Jim Abbott

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I will ask a supplementary because the answer to my first question will help me with the second question.

In response to my colleague from the Kootenays and to my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, it was not made clear to my satisfaction at least as to whether this legislation relative to the CX employees will permanently put them out of the range of strike. Will this permanently refuse their ability to strike?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, as usual I found the emissions from this member to be rather interesting, particularly the commercial for the CA group, when he himself, this Liberal of great high esteem, admitted very freely that to file one's income tax is a complicated matter.

He knows full well that this government has had opportunities to simplify the tax system since 1993 and prior to the nine-year sabbatical given to the Liberals by Brian Mulroney. Yet his government has done nothing to simplify the tax system.

I found it very gratifying to hear this member freely admit that the income tax system is so complicated that he was happy to give out the 1-800 number to give people a hand. It would be nice if he were to do his work and if the members of his party were to do their work to simplify the tax system so that people would not have to make that phone call.

I draw the attention of the House to the issue of the two tier health care system which was created by the Liberals. People who are desperate or people who have money can go to the United States, thanks to this government, thanks to its $16.5 billion gutting of the transfer payments to the provinces.

The hon. member and his Liberal colleagues are very proud of the fact that supposedly we have a balanced budget. He fails to take into account the rip-off of working people through the so-called employment insurance fund. That is not a premium; it is a tax. It is a tax because far more money goes into general revenue than ever goes out in benefits. It is this government that has cut back on the benefits, cut back on the benefit periods and cut back on the benefit program so that it would end up with a surplus. On the backs of employers and employees it has managed to come up with this myth of having a balanced budget.

I know the hon. member comes from Ontario, which has the excellent government of Mike Harris. That Conservative government has decreased taxes, which is something the finance minister and the Liberals do not understand. That has resulted in the most vibrant economy in the entire Dominion of Canada.

Is it not about time for us to have some truth, some truth about the fact that there is far more going into the employment insurance fund than is coming out because of the cutting, hacking and slashing of the Liberals? The fact is that they are managing to talk about a balanced budget because they are ripping off the employers and employees who are forced to pay into the employment insurance system.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Next you will be saying there is no Santa Claus.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that somewhere in this blather we are going to get some relevance. I wonder if we could have some.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, particularly because of the person who has proposed it.

The member for Wild Rose has been absolutely tireless in his efforts on behalf of not only the people in his constituency but indeed all Canadians in bringing more common sense to the whole area of justice in Canada. He has a tireless history in our party of continuously working on behalf of the justice issue, and I commend him for that.

Bill C-219 is an act to amend the Criminal Code by adding the following after section 334:

Every one who, while committing an offence or while attempting to commit an offence or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence, operates or uses a motor vehicle that he has stolen or knows to have been stolen is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of one year.

If I could refer to the October 20 edition of Hansard , in presenting the bill my colleague from Wild Rose said:

My private member's bill amends the Criminal Code so that a person guilty of an indictable offence must be sentenced to one year imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor vehicle that the person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence.

He made the point that the bill put the police chiefs' resolution into practice. As I mentioned, my colleague is tireless in making sure he is in tune not only with the Canadian public but indeed with the Canadian Police Association and the Chiefs of Police. He said:

This bill puts the police chiefs' resolution into practice. It will clearly serve as a deterrent to those considering these types of criminal acts.

He also noted:

There are three primary motivations for auto theft: one, joyriding; two, transportation for criminal purposes such as breaking and entering, robbery, and drive-by shootings; and three, when a car is stripped for parts or exported to other provinces or countries for sale.

I was particularly interested to note that the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister then followed my colleague and said:

A person found guilty of this indictable offence must be sentenced to one year's imprisonment.

I put emphasis on the word must because there is nowhere in Bill C-219 or in the comments of my colleague that says this is a mandatory sentence. She was wrong. It must not be a sentence to one year's imprisonment. She went on further to state:

This offence must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

This is again wrong. There is nothing in Bill C-219 that prescribes whether it be consecutive or concurrent.

In the short time that I have had the privilege of being the solicitor general critic for the Reform Party I have been on a very rapid up-ramp of learning. What I have learned is the difference between consecutive and concurrent.

The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that even if a person was found guilty of this offence, should the bill indeed pass through the House and become law, he or she would be liable for one year's imprisonment. That would simply be served at the same time as the penalty for whatever other criminal offence was being served.

In effect the minister is prejudging that the court system would say it is one extra charge and it will be served concurrently. It would be served at exactly the same time so it would not make any difference. What a waste of time if that were the case, and indeed it is not.

If that were the case it would be a pattern much like the government has chosen for very violent offences, very violent rapes and sexual offences, very violent multiple murders and all the events surrounding multiple murders. Basically the government has gone into the business of volume discount. In other words, although it is true that one cannot serve more than one life sentence, one can be incarcerated for an extended period of time if life sentences are served consecutively, that is one after the other.

If a person were able to apply for parole after the end of 15 or 25 years, depending on the precise circumstance, and there were more than one murder or more violence surrounding the event, the penalty for all the other surrounding events would have been paid at the same time as that for the longest event because the longest sentence before one can get parole in Canada is 25 years.

The government is out of touch with the Canadians with whom I speak in coffee shops in my constituency and with whom my colleagues speak on the streets of Calgary. Most members in the House, and I dare say even a few Liberals when they talk to their constituents, must know that the constituents are after some feeling of public safety. The government is not giving any sense of public safety.

I get back to the bill at hand. Bill C-219 takes a look at the issue of someone, during the course of committing an indictable offence, stealing and making use of a vehicle. It basically says this must be put in place as a deterrent. The fact is that it is only for one year. Because of the parole system, if a person has a one year sentence it is quite possible to be out on day parole within one-sixth of a year, in other words within two months.

The government is not even involved in truth in sentencing. It says they will get one year if they use a car for a joy ride. Such is being used, for example, in Cornwall as we speak where people involved in smuggling weapons, guns, liquor, drugs and tobacco were using vehicles for high speed chases. All sorts of things are going on. As a result of the sentencing regime under this government, even for a one year sentence the offender upon conviction would not get one year because that is the maximum. Even if he or she got the maximum, the offender would potentially be out on day parole within two months.

This is why my colleague brought the bill before the House. In his usual thoughtful manner he will have worked through the process and will have taken direction from the people responsible for public safety, safety on our streets.

Also as solicitor general critic I must say that I have a deep concern about the entire issue of tracking vehicles. We know that stolen vehicles end up at the Canadian police information centre on CPIC. If a police officer sees a vehicle he or she can access CPIC to find out the status of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stolen or there is something irregular about it, it will show up on CPIC.

It is my position on behalf of our party that there be an upgrading of the CPIC system so that vehicle identification numbers, not just for stolen vehicles but indeed for all vehicles in Canada, would be available to police officers. If Bill C-219 is enacted, CPIC and the vehicle registration system would become part of bringing Bill C-219 into full force and effect.

[Canadian Police Information Centre, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, is operated through the national police service. This system allows police forces across the country to access criminal records. The Canadian Police Association says this priceless tool is in desperate need of resources to update the system. CPIC is 20 year old technology and it is on the verge of collapse.

Sharing information is vital to ensure accurate and complete reports on criminal activity and organized crime.

A revitalized and restored CPIC system would ensure tracking of offenders. An updated national system could include vehicle identification numbers to track stolen vehicles, escaped convicts and parolees gone AWOL.

Last week the Canadian Police Association estimated the cost to upgrade CPIC would be about $200 million. This government can easily find those dollars with one stroke of a pen.

Cancel the firearms registration program that tracks law-abiding citizens. Transfer the funds saved over to CPIC that will track criminals.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would sooner speak about the fact that this government has decided one way it can save money is to go to a 50:50 release program by Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board.

The statistics are these. There are 14,000 inmates incarcerated in federal institutions. There are 8,000 federal offenders on conditional release, 753 of whom are now missing. That is 1 in 10, not too good a statistic. Forty five convicted rapists remain missing. Fifty per cent have been missing for more than a year. Now the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada has a quota system asking for the elimination of 50% of the inmates who are presently incarcerated. That is a good way to cut down on expenses but all the more need for us to have a CPIC system that would work and be able to keep track of the people they are deciding to shoo out the door presumably to cut down on their costs.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Reform Party is very proud of being at the forefront of bringing these issues to the House of Commons.

We start with the police officer on the street. The RCMP cover most areas of Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario. The RCMP budget is $1.9 billion. Even in those other jurisdictions I just mentioned they have some jurisdiction which relates to national policing interests.

The government has trimmed $174 million from the budget in which there was no fat in the first place. We believe that spending must be prioritized to ensure only those operations proven effective in fighting the war on crime continue to receive funding. My point was that it had already reached that point when the government chose to cut a further $174 million.

The RCMP fundamentally are handcuffed at a time of fiscal restraint. It had a tremendously devastating effect not only on the morale of the RCMP officers in the province of British Columbia but also particularly on their ability to get their job done.

There were assignments shut down last fall, assignments where there had already been time and resources invested, particularly overtime. Believe it or not, it reached a point where undercover operators were told they could not even use their cell phones. There were patrol vehicles that did not have tires to get out on the highway. There were other patrol vehicles for which there was not even gasoline.

What kind of planning is this? What kind of priority is it that this Liberal government has that it would permit a situation, not just in British Columbia but very acutely in British Columbia, where even the police on the street are not given the tools to be on the street.

Reform agrees that the RCMP and all governments must be accountable. However, there cannot be this gratuitous cutting every time it runs into a situation. I have been told that in many situations the RCMP are no longer able to provide an adequate level of service to the public.

I have already released to the public a confidential RCMP report. It was originally released by the RCMP. It calls B.C. a major centre for the importation of child porn.

We know as a result of the inaction on the part of this government that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction where the simple possession of child pornography is a statute that currently cannot be enforced. It is going through a long process, as one of the junior ministers said earlier. It is going through a long process but in the meantime the clock is ticking for people who are caught in this web. The clock is ticking, their cases are being put off and we are going to reach a point where the justice system is going to say their cases have been put off for too long.

On the RCMP commercial crime unit, in December 1998 a consulting firm recommended doubling the economic crime branch's budget to $100 million because the RCMP white collar crime branch was unable to do its job.

It is the Liberal government which is tying the hands by constraining the resources available to the police on the street to be able to get their job done.

We have had promises, promises and promises. Ever since I was elected in 1993 I can recall promises about money laundering. When there is illegal and illicit activity, particularly as it relates to prostitution, drugs or any of those illegal efforts, they have to find some way of getting the money they get in from that effort back into the system so that they can reclaim it so the money is of some value. The key to organized crime is to have effective workable money laundering legislation.

The person who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister was the solicitor general. The member for Fredericton was the solicitor general. Now the member from Prince Edward Island is the solicitor general. Again he is promising on behalf of this government that we are going to have money laundering legislation. Promises, promises, promises.

The head of criminal intelligence at Interpol has said that police are losing the fight against criminals in cyberspace and will have to take giant strides to catch up on the information highway. He stated: “Drug traffickers, pedophiles and money launderers have found the Internet to be an increasingly effective tool as the number of users hits 100 million”. In my office I have an intelligence report to the RCMP about information technology and just how far ahead of the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies are those who use the system illegally and illicitly for their own purposes.

The government also saw fit to see the Regina training centre for new police officers temporarily closed. What happened to the people who were in the system, to the men and women who had decided they were going to join the RCMP and were already in the system and then boom they were out the door? That is the end of them. Now there is a fresh start.

Meanwhile a tremendous number of people in the RCMP, because of this lack of funding and the lack of ability to get the job done, are becoming increasingly frustrated. They are also reaching a voluntary retirement age.

What was the government doing in permitting the Regina training centre to be shut down? Of course it did not permit it; it simply squeezed off the resources so that the Regina training centre could not be funded.

I have been involved with the APEC inquiry by the public complaints commission in Vancouver. To date it has spent $1.3 million. That is just the money for the public complaints commission, let alone all of the lawyers who are there to protect the Prime Minister's interests. Millions and millions of dollars will go into the APEC inquiry. If the Prime Minister would simply agree to turn up and tell his version of the story, we would save millions of dollars just for that one event alone.

One other issue of particular interest to me is the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. It is operated through a national police service. CPIC allows the police forces across the country to have access to criminal records.

The Canadian Police Association says “This priceless tool is in desperate need of resources to update the system”. It points out that CPIC is a 20 year old technology. The sharing of information back and forth across the country by police forces as they roll up behind a vehicle or as they accost an individual is absolutely invaluable, yet CPIC is on the verge of total collapse.

CPIC is completely bulging at the seams with information. It needs approximately $200 million to upgrade the system. Where have I heard $200 million before? I remember, $200 million is the amount of money the government is spending registering the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The irony in this is that if the government in its meagre effort were to put that information into CPIC, it would destroy CPIC by overloading it.

What is better? Do we spend $200 million to go after law-abiding citizens to register their weapons, or do we spend $200 million on a system that will track vehicles, track AWOL prisoners, track people with criminal records, track all sorts of criminal elements? Where is the best place to spend resources? Considering the way in which this government strangles the ability of our police forces to do their jobs, I suggest that the $200 million could be more intelligently reallocated.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise very proudly as a member of the Reform Party because it seems as though we are the one party in Canada that keeps on forcing the issue on making streets safe for Canadians and for all of the people in Canada who are concerned—

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest the way in which there were sections of legislation that were of some concern to my colleague in the Reform Party that were taken by the justice minister when she came forward with the new Young Offenders Act. However, I am sure he must have noticed yesterday the solicitor general deciding that he was going to come forward with legislation, amendments to the Criminal Code, which would red flag people who have received pardons for their offences if those pardons related to sexual offences.

I would imagine hon. members also probably noted that our Reform colleague from Calgary Centre has already had that legislation in its basic form go through the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, there is an argument to be made that the legislation by my colleague from Calgary Centre, in its own way, in many details is superior to the legislation that the solicitor general brought forward yesterday.

It strikes me as being strange, and I ask him if it also strikes him as being strange, that we have legislation that has gone through second reading in the House and which will be before the justice committee this week. Any amendments that the government wants to make to get it into a form that is more to its liking—although the similarities are so close that I can only imagine some tinkering around the edges—could be made and this bill could be reported back to the House of Commons for third reading and passed by the will of the people who represent Canadians in the House.

I wondered if my colleague has any idea why in the world the solicitor general would have simply lifted the Reform Party private member's legislation and put it into the situation where it will likely be delayed. The reporting requirement of sexual offenders who have received pardons will again be delayed, so that Big Brothers, Scouts and other organizations like that will not have this legislation. I wonder if he has any insight into why in the world the Liberals would be ripping off Reform legislation and, in effect, delaying its ability to be passed.