Jay Hill

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as always, even if it was somewhat abbreviated the issue does end up producing quite a lively debate, as I am sure the people at home have noticed with some of the heckling back and forth across the Chamber during the debate.

In the short five minutes that I am given by the process to sum up, I would like to try to make as many points as possible to rebut some of what was said by the other representatives of the parties.

First, it is key to note that the hon. member for London West, as well as others, denied the ability to put this very important issue to a vote. In other words justice denied has been justice denied once more in the House. It is my position and the position of a lot of people in the Reform Party of Canada that all Private Members' Business should be put to a vote whether it is a private member's bill or motion.

Second, I call the attention of the viewing public, or anyone who wants to follow the debate and do a little research on it, to the fact that the comments made by the hon. member for London West almost followed word by word the comments made by one of her former colleagues, Mr. Gordon Kirkby, who at the time was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, as reported in Hansard of May 14, 1996, for anyone who would care to look up the speech.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. This bill is not a Reform bill. This is my bill, the member for Prince George—Peace River, a private member's motion. Private members' motions and bills do not come from a party.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-212, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, last week Gallup released the results of its most recent survey on Canadian support for the death penalty. According to that poll, if a national referendum were to be held today a full 63% of the Canadian public would vote in favour of reinstating capital punishment.

The Reform Party believes that on moral and contentious issues such as capital punishment Canadians should grapple with their own consciences and vote according to their personal convictions in a binding national referendum. We have called for a binding referendum on the death penalty but the government has said no. The government has told the people that it knows what is best for them and that they do not have the choice.

That is why I have introduced the bill. If the government will not hold a binding referendum at the time of the next federal election, I believe we should hold a true free vote in the House of Commons where all MPs can vote the views of their constituents rather than those of their political bosses or their own personal beliefs. That would be democracy.

The bill imposes a sentence of capital punishment on all adults found guilty of first degree murder. First degree murder occurs when a murder is planned and deliberate, when death occurs during a sexual assault or kidnapping, or when the victim is a police officer or a correctional officer. First degree murder is not an accident. It is cold, calculated and brutal.

To address the concerns people have about the finality of the death penalty important safeguards have been built into the legislation. There is an automatic right of appeal at the first level. Even if convicted people themselves do not appeal they are deemed to have appealed and the court will review the case on all questions of fact and law to determine if the conviction is valid.

All appeals are to be conducted in a timely fashion. If the jury and court are satisfied that overwhelming evidence shows someone is guilty beyond doubt there is no reason he or she should languish on death row for years. The sentence, if upheld, is to be carried out within a reasonable period of time. The death penalty is to be carried out by lethal injection. This is a more humane method of execution than hanging or electrocution. It ensures a quick and painless end and does not turn the culmination of a tragic chain of events begun by a brutal murder into a media and public circus.

People might ask why the bill is necessary. The death penalty should be reinstated for many reasons. First and foremost is that the state must protect society. In this debate we cannot forget the inevitable release of murderers. Between 1986 and 1995, 133 convicts released from prison for first and second degree murder returned to our communities and committed crimes again. These included 87 violent crimes and sex offences. They also included 10 murders. It is clear that our so-called rehabilitation programs are not working.

Two convicted murderers also escaped, only to murder again. How does one explain to the families of those victims that 12 murderers were given the opportunity to strike again? How could anyone possibly defend our justice system to the family of just one of these victims?

While there are 12 examples that I could use, I draw the attention of the House to one in particular. Four murders were committed in 1989 by Allan Legere who escaped from prison while serving a life sentence for the bloody beating death of an elderly shopkeeper in 1986. He escaped, only to murder four more law-abiding innocent Canadians.

I am certain that someone here today will raise the cases of Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard. All three of these men spent years of their lives behind bars, convicted of crimes they did not commit. This is not something any Canadian is proud of. My hope is that their years of needless suffering and incarceration have taught us a grave lesson about how easily justice can be subverted. Their hard won battles have exposed problems in our system that we must be ever vigilant to avoid repeating.

When local police departments are under enormous public pressure to produce a guilty party, that is when we must scrutinize the evidence presented with an even more critical eye.

No one should be convicted of first degree murder and put to death based on circumstantial evidence. We now have much improved DNA technology. These high profile cases have alerted the public and the justice system to the possibility of overzealous police forces seeking speedy convictions.

David Milgaard was convicted of second degree murder so he never would have faced the death penalty in any case. Under the bill all evidence and facts would have been carefully re-examined in the convictions of Guy Paul Morin and Donald Marshall. They were recently exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. If their trials had been held today they would have never been convicted. The DNA tests that proved them innocent could just as easily prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone else's guilt.

We are entering the 21st century and our justice system should use the latest technology to determine the guilt or innocence of those charged.

Many people like to quote statistics, telling us that the murder rate has gone down since 1975. That was the peak year, at three murders per 100,000 Canadians. Why do they not take it from 1966 when the rate was less than half that, at 1.25 per 100,000? In 1996 the homicide rate was 2.11 per 100,000. Whether we measure it from 1966 or 1975 it is still far too many.

Another statistic is much more relevant to the debate today. I quote from a recent Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics publication known as Juristat . With respect to homicide it states that first degree murder as a proportion of all homicides rose steadily from 36% in 1978 to 57% in 1996. That means that in 1978, 238 people were charged with first degree murder. However, in 1996, 361 people were charged with first degree murder even though there were 28 fewer murders committed in 1996 than in 1978. Obviously something has changed if the proportion of planned and deliberate murders has increased by over 50% since capital punishment was abolished in 1976.

We should not consider the use of the death penalty out of hunger for vengeance but out of desire for justice. No act of vengeance can undo the harm done. No punishment can erase a victim's scars or bring back those who were murdered. The death penalty is not about vengeance. It is not the business of the state to exact punishment motivated by vengeance. It is the role of the state to mete out justice.

Capital punishment is about public safety. The only certain way to keep extremely dangerous individuals from harming again and again is to take away their opportunity to do so. Why is it wrong for society to take the life of someone who has knowingly violated our most fundamental laws and brutally slain a fellow human being?

In 1982 one-third of the 300 convicted murderers in Canada said they would prefer the death penalty over life in prison. In fact, in 1983 a convicted murdered in Saskatchewan formally requested the death penalty by lethal injection on the basis that his life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. His request was denied by the court.

Some people believe we should just lock up murderers capable of the most heinous crimes for a few decades. Some of these people object to the death penalty strictly on moral grounds. That is their right and I believe they should be given the opportunity to voice that view in a referendum.

I take issue with those who object to the death penalty because they fear our justice system may have convicted an innocent person. What they are pointing out is not a problem with the death sentence, but a more fundamental problem with the ability of our justice system to determine the truth.

If you believe innocent people are being convicted, do not just object to the death penalty. It is equally wrong to keep an innocent person in jail for 10 or 20 years. Those who believe our justice system does not work have a moral obligation to reform it, to protect all innocent people, not just those facing a possible death penalty.

There is no question there are problems with our justice system. According to our laws, taking a human life is wrong. Somehow our system is seriously out of balance, and I refer specifically to the Latimer case.

Maybe people believe the second degree conviction of Tracy Latimer's father was warranted, but others believe it points to the need for different charges in the Criminal Code. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice is considering something like a mercy killing category, but if she is I strongly urge her to include a significant range of sentencing options to reflect all Canadians' moral convictions on this highly contentious issue.

Under the current system the sentencing judge has little latitude in sentencing Latimer. Some Canadians agree with this while others do not.

Let me bring another murder case to the attention of the House today. On Vancouver Island a man was murdered and his murderer walked. There was no public hue and cry to jail the perpetrator because the victim was apparently an undesirable person. Because people did not seem to generally like the victim, they demanded little or no punishment for the criminal. That is not right.

Somehow I believe our justice system forgot that its role is to protect all citizens, even those we do not like. As a society we cannot let individuals take the law into their own hands. We must prevent vigilantism and have room for compassion for those who act out of mercy, not malice. The state should have the option of imposing the severest of penalties for the most heinous of crimes to protect the citizens.

There is no way to bring the victim back. The death penalty would not do that. But it will prevent the murderer from murdering again.

Paul Bernardo may not be getting out for a long time, but his accomplice will be getting out very soon. Clifford Olson may have failed in his bid for parole this summer, but eventually he too may be released into our streets, into the neighbourhoods where our children are at play.

Do you want people capable of rape, torture and murder living next to you? Do you want to take the chance with your children and grandchildren? When they get out, not if, do not count on them moving to someone else's neighbourhood.

The death penalty may not act as a deterrent for sick individuals bent on the destruction of other human beings, but if the death penalty does not deter them, neither does the prospect of imprisonment for 15, 20 or 25 years. Deterrence is not the issue. Seventy percent of Canadians who supported the death penalty in 1996 said they would still support it even if it was proven not to be a deterrent. Instead, the majority of Canadians believe that capital punishment is for the protection of society.

In summary, I believe the death penalty should be reinstated for those guilty of heinous first degree murders. This bill provides ample opportunity for appeals on the basis of fact and law with the option of commuting the sentence to life imprisonment. Capital punishment should be available to society to protect the citizens from those who have shown no remorse, no guilt and no possibility of redemption. The appeals process and the sentence are to be carried out in a timely fashion. Administering a lethal injection is more humane than hanging or electrocution and does not reduce the death sentence to a media spectacle.

I and the Reform Party believe that Canadian people should decide on whether they want to reinstate capital punishment in a binding national referendum, as I said earlier. Because the government has said no, as I also said earlier, the next best thing is a free vote in the House of Commons.

Sixty-three per cent of Canadians want the death penalty reinstated. It is the duty of members of this House to carry out the will of their constituents. Therefore, I would seek unanimous consent of the members present to make Bill C-212 votable.

[Divorce Act, November 21st, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, an act to amend the Divorce Act (joint custody).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to introduce this bill and thank my hon. colleague from Skeena for seconding it.

Sadly, all too often marriages in Canada end in divorce. Unfortunately, children are frequently the casualty of these breaks-ups and they are further hurt when custody is awarded to only one parent. This bill would provide for automatic joint custody unless there is proven neglect or abuse.

Joint custody does not mean children are shuffled back and forth between two homes. It means there is a joint responsibility for decisions made in the best interest of the child and access cannot be denied arbitrarily by one of the parents. Children need the love and support of both parents and our laws should reflect that.

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

[Airports, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government is downloading small regional airports throughout the country. Two airports have already been turned over in my riding and now a third is on the federal hit list.

Some of the biggest users of the Fort Nelson airport are the federal and provincial governments, forestry workers, water bombers and American tourists on their way to Alaska.

Fort Nelson is in the northeast corner of B.C. next to the Yukon border and hundreds of kilometres from any other towns. The people of Fort Nelson are going to referendum December 6 to vote on whether they can afford to take over the local airport. The population is only 4,500, a small town with a big heart. Yet the federal government wants the town to pick up the tab for an airport that runs a $400,000 annual deficit.

Why is Fort Nelson being forced to assume the cost of operating its airport but other northern communities like Whitehorse, Watson Lake and Yellowknife are not?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was just making passing reference to it for the sake of the viewing public at home who might not have known why we moved straight from Group No. 2 amendments to Group No. 4.

On to Group No. 4 amendments of which, as I have indicated, there are some 16, Motion No. 5 is an amendment put forward by myself on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, the official opposition. It calls a fully elected board of directors. The rationale for this is that if this board is going to be put into place for the best interest of farmers, for the best interest of western grain producers, then certainly they should have the right to elect all of the directors to the board.

We have the situation in this legislation where the government and the minister still retain the right to appoint five directors, one of which will be the president and the chief executive officer of the board of directors. We find that completely reprehensible. We do not understand the inequity, the inequality in the system whereby the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board can have a fully elected board of directors to run the affairs of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board and yet western grain farmers are denied that fundamental right of electing their entire board of directors.

We would certainly urge all members of the House in light of that to support Motion No. 5 and ensure that this bill is amended so that we have a fully elected board of directors.

Motion No. 7, also in this Group No. 4, deletes the powers of the board of directors. The bill, as it is presently structured, lays out different powers for the appointed directors and the elected directors. Of course, if Motion No. 5 is successful and passes and you have all 15 elected as they should be, then there would be no need to have a differentiation in the powers of those individual directors.

Motion No. 9 ensures that the elected board and not the minister would have control over the hiring and firing of the president. If farmers are to truly have a say in the way that the board operates, I think that this is fundamental. During committee hearings, the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and time after time we heard this, the groups who appeared, as short as the list was and as confined as the time was allowed at committee, did make the point that they felt that the board of directors should have the power to hire and fire the president and the chief executive officer.

We had some of my hon. colleagues remark about that earlier and cite examples of the credit unions and the co-ops and other successful co-op enterprises where Canadians have seen fit to band together for their mutual financial best interest on a voluntary basis, but they retain the right to elect their board of directors and that board of directors then hires the administrators. We see no reason whatsoever that this new structure, this new Canadian Wheat Board, would not have a similar process in place.

I would like to add to that and to the comments of my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin who spoke a few moments ago. I find it more than a bit strange that the more socialist people in this country, whenever a state run enterprise is under scrutiny, always fall back and say that it cannot exist in a free market economy. It is in the best interest of the producer, but we have to protect that interest because if there were any competition, it simply would not survive. In the long term interests of the farmers, in this case the western Canadian grain farmers, we need to ensure that the monopoly, the compulsory nature of the Canadian Wheat Board, is retained.

I find that somewhat puzzling, just as my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin did, in the sense that there has been a longstanding tradition in western Canada as there has been across this country of enterprises that have not only survived but have indeed thrived in a free market economy. He cited the examples of the co-ops, the pools and the credit unions which I am familiar with as I am from a rural area and was a farmer in my previous life.

Nobody said when credit unions were put into place that Canadians would be forced to join a credit union. No one said you cannot do your business at a bank because it is in your best interest to belong to a credit union. Imagine the open rebellion there would be in this country if everyone were forced to bank at the same institution. The credit unions have done quite well. They have filled a niche market and they continue to enjoy enormous support especially in the rural areas of western Canada.

Motion No. 10 would ensure some minimum production level so that the vote of a hobby farmer would not totally cancel out the vote of a full time farmer, someone who is earning his living and has a lot more at stake with the business conducted and the decisions made by the Canadian Wheat Board than someone who is earning all or most of his income off the farm.

The rationale for Motion No. 11 is that once the initial elections have taken place, the minister's involvement in the election of the director should be limited if farmer interests are to be served. The minister's control of the barley plebiscite earlier this year proved that at times when a minister is directly involved, he can structure a vote to ensure the outcome he wants.

Motion No. 14 also refers to the hiring and firing of the president. At the end of the day it is the board of directors that must retain that control over the president and the president cannot be beholden in any way to the minister or to the government of the day.

It is very difficult when we look at the way many of these motions are grouped to go through them in a singular manner. I refer briefly to Motion No. 19 which ensures that the new corporation will have to adhere to the code of ethics guidelines for corporations. The federal government initiated the signing of this code by Canadian businesses in September 1997. The code sets out standards for ethically, socially and environmentally responsible business practices. However, the federal government did not instruct its departments and agencies to sign the code.

Given that the wheat board markets extensively abroad we feel it is more than appropriate that the corporation become a signatory to the code in which it would commit among other things not to make illegal and improper payments or bribes and will refrain from participating in any corrupt business practices. That is just a small part of the code.

It is interesting to note that question was put to the government by an hon. member during question period, that it is pretty hypocritical of the government to insist that businesses now adhere to this code when crown agencies themselves are not required to. That is the purpose of that amendment.

I look forward to a return of the lively debate we have seen over the past hours.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and address my comments to Group No. 4 of the amendments before the House.

I must say that it is exceedingly difficult for all of the members from whatever party and whatever point of view to address such a large group of amendments because they deal with so many different areas.

We have 16 amendments in this group that we are going to endeavour to try to adequately address and debate in a short 10-minute intervention. In light of there being 16 amendments in 10 minutes, I will have to confine my comments to just a few of them.

Perhaps for the viewing public watching this debate at home with interest I am sure, I should note that Group No. 3 comprised Motion No. 3 and was dropped because apparently it had been brought forward at the committee and therefore was ruled out of order.

I did want to make the point when I put that motion forward that what it did was remove reference to the president as a member of the board of directors.

In other words, the president would not have served on the board of directors.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“3.02(1) Fifteen directors are elected in accordance with sections 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall be appointed by the board in consultation with the Minister.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 24 on page 3.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 4 with the following:

“(e) the manner in which the board, in consultation with the Minister, may decide to remove the president and the manner in which the board, in consultation with the Minister, may implement a decision to remove the president.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by adding after line 33 on page 4 the following:

“(2) Producers shall be eligible for votes based on the following levels of production:

For the purposes of this Act, 1 tonne of grain is defined as 1 tonne of wheat or 1.5 tonnes of barley. A producer will be eligible for 1 vote if they grow or market a minimum of 50 tonnes of grain in a given year. This information will be obtained from permit book records or in a signed affidavit submitted by the producer.”

(b) by replacing line 34 on page 4 with the following:

“—(3) After the date referred to in section 3.08,”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 40 on page 4 with the following:

“the board, in consultation with the Minister, shall make regulations respecting the election of directors, including geographical representation on the board and the staggering of the terms of office of directors.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 45 on page 4 with the following:

“3.07 After the date referred to in section 3.08, the board, in consultation with the Minister, shall determine the proper conduct and supervision of an election of directors, including”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 5 with the following:

“the pleasure of the board of directors for such term that the board of directors may determine.”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) The president shall implement measures to include the Canadian Wheat Board as a signatory to the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business, no later than six months following the first election of the Board of Directors.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 41 on page 5 with the following:

“(3) If the president is absent or unable to act or the office of president is vacant, the board of directors, in consultation with the Minister, may appoint an interim president. An interim president shall not act for more than ninety days, unless approved by the board.”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 6 with the following:

“view to the best interests of producers;”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 6 the following:

“(c) comply with guidelines as established by the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business.”

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

I am being very relevant to the main issue at stake here. For the hon. member across the way to take the issue so lightly points to the problem.

Over here we have members who have grown up on farms and farmed year after year in western Canada. They are speaking out on an issue of vital importance to western Canadian grain producers. Over there we have people like the hon. member who treat the issue frivolously.

I will briefly address Motion No. 41 put forward by my hon. colleague. The motion would delete the exclusion clause from the bill. We run into a problem here. I support the motion as put forward, but we must realize it goes hand in glove with a motion to delete the inclusion clause.

One great argument put forward by government members both in the limited debate in the House and at committee was that when a clause excludes certain types of grain from Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction, in fairness there must also be an inclusion clause. Hon. members from the opposition responded by saying that was fine.

However, there is so much resistance and so much fear of the inclusion clause in the grain sector that we have said, if that is the strongest argument of the government against bringing forward an inclusion clause that hardly any farmer would support, let us take them both out. Motion No. 41 is part of Group No. 2 and moves to strike the exclusion clause. It must be viewed in conjunction with the subsequent motion to delete the inclusion clause.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

The hon. member from the governing party said “too much”. It has become painfully obvious that throughout the debate the Liberals do not want to see the bill properly debated. That is why they hustled it off to committee without a proper second reading. That is why we went through the charade—