Jay Hill

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the debate on the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-4 adjourned on November 20 of last year there was an agreement with all parties that an order of the House deemed all amendments would be found in order, to have been read by the Chair, to have been duly moved and seconded and to further provide that when there is no further debate the amendments will be deemed to have been put and a recorded division requested. At that time there was unanimous consent from the House given and that was the process we were operating under in November.

I just wanted to be sure that was the situation as we move forward and complete debate on the amendments in Group Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak at third reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. I am pleased to note that the party I represent, the official opposition, will be supporting this legislation.

I should say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

In addressing this bill I would like to speak to the irony of the situation as I see it. We are addressing a very serious need in our criminal justice system with Bill C-18, but at the same time I was more than a bit taken aback by a ruling of the supreme court on May 22, 1997, which was known as the Michael Feeney decision.

Bill C-18 will assist our customs officers in making arrests and in conducting searches. As well it will enable them to assist police officers at the border as they will be able to detain people until police officers can intervene. Further, it closes an enforcement gap which has existed at the border by expanding the breadth of the powers of customs officers. It will allow them to arrest individuals who they suspect have committed or may be about to commit a crime.

It is a very important distinction because the split decision of the supreme court in the Michael Feeney case accomplished the exact opposite. That is where I find the irony in this situation. I would like to read from some clippings about that case so those watching the proceedings today will better understand what I am getting at.

Mr. Feeney confessed to second degree murder in the brutal death in June 1991 of Frank Boyle at his home in Likely, a small isolated rural community outside of Williams Lake. Mr. Boyle died following a fierce attack involving five blows to the head with an iron bar or similar object. The walls and furniture of his home were splattered with blood.

The RCMP went to a small storage trailer where Mr. Feeney normally slept, after a witness described seeing him walking away from an accident that morning involving the victim's truck. The Mounties knocked on the door and yelled “Police”, but Mr. Feeney was asleep and did not answer. The officers entered, woke him up, saw that his shirt was splattered with blood and then arrested him.

Judge Sopinka ruled that the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Feeney when they entered the trailer without a warrant. Therefore, all of the evidence derived as a result of the arrest and subsequent search was inadmissible. This included the blood spattered shirt, his fingerprints which matched prints on the victim's refrigerator, some money found under the mattress and cigarettes of the same type that Mr. Boyle was known to smoke.

As I said, it was a split decision of five to four. The dissenting judges said that the investigators proceeded in a forthright and proper manner and had to act quickly before Mr. Feeney had an opportunity to destroy crucial evidence. Indeed had the police not moved immediately to arrest, it is likely they would have been criticized for allowing a murderer to continue to remain at large in the community.

It is interesting that on the one hand Bill C-18 will give more enforcement powers, more powers of discretion to customs officers and is supported by all parties in this Chamber regardless of political persuasion, yet on the other hand the supreme court is overturning traditional rights which have been granted to the police that when the police strongly suspect a criminal act and there is a fugitive from justice in a residence, they can enter and arrest that person.

The situation because of that ruling is that Mr. Feeney may face a second trial. It is possible he may not because that crucial evidence has now been effectively ruled inadmissible. A clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of May 24, 1997 states “Mr. Feeney faces a second trial but his lawyer said yesterday that it may never be held because the evidence is not admissible”. Mr. Charles Lugosi of Prince George, B.C. said that because his client had been drinking heavily, the appropriate conviction should have been manslaughter in the first place. Now is that not interesting?

Regardless of whether or not we favour capital punishment, it really pointed to the difference between the justice systems in Canada and our neighbour to the south. I am speaking of an incident that happened last week, the execution of Karla Fay Tucker, an individual who committed a horrendous crime similar to the crime of Mr. Feeney. She brutally killed two people with a pickaxe in the United States.

Had that crime been committed in Canada, I would suggest that because she was on drugs at the time she committed the offence, if she was not out today, she would be rapidly coming up for parole. She probably would have been convicted of manslaughter and not murder. In the United States it was the exact opposite. She was held accountable. Whether we believe in capital punishment or not she paid the ultimate price for that horrendous crime and she was put to death. I wanted to point out the difference between the two systems.

During last year's election campaign there was an all candidates forum in my constituency. Mr. Feeney's lawyer, Charles Lugosi, was the candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party and ran against me. During the all candidates forum he bragged about his victory at the supreme court. His line seemed to be that even the RCMP must follow the letter of the law. I am not averse to that and most Canadian citizens are not.

What struck me and the audience who listened to him that night was he defended the fact that he took this case to the supreme court and ultimately won it in Mr. Feeney's favour. Never mind that the guilty may go unpunished. Never mind that our system no longer cares whether an individual is guilty or innocent. Never mind that lawyers can have truth ruled irrelevant because of a technicality, he is still proud that Mr. Feeney will be granted a new trial and crucial evidence of his guilt may be ruled inadmissible.

The letter of the law must be changed. This is yet another ruling by the supreme court that makes a mockery of our justice system. Reality only serves to reinforce Canadians' view that the justice system is merely a legal system designed for the benefit of criminals and to guarantee income for lawyers.

This House needs to give our peace officers the tools they need to do their job properly and to protect society, especially the most vulnerable, women, children, the elderly and infirm, and victims like Frank Boyle, the gentleman who lost his life to the likes of Mr. Feeney. Is it any wonder that our law enforcement officers and crown counsels across the land are frustrated.

The irony is that while this House is debating and will undoubtedly pass this bill to give our customs officers a much needed tool to better do their job, the supreme court decision has shackled the hands of police officers.

I think I speak for a lot of people. Certainly a lot of constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River have relayed this to me. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they view as ridiculous decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada which are shackling our law enforcement services, whether they are the police officers or the crown prosecutors. I call today for putting an end to this.

[Points Of Order, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance today regarding a question of privilege I raised and the fact that the minister replied to that question of privilege yesterday.

It is my understanding from the government that Bill C-4, which is in connection with my question of privilege, is apparently supposed to come back for further report stage debate on Monday. I would request your guidance on whether it is appropriate to have the bill back before the House before you rule on my question of privilege.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving ahead with the debate, I wonder if we could call it 11 o'clock.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to say a few words in this tribute to a disaster which is really a tribute to the thousands and thousands of people who responded to the disaster. People were touched by it all across the nation.

At the outset people might wonder how an MP from northeastern British Columbia was touched by a disaster that took place in southern Quebec, in eastern Ontario and in parts of the maritimes.

Quite possibly no one in Canada was not moved by what happened in January of this year. One thing all Canadians share is the climate and the environment in which we live. As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell quite eloquently said, Canadians are well aware of adverse weather. We have had to live with it all our lives however long that might be. Whether young or very old, if you have been Canadian you have had to experience adverse weather and the disasters that come with it from time to time.

On a personal note, when I first heard the news I somewhat selfishly thought of my immediate family. I thought of my daughter, Holly, who is presently in university in Ottawa. Although we were thousands of miles away, as concerned parents the first thoughts of my wife and I were about her safety. We wondered how she was making out and if the disaster and the power outage had actually touched Carleton University and the residence where she lives. We were immediately on the telephone calling down here out of concern for her safety.

If it could be known, that same scenario was played out by thousands of Canadians across the land who perhaps became aware of it by watching television but very quickly became personally involved in it out of concern for loved ones, friends and acquaintances who were actually here experiencing this disaster.

I am reminded that the magnitude of the disaster was even felt in the United States, and I would like to share a small story with the House about this because it points to just how large a disaster it really was.

My parents are, I guess, quite normal for Canadians; they are retired now and have become snowbirds. They travel to the States in the wintertime to get away from the terrible weather that we sometimes have to endure in Canada. One of the things they have noted in the times they have been in Arizona for the winter is that they very seldom get any Canadian news on American television.

They called home the day this disaster struck because it was carried on the American news and they knew it had to be serious for it to be carried in the States. Often even elections here are not news there. When they saw that news of the the ice storm was being carried on the American news networks they knew it must be serious. They called home out of concern for the people down there, to get an update and learn firsthand just how bad it was.

I recall growing up on a farm in north eastern British Columbia. Occasionally we suffered power outages there. I think the longest I ever remember as a young child was an overnight ordeal where we had to rely on friends, relatives, someone to put us up for the night.

Mom and dad bundled up all five of us children. We went out into the old station wagon on a cold, blizzardy night and off to the neighbours, someone who had some power in their home.

I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast can relate to what happened and to the trauma these people had to unfortunately experience in a very small way. Certainly one night does not in any way allow us the opportunity to share in the anguish, the sorrow and pain and virtually the uncomfortable existence these people had to endure for quite some period of time. It was weeks for some people.

It is a tribute tonight to the resilience of Canadians to endure and to show their best side in a time of adversity. I noted all the speeches tonight, some of which have been excellent. They really relayed to fellow MPs regardless of political party affiliation what these people went through.

Also, not just the victims of the disaster but the volunteers, the armed forces, even the media, everybody played a role trying to overcome this crisis that struck. I am reminded also that in time of crisis, it seems too often we are reminded of the real important things in life.

One of those that came through to me as I watched the stories unfold in the weeks that this crisis occurred was one of the things we overlook most often, family, the importance of family and friends. That came through to me when I watched the stories unfold on television. It comes through tonight as we hear the stories from MPs who had experienced it in their own ridings and who had families and friends who experienced this.

It is important that there is strength of family, that there be someone to count on and someone to help you through tough times. Certainly that was my own experience with my two assistants here in Ottawa. I think I could speak for every member in this House in the sense that staff becomes family to us and friends, not just employees.

I think all MPs would have been calling their staffs, concerned about them, certainly understanding that they could not get into work, that roads were treacherous. Many of them had their power out.

One of my assistants lives in Aylmer, Quebec. She was one of the quite fortunate one who lost power only for a brief period of time in her home. She soon found that she was putting up a sister, her family and pets and other people who were looking for a place to weather the storm, as it were, in a time of need.

My other assistant who lives south of Ottawa had it a bit worse in the sense that she was without power for almost two weeks. I asked her about this experience and she says she has a much better idea now of how residents of war ravaged countries must feel when Canadian peacekeepers arrive in their towns or villages.

She related to me how when the military came to her small village south of Ottawa after it had been days and days without power she almost wept. I think the prime minister referred this evening quite eloquently in his speech to the sense that people have that there is someone out there in their time of darkest need when the military shows up to assist them. I think the soldiers' presence made them feel that someone was there for them. For Charmaine and her young family consisting of a one and two-year-old, and for her neighbour's family, it made them feel they had not been forgotten.

It is essential to your emotional well-being to know officials are truly aware of your plight in this type of natural disaster. Whether that awareness comes when soldiers pull into the yard or a hydro truck pulls up or just a mention on the radio in your area, it is nice to know that somebody understands what you are going through and is reaching out to assist you. It think this can make all the difference in the world in a time such as this.

After growing up on a farm and being a farmer for some 20 years, farmers, perhaps more than any other sector with the exception of fishermen, understand how devastating mother nature can be because their very livelihoods depend on the good graces of mother nature.

It seems these past 12 months in Canada have been a series of disasters if we look across the nation. Speaking for my region up in the Peace River country, the farmers there are going through some really tough times with two years of excess moisture, the worst in 50 years, crops still in the field rotting because they were not able to be harvested for the second year in a row. I know there has been a devastating draught in the maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Last spring there was the tragic flood in the Red River Valley.

Looking back on the last 12 months, culminating in January with this tragic ice storm, it seems it has been a continuous series of disasters in Canada. However, what has stood out above all else is the sense that we are pulling together and that we are a unified country. In times of greatest need that is when Canadians will dig the deepest to help out.

There were so many examples of that generosity during this ice storm, whether we watched it on television, whether we were there to experience it firsthand or whether we were there to hear from the people who had experienced it as we are tonight. I think it really points to what a great nation Canada is that we can come through a crisis like this stronger than ever.

[Privilege, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to add my words of appreciation that the member for Wentworth—Burlington raised that question. Since he quite clearly described what constitutes a contempt of the House I will not repeat what he has already said.

I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the actions of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and his officials which I believe constitute a contempt of the House and a contempt of the office and authority of the Speaker. First I will address the issue of contempt of the House.

On January 21, 1998 the minister met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members had yet to be debated in the House. While the House is still debating how many directors should be farmer elected versus government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though his bill were already law.

This sort of thing has been complained about in the House a number of times in the past. Each time it is brought to the Speaker's attention, the Speaker has declined to rule in favour of a prima facie question of privilege. However he did leave the door open since these actions are clearly insulting and offensive to this institution and may constitute a contempt in the future.

On October 29, 1997 the member for Fraser Valley brought to the Chair's attention a similar case regarding the Department of Finance. The Chair ruled on the matter on November 6, 1997 and made this statement:

—the Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department are of some concern. The dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices.

I agree with the Speaker that these actions repeated often enough make a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. I suggest that making a mockery of parliament diminishes the respect due to parliament.

On page 250 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada the following is stated:

—there are actions that, while not directly in a physical way obstructing the House of Commons or the Member, nevertheless obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by diminishing the respect due it.

Accordingly, the actions of the minister and his officials distinctly constitute a contempt of this House.

Further to my argument is the issue of the minister and his officials knowingly and deliberately ignoring a warning from the Speaker. In the ruling of November 6, 1997 the Speaker said: “I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it”.

I believe that these recent actions have reached a new level of indignity, since a minister is no longer just snubbing his nose at backbench members of Parliament but now is also snubbing the Speaker's direction.

On March 21, 1978, at page 3978 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled that in the final analysis, in the areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: “Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege?—to put it shortly, has the member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should—leave it to the House”.

The previous complaints against the government in these matters were legitimate complaints. The question as to whether or not they constituted a prima facie question of privilege may have given the Speaker some doubt in the past. However, even if doubt existed, there are precedents to support the Speaker's putting the question to the House. You should also consider that this time it is not just a matter of doubt. There has been an additional complaint against a department and the department has acted, despite the warning issued by the Speaker. The Speaker's warning was direct, clear and deliberate. It could not have been any clearer.

On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada contempt is described as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. The minister and his officials have gone further and brought the authority and dignity of the Speaker into question.

I ask that you take the advice from the Speaker's ruling of March 21, 1978 and leave this matter to the House because, at a minimum, there must at least be doubt in your mind regarding this issue.

If you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I think it is high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and their departments a little democracy over bureaucracy.

[Cmhc, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last spring a young couple purchased a lot in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., and then bought a trailer to put on it. After it had been installed on the property, Shirley and Don were notified that a mistake had been made and they did not qualify for a CMHC mortgage unless they put another 20% down. They simply did not have the money.

They are now out $20,000, renting, and their dreams of owning their home are shattered. CMHC has designated Tumbler Ridge a special risk community, which means anyone working for the local coal mine needs at least 25% down before CMHC will even look at a mortgage.

This is ludicrous. If the mine ever shut down they could move the trailer to a new location. Where is the risk for CMHC? You can work in a corner store and buy a house in Tumbler Ridge, but you cannot if you work in the mine.

This is discrimination at its worse. On behalf of all Canadians living in resource based towns, I call on the federal government to review and amend CMHC special risk policy.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just identified the very problem. Talk, talk, talk and no action.

This report confirms aboriginals worst nightmares. They have been saying for years that corruption on many reserves is rampant. If they want to report instances of abuse, the aboriginal peoples must sneak into their MPs offices, pull the drapes just to sit down and talk to their MPs because they fear for their lives.

When will this minister choose to support the grassroots aboriginal people instead of their own officials and bureaucrats?

[Point Of Order, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have just a couple of quick points, if you would indulge me.

The first is that in reply to the statement previously made by the hon. House leader of the government, I was under the impression that the reasoning behind the practice of supplementary estimates, not the main estimates, is to ensure the government has a vehicle in which it can bring forward legislation and actually get it under way in the same calendar year.

Second, just briefly on the issue, it is a longstanding tradition that ministers appear before the standing committees. Speaking as the chief opposition critic for the minister of agriculture, the minister responsible for this first disputed item, vote 1, policy and farm programs, has not given the opportunity to members of Parliament and me as the critic to question him about that expenditure. Had that happened perhaps some of this could have been avoided.

I am informed a large number of ministers have not appeared. Now with the seventh and last supply day being tomorrow, as was indicated by agreement effectively if ministers appear subsequently they will not actually be debating the estimates or have any effect on whether those estimates can be reduced following their cross-examination at committee.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

What happened to him? Exactly. He was not re-elected in Prince Albert. I am not saying that his position on capital punishment had anything to do with it, but it may have had a lot to do with the fact that he was viewed by the majority of constituents as not representing their wishes in parliament. That might have had a lot to do with it.

In reply to the hon. member for the NDP, he made some statement to the effect that if we could achieve public safety without capital punishment then why put in capital punishment. I would ask him to ask those 12 families who lost loved ones between the years 1986 and 1995 because murderers were released, and in one case escaped, and murdered again. That is not public safety. I would like the hon. member to remember that when he says that some of these animals—and that is what I call them—will never ever be released from prison. Obviously some of them are released because they are repeat offenders.

In reply to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois, it is unfortunate that one of my colleagues and I found it necessary to rise on points of order during his intervention. I do not like to see that happen during debate on Private Members' Business, but his comments clearly indicate that the Bloc Quebecois has no clue as to what Private Members' Business is all about.

Quite simply Private Members' Business, whether a motion or a bill, is for the private member. That is why those that are deemed votable are put to a supposed free vote in the House of Commons. It is not supposed to be along party lines. Therefore the member's comments about the fact that we wanted to dissociate ourselves from the Reform Party is simply not true. I am trying to represent my constituents, and even though it is not Reform Party policy I am bringing it forward.

I notice that I have but one minute left. It is such a short period of time to debate such an important issue. Speakers from all parties said likewise. It is unfortunate that we did not have more time, more than just one short hour, to debate an issue supported by such a great number of Canadians. As was clearly said the actual support for reinstatement of capital punishment is increasing after it dipped. In reply to the statement made by the NDP, it has never fallen below 50% that the Canadian people speak consistently in favour of reinstating capital punishment.

My final point is that if the majority of the members of Parliament do not have the courage to represent their constituents and reinstate the death penalty for first degree murder, I would certainly support the position recently articulated by Stockwell Day of Alberta. Let us release these animals into the prison population and let them take care of the justice.