Jay Hill

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and support this motion brought forward by my hon. colleague for Comox-Alberni.

I believe he should be commended for his tenacious attitude with regard to this motion. The issue of property rights has been debated in this House of Commons numerous times over the last 30 years and unfortunately for Canadians they still do not enjoy adequate protection of their individual property rights.

The fact that my colleague has been diligent enough on behalf of Canadians to correct this alarming oversight by hammering away at this issue once again shows his dedication and the dedication of the Reform Party to fight for equity and justice.

This issue reminds me of another battle that has been carried out on the floor of the House of Commons throughout the past 20 years. Like property rights, capital punishment has maintained overwhelming support by Canadians. The reinstatement of capital punishment has been favoured by 70 per cent of Canadians since it was abolished 20 years ago. Throughout that time MPs such as me have introduced legislation to fulfil the wishes of the majority.

Unfortunately too many MPs forget that it is their constituents they represent first and foremost. They forget that they are not in Ottawa to conform to the wishes of their political masters or to satisfy their own conscience. They are here to debate and vote on behalf of the people in their constituencies. Instead, as in the case of capital punishment, many have ignored this fact and so it is left to a few select members of this House to hammer away and reintroduce legislation until hopefully someday we will succeed and therefore ultimately Canadians will succeed.

In the matter of property rights we are faced with a similar situation. A poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association in 1992 showed that 87 per cent of respondents considered the right to own and enjoy property of all kinds a fundamental right.

Another poll by the Canadian Real Estate Board in 1987 found that 81 per cent of Canadians considered it either very or fairly important that the Constitution be amended to include property rights. A 1987 Gallup poll demonstrated that 87 per cent of Canadians supported increased property rights protection.

Needless to say, this all indicates significant and overwhelming support and reflects Canadians' concern that their property rights can too easily be infringed upon. But still there is no guarantee in this country that private property will not be removed for public use and there is no provision that government must provide for fair compensation when it expropriates property for public use.

This is despite numerous attempts by Canadian legislators to protect property rights. As has been mentioned, these legislators include John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau enjoyed excellent support from his justice minister at that time, the current Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, these efforts have been impeded by, among other issues, constitutional concerns and protests from provincial governments worried that their jurisdictions were being invaded. For example, during constitutional debates in 1992, the province of Prince Edward Island strongly protested the inclusion of property rights in any constitutional proposals. The premier of P.E.I. at the time went so far as to inappropriately state: "If we cannot control the destiny of land in Prince Edward Island, we will soon no longer be a province".

As we in the House are aware, the general sentiment among the majority of Canadians is that they are reluctant to see the constitutional can of worms opened at this time and it is easy to understand why. Fortunately, the motion recognizes this sentiment as well as the misguided fears of certain provinces. It strengthens property rights without constitutional change or the need for provincial consent. It applies only to federal law and the operations of the federal government.

It dictates that the federal government uphold a reasonable standard of fair and just compensation in exchange for personal property. While it does not involve the provinces, it sets a standard to follow and a precedent for individual property rights in the eyes of the law. Regardless of jurisdiction, it will strengthen and respect the rights of Canadians who believe their private property cannot and should not be arbitrarily taken from them by the federal government without compensation.

This is a simple and logical solution that does not infringe on the provinces and shows that the federal government is concentrating on cleaning up its own backyard.

It also rises above partisan politics. As I mentioned earlier, former prime ministers from both the Liberal and Conservative parties have seen fit to support property rights and the current Prime Minister once spoke very strongly of securing them for Canadians.

The Prime Minister's attempts at protecting property rights were unsuccessful. I hope he seizes this opportunity to support the motion which, as I have mentioned, accomplishes the task at a federal level in a relatively simple manner through the Canadian Bill of Rights.

While reviewing the motion and the debate on it, I became concerned that some members were confused about its intended results. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate to all members that this motion does not involve constitutional amendments. I repeat the statement that my colleagues and I have already made today because in past debate the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead in Quebec expressed worry that the motion would limit the ability of a provincial government to legislate in the environmental sector if property rights were enshrined in the Constitution. This motion will affect neither the provinces nor the Constitution.

Another point I would like to clarify with respect to that hon. member's statement from June 10, 1996 involves the importance of property rights to a person's identity. He does not seem to realize the fundamental importance that property rights hold for individuals. In the case of a home or a farm it often identifies who they are and who their ancestors were. It provides them with a heritage, a past, a sense of pride and a constant source of solace in times of difficulty. Certainly I can speak from experience about what has become known as the love of the land, being a farmer, and the pride that comes from the ownership of property.

In the early 1970s hundreds of families in rural communities near Pickering, Ontario were surprised when they began receiving form letters telling them their homes and farms were going to be expropriated to make way for a new international airport. No consultations were carried out with the residents or even with the local municipalities. People were forced to sell homes and land which some families had occupied for nearly 170 years. The federal government expropriated 7,527 hectares for an airport it never built.

Since they were expropriated the lands and homes of these Canadians have been mismanaged by Public Works Canada on behalf of the transport minister. The loving care that many owners put into their homesteads suffered vandalism and bulldozing. One of these homeowners, who is now in his seventies, said: "I could not believe the government's arrogance. It made me absolutely livid".

After suffering through the tragedy of having their homes and farmland taken from them and witnessing its destruction, these people were enraged at the federal government's declaration two years ago that 2,000 of these hectares were now deemed surplus. How could anyone bear the indignity, frustration and heartache of having their homes taken from them, then hear that part of their heritage was being declared surplus?

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is in a crisis.

CPP was originally intended to provide retirement pensions for workers and aged survivors. Disability programs were under provincial jurisdiction.

Since 1970 when the first federal disability cheque was issued, amendments have increased benefits and made it easier to qualify. Now some insurance companies tell clients to apply for CPP disability before they collect any benefits from them. And government payments are deducted before the company plan kicks in. CPP disability is subsidizing private plans and jeopardizing the pension of every working Canadian.

That is not all that is wrong. If your disability claim is turned down by CPP, just appeal it to a tribunal. In more than three-quarters of the cases the original decision is overturned.

Let us save CPP for its original purpose: providing retirement security for our senior citizens. And let us properly address the needs of the country's disabled.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Or more.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that it was a pleasure for me to rise today and participate in this debate on Bill C-45, but I find it is just the latest example of this minister's and this government's half baked justice policy that they are holding up to the people of Canada as a way of getting tough with crime when it does exactly the opposite.

However, I do appreciate the opportunity to point out to this government, on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River and on behalf of the majority of Canadians, that section 745 of the Criminal Code should be abolished.

I believe that Bill C-45 simply introduces more cosmetic changes. Over the debate of the last couple of days in this place on this piece of legislation-and I use that term charitably-many of my colleagues in the Reform Party have said that it is high time this government started listening to the people. Of course when that was said what we heard from the other side, amidst howls of heckling, was that the government is indeed listening to the people. I question that.

A poll was recently conducted and completed in my riding, which is virtually the entire northeastern corner of British Columbia. One of the questions the people were asked in this scientific poll was: "We are interested in knowing how you feel the federal government is doing with respect to criminal justice matters".

Interestingly enough, 56 per cent of the people said they felt the federal government was doing a poor job reforming the criminal justice system; 11 per cent more were uncertain as to how it was doing. Clearly two-thirds of the people of my riding feel either that the federal government is doing a poor job of addressing criminal justice issues or are uncertain as to exactly what it is attempting to do.

I view that as a clear indication that the people of my riding and I believe the people of Canada are growing increasingly concerned, despite what we hear from the government that crime rates are falling and the incidence of violent crime is going down. What I hear from the people as I travel throughout my riding and across the country is that they are increasingly concerned about crime.

Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Police Association and the majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed. It is that simple. I find it appalling that this justice minister and this government would not listen to, for example, the Canadian Police Association on this issue or on the issue of a referendum on capital punishment. Yet, during the debate on the gun control issue they said that the major reason why they were bringing in this preposterous gun control legislation was because the police association wanted it.

The justice minister conveniently uses the police association and its resolutions where it suits him but does not listen to them on other issues. He has ignored the pleas of these groups and he is pushing Bill C-45 through the House.

The bill makes a few amendments to section 745, and these have been recounted over the past few days. First, the right of multiple murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole will be removed. However, instead of making this provision retroactive, the new measure will only apply to those convicted of multiple murders after Bill C-45 comes into effect. Therefore the minister has done nothing to prevent serial killers who are presently incarcerated from getting their day in court and getting a chance at a reduced parole ineligibility period.

Second, the bill will ensure that the murderer will have to convince a superior court judge that their application has a reasonable chance of success before they will be allowed to proceed to appear before a jury. This sounds like a good measure, but considering that applicants have had a 72 per cent success rate since May of 1994 in having their parole ineligibility reduced, it is unlikely that a judge will find fault with a majority of these applications and dismiss them.

Yesterday my hon. colleague from Wild Rose referred to this not as the faint hope clause but as the sure bet clause. He hit the nail right on the head.

In short, the new hurdle is really no hurdle at all. We will continue to see far too many section 745 hearings.

Finally, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need to find in the applicant's favour. However, in my view the bottom line is that section 745 should not exist at all.

Section 745 was introduced as part of Bill C-84 in 1976 by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was serving as solicitor general at that time. Bill C-84 abolished capital punishment and established two categories for murder, first and second degree. However, not many people noticed the inclusion of section 745 in their review of the original bill. As a result, we have had to wrestle with this provision for some 20 years.

Many Canadians believe that 25 years before being eligible for parole is not a suitable sentence for first degree murder. In fact, polls have consistently shown that Canadians favour a return to the death penalty for those who are convicted of first degree murder.

Yesterday the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that Reformers were attempting to instil a hate pattern in Canadians by advocating a return to the death penalty. In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, when I did a poll, 85 per cent of

the people favoured the return of the death penalty for cold blooded, premeditated first degree murder. That is what we are talking about today. We should be very clear about that.

On May 14 of last spring we had one hour of debate on my private member's Bill C-218, which would have brought about the reintroduction of capital punishment. One hour of debate. That was all the government deemed the debate on capital punishment was worthy of.

Last Friday one of my colleagues from Nanaimo-Cowichan introduced private member's Bill C-261 and there was an hour of debate on a referendum on capital punishment. In other words, it would have let the people speak. The government does not want to let the people speak on this and many other issues.

Government members know that people are outraged that murderers are given a glimmer of hope after serving only 15 years. What glimmer of hope did those murderers give to their victims? Speaking of victims, section 745 does them an incredible disservice. The whole judicial review process causes the revictimization of families and at times of entire communities.

Gary Rosenfeldt, whose son was murdered by Clifford Olson, said the whole section is an insult to victims. What is coming from the Liberal government? It is simply window dressing with respect to dealing with section 745. This really comes as no surprise. The Liberals are constantly promoting the rights and privileges of criminals and constantly mollycoddling the very worst people in our society while victims are completely ignored.

I see my time is almost up. I could go on all day talking about the government's lack of commitment to the victims of crime. The real point here is that the entire misguided and sad policy in the area of justice over the past quarter century by this government and governments preceding it has been built on a false premise that everyone in society is basically a good person. Everyone can be rehabilitated in the eyes of the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is always the fault of society that they go astray. It is always the fault of the parents or because they are poor.

There are some in our society who are inherently evil. That is a reality. I believe the majority of Canadians know that and it is why they want to see section 745 repealed. That is why I am voting against this piece of trash, Bill C-45.

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

We did.

[Petitions, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and specifically from the city of Dawson Creek.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other non-constitutional procedure.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Yes, exactly, the minister of agriculture is heckling our speaker and someone tries to tell him to please be quiet. No, we are not supposed to do that. However, the member did not even try to address my question.

I will ask the member again: Does he think that this system is fair after hearing me recount my personal experience? Would he please address that question and tell Canadian farmers that this system is fair? That is what happened to me personally and my family farm and it has happened to countless others in this country.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about etiquette and decorum in this House. He did not even attempt to answer my question.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as usual I listened with great interest to the member from Saskatoon-Dundurn. Why? I am not too sure. Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour and I do not have anything better to do this evening so I listened.

I noticed he said the Reform wants to change this on a whim. Nothing could be further from the truth. This motion is well thought out. I do not know whether he has taken the time to read the motion.

The member wants to cling to the past. This is quite unusual because normally that is what the Liberals accuse the Reform Party of doing, but in this case they want to cling to the past. He said he did not know whether the two systems, free marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board, can operate jointly. Well neither do we. That is the whole point of the motion.

We heard tonight about the unfairness that Ontario corn producers can market their product wherever and whenever they want yet western wheat growers cannot. We heard that Quebec wheat growers can market their product into Ontario yet western wheat growers cannot.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to recount my personal experience with this. My brother and I were farming up until the time I got elected to the House of Commons. We were farming 3,000 acres, producing wheat, barley, canola and grass seed in the Peace River country of British Columbia, not Alberta as a colleague said earlier.

We got into an effort to market some of our barley directly into the Caribou, to truck it ourselves through the Rocky Mountains and market it in the Caribou region. It was feed barley. When we did that we learned of a situation in the remainder of the province of British Columbia involving the wheat growers in the Creston valley and other areas of B.C. Bear in mind that the vast majority of the arable land in British Columbia is in the Peace River country on the east side of the Rocky mountains. Although that was small acreage, they could market their wheat directly to Rogers Flour Mill in Armstrong in the Okanagan interior but I could not. The same province, the same country. We were in tough times then.

Most farmers were just barely getting by. Grain prices were in the basement. Is that fair? That is what I want the member to answer.

Is it fair that some farmers in this country depending upon where they live can take advantage of opportunities and market their wheat directly to a flour mill? It is still going on today. Farmers in another area, because it is under the umbrella of the Canadian Wheat Board, are prevented from taking advantage of that opportunity. That is what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about freedom, choice and fairness.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is becoming so lively that a whole raft of my colleagues would like to have the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question.

Finally we have a western farmer making a presentation from the other side of the House. I congratulate the member for making her presentation this evening despite the late hour. I listened attentively.

When my hon. colleague for Yorkton-Melville asked the member from across the House who the wheat belongs to, the hon. member for Halifax stuck her head in the Chamber and heckled and said the wheat belongs to God. Perhaps as their leader would say it will take an act of God before we ever see any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is the answer they are proposing? We are proposing to give farmers some freedom, to give farmers the choice. We are not proposing to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Far from it. We are saying give farmers the choice. Their answer is to defend section 745 of the Criminal Code, let first degree murderers out on early parole, at the same time as they throw farmers in jail. It is absolutely ludicrous.

What is their answer to the present dilemma facing grain farmers in western Canada where we see farmers being arrested, their equipment, their combines, their trucks being impounded at the border and the farmers being hauled before the courts? Is that their idea of settling this issue?