Jay Hill

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member's comments even though they are absolute nonsense.

This member is saying that the third party, the Reform Party, is out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board which is absolute nonsense. We are getting sick and tired of trying to initiate a sensible, realistic debate on this subject only to be subjected to that kind of nonsense. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever farmed in his life but I have farmed most of my life. I am not as young as I once was but I can remember very low barley prices.

To hear the hon. member talk of an average price of $100 a tonne for barley and suggest as he did that it is a bonanza price, I would like him to tell farmers that. The bit of profit on $100 per tonne barley does not go very far toward paying for a $200,000 tractor or combine. The hon. member should know that when he represents an agricultural riding.

The hon. member is saying that the average pooling price should be good enough. Studies have been done. Al Dooley of the Alberta Grain Commission, analysis branch, has done a 15-year study of the barley price f.o.b. Vancouver, shipped from Great Falls, Montana, as compared to Lethbridge, Alberta. It was a fair comparison. He found over the 15-year period that the American price was $23 to $30 per tonne more.

How can the member stand in his place and say that Canadian farmers are getting a good deal from the Canadian Wheat Board when that is the reality of a 15-year study?

[Public Service Cutbacks, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians in northern and isolated communities have had it.

While people in southern cities can walk a few blocks to talk to a human resources officer in person, people in rural communities spend literally hours trying to get through on understaffed 1-800 lines that are supposed to give them superior service.

Five CECs were just closed in my riding. Under the new UI rules, people will have to work longer to qualify for fewer benefits, but their questions go unanswered because the phones ring busy.

Desperate pensioners who cannot pay their rent because of lost cheques call my office because all they get is a busy signal on the OAS line. Single mothers struggling to make ends meet cannot get their questions answered because the child tax benefit line is clogged.

In its downsizing wisdom, this government kept upper management and cut the front line workers. Rural Canadians are willing to sacrifice to get us out of debt, but at least hire enough workers to

man the 1-800 lines. Northerners are tired of being left out in the cold.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

That is not extremism.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was to inform the House about the first example, William Nichols. I believe my colleague for Crowfoot did refer to that example.

After the review, although he was found guilty of robbery, kidnapping and killing a police officer, his sentence was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. This is the first example of how this clause has been used, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians.

I find it very interesting that one of the reasons, one of the excuses the justice minister has used to bring in gun registration, for example, with Bill C-68 was that he was responding to the wishes of Canadian policemen, those individuals across the country who lay their lives on the line to protect society every day and night.

Yet what we find is that the Canadian Police Association has passed other resolutions the justice minister is ignoring. In other words, he picks and chooses what he wants to move on.

I will read from Canadian Police Association resolutions passed at its convention:

Whereas the penalty for those persons convicted of murder is currently subject to varying parole eligibility, and this has produced a great measure of uncertainty amongst Canadians about the credibility of the justice system in Canada, be it resolved that:

First, the Criminal Code be amended so as to allow a discretionary capital penalty for those persons convicted of first degree murder as currently defined;

In other words, capital punishment should be brought back for some of the heinous crimes.

Second, all other persons convicted of first degree murder but not sentenced to capital punishment be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole or conditional release in any form, except for emergency medical treatment, until the expiration of 25 years;

Third, section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed.

In other words, do what the government said about the GST; abolish, kill, do away with. It did not do that and it will certainly not do it with section 745 regardless of what the Canadian Police Association says and regardless of what millions of Canadians across the country want. I find that absolutely disgusting. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-45.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my words to the debate on Bill C-45. I wish to inform the Chair at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

This bill shows that once again the justice minister has seen fit to bring forward a piece of legislation that is half baked, weak kneed, bleeding heart and which simply does not do the job where section 745 of the Criminal Code is concerned.

Millions upon millions of Canadians are telling the government that section 745 has to go. It is that simple. In reality what we have is Bill C-45 which is some 16 pages long and simply deals with categorizing murder. It is absolutely abominable that the government would try to categorize some murderers and therefore the victims and their families, as more serious than others, or that one murder is okay.

The government leaves the impression that one murder is okay but if a person kills more than once, then perhaps section 745, known as the faint hope clause, should not apply. It leaves people and would be criminals with the impression that it is acceptable. It is not acceptable to Canadians at large. It is not acceptable to victims rights organizations across the country that have been speaking out on the side of victims and it is certainly not acceptable to the Reform Party of Canada.

As I said, the bill is 16 pages long when in reality we only needed one short page of legislation to repeal section 745. I believe very strongly that all acts of murder are reprehensible in the eyes of Canadians. There are no good killers. Killers should not get special treatment because they committed just one murder.

The categorization of murder by the justice minister is an insult to the families of victims of one time killers. That is becoming more recognizable as word gets out of what the justice minister intends to do with this piece of legislation. Yet it does not surprise me. We have repeatedly seen this type of initiative come forward by the Liberal government and this particular justice minister.

I remember two years ago when we were debating Bill C-37, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Reformer after Reformer said that the legislation was insufficient, that it was inadequate and did not address the concerns of Canadians who were deeply concerned about the rising incidence of violent crime by young people. I might add there is a very real concern by the young people

themselves. Statistics show that they themselves more often than not are the victims of these young hoodlums.

Bill C-37 did not adequately deal with the problem. We said it then and we maintain that now. It has become self-evident. The justice minister himself shortly after that bill was passed said that the Young Offenders Act was once again under review. Now we see the same thing happening. It is becoming consistent with this justice minister.

We saw it a couple of months ago with Bill C-33, the legislation on sexual orientation to make it a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The justice minister as was indicated during question period today had maintained and had assured Reformers and the Canadian people that it was only to protect against discrimination and nothing more could be read into it. Now, just a few weeks later we see the results of that. Regardless of what the minister said today, that it had no impact on the ruling by the tribunal, I do not believe it. I do not think the majority of Canadians believe it. It reinforced what was there. That was a concern certainly expressed by the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and I believe by millions of Canadians across the country.

By categorizing murderers in Bill C-45 by the number of victims, we are adding another level of bureaucracy to the justice system. One level addresses multiple murderers; another addresses what the justice minister would like us to believe are the less nastier one time killers.

Instead of differentiating between multiple murderers and single murderers, the justice minister should have proposed consecutive sentencing. That is what people are calling for. For example, Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. That would have been fair. That would have been justice. That is what Canadians are calling for.

It is ironic that private members' Bill C-226 was introduced on March 14, 1994, and was reintroduced following the prorogation of Parliament in January. In the last session, the House of Commons voted at second reading to refer the bill to the standing committee. Seventy-four Liberals, including the then Minister of Transport who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development, voted against the justice minister and supported the repeal of section 745. Yet private members' Bill C-226 which would have seen the repeal of this section was buried in committee. The bill which has been reintroduced has not yet been dealt with. Instead, the minister brought forward this half baked, totally inadequate piece of legislation.

To give a little bit of history, in 1976 Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal justice minister struck a deal with Canadians and the death penalty as a punishment for first degree murder was taken off the books. Even though the statistics and polling at that time showed that the majority of Canadians still wanted the death penalty for some of the more heinous crimes, the Liberal government did away with the death penalty but left Canadians with the assumption that life meant life.

We want to make it clear that when we talk about first degree murder this type of murder is not committed in a fit of rage. Some thought has been given to it. It is cold blooded premeditated murder. We are talking about the Clifford Olsons and the Paul Bernardos.

I am sure everyone understands how I feel about this issue. About a month ago I was fortunate to have my private members' Bill C-218 drawn which called for the reinstatement of capital punishment. I and a number of my colleagues spoke one evening on that and expressed our support for the return of capital punishment and for having a true free vote on it in the House of Commons. I stated that the Reform Party's position, which I strongly support, is that we should have a binding national referendum on the reinstatement of capital punishment. This was reconfirmed at our recent assembly. Let all Canadians decide on such an important issue.

However, the justice minister, the Prime Minister and others on that side of the House have very clearly indicated that they will not allow the people to have a say on this important issue. Therefore, I drafted my private members' bill and submitted it to the House in the hope that as a second-best alternative we could have a true free vote. Members could get the wishes of their constituents and then vote accordingly. It would not be as we have seen in past Parliaments that have voted on capital punishment, first to abolish it and then to reinstate it and members voted their personal conscience on the matter.

It is of interest that the first judicial review using this faint hope clause was in Alberta in 1992. William Nichols was in jail for robbery-

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette outlined examples that clearly explained why it is imperative that the Canadian Wheat Board be put under the jurisdiction of the auditor general. The wheat board should also be subject to the Access to Information Act. Farmers are asking: "Why all the secrecy?" Reform members of Parliament are asking: "Why all the secrecy?" Why cannot this board be held accountable to the people that are paying the bills, the farmers?

As the hon. member opposite mentioned, there has been a lot of dissent. In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, farmers are divided on what to do with the wheat board. It is universal across the west that farmers are divided. However, there is one thing they are not divided on, and that is holding the board accountable.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this evening to add my remarks to those made by my hon. colleagues on what we view is a very important bill put forward by my hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette, Bill C-212.

What is this really all about? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. This is about accountability. It is that simple.

I have one word for the hon. member who just spoke, the hon. member from Prince Albert-Churchill River, and that is hogwash. He knows it. What is he afraid of? What is the government afraid of in making the Canadian Wheat Board accountable and allowing the Auditor General of Canada to look at the books and perform an annual audit on the Canadian Wheat Board? What is so wrong? What would happen that is so bad?

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River talked about timing. He said the Reform Party should wait until the process is complete. We have been waiting for three years for the government to act in relation to the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers have been waiting.

The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was never a farmer, though I spent 20 years in the agricultural sector, farming, as did the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, and as did about five or six other members of the Reform Party caucus. We have some inkling of what farmers are going through. Quite frankly, they are sick and tired of a government that is dragging its feet on this issue of holding the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the people paying the bills.

I was quite shocked when my hon. colleague was revealing some of the numbers and how the budget for the Canadian Wheat Board for administration costs has increased so dramatically over the last number of years. He read that it was over $26 million in 1987, $35 million in 1992, jumping to over $41 million in 1994, with no real accountability. Why would the auditor general not be allowed to audit those figures and reveal what that increase encompasses?

My hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster in his brief remarks questioned some of the issues that would be contained in those costs such as salaries and severance packages. It reminds me of another issue of accountability or lack of accountability, the whole issue of MP pensions. My hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette mentioned that in his speech.

I find it more than ironic to hear once again the government saying "do not worry about what we are doing, do as we say, not as we do", as the government does with pension reform. It is talking about making cuts to Canadians' CPP pensions while it feeds at the trough of the MP pension plan.

The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was speaking about the need to consult farmers in this process. That is almost laughable. Is this the same party that during the campaign promised a plebiscite on whether it should be single or dual marketing? Where is the plebiscite after three years?

The hon. member talks about consulting and now he is busy heckling. It would be interesting if he is so verbose in his consultations with farmers.

[Young Offenders Act, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when an 11-year-old boy commits a violent crime, the only thing that authorities can do is send him home or to the Children's Aid Society, nothing more.

Such was the case in Toronto this month when a 13-year-old girl was allegedly attacked by three young boys and then raped by an 11-year-old. Apparently this boy was already known to police for auto theft and robbery. He was and still is immune from charges because the Young Offenders Act exempts children under age 12.

The system is failing these young people and their victims. Bill C-228, which I introduced in March, would include children as young as 10 under the YOA. If members are actually listening to the outrage of Canadians over this tragic event, then I urge them to support this change. These kids are capable of committing violent crimes, they are certainly capable of knowing they have done wrong and they must be held accountable for their actions.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and add my voice and remarks to those who have already spoken in favour of Bill C-201, a private member's bill put forward by my friend the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

I am not going to get into statistics as a great many have already been cited by my hon. colleagues from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Okanagan-Shuswap, Simcoe Centre and Fraser Valley East. We could go on all night citing tragic statistics in support of Bill C-201 which would see a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving which causes death. It is something that is certainly needed.

As did the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, I too would question why the Liberals are speaking against this piece of legislation. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair said she cannot support this piece of legislation because it does not do this or that. What does it do? Certainly it is not the be all and end all. No one said it was. I believe very strongly it is a step in the right direction and it is going to send a clear message.

The hon. member for South Shore indicated that the problem runs so deep that this piece of legislation will not save lives. I dispute that. I think it will save lives. It will send a very strong message to people who get behind a wheel when they are drunk and go on our nation's highways and streets and kill people.

It is a coincidence that in January I wrote a column for my local paper on this very topic. I will read part of that column into the record because it hits at exactly what we are talking about here.

Does anyone else have a problem with the light sentences constantly handed down to drunk drivers? A comparative rap on the knuckles or slap of the wrist, even when their offence leads to massive property damages, injuries or death of innocent people.

I went on to say that perhaps the system might provide some deterrence if the criminals-and these people are criminals; that is what we are talking about here-were sent to work in a bush camp instead of being granted a short stay in some five star hotel that we call jails or prisons in this country today. The article went on:

You know the kind of camps: no running water or indoor toilets. You have to chop your own firewood or you freeze. As for work, there is no shortage. For example, with all the parkland being set aside, I am sure there is a need to clear hiking trails.

I went on to say that the particular individual I was referring to should have to pay back ICBC and the city for the damages resulting from his stupidity.

Does this sound too harsh? Well I do not think so. I for one am sick of our system mollycoddling the guilty. This is but one example of thousands occurring across the country. Drunk drivers who take little or no moral or financial responsibility for their actions. And most Canadians are also beginning to question a justice system that does not seem to hold drunk drivers accountable.

I am reminded of the recent case of David Johnson, 27, of Prince George. My hon. colleague for Prince George-Bulkley Valley also referred to this case. Last September while drunk, he caused an accident that claimed the lives of Jim Ciccone, his 12-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter. The prosecutor asked for a sentence of six to eight years. The maximum allowable is 14 years. Judge Ramsay decided three and one-half years would be sufficient punishment. Is that punishment enough for taking three lives?

Following public demonstrations, the sentence is now under appeal. I remember 42-year-old Herman Richards who ran down Amanda Bailey while she was flagging at mile 123 on the Alaska highway in July 1990. Richards had been drinking prior to hitting Amanda in the middle of the highway in the middle of the afternoon. The sentence for Richards was three years and a life sentence of nothing but memories for Amanda's family. The examples could go on and on.

The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley responded to this type of tragedy with Bill C-201. What is the attitude of the government across the way? Members opposite say the bill does not do this, it does not do that, so they will have to vote against it. Do those members offer something to replace it? Hardly. They offer criticism.

Canadians are starting to realize that what we see here is a government gone soft on criminal behaviour. The member opposite from Prince Albert-Churchill River said in a speech at second reading which was mentioned in a news article in March: "We cannot look at this from a narrow perspective. The objective of the law is that it ought to be reduced impaired driving and if you have stiff penalties but no enforcement, there will be no one obeying the laws".

I say hogwash. Stiff penalties will deter people. If people know they will have to face stiff penalties, as I suggested in my column, perhaps we should be looking at more than only a jail term where they shoot pool, lift some weights and maybe take a course at taxpayers' expense. Maybe if they had to do some work, we would see some real deterrence.