Jay Hill

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before I get into my remarks today on Bill C-41, I would like to take a moment or two to reflect on what happened in this place yesterday. I feel it is very relevant to everything we as individual members of Parliament endeavour to do in the House of Commons.

Yesterday we witnessed not only the breaking of a Liberal red book promise, but I believe the powerlessness of individual MPs was truly revealed. The Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign to give individual MPs, those in opposition as well as his own backbenchers, a greater say in the running of government. Yesterday showed how seriously he took this commitment to the Canadian people.

Yesterday the government brought in time allocation to cut off debate on Bill C-45, a bill which we should never have debated in the first place. This in itself is not surprising, because the Liberals have closed debate about 24 times in this 35th Parliament, despite their howls of protest to the Tories in the last Parliament when the Tories took similar parliamentary action.

In this place we should have been debating the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code as outlined in the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston, Bill C-234.

I believe it is obvious to all here and, more important, out in the real world just how hopeless it is for an individual MP to affect change in this place.

Canadians were and are demanding the repeal of section 745. A member responded by drafting and introducing a private member's bill in response. The majority of the members in the House of Commons supported it, sent it to the justice committee and it disappeared. Democracy. It is enough to make a grown man weep.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 which seeks to make some sense out of this country's system of child support payments. Here we have yet another example of the Liberal government's attempt at patchwork legislation. Canadians have been clamouring for change in how child support payments are determined and enforced. The Liberals pretend to be listening and respond with proposals that do not truly address the basic issues of child custody. While this bill does take some great strides in improving the enforcement of child support payments, or getting tough on so-called deadbeat dads, it entirely skips the issue of custody arrangements and mediation of disputes.

The federal government plans to involve itself in a strong arm approach to enforcement without looking at original access issues. This includes revoking or refusing to renew passports, the use of Revenue Canada's data banks in order to locate defaulting parents, the garnishment of public service pensions to pay child support as well as the wages of those working at sea.

This get tough attitude toward delinquent support payments is appropriate only after all circumstances surrounding the original custody arrangements have been thoroughly analysed and only after attempts at voluntary support have been exhausted.

This means that before taking such invasive measures it must be shown that the non-custodial parent is getting the entitled access to their children and that all other outstanding questions surrounding the custody arrangements have been resolved.

Automated steps to withhold someone's passport, crack open their private income tax information or garnish their wages are irresponsible if used without a thorough investigation of the individual case. This bill does not include proposals to do this.

There are two sides to every issue and while there is no doubt that children across this country are suffering because child support payments are going unpaid, Bill C-41 ignores that many children are also suffering because their right to see and enjoy the love of their non-custodial parent is being denied.

I join with most of the members of this House in getting tough with parents who do not meet support commitments, but let us not encourage the problem with unfair laws. There is a relationship between access to children and non-compliance in support payments. A non-custodial parent who sees his child more often is much more likely to make his payments. This bill does not even touch on this aspect. In many cases the denial of payment is rooted in the non-custodial parent's frustration at being denied access to their children.

According to a 1995 study by the U.S. bureau of statistics non-custodial parents with visitation and or joint custody were much more likely to pay support; 79 per cent of those with access paid support while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.

A May 1992 a study by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family found that almost 75 per cent of non-custodial parents reported problems in visiting their children. This shows that access and visitation rights in Canada are not working and this results in many problems, including non-compliance in child support.

On March 20 of this year I introduced a private member's bill in the House that would also amend the Divorce Act so that joint custody would be automatic. Right now custody automatically goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. Bill C-242 says it should be the reverse. Kids need the love and security of both parents. Joint custody should be automatic except in cases of abuse, neglect or where it is not in the child's best interests.

We would no doubt see the number of delinquent support payments drop significantly once joint custody eliminated many of the access disputes that lead to non-payment in the first place. In many cases non-payment boils down to an issue of guaranteed access to both parents, not dollars and cents.

In 1992 Canadian courts awarded joint custody only 16 per cent of the time. Sole custody is awarded to mothers approximately 72 per cent of the time and to fathers in only 12 per cent of divorces.

This brings about another point to consider when looking at the non-payment of child support. How much potential child support money has been tied up or wasted in fighting over access rights in the courts? The separation and divorce industry drains parents of thousands of dollars. With automatic joint custody legislation that is money that could go to the children instead. It can be difficult for a parent to pay child support while they are doling out $10,000 in legal fees just to see their child.

If the custodial parent moves a child to another province or country, the non-custodial parent is suddenly left with no opportunity to see their child or faces great travel expenses to do so. Making certain that non-custodial parents are accountable for continued financial support even when they have chosen to move to a different provinces is a common goal of the courts and all levels of government. When it comes to ensuring that non-custodial

parents have reasonable access to their children, the governments and courts are strangely silent. This is a double standard.

In my riding of Prince George-Peace River in British Columbia and in other northern areas a divorce can often result in the custodial parent moving with the children to the lower mainland, severely limiting access for the non-custodial parent. It is little wonder that some parents withhold support payments in protest.

Under Bill C-41 the fact that the parent's right to access was arbitrarily taken away would not be considered and the federal government would simply start proceedings to enforce payment.

This would overlook even a supreme court ruling in May of this year concerning a Saskatchewan mother who choose to move with her daughter to Australia against the wishes of her ex-husband. The supreme court's decision took into account the effect of a custodial parent's geographic move on the access rights of the former spouse.

Did the Liberals consider this when they attempted to address the issue of child support payments? I do not believe so. The Liberals have spent a good part of their mandate reviewing child custody and taxation issues, yet they still did not get it right. The finance minister has said that the first obligation of a parent is financial. I could not disagree more. Yes, children need financial security, certainly, but the emotional security of access to both parents cannot be overlooked. Until such time as the federal government is willing to take a look at the entire issue of child custody, the complete picture, it is not qualified to proceed with enforcement.

At the very least in the absence of legislating automatic joint custody the federal government should be encouraging the provinces to be more vigilant in enforcing access problems before they agree to help with the enforcement of child support payments.

The Canadian Council for Co-Parenting, a custody and access support group for divorcing couples, agrees that the deadbeat scenario is not that simple. On its position paper on custody access and child support the CCC claims that many loving parents are deparented by a legal system content with the win-lose approach. It says that many non-custodial parents withdraw disgusted, dismayed and angered by the inequities and imbalance of many court decisions.

The justice minister should be familiar with the Canadian Council for Co-Parenting. The CCC has formally stated its dissatisfaction with Bill C-41. I will quote from a letter which the CCC sent to the justice minister. These are words which is he obviously ignoring: "Our position on Bill C-41 guidelines released in June of 1996 is that they must be reworked. They are seriously flawed in their omission of shared parenting principles of treating both parents fairly. No loving parent, male or female, in a time of great turmoil or anger should be ostracized from the lives of their children for no good reason. C-41 aggravates and enhances the current inhumane imbalances in family law". Of course the CCC is just one of many organizations and individuals concerned with the ramifications of Bill C-41.

Another issue that this bill neglects involves spending accountability by the custodial parent. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that some custodial parents are not using child support payments to properly feed or clothe the child. That parent may be receiving substantial amounts of money from the non-custodial parent but they are not required to account for how the funds are spent. There is no mechanism in place that ensures the child support is used for example to buy a winter coat for a child instead of being spent by the custodial parent on alcohol, cigarettes or whatever.

I want to be perfectly clear that I am not saying this is a prevalent occurrence. However, before the federal government begins vigorous enforcement actions, it must recognize that non-payment of child support may be due to the non-custodial parent's awareness that their child is not the one benefiting from those support payments.

Once again there are many ambiguous questions surrounding child custody cases. A responsible enforcer must first scratch beneath the surface, investigate and then take action based upon complete knowledge of all the pertinent facts.

I would like to further clarify my position on child custody laws. It is not my intent or desire to take sides on this issue. I am neither an advocate for the mothers or the fathers. I am not siding with custodial parents or non-custodial parents. My goal for introducing Bill C-242 and opposing Bill C-41 as it is currently drafted is twofold.

First, the law should be administered as fairly as possible, treating both parents equally. When married and the relationship is intact, it is assumed that both people are good parents. Why assume otherwise just because they are divorced?

Second and most important, I believe in supporting the children. When a relationship ends, they are the innocent victims. I believe very strongly that their emotional and psychological welfare is best supported by maintaining physical contact with both parents and there are studies that bear this out. In other words, I am an advocate for the kids.

If we remove the issue of who will have sole custody from the equation, parents will obviously no longer be able to use custody as a bargaining chip. Fathers would not be able to threaten to seek sole custody unless the mother agrees to unreasonably low maintenance. Mothers likewise would be prevented from holding restricted access over the father's head to obtain a better divorce

settlement. If both parents knew ahead of time with reasonable certainty that custody would be awarded jointly and therefore was not going to be an issue, there would be one less issue to fight about.

As a loving parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than being prevented from seeing my kids. The mere thought of not having access to them on a continual basis provokes angry, protective emotions.

When a marriage ends it is natural for the spouses to blame each other, to have lost respect for each other as a spouse, a lover and a friend. However, if the separating couple can be assisted and encouraged to still respect each other as loving and caring parents, it will provide as positive an environment as possible for the children.

The awarding of joint custody in the vast majority of cases will nurture this respect for each other as parents and will remove the greatest fear every parent faces: the loss of a child. It will also reduce the chances of partners remaining in a potentially abusive relationship because they know that if they walk out without the children, it will be currently held against them at the custody hearing.

Bill C-41 is an inadequate piece of legislation. It is inadequate because it does not responsibly and fairly address child custody laws in their entirety. This is yet another example of quick fix legislation. The government knows there are problems with the child support system and that Canadians are demanding change. However, instead of looking for the root of the problem, the government is proposing superficial and brash changes which it believes will appease voters in the next election.

In its current form Bill C-41 will bring little satisfaction to anyone. It will only result in further emotional suffering for the children who are caught up in these tragic child custody laws.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary North on this very critical piece of legislation concerning families, especially children.

In light of some of the legislation that has been passed, particularly in California, Florida and Washington state, among others, which reflects those governments' policies of encouraging parenting by both parents after divorce, I wonder if my colleague could give us her views on what steps she might feel the government could take to encourage and develop that type of legislation and that thinking in Canada.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this afternoon to speak again to Bill C-45. I say it is a pleasure because obviously, with the government enacting time allocation yet again on another piece of legislation, we find the unfortunate situation that a number of my colleagues and I am certain colleagues from the other parties as well would have liked to have spoken again on this bill and are being denied, I believe, their right to do just that.

It is a pleasure for me to be allowed the opportunity to once again try to get my message through to the Liberals on the opposite side of the House and the supporters of the justice minister. He continues to bring forward these weak-kneed, half-baked pieces of legislation, instead of doing, as my colleague from Wild Rose so aptly said just moments ago, what the people of Canada are demanding and expecting the Government of Canada to do.

I suppose it could be said that after quite a number of hours of debate on C-45 what more can be said that has not already been said on this issue. Reluctantly, Reform has come to understand that the only way to get through to the Liberals is to repeat our points over and over again. That is unfortunate. I am sure all of us in the Reform Party would much rather be discussing some other legislation today and be moving forward with some other constructive legislation. However, no matter how hard we try, it seems that we

run up against a brick wall and cannot get our message through to the Liberal government.

That was clearly demonstrated at the start of the debate this afternoon. After the vote on the government's time allocation motion on this piece of legislation, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands got up and read through transcript after transcript of things that the Reform Party had said but had nothing constructive of his own to say about the legislation. He was merely attacking us for what we were trying to say. If only, and I mean this sincerely, he had listened to what was being said. Instead he simply poked fun at what the Reform Party has been trying to say on this piece of legislation.

Obviously, as it has been said repeatedly and I will repeat it again, the thrust is that the people of Canada are demanding the repeal of section 745. It is that simple. That is the crux of the issue here.

This has been said before and I will say it again and again. The independent member for York South-Weston brought forward a private member's bill. It had the support of the majority of members of the House and moved on to committee. I expected that perhaps with a few minor amendments that piece of legislation would ultimately be passed into law. Obviously it had the support of the people of the country and it had the support of the majority of the representatives of the people of the country. That is what should have happened.

I believe the way the justice committee handled this particular private member's bill is an insult to the private members' process in this place. I am absolutely appalled at the way the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston was treated. I want to draw the attention of the House and the people who are viewing the debate this afternoon to that point.

The second point which I want to make, which has been made before, is that what we should be moving toward, what Canadians are demanding, especially when it comes to multiple murderers, is a system of consecutive sentencing. It does not matter how many lives murderers take, they get one life sentence. We are debating whether they should get 15, 17, 18 or 25 years.

I believe the vast majority of the people of Canada would support consecutive sentencing. It has been implemented in some U.S. states. If a person takes one life they get 25 years; two lives, 50 years; three lives, 75 years; and it keeps on going. Individual lives must count for something.

What I hear when travelling across the country is that people are simply fed up with the weak justice system and the criminals who flaunt it.

We can all quote statistics until we are blue in the face; however, despite whatever the statistics are saying about violent crime being on the decline or whatever the case may be, the reality is that people feel threatened. People feel unsafe in their homes, on the streets and in their communities. They are telling us to do something about it.

Reform members have been endeavouring to do that. We have been trying to drive that message home. We have repeated time and time again what we are hearing from Canadians.

What Canadians are crying for is the bottom line. I can stand and say how I feel, but what are Canadians saying? What is the mood of the country out there?

I had a recent poll done in my riding of Prince George-Peace River. One of the questions that was asked was: "How do you feel the federal government is doing with respect to criminal justice issues?" This was a scientific poll. What we found was that 6 per cent of those polled said it was doing very well. Twenty-seven per cent said it was doing an adequate job. However, 56 per cent said that the government was doing a poor job. Another 11 per cent were uncertain.

Two-thirds of the people in my riding either feel that the government is doing a very poor job with respect to criminal justice issues or they are unsure what it is doing. That clearly indicates that there is a growing sentiment in the country that the government is weak on crime. That has been reinforced again and again by the justice minister, who continues to bring in these half baked schemes which do not get to the root of the problem.

A number of my colleagues have outlined where we should be going and where Canadians are demanding we go on criminal justice issues. We have to concentrate more on victim rights. That is paramount in the minds of Canadians. It is high time this government started to address the real concerns which are out there among average Canadians.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am particularly pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-53. In fact, I am quite astounded that such a bill has made it this far in the House of Commons.

On the one, hand members are debating bills which concern tougher sentencing, stricter parole legislation and capital punishment for criminals because that is what Canadians are demanding. On the other hand, the Liberals have brought forward this proposal out of left field which makes it easier for prisoners to get out of jail on temporary absences.

The weaknesses of the justice system in our country are becoming more and more evident to the majority of Canadians and quite frankly they want something done about it. Seventy per cent of Canadians want first degree, cold blooded murderers sentenced to death. They do not want killers or any criminal let out on parole before completing their sentences and they certainly do not want it made easier for a criminal to get a temporary absence or a longer temporary absence from prison.

I will guarantee that if members asked most Canadians they would tell them that they do not think convicted criminals need to spend more of their sentences outside jail walls. They would simply ask what for. That is what I want to know. What for?

The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general attempted to answer this in the House last week. He claims this bill will allow provincial prisoners leave for a specified period of time with or without an escort for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes, all in an effort to help offenders reintegrate into the community.

He continues his justification of Bill C-53 by telling us we have nothing to be concerned with. After all, these are not hardened criminals but only the ones who are serving sentences of less than two years.

I would like to know if the hon. parliamentary secretary has ever heard of deterrence or even justice. Does he realize that many of those convicted of sexual assault receive such ridiculously short sentences? Are their victims going to be reassured when the hon. member tells them they have nothing to worry about, that their

attackers are not a threat and deserve a helping hand in rejoining those very same victims in the community? Is concern for the convicted felon's reintegration supposed to comfort the victim when she bumps into him in the neighbourhood grocery store?

The length of the sentence or even the offence is irrelevant in this case. The truth of the matter is the Liberals are showing their blatant disregard for the courts by encouraging legislation that circumvents the decisions of judges and juries.

As we are aware, they are particularly attached to section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows murderers the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed after serving only 15 years. The Liberals have steadfastly refused to listen to Canadians who are demanding the repeal of section 745. So I suppose it only follows that the Liberals would be fond of having more criminals out on more temporary absences.

Why listen to the judges or juries that understand the circumstances behind a conviction and have chosen to send these criminals to jail for a specified period of time? There are many reasons why I believe the Liberals introduced this legislation. And while the reasons are valid, I submit the solution is not.

Like most every breathing individual in this country, the Liberals actually do recognize that there is a crisis in our justice system. They are being told by citizens and organizations across the country that violent crime is increasing, that people do not feel safe on the street or in their homes. They also know that Canadians want longer and more strict sentences for criminals. We all know this.

So why is this government introducing such ludicrous legislation contrary to all of the concerns I have just mentioned? Is it because it is also aware that there is severe overcrowding and financial constraints in prison systems across the country? Do the Liberals imagine they should make space available by letting criminals go free?

Of course this logic directly opposes the reduction of overcrowding in the prison system. What would really reduce the number of criminals sitting in jails at the taxpayer expense is deterrence. Deterrence is what the justice system is based on.

I am not saying that rehabilitation should be discounted but it should not be the focal point of all our correctional programs. There is a direct correlation between prison overcrowding and the leniency of parole and temporary absence programs.

How is it that prisons are straining their capacities when according to Statistics Canada 80 per cent of the 154,000 people under the care of the correctional system were out on some form of community supervision in 1994? There was also a 40 per cent increase in the number of people out on probation between 1990 and 1994.

These two opposing trends, overcrowding and a greater number of parolees, are rather ironic indeed but make perfect sense unless you are a Liberal who believes that pampering prisoners will bring an end to crime. Their idea of rehabilitation is to provide those inside with all the amenities those on the outside have to work for.

The point is a prime reason why people commit crimes is there is no element of deterrence left in our justice system. When someone in our society does something wrong they must pay the price, and in this case that means prison time. What sort of deterrence is reinforced through increased temporary absences or early parole?

It is unfortunate for the Liberals but fortunate for Canadians that the Reform Party can offer better solutions to remedy our justice system than lenient parole and absences.

I note in Hansard of September 23 that the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke on sentencing reform. He said: ``The jail term is what the public looks at as the measure of punishment. I suggest that we have to change that. I invite hon. members opposite to think of changing it and look at alternative measures''.

Reformers have suggested alternatives to the present justice system for three long years. It is just that members on the other side seem to be deaf not only to Reformers' alternatives but the wishes of Canadians as well.

We now know that the Liberal alternative of indulging and rehabilitating criminals is only resulting in more crime and overcrowded prisons. It has been estimated that the total cost of criminal acts to Canadian society is $46 billion a year. It costs around $10 billion just for law enforcement, prisons and courts. The cost of legal aid has been skyrocketing. There has to be a better way.

I believe we need to focus on two separate issues: prevention, and deterrence. Prevention must begin at home early in life. Preschoolers must be taught right from wrong. Society must do everything possible to provide the best possible environment for youngsters but there must be respect for the consequences of wrongdoing as well.

Reformers believe that individuals as well as governments must be held accountable and responsible for their actions. As an alternative, how about reinstating capital punishment as an alternative to life imprisonment? For the record let me be very clear about this. I am speaking about the death penalty for first degree, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. I am speaking about appropriate punishment for the likes of Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

As an alternative, how about that four letter word "work"? I do not mean whenever the convict feels like it, I mean a mandatory requirement. A big part of the problem we have in society today-I stress that some believe they do not have to work-is this new age

philosophy which seems to be reinforced even in our nation's jails. In our parents and grandparents' times the work ethic was simple, work or starve.

Prisoners should be required to work a minimum number of hours per week. If they are sick they should have to make up their hours later. If they are unfit, work should be found for them commensurable with their capabilities, but they should work.

As an alternative, why not bush camps? You will note I did not specify boot camps, Mr. Speaker. However, once again I am speaking of a structured, highly disciplined work environment. I believe this is particularly appropriate in the case of young offenders. Last weekend when I was home and attending a meeting in my riding an elderly gentleman made a suggestion to me about how we can help the young people to become more disciplined. He was suggesting mandatory military service. I have heard this many times from a number of people and I am sure other colleagues in this House have heard this as well.

Canadians and Reformers have been suggesting alternatives to the present system whereas the Liberals want to pamper those who break our laws, call them rehabilitated, then parole them only to see them reoffend. This kid glove approach is not what Canadians are demanding. Canadians want to see criminals held responsible. They want punishment that fits the severity of the crime. They want consequences for criminal acts that provide real deterrents.

Sitting out the coldest winter months in idleness in a warm environment with all amenities provided at taxpayer expense is no deterrent. An example fresh in my mind was visiting the new provincial correctional facility in Prince George. It is quite a nice facility with all the amenities for a convict's use.

We are looking at another example of piecemeal legislation by the Liberals. What is driving their confused and disjointed actions? I submit that first and foremost the Liberals are thinking about the next election. It is fast approaching and they have been sitting around doing nothing except celebrating their good fortune for the past three years.

Canadians have begun to ask what the government has done to improve the economy, our society, our justice system. Suddenly the Liberals are scurrying to pass quick fix legislation so they can tell Canadians that they did do something. They are hitting all the hot buttons concerning homosexual rights, crime and child support. The issue of child support was debated just this morning.

In another example of piecemeal legislation, the Liberals propose getting tough in enforcing child support payments without understanding the issue. The entire system of child custody laws and the Divorce Act must be reviewed and corrected by legislation but the Liberals are going for the shallow, quick fix approach that they think will be enough to appease the voters in the next election.

The proposed legislation we are debating right now is another example. The disarray and inefficiencies in our justice system, in conjunction with rising crime, is now and will be a major issue for Canadians during the next election campaign.

The Liberals will go to the voters rhyming off their justice legislation such as Bill C-53 and Bill C-45. They do not care if this legislation completely ignores the changes that Canadians want. What is important to the Liberal campaign strategy is that they can say they did something, no matter how irrelevant and destructive or how vaguely related to crime and justice.

It is not good enough for the Reform Party and it is certainly not good enough for Canadians. They expect and they deserve better. This country needs fundamental changes to its justice system to help people feel safer, to recognize the rights of victims and to state loud and clear that criminal activity is not acceptable in our society.

I can assure members that Bill C-53 will not do that. It will do the exact opposite.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in rebuttal to the last point of the hon. member, if the government had listened to Reform, there would not have been a rail strike. We wanted some pre-emptive legislation that would have prevented that very thing from happening. The hon. member talks about this type of nonsense.

He is questioning the representation of Reform members from northern British Columbia on the issue of the port of Prince Rupert. I will quote from a letter I sent to the previous minister of transport.

I sent this November 17, 1995 and detailed three issues dealing with grain transportation, for the hon. member's information. That is almost a year ago. One dealt with the allocation of grain cars in my region of northeastern British Columbia.

The second issue dealt specifically with the pricing policy dealing with the grain transportation rate, the differential between the Peace River country to Vancouver versus Prince Rupert, how it was damaging to the port of Prince Rupert, what could be done about it and some suggestions on that.

The third dealt with the differential, the inequity between the domestic and export grains, the transportation rates in this country along with the demise of the Federal Freight Assistance Act and what that would mean for the domestic transport of grains.

They were three very important issues dealing with grain transportation. I sent that on November 17, 1995. The new Minister of Transport responded finally on March 1, 1996 totally inadequately.

He said-

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary the following question. I listened quite attentively to his 18-minute dialogue about how great a job the federal government has done with the economy in British Columbia and about the tremendous involvement of western diversification, and I wonder if he could answer a question in connection with the department for which he is responsible. It has to do with the initiative called community futures which WED is now looking after.

I have asked this question before. Why do we have these community futures enterprise centres throughout British Columbia, and indeed across the country but I am speaking specifically about B.C. today, and there is now a duplication in having women's centres? There are a couple in the province that specifically deal with aboriginal issues.

I support the idea that there is a role to be played to assist small entrepreneurs who cannot get assistance, especially in the area of training and helping them to put together a business plan, but I would think that the criteria for something like that would cross all boundaries. If people is going to a resource centre or a community futures centre and looking for assistance, it should not matter if they are male or female or whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal. I wonder what justification there is for having these separate centres based on either gender or race. I cannot see that.

I have heard the argument before that the difficulty is that some women have felt intimidated when they go to a community futures and have to deal with a male loans officer. I would assume that the natural chain of events would be to ensure that there are women working at these centres. I know the one in my home town has all women working in it now and I certainly do not have a problem with that. Why have separate programs set up just for women or just for aboriginals?

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my question very short because I know a lot of my colleagues would like to ask a question of the minister. It is not often that we get the opportunity.

My question deals with a specific case which I referred to a few minutes ago in the House. What we have seen this last weekend is the Alaska highway achieve its rightful place in world recognition as the 16th international historic civil engineering landmark. It is now in the company of the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Panama Canal, et cetera.

This minister did not deem it important enough to show up. This minister did not deem it important enough to even send a letter. This minister did not deem it important enough to send even a message that could be read at the ceremony on Saturday. I wonder, if this is an example of how he treats the importance of British Columbian issues?

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Belatedly.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from North Island-Powell River on this very important topic today, the alienation that British Columbia has felt over the last few years. This has escalated over the last three years with the present Liberal government. There are many issues and examples of the neglect and ways the government has taken British Columbia for granted that it would take days to detail them.

It is no wonder that particularly in the northern part of British Columbia there is a real sense of northern alienation and we are not just physically a great distance from Ottawa but certainly a great distance when it comes to the thinking of this government. It is exemplified by the fact that last December the government did not even deem it appropriate to consider that British Columbia might be a separate region when it was doling out vetoes for future constitutional amendments. That is how it manifested itself.

I was reminded of this just this past weekend when I flew home to my riding of Prince George-Peace River to attend a very special event in the city of Dawson Creek. Due to the efforts of a lot of people we found that the Alaska highway was being dedicated as the sixteenth civil engineering wonder of the world, so to speak. It takes its rightful place with other engineering projects such as the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and

the Panama Canal. Quite frankly, I was absolutely appalled that there was no federal representation there.

This is a transport issue. This government deemed it appropriate to have the Minister of Transport from British Columbia. He was not present at that ceremony. No designate was present. This exemplifies the attitude of the federal government toward British Columbia. This was such an important event and there was no one there representing the federal government.

I wanted to bring it to the attention of the House as simply the latest example I am aware of where this federal government gives British Columbians a slap in the face. I say shame on this government.

I ask the member if he can think of an example similar to that, perhaps in his riding, perhaps in southern British Columbia, to relate to the people of Canada who are watching today of how the thinking of this federal government ends at the Rocky Mountains despite the fact that we have at least one federal minister from British Columbia, whom we certainly dearly missed in Dawson Creek last weekend.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

That is right. Shame on government. With this motion, fiascos such as this would not be allowed to happen. The federal government would not be permitted to arrogantly, without consultation and fair process, expropriate a family's homestead for a project that would probably never happen.

In the matter of other property, to have it taken away, also leaves an individual feeling violated and helpless. I agree to a point that these are only material goods and pale in significance to the well-being of loved ones or to freedom or to the other fundamental rights.

Members have to keep in mind that we are talking about an individual's property being expropriated by the federal government. If that process is not done fairly and with due compensation, it can be traumatic and as consequential as losing a loved one, particularly in the case of a property that has been in a family for generations.

In the case of freedom, can it truly be said that Canadians enjoy freedom when an individual is free to possess property only until the government has need for it or decides to take it away for some supposedly higher public purpose.

As previously noted in the House by some of my colleagues, there is no doubt that the legitimate owner of a firearm does not feel he or she is a free citizen of Canada when the federal government can dictate whether he or she will be allowed to keep property.

This is a frightening concept in what is supposed to be one of the leading industrialized and free nations in the world. It makes me feel as though we really have not come very far since the internment and expropriation of property from 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the second world war. At that time, the federal government said a higher purpose should supersede an individual's property rights. The federal government has a responsibility to its citizens and a responsibility to govern by example.

This motion would not limit the federal government to never being able to expropriate land for public works projects. However it would ensure that owners are guaranteed that any expropriations would be carried out in a fair and reasonable way, consistent with the standard expected in a free and democratic society. It would also mean that there would have to be fair compensation for expropriation.

There have been many embarrassing incidents in Canadian history that involve the unjust seizure of property by the federal government. As members of the House will acknowledge, we continue to grapple with the fallout of these injustices to this day.

Motion No. 205 will ensure that future generations and MPs are not left to remedy any further violations the federal government might commit in the absence of property rights' protection. It is the least we can expect from a responsible government in a free and democratic society. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues on both side of the House to please support this motion.