Dick Harris

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

One again the parliamentary secretary is trying to defend Bill C-68, a bill that is completely indefensible. All through the debate we asked the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary from Prince Albert to give us one shred of evidence that Bill C-68 would cut firearm crime like they said it would.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

That is pretty attractive to a Liberal government that does not know the meaning of cutting spending but only knows the meaning of taxation.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, when members are elected to the House it is the general understanding of Canadians that they are sent to the House to represent the views and the concerns of the Canadian people, the people who go to the polls to elect them. We in the Reform Party truly believe that is our role here, to act on behalf of our constituents but also to represent the voice of the Canadian people even in ridings where we were not elected if they are not being represented by the MPs who were elected in those ridings.

We are seeing with the Liberal Party, with this government and in particular the Minister of Justice a complete and absolute failure to deal with issues of justice and issues concerning the Criminal Code that will respect the concerns of the Canadian people. There is no larger example of the use of the word failure when it comes to the Liberal Minister of Justice. I would like to talk about some of the failures.

The whole debate today is the failure of the Liberal justice minister to properly address issues in legislation that have been put forward by his department. The amendments in Bill C-17 reinstate the automatic right of victims to present impact statements at parole or judicial hearings. This right was granted through Bill C-41, then taken away through Bill C-45. This is not only a failure of the concerns of the Canadian people but it is a huge example of the incompetence of the Minister of Justice who was put in that position.

The justice minister is the highest justice position in the Canadian government. He was put in that position because the Prime Minister had confidence that he could do that job. He has failed to do that job and not only has he failed in this instance to appropriately recognize the deficiencies in the legislation that he put forward and take steps prior to it being introduced in the House, he failed to understand what the Canadian people wanted. He failed to understand how important victim impact statements are parole or judicial hearings. He failed and failure is not acceptable when it comes to justice issues, nor is it acceptable when it comes to dealing with the issues of the Canadian people.

That is what this minister has done, he has failed. He failed in this case. He failed in bringing in appropriate legislation under Bill C-68. He told the country that Bill C-68 was to be the be all and end all to eliminating firearms crimes. That is what he said over and over. The Liberal said this was going to fix people who commit firearms offences in Canada.

There was not one substantial piece of evidence to support that rationale. There is not one member of the Liberal Party who has been able to put forward one shred of evidence to clearly show that Bill C-68, the gun control bill, ever had any hope of addressing criminals who commit firearms crimes.

It will accomplish something.

My theory and the theory of many Canadians is that the agenda behind Bill C-68 is a massive cash grab by the government. The average between the high and the low estimates of firearms is probably around 10 million. Under Bill C-68 the Liberal government has the complete freedom to impose registration fees. The government is not restricted. It can impose annual fees on every registered firearm. It will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 a year to own a firearm. That would be $1 billion.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. chairman of the justice committee asked me if we were supporting Bill C-46. I said that bill has some merit and in all likelihood we will be supporting it. Then the member asked me why we did not support Bill C-68. There is quite a contrast in credibility in those two questions.

I want to clearly say to the chairman of the justice committee and all Liberal members that the reason the Reform Party did not support Bill C-68 was it was a completely redundant piece of legislation. It had no value. We are inclined to support bills which have value, but that bill had none.

Members of the Reform Party, I included, stood in the House day after day debating Bill C-68 and we implored the Minister of Justice and all Liberal members to give us one substantive piece of evidence that Bill C-68 would stop the criminal use of firearms and would fight crime in the country. If they had been able to do that, perhaps we might have supported the bill. However, in all the hours of debate on Bill C-68 the Minister of Justice was unable to answer that question. He was unable to provide one shred of evidence that the gun control bill would do any good for the country or would prevent one crime in the country involving a firearm.

Everyone in Canada knows that the reason is law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes with firearms. It is the crooks who commit the crimes. I cannot imagine one crook in this country who gives a darn about the Liberal justice minister's gun control bill.

Therefore he was unable to reply to that question, as he has been unable to reply to many questions. Today the hon. member for Crowfoot asked him some great questions in question period and he was unable to reply.

As we have done so many times in representing the people of Canada, we have asked pertinent questions, meaningful questions on justice issues, on behalf of victims of crime, on behalf of law-abiding citizens, but the Liberal government is lost somewhere in space with the Hale-Bopp comet and is not with it when it comes to justice issues.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening to what I said she would have clearly heard me say I intend to support Bill C-46.

Certainly this is far from a major initiative, for goodness' sake. If this bill is a major initiative to the hon. member, the chair of the Liberal Justice committee, then this country is in a lot more trouble than we think it is.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.57 p.m.)

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

I apologize. When Reformers were elected in 1993 and prior we said to our constituents that if the government put forward a bill worthy of support we would support it. Even though the frequency of a good piece of legislation coming from the Liberal government is about as often as a comet goes through the skies, we have here a piece of legislation that is worthy of support. It might be coincidental that the Hale-Bopp is flying across the skies right now and a good piece of Liberal legislation comes forward.

I may give it too much credit when I say good. It is acceptable because it goes some way to providing some changes to the criminal justice system in relationship to how records of victims can be brought into the court.

The purpose of Bill C-46 is to strike a fair balance between the rights of the victims and the rights of the accused at sexual assault trials. In past trials of this nature defence lawyers would often ask for a complainant's psychiatric report, reports from the Children's Aid Society, social welfare, school and employment records, as well as personal diaries and journals.

There is no doubt that in this country as in many countries there are some very unscrupulous lawyers in the practice that have taken the opportunity and privilege of asking for all these records and proceeded in the case not to try to prove the innocence of their client but to try to win the case. They take any little piece of material they can from the records and attempt to discredit the complainant. It is not a popular way for defence lawyers to deal with crimes like these. However defence lawyers are demanding to see these records sometimes to provide a full and fair defence of the accused. Too many times defence lawyers have used this information to directly, viciously and unscrupulously attack the complainants in crimes, which is very wrong. It is one of the reasons many Canadians rank lawyers below politicians, in particular Liberal politicians.

It is understandable why some people who have been sexually assaulted have been reluctant to come forward and press charges. They know what goes on in the courtrooms. They have seen evidence in the newspaper and in the media of complainants being viciously attacked by defence lawyers who have obtained records that are years old, have asked the court to look at the record and have said that the person is not credible in any way because of something that happened 32 years ago.

They are on the attack, attack, attack. It does not matter whether the evidence against their client is overwhelming. They may know that if they rely on the evidence to try to show their client's innocence they could very well lose the case. They go on the attack and unscrupulously use records of the complainants.

There is a need for legislation to balance the right of the accused to a full and fair defence and the right of the victim to privacy. I would suggest that the latter is of prime importance in this case.

Bill C-46 tries to strike that balance by establishing a two-step process that would deal with defence lawyers obtaining these records. The complainant's lawyer is given the ability to object to certain arguments during the in camera hearings. The judges have to be satisfied with the argument put forward by the accused for orders to be sent out. If the judges feel some of the records are not relevant to the case they can refuse to let them be introduced.

Under the Canadian justice system defendants have a right to a fair trial. Unfortunately most trials show little sign of any type of justice or fairness, particularly when it comes to victims of crime.

Having sat in this 35th Parliament I know that victims rights are not something the Liberal government understands or has ever been prepared to deal with.

The Reform Party has pressed the Liberal government and the Liberal justice minister over and over again for the last 3.5 years to take some action on the issue of victims rights. Our suggestions, our comments and our private member's bill on the issue have met with deaf ears on that side of the House.

It is coincidental again that there might be another comet coming. On the eve of an election, in the 11th hour before an election, all of a sudden the Liberal government and justice minister recognize there are victims of crime in society. Lo and behold they are to become overnight the champions of victims rights.

I do not call that giving Canadians and victims of crime a fair shake. I call that exploitation of victims. Were there not an election pending the Liberal justice minister would not be dealing with the issue. He knows the Reform Party has been effective in dealing with the issue, in bringing it to the public's awareness and in bringing the lack of sensitivity of the justice minister to the public's awareness. He knows, his Liberal strategists know and their campaign managers know that they had better show they are trying to do something. They had better give some sort of illusion that they are trying to do something.

Some time this week the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government will make a mock attempt to show they are the champions of victims rights, but Canadian people are a lot smarter than that. They are not going to buy this facade that the Liberal government and the justice minister are putting forward.

Speaking of private members' business, here is a good example of the Liberals' lack of recognition of victims of crime in this country. My private member's Motion No. 78 to strengthen and enhance deterrents for people who drink and then jump in their cars and drive was passed in this House. It was adopted by the House in February.

This is a crime that kills 1,800 people a year currently, injures some 90,000 people a year currently and costs Canadians billions of dollars because people drink and drive in this country and they have not had adequate deterrents and governments have not addressed this.

This motion is sitting on some shelf somewhere. A motion that deals with a crime that is 100 per cent preventable, a motion that deals with a crime that kills some 1,800 people a year, about four

and a half times more people than murder, a motion that deals with a crime that injures some 90,000 people a year and creates untold misery for the victims of this crime is sitting on some shelf because this Liberal government does not have the backbone to deal with it. So much for the recognition of victims rights in this country. So much for the concern of this Liberal justice minister for the victims of crime. The people of Canada will not be fooled by this facade that is coming.

Motion No. 78 would not be the first time the Liberal government ignored the will of Parliament when it comes to strengthening the justice system and putting victims first.

The House passed a private member's bill, and I am sure the chairman of the justice committee will remember this one, Bill C-226, which would have abolished section 745 of the Criminal Code, thereby denying killers an opportunity at early parole. No one in the House can forget the passing of Bill C-226. No one can forget it but there are many in the House, including the Liberal justice minister and the Liberal chairman of the justice committee, who can easily ignore it. They cannot forget it but they can ignore it.

Once this bill passed, at the direction of the justice minister, it sat in limbo at the justice committee for about two years. It was never dealt with even though it was the will of the House, even though millions of Canadians across the country wanted this bill to be enforced. Finally the committee tried to scrap the bill. It tried to scrap it but it failed. It remains before the committee to this day and yet will never be brought forward before the committee because it is not the will of the Minister of Justice, nor probably the will of the Liberal members on the justice committee.

The passage of the bill was the will of Parliament. The fact that it was the will of Parliament does not matter. The fact that it was the will of the House does not matter one bit to the Liberal justice minister because it does not fit in with his Liberal philosophy that individuals are not responsible for what they do because it is society that made them that way.

Let all victims of crime in this country, let all people who fear for their safety, let all law-abiding citizens who have concerns about the safety of their family and children hear this. The Minister of Justice said in this House not a few months ago that the number one priority of the criminal justice system in this country is the rehabilitation and the reintegration of criminals into society.

That is exactly what he said in this House. The average Canadian is out there saying that punishment for crime does not count. Protection of our society does not count. The rights of victims do not count.

What counts is the philosophy of the Minister of Justice and his friends in upper York, in Toronto, as they sit around sipping cappuccino and discussing how society is so tough on everyone that criminals are a result of society and should not be treated too badly. That does not count.

It was no surprise that Bill C-226 did not get very far once it was adopted by this House. It does not fit into the philosophy of the Minister of Justice and many of these Liberals opposite.

Victims rights groups fully backed Bill C-226 but that does not matter to the Minister of Justice. It does not matter to the chairman of the Liberal justice committee. Canadians from across the country were on national television imploring the Liberal Minister of Justice to deal with this bill but that does not matter.

People who live in Winnipeg-St. James stood up in the media and said they want section 745 of the Criminal Code abolished but their member of Parliament for Winnipeg-St. James came to this House and said that basically he did not care what the people in his riding said, that he did not care that the people in Winnipeg-St. James said they wanted section 745 abolished. He does not care about that. "The Minister of Justice said that it would not happen and I am a good Liberal and it will not happen".

To dodge criticism, the justice minister brought in some half baked measures with respect to amending section 745, measures that only require killers to jump through a few more hoops before applying for early parole.

These are good. One of the amendments would ensure that serial killers who murdered after 1997 would not have access to a 745 review. That is not bad. Sitting in prisons in this country are several serial killers who are perfectly at liberty to spend taxpayer dollars and bring back tragic memories of the victims of crime. We are going through the Clifford Olson thing. They do not fit into this bill.

The justice minister said that we cannot do that because there will be a court challenge. I do not care if there are a dozen court challenges. Clifford Olson should not be allowed to apply for early parole and the Liberals across the way know it.

Their amendments were nonsense and that is why the Reform Party voted against them. They were nonsense and they did not in any way reflect what the Canadian people wanted. That is why the Reform Party voted against them.

These Liberals across the way are saying that Reformers vote against all the good things they put forward. When they put through something good we will support it. However, this bill we are talking about now is just milk toast.

The Liberals had plenty of time to address victim rights since their election in 1993 and they have not done it. Now an election is looming and it is time. Let us throw a few little carrots out there. They want to create an illusion that they really mean it.

That is nonsense. The Liberals tinkered with sentencing amendments and introduced a reverse onus provision with respect to the Young Offenders Act, transfer to adult court. In the end, justice is not served.

We could go on and on to talk about conditional sentencing. That is a wonderful one. In Alberta a man fired a gun at his wife in an attempt to kill her. Fortunately he missed. He was given some sort of a Mickey Mouse conditional sentence to do some work in the community.

In B.C. a man convicted of sexually assaulting his 11-year old babysitter once a week for three years is given some sort of a Mickey Mouse conditional Liberal sentencing type provision.

A conditional of sentence of two years was handed down to a B.C. man who raped a woman in his car because this type of sentencing fits into this Liberal philosophy.

It is a travesty the way this Liberal government treats victims of crime in this country. Their bleeding heart approach to punishing people who commit crimes is a travesty.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to return to Ottawa today to take part in debate on some of the issues facing the country. I am happy to see so many Reformers and so few Liberals in the House today. Maybe they are watching their leader play golf on closed circuit television.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in the opinion of the hon. member from the Reform Party is it coincidental that a bill like this one shows some recognition of victims rights? Is it coincidental that the bill is coming forward on the eve of an election?

Why in her opinion have the Liberals completely ignored victims rights for 3.5 half years? Why does it take an impending election for them to bring forward some politically expedient bills? Are they in fact taking advantage of victims for political reasons?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster has brought forward, as he has many times since coming to Parliament in 1993, a very logical and very well thought out and sensible bill, Bill C-250, which will provide for fixed elections to be held every four years. This is not a new idea. It is a new idea for Canada perhaps but in many other countries they have fixed elections. They work very well. As a matter of fact, one can find little fault with that formula. As a contrast I am going to outline some of the faults that we can find with the current formula what we operate under in Canada with regard to elections.

This bill also provides that byelections must be held within two months of a seat's becoming vacant in Canada. That again is very logical and sensible. Too often we have seen for one reason or another that a seat has become vacant and has been vacant for a considerable length of time before a byelection was held and most often until it was held most conveniently to the government of the day. In that time the people in that constituency have been without

representation in this House. That is not a good practice to have in Canada. After all, we are as MPs duty bound to ensure that our constituents are well represented in Parliament and therefore a seat should not remain vacant for a period of time longer than two months.

The other thing that is important about this bill is that this bill would be the first step to begin the process of shattering the near dictatorial powers which are enjoyed by a cabinet in our parliamentary system. As things now stand, and there is no difference in this Parliament with a Liberal cabinet, the Liberal cabinet sets the legislative agenda. The Liberal cabinet, as we have the case in this Parliament, also tells the Liberal backbenchers how to vote. That same Liberal cabinet, as in this government, also ensures the obedience of backbench members by doling out goodies to those same MPs if they simply do as they are told. These goodies can include committee chairs, trips abroad or parliamentary secretary positions.

While cabinet enjoys these powers, it also enjoys the powers of calling a general election when it chooses. This is very unusual when we stop to think about it. The governing party, the party with the majority in the House with all the power and all the resources, has the ability in this country to call an election when it is most advantageous to it.

Certainly incumbency has some benefits and brings some benefits with it but this is an extreme benefit for a sitting government, to be able to call an election whenever from a political point of view it is most advantageous to it.

Andrew Coyne pointed out in an article in the Ottawa Citizen : ``We would not trust the governing party alone to set electoral boundaries or to count votes. Yet it is fro some reason accepted as normal democratic procedure that the government of the day should time the election for its own purposes''. Those benefits are in every sense extreme and an impediment to true democracy in this country.

I want to touch on some other things because curtailing this power of the government and the cabinet should be only one step in our path to parliamentary reform. Canadians have been asking for greater accountability within their highest political institutions. Certainly the Canadian people are very cynical, very distrustful of politicians. It has been because there has been this profound lack of accountability within the highest level of government in the land.

Bill C-250 would help restore accountability but so would other measures such as freer votes, citizens' initiatives, referendums and recall. As members know, the electorate for the most part feels sort of left out of the democratic process. They feel that democracy occurs for them only once every four or five years as the government pleases. That is when they have a chance to cast their vote for the party that is representing what their greatest concerns are, or the party that they can associate with as having the same type of thinking. That only happens once every four or five years.

It is too often in this country-and we have seen it with this Liberal government-that a party will go out and campaign on certain issues and get the people's confidence. We saw it during the 1993 election in particular on the GST issue when the Liberal candidates went around the country and told people that they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. The Prime Minister himself on radio talk shows and on television said he would kill the GST, that he hated it. Many of the current cabinet ministers have said the same thing. When they got in the position of government, they refused to fulfil the promises they made to the people of Canada. They said: "We never said that. If you had simply read our red book, you would have seen that we never said that".

Let us remember that Liberal candidates from all across the country talked to hundreds, possibly millions of Canadian voters and told them verbally that they were going to kill the GST. Yet they only printed 100,000 red books so how would the Canadian people know?

My point is that Canadians do not have an opportunity to hold the government accountable between elections. That is why we think referendums, citizens initiatives and recall should be part of parliamentary reform. Instituting some of the reforms I just mentioned would go a long way to restoring accountability in this place. They would allow Canadians to actively participate in the workings of their government, not just once every four years but all the time. As their representatives we should be committed to parliamentary reform in order to restore the confidence that we would like to have from the Canadian people.

Bill C-250 would also return a measure of fairness in our election campaigns. As it now stands, opposition parties must be prepared for an election virtually at any time. The opposition parties of course are at the mercy of the government and the shortening of the writ period to 37 days leaves them in even a more precarious position. Opposition parties have just over a month to get their message out and their campaigns up and running. The government has the advantage of knowing for months before an election is called exactly when the date will be.

Bill C-250, by introducing fixed election dates, would restore fairness to our electoral system by levelling the playing field. All parties would know that an election would be held every four years on the third Monday in October. Not only would Bill C-250 create fairness within our system, it would also produce some tremendous cost savings.

In closing, I ask that all members see the logic in this bill, do the right thing and support it.

[Pensions, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, now we know that there has been a problem and that the Liberals have been ignoring it for decades.

Canadians can do the math. They know that 10 per cent of their salary for a $9,000 pension is a pathetic investment. Ten per cent can get them $45,000. Twelve per cent can get them $65,000. Fifteen per cent can get them $85,000.

Once again, how does the government have the audacity to force young Canadians to accept this incredibly bad investment when they can do five times better by investing on their own? How does it have the nerve to force young Canadians to accept that pathetic pension plan? How does it do it?