Dick Harris

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Let me make a comment and ask a question. "I think my gold plated pension is okay", says the hon. member for St. Boniface. The member talked about performance reports. Let me give him a performance report and then I will get to my question.

Here is a Liberal performance report. Early next month the national debt is going to reach $600 billion. Performance: The Liberals contributed fully two-thirds to that debt. The Liberals contributed about two-thirds to raising the interest payment on that debt to an astounding $48 billion. Performance: The Liberal government has driven the national debt up by $100 billion since it took over in 1993. Soon the Prime Minister will be known all across this country as the $600 billion man.

Does the member for St. Boniface really believe that this Parliament should give the Senate $40 million with no question asked? Does he believe that is the proper and accountable thing to do?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we can make comments and ask questions. I have a question for the hon. member from the separatist party who just spoke.

He is a parliamentarian. If his party is so bound and determined to leave this country, why is there such a tremendous interest in abolishing part of the institution of Canada? Why do those members have this interest if they simply want to leave anyway?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in sitting hear listening to the debate tonight, there is such a contrast in opinions about the Senate in this House that I think the average person is wondering what is going on here.

It is absolutely amazing that members of the separatist party are in this House talking about the future of the Parliament of Canada and the Senate when on a daily basis they talk about leaving the country. I fail to see what their interest is in the future of how this institution is set up. It is a conflict in philosophy.

At the same time, the Liberals on the other side defend the Senate institution which everyone in Canada knows is unaccountable, ineffective and unelected. It is basically a rubber stamp for the government of the day, if it happens to be the majority in the Senate. The Liberals of course seized that opportunity as vacancies became available and appointed their people to Senate positions. I was going to call it a wonderland, and perhaps it is, but it is probably one of the plushest patronage appointments the Liberals and Tories could ever dream up in this institution.

It is very timely that the Reform Party is sitting in this Parliament. Down at the other end of the hall we have an institution that basically serves little or no purpose in this country except to rubber stamp the government's bills.

The Reformers came to this Parliament, beginning with the member for Beaver River, and began talking about a triple E Senate: equal, elected and effective. That rings a fairly common sense idea to most Canadians. Why should someone represent the people who is not elected by the people, they ask? Why should someone be in a position of senator without really having much to do, being basically ineffective? Why is the Senate so unaccountable? It comes to Parliament and asks for $40 million to run its operations. We ask what it is for and the Senate says that we do not really need to know, that it would just like the $40 million.

[Petitions, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents in British Columbia.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that whereas elected members of the Parliament of Canada are duty bound to represent the interests of Canadians for the good of Canada, and whereas members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Queen and to Canada, and whereas members of Parliament have a moral and legal obligation to fulfil their duties in the best interests of all of Canada, therefore the petitioners humbly pray that the leader of the official opposition of the 35th Parliament of Canada and the caucus members of the official opposition party, having breached their allegiance and moral obligations as members of Parliament of Canada, be permanently ejected from the Parliament of Canada.

[Petitions, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.

The first petition notes that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes, that the federal excise tax has increased by 566 per cent in the last 10 years, and that the federal government actually reinvests less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to have the opportunity to represent the voice of the Canadian people in this debate on Bill C-45.

I am amazed listening to the separatist Bloc members and the Liberals across the way. I am amazed at how far removed their thinking is from the average Canadian on the street.

I sit here in utter astonishment as speaker after speaker stands up and basically says that the Canadian people out there do not count. They think this is good and they are going to do it their way. So much for democracy. So much for what the Canadian people think about this.

As a Reformer I will speak on behalf of the Canadian people. Although my words may fall on some pretty deaf ears in the House, at least the Canadian people deserve a chance to be heard and the Reform Party and I will speak on their behalf.

We are talking about Bill C-45. The majority of my constituents and millions of Canadians believe that section of the Criminal Code should be abolished because it serves no purpose. It is no deterrent for people who go out and ruthlessly take a life.

Bill C-45, the minister's pride and joy, introduces a few cosmetic changes at best.

Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Police Association and millions of Canadians want the section repealed. However, the Minister of Justice, just like the separatist Bloc members, have ignored their pleas and are pushing Bill C-45 through the House. It is a shame that a Liberal minister of justice cannot hear or chooses to ignore the cries of the Canadian people.

The bill makes a few amendments to section 745. First, the right of multiple murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole will be removed. However, instead of making this provision retroactive so that it would apply to serial killers such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo who are already incarcerated, it will apply only to those convicted of multiple murders after this bill comes into effect. If a person killed a bunch of people before the bill comes into effect they still have a chance. They can still apply. They are exempt from the bill.

Does the minister believe serial killers who are already incarcerated should have a better chance than those who will commit multiple murders in the future? Is that his logic? Considering what we have heard in the House today, as he sends speaker after speaker to support the bill, I suppose that is the philosophy of the Minister of Justice.

The minister has done nothing to prevent serial killers who are already in jail from getting their day in court and a chance at a reduced parole ineligibility period. He has done nothing. The bill is a sham.

Second, the bill would ensure that the murderer will have to convince a superior court judge that their application has a reasonable chance of success before they would be allowed to proceed before a jury. This sounds like a good measure. However, considering that applicants have had a 72 per cent success rate since May 1994 in having their parole ineligibility reduced, it is unlikely that a judge will find fault with a majority of the applications and dismiss them. In short, the new hurdle the Minister of Justice so proudly stands up to defend, which the Bloc so quickly supported, is really no hurdle at all. We will continue to see far too many section 745 hearings.

Last, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need to find in the applicant's favour.

The bottom line in all of this stuff is that section 745 should not exist at all. This is nonsense. This bill is nonsense. It does not reflect the wishes and the cries of the Canadian people in any way, shape or form. It is typical Liberal touch it up and they will not notice.

This bill was introduced as part of Bill C-84 in 1976 by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was serving as the solicitor general for a Liberal government at the time. Bill C-84 abolished capital punishment and established two categories of murder, first and second degree. However, not too many people-and this is Liberal trickery-noticed the inclusion of section 745 review in the original bill,

As a result, Canadians have had to wrestle and deal with this provision for 20 years. Many Canadians believe that 25 years before being eligible for parole is not a suitable sentence for first degree murder. The polls have consistently shown, and this government will not admit it, that Canadians favour a return of capital punishment for those who are convicted of first degree murder, consistently. Right now almost 80 per cent of Canadians would welcome a binding national referendum on capital punishment.

These Liberals do not hear that. It is not in their philosophy. People are outraged that murderers are given a glimmer of hope after serving only 15 years. What glimmer of hope did these killers give their victims?

Speaking of victims, section 745 does them an incredible disservice. The whole judicial review process causes the revictimization of families and at times of entire communities. Gary Rosenfeldt, whose son was murdered by Clifford Olson, said the whole of section 745 is an insult to victims.

What do we have coming from this Liberal government? Simply window dressing with respect to dealing with section 745. As I said before, this comes as no surprise. The Liberals are constantly promoting the rights and privileges of criminals, constantly mollycoddling the very worse people in our society while victims are completely ignored. If the Liberals had any simple basic understanding of victims' rights, and they do not, they would have abolished section 745. They would not have had to come back to this weak-kneed pointless piece of legislation known as Bill C-45.

I would also like to take issue with this. This really bugs me. Bill C-45, this stupid bill, actually creates categories of good and bad murderers. It actually does that in reality. If you kill one person you will be entitled to a section 745 hearing. These are good murderers according to the Minister of Justice' understanding. If you kill one you are okay.

However, serial killers are not entitled to section 745 review because according to the justice minister's understanding these are bad murderers. It is truly unbelievable that the minister has actually quantified human life in this piece of legislation. He actually has set himself up as a person who can quantify whether one killing is better or worse than two killings. It is unbelievable.

According to this bill a murderer should be given a glimmer of hope if they kill only one person but any more than that and they will not get a review. The minister has set the quota at one life should at a future time they want an opportunity to reduce their parole ineligibility. It is disgraceful. It is reprehensible that the minister would sit down and draft his very own category of murderers, some deserving of leniency and some not.

I submit that one life is as important as two or three or four. If the minister wanted to differentiate between murderers he should have introduced consecutive sentencing. That is the way to deal with it. This would ensure that serial killers like Clifford Olson would never have a chance at parole.

It is time for the government to stand up for Canadians and their desire to have the justice system overhauled. It is time for the government to stand up for victims and against criminals. It is time for the government to stand up and do the right thing and abolish section 745. It should be ashamed that it has introduced such a reprehensible bill. It should be ashamed that it has ignored the views of millions of Canadians, particularly the views of victims' rights groups. I cannot support this bill. My party cannot support this bill. We will stand here speaking for Canadians and will oppose this stupid bill.

[Petitions, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions. They come from people in my riding who are very concerned about the lenient way in which the courts are handling people who choose to drink and drive and as a result kill.

The first petition is signed by several hundred petitioners who pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired does reflect both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.

The second petition is signed by several thousand petitioners from British Columbia. They basically want Canada to embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance toward individuals who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum sentence of 14 years, as outlined in private member's Bill C-201, sponsored by Richard Harris, MP for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-216.

I have listened to the previous speakers, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and to the member from the separatist party. I believe they missed the whole intent of the bill. The bill is not about protecting this or that channel or Canadian or French language content. It is a simple bill about protecting the consumer.

I cannot imagine how hon. members have missed this point. Their arguments have gone completely in another direction intended by the bill from the member for Sarnia-Lambton.

We are beginning the first day of this fall session with a bill which I think is a good piece of legislation. Whether it will be deemed valid because of provincial jurisdiction is a whole other story. However, it is a good piece of legislation, as is the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston. I hope the Liberals do not send this bill to the same fate as they did with Bill C-226.

I am sure many members of the House remember the great cable revolt of January 1995. That was a time when Canadians across the country stood up and said: "We do not like what the cable companies are doing to us. We do not like the way they are billing us. We are saying no to it. We want the opportunity to order something if we want it. If we want extra channels we will order them, thank you very much".

The cable companies thought they could gain a marketing advantage by putting the channels in and then requiring people to say no to them instead of the other way around.

Many MPs' offices were inundated with calls and their fax machines were kept pretty busy during this period. I remember reading that the member for Ontario received so many faxes at his office that the fax machine broke down.

This huge revolt by consumers was sparked by a marketing technique which was created by the cable companies. Members will recall that seven new speciality channels were introduced on cable television on January 1, 1995 and cable subscribers received the channels free for a period of time. At the end of that trial period the onus was put on the subscriber to call their cable companies and say they did not want them if they did not want to be charged for them. That is a little different than the way things began when subscribers actually ordered what they wanted. Now they have to say they do not want them in order not to be charged for the channels.

This is how it came to be called negative option marketing. Consumers are expected to exercise a negative option and decline the service, otherwise they end up paying for it.

Most Canadians were either unaware that the onus would be put on them or they simply could not be bothered phoning in to cancel the new channels. As a result many Canadians ended up paying for a service they did not want, much less understand the billing process the cable companies were trying.

Either way, the negative option marketing is a cash cow for the cable companies and that is why they prefer it. They know there is confusion in the minds of Canadian consumers.

Where else can someone be charged for a service when it is not requested in the first place? Only through this negative option marketing process.

Consumers should be given the opportunity to choose what they want. It is only fair. Negative option marketing turns that concept on its head since consumers are asked to decline a service and if they do not they are charged for it.

That is the whole point behind the private member's bill before us, not this smokescreen of whether it will hurt this particular area of channels? The protection of French language channels is just a smokescreen.

It appears the proponents of these channels some how got to the Bloc members and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage. Only a few months ago the government was indicating this was a good bill. Over the summer maybe some cable company tycoons and some of the ministers went fishing one weekend, came back and lo and behold some of the ministers have a whole new concept about this bill. It is amazing what happens over a summer.

Recently a new collection of channels has been licensed by the CRTC. Consumers are left wondering if they will have to face another negative option marketing blitz like we saw in January 1995. This is all about consumer protection, and hopefully the House will do the right thing to protect consumers and pass Bill C-216 prior to the introduction of these new channels. Hopefully it will do the right thing. Unfortunately that rarely happens in the House.

Further, in the future new competitors will be entering the market to take on the cable companies. Will they be allowed negative option marketing as well? Where is the poor Canadian consumer left in all of this? We saw the uproar last year when they said quite frankly that they did not like this kind of billing. Let us do something about it as parliamentarians and protect the consum-

ers. That is what the bill is all about. Let us forget about the cable tycoons who got to some of these Liberals over here and the French language cable interests that got to the Bloc members over the summer. Let us do the right thing and talk about protecting consumers in this country.

If we pass Bill C-216 we can be assured these new players in the cable industry will not be able to use negative option billing on their consumers. We can be assured that Canadians get only what they order and what they are willing to pay for.

Some of the legislatures in the provinces have had the good sense to implement legislation within the provinces that ban negative option billing, and that is a good thing. If at the end of the day we find that is where the jurisdiction lies, at least we have sent a message from the House of Commons that we support the Canadian consumer.

I believe a ban on this form of marketing is what Canadians want to see and they have spoken loud and clear on this issue. All members of the House are aware of the forcefulness of their constituents' convictions on this matter.

The cable companies certainly should get a great deal of blame for using this somewhat doubtful and slick marketing scheme, but the CRTC is also at fault. Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act instructs the CRTC to be responsive to the evolving demands of the public. Has it been responsive? I am afraid not. Has it been listening to Canadians? The answer is no.

Canadians want an end to negative option billing. The CRTC says no, it is a necessary evil when new programming services are introduced. However, when the chair of the CRTC testified before the heritage committee in May, he saw "no harm in passing Bill C-216".

It appears that members of the CRTC are talking out of both sides of their mouths. One says there is no harm and the other says no, let it pass. Canadians have come to realize the CRTC is not responding to their concerns and is not protecting them from this form of marketing.

Canadians have been demanding direct to home satellite services which exist in every other industrialized nation, but the CRTC says no, it is a threat to Canadian culture. The CRTC prefers to deny consumers what they really want, the option, the choice or the privilege of what they want to see.

The cable companies get a huge cash grab and the CRTC gets money pumped into Canadian programming if this negative option billing is allowed to go on.

This is wrong and it has to stop. Quebec, Nova Scotia and B.C. have moved to ban negative option billing for goods and some services on cable TV because the people have sent a clear message to their premiers that they do not want it.

This House has an obligation to support this bill. I have no problem supporting the bill personally because it is a protection bill. It is a bill that is to protect the Canadian consumer.

[Privilege, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have pointed out the sections of Beauchesne's that apply to this question of privilege. I believe this action is a breach of privilege. As my colleagues have said, it has impeded my ability to function as a member of Parliament.

Here is the point. A handful of members on the justice committee simply cannot arbitrarily decide if they are not going to report a bill back to the House and in that process denying members an opportunity to consider the bill at report stage. That is a fact.

The justice committee is not an entity apart from this legislature. It is an integral part of the legislative process and the functioning of the House. It has a duty to consider bills sent to it by the House and return them with or without amendments.

Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 639(1) says a bill must pass through various stages, on separate days, before it receives the approval of the House of Commons.

One of those stages must be report stage. However, the justice committee has decided to unilaterally alter the legislative process by not reporting the bill back to the House. This is wrong. I cite Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 679(2):

To "commit" a bill means to refer it to a committee, where it is to be considered and reported.

I also believe Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 831(2) may be of some help to you. I am sure you understand this one:

A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference. In the case of a committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the Order of Reference to the committee, which may only report it with or without amendment to the House.

It is pretty clear that the justice committee has acted in an inappropriate manner.