Dick Harris

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is now February 7 and the Liberals have been in power since October 26, 1993. There are existing provisions in the Immigration Act dealing with refugees and the enforcement of these provisions to deal with people who come into Canada and commit crimes, and people who come into Canada through the use of devious means. These provisions have been in existence since the Liberals were elected in 1993. The Liberal member for Guelph-Wellington is saying to us and to the Canadian people: "Now that we have Bill C-44, now that we are going to get this bill passed"-they have the numbers, unfortunately-"we are going to start to deal with this thing".

My colleague from Calgary Northeast asked the question: "Why aren't you using the existing provisions of the Immigration Act, existing provisions that are already in force?" That is the question Canadians have been asking for the last year and one-half. We see these criminals running around our country laughing at our laws, laughing at the fact that the immigration department is powerless and have no people on the front lines to enforce the act.

This is a haven for criminals who cannot get along in their own countries. They come to Canada because they know that governments like this current Liberal government support this bleeding heart, liberalized legislation.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am proud to present four petitions dealing with the issue of euthanasia,

assisted suicide from the people of the three towns of Prince George, Vanderhoof and Burns Lake in the great riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and not allow the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30 to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.

I am pleased to say that I concur in every respect with these four petitions.

[Bill C-226, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to participate in the debate of Bill C-226 and in a free vote last Tuesday night which sent Bill C-226 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This bill would strike section 745 from the Criminal Code, thereby denying those sentenced to life imprisonment the opportunity for early parole.

The bill passed by a vote of 136 to 103. This bill demonstrates how the use of free votes can make meaningful input from all parliamentarians and it also demonstrates the value of a truly representative legislature.

I must commend the member for York-South Weston for having the conviction to put this bill forward. I would like to commend all those in the House who voted in favour of this bill.

This is truly a victory for free votes and truly a victory for Canadians who demand a safer society.

[Gun Control, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just as background, Bill C-34 permits self-governing bands in the Yukon to control or prohibit the possession and use of firearms. On October 4 the hon. Minister of Justice did say he would consider special legislation and will show respect to the Indian nations. Canadians are confused about the justification of statements like this when they consider themselves as responsible firearm owners as anyone else in the country.

Would the minister clarify the issue today and tell Canadians if there will in fact be equality in the application of the new firearms legislation, or will special legislation regarding the use of firearms be extended to Canadian Indians in Canada?

[Gun Control, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Justice.

The Minister of Justice has stated that any new firearms legislation will apply equally to all Canadians. On the other hand, the Minister of Justice and the government have also made assurances that special gun control provisions will apply to Indians living in self-governed areas of Canada.

Will the Minister of Justice today clear the air and tell this House if the government indeed is considering special firearms provisions for Canadian Indians?

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 1994]

There are many other bleeding heart Liberals in this government who contend that 25 years in prison is a form of cruel and unusual punishment and that section 745 gives the prisoner some hope or something to look forward to after he has completed 15 years of his sentence.

To them I say what about the cruel and unusual punishment of the victim? To them I say what of the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the victim's family or the victim's community? What of the cruel and unusual punishment that is inflicted on society as a result of the fear that is created from the knowledge that ruthless killers are out early and walking the streets? What about that cruel and unusual punishment? They do not speak of that when they talk about letting prisoners out early, about letter murders out on to the streets.

The second chance that section 745 awards to criminals is denied to the victims and the victim's families. They do not have a second chance to undo a vicious crime such as murder.

In a statement to the House on October 4, I brought to the attention of all members the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had recently allowed a first degree murderer another chance at early parole under section 745 because during his first hearing the crown consistently and improperly appealed to the jury's passions. Does that mean the crown was describing the vicious crime this person had committed? This is improperly appealing to the jury's passions.

It would do well for the bleeding heart Liberals opposite to listen to this. This man was convicted in 1986 for stabbing his victim 132 times-are you listening over there-and using five different knives in the process. Because of section 745 it is possible that this vicious killer will be out walking the streets after serving less than 25 years.

In this specific case I would not hesitate to go beyond simple repeal of section 745. I would reinstate capital punishment for this kind of crime. At very worst this government, this House,

should recommend that such a vicious criminal spend the rest of his life behind bars.

On July 5, 1994 the government created a national crime prevention council, no doubt at great expense to Canadian taxpayers. This council reports to the Minister of Justice on various crime prevention strategies. I would hope that this council would take note of the proceedings here this evening and consider advising the minister to abolish section 745 in the interests and safety of Canadians and our communities, and to bolster the sagging confidence level that Canadians have in the criminal justice system in this country.

I would hope also that the bleeding heart Liberals present here tonight are listening to the speeches from their own colleagues and from members of the Reform Party. I would hope that this council would listen to the pleas of millions of Canadians who are crying for a reinstatement of the death penalty for crimes such as murder.

There are some major problems with the procedure in the way applications are heard under section 745. For instance, under this section hearing the criminal cannot be subject to questioning regarding his offence. Give us a break in this country. However, he can give oral evidence as to his successes and what a good person he has been while in prison.

There have also been cases in the past in which Correctional Services Canada has used the Privacy Act, if you can imagine, to deny the crown information relating to the criminal's behaviour in jail. This amounts to suppression of information which could have a profound effect on whether that person should be out.

Last but not least, it is the taxpayers who are paying for these appeal hearings. In the light of these costs, it is absolutely incomprehensible that the bleeding hearts in this government would continue to support section 745.

The continuation of section 745 is simply not acceptable to the victims of ruthless killers in this country. It is not acceptable to the Canadian people. I hope that the bleeding hearts in this government, in this Parliament, will for once listen to the voice of the Canadian people.

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to support the private member's bill put forward by the member for York South-Weston.

Bill C-226 would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 745 allows prisoners given a life sentence for such crimes as first and second degree murder the opportunity to apply for early parole after serving only 15 years of their life sentence.

I want to give a little background. Section 745 was introduced in 1976 by the Solicitor General of the day who currently sits as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Section 745 was part of Bill C-84 and this bill also abolished capital punishment and established two categories of murder, first and second degree. Both categories of this horrendous crime carry minimum sentences of life imprisonment.

Let me be clear. When Reformers and millions of Canadians speak of life imprisonment for despicable crimes such as murder, it must mean life imprisonment.

A number of states in the U.S. have taken the right steps. They have abolished parole boards to ensure that criminals serve their entire sentence no matter how small or how large their crime.

Here in Canada we maintain parole boards which increasingly come under fire for releasing dangerous criminals into our society. We maintain section 745, giving murders, people who commit horrendous crimes in our society, the opportunity to apply for early parole.

As well, as I understand it their chances of being successful under section 745, under that appeal, are pretty good. As of May 1994, 60 applications have been heard under this section and 43 of these 60 have received some form of early parole. That is about a 72 per cent success rate. That is absolutely unacceptable in Canadian society.

It is my opinion that if the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who introduced Bill C-84, had his way ruthless killers would be out walking the streets after serving only 15 years.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce argues that keeping someone in prison for 25 years serves little purpose. For a crime as heinous as murder, I and millions of Canadians say that 25 years are not nearly enough.

In addition to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce there are many other bleeding heart Liberals in this government who contend that 25 years-

[Petitions, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from my constituency of Prince George-Bulkley Valley and specifically the town of Vanderhoof, B.C.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

I am pleased to say that I personally support both of these petitions.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time therefore I will just say what I want to say to the Minister of Justice.

I listened to him talk about prevention. Prevention is a key element in cutting the violence in our society. I hate and despise violence as much as anyone in the House. I want to hear the hon. minister use the words deterrent, consequence and penalty more often so that I can have some comfort in my belief that more severe consequences for violent crimes is on the hon. minister's agenda.

[First Nations Housing, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the motion put forward by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

This is an important issue. The motion concerns on reserve housing. Having grown up in the central part of British Columbia, I have seen the evidence and I have heard the stories of the deplorable living conditions on some of the reserves.

These conditions can justifiably be called shameful in our society, certainly in the times we live in. Canada enjoys a very high standard of living, yet we have people, whether natives or not, living in abject poverty and deplorable housing situations. This is not something of which we can be proud.

The member suggests in his motion that the government should put more money into an improved housing program. The fact is that present fiscal realities simply do not permit the spending of more money to alleviate the problem.

In my opinion the money that the government is spending on native programs, particularly the housing programs and programs to help the social situation of the natives is already there. If only past governments and the present government spent a little more effectively and a little more efficiently, some of these problems could be looked after with the funds that are presently available.

Unfortunately the popular opinion by the Auditor General is that the Department of Indian Affairs is out of control in its spending. The Auditor General said that the government is throwing ever increasing amounts of money at the native people but the programs are ineffective and inefficient.

The report paints a picture of a disorganized Department of Indian Affairs lacking any direction, lacking any clear goals, lacking any monitoring of its existing spending, lacking any accountability of its existing spending. In fact the Auditor General gives the department a complete failing mark for the way it handles the funds that it has allocated to its department. It is totally out of control.

The funds are there within the department. The Department of Indian Affairs has a $5.8 billion budget. The funds are there. They are just not being utilized effectively.

When members of the Reform Party start questioning some of the things that the government does or some of the things that past governments did, members opposite immediately say that the Reform Party does not care about the plight of the Indians. We do. We feel very strongly about the plight of the Indians.

What we care about as well is the taxpayers' money that the past and present governments have spent trying to solve the problems which the Indians have, trying to come up with solutions to improve their social standards, the plight of how they live, the houses that they live in and the deplorable conditions on the reserves.

We do care about that. That is the reason we questioned the way that the department of Indian affairs of this government spends its money. It is out of control and it is not going to improve until this government gets a handle on how the bureaucracy is spending its money, until it starts making demands for accountability, monitoring, evaluation, and results.

One of the popular opinions in this country concerning the department of Indian affairs is that there is no bureaucrat in that department who ever wants to get the problem solved because if they ever solve a problem they will work themselves out of a job. We have a huge department that is overstaffed, overfunded and underproductive.

There is a considerable amount of problems among the governments with respect to the delivery of the housing services. One of the problems is that the federal, provincial and territory governments are all involved in providing housing. A recent committee report by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs found there was a lack of focus because of these three levels of government that were involved. It was resulting in a patchwork of housing initiatives that really were not solving problems for anyone.

The committee said that there was little or no co-ordination between the three levels of government. The lack of co-ordination is not constrained to governments. It has also been found to be rampant within various departmental programs. For instance, DIAND is not directly involved in housing in the territories. Both Yukon and Northwest Territories have a cost-sharing agreement with CMHC. However, it must be noticed that 50 per

cent of the bands had to make use of CMHC because the funding provided by DIAND was not sufficient.

In order to increase the efficiency of services to bands, some suggested to the committee that the housing programs between DIAND and CMHC be amalgamated. Here we have two government departments asking to be put together to become more efficient. That is not the way the bureaucracy has worked in this country, unfortunately.

In fact, DIAND has no clear statement of federal responsibility with respect to housing for natives living on reserve. Because of this and because of the patchwork of programs among governments, the committee found that the natives living on reserves, which were side by side, could in fact have completely different levels of housing and services.

A very clear message was being delivered to the committee. There are serious problems in the administration of the housing service between various governments and between various government departments.

I conclude by restating what we in the Reform Party believe is the root problem of the deplorable housing conditions that exist on some of the reserves. It is not the fact that they need more money spent. It is not the fact that there is money to be spent because there is not. We have to borrow it on a daily basis to stay alive in this country. The fact is that the money they have, which is adequate, is simply not being used in an effective and efficient manner.

I repeat again, their programs are out of control. Their spending is our of control. There is no monitoring within that department. There is no accountability and quite frankly under this government, we see also there can be no hope for that department to ever get its act together.