Dick Harris

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in venue after venue in the 1993 election the Liberal candidates across the country told the Canadian voters that they would scrap, kill, abolish the GST. That is the fact.

Taxpayers across this country are going to remember because we are going to keep reminding them that they are going to pay for this Liberal promise, this yet another Liberal broken promise. They are going to pay for this harmonization scam of the Liberals that will hurt every Canadian taxpayer because to get the Atlantic Canada provinces, the ones that agreed to harmonization, the Liberals will give the Atlantic Canada provinces a cash payment to induce them to come on to this scheme.

This payment to Atlantic Canada provinces, the ones that have joined on, that have been duped into it by the Liberal Party, is going to amount to about $1 billion a year just to satisfy the whims of this Liberal government to make it look not quite so bad. They can once again try to fool the Canadian people but they will not get away with it.

Taxpayers in every other region of Canada will be offering tax relief to Canadians in just a few provinces, the provinces that have been coerced into joining this GST harmonization plan.

Canadians in certain regions of the country I do not think should be asked to subsidize a tax cut for maritime provinces that came in on this plan because of this Liberal harmonization scam. But the Liberals are using $1 billion from taxpayers to buy a buried GST in Atlantic Canada so that they can say they kept their election promise. That simply is not going to sell to the Canadian people. This is truly despicable and Canadians will not be hoodwinked by this Liberal trickery, this Liberal sleight of hand.

Atlantic Canadians will also suffer because while they may pay a lower tax rate in this harmonization scam, they will pay taxes on a larger range of goods and services. You do not get something for nothing, particularly when a Liberal government is running the country. If people think they are actually getting something from this government, they should keep their hands on their wallets and watch their back pockets. The government will not give you what it has not first taken away from you.

The harmonized tax will apply to children clothing-wonderful-books, hair cuts, funeral services, heating oil, home renovations, gasoline and new homes. New home prices will rise by about 5.5 per cent and municipalities will be forced to raise their property taxes.

It will cause an increase in gas taxes that will cost Atlantic Canadians as much as $100 million a year. It will cost them more to heat their homes and funerals will cost more. The Liberals have even managed to make dying more expensive. When will the Liberals begin taxing births? That way they could get you coming and going. We should talk to the Minister of Finance and the revenue minister about this.

In all, this harmonization package is a bad deal for Atlantic Canadians and the maritime provinces generally. It is a bad deal for Canadians. Let us see what some of the other provinces said about this Liberal harmonization package which the Liberals are peddling as this huge great deal.

Ontario said that the plan would cost its consumers between $2 billion and $3 billion extra a year if the harmonized tax were implemented in Ontario. Ontario's premier said that giving the subsidization package to the maritimes represented nothing more than a bribe. That was his word, not mine.

Alberta's premier, who also runs a good fiscally responsible province, said that the compensation component was a bribe put forward to get the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada to sign on to the deal.

It will surprise the Liberals that Saskatchewan's minister of finance said that the plan would mean a massive tax shift on to the province's consumers. Who said NDP finance ministers do not know what is going on? Congratulations to Saskatchewan's finance minister.

Manitoba also said that the cost to consumers would be too high and that it would not sign on to it.

This deal will not only hurt consumers, it will hurt business in Atlantic Canada. Three major retailers have said that their net annual retail deficit will total $27 million once this plan is implemented. The Retail Council of Canada knows what it is talking about. It stated that the harmonized tax will cost retailers $100 million a year.

We are talking about a massive extra consumer tax. We are talking about deception. I urge Liberal members who have integrity to stand up in this House, stand behind their campaign promises and say no to this deception.

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for the Chair.

During the 1993 election the Liberal candidates went coast to coast and they mis-

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the Liberal candidates prior to the 1993 election when they went campaigning and they were saying they would kill the GST, they would scrap or abolish it. That is a deliberate misrepresentation.

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-70 which deals with the GST harmonization in Atlantic Canada. The word harmonization reminds me of the song "I said it but I didn't really mean it", a very famous song.

It also gives me an opportunity to remind the Liberals in the House and, most important, their constituents, the Canadian taxpayers, of what was said on the campaign trail about the GST by the very Liberals who are sitting as the government today.

This is a little game called recall. First, let us recall the words of the Prime Minister when he was a candidate for the Liberal Party. He said: "We hate it and we will kill it". He did not say: "We hate it and we will harmonize it".

The Minister of Finance when he was campaigning as a Liberal candidate said: "I would abolish the GST". Pay careful attention to the word abolish. That means to get rid of, to lose sight of, to bury. That does not sound anything like: "I would harmonize the GST".

Our very own minister of defence said when he was a candidate: "The GST is a regressive tax. It has to be scrapped and, by golly, if we are elected to government, we will scrap it".

All across this country as the campaign went on Liberal candidate after Liberal candidate knocked on doors, spoke at public meetings and said in unison: "We will kill the GST. The Liberal Party will kill the GST if we become government in the next election". That is what they said. Everyone heard it. I was on radio shows with Liberal candidates and they could not wait to say "we will kill the GST".

It is sort of fun to go back in time and reminisce about what happened in the 1993 election. But there is a very serious part to all this. The bottom line is that the Liberal candidates in the 1993 election, prior to it, deliberately misled the Canadian people about what they were going to do with the GST. They deliberately misled the Canadian people.

[Impaired Driving, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification to the Minister of Health, the motion as it is written is in its entirety and that the government should consider. Let me just add if the motion is passed by the House, the hope is that the government knowing its responsibility will indeed send the motion to the justice committee for the recognition this serious issue deserves. That is the intent of the motion.

[Impaired Driving, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax did in fact vote against Bill C-201. Therefore I assumed and probably correctly but we will wait to hear what she has to say, that she is going to oppose M-78 as well because the Liberal government members opposed Bill C-201. The member for Halifax in her duty does everything the Liberal government members tell her to do.

The justice minister took no pains to move quickly to follow a personal agenda when he brought in gun control measures. He said that he wanted to fight crime because 196 people are murdered each year by firearms in the hands of criminals. We support the fighting of crime. And if that bill were effective, we need effective controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because gun deaths are no less a crime. However, considering that 196 people are killed each year in Canada at the hands of criminals who have firearms and considering that 1,650 people were killed last year by impaired drivers, I ask the question: What reasonable justice minister would fail to recognize the severity of the crime of impaired driving and the consequences? What reasonable thinking justice minister would fail to recognize that? The justice minister of the Liberal Government of Canada is the person who fails to recognize it.

The Liberals are on the wrong track. They refuse to act on impaired driving. They prefer to follow their own agenda with useless and ineffective gun control legislation. They refuse to deal with a crime that killed over 1,600 people in this country last year.

The Liberal government talks about promoting safety in our society. I say that the Liberal government is incapable of promoting community safety and it has shown it by refusing to move on the issue of impaired driving. It is the justice minister who is compromising community public safety by pursuing his personal agendas rather than dealing with the serious crime of impaired driving.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice whether his government will take the time to deal with Motion M-78. He stated in his presentation on Bill C-201 that the justice committee was too busy to deal with Bill C-201. Motion M-78 gives the Liberals an opportunity to deal with impaired driving in a far more comprehensive manner than Bill C-201 offered so let us give it that opportunity. Will the justice committee once again be too busy to deal with this serious crime?

Why is the government not doing everything possible? It is beyond me. Why is the government not doing everything possible to deal with impaired driving, which is at an epidemic stage? Why does the Liberal government continue to look on impaired driving as some sort of social ill? It is a crime to drink and drive in this country. It is a crime to make that choice, to get behind the wheel of your car when you are impaired. Certainly it is a crime when you kill or injure someone.

Yet the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize that. He prefers to treat it as some sort of social ill, and that must stop.

Why does the Minister of Justice have no initiatives whatsoever to deal with impaired driving in Canada? It is the number one cause of criminal death and injury in this country. Yet the Minister of Justice and the government members have refused to deal with it. Why? What do they have to say to the families of victims of impaired drivers?

I support Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the organization's recommendations that the blood alcohol content be lowered to .05 and the two hour sampling time be extended or eliminated. I support that. I believe those caught driving while impaired should face higher fines, longer jail terms and licence suspensions.

The Liberal members in opposition to my last bill said deterrence is not a factor here, that we cannot deter someone by threatening to impose a stiff sentence or a stiff fine. I would say

that of all the crimes in this country that are preventable by deterrence it is impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, you could go outside now and ask the first 100 people you meet on the street why they prefer to take a taxi when they have been drinking, and the number one answer will be because they do not want to get caught. That is the number one answer.

Why do they say that? They know there is a fine involved and a licence suspension. They do not want to get caught. It is not the fact that they do not think they can drive home all right, but they do not want to get caught. That is deterrence. If we stiffen up the fines, the licence suspensions and the jail terms in case of death or injury I know we are going to see a marked improvement in the statistics concerning impaired driving.

As well, I support a two and a seven year minimum sentence respectively for those convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death. I believe we have to have sentences that reflect the severity of the crime.

I believe that sentencing ranges are commensurate with the gravity of the crime and mirror the sentence available for those convicted of criminal negligence causing death. I believe we have to get tough with people who drink and drive.

I am aware that changing the Criminal Code is not the silver bullet to end all impaired driving but it is important that this Liberal government show some leadership on this issue. It is important that it take an important step, but it is not the only step that needs to be taken. It has to examine the whole range in the Criminal Code that deals with impaired driving. It also has to look at rehabilitation for impaired drivers while they are in prison.

Evidence suggests that the majority of impaired drivers have a problem with alcohol and have faced similar charges in the past. Statistics show that up to 70 per cent of the people who cause death and injury through impaired driving do have alcohol problems. Accordingly, and the Liberals are going to hate this one, the government should consider using its order in council powers to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that those serving time for impaired offence absolutely must successfully complete a rehabilitation program as a condition of parole.

Some Liberals will stand up and say this is a human rights violation, that we cannot force anyone to get better, that we cannot force anyone to turn their life around. Tell that to the victims of impaired driving. Tell that to the families of the victims of impaired driving.

The federal government should encourage the provinces to introduce random breathe tests. This would give the police the opportunity to make random stops and request the breath test without having to prove reasonable and justifiable cause. Members know that lawyers have a field day with the reasonable and justifiable cause section of the Criminal Code. However, areas that have introduced random breath testing have found a dramatic decrease in the incidence of impaired driving. That is because the chance of getting caught has been made even greater.

At present some provincial forces do use random breath tests to deter and catch impaired drivers. As I said, research indicates that random breath testing has an effect on the number of impaired drivers.

We must look at a whole range of measures in order to deal with the very serious issue of impaired driving. Motion No. 78 allows us to look at those measures. It allows government members, Bloc members, Reform members, NDP members and Conservative members to come together in the justice committee to seriously deal with the issue of impaired driving.

The Liberal government must get away from its belief that impaired driving is some sort of social ill. It has to start looking at it as a serious crime. I look forward to the debate which will follow on this motion and I will listen with interest to the suggestions and recommendations that come from colleagues in this House.

However, it is important to point something out which probably reflects the feeling of Liberal government members. The philosophy of some Liberals has been stated in a letter by the member for Simcoe North. He believes that this is some sort of political game. He believes that Reformers, I included, have grabbed this issue for some sort of political gamesmanship. I am saddened to see that comment in a letter.

The member for Simcoe North also says that the federal government cannot dictate to the provinces how they should deal with impaired drivers. I know that some areas that deal with impaired driving are within provincial jurisdiction. But the fact is this Liberal government has to take some leadership on this issue. It is duty bound to take leadership. It should encourage the provinces to deal more effectively with impaired drivers.

The member for Simcoe North also said in his letter: "The issue is whether Motion No. 78 will be effective and appropriate measures to deal with the problem. I can't support them because of serious reservations which I have explained and substantiated". Whatever they were.

"One reservation is that these measures are based on the false premise that longer sentences lead to reduced repeat offences. The evidence simply doesn't support this view".

Longer sentences and mandatory rehabilitation will reduce this crime and I urge the members to deal with this.

[Impaired Driving, December 2nd, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on this very important Motion No. 78.

I was also pleased to take part in the kick off for the red ribbon campaign by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers which occurred on Parliament Hill over the weekend. This campaign involves tying red ribbons around the antennas of vehicles through the holiday season to tell people that they should not drink and drive and to publicize the epidemic in this country of drinking and driving.

Last year MADD Canada distributed over three million red ribbons to tell people about the hazards and the consequences of drinking and driving. This year they expect and hope to have a red ribbon on every single antenna of every single car in Canada. I absolutely support that and I will do whatever I can to promote it.

September 19 was the last time I spoke in the House on the important issue of impaired driving. That was the third and final hour of debate on my Bill C-201. The bill would have established minimum sentencing and stronger deterrents against impaired driving in particular to deal with people who choose to drink and drive and as a result kill. Unfortunately, Bill C-201 was narrowly defeated in this House by 31 votes, with the help of the Bloc members almost all of whom voted against it, and with the help of many of the Liberal members who voted against this bill.

I did receive support from some of the Liberal backbenchers, from numerous NGOs, including MADD Canada, and tens of thousands of Canadians across the country. Despite the defeat of Bill C-201, this support has only strengthened my resolve to push forward to ensure that some day the federal government will take the lead in developing measures to combat impaired driving in this country.

Once again I remind members of the Liberal Party opposite that this issue transcends all political lines. It is an issue that is so important in the minds of Canadians yet Liberal government members refuse to grasp that. They play party politics with the lives of Canadians.

I would like to thank the Liberal members who did support Bill C-201. On behalf of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Canadians who are keenly interested in this issue, I know that their appreciation has been shown as well.

For those Liberal and Bloc members who opposed it, I sincerely hope on behalf of all of Canada's impaired driving victims that they see the value of Motion No. M-78. I hope that they see this as an opportunity to get into real and positive debate on the issue of impaired driving. I hope the comprehensive approach to impaired driving that Motion No. M-78 offers will give the Liberals some comfort zone that it will not go against their policy or philosophy of being soft on crime.

We all have our own ideas of how to combat impaired driving. Motion No. M-78 gives the government, particularly the Minister of Justice, as well as the Bloc members the opportunity to discuss Motion No. M-78 in the justice committee setting. They could bring forward their ideas and witnesses would appear. It would bring this terrible, senseless and 100 per cent preventable crime to the forum that it deserves, the justice department of the Government of Canada.

Almost every province has taken action on this issue. Almost every province has taken steps to deal with the crime of impaired driving in a way that reflects the severity and epidemic state of this crime, but the Liberal government has refused to follow their lead. It is the very government that should be setting an example in being proactive on the issues which concern the Canadian people, but the Liberal government has refused to deal with impaired driving to treat the issue with the respect and seriousness it deserves.

Ontario has recently followed the lead of many other provinces and introduced a 90-day roadside licence suspension. Other provinces have lowered the blood alcohol content for temporary suspensions and have established higher mandatory minimum licence suspensions for those convicted of impaired driving. Some provinces have set lower BAC limits for young drivers. Some will impound the vehicles of individuals who are caught while driving under suspension. These are positive steps, just a few of the efforts that have been put forward by some of the provinces.

What does the federal Liberal government which should be the leader in this country do? It refuses to deal with the issue. What efforts have come from the Liberal government? None. Just opposition. What proposals have come from the Liberal government? None, even though it voted against Bill C-201.

If the government had been seriously concerned about the issue of impaired driving, it could have brought forward its own proposals. I do not care whether it wants to take some sort of recognition for dealing with impaired driving and leave my bill on the sidelines. The issue is that the government has an obligation to the Canadian people to deal with this issue which is of great concern and it has refused.

The pleas of victims of impaired drivers and their families have been met with opposition and silence from the Liberal government. In 1995, 1,650 Canadians were killed by impaired drivers. I understand that after my presentation the member for Halifax is going to stand up and tell us that is not important.

[Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-230 today, put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.

As I sat here listening to these last two Liberal speakers I got the distinct feeling that these two hon. members must have been living in a complete vacuum over the last three years. This separatist group here has been standing in this House every day since the 35th Parliament started, saying: "We want to secede from Canada. We want to separate from Canada". I wonder if these hon. members have been hearing that.

This is why we got into so much trouble in the referendum in Quebec. This government appears now, after listening to the member for Simcoe North and the member for Ottawa-Vanier, to prefer to just carry on the with status quo. Let us just try and keep doing what we have been doing.

That is what almost lost us the referendum in October 1995. This government, these Liberals, would not face up to the fact that these separatists and the Quebecers they duped into following their line want to separate from Canada.

What does it take to get the message across? I do not want that province to leave Canada. That province belongs as much to British Columbians, Nova Scotians, Albertans, Ontarians and Saskatchewanians as it belongs to Quebecers. It part of Canada, even though only one part.

This Liberal government, the member for Simcoe North, says that we want to proceed with positive and constructive measures. That is Liberal talk for we want to have more appeasement and more accommodation for the province of Quebec.

I cannot believe the member for Ottawa-Vanier said the Reform Party talks about a hypothetical scenario of secession. The Bloc and the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec just went through a referendum in 1995 to determine whether the people wanted to separate. There is nothing hypothetical about that. What is the member for Ottawa-Vanier thinking about? He says it is absolutely important that we ensure that all cards are on the table.

We stood in this House day after day leading up to the referendum in 1995 and told the Prime Minister and this Liberal government, whose members were sitting on their hands: "For goodness' sake, put the cards on the table for people who are thinking about leaving Quebec by voting yes. Put the cards on the table".

There were no cards on the table. We came that far from a yes vote because this Liberal government did not have the backbone then to put the cards on the table. It obviously does not have it now to put the cards on the table.

The member for Ottawa-Vanier made another incredulous statement that the Reform Party would like to exploit the differences between Canadians. What an incredible statement.

There has been no political party in the history of Canada that has done more to foster the differences between Canadians than the Liberal Party of Canada in any Parliament at any time of our history since 1867.

Continually, day after day, year after year, the Liberal government, whatever it was of whatever year, has done more to foster the differences between Canadians than to bring Canadians together as one people.

That is on record a million times. How can the member for Ottawa-Vanier talk about the Reform Party's wanting to exploit the differences when this party has built its political career by fostering the differences between Canadians? What an incredible statement.

The reason the member for Okanagan-Shuswap put forth Bill C-230 was that this government does not have the guts to deal with these separatists on a face to face basis. It would rather beat around the bush and try to smooth things over.

We are talking about a group of Quebecers-thank God not all Quebecers, a majority want to stay in Canada-who have been duped by a small group of politicians into believing that there is some nirvana out there if they should leave Canada, a nirvana called Quebec nationhood.

I say thank goodness the referendum failed in 1995. Unless this Liberal government gets its act together, it may not win the next referendum the separatists hold. If it continues on a path of do nothing, say nothing and hope the problem will go away, its members are going to lose.

Now we get down to the issue of Bill C-230. I say that Quebec is part of Canada and always has been. Since we became the country of Canada, Quebec has been a part of it. It has enjoyed the benefits of Canada as Canada has enjoyed the benefits of the province of Quebec. We have a country here. We have a nation.

But some people in Quebec have decided that somehow they will be better off if they leave this great country of ours. Somehow they have managed to convince a number of people in the province of Quebec that this would be a good thing to do.

In 1995 in the last referendum, did they talk about separation leading up to the actual voting day? No. They talked about some fuzzy sovereignty association. The Liberal government would hardly even mention the word separation in this House unless we dragged it out of them.

This separatist group that wants to break up this country did not have the courage to put a simple question to the people of Quebec: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no? It referred to some bill that had been passed in the Quebec legislature that dealt with some sort of fuzzy sovereignty association, negotiating some arrangement with Canada.

The separatists say they want to separate but they did not have the guts to go to the people of Quebec and ask them if they wanted to leave Canada, period. That is what the question should have been. If that had been the question that was put, the no vote would not have squeaked by like it did. The no side would have won by a huge majority because the people would have clearly understood the question. It would not have been some convoluted question that the separatists came up with, but it would have been a clear question.

The Reformers stood here and talked to the Prime Minister. We said: "Why do you not tell the people of Quebec what they are voting for? Why do you allow the separatists to put this convoluted question before them? Why is the Liberal government not saying something about it? Why are you not clarifying it?" Why did they not put all the cards on the table like the member for Ottawa-Vanier was talking about? That is what we demanded of the Liberal Party. In response the Liberals said: "You Reformers keep out of it. We know how to handle it".

We saw how the Liberal government handled it. It just about lost it. We came close to losing the vote in Quebec because of the Liberal government's inaction. The Liberal government did not have the courage to deal with these separatists head on.

The majority of the people of Quebec do not want to separate from Canada. We cannot believe what this separatist group has been telling us. We cannot believe what Mr. Bouchard in Quebec is saying. We cannot believe that.

The people of Quebec are Canadians who happen to live in the province of Quebec. I would say that if the Canadians who live in the province of Quebec had a clear question put to them: yes or no, do you want to separate from Canada, it would be an overwhelming no. That is what we are demanding in Bill C-230: that this Liberal government have the backbone, the courage to talk about the real question and not to let people get suckered in by these separatists here.

[Pearson Airport, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sure thing that Canadian taxpayers will be paying the Pearson airport piper because of this Liberal government's pathetic performance.

All indications point to a federal settlement where Canadians will be expected to fork over in excess of $60 million for a contract cancellation that this government guaranteed would not cost a penny more than $35 million.

We can probably expect that Canadian travellers will be stuck with a new tax in the future and will all pay it at the airport.

Three years of lost opportunity, multimillion dollar compensation payments and a new airport tax, that is what the people of Canada got from the Prime Minister's irresponsible decision during the 1993 election.

They won the election but once again Canadians lose. It is the Canadian taxpayer who will pay for the Liberal screw-up on the Pearson airport deal.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I actually could not agree with the hon. member more. Let us talk about prevention. Let us have the nerve to talk about the consequences of committing a crime in this country. That is prevention. Let us tell the people out there at the grade school level, at the university level, people in their 20s and 30s, people of all ages in this country, if they commit a crime in this country we are not going to let them get away with it. There is going to be a consequence.

That is called deterrence. However, the Liberal government and the separatist group here do not seem to understand the word deterrent. When I was a kid my mother told me: "If you do that, it is wrong and you will pay a price. There will be a consequence to that". That was a deterrent.

I do not think that kids have changed that much that in their early learning years to not understand that if they do something wrong there will be a consequence. What has changed is the attitude of governments like this and parties like this which say: "We are sorry, there is no such thing as a bad person, only a person who has been a victim of society and these people should be treated fairly because it is not really their fault".

I talked about the Trudeau era which started that philosophy and it is still present today in this Liberal government and with the separatists here there is no such thing as a bad person. They are not to blame. Society made them that way. That is bunk.