Peter Milliken

[Committees Of The House, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity of Joint Chairman of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct. Instead of a report, the committee asked me to present a motion today. I move:

That, in relation to the Orders of Reference adopted by the Senate on March 21, 1996 and on June 19, 1996, and by the House of Commons on March 12, 1996 and June 19, 1996, the reporting date of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct be extended to Friday, December 13, 1996;

That, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the report be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for these purposes.

[United Empire Loyalists Land Reclamation Act, October 22nd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to permit descendants of the United Empire Loyalists who fled the land that later became the United States of America after the 1776 American Revolution to establish a claim to the property they or their ancestors owned in the United States that was confiscated without compensation, and claim compensation for it in the Canadian courts, and to exclude from Canada any foreign person trafficking in such property.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a bill that will be known once adopted as the Godfrey-Milliken act.

The purpose of this bill is to permit the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists whose lands were confiscated or occupied by others when they fled the United States in the years following the American Revolution to assert their claims in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court is then required to make a determination as to who the owner of the property was and order it returned to the claimant or the person otherwise entitled; to order that the claimant be compen-

sated by the payment of damages; and to list the names of the persons who are trafficking or who have trafficked in the property.

Those persons then will not be permitted to enter Canada, nor will their families be permitted to enter Canada, and they will be forced to leave Canada if they are in Canada until they return the confiscated property to the rightful owners.

The bill is quite a short one. I think it is one that will find widespread support in the House. I have had indications of support from members opposite. I am looking forward to an opportunity to present the bill.

I hope all hon. members will agree to make it votable so that we can get this bill passed with dispatch and give to Canadians the same rights that Americans enjoy under the Helms-Burton law passed in that country.

I am also aware that, on adoption of this bill, many of the difficulties of finance in the federal government will be satisfied because of the substantial awards of damages that will be available to Canadians.

I suspect that the Minister of Finance will be looking at those for taxation revenue and will be able to solve our deficit problems with the additional tax.

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

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, October 10th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the RCMP public complaints commission in 1989-90 for that financial year recommended a number of changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to improve procedural fairness.

I am happy to reintroduce a bill that I introduced in the last Parliament on this subject which incorporates the changes recommended by that commission. It was commended to Parliament at that time and I am happy to have the opportunity to have hon. members vote through these changes now.

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

[Leonard Birchall, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, over 400 people gathered at Norman Rogers Airport in Kingston Township on October 6 for the official opening of Len Birchall Way. The new street name, officially unveiled by Kingston Mayor Gary Bennett and Kingston Township Reeve Isabel Turner, recognized Air Commodore Leonard Birchall, a former commandant of the Royal Military College.

On April 4, 1942 Leonard Birchall was on air patrol off the coast of Ceylon, where the British navy was stationed. He was turning around when he spotted the whole Japanese fleet heading toward Ceylon. It is said the Japanese were planning an attack similar to the one at Pearl Harbour. Leonard Birchall managed to signal the British fleet before the Japanese shot him down. He was captured and survived four years of beatings and torture in a Japanese prisoner of war camp.

Sir Winston Churchill hailed Leonard Birchall as the saviour of Ceylon. Had the Japanese attacked, they could have wiped out the British navy, with unknown consequences for the outcome of the war. Air Commodore Birchall is truly a great Canadian war hero. He was well saluted last Sunday.

[Committees Of House, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry.

In accordance with its order of reference on Monday, May 27, 1996, your committee has considered Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, and has agreed to report the bill with a significant number of amendments.

[Robert Bourassa, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are paying our last respects to a man who, as Premier, governed Quebec for almost 15 years.

Robert Bourassa was and remains one of the prominent figures of the political scene in Quebec and Canada. He played a very fundamental role in the development of modern Quebec, a source of pride for all of Canada.

Robert Bourassa was a proud Canadian and a proud Quebecer. He worked harder than anybody else to re-establish and maintain the dialogue between Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

This great man had an endless respect and affection for his province and his country. Today, in this House, we are adding our voices to those of millions of Canadians in order to say, with deep emotion: "Thank you, Mr. Bourassa".

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1996]

They want more and they are going to get it.

Also on page 4294 of Hansard , the hon. member for Beaver River said: ``Some murderers and violent offenders are curable. They are not all incorrigible. Some of them will be rehabilitated. Some will care and will have a genuine conversion experience in prison. They will want to make their lives better and pay back to society some of the terrible things they did by doing good work''. That does not fit well with the hon. member for Wild Rose.

Then we have the hon. member for Peace River getting into it. He said: "These inmates do have the right to earn their way out of prison after a period of time. If they do try to upgrade their skills they have a chance to be rehabilitated". Yet the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said: "I question the need for killers to have any rights when they are in jail".

Listen to the inconsistencies in those statements.

Then we have the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who is considered a moderate in the party and who was reduced to tears after his public caning at the caucus meeting of the Reform Party last summer. On page 3885 of Hansard He said: ``We are not concerned about Olson. He is not going to get out''. We do not need to scare Canadians with that. That is not what the Reform Party is saying''.

Yet we had the hon. member for St. Albert on page 4260 saying: "Mr. Olson and others like him will be able to walk the streets of this country absolutely and totally free after 25 years, perhaps sooner". What garbage. Which one is right, Calgary Centre or St. Albert? Calgary Centre happened to be right on that occasion, but

my goodness, there are so many mistakes and inconsistencies in these statements that it is hard to imagine what is going on here.

Let us turn to the glimmer of hope clause. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says: "The Reform Party has been accused of being without sympathy, but it is simply not true. Reformers believe that sympathy and consideration must be for victims and for criminals".

Yet the hon. member for Crowfoot said: "Murderers should not be given a glimmer of hope or any incentive to ease the burden of the severity of the punishment for what they have done". The hon. member for Wild Rose said: "I frankly do not care if killers' hopes are dimmed by the prospect of no early release". That is what they said. Which one is speaking for the Reform Party, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca or Wild Rose? Let them make up their minds.

We then have the "throwing away the key" quote by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast who said: "The feeling is that the return of capital punishment is desirable and necessary-To cater in any way other than providing the bare necessities for existence to any of these low life individuals-". That is his opinion of these people.

The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley said: "Do not let them out. They should spend the rest of their lives behind bars". I could go on and on, but I want to turn from these inconsistencies to the question of caning.

I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette dated Thursday, February 27 of this year. In it the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is championing caning. He said: They have a corporal punishment system''-this is in Singapore of course-and the offenders sit up and take notice of it''. Apparently they cannot sit down afterward. ``So I am going to take a look at just how effective it is,'' said the Reform justice critic, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

The article goes on to state that corporal punishment was abolished in Canada in 1972. Said the member for Calgary Northeast: "It was part of our justice system and personally I think it should be back again". He seems to have changed his tune because we all know he cancelled the trip. He wrote a little article for the Calgary Herald that I have here which was published on March 22. Shortly after that he recanted and decided that spanking, corporal punishment, caning and whipping were not things with which we really should proceed. He decided to abandon them.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast decided that the trip to Singapore was going to create waves and cause too much trouble. In fact, one of the former Reform members said that it was extremist and got the boot. She was fired right out of the party. She went to a caucus meeting and what went on there we do not know, but one suspects there was some caning and she got the boot. She said that it was extreme. Do members know something? She was right. I do not know if there is a Canadian here who does not think so except the hon. member for Wild Rose.

I have more. Here is the latest article in the Globe and Mail from the other day. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast got on to the subject of prurient literature in the prisons. Apparently somebody in some prison somewhere, I think it was in Edmonton, had received some bad magazines in the prison, was selling them and inmates were reading them. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is quoted as saying in the Globe and Mail : ``If he wants to entertain himself, give him a good book to read and they might want to start with the Bible''.

Mr. Speaker, of all people to talk about starting with the Bible. I know the hon. member for Calgary Northeast started with the Bible. He got to the book of Leviticus and quit. The problem is that he stopped when he read about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He really should have read on. There is another section of the Bible called the New Testament. If he had read that he might have had some of the milk of human kindness come out in some of his speeches.

I see the member sitting with his leader. His leader's father, as I recall, was something of a preacher and knew something about the gospel. He might do well to sit down with the leader of his party, read the New Testament and try to understand some of the intricacies of the law that was pronounced there. It might help to relieve him of some of the extremism that is exhibited in his speeches and is clearly one that is inappropriate for this kind of article.

Imagine suggesting that inmates sit down and read the Bible. Perhaps he should take a break from his parliamentary duties, which perhaps the electors of Calgary Northeast will provide after the next election, and he can sit down, read the Bible and take up another convocation, another employment opportunity-convocation is the wrong word-vocation. Never mind the "con", it is just "vo". He could get out there and preach the gospel or read the Bible in a public way. I think it would help him with his extremism.

I know some of the newspaper articles are misleading. They suggest that he is the justice critic for his party. I understand he is in fact the solicitor general critic and he is supposed to deal with matters relating to prisons.

We have here in his speeches on this bill some of the most extraordinary statements about the virtues of imprisonment and how people have to be locked up, jailed and put away. He does not say he is going to lock them up and throw away the key. However

one of the members the other day told us right here in the Chamber-I am sure I heard him say it and I think it was the hon. member for Vegreville, but I would not want to misquote and I do not have this one written down-that in fact anyone who is convicted of a violent offence should serve the entire sentence in prison. If a person gets a life sentence for a violent crime, they go to prison for life and they do not come out. If that is not lock them up and throw away the key, I do not know what is.

What we have here is the Reform Party trying to capitalize on this issue by saying on the one hand it believes in loving kindness and compassion. The hon. member for Beaver River in her speeches exemplifies this. Then we have on the other hand a group which says no, no, no. Which is party policy? I invite the leader to stand up and clarify the matter for us.

[Translation]

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1996]

That is their kind of thinking. Listen to the applause that rings out from the Reform.

On page 4294 of Hansard , the hon. member for Beaver River said: Yes, criminals need attention, rehabilitation, love and caring''. And the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam said:It is not about rehabilitation. It is about providing a fair and just penalty''.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak, even if it is for a brief time, on this important bill.

During the course of the lengthy debate on this bill, when we sat and listened to Reform members go on and on about its evils, I kept asking them pointedly what were their views on caning. I know one of the their colleagues is a staunch supporter of caning and I wanted to hear about their party policy on this issue. However, not one of those members had the courage to answer my questions.

I want to point out some of their inconsistent statements on this bill and on other matters and then I will come to the caning point.

I am sure the members of the Reform Party are relieved that closure has been applied on this bill because it lets them off the hook from all the inconsistent statements they have been making.

First, I have a quote on rehabilitation from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who I thought often exhibited some sense in the House. I quote from page 3888 of Hansard where he said: ``It is not to say that we are not concerned about rehabilitation. It is not to say that we are not concerned about prevention''.

Yet the hon. member for Crowfoot, that well known expert on justice issues, said on page 3878 of Hansard : ``A life sentence is not about rehabilitation. It is about punishment and retribution''. He should speak with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca to find out what he thinks.

The hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin said: "I am not suggesting that people who had a difficult childhood should not be given consideration. It is our intention that all Canadians should have the opportunity to come to their full potential and do what they truly choose to do".

Yet the hon. member for Wild Rose, who is well known for his liberal views, said: "To those who argue that these criminals can be rehabilitated, let them prove this after they have served their full term of 25 years and not a moment sooner".

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon. member indicate how I would need help in the next election in order to get elected in Kingston. I attribute that to my rationale for expressing myself yesterday in my speech on Bill C-45.

I have two questions for the hon. member arising out of his remarks. First of all he said at one point that he did not believe, and neither did any of his colleagues, in the policy of locking them up and throwing away the key, that that was not part of the Reform agenda.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is laughing at that because he knows that is his position. Indeed, it is the position of many members of his party. They have said repeatedly in this House in the course of the debate-and I am surprised that the hon. member who just spoke was not here listening-that they favoured locking them up and throwing away the key. In their view, when life means life, when someone gets sentenced to life imprisonment, they should go to jail for life. If that is not locking someone up and throwing away the key, I do not know what is. That was the proposal I heard from many of the members opposite.

Perhaps the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia could get up later and explain his view on this but I think it was lock them up and throw away the key. Then he said that their policy was not that, that they did not approve of that policy, that that was not any part of it. In the next moment he said on crimes of violence when someone got a sentence they stayed in prison for the full length of the sentence.

If it is a life sentence and someone goes to jail for life-I assume he considers murder a crime of violence-is that not locking people up and throwing away the key? I just wanted to clarify this. Is murder a crime of violence for the purpose of his definition? When someone gets sentenced to life for a crime of violence, do they not then go to jail for life under Reform policy? If that is not the policy, I would like to hear about it. I would like him to clarify that and I am happy to give him that opportunity.

The second matter goes back to a subject that nobody opposite dares talk about any more since the hon. member for Calgary Southeast blew the whistle on the member for Calgary Northeast on caning. There are parts of Calgary in different directions which seem to get very confusing. I have trouble remembering which member came from which district but I think I got it right that time because I checked in the book.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast blew the whistle on extremism in the Reform Party and she got the boot. One of the things she went on about on extremism was caning, which the hon. member for Calgary Northeast said he thought he should have a good look at. He wanted to go to Singapore to learn all about caning.

I am wondering if from the discussions in caucus concerning the problem of caning, which no member on the other side seems to want to talk about, the hon. member for Vegreville could clarify for us what the Reform Party position is in respect of caning. Is that part of the new package of prison and reformatory matters that are dealt with in this bill that Reform will be introducing as amendments later at the committee stage?