Jay Hill

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-92, the budget implementation act.

I note that this is an act to implement parts of the 1996 budget. It seems more than a little odd that at this late date we are debating a bill which applies to different facets which were brought in under the 1996 budget, albeit in limited fashion because of the government's choice to use a procedure which was just argued against.

What does this mean? Obviously it points to the ineptness of the present Liberal government since it has taken it approximately 15 months to bring forward this legislation. As my hon. colleagues from St. Albert and Calgary Centre pointed out during their very eloquent presentations, it is a tragic misuse of Standing Order 73. It is a way in which the government is able to circumvent the democratic process and utilize a standing order which was agreed to by all members in the House very early in this Parliament. Perhaps we were naive enough to trust the Liberals. We do not do that very often, obviously for good reasons. We trusted the government not to abuse Standing Order 73 in this fashion. We took the Liberals at their word that the intent of Standing Order 73 was to allow more input from rank and file members of Parliament.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this second 11th hour amendment put forward by the justice minister to Bill C-17.

As members will remember, the first amendment we debated dealt with conditional sentencing, something which certainly Reformers and a growing number of Canadians perceive to be the misuse of that section. We were concerned right from the beginning that it not be used in the cases of violent crimes. Obviously our worst fears unfortunately have been borne out in the use of that section.

Now we move on to this second damage control amendment. As my colleagues have stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-17. It is instead a cover your backside amendment for the justice minister heading into the next election campaign dealing with section 745 which, I think all Canadians will remember, was dealt with under Bill C-45 not Bill C-17.

In all honesty, that is where this should have been dealt with, similar to the last amendment which should have been dealt with at the time of debate and consultation on Bill C-41, the sentencing act. This should also have been dealt with under Bill C-45.

However, this government refused to listen, as it has time and time again, to the pleas not only of Reform members of Parliament but countless Canadians from coast to coast.

It is well documented now. I would think at some point the message is going to start to get through to the government and the justice minister that Canadians are demanding the repeal of section 745. They do not want it tinkered with. They do not want to play with it and say that if a person only commits one murder than maybe they can have access to that provision of the Criminal Code, have a hearing to see if they can be released early. They want it repealed.

I pointed out during the debate on Bill C-45 that I found it more than a little ironic that this justice minister used as one of his excuses for bringing forward his senseless gun control legislation for gun registration that it was partially in reply to a resolution by the police association. However, when it comes to dealing with section 745, which the police association has passed a resolution to get rid of, the justice minister strangely does not listen. Obviously he selectively uses certain support. He selectively uses what he wants to further his own agenda rather than to respond legitimately to the concerns of Canadians and different organizations across the nation.

Some of my colleagues have already laid out how Reform dramatically differs from the Liberal government in how we would address the issue of victims rights because that is what this amendment is about. It is an 11th hour amendment to bring in a provision which would allow automatic victim impact statements at these hearings. That is something that we and other victims' groups and associations have spoken out on during debate on Bill C-45. Now, at the last moment, only with the proviso that the justice minister get unanimous consent of the House, does he bring forward these last minute amendments so that he can try and indicate to the Canadian public that he is a little bit concerned about the plight of victims of crime.

During the debate about Clifford Olson utilizing the provision of section 745 to have yet another day in court, as we feared the judge was bound to fly him to Vancouver and give him another day in court. It will on August 18 this summer when he will argue why he should be let out of prison. How ridiculous. There is not one Canadian who has not heard of the heinous crimes of Clifford Olson. There is not a Canadian who is not appalled that we are going through this charade when we know he is not going to get out.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows this charade to takes place. I will be interested in September to find out what this is going to cost the taxpayers, never mind the pain of the people who will be revictimized again at the hearing. Imagine the dollars and cents it is going to cost the taxpayers to go through an exercise that all of us hope and pray is an exercise in futility for Clifford Olson.

Why is the process even there that would allow him to do this? He will be flown to Vancouver at the expense of taxpayers. I suspect some of his prison colleagues will fly there to testify that he is not such a bad guy after all. In reality, if there was true justice in the country Clifford Olson would no longer be breathing. The people across the nation know that. It is outrageous that the government would allow such a thing to take place.

I well remember during the debate on the issue, the justice minister said shame on Reformers for bringing the issue to the forefront and giving Clifford Olson a stage to perform on. We brought this issue forward on behalf of the victims and their families.

I have a newspaper clipping of an opinion piece by Claire Hoy, quoting the justice minister who said: "If it was not for Reform the whole affair would be proceeding in obscurity". He went on to say: "The pain felt by the families of the victims would be of a different order than that which they face today if it were not for those in the Reform Party who are providing Clifford Olson with exactly what he wants". That is the response of the justice minister, not to Reformers but to the thousands of victims who are crying out for justice, for all those who see section 745 as the outrage it has become.

As has been indicated by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot, Reform will be supporting this amendment. As we have many times over the last three and a half years on criminal justice bills and legislation, we will hold our noses and vote for something we

know in our hearts is a half measure at best, but better that than nothing at all.

Why? The question has to be asked. Why can the government not respond adequately to the concerns of Canadians?

I spoke about this during my last intervention. As I travel through my riding I hear things which I know other MPs, regardless of their political affiliation, are hearing. They have to be. If they are responding to the concerns of their constituents they have to be sitting down in their offices, at town hall meetings, and speaking with the victims of crime. People are living in fear every day in their homes.

Increasingly people are locking themselves in their homes because the system refuses to lock up the criminals. It is time for change. I hear it constantly as I travel across the nation. It is time to put victims first.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will find out about gun control in his riding in the next election. He supported ludicrous gun control legislation that has done nothing and will do nothing to combat the criminal misuse of firearms. He will find out about that issue.

I will wrap up by reiterating what some of my hon. colleagues who preceded me have said. With reference to conditional sentencing, the Young Offenders Act and many other things that are wrong with the justice system, the people of Canada, particularly women and children, are crying out for change and for reform. They are crying out that offenders, criminals and degenerates should be held accountable and properly punished for their misdeeds and their crimes. That is not happening under this government and I fear it will never happen until we have a Reform government on that side of the House.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Sadly that is the case.

Would people believe that Reform is suddenly jumping on this bandwagon? As I have indicated, we have been very consistent with our position on the issue. We fought it at committee. We fought it in the House of Commons. We used every procedure to bring the issue to light. We proposed an amendment to the government that would have ensured alternative measures and conditional sentencing were not used in case of violent offences. We were assured during debate that would not happen. However we were concerned about it and consistently raised the issue.

Bill C-41 which contains those clauses came into effect on September 3 of last year. On November 4, after learning of some very disturbing cases and rulings by judges which utilized conditional sentencing, I came to the House of Commons and asked a question of the justice minister. I read from Hansard or November 4, 1996:

A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He is on conditional release, scot free.

I had referred to a couple of other cases but I continued:

These lenient decisions in three different provinces have set dangerous precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is not an option when there is a danger to the community. Are women not a part of the community?

That is the question I posed. I continued:

Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more important, for judges? He talks about a tool of the courts. He talks about appropriate cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for rape?

In his response the hon. justice minister went on at some length about past studies having shown that once Canadians were apprised of all the circumstances involved in a case they believed that sentences by and large were too harsh. He ended his dissertation by saying:

The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes all the circumstances into account the court does a pretty fair job of determining appropriate punishment.

When referring to me he said:

Obviously the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point.

The parliamentary secretary heckles and says that is right. In other words we are just making a squalid point. The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, has the audacity to sit over there and heckle. Will he stand and join in this debate? Will he defend this position to the women of Canada? Not a chance. He knows it is indefensible and that women are living in fear. Women are being raped and judges are letting the offenders off scot free.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to represent our constituents in the House of Commons, but it is a bit sad to have to talk on this issue.

If the government and the justice minister had listened to Reformers when Bill C-41 was before the justice committee and before the House, we would not be having this debate today and could move on to other legislation.

Certainly the rumours are rampant about an impending election. The government says that it is concerned about legislation. There is a lot on the legislative agenda it wants to see get through. Then why did the government not listen when we dealt with these bills in the 35th Parliament?

If this place operated the way it was intended to operate by the Fathers of Confederation we would not be having this debate today. The government would have listened to the opposition members and brought forward amendments at that time rather than wait until the 11th hour to do some last minute damage control. That is what this amendment is.

While my colleagues have indicated that Reform is prepared to support the amendments, it is sad we are discussing them today because they should have been done quite some time ago.

One amendment we are debating at the moment in part reads:

"107.1 Paragraph 742.1(b) of the act is replaced by the following:

(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2,"

We certainly support it but we do not believe that it goes nearly far enough. Our concern has been consistent since we started debate on Bill C-41. I am appalled that it is being brought forward at this time as an amendment to Bill C-17 when it is just to cover their backsides. That is all it is for the hon. justice minister.

My hon. colleagues have done an excellent job this morning of relaying the concerns they have heard expressed by their constituents. As I travel across the country and throughout my riding of Prince George-Peace River there is no single larger emotional issue for the people of Canada than the justice issue, or what I have taken to call the lack of justice in our legal system. There is no justice system. The people at the grassroots know and realize this. It is about time the Liberal government woke up to that fact.

As a Reform member of Parliament I am getting sick and tired of having to stand day after day, week after week, month after month, to try to make an impression. We have been beating our heads against the wall.

As I travel around my riding I hear frustrated citizens crying out for justice. I tell them that my colleagues and I are doing everything possible procedurally, everything possible we can to raise awareness of the issue with the government and it falls on deaf ears. Consistently for 3.5 years it has fallen on deaf ears.

I tell the people of my riding who are frustrated to take the time, if they have the inclination, to look at what is happening in Parliament. It is their Parliament. It belongs to the people of Canada despite what the Liberal government would have people believe.

Have we come a long way by allowing rapists, people who sexually violate the most defenceless members of our society, to go free? In 1867 when the country was founded the death penalty, capital punishment, applied to cases of murder, treason and rape. It was not until 1954 that the death penalty was abolished in cases of rape. Back in those days someone who brutally attacked a woman and raped her had to consciously consider that being caught meant being put to death, meant being hung.

What is the situation today? Thanks to this justice minister and the government rapists are now walking free.

[Taxation, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in the House spouting nonsense, it is the hon. minister.

We constantly hear about how good low interest rates are. What good are low interest rates to the unemployed? When was the last time the minister heard of a bank manager approving a loan or a mortgage for someone who does not have a job?

There are 1.5 million people out of work in Canada. Unemployment has remained high ever since the Liberal government came to power. Even though in other countries unemployment rates have been decreasing over the last two years, it has become a distinctly Canadian problem.

When will the government members get it through their heads that high taxes cost Canadians jobs?

[Taxation, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1993, while he was still in opposition, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying: "Canadians have reached the saturation level with respect to taxation". Yet the reality is that since his Liberals have come to power the average Canadian family has suffered a $3,000 pay cut because of the government's tax hikes.

Did the Prime Minister really mean what he said when he was in opposition or was he just pulling a cruel April fool's joke on the Canadian people?

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, specifically to Group No. 4 amendments.

At the outset I wish I could share the confidence of the hon. parliamentary secretary that the clause I am going to speak on is not going to be a problem for students. I do not see that when I read the bill. I take exception to his confidence that it is not going to be a problem.

Motion No. 44 effectively deletes the second part of clause 45(e) which deals with import copies made with the consent of the owner and the copyright in the country where they were made of any used books. Then it goes on to say except textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution in a course of instruction. That is the clause which is the problem.

Clause 45 in the bill addresses the issue of exclusive distributors in Canada. If a copyright owner has selected a Canadian publisher to distribute his or her work in Canada, that publisher is an exclusive distributor. Clause 45(e) provides an exception to this and makes it lawful for individuals to import used books. That would be fine if this government had left it at that. Instead, the government has created an exception to the exception. It has specifically made it unlawful for individuals to import textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution such as colleges and universities.

What does this mean? The Liberal government has given into the pressures of the Canadian publishing industry at the expense of those who can at least afford it, the students. It is interesting to note that this amendment was pushed through at the last minute in

response to pressure from Canadian publishers. It is also interesting note that when the Canadian Booksellers Association appeared before the parliamentary committee considering Bill C-32 in October 1996 absolutely no mention was made of used textbooks. Instead, this amendment was added at a late date without any meaningful opportunity for interested parties such as booksellers and student associations to have input. That was shameful.

Time and again this government has said that it is committed to young Canadians. This government has tried to make us believe that it is investing in the futures of young Canadians. For many young Canadians the future starts with university or college. Books are one essential part of higher education. As a parent whose daughter is currently in university I am only too familiar with the costs involved, tuition, books, living expenses. They all add up quickly. In a northern riding such as mine, Prince George-Peace River, the expenses can be much more if a student is forced to relocate in order to pursue a higher education.

Luckily my daughter has parental support, but many students do not. One way they can defray the high costs associated with university or college is to buy used textbooks. Because there are few Canadian suppliers of used textbooks, bookstores and students rely on a supply of used textbooks imported from the U.S.A.

The average price of a brand new text book is about $75, and even that seems low. I am well aware that many students face costs of hundreds of dollars for textbooks. It is estimated that the cost to students of purchasing new rather than used textbooks will be $5 million annually if this amendment is passed. This will only worsen the student debt problems that we are currently facing. On an individual level the effect of this amendment will be to increase the total amount a student spends on textbooks over the course of his or her degree by as much as $1,600. This is a huge blow to students and their parents.

Sixteen hundred dollars would pay for a whole semester of college or university. Sixteen hundred dollars could help students from more remote areas who have been forced to relocate to travel home for Christmas or for summer jobs. Not only do students buy used textbooks to save money, they sell them back to campus bookstores in order to recoup some of their money.

These textbooks are exported to distributors outside Canada. Canada currently exports more used textbooks than it imports so there is a balance of trade there. By restricting the importation of used textbooks this government is affecting this export trade. We can expect that if the import of used books stops, so will the export. Demand for used texts will fall and students will no longer be able to sell their books back to campus bookstores. This will result in an estimated loss to students of $2 million in revenue each and every year from the sale of used textbooks.

Canadian universities and colleges are increasingly relying on revenues from the sales of used books. Campus bookstores benefit twice from the sale of used textbooks. They get a commission on the purchase of used textbooks by the students and they get a margin on the later sale of reused textbooks to other students.

It has been estimated that lost revenues for Canadian academic institutions and their bookstores as a result of this Liberal amendment would be almost $600,000 each year. As we all know, decreased revenues are always passed on to the consumer in the form of reduced service and higher costs. In this case I reiterate that the consumers we are talking about are students.

Who will this amendment really help? The Canadian publishing industry seems to think it will protect them. However, despite what we have been led to believe Canada is not being overrun by foreign used textbooks. In 1995-96, 29 per cent of the used textbooks that were exported from and reimported into Canada were Canadian material. Canada is in effect recycling its own used textbooks.

The effect of this amendment will be to force students to buy brand new textbooks, most of which are published by American companies. Therefore the protection of Canadian interests argument does not hold water. I submit that the true effect of this amendment is to protect the profits of foreign owned new textbook publishers.

Another effect of this legislation will be to encourage Canadian students to photocopy their friend's textbooks rather than spend money on new ones. Students who resent being forced to purchase new textbooks or who simply cannot afford them will no doubt pick the cheaper option and head to the photocopier. Who could blame them?

Surely this is a step backward for copyright protection. Not only does this raise concerns from the student perspective, it also raises concerns under NAFTA. The amendment would interfere with trade based solely on geography rather than content or intellectual property rights, thereby offending the national treatment provisions of NAFTA.

Clearly this amendment, which restricts the import of used textbooks into Canada, does little for anyone other than foreign new textbook publishers. All it does is unfairly penalize Canadian students, colleges and universities while at the same time failing to have any positive effects on the Canadian economy.

That is why I strongly urge this House to adopt the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague to delete this senseless restriction on used textbook importation.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the junior minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, FORD-Q, a contradiction that appears to be in the funding for regional development.

In the 1995 budget speech, to great fanfare, the finance minister announced a refocusing of regional development programs and agencies in Canada. He bragged about how streamlining would save taxpayers millions of dollars. The 1995 budget estimated the expenditures would be cut by about half over a period of time and would save taxpayers over $500 million.

In the 1997 budget we noticed that regional development was conspicuously absent from the budget speech.

I wonder if the hon. junior minister would explain the contradiction. It now appears that the funds being spent on regional development, including FORD-Q, will actually increase.

The latest numbers that we were able to discern is that FORD-Q's budget is going to increase by about 11 per cent to over $400 million in fiscal year 1997-98. How can that contradiction exist with the cuts that were announced in the 1995 budget?

I know he is going to try to say it is because of the extension of the infrastructure program. However, clearly the 1995 budget was supposed to allocate funds for the extension of the infrastructure program. It was supposed to be factored in.

I wonder if the junior minister could explain how the taxpayers are supposed to be experiencing cuts and savings in dollars being expended on regional development, not only in Quebec but across Canada, when now we are seeing an actual increase in funding? I wonder if he could tell us what the actual numbers are that the government intends to spend over the next fiscal year on regional development.

[Reform Party, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am proud to have my two daughters in the gallery.

When I first became involved with the Reform Party of Canada, almost 10 years ago, it was out of concern for their generation. I realized then that for the youth of our country to have the opportunities we have enjoyed, major reforms would be necessary.

In 1987 our national debt was half the $600 billion that it is today and Reformers were concerned about interest cutting into social spending then. In 1987 tax revenue was around $97 billion. Now it is $135 billion. And we felt overtaxed then.

In 1987 we suspected governments cared more for the rights of criminals than the rights of victims. Today they have proved it. In 1987 we thought Parliament needed a complete democratic makeover. Now we know it. In 1987 I believed the only hope of a brighter future for our children was the Reform vision of a new Canada. Today I am sure of it. 1997 is the year of a fresh start for all Canadians.