Jay Hill

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-70, the harmonized sales tax for Atlantic Canada.

I had the opportunity to speak at second reading prior to the Christmas break. It is a pleasure for me to speak again to the legislation because the real problem with the legislation is not so much what it is trying to accomplish, it is that it points out to Canadians what happens when a government does not keep a promise. That is the underlying message people are getting from this legislation.

A number of previous speakers have noted that it is certainly viewed with a lot of concern by Canadians. I have enjoyed listening to their interventions this afternoon, particularly those of my colleagues from Wild Rose and Prince George-Bulkley Valley who made some excellent points about the legislation.

I want to pick up the focus of the speech of the member for Wild Rose which was that there is an underlying issue here. Are MPs allowed to vote the wishes of their constituents or not? Are they allowed to get input from their constituents, especially on the government side of the House?

He remarked that we are only too well aware of what happens when someone dares to counter their party line under the old party system in this place. MPs who dare to stand with their constituents on important issues are turfed out of their party and have to sit as independents. Of course, the member for York South-Weston and his riding executive, I might add, are very well aware of the ramifications of being a Liberal member of Parliament who would dare to vote with their constituents against legislation when it is so obviously not supported by those constituents back home.

I would like to delve a little deeper into the whole issue of integrity and promises. When I had the opportunity to speak the last time on this legislation, I spoke about a promise made being a promise kept. As I travel across my riding of Prince George-Peace River, and I have spoken to a number of my colleagues who represent other ridings, they hear the same message I hear: Canadians have never been so cynical about politicians, political parties and the political system as they are today. That is certainly a sad reflection on this institution and the whole system of government.

It is important when leaders of political parties and individual candidates are running that they are held accountable for the promises and the statements they make on the hustings trying to garner votes from the Canadian public. It is well known that there is an election on the way.

In the few minutes available to me, I want to reflect on the now infamous red book, or as my hon. colleague for Wild Rose just called it, the dead book, and look briefly through it because it is quite a voluminous document. I want to pick out a few of the promises that were made in that document. I will quote from the document.

On page 20 of the Liberal red book, their manifesto from the 1993 election, they make the following statement.

To achieve such economic growth and job creation, a Liberal government will introduce a series of measures described in this plan.

Then they go on to name some. One thing that is noted is reducing grants to businesses. I wonder how that relates to the recent announcement of an $87 million grant to Bombardier, $50 million in loans and grants to Pratt & Whitney. I am told that the total amount the government has either loaned in zero interest loans or forgivable grants to that company is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion over the last several years. How do the Canadian people, the voting public, relate this to the promise made in the red book? I would certainly question that.

The red book states on page 22 concerning the GST:

But instead of introducing fairness and simplicity into the tax system, the Conservative government not only imposed the greatest tax increases in our history, but compounded unfairness and complexity by introducing the GST. In addition to the difficulties that it has caused to federal-provincial fiscal relations, the GST has undermined public confidence in the fairness of the tax system.

The GST has lengthened and deepened the recession. It is costly for small business to administer and very expensive for the government to collect. The GST has fallen far short of its promised revenue potential, partly because it has stimulated the underground cash economy where no tax can be collected.

Rather than scrap, abolish, get rid of or whatever other term was used by a number of Liberal MPs during the 1993 election campaign, today we are debating the harmonization or the blending of the sales tax in the Atlantic region.

On page 24 of the red book it states: "The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are flawed. A Liberal government will renegotiate them". On page 24 in the red book it states:

A Liberal government will review the side agreements to ensure that they are in Canada's best interests. A Liberal government will renegotiate both the FTA and NAFTA to obtain:

a subsidies code;

an anti-dumping code;

a more effective dispute resolution mechanism;

These are promises that Reformers clearly remember debating the Liberal members opposite during the campaign in 1993. The free trade agreement was a hot topic back then.

On all three of those points the Liberal working groups failed. They failed to produce a subsidies code. They could not reach a consensus with the United States. Canada and the U.S. were not able to agree on an anti-dumping code and were not able to achieve a more effective dispute resolution mechanism. The side agreements they did obtain consensus on, the labour and environment concerns, were not binding on either side.

Let us look at the promise that was made in the context of what it accomplished. I would submit that it accomplished nothing. I would further suggest that in all likelihood the Liberals knew it was going to accomplish nothing when they made the promise. That is probably the most horrendous part of it all. They made the promise and included it in their now infamous red book.

On page 30 it states:

In our federal system, education is in provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal Party believes that Canadians in every province should actively support the efforts of their provincial governments to meet the difficult challenge of equipping our children for the future. The federal government, however, can and should support and facilitate the national effort to equip Canadians to compete in the world.

With regard to health care, on page 80 it states:

Without doubt, part of the immediate pressure on the program has arisen from the decision of the Conservative government to steadily withdraw from health care funding, thus passing costs on to the provinces. Economic conditions may change but the health care requirements of Canadians will continue. It is essential to provide financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning.

These are fine words and great rhetoric. What actually took place? There was about a 40 per cent cut downloading on to the provinces. This Liberal government has slashed $7.2 billion out of the Canadian health and social transfer since it came to power. That is the reality, that is the promise and that is what was delivered.

A chapter I particularly enjoy reading was "Governing with Integrity". On page 91 it states:

If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

Page 92: "Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program". Yesterday when the leader of the Reform Party asked the Prime Minister to explain and table the documents outlining the ethics guidelines which he has said he has given to his ministers to hold them accountable, the Prime Minister turned around and made some ludicrous attacks on the Reform Party. He did not even try to address the question.

Have there been any open hearings on the HST in Atlantic Canada, which is what we are discussing today? People certainly wanted to be heard in Atlantic Canada. They have some grave concerns about this legislation.

What has the Liberal government done? How has it backed up its fine rhetoric from 1993 which is found on page 92? I submit that the government has not done it. Canadians are watching and listening and they are fed up with this nonsense. They are fed up with a government that promises one thing in its documents and fails to deliver time and time again.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order.

As the member correctly points out, there is no reference in Beauchesne's of which I am aware, of what type of pants we are allowed to wear in this place. I wear jeans from time to time. I have noted that members on both sides of the House do from time to time. I do not do it out of any disrespect for this place.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the member would bring up such a trivial point and consume the time of the House with such a point of order. Since he has, I would point out that jeans are the accepted apparel for a lot of working people in the real world. Certainly they do not find anything out of order with the wearing of jeans.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.

I must say at the outset that I have been very vigilant in listening to the various interventions which have been made by my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House. In particular, I wish to commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who just spoke. He brought out some very real concerns about how this

particular piece of legislation will affect the rights of the accused and perhaps impact dramatically on those rights. He was concerned about how it would affect a fair trial under our judicial system because of allowed testimony, particularly as it pertains to what has been known as the repressed memory syndrome and to cases of false memory syndrome. That is a very real concern.

My hon. colleague from Calgary North in addressing the bill stated that the support of the Reform Party for this legislation is very tentative at this particular time because we want to see and hear all the relevant witnesses who will come before the justice committee to speak on it.

We have some very grave concerns. We want to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. However, at the same time, as the member for Calgary North so eloquently put it, we have felt for a long time that the victims of crime have been overlooked by the justice system in Canada. It is high time that governments began to act in the best interests of the victims rather than always concentrating on the rights of the accused and, in many cases, the rights of convicted criminals. That is why the Reform Party supports this legislation in principle. It is why we are interested in hearing various members making their interventions and bringing up relevant points.

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth spoke about specific cases in his riding. Constituents went to his office to voice their concerns about this legislation. That is very important. Too often members in this place and governments become unresponsive to people out in the real world who ultimately have to deal with legislation that is passed in this place.

It is important that we cast the net as widely as possible in looking at this piece of legislation and in asking witnesses to come forward. We must ask for input from Canadians from coast to coast who will undoubtedly be affected if the legislation becomes law.

A couple of hours ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke about the absence of witnesses in these cases. He said quite eloquently that we are primarily talking about women and children in this legislation.

As I travel throughout my riding of Prince George-Peace River, meeting with constituents, justice is a big issue. I have taken to referring to it as the lack of justice in our legal system in Canada today.

I feel so strongly that this government is missing the boat in many areas of trying to protect the most vulnerable citizens of our country. I will bring something to the attention of the House. It is something that I had endeavoured to bring to the House quite some time ago. It was my observation at that time that my concerns fell on deaf ears. The concerns I have been bringing to the House in this area are concerns of the people back home which I consider with a great deal of respect.

This government would have the Canadian people believe that it is especially concerned about the most vulnerable, the women and children. As I have noted in the past, we have to be very careful. In our discussion of Bill C-46 today we have heard that we have to be very concerned and very careful to achieve a balance with judicial legislation, a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims of crime. I have already heard a great many colleagues speak today about trying to achieve that balance.

The case I will refer to is related to a piece of legislation that was passed previously. Because Bill C-46 deals with sexual assault I want to zero in on a case that I was made aware of last fall. We pass legislation from time to time in the House of Commons while many times we may not really understand the possible ramifications. That is why it is so critical, as I said earlier, that hon. members bring forward the concerns of their constituents and bring them to the House of Commons for debate.

The case I want to point out flows from a bill that was passed over a year ago in this place. At that time it was known as Bill C-41, which brought about a system of conditional sentencing in our judicial system. At that time Reformers raised a number of concerns about that piece of legislation and the government in its infinite wisdom said that those concerns were unfounded, that it would make sure conditional sentencing was not used in cases of violent crime and that it was only there for the discretionary use of judges in minor crimes.

Some time ago there was a case in my home province of British Columbia that involved a woman who was a victim of sexual assault. The alleged perpetrator, the accused aggressor was a past common law spouse of this woman. At the time she reported the assault to the police she did not even report it as being a sexual assault but as just a common assault because she did not think the system would respond, that the system would respect the fact that she was sexually assaulted by a former spouse.

For reasons of anonymity I have to be careful not to reveal the location and the identities of the people. This woman lives in fear for her life and in fear of ongoing reprisal by the aggressor. When the case eventually went to court, the judge found the aggressor guilty of sexual assault.

In the judge's ruling he said: "In this case I do not believe the evidence of the accused, nor am I left in doubt by it". So he found the accused guilty.

He went on to say in making his judgment: "I think that while society might have an interest in sending [Mr. X] to jail, it seems to me that the victim and her children might be better served by [Mr. X] serving his sentence in the community and continuing to pay support". Is that not something? What we have here is an individual convicted of sexually assaulting a woman and the sentence is one year to be served in the community.

I would like to read the conditional sentence order that was imposed upon this convicted rapist. Let us call the fellow what he was, a convicted rapist. This is the conditional sentence order: "The court adjudged that the offender be sentenced to a term of one year and that the serving of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. It is ordered that the offender shall from the date of this order, or where applicable the date of expiration of any other sentence of imprisonment, serve the sentence in the community subject to the offender's compliance with the following conditions".

What are the conditions that the judge imposed upon this convicted rapist? They are: "Namely, the said offender shall: (1) keep the peace and be of good behaviour, (2) appear before the court when required to do so by the court, (3) report to a supervisor on October 3, 1996", and it gives the location that he is ordered to report to, "and thereafter when required by the supervisor in a manner directed by the supervisor, (4) remain within the province of British Columbia unless written permission to go outside of the province is obtained from the supervisor, and (5) notify the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation and in addition, shall have no contact directly or indirectly with the [name of the victim], nor attend at or near any premises occupied by her. Shall abstain absolutely from the consumption of alcohol and shall submit to a breathalizer upon the demand of a peace officer. Shall attend, participate and successfully complete any counselling as directed by your probation officer. You shall continue to provide for your dependants", signed by the judge.

I find this absolutely preposterous. It clearly shows why we have to be so very careful in this place in the legislation that we pass. Here is a judge using the old Bill C-41, the amendments to the Criminal Code, to allow a convicted rapist, to what? To serve his time in the community, to continue to pay support for his children and his estranged spouse, to take some counselling if it is directed by the probation officer. It is absolutely incredible.

Following that decision a letter was received by Reformers from the victim. I would like to read it into the record. From time to time we have to bring what happens in this place down to how it affects average Canadians, Canadian men, women and children out there in the real world.

This particular victim wrote:

I am writing to inform you of a recent court decision and the subsequent sentence imposed under guidelines of the new Bill C-41, sentence reform.

I was the victim of a sexual assault at the hands of my former common law spouse, [Mr. X].

Initially I did not disclose the sexual assault to the RCMP for fear that they would not believe me. I only disclosed the common assault. Finally, three days before the trial, I told the crown counsel the whole story. [Mr. X] was charged and subsequently convicted.

What concerned me was that after finding the accused guilty [the] judge said something about this being a good case for "community sentencing". The sentencing was conducted in [another town], therefore I was unable to see justice be done and could not have any other input other than my written victim impact statement.

Watching [Mr. X] be sentenced would have helped me put some closure to this crime. I had to find out from word of mouth about the sentence.

At the close of the trial His Honour said something about [Mr. X] and I getting along in family court the week before and he seemed to think that because of this [Mr. X] would be a good candidate for this new type of sentencing.

I have no choice but to get along with [Mr. X] in family court because I do not want the court to think that I am using my children to get back at him. I have tried very hard to keep the family and criminal matters separate. Is the court telling me that they needed to see a serious reaction from me in family court and then they would understand the extent of my fear toward this man, and then perhaps send him to jail? I would rather see him go to jail than get his child support.

As far as I am concerned, [Mr. X] got the usual slap on the wrist. How is it that he is the convicted sexual offender and I am the one who is a prisoner? I am terrified of this man. It is no consolation to know that he'll have a criminal record, or that he has a lot of conditions. He is still free and I suspect he does not feel punished. I, on the other hand, will be trying to heal for many years to come.

This type of sentence tells the public that sexual assault within a marital relationship is not that serious. Don't you think?

I think the crown counsel should appeal this sentence. I also think that our government should clarify what types of criminals will be dealt with under this new legislation. Perhaps community sentencing should be for less serious crimes.

In closing, as much as I would have liked to go to the media with this I cannot do so for fear of [Mr. X].

I submit this is a very sad case indeed. Shame on this government for not listening to those types of cases.

On November 4, 1996 in this very Chamber I raised this particular case in a question to our justice minister. Quoting from Hansard from that date, the question I asked reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, at one time in Canada someone convicted of rape was subject to very severe penalties. Now with conditional sentencing their life does not seem to change much.

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

These lenient decisions in three different provinces-

-because I had referred to a number of cases-

-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 part of the community?

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

Here is the response on November 4 from the Minister of Justice:

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Professor Anthony Doob of the University of Toronto did a study. He showed newspaper reports of sentences, in particular of criminal cases, to members of the public and asked them if they felt the sentences were strong enough. The vast majority felt they were not.

He took the same people, the same cases, and provided all the information about the cases, all the facts involving the offender and the offences. After they had read all the facts a clear majority thought the sentences were too harsh.

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.

This is the part I like, how the minister summed up:

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. That is very regrettable and it is bad public policy.

That is what the justice minister said in reply to a question that I felt was very valid about a piece of legislation that he brought forward and which this Liberal government passed and how it affected one particular case, one particular woman who is out there and has failed to see justice done even though the aggressor in this case was convicted of sexual assault.

In summary, what needs to be done? What can we do in this place? I have a long list of how we can shift the balance toward supporting the victims of crime. From your indication, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the time to go through the whole list here today.

I challenge the government to do as Reformers are doing and start listening to the Canadian people on the issue of justice reform.

Canadians from coast to coast are crying out for the justice minister to bring about meaningful legislation to protect them and to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

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

The parliamentary secretary for the minister of justice is spouting off saying, name me one Canadian who wants to go to jail. I am sure we could come up with a long list of repeat offenders. Is he perhaps indicating that there are no repeat offenders in the country? There is a growing list of repeat offenders. Why are there so many repeat offenders if jail provides a real deterrence?

Would my hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca like to comment on the reality that as long as we continue to send people to jail to shoot pool, play golf, eat steak on Saturday, there is not much deterrence? That is the viewpoint of a growing number of Canadians. Whether or not the Liberals want to recognize that, it is the reality in the real world.

[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?