Jay Hill

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation between all four parties and I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to the motion presently before the House.

[Business of the House, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion between all four parties and I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, beginning at 6 p.m. and ending at the end of government orders, the Speaker shall not receive any amendments, dilatory motions or quorum calls; when no member rises to speak during debate on the opposition motion today, or no later than 9 p.m., whichever is earlier, the question be deemed put and the recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, June 20, at 3 p.m.; when debate on the opposition motion has concluded, the government may call Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, and C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts; and if any recorded division is requested for Bill C-3 or Bill C-5, they shall stand deferred to Tuesday, June 20 at 3 p.m.; and when no member rises to speak to Bill C-3 and Bill C-5, or at the end of government orders, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that should you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to the motion presently before the House with Conservative members present voting yes.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36(6). This petition is signed by many constituents from Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Wanawan, Pink Mountain, Charlie Lake, Cecil Lake and many other communities in northern Alberta. These petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that between kilometre 133 and the town of Fort Nelson in my riding, the Alaska Highway is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and that while the economy of our region in northeastern British Columbia is doing very well, the heavy traffic, in particular the logging and oil field trucks, is creating a dangerous situation in the deterioration of the Alaska Highway.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately direct PWGSC to allocate funding and resources to build passing lanes on the Alaska Highway between kilometre 133 and Fort Nelson.

[Witness Protection Program Act, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time will continue when we resume the second hour of debate on this very important bill, Bill C-286, put forward by my colleague from Quebec, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

It is a real pleasure for me to speak in support of the bill, not only tonight but at the second hour of this debate. We have heard many reservations and concerns by members opposite from all three of the opposition parties.

This is a private member's bill. I know this because at one time it was my bill and I offered it to my colleague from Quebec, and he very graciously took up its cause. He was lucky and had his name drawn on the private member's draw and was in the first number of MPs to have the opportunity to present a piece of legislation in this chamber. He chose this piece of legislation.

What nobler cause is there than the protection of those most vulnerable in our society? The reason my colleague put this forward is because virtually every day individuals are in danger.

The member for Malpeque, rather than listen, is now heckling me. I sat and listened to him while he made his outrageous comments about the legislation and now he does not want to give me that same courtesy.

I was referring to abused spouses and their children and the fact that they are in danger. There is not a day that goes by where we cannot pick up a newspaper and read about another tragedy that has befallen some family because of spousal abuse. Oftentimes it is not just the spouse. About 80% of the time where there is spousal abuse, it is the wife or the female partner who is abused. Oftentimes she loses her life and all too often the lives of the children are lost or damaged as well.

What nobler cause do we have as a government, as a society, to protect the most vulnerable? That is the purpose of this legislation. I know my time is up and I look forward to continuing my eight minutes when the debate resumes during the second hour.

[Hockeyville, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that McBride, B.C., located in my constituency of Prince George—Peace River and one of the 25 finalists in the CBC Kraft Hockeyville challenge, deserves the honour of being named Hockeyville Canada.

When 80% of the village's population showed up to participate in a community hockey event, it was obvious that McBride truly is Hockeyville. If that is not enough to prove McBride's unparalleled passion for hockey, the sidewalks were actually painted blue in honour of the local hockey team, the Blue Grizzlies.

Beyond its great taste in colour, McBride's Hockeyville video presentations are well worth viewing at www.cbchockeyville.com. I am confident that once Canadians experience this small glimpse of McBride's commitment to hockey and its unequalled community spirit, they will understand why the Hockeyville judges have been so impressed.

Before midnight eastern time tonight, people should cast their votes for McBride, British Columbia, Canada's one and only Hockeyville.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have one quick question for my hon. colleague given his remarks.

Am I led to understand that the member for Yukon is stating to not only his constituents, but to Canadians, that he believes that someone who commits murder, sexual assault, rape and pedophilia, those types of serious offences, and is convicted of those crimes should not go to jail?

[Business of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that the government certainly intends to call Bill C-15. We intend to deal with it in an expeditious manner. I thought we had an agreement among all four parties in the House to deal with it at a later time this very same day. That is certainly our intention. We only said no to this particular motion because we thought that was our understanding.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous support for the amendment.

[Fixed Election Dates, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the voters in my home province of British Columbia now enjoy the certainty of fixed election dates. This aspect of our provincial democratic process serves the interests of the electorate and not the political party in power.

At the federal level, the need for fixed election dates was never so clearly demonstrated than when the Liberal Party of Canada manipulated the timing of federal elections to suit its own political needs instead of the needs of our country.

In 1997 the Liberals sent Canadians back to the polls early despite the flood crisis in Manitoba.

In 2000, for the second time the Liberals called an early election to take advantage of favourable polls.

Three and a half years after that, in 2004, the Liberals called yet another early election when Parliament began to unearth the Liberals' dirty laundry in its inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

This abuse of power, which sent Canadians to the polls often and at the whim of a Liberal majority, is an unfortunate yet perfect example of why today this Conservative government tabled legislation to enact fixed election dates.