happy with the status quo and we have to have some new directions.

Consider Meech Lake, followed by the Spicer commission, followed by the Charlottetown accord. During that period these things indicated very clearly that Canadians were saying: "We want change; we are not happy with the direction governments have been going in".

This applies particularly when I reflect on the Charlottetown accord. All major governments were supporting it; all of the major press were supporting it. However, the Canadian people saw through it and said: "No, this is not a good idea. This is not a good move". They rejected it. It was to the utter disbelief of the parties that the Canadian voters would stand up, see through the smoke-screen being presented to them and say: "No, this is not what we want. We have not had a voice in this process".

That was a turning point in Canadian politics and it was a turning point for the better. Politics in Canada will never be the same. The problem is that once credibility is lost, it is extremely difficult to get it back. Talk is not enough. It takes action. This bill is going to provide some action, a step in that direction. Changes must be made.

I recall when I was campaigning. The door to door experience I have described was frightening. At door after door I am sure other members as well as myself were being met with the same reaction: "I am absolutely fed up with what has been going on up there in Ottawa. Why should I believe you? You are here at the door telling me what you want me to believe, what you think I want to hear. But you will go to Ottawa and you will do exactly as you are told, just as has been going on for years. I am fed up with it".

I encountered that at door after door. That level of cynicism really was disturbing. In a way it reinforced my desire to get involved in the system and hopefully bring about the change needed to restore the level of confidence that has been so sadly lacking.

I am building a case for the mistrust and the cynicism that is out there with the voters. I want to read some quotes from the very famous red book because it has been played so often during this first sitting. There are those who would suggest that the red book should have started out with the phrase once upon a time, but it does contain the odd pearl of wisdom.

I would like to take this opportunity to quote some of them. They will reinforce exactly what I am saying today in support of recall. On page 91 under "Governing with Integrity":

Canadians have always prided themselves on the quality of their democratic institutions. Yet after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector.

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors.

On page 92 under "Parliamentary Reform" it states:

In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures. More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective prebudget consultation process. We will establish mechanisms to permit parliamentary review of some senior order in council appointments.

A lot of talk so far but little in the way of action.

Let me now go to page 93 under the title "Perspectives". This quote that is in the red book was actually taken from the Public Policy Forum, 1993:

Given the sustained and often angry criticism that has been widely expressed by the public in recent years, it is remarkable how little has been done by way of reform. Of all the grounds on which successive governments, together with MPs, could be charged with being unresponsive, none is more striking than the lack of response to unmistakable expressions of public dislike of the manner in which Parliament goes about its business. If Canadian parliamentarians are unwilling to effect changes, they must be prepared to accept a further loss of public regard. If, however, they are now ready to embrace reform, there are a number of avenues open to them.

The last quote is from page 93 of the red book. The source is the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing of 1992. It is entitled "Political Cynicism in Canada".

I will read out the quote and the percentage who agree with the statement: "I don't think that the government cares much what people like me think"; 72 per cent agreed with that statement. "Generally, those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people"; 79 per cent agreed with that statement. "Most candidates in federal elections make campaign promises they have no intention of fulfilling"; 82 per cent. "Most members of Parliament care deeply about the problems of ordinary people"; 62 per cent. "Most members of Parliament make a lot of money misusing public office"; 64 per cent.

The problems we have had with the Minister of Canadian Heritage this week illustrate there is a problem. Unfortunately, the government missed a great opportunity this week to show it meant to restore integrity and honesty to government. By not taking fast and appropriate action it has lost the credibility that is so heralded in its famous red book.

Let us get back to recall. Is there identified support for recall? There is a very definite yes in answer to that question. In October 1991 the province of British Columbia had a vote on whether to support recall and 81 per cent of the voters in that province responded in favour of recall. In the March 1994 Gallup poll 75 per cent of Canadians said yes to recall. In the province of Quebec 70 per cent supported recall. In the province of Ontario 78 per cent supported recall.

Let us go now to the question of party affiliation relative to the question of supporting recall. Liberal supporters, 76 per cent endorsed recall. BQ supporters, 76 per cent supported recall. Indeed, there is very strong support for recall.

In the first week of Parliament the need for recall was demonstrated by what happened in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. The member was not good enough for the Liberal Party and was thrown out. The people in that riding now have no member or no way of getting at their member. Just this morning I presented another petition in the House with hundreds of names on it requesting that Parliament do something about this inability for constituents to get at a member who is not representing them.

I cannot understand this reluctance toward recall. I can only assume it is because members have not received the message that the voters want change. That has been demonstrated so clearly. They are still out of touch with voters. The people who pay our wages, our bosses, are telling us and demanding that change be made.

I spoke about the Spicer commission because it reinforces a lot of what I was saying. The final chapter in that report was not written by Mr. Spicer or any of his commissioners, but by one of the Canadians who was interviewed. What he said was: "No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The voters are watching and waiting". I think they are waiting for recall.

[Petitions, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to present a petition signed by approximately 300 people of the Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville riding.

The petitioners claim: "Their member has admitted to inexcusable behaviour. He intentionally misrepresented his credentials and his constituents have absolutely lost all respect for and confidence in their member to represent them".

The petitioners would like their member's indiscretions thoroughly investigated; and if found unfit to serve that his seat be declared vacant so that a byelection may be held.

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today and speak in favour of Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code. We are debating this evening the repeal of a section of the Criminal Code that has raised outrage from coast to coast across Canada.

Section 745 allows early release of convicted murderers. This section of the code sends a confusing message to Canadians. It sends a message that the federal government does not believe that murder is a very serious offence. It sends a message to judges that their sentences are not taken seriously any more. It sends a message to victims of violence that their pain is just not as important any more. It sends a message to criminals that their crimes will be tolerated. It sends a message to all Canadians that their streets and playgrounds will not be as safe.

Unfortunately a family in my riding has had personal experience with section 745 of the Criminal Code. I want to share with all members of the House the experience of Joanne Kaplinski whose brother was brutally murdered.

On January 29, 1978 her brother Ken Kaplinski was working as a night clerk at the Continental Inn in Barrie. He was a hard working law-abiding citizen working to support himself and his little boy John who was then only three years old.

The Continental Inn was robbed that evening of approximately $2,000. Joanne's brother was taken by car some two hours north of Barrie and was shot twice in the head at close range, execution style. His decomposed body was found in a snowbank some two months later. Subsequently two men, Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella, were each convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.

But on January 29, Ken's survivors received a life sentence of their own. They became members of a very exclusive club to which no one wants to belong. The initiation fee is the death of a loved one by violence. Membership dues are extracted from the members each anniversary of the death of their loved one, each birthday that cannot be celebrated, each Christmas their loved one cannot come home for, and each and every day as survivors of such violence.

The Kaplinski family endured two months of not knowing the whereabouts of Ken. They endured the police investigations, the public rumours, the media intrusions loaded with wild speculation and accusations. They endured the identification of his personal effects and the anxious wait for forensic identification of his body. They somehow survived the funeral and the clean-up of the remnants of their brother's life. They raised his young son. In sum, they have spent some 16 years coping with the aftermath of these two killers' actions.

They got on with their lives, or rather got on with picking up the pieces of their shattered lives. Never would they see the world through the same eyes again. Evil was no longer some abstract concept; it became real and tangible. Their profound despair came from being forced to look into the abyss of human cruelty and selfishness.

This past December they were once again forced to revisit that pain, to relive the nightmare of 1978. All their pain and horror was resurrected by the section 745 application of one of the murderers, Allan Kinsella. They thought that after the original trial the men responsible for taking Ken's life in such a cruel and brutal fashion were being made to pay for their actions by forfeiting at least 25 years of their lives under the conditions of incarceration. They simply could not believe that release after serving only 15 years was an option. For Kinsella to have early

parole seemed to them to make a mockery of the original sentence handed down by the trial judge.

The public perception of lack of truth in sentencing serves to further erode the public's confidence in the justice system. They feel duped by the delays and doublespeak of the bureaucrats. By making available section 745 the judicial system is sending out a very clear message to society that murder indeed will be tolerated. It conveys a very sad statement about the value of our lives, yours and mine, as Canadian citizens.

Fortunately for Canadian society and the Kaplinski family, justice was served in the Kinsella hearing. The jury rendered a decision to deny the application for a reduction in parole eligibility.

However, the story does not have a happy ending. The family will again be required to revisit their pain when the co-convicted advances his application. They may never cancel their membership in the victims club, a club where membership indeed has no privileges.

Joanne Kaplinski may not have had to endure a finding in favour of Allan Kinsella, but this is the exception and not the rule in most of these hearings. As of the end of March of this year, 43 reviews have been held under section 745 and only 11 of these convicts have been denied a reduction in sentence. In the majority of hearings, 31 in total, the criminal has received partial or full parole. This is totally unacceptable in the eyes of most Canadians.

Our criminal justice system is overloaded with cases and burdened with high costs. The Kinsella hearing cost taxpayers over $100,000 and there are 600 more convicts waiting in line for their turn at a potential cost of some $60 million. Why would we even consider revisiting the final conviction of the worst kinds of criminals when there are so many more important cases to try?

This country has a serious debt problem. There is no justification for spending our limited resources on such questionable reviews. Let us get the sentence right the first time, at the conclusion of the original trial and put the offender away for the full sentence with no exceptions.

Many of the proponents of section 745 like to talk about how good it is that victims of violence will be able to read an impact statement at the judicial review. They mention the fairness that this implies. In their view this balances victims' rights with those assigned to the convicted.

The truth is that currently there are no legal requirements for the crown to notify the victim's family so they may testify at these hearings. The judge may decide not to allow such statements. Even if such statements are allowed, what about the victims of the violence? What about the pain they must relive and the public scrutiny they must endure? Many victims may be fearful of the convicted and refuse to testify, and with good reason considering the recent case of Allan Kinsella and the testimony of Joanne Kaplinski.

Now, as many members of the House will be aware, one of Ken Kaplinski's murderers has escaped from a so-called medium security prison near Kingston. As a result the Kaplinski family lives in terror. Joanne Kaplinski is now under 24-hour police supervision because she had the courage to stand up as a victim at the section 745 trial of Allan Kinsella, a trial that should never have taken place.

Many of the supporters of section 745 have talked about the value of offering inmates faint hope. They believe convicts will be better behaved and work toward rehabilitation. We should not be providing incentives for prisoners to behave, this should be expected. Rehabilitation of prisoners is of secondary importance to deterrence and punishment. These arguments in favour of offering faint hope are just plain wrong.

We have an immediate example in the case of Allan Kinsella. This brutal murderer should never have been given the time of day let alone an expensive court hearing and the right to intrude on the lives of his victims once again.

There is no fairness in the system for the victims of violence. Sentencing should be certain and should be determined by the original judge in the original trial.

The justice minister stated in this House yesterday that an amendment would be made to section 745 so that the courts would have to hear from the families of the victims. What if these families are too frightened or pained to testify? What if this is interpreted by the courts as non-interest by the victims and a point in favour of early release? This amendment would offer no guarantees to a public concerned about its safety.

There are three principles that are fundamental to sentencing: deterrence, punishment and the protection of society. All of them may be violated by section 745 of the code. Deterrence is lessened by section 745 because a potential criminal knows his crime may not receive the otherwise full punishment available. Punishment may of course be violated because murderers who have been given a full sentence may get away with only serving three-fifths of it. Protection of society is lessened as more criminals are freed to commit more crimes and serve less time.

For the sake of Joanne Kaplinski, for the sake of her family and indeed for all victims of this most brutal violence, let us put a stop to this madness and remove section 745.

Clearly there is a problem with the criminal system in this country. The criminal system needs the justice put back in it. This was an election issue and I was elected on a very specific platform. The Reform Party introduced a comprehensive policy on criminal justice during the 1993 election. It states very clearly where we stand on section 745.

We support a criminal justice system that places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens above all other objectives. We also state very specifically that we support amendments to the criminal law which ensure greater certainty in sentencing.

I will close by asking all members to think of the Kaplinski family and indeed all other families who have lost loved ones to such senseless and vicious killers. Support Bill C-226 and remove section 745.

[Infrastructure Program, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 100,000 short term jobs means one day or one week for some workers. Yet every Canadian family is paying $800 for this program.

How does the minister justify those few jobs at such a high cost to our taxpayers?

[Infrastructure Program, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the past year boccie courts, the Saddledome and a canoe hall of fame have all been funded under the guise of infrastructure. By the minister's own figures we have only seen 7,000 long term jobs created. However in the same time and in spite of government interference the private sector has created over 300,000 long term jobs.

When will the minister admit that his program has not lived up to the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs but indeed has dug the debt hole deeper?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I had concluded my remarks just prior to Question Period but I would be prepared to answer any questions.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition requests that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Refusing to define the statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre. The petitioners request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker , it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to respond to the government motion on social program reform. It is indeed encouraging to see the Liberal Party which brought us these failed experiments in social engineering finally concede that its programs are unworkable and unsustainable.

Canada is under attack today, far greater than any attack that might have come our way by war. We are under attack by a deficit and a debt that are dragging us down. The finance minister has come to appreciate this. In the last week or so he has been talking about the fact that we are in debt to our eyeballs, the impact that debt has on job creation and indeed the threat to our social programs.

I am pleased we are having this discussion today because the social programs we are talking about represent such a huge part of the federal government's budget. In addressing these programs we must find a way of delivering them not only cheaper but better. I think that can be done. Over the years we have thrown money at these problems to the detriment. We have not helped the situation, we have aggravated it.

I look forward to this discussion today. I would like to point out there should be no question that when it is all over there must be a dollar saving. The taxpayers are asking for it. It was reflected in the study reported today in the Financial Post that Canadian taxpayers are supporting what is going on here because they very much believe it is going to represent a saving in tax dollars, which we all so desperately need. I want to make that point. It is not something the government should be ashamed of. It is something the people in this country want and are asking for.

Nowhere is it more evident in the Liberal attempt to change or reorder society than in the social programs that directly intrude on the family. The whole area of child care expenditure with the state as the nanny is a clear example of this intrusion. Today I will look at the Liberal ideas and current programs and I will offer the Reform constructive alternative.

The Liberal social security discussion paper describes institutional day care as a priority if social programs are to be reformed. It states that we must provide working parents with the assurance of quality care. I would ask what care could possibly be better than quality care offered by the child's own parents? No government program or initiative, no matter how well thought out and expensive, could ever provide the love and affection or match the quality of care that only parents can provide.

The minister stated in the House when asked about informal child care, meaning family, friends and neighbours, that parents have to work because that is how they get sufficient income. The minister should have said sufficient disposable income because

almost all Canadians earn more than sufficient wages. This government and others tax over half of it away. It is excessively high taxes that have forced both parents out to work.

When my Reform colleagues and I came to Ottawa we promised to be a constructive alternative, to be open and honest and offer our best solutions to the debate. We have done this in many ways, including producing our plan to eliminate the deficit in three years and a comprehensive policy manual called the blue sheet.

Today in this House I am going to make it very clear where the Reform Party stands on the reform of social programs directed at children. I am also going to give the minister some clear direction in some areas where he can cut spending or spend more effectively.

The Reform Party believes that the care of children is the domain of families and that parents must have full responsibility in Canadian society to nurture, provide for and rear their children. Current federal government programs are intrusive and restrict the choices that parents may make in deciding on the best type of care for their family.

The role of government is to provide a fair tax and benefit system that provides parents with the opportunity to properly care for their children in a manner of their choosing. Government must uphold the authority and responsibilities of parents as exclusive in the area of child rearing. The only acceptable direct role for the government is as an intervener to protect children in cases of abuse or neglect.

According to the red ink book, this Liberal government is spending over 400 million tax dollars a year on institutionalized day care already and plans to spend an additional $720 million over the next three years. Given the recent discovery that the current deficit is indeed as serious as we have been saying all along, how do we justify this? A Reform government would end all state run day care.

We believe that the federal government should not involve itself with day care programs in any way. If regulation of services is necessary then this should be provided by the level of government closest to those Canadians receiving the service which can most efficiently provide that regulation. Regulation of day care is a provincial responsibility and should remain so. Federal involvement in and funding for day care should be terminated.

Let us make no mistake about this point. Federal governments have long justified their intrusion in matters of provincial social program responsibility with the short phrase: "They cannot afford to fund it fully themselves". If the provinces cannot afford it, it is because it is indeed unaffordable. There is only one source of funding for all levels of government because there is only one taxpayer. If taxpayers cannot afford something provincially, what makes the Liberal government think that it can afford it?

The military family support program is a small bureaucracy within the Department of National Defence that costs taxpayers $16 million a year and which does not directly benefit one child. There is another $100 million to be saved by eliminating the children's bureau of Health Canada. This is not a Liberal creation. It was a pet project of the failed government of Brian Mulroney. There should be no opposition from this Liberal government to eliminating this large Conservative created bureaucracy that exists simply to study day care and push so-called safe sex education. Little of this $100 million directly benefits children.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spends $270 million on various child care programs. Much of this money is directed at institutions and so-called professionals. This is unacceptable to the Reform Party and we believe it must stop.

The child care expense deduction is an example of gross inequality in our tax system, discriminating against stay at home parents. This tax deduction will cost over $1.5 billion in lost revenue per year while the modest supplemental benefit is another $400 million.

There are several reasonable alternatives to this current situation. However the bottom line is that any benefit which is given to parents to care for their children must be applied equally regardless of employment status.

A few weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance shot down a bill in this House that would have allowed parents to split some of their income for taxation purposes. Such a measure would have introduced some of the equity and fairness we as a party are looking for. It would also have recognized the value of the work of stay at home parents who are mostly women.

This government likes to talk about defending women's rights and introducing equality for women. In fact, it has even appointed a secretary of state responsible for so-called women's issues. I wonder which issues this secretariat represents. Are they the issues pushed by NAC and the day care lobby? They are certainly not responding to the needs and concerns of working Canadian parents, the majority of whom wish to have one parent stay at home to raise their children as was made quite clear by the recent Angus Reid poll on the family.

We believe that tax reform will be a key aspect of any true reform of social programs. As a party, Reformers believe that a move toward a system of flat taxation will lower administrative costs dramatically and introduce new fairness to taxation.

With respect to children, the Reform Party would continue to recognize the costs associated with their care through a tax credit that would be available to those families with dependent children who are in financial need. The credit would be a simple line on the income tax form and applied directly to each year's taxes. Such a system would provide fair treatment to all families and allow parents the freedom to make their choices about providing the best care for their children.

There are some obvious spin-off benefits to the family centre policy that the Reform Party is advocating. Parents provide the best nurturing environment for their children. Children who are raised in other environments are statistically more likely to engage in criminal activity, do poorly in school and become a burden on the social safety net. It is in the best interests of all Canadians, financially and otherwise, to ensure that children receive the best possible care available, the care that exists within the family.

I have pointed out areas of spending in which this Liberal government can find savings in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have described some basic ways to make the social programs currently directed at children more equitable while allowing parents more options.

Let us get out of the day care business, provide a fair tax system and allow families the freedom to make their own decisions. I believe that we need to put the needs and concerns of families first. We can achieve our deficit cutting goals, save our social safety net-

[The Economy, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently spoken out against the infrastructure program as a program which taxpayers cannot afford in view of the deficit and debt we are struggling with.

Since the government was determined to spend tax money I supported a project that was infrastructure and included private sector funding. If we are going to put additional debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren let it be to the common benefit.

At least this project was true to the red ink book promise of transportation and communication links and water and sewage. There is no mention in the red ink book about boccie courts, canoe halls of fame or trade centres. It is this deviation that causes distrust in the voters.

Given the recent discovery by the finance minister that the deficit and debt are indeed as serious as Reformers said they were this program should be stopped now.

The debt clock this morning is at $535,119,203,409.