Jay Hill

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the two previous speakers. One thing that was very evident is that an election is obviously looming. The reason I say that is twofold. One is because of the increased rhetoric from the other side of the House.

[Criminal Code, November 26th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville for seconding my bill.

On June 21, 1994 I introduced Bill C-265. On March 4, 1996 I introduced Bill C-218 and on May 14 it was granted just one hour of debate. Today I will try yet again.

The government continues to ignore the opinion of the majority of Canadians on the issue of capital punishment for first degree murder. It refuses to hold a binding national referendum to let the people decide.

This bill, were it to come to a true free vote, would be the next best thing if MPs were allowed to vote the view of their constituents, rather than their conscience or their party's position.

In addition to reinstating the death penalty for adults convicted of first degree murder, the bill also imposes a range of stiffer minimum sentences for youths convicted of first degree murder. Too many Canadians have died at the hands of violent criminals who exhibit no remorse for their horrendous crimes. Those individuals will never be rehabilitated no matter how long they remain in prison. In my opinion, breathing is too good for the likes of Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Indian Affairs, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in February 1996 the government signed the Nisga'a agreement in principle, the first of the modern day treaties in British Columbia.

I recently asked the people of Prince George-Peace River for their views on the Nisga'a agreement. While 39 per cent of the respondents believe the Nisga'a government should have fewer law making powers than municipal level governments, 56 per cent believe it should have the same powers but not more; 65 per cent believe non-Nisga'a living in Nisga'a lands should be allowed to vote in local elections. But fully 93 per cent want this precedent setting agreement to go to a provincial referendum so their voices are heard.

Will this government and the government of B.C. give my constituents the right to vote on this agreement, an agreement that will further entrench special rights in the Constitution?

The government constantly talks about the inherent rights of native Canadians, but what about the inherent right of all Canadians to equality?

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member from the Bloc was making his intervention just now, a couple of my colleagues were bantering back and forth across the House with the hon. parliamentary secretary. They asked him what exactly this 11th hour amendment does to this bill. He said that it does not do anything.

One has to wonder, if it does not do anything, why bother bringing it in and having to run around in the opposition lobby at the last possible moment and approach both the Bloc and Reform to try to get unanimous consent to put it. If the Liberals have an 11th hour amendment it should do something very compelling and comprehensive, instead of bringing forward something that clearly is so inconsequential that it makes one wonder why it was brought forward at all.

To sum up Bill C-41 today, the subject of divorce, support payments, maintenance payments, custody and access to children is of interest to all Canadians.

I have three children and as a parent I cannot foresee anything as horrendous as losing access to my children. For many non-custodial parents the reality is that the de-parenting process of divorce is the same as if the child or the children have died. Every member, regardless of which side of the House they are on, will appreciate that if they are a parent.

I believe this issue has not been adequately dealt with by the government. As I said earlier, it has chosen to deal with one small portion of it.

I would argue with the parliamentary secretary when he said that these issues are not linked. All of these issues are linked together. We cannot possibly tell parents, custodial and non-custodial alike, that we can deal with one section and ignore the rest. That is simply not the case. We must bring forward serious amendments and serious legislation to deal with the subjects of mediation, custody and access to children. That has to be done. Canadians from coast to coast are asking the government to do that.

We have a commitment from the justice minister and the Liberal government that they will bring in comprehensive legislation to deal with all of those issues, but we have yet to see that happen.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we will give unanimous consent to allow the government this procedure as well. However, like my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, I do not see the need for this type of shenanigans from the government. If this is how seriously it takes its own legislation, it only points to the reason why Canada is in the shape that it is today.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-41, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 21 with the following:

"deemed to have been received by a debtor twenty"

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the last amendment we put forward to endeavour to improve Bill C-41.

This amendment, like Motion No. 14, or Group No. 4, serves to extend the period of time. The existing clause found on page 21 of the bill states:

(5) A notice referred to in subsection (3) is deemed to have been received by a debtor ten days after it is sent to the debtor.

What we would like to see done with Motion No. 15 is to extend that period from 10 days to 20. It is a relatively simple amendment that would allow for sufficient time to be reasonably assured that the individual in question has time to respond. That is the point of trying to extend that period of time.

Earlier the hon. parliamentary secretary said that a number of our amendments were put forward in the interest of delaying the passage of the bill or to delay the implementation of the guidelines or to delay certain sections of the bill.

I can assure members that is not the case, as I have stated on numerous occasions today. The thrust of why we are bringing forward this number of amendments to this piece of legislation is in the honest hope of improving it and making it work better. I do not see how any of these amendments that the Reform has proposed today will delay the bill or delay certain sections of it or indeed delay the guidelines.

With regard to the Reform amendment that would have the guidelines come back to the House, perhaps it would delay that portion for a certain period of time. I think it is in the best interests of Canadians to ensure that the House or the standing committee have the chance to view the guidelines rather than simply have it shuffled through cabinet and foisted on the Canadian people as a done deal. It is always a concern of opposition parties.

When the Liberals were in opposition in the previous Parliament they spoke out against this type of manoeuvring by a majority government. It did not allow the opposition parties the option or the chance to truly represent their constituents both in the House of Commons and in committee where they would be allowed to put forward some suggestions or at least voice the concerns of certain groups, individuals and constituents who would approach the opposition parties with concerns about the guidelines in question.

If these amendments pass when we vote there may be a minor delay with that process being put in place. It is in the best interests of Canadians to ensure their views can be heard and are represented by their duly elected members of Parliament. After all, that is the whole point of why we are here, to represent their views.

If we are not given an opportunity to view the guidelines and raise concerns, then why do we have Parliament existing as it does today? Is the whole thrust the government seems intent to operate with orders in council and just have the cabinet make those types of decisions as it has on a number of bills? Over the past three years Reform has consistently spoken out against that because we do not believe that is the way a truly democratic government should be operating.

When those people over there were on this side of the House in the 34th Parliament we saw some terrific indignation that the Tories were ramming through legislation, guidelines and regulations with orders in council. Now that the Liberals are ensconced-temporarily I might add-on the other side of the House, they are doing exactly the same thing that they criticised the Conservatives for.

It is no wonder as we travel across the country and throughout our ridings we hear "Liberal-Tory, same old story". That chant has been picked up from coast to coast because people are seeing the reality that there is no difference between not only the policies of those two old parties but the way in which they operate as governments as well.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, very simply this amendment extends the period for a non-custodial

spouse to react to the receipt of the notice that their passport may be suspended or a federal licence withdrawn.

This particular clause found on page 21 of Bill C-41 states:

(4) An application may be made only after thirty days have expired after the notice referred to in subsection (3) was received by the debtor.

Basically what this amendment does is extend that notice from 30 days to 50 days. We feel that in some cases where the individual may be out of the country or, goodness knows, we have even seen to get a letter across Canada can take a considerable period of time, it is in the best interests of all concerned to ensure that the individual has sufficient notice in order to respond. We just want to be reasonably sure that will happen.

Basically that clarifies our position for putting this amendment forward. However, I would like to use the remaining time I have to clarify our positions on a number of other issues raised by the hon. Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, during his intervention.

The points put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary are absolutely ridiculous. Let us just have a quick look at what exactly he said during his intervention. He said that maintenance payments are not linked to access, custody or mediation issues. I think the statistics prove, as I said during my remarks, that the exact opposite is the case. I do not know what statistics or evidence he has to support that nonsensical response, but I am quite appalled that he says they are not linked. I would suggest that he talk to anyone who has gone through a divorce and who has children involved to see that the two subjects are very clearly linked.

As I pointed out during my remarks, what we have seen is that where access and custody of the children in question by the non-custodial parent was more usual in the arrangement and was quite freely given, what invariably happened was compliance with support payments for those same children also increased in direct proportion to access.

There are clearly enough statistics around to show that. Therefore I would certainly dispute the hon. parliamentary secretary's position that the two things are to be dealt with quite separately and are not linked.

He also asked who suffers. He said, as Hansard would clearly show, that it is the women and children. Very clearly the women and children do suffer. We are all well aware of that. However, the fact is that when a marriage breaks down and when some parents are de-parented because of the process there are many people who suffer. Grandparents suffer and fathers suffer as well.

As I said during my remarks and during my speech on Bill C-41 about a month ago, I believe October 3, I very clearly stated that I am not an advocate for non-custodial parents. I am not an advocate for the fathers, nor am I for the mothers in this situation. I am an advocate for the children. I believe it is in the children's best interest to have access to both parents. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not understand how it is that when a marriage and a relationship is intact both parents are considered good parents, acting in a manner consistent with the best interests of their children, and yet somehow immediately upon the disillusion of their relationship this is no longer the case.

We see time and time again where the non-custodial parent is denied access to their children. If they are considered a good parent when their relationship was intact, why in heaven's name are they not when they are separated? When a relationship ends the fathers, in most cases, still want to be involved and active in performing the role of a parent. In many cases, unfortunately, that is denied.

The other point the parliamentary secretary made was that our amendments would return the system to complete uncertainty. We talk about fear mongering. We talk about the usual Liberal diatribe where they attack Reform every time we try to improve their legislation. He went on to say that our amendments would render guidelines ineffective. That is more fear mongering. It is clearly not the case.

What we have said is that this is a complex issue. We cannot impose arbitrary guidelines and then say to the courts that this is how it is going to be. Even in his intervention what he went on to say was that we need to do it on a case by case basis. That is a clear contradiction. On the one hand he attacks Reform because we say that before the court imposes these arbitrary guidelines, we have agreed there is a need for national consensus, national standards to apply, but before the court looks at that, Reform we would like it to take into consideration mediation. We would like it to take into consideration the best interests of the child, what is in the best interest of the child or the children, and also to take into consideration the non-custodial parent's ability to pay.

As I said earlier during this debate, prior to question period, the reality is it makes absolutely no sense to impose some arbitrary guideline, some arbitrary standard, only to find out later that the non-custodial parent simply cannot afford that and no matter how much he would like to, he cannot pay that amount.

As the parliamentary secretary said very clearly, we have to look at this on a case by case basis. That is the one thing that he said that I heartily agree with. His other points are, as I said, very clearly fear mongering and trying to suggest that Reform is somehow against the women and children who very clearly need more certainty.

We are not denying that something has to be done with the Divorce Act and something has to be done with this subject. What we are saying is we believe we need a comprehensive look at this subject. The hon. justice minister has promised Canadians a comprehensive review of this whole subject matter. Comprehensive to us deals with much more than just the tax implications or getting tough on non-custodial parents' non-payment of support or maintenance.

Comprehensive means looking at the access and custody issues, looking at having mandatory mediation as a necessary step. What may happen with that is that some lawyers would not get as much work as they would like. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

I believe in balance if people will look at what Reform has been doing on this bill, look at the amendments that we have been bringing forward, they will understand that we are trying to address a lot of issues, not just putting blinders on and looking at the maintenance payment issue by itself.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-41, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 21 with the following:

"fifty days have expired after the notice"

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, were we to vote on Group No. 3 as well as the Bloc subamendment, in other words, my amendment, Motion No. 13?

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

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 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?

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on September 3, the conditional sentencing provisions of the government's legislation went into effect. The very next day an Ontario judge gave a conditional sentence to a man who had uttered death threats against his estranged spouse. She lives in fear and he walks.

In October an Alberta man convicted of pointing a gun at his wife, and firing, it also got a conditional sentence. His sentence: no drugs or firearms and he is supposed to attend treatment programs.

Bearing in mind that someone gets a minimum of four years for holding up a corner store with a toy gun, can the Minister of Justice explain to the victims of domestic violence why men who threaten their wives with real guns walk away with conditional sentences?