Philip Mayfield

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments. I have a question that relates directly to Mr. Feeney and the evidence.

Will the legislation provide for Mr. Feeney to be retried using the evidence that the supreme court has already thrown out, or will he go free because the evidence is not admissible in court?

There is no question in anybody's mind, particularly and likely, that Mr. Feeney is guilty as hell. The blood is on his hands. If that blood cannot be used in the subsequent court appearance, what good is it? Justice is being denied. Justice is not being served. The law must serve justice and not simply the legal system.

Will the government build in retroactive provisions so that Mr. Feeney can be tried, using the evidence that the police have already collected to convict him?

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Frank Boyle was murdered at Likely which is about one hour's drive, if one drives like heck and does not hit a deer, from Williams Lake where I live. It is on the Quesnel River flowing out of Quesnel Lake. It is an isolated community.

One of the large tasks I have as the member serving Cariboo—Chilcotin is initial telephone hookups, lines to where residents live so they can get on the telephone system.

The question I want to ask is about the telewarrants. I am glad the member raised the question of warrants. The legislation would probably work well in a city where the streets are laid out and the houses are identified. However, how would they work in areas where there are shacks, trailers and accommodations in the bush? People have lived for a long time in these areas. People in isolated circumstances are encouraged not to take the law into their own hands as they have had to do in the past because there have not been police resources or a means of communicating with the police.

How are telewarrants supposed to work when the police undertaking a legitimate investigation are unable to communicate with the justice of the peace, the judge or even their own headquarters in many instances because of isolation?

This seems to be another instance where the laws of our land are dividing rural and urban people. Does the member have a comment to make about telewarrants and their effectiveness in the type of circumstance that happened in Likely?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is an attitude among Canadians that drinking is okay. Most people do not get caught and when something like this happens, well it is too bad it happened to them. It is always thee and thee but never me.

We in the Reform Party have a fairly hard line about consequences for drinking and driving. I would like to have some of my Liberal colleagues come out and say what they think it would take to stop people from drinking and driving, to change the attitude.

We can give all the education courses in the world, but if somebody wants to drink, he is going to do it. How are we going to deter that person? I have suggested taking their licence away for life if they drink. What about taking their vehicle away so they cannot have a vehicle?

No one really wants to have the courage to say this is what needs to be done. The committee needs something on record from this debate about some of the alternatives to what is happening now to prevent those people from getting behind the wheel and driving when they are drunk.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the intervention she made and the spirit with which she approached this subject. This has been a very emotional day for all of us who have been paying attention to this.

We have heard words such as vengeance, which is not acceptable here. I am inclined to agree with that. The Bible says “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. So I do not think we need to worry about that.

However, we somehow or other have to draw a line. I believe that in many respects drinking and driving is still acceptable to far too many Canadians. What I am interested in knowing is how can we draw the line in such a bold fashion so that people realize that drinking and driving is not acceptable.

I am aware of a family that lost a young man because his friend was driving drunk. The young man who was driving drunk got thrown in jail for manslaughter. There were two sad families as a result of this. That may be the way has to be.

What I would like to explore with the hon. member is maybe the line in the sand should be that if you drive while drunk you loose the privilege to drive forever. If you drive when drunk and kill someone, you have committed a crime like murder. One of the things you loose is your vehicle, which was the weapon used. Would the hon. member agree with that as drawing a line in the sand? People may then understand that drinking is not acceptable.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this has turned out to be an emotional day as we debate these issues and bring to our conscience the sadness and tragedy caused to so many individuals and their families.

One of the difficulties as we look at this, and it is perhaps even more emotional than we are able to discuss here right now, is that so many people do drink at one level or another. One of the difficulties I see in looking at the serious consequences of this is that those people who do have drink, and who do drive home, and have done this for a long time and have never had any difficulty with it, may be saying “There but for the grace of God go I”, when they see one of these accidents.

When we look at the consequences of what happens, when we look at what is needed to prevent these accidents and those consequences, it is very difficult to accept responsibility for what so many of us do on a day by day basis.

I ask the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar if he does not see the need for toughening up the penalties in our judicial system so there is a line drawn in the sand so we can all understand the basis that this is built upon. If you cross the line, you pay the penalty. That may be a sledgehammer but it is at least the beginning of dealing with a serious problem.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that whatever can be done to prevent this from ever beginning is all good and right. If this were part of the ingredients of one's mother's milk, I would be in favour of it, that we grew up with the attitude in our communities that people just do not drive after they have been drinking. I think that would be wonderful. I am in favour of that. I am in favour of the education. I am in favour of family attitudes and fostering everything that will do this.

I want to push the member again to the questions I asked. For those who insist on breaking the law and putting themselves in a position where others can be killed or injured, would he be in favour of confiscating the vehicle after the first offence? Would he be in favour of saying to that person they have violated their privilege and will not drive again, these are the rules we have?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary of state for his remarks and for bringing into the discussion the issues of boating and snowmobiling. I can relate very well to those issues. I was out in the middle of Howe Sound on a 35-foot sailboat when a high powered motor boat played chicken with us to see how close he could come to the side of our boat before he had to steer away. There is a good deal of threat in that. I am pleased that the secretary of state has widened the issue.

There was an element of his speech that I would like to draw to the attention of the House, the statement that Canadians find it unacceptable to drink and drive. A lot of Canadians do, but far too many do not.

I do not want to depend too much on statistics, but my hon. colleague from Edmonton pointed out that over 65% of those who have been charged with impaired driving are repeat offenders. It seems to me that there are not enough Canadians who understand how serious it is to get behind the wheel of a car or a boat after having consumed alcohol.

I would like to test the secretary of state. Is putting yourself in the position where you can threaten, injure or kill another person acceptable under any circumstance? That draws it out a bit more starkly. If he agrees with me that it is not acceptable under any circumstance, what lengths would he go to to prevent that by putting something into legislation for the Canadian people?

Would it be appropriate, for example, if someone committed a crime, homicide, and used their vehicle to commit the crime, to confiscate it? If the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime, would that be acceptable?

Would it be reasonable to say to someone who has been accused of drunk driving that they will never drive again? They have taken the privilege of driving and made it their right. That is not acceptable. Therefore they will not have that privilege any longer. Would that be within the scope of possibility to prevent the mayhem that is taking place?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I thought some of his suggestions were on the mark, particularly in changing some of the language we use in talking about this serious offence.

He quoted some statistics. I have the same statistics in my pile of papers too. Many Canadians are in favour of the government doing something about this yet the sad part is the numbers are still rising.

In our role in providing leadership it is necessary in using the blunt instrument of legislation to demonstrate that this is not acceptable. It may be that this blunt instrument is a little difficult to understand by such gentle natured people as Canadians. Until families begin to talk about the seriousness of drinking and driving and encouraging their own members not to do that, it is going to be the government against somebody else. It is when Canadians themselves are involved in this fight that we will begin to win it.

I grew up in an era when a few drinks to get you home was a standard thing for many people. It resulted in three members of my high school graduating class being full blown alcoholics by the time they graduated.

I am not getting into the whole drinking problem but this relates to the driving part of it. Once we become insensitive to the drinking, then the driving follows along.

I want to thank the member for his comments and to encourage other members to think of this as a holistic matter in which all of us are involved, not just the government passing a law.

This is probably the blunt instrument that may hold up the sign to say “We intend to take this seriously but we expect Canadians to understand and begin to take this internally into their own lives”.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her remarks.

I do have some difficulty with those remarks. I think there is a more general problem that we as Canadians have with the subject of drinking and driving. Candidly, there is an acceptance of it and that acceptance is what we pay the price for in the alarming and tragic statistics. When we consider that in the statistics I have for 1983 to 1991, over a million people were injured and nearly 18,000 killed in that eight year period. These are wartime statistics. If people used dangerous substances or have dangerous implements or weapons, we would find some way of discouraging it. But culturally we have allowed drinking to become quite acceptable, even on the highways.

My point is that I disagree with the member that by using statistics and the idea that the government is doing something about it curbs the edge of concern that is so necessary that we must convey not only to our fellow parliamentarians, but to the Canadian population as a whole, that drinking on the road is not acceptable.

If someone wants to drink themselves to death, that is basically their business. But on the roads they are a threat not only to life but of injury, medical costs and the destruction of the peace and welfare of our society.

As leaders of our communities we must insist that this activity of drinking and then getting in a car is totally unacceptable.

I would like to see the speeches of the government members and those on this side reflect that unacceptability, rather than hauling out statistics to say we are doing everything we can about it. The fundamental problem is the attitude of Canadians.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

There is not unanimous consent.