Jay Hill

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Check the tape.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

That is debate.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.

I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for bringing forward the motion. Unlike the Liberals opposite, I do not believe this is a sad day or that the Reform Party is somehow a villain for bringing forward the motion. Rather, I believe tomorrow will be a sad day, a day of national disgrace for which the Liberal government will be held accountable in the next election.

We are debating the following motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal Government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I wish the Liberal government had paid the attention to the rights of victims and to repealing this offensive section of the Criminal Code that it has paid to going after legitimate firearms owners. If it had put in that type of effort this clause would no longer be there for the use of people like Clifford Olson.

I quote from an article in yesterday's Vancouver Province . I do not think it can be said any better than an unnamed staff reporter wrote in yesterday's paper:

Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt cannot celebrate their wedding anniversary. Christmas dinner with the family ends in tears. Their life is a quiet struggle with no nights out for movies or dinners. They go to bed thinking how it would be if their son, Daryn, was around. Daryn was only 16 when Canada's worst mass murderer claimed him as a victim 15 years ago.

On Tuesday, from the recesses of Canada's most secure prison in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Clifford Olson will begin a process to say he is a changed man and deserves the right of parole.

The Rosenfeldt's know that he will be lying. On their wedding anniversary several years ago the mailman delivered a letter to them from their son's killer. It detailed the killing and Daryn's last words snuffing out what little joy the Rosenfeldt's had left in their lives.

"We go to bed at night every night thinking about Tuesday's hearing", says Gary Rosenfeldt. "It takes us back 15 years. It is as simple as that".

The article went on further:

Olson, sentenced to life in jail with no hope of parole for 25 years for his killing spree, has exercised his right to move his parole hearing forward by 10 years. The murderer is owed his early hearing under section 745 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the faint hope clause.

The Rosenfeldts, along with those families who have chosen to bear witness for their children at this week's hearing, will appear at a painful press conference tomorrow to remind the world there is not a faint hope in hell that their lives will ever be the same.

As I said at the outset, I do not think it could be said much better than that staff reporter in the Vancouver Province said it. As a parent of three children I cannot imagine the horror of having to go through something like that, of losing a child to someone like Clifford Olson. I cannot even begin to comprehend what those families have gone through.

To have those families relive that horror tomorrow is a national disgrace. This psychopath is a man that rehabilitation cannot even touch. He cannot be salvaged. He can never live in the community again.

The chance of Olson getting early parole is about as good as the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. In my opinion that is where this man belongs. The point is that there is something very wrong with the Canadian justice system when a man like Clifford Olson is allowed to waste Canadian taxpayers' money strutting his stuff in the courtroom.

Make no mistake, that is what will happen if he is successful tomorrow and is granted a hearing later this summer. The very thought of it is an offence to the memory of his victims. They did not even get the opportunity to really live. Clifford Olson took that away from them.

We are talking about a cold-blooded killer who is living in a federal institution with more perks than many Canadians have in their homes, including 24-hour access to cable TV in his cell.

Section 745 has a shady past. It was quietly slipped by Canadians in 1976 without any real discussion. The existence of the provision is linked to what I would describe as one of the greatest political scams of all time. In July 1976, in a fit of political correctness, the Liberal government of the day abolished capital punishment despite the fact that the majority of Canadians supported the death penalty.

It was abolished by a margin of only six votes. The trade-off offered to Canadians was so-called life in prison. Canadians were told that even though murderers would now be allowed to live they would at least be put away for 25 years. Then section 745 was quietly slipped in and the effect of section 745 gave a new meaning to the word life: 15 years. It is a mere drop in the bucket in terms of an average person's life. All this was done quietly in the hopes that Canadians would not notice that convicted killers were being let out of jail after only 15 years.

There is more than just a moral issue here. Tied to that is the financial issue. The procedure involved in applying for early parole

is a costly three-stage process. First a judge screens the application. Then a jury hears the application. If a jury decides that early parole is appropriate the offender can apply to the National Parole Board for early release.

The jury is not even given the whole story about the crime. All it hears is an agreed upon statement of facts. To top it all off, the jury makes its decisions based on a lower burden proof than is used in criminal trials. There is no need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender is not a risk to the community.

It is truly disturbing to think of all the financial and human resources that go into this joke of a process. Section 745 is called the faint hope clause, but when we look at the figures it is not such a faint hope after all. As of March 1996 figures show that 78 per cent of murderers applying under section 745 had success in either getting early parole or having their sentences reduced. That is quite a success rate. Even if it is truly only a faint hope provision it is a lot more than Clifford Olson ever gave any of his victims.

It terrifies Canadians to realize that in the next five years between 500 and 600 murderers could get early release and be out and about in their communities even with the new changes. If the minister really wanted to send a message to multiple murderers maybe he should have proposed consecutive sentencing instead of the minor changes he made in Bill C-45. At least this would have put a value on each and every human life that has been taken.

To make matters even more offensive Bill C-45 only applies to applications made after September 1996. It is ironic that these amendments were only two days late in stopping Clifford Olson from applying for early parole. I see my time is up. I could go on and on.

Let me close by saying that most Canadians, myself included, believe that breathing is too good for the likes of Clifford Olson, let alone the chance to get out after 15 years.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly so that the hon. member from the Bloc will have a chance to respond, the point that we are trying to make here today is that we are dealing here with first degree, premeditated, cold blooded, planned murder. That is what we are dealing with.

We are saying that those types of criminals do not deserve to have any hope of getting out of jail before 25 years. If we look at Olson's crimes, they were certainly first degree murder. I would question anybody who could dispute that.

In light of that, why is section 745 still in place to give those types of criminals the hope of early parole?

[Points Of Order, March 10th, 1997]

What's the point?

[Canada Pension Plan, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting answer. If the act is not negotiable I wonder how the government intends to change it.

The government just like its Tory predecessors has been talking forever about overhauling the federal public service pension plan. For years it has lacked the political will to tackle the issue.

How does the government intend to convince public servants that an increase in premiums is justified when the government is benefiting from using the $24 billion surplus presently in the account?

[Canada Pension Plan, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are now facing a 73 per cent tax hike because of the government's decision to double CPP premiums, all Canadians that is except federal public servants. Due to the government's delay in amending the public service pension plan they are exempt from this huge tax grab.

If private sector employers could get their act together to adjust their pension plans, why couldn't the government?

[Unified Family Court, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, despite a severe cold it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Motion No. 147 brought forward by my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam.

This motion calls on the government to work together with the provinces to actively promote and implement unified family courts and to emphasize mediation of family law matters.

It is a sad reality that in 1990 about 30 per cent of all marriages in Canada ended in divorce. In 1990 the average length of marriage was shorter than ever before.

Out of all divorced and separated Canadians, 350,000 are parents. We know about the emotional toll that divorce and separation takes on adults, but the impact of family law battles on children is even more traumatic. It should be of great concern to everyone in this House.

The system, as it stands now, does little to alleviate children's pain. The administration of family law is a mess. This country seems to have forgotten the value of parenting and the importance of preserving the child-parent relationship in the context of family break-up. Instead, we have an adversarial system that creates winners and losers. Inevitably those who have the most to lose are the children.

The administration of family law in Canada as it exists today can be summed up in three words, inconvenience, confusion and frustration. We know that family conflicts are seldom cut and dry. They involve many different issues. The break-up of a marriage that involves children can lead to issues of child support, spousal support, custody and property division.

In most provinces, people who are separating are forced to go to different courts for different issues that come up. Divorce, custody, access and support issues cross over federal and provincial jurisdictions and create a tangled web of red tape that inconveniences, confuses and frustrates.

For example, in most provinces if a couple decides to split up but not divorce and they want to deal with custody, access or support issues, they must go to one court. Then, if they later decide to divorce, they must go to another court. Then there is enforcement, which is generally a provincial matter. The list goes on and on.

When will the confusion end? Is the whole process not stressful enough without aggravating matters by this sort of nonsense? What kind of impact is this having on our children?

I can say what kind of impact it is having. There are studies out there telling us that the emotional toll that long, protracted family law litigation has on our children is simply devastating.

This psychological damage is the root of many of the social problems we are seeing today, youth crime, suicide and poverty. This raises serious concerns about the future social health of our country.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any kind of lawsuit will say that litigation should be the last resort. It is not as though this is news to anyone either.

In 1974 the Law Reform Commission of Canada reported that the main goals of government should be to encourage resolution of family matters without resorting to litigation and to lessen the confusion by vesting jurisdiction over all family law matters in single, unified family courts.

Here we are 23 years later. The Liberal government has spent a good part of its mandate reviewing family law issues. Yet it still does not have it right. This government has done nothing to address this sad state of affairs.

We are still left with an adversarial system that destroys any chance of ongoing healthy relationships after the smoke clears in the courtroom.

While there are presently unified family courts in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland, not all are province-wide and the matters they deal with vary from one province to another. Some provinces do not even have unified family courts. We heard earlier from the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair as she took us through the history of the present unified family court system, that it is working in some provinces and that we have made substantive progress.

However, the question that must be asked and which has failed to be answered is why is it so slow to get this process in place across the country. Why is it taking so long? It is because it is a very low priority for this government.

Equally troubling is the fact that nowhere in Canada is mediation mandated as the preferred method for resolving family law conflicts. When relationships end it is only natural for people to blame each other and feel a sense of hostility. But if these people can be assisted and encouraged to respect each other as loving caring parents, this can only be good for the children involved. This government owes the children at least that much.

The advantages of mediation are undeniable. The financial cost is much less than litigation. Most family law conflicts can be resolved in five to ten one-hour mediation sessions. Mediation costs an average of $100 to $150 per hour. Compare this with the

millions of dollars pumped out to family lawyers each year to battle it out in court.

Mediation can allow parents to work out amiable solutions to parenting and support issues without being forced to use their children as pawns. This is better for everyone involved. It has been shown that compromises that tie access and support issues together will not only be emotionally better for children but also financially better.

Several studies have linked non-payment of support with the non-custodial parents' frustration at being deprived of participation in their children's lives. For example, a study in 1995 showed that 79 per cent of non-custodial parents with access paid their support, while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.

It makes good sense that people are more willing to go along with decisions they have made themselves than with decisions that have been imposed on them. But the Divorce Act takes a weak approach to this issue. All it does is require lawyers to inform their clients that mediation is available, hardly an encouragement. The Bill C-41 disaster does nothing to address these procedural failures or to help families on an emotional level either. It is just a piecemeal approach which does more for lawyers and judges than it does for average Canadians.

The list of problems with Bill C-41 is endless but what concerns me most as a parent is the fact that this government has not even dealt with the suffering of children, children who are denied the right to enjoy relationships with both parents, not just the custodial parent. Divorce is meant to end the marriage bond, not the child-parent bond. It is disturbing to realize that in 1992 Canadian courts awarded sole custody to mothers approximately 72 per cent of the time, and yet joint custody was only awarded 16 per cent of the time.

I do not know if the government understands the impact of this, but in the words of the Canadian Council for Co-parenting, there's no hurt like it. Kids need both parents and both parents need their kids.

I offered a solution to this problem. In March 1996, I tabled Bill C-242 which would make joint custody automatic unless not in the child's best interests, as in cases of abuse. Psychologists have also offered a solution called joint custody mediation which has been used with success in some American states. I call on this government to look closely at these options because so far this government has missed the boat on this issue.

Bill C-41 misses the boat by only dealing with outcomes, not with actual process, a process that is leaving deep emotional scars on anyone who has the misfortune of being involved in it. If this government were more concerned with the process and especially with what it is doing to this country's children, the social cost of divorce would not be what it is today.

Canadians are looking for some real procedural reform here, reform that addresses the current jumble in the administration of family, reform that lets Canadians actively participate in the resolution of problems in a way that is best for all involved. That is why I urge all members to support this motion. It is time the House demanded some action from this government. It is time we called on this government to work together with the provinces to encourage and implement reforms to the administration of family law in Canada.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member's comments about Bill C-71, I was reminded of travelling and talking with a number of constitu-

ents when I was last back in my riding about the legislation and other issues.

One thing was brought home to me by small business people who, among other things, sell tobacco to consumers. They were wondering why it is not illegal for young people to possess and smoke tobacco. If the government is as concerned as it says about the health risks posed by cigarettes and tobacco to young Canadians, why would the government not make it illegal for minors to possess and smoke cigarettes?

If it is looked at in the context of alcohol, for example, the shops, bars or liquor vendors who sell product to minors are held accountable for that action and can be charged and fined, or perhaps lose their licence or permit. In the case of cigarettes vendors can be fined, and rightly so, if they sell this hazardous product to young people. But it is not illegal for young people to smoke.

I wonder why the hon. member has not added her voice to those who are calling for that type of action by the government.

[The Deficit, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Prince George-Peace River, especially their children and grandchildren, appreciate that the federal deficit has been reduced.

However I would be remiss if I did not also point out that these same constituents know the Liberal government does not deserve the credit. The taxpayers of Canada do. The government is taking $25 billion more in taxes from them. That brought down the deficit, not government spending cuts.

This sad fact is particularly evident to the people of the isolated northern community of Mackenzie. While their cost of living goes up, the government refuses to reinstate their northern residents deduction.

The Liberals waste billions of dollars on grants and loans to big business yet ignore the needs of northern communities: $144 million to Bombardier but nothing extra to complete paving of the Alaska highway.

Priorities. Why can the government not get it right?