Jay Hill

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to briefly address Motion No. 308 in the name of my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.

This is a very worthwhile motion. If it leads to the necessary amendment and is passed, it would certainly be a step in the right direction of ensuring that democracy truly rules in all corporations that are restructuring.

It is a privilege for me to set the record straight. One thing of concern to a number of Reform members and Reform supporters across the land was the virtual exclusion by the national media of Reform bringing forward the issue when the Canadian Airlines story was foremost in the media and in the minds of many people early in the winter.

If we were to check Hansard we would see a series of questions, statements and speeches were made in this place on behalf of Canadian Airlines employees by Reform members of Parliament. We led the story in the House of Commons day after day. However, because the national media did not pick up on our involvement in the story, we were continuously asked why we were ignoring it when in fact we were not.

I thank my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin for putting forward the motion. It allows me to briefly set the record straight.

As the member so eloquently outlined during his remarks, two primary issues prompted him to bring forward the motion. The first was the fundamental issue of a level playing field. We were the first voices to push for the removal of the federal fuel tax on aviation fuels. This would allow Canadian Airlines and all other Canadian air carriers to compete internationally on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. I certainly give credit to my hon. colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for pushing that in the House of Commons before anyone else had brought the issue to the forefront.

The primary focus of the motion is to ensure all Canadian employees of companies and corporations have the opportunity to vote when the future of the company and thus the existence of their jobs are at stake. As my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin stated so well, we have to ensure that true democracy is paramount.

That brings us to the whole issue of democratic reform. In the few minutes I have left I would like to speak to the need for democratic reform, a fundamental issue that attracted me to the Reform Party of Canada.

If there is anyone who knows how badly we are in need of democratic reform, it is the MPs who speak on a daily basis, not just Reform ones. We hear cries for democratic reform and true free votes in the House of Commons from other political parties.

I am reminded of what led us to this point. A couple of members of the Conservative Party were trying to accurately represent their constituents on an issue as important as the GST. They were thrown out of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I well remember as a farmer watching the news on a farm outside Fort St. John and seeing the arrogance of then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a political leader whom we had the good fortune or otherwise to witness yesterday on national television. He was bragging to Canadian people that he had thrown those two backbench members out of his party because they dared to vote against his party. I thought there should have been a rising sentiment from the Canadian public expressing that it had simply had enough. Recently we saw the same thing happen with the Liberal Party when the member for York South-Weston voted against that party.

There is a fundamental need for democratic reform, for true free votes in this place. There is a need for recall of members who do not accurately represent their constituents.

Private member's Bill C-210 of my hon. colleague from Beaver River would accomplish that if it were supported by the government side of the House. The old parties are resistant to these types of democratic changes, although I hasten to add not all of their members are. Many members recognize a growing awareness among the public of a need for democratic reform of government institutions.

The Reform Party and I have pushed for referendums on subjects such as capital punishment. We will continue to expound upon the use of referendums, national binding referendums for Canadian people to direct this place to enact laws supported by the majority.

I would be remiss in the minute or so remaining if I did not speak about a certain democratic reform that has been part of the Reform Party's blue book of policies and principles from the very beginning, the support of Reformers of fixed election dates.

The people of Canada will have the opportunity to voice their concern about that plank and a host of others as we move into the federal election that is expected to be called as early as 11 days from now. I suspect Canadians will be well aware of that plank in our platform. We believe there should be four-year terms so that everyone knows when an election will be called.

Those are some of the democratic changes the Reform Party of Canada and I support. We are looking forward to the next campaign, as we have the last two campaigns, to present to Canadian voters a clear alternative for democratic renewal and democratic reform of government institutions.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the other place and the need for a triple E Senate. Unlike some parties we do not believe in the abolition of the upper chamber. We believe in reforming it to be a true triple E Senate: elected, equal and effective.

I will close by saying that I support my hon. colleague for Wetaskiwin in bringing forward Motion No. 308. It gave me the opportunity to speak briefly about the need for democratic reforms not only of the Canada Labour Code but of many other things.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

It is disgusting. It is not only Reformers who are fed up with this nonsense. I hope there is a growing awareness in the real world, outside the fantasyland of this town, of what is going on.

I do not have the answer to the question posed by my hon. colleague. Something has to be done, like invoking the notwithstanding clause, to get around the charter challenges of some of the laws that people are crying out for and demanding. Let us do it. Let us get on with it. Let us face that challenge when we come to it.

Let us not use it as an excuse, as the justice minister does to do nothing but to sit and say: "We cannot do anything about it because there will be a charter challenge". Hogwash.

If we cannot do anything about it here, where will people go? Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in the system when politicians say that they cannot do anything about it? There has to be something we can do about it.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Yes, thank goodness.

I cannot comment in depth on whether the notwithstanding clause is the answer to getting around the problem the system has with the charter. A step in the right direction would be the motion by the member for Fraser Valley West to enact a victims bill of rights to offset some of the power and to provide some guidance for judges when they bring down their rulings. I believe that would

help but it would not be the whole answer, as I am sure the member for Fraser Valley West recognizes. I am not sure that enacting the notwithstanding clause would be the whole answer either.

Surely something that can be done. I sense the frustration that my colleague from Crowfoot feels. As we have raised these justice issues the passed three years we have constantly been getting this nonsense thrown at us from the other side: "We cannot do that. We would like to do that but we cannot do it because it will invoke a charter challenge". There is this bogeyman that if we go too far then the charter challenge is going to come down and stop us.

We on this side of the House have often remarked that if we cannot do something about it in this place, good god, where in hell are we going to do something about it? That is what the people are asking us.

The people are telling us that there are problems in the system when rapists are walking free. The government gets up and says there are no problems because the crown is appealing it. That is the nonsense that we have heard from the justice minister for the last week on the fallout from Bill C-41 and conditional sentencing. That is what the Canadian people have been listening to and have had to put up with.

The reality is that those victims should not have had to go through an appeal. Goodness gracious, if the system was working properly, no one can tell me that a judge would rule that a rapist who was found guilty should walk out of the courtroom scot-free. It cannot be so.

People in my riding say to me all the time, as do people in every other riding to their members of Parliament: "Tell me it cannot be so". The minister's response is that the crown can appeal. That is absolute nonsense.

There would not have to be an appeal if the sentence was appropriate to begin with. If the sentence was appropriate, the only appeal would be on the part of the criminal. He would appeal because he believed it was too harsh. It should not be the crown appealing because the sentence was too lenient for rape.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments and question from my hon. colleague from Crowfoot. As usual, he cuts to the nub of it and gets right to the main issue.

I have travelled across the country and talked to countless people involved in the justice system: judges, policemen from varied backgrounds, city police and provincial police, the RCMP and crown counsels who deal daily with the frustration of seeing criminals get off scot-free because of these laws.

As I talk to thee people involved in the justice system I keep hearing that the problem is the charter of rights. We have to do something about it. I am not a lawyer-

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and add my comments and perspectives on Bill C-27, another justice bill, another act to amend the Criminal Code.

I want to state very clearly at the outset that Reform is supporting this bill. The reason why I want to state that so clearly is because it seems that often we are accused of opposing everything that the government does.

If people will take the time before and during the next election campaign to do their research and to see what we have said and the positions we have taken on legislation that has passed through the House over the past three and half years, they will find, quite surprisingly, that we have supported a lot of government legislation, but not without concerns. We have been very vocal, as I feel that we should be, with our concerns as we try to represent our constituents on important legislation that comes before the House.

We are supporting Bill C-27. As has been indicated by a number of my colleagues, the members for Crowfoot, Calgary Northeast and Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca when they spoke to this bill, it really covers off several issues in one bill even though the bill is quite succinct. It is only about eight pages and contains only eight clauses. First, this bill adds an additional offence, that if someone lives on the avails of a person under the age of 18 and uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion to effect that aim, the individual is subject to a minimum punishment of five years.

We have heard a number of Reform speakers raise the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the possibility of a charter challenge. In particular the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca very clearly stated that Canadians have to understand what we are talking about here. We are talking about pimping. We are talking about pimps. We are talking about the lowest form of human degenerates I believe on the face of the earth who would use children in this manner.

If there is ever a case that could be made to push the envelope of a charter challenge I believe very strongly that pimps would be it. They are disgusting individuals who would use other people in a manner like that and manipulate them. It is high time we come down very strongly on the side of morality and this issue and send a message to these people that their acts of manipulating, using and abusing children are not to be tolerated in society.

We are very strongly in favour of that clause. If it comes to a charter challenge, so be it. Let us face that obstacle when we come to it.

Another clause in the bill deals with female genital mutilation. The proposed legislation would protect those under the age of 18 in that it does not allow for consent to mutilation, even where the child actually consents to that type of operation. That is not good enough. The Reform Party has been very outspoken on this issue in the 35th Parliament. We support that as well.

Another area that the bill deals with is the whole issue of child sex tourism. Some of my colleagues have spoken on the difficulties it presents in international relationships and trying to work those types of things through international diplomacy and working with other countries to ensure there is some standard globally when it comes to those who would prey on children and use them in an improper manner.

The other issue in this bill is it amends the classification of murder. If in the course of a criminal harassment, stalking, death occurs then the offence is deemed to be first degree murder regardless of a planned or deliberate intent on the part of the assailant. This is an interesting clause. It is certainly one, as we have with so many justice bills, that we support on the face of it.

I would raise an issue that has been bothering me on many justice issues. The government is going to hold up this clause in the upcoming election and say "We have come down strong on the side of women who are being stalked. We are going to get tough. If a woman is stalked and murdered from now own that is going to be first degree murder". Interestingly, what are we talking about here?

We are talking about 15 years. That is all we are talking about for someone who deliberately stalks a woman and terrorizes her, in some cases for years and years. She knows this individual is out there. There is not a day or a night in her life that she is not very aware of that, living in fear day to day, night by night. Finally that stalker commits murder.

What is this government saying? It is going to automatically convict that person, if found guilty, of first degree murder. This government will not bring about the abolition of section 745. This government is going to point to this and say "We have come down tough. We are getting tough on crime. We are coming down on the side of those who are being stalked in society". In reality it is talking about 15 years for someone who does something like that.

Is that going to provide deterrence? I think not. Is that going to or should it satisfy those women out there, the hundreds if not thousands, who are being stalked as we are carrying on this debate today? I know there are a number in my riding. I have met these

women face to face and I have heard their pleas for help. I am sure all members have if they are doing their job. Is this the best we can come up with to assist those women? It is pathetic. It is disgusting. This is saying that if they happen to get murdered then we are going to convict their assailant, their stalker, of first degree murder and it is 15 years.

This is not good enough for me. It is certainly not good enough for Reformers and we will be reminding this government and its candidates every chance we get during the next election campaign. Where is their commitment to women?

Where is their commitment to women when it comes to section 745 and Bill C-41, conditional sentencing? Where is their heart when these women are crying out for some justice? Clearly those cries are falling on deaf ears when it comes to this government. We have raised this issue of conditional sentencing time and time again during question period, in speeches and presentations in this place, and the hon. justice minister sits over there and ridicules and admonishes Reformers for even raising the issue. He mocks and scorns us. He says how dare the Reformers bring up these cases and these issues.

The real message is going to get out. I hope it is getting out. I have met with groups in my riding, as I am sure all Reformers have and hopefully all members have regardless of their partisan affiliation. They have met with groups who are concerned about criminal justice or the lack of it. In meeting with those groups I have had to tell them that I agree with everything they say as they present case after case where people are not held accountable, whether it is young offenders or people who are stalking women or people who are preying on the most vulnerable members of our society, or pedophiles, these disgusting degenerates who are preying on our children.

I have sat there and felt their pain and I felt defenceless. What could I do? What could I do as an individual member of Parliament but carry their message to this place and try as hard as I can to get this justice minister and his bunch of bleeding heart Liberals to understand what is happening out there in the real world. That is what Reform is all about. That is what Reform is trying to do, carry that message to this place where we are ridiculed, mocked and scorned. I say shame on the justice minister.

I want to ask Canadians as we head down the campaign trail in this next election to take the time to really understand what has happened in this place on justice issues in the last three years.

On one side we have the justice minister saying that he has done so much for the victims of crime and that he has brought in all of these laws to get tough with criminals. We do not believe it. A lot of people have told us they do not believe it.

I am appealing to the people who will be casting a ballot in the next election to understand what has happened over the past three years. What have those laws done and what have they failed to do? The very future of our society depends on how we handle this issue.

I would ask those people to look at the private members' bills which Reform members of Parliament have taken the time to draft and introduce in the House of Commons. I have been a member of Parliament for only three and a half years. Three times I have drafted and introduced legislation which would reinstate capital punishment so that people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo would never have an opportunity to reoffend or torment their victims. We would not be debating whether someone like Clifford Olson could revictimize the families of the victims in court August 18 because Clifford Olson would not be breathing. He would not be a problem. That is where I stand on the issue.

Consistently about 70 per cent of Canadians when polled say they support the reinstatement of capital punishment for cold blooded, first degree murder, and yet the government refuses to act. It refuses to hold a referendum on capital punishment, as suggested by the Reform Party, or the second best thing, a free vote in the House of Commons so that MPs could truly represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents. That is too much to ask.

I ask the people as we head down the campaign trail to take a look at what Reform members have drafted and introduced by way of private members' bills. We have done everything procedurally possible to draw to the attention of the government the wishes and the will of the Canadian people on justice issues as well as on many other issues.

Many Reformers are strong supporters of consecutive sentencing as opposed to concurrent sentencing. We would not have to worry about section 745 for an animal like Olson if he got a life sentence, even the scaled down version of life sentence which the Liberals support. Multiply 15 years by the 11 victims which he has claimed credit for and there would not be a problem. He would never get out if we had consecutive sentencing like they have in some of the states.

There are lots of things that we can do if we want to get tough on crime. None of them is being done by the justice minister and the Liberal government.

The people living in the real world are doing everything they can. We in this House are failing them. There are organizations such as Rural Crime Watch, Crime Stoppers, Block Parents, Neighbourhood Watch and the victims groups, many of which have recently been formed. They are trying to raise the voice which is crying out for justice across the country.

The people of Canada are doing everything they can. They are looking for new avenues all the time to try and bring about justice.

I know in my home town of Fort St. John the people have formed a community justice group which is looking at other means of sentencing, primarily for young offenders, which is built on the native model of circle sentencing. They are having some good initial success with misdemeanours and minor crimes. They are trying to help kids to get off this criminal track. The people are reaching out and trying everything. They are willing to give of their time, their energies and their resources to do whatever they can think of to make their communities safer.

They are forming these organizations but this place is failing them. They tell me when I meet with them, as I am sure when other MPs meet with groups and individuals, that what is lacking is deterrence and accountability.

Consequences and accountability are things that we took for granted when I was growing up, but are lacking in the system because of Liberal-Tory laws that have been passed. Precendents have been set in the courts over the last while. The people are crying out for justice. They are willing to do whatever they can to assist. But some responsibility has to fall to the legislators. We have to do our bit also, and the government is not doing that.

I ask the people that before they cast their ballot in the next election to very carefully consider that. I ask them to do their homework before they mark their x . If they do that, I am sure they will not be supporting the government's weak-kneed, bleeding heart approach to criminal justice.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as always my colleague for Fraser Valley West put his case for victims most eloquently. Sadly the message continues to be ignored by the Liberal government and the Liberal justice minister. Hopefully that will change at some point in the future. If not it will change when the government is changed.

I want to draw to the attention of the House what I feel is the hypocrisy of the stand of the Liberal government when I look at the infamous red book that was circulated-not widely I will admit-during the 1993 election. There were only several thousand copies available. Although it was not widely available, it is often quoted by Liberals. What they do not want quoted is some of the commitments that they clearly have not lived up to.

I refer to page 84 of the Liberal red book under the grand title "Safe home, safe streets". It states: "Dealing with the growing incidence of violent crime will be a priority for a Liberal government. Every person has a right to personal security and a Liberal government will move to protect this right".

On page 85 it states: "Several flaws in our correction system have recently been exposed by high profile cases. Under a Liberal government sex offenders who are not rehabilitated at the end of their sentences could be transferred by court order to secure mental health facilities for further detention". These were fine words immediately before and during the election campaign.

In light of the commitments that were clearly made in the red book before and during the 1993 election campaign, how does the hon. member for Fraser Valley West see how that sits with what has happened subsequently with Bill C-41, conditional sentencing and the fact that rapists are allowed to walk free without serving a day in jail.

When the Liberals refer in their document to the fact that they were going to introduce legislation because of "recently exposed high profile cases," why, when Reformers refer to high profile cases are we admonished and ridiculed every time we raise them? Canadians are crying out for justice. They are asking because of these high profile cases that the justice minister take action and bring in legislation to prevent the abuses of our now inconsequential justice system. The justice minister says that we are simply picking, choosing and using these high profile cases to make our point.

Is it not about time that somebody made a point? These abuses are going on. Even in the Liberal's red book they refer to high profile cases. That was the reasoning behind their wanting to bring forward legislation. I would suggest they have done a terrible job.

They should be thrown out of office for their lack of attention to victims and keeping sexual offenders locked up.

[Taxation, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical lawyer smart talk which is not selling out in the real world. Seniors are simply the latest victims of bracket creep when income tax basic exemptions are not indexed to inflation.

Who over there will take responsibility for it? Who is the bracket creep? Why is the Prime Minister intent on pursuing a tax policy that directly targets seniors on fixed incomes?

[Taxation, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the following is from an elderly couple in Prince George:

My ears must be going as on Tuesday, the 18th of February, 1997, I heard-the Minister of Finance, say that this government had not put up taxes. If this is the case I would like you, to ask him, why, after drawing pensions for the past five years, this year I am paying income tax for the first time since I retired. Especially as my wife and I are being paid government supplements which I assume we are getting because they figure we don't have enough money to live on.

In light of this, does the minister still maintain he has not increased taxation?

[An Act Amend An Act To Incorporate The Bishop Of The Arctic Of The Church Of England In Canada, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues from Willowdale and Frontenac in the debate on Senate Bill S-15.

Bill S-15 amends an Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada, an act passed by Parliament in 1934.

The main purpose of the amendment is to allow the Anglican diocese of the Arctic more flexibility in how it administers the endowment fund of the bishop of the Arctic.

Since 1934 and up to the present this fund is limited to investments in securities of the governments of the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom and first mortgages in Canada.

Churches across Canada, as has already been indicated by my hon. colleague from Willowdale, find themselves in increasing financial constraints, and the Anglican diocese of the Arctic is no exception.

I believe this amendment will provide it additional versatility in investment alternatives for its endowment fund. Being able to secure the best return possible on its investments will obviously increase the funds available for the diocese to carry on its good work in the Arctic and in northern Quebec. The other two amendments are merely housekeeping items, necessary changes to the French text of the act to name the corporation, and the term corporation itself in French terms, which will bring the act into line with current French terminology.

On behalf of the Reform Party it gives me great pleasure to indicate our support for Bill S-15 and I call on the House for its speedy passage.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4 last year I drew this minister's attention to the misuse of Bill C-41 in three cases involving violence against women. He chose to ignore the facts. One week later, on November 12, Judge Harry Boyle turned Darren Ursel free into the community.

Had the minister acted then rather than mock the question, this travesty of justice need not have occurred.

I will ask the minister the very same question I asked him almost six months ago. Does he believe conditional sentencing, no jail time, is appropriate for rape?