Jay Hill

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Boy, that certainly got some heckling going from the opposite side, did it not? They certainly dislike to hear that type of reasoning.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation of my hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca about Bill C-53.

I know from travelling throughout my riding of Peace George-Peace River and across the country that Canadians are concerned about some measures which have been taken by the government to keep criminals out of the prison system. I speak specifically about the measures known as the alternative measures and conditional sentencing.

In meetings that I had during the Christmas break in my riding, a number of people came to me with concerns about the justice system and specifically about the lack of deterrence in the justice system.

One of the arguments made by the Liberal government is that more criminals have to be kept out of the system and alternative measures must be provided because of the overcrowding of the prisons, the correctional facilities. It seems to me that part of the reason why the jails are overcrowded is that we have made them such a comfortable place in which to reside. Perhaps-

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this first day back from the Christmas break to the very important issue of food inspection, specifically Bill C-60 and the amendments that are before the House.

We are debating group No. 10 which is comprised of motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33. I have heard it said that no issue is more important for the government and the Canadian Parliament to deal with than the issue of food and food inspection. Along with such things as the air we breathe, the water we drink and shelter in our harsh northern climate, food is one of the staples which maintains life. It is an important subject.

I would like to say at the outset that the Reform Party, in dealing with these three motions, supports motion No. 31. It would add more accountability. As everyone knows, Reform Party members in the 35th Parliament have stressed accountability of government in its operations on an ongoing basis. Therefore, anything that

could be written into the legislation that would bring about a greater degree of accountability is certainly supported by members on this side of the House.

During an intervention on this bill by one of my colleague's some government members from the far end of the House, from the so-called rump section of Parliament, said: "What about us? Do not forget about us down at this end". He was referring to the fact that the government consistently does not listen to people on this side of the House. I would add that those in the rump section are not listened to as well. They are possibly even more annoyed than we are. It shows us the value of being a Liberal backbencher, especially those who are sitting in the rump section of the 35th Parliament. They are never listened to. It must be incredibly frustrating.

We support the intent of motion No. 32 as well. However, we oppose motion No. 33. We are not opposed to the intent of the motion, however, it deals specifically with outlining how the auditor general should do his job. We feel that should be left to the auditor general. We have supported everything which that office has done in the past and we will continue to support the involvement of the auditor general in all aspects of holding governments accountable. We support the intent of the motion, however, we feel that motion No. 33 goes a bit far in instructing the auditor general in the way he should do his job. We think he is doing a terrific job already and does not need that type of interference or direction.

Reform members oppose the bill. The intent is quite admirable. The government wishes to consolidate and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal inspection services related to food, animal and plant health, and to increase the collaboration with provincial governments in this area. It is certainly an admirable goal. It is one which all Canadians would support. However, we do not see the details of that in the bill.

My concern is that, once again, the government, as it has time after time in the past, is passing umbrella type legislation and will bring in the details and the regulations later. We are supposed to take the government at its word and trust that it will accomplish those stated objectives and goals. We have very deep and grave concerns about that because all too often in the past that has not happened. The government has a grandiose plan of how it is going to accomplish certain things. It brings in umbrella legislation, passes it, and then we are stuck with regulations that do not work, which are simply shuffled through by order in council. That is why we are in opposition to the bill.

No provision for a detailed breakdown of the cost savings has been provided by the government. We do not see how a decision can be made about such an all-encompassing bill without that type of detail being brought forward.

We heard statements by the parliamentary secretary earlier when he was speaking about group 9 amendments that the government will make a commitment to take a long time-he emphasized the word long-to consult with all the stakeholders and that the bill is consistent with Liberal policies. I suggest that is because the policy of the government is the status quo. It is taking a long time to bring in legislation which Canadians have been demanding and insisting upon. That is certainly a concern.

While the government seems to move at a snail's pace in some areas, in others when it finally makes a decision it shuts down debate, as was indicated by my colleague earlier. It brings in time allocation or closure and shuts down the democratic process in this place once it decides the direction it wants to go.

Since this is our first opportunity to speak since returning to this place after the Christmas break, it is very interesting that the minister for defence invoked closure on the Somali inquiry. He shut down any further debate.

I made a comment in a newspaper column which I write back in my riding of Prince George-Peace River that I think the hon. minister confused the operations in the House of Commons with the operations outside of the House of Commons. The government has become accustomed to bringing in time allocation and shutting down debate in this place. Now it wants to elevate that one step further and do it across the country. I find that despicable and I believe most Canadians are concerned about that type of operation.

As I have said on this group of amendments, we support the first two amendments and oppose the third. That is the official position of the Reform Party.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, February 3rd, 1997]

They only consult with the Liberal membership.

[Taxation, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the members opposite for that standing ovation. I appreciate it.

This is not the 1960s. The Prime Minister should quit living in the past. He should be aware that we are now in the 1990s and technology has produced something called videotapes. By now, almost every Canadian has seen those tapes. They know in what context that promise was made before and during the election campaign.

How can the Prime Minister deny the existence of the evidence? How will he continue to deny the evidence of his broken promise?

[Taxation, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about GST, HST or BST, although the government might be talking about a lot of BS. The real issue here is the truth. The fundamental issue, in answer to the finance minister, is a broken promise. Maybe the Prime Minister should go visit a bank machine. It seemed to have done the trick for the Deputy Prime Minister. She admitted that the government had broken its GST promise.

The finance minister admitted in April and again this morning at the press club that the government had made a mistake with its GST promise.

I ask the government why the Prime Minister does not join with his colleagues and admit that he made a mistake when he promised Canadians he would abolish the GST?

[Bill C-234, December 12th, 1996]

I thought you said you were going to put the facts forward.

[Bill C-234, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for York South-Weston on a very eloquent speech. He hit the points just right this morning not only about the failure of the Liberal criminal justice system and the inadequate legislation which has been brought forward over the last three years but also, and perhaps just as important, the failure of the Liberal government to live up to its commitment to Canadians to restore integrity and credibility to the House of Commons and to the governance of Canada. Perhaps that is even more important because it strikes at the very heart of the problems that are inherent in the system of governance which exists in Canada today.

I have travelled throughout my riding and across Canada and I know that what the hon. member for York South-Weston said was very true. Canadians are deeply concerned about the inadequacies of the justice system. They know that the legislation which has been brought forward over the past three years is totally inadequate in addressing the criminal problem which we have in Canada today.

I commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for bringing forward this private member's bill. Had it been supported by the Liberal majority, it would have seen the repeal of section 745. It is what Canadians want. It is what they are demanding. It is what they are crying out for. It is high time that those people over there started to listen to Canadians.

One of the things I am asked as I travel around the country is what can we do as individual members of Parliament and what can Canadians do. Every day we see members of Parliament tabling petitions in the House. Those petitions are protests from average Canadians from coast to coast. They are crying out for justice, for change and for the reform of the system.

I would like to ask the hon. member for York South-Weston what is the next step. He and others have tried. I have tabled nine private members' bills in the House of Commons in three years, and seven motions, trying to move the government of the country which enjoys the majority in this House. I have tried to move it in the direction that I feel the majority of Canadians want it to move in.

What can be done now that it has squashed the member's private member's bill? We know the majority of Canadians are crying out for that change.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for attempting to restore the decorum in the House. It was getting a little loud on the other side.

I am sorry that the government did not decide to use the term blended sales tax. I am quite sure of the reason it decided to go with the harmonized sales tax instead of the blended sales tax. I am kind

of sorry about that because they would have had the BST. Canadians would have really appreciated having the letters BS attached to tax, the BST, especially in regard to the promises made by this government during the 1993 election. That describes exactly their promise to get rid of the GST. They should have called it the BST.

Now that we know what the Liberals did not say, what did they really say on the hustings, on the doorsteps and in the all-candidates forums during the 1993 election campaign? We know what they said. They said they were going to kill the GST. They said they were going to abolish the GST. They even said that they were going to get rid of the GST totally. That does not sound much like harmonizing to me.

It is ironic that the Liberals are no different from the Tories. That is why we hear Canadians from coast to coast to coast saying Liberal, Tory, same old story. It does not matter which party they vote for. Once they get into power they do exactly the same thing. There is no difference.

Do we want to see exactly how much difference there is? Let us refer to the notes from a speech by the hon. member for York-South Weston.

I am pleased to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we will see some decorum restored to this Chamber. I am pleased to see you there.

The member's speech was entitled "Honesty, Ethics and Accountability: Does it Exist in Canada's Political System". This is what the member, who used to be a Liberal, said:

So the problem with today's political system is not the people we have in place, but rather the problem with our system in Canada is the system itself. The system is what is fueling public cynicism and distrust.

My removal from the Liberal caucus in April is the perfect example of the reward/punish system I have referred to. I was removed for voting against the federal budget because it failed to fulfil the Liberal Party's election promise to replace the GST. Prior to the vote, I wrote to the Prime Minister to advise him that I would be voting against the budget. I reminded him that while we were in opposition our efforts to eliminate the GST was one of the most significant battles we fought during the Mulroney administration. While in opposition, the Liberal Party vigorously opposed the GST in the House of Commons. Liberal senators undertook an unprecedented effort to kill the legislation and we forcefully campaigned against it in the last election.

It is trite to say that every government has a moral obligation to keep its major election promises. In my view, the last federal budget represented the final retreat from the promise to replace the GST. I think that the government's announcement that it intends to harmonize the tax has verified this. Voting against the budget was the only way that I could reconcile what I had said and done in the past in the House of Commons and what I had said to my constituents on their doorsteps with the fact that the government-

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

No, of course not. Did they say they would hide the GST? No. Did they say that they would blend the GST? Of course not. That is not what they said.