36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 24
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 30, 1997
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-14. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-15. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-16. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bills C-17. Motions for introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bills C-18. Motions for introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-268. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1010
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1035
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1040
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1045
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
1050
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1055
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1100
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1105
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1110
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1125
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1140
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1145
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1200
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1205
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1245
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1250
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1255
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1300
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1320
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1325
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1350
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1355
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1400
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF QUEBEC REFERENDUM
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAMARA OKEYNAN
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RENÉ LÉVESQUE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FONOROLA
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATOR JEAN-ROBERT GAUTHIER
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRAMICHI
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUNK DRIVERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1415
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINA
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICAL RESEARCH
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1440
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1445
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1450
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1500
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1505
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1510
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1515
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1530
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1545
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1550
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1555
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1600
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1640
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1645
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1700
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1705
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1720
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWFOUNDLAND UNEMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1820
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture
|
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 24
![](/web/20061116174755im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 30, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and
effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are
used to treat water destined for human consumption.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend the
Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers
to arrest and enter dwellings).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[Translation]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Industry) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-17, an Act to amend the
Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganizations and
Divestiture Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CUSTOMS ACT
Hon. Andy Scott (for the Minister of National Revenue) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Customs Act
and the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[English]
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-268, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (deduction re other income).
1010
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment provides for the retiring
allowance paid to former senators and members of Parliament of
the House of Commons or of the spouse or child of a former member
to be reduced by the same amount as would be clawed back from OAS
on the basis of other income received personally or on a
household basis commencing with 1998.
The clawback from a member's pension would apply whether or not
the member was receiving OAS. However the amount to be clawed
back would be calculated on the same basis as an OAS clawback.
I look forward to debating this bill in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.)
moved:
That this House call on the government to bring forward a
motion, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), to instruct a
legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill to amend
those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired
driving in order to (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) ensure that
the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am of course pleased to lead off this
debate today during which we will be discussing something that
can rightly be considered a national tragedy and also can be
considered an epidemic in our country. I am talking about the
crime of impaired driving, the senseless act of impaired driving
and the consequences and shattered lives that follow when people,
after drinking, choose to get in their automobiles and drive.
Today I am going to talk about the senseless and tragic crime
that impaired driving really is. There is a state of mind within
governments that tends to regard impaired driving as simply
another social ill. We have to stop thinking about impaired
driving in these terms. It is a crime. It is a 100% preventable
crime. If only the government would recognize it as such and
take leadership to prevent it.
I am also going to talk about how impaired driving has in fact
reached epidemic proportions and how it has not been addressed in
the way that it deserves by government at the federal level.
Although changes and progress are being made at the provincial
level, there is a still a long way to go in fighting this crime.
Through this motion we are going to call on the current federal
government to take a real leadership role on the issue of
impaired driving by instructing a committee to bring in a bill
recommending changes in the Criminal Code. This will first serve
to enhance deterrence against people who drink and then drive and
second will ensure that the penalties for impaired driving truly
reflect the seriousness of this crime.
Let me start out by clearly showing to this House the level that
impaired driving has reached in this country because nothing
substantive has been done to address it.
1015
Did you know that statistically four and a half Canadians are
killed by impaired drivers every day, seven days a week? As we
debate this today, statistically two Canadians will be killed by
impaired drivers and hundreds will be injured. Over 1,700 are
people killed by impaired drivers in Canada every year.
As a matter of fact, the chances of being killed by an impaired
driver are over three times greater than being murdered. As
well, every day over 300 Canadians are injured in alcohol related
crashes. This works out to 13 Canadians being injured every hour
or about one every five minutes. In the time of my speech more
than four Canadians will be injured in an alcohol related car
crash. Well over 100,000 Canadians are injured every year
because people drink and then choose to drive.
The tragedy of impaired driving extends far beyond the direct
impact on its victims. It extends to all society. Let me quote
some direct costs to our health care.
According to 1992 data, alcohol related costs accounted for more
than 40% of Canada's nearly $19 billion annual substance abuse
funding. This includes $4.1 billion in lost productivity, $1.3
billion in law enforcement costs and over $1.3 billion in direct
health care costs simply because of alcohol related incidents.
Our courts are already backed up yet they deal with more
impaired driving cases than any other kind of cases they handle.
There is an incredible backlog in our courts caused by impaired
drivers. There does not need to be. People do not have to get in
their cars after they drink. It is a choice they make to break
the law.
Unless the government does something about it, those choices
will continue to be made. People will continue to drive and be
convicted of impaired driving. People will continue to injure
innocent victims while in that state behind the wheel. People
will continue to kill innocent victims while in that state behind
the wheel. That does not have to happen. We have to address it
starting today.
The impact on the families and friends of victims killed by
drunk drivers never stops. These people have to live the rest of
their lives knowing their loved ones have been senselessly killed
by a drunk driver. While it may be a private choice among
individuals to consume alcohol, once that person gets behind the
steering wheel of a motor vehicle it now becomes a very public
matter affecting all of us.
It becomes a very personal matter to the family and friends of
the victims who have to relive the tragedy that results every day
of their lives when their loved ones have been killed or injured
by a drunk driver.
Impaired driving must cross every party line. There can be no
partisanship when we are talking about the impact of impaired
driving. I hope the members of the House recognize this today as
we debate it.
Impaired driving is not a political issue but an issue of crime,
the most severe of all crimes when it involves the loss of human
life.
Unfortunately, looking at the past records of previous
governments, it is clear that while they have attempted to make
some small changes to try and address the problem of impaired
driving, the problem remains and whatever changes that have been
made are not enough.
1020
For example, the Tories introduced Criminal Code amendments in
1985 to include charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm
and impaired driving causing death. But in the subsequent nine
years of Tory rule the problem of impaired driving continued to
escalate, so those changes were not enough. More needed to be
done. But it was not done and the toll climbs still today.
Another one of the tragedies that the government has not
addressed is how the new Criminal Code amendment on conditional
sentencing applies to impaired driving. With conditional
sentences if a person drinks and drives and kills someone and can
afford a sharp lawyer, that person can walk out of the court
without serving one single day for that deed, for the choice that
was made to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol and
choosing to drive.
Let me give an example. Last month in Victoria, B.C., an
impaired driver left a single mother a paraplegic. She will stay
that way for the rest of her life. The impaired driver was given
a conditional sentence because it was his first offence. This
impaired driver may well have been driving impaired before. He
just did not happen to get caught and did not happen to get into
an accident.
However, the judge determined that because it was a first time
offence that he would walk free with no penalty, just some
community service. While it may have been a first time offence
for the driver, the fact is that a young mother's life has been
shattered by this incident. While the drunk driver who hit her
gets a second chance, the woman will be paralysed for her entire
life. She gets no second chance, and we should remember that and
judges should remember that.
I want to talk now about three areas where past governments
could have made some positive change to reduce impaired driving,
but unfortunately they did not.
First, the Criminal Code set a two hour time limit on obtaining
a blood or breath sample from an impaired driving suspect. This
short time span has resulted in thousands of legitimate impaired
driving charges being dropped because breath samples or blood
samples were taken only minutes after the two hour time period
ran out. Imagine that. Because the time period was missed, a
person cannot be found guilty whether that person was guilty or
not. This is not only a stupid law, but greatly impedes the job
of police officers in obtaining evidence that would make a charge
stick.
We should be more concerned about the victims of crime than we
are about the people who commit those crimes. I would think that
would be a logical conclusion. But the two hour time limit on
breath and blood samples does not allow that.
A second area of impaired driving concerns some changes
regarding the blood alcohol concentration level. Currently the
Criminal Code sets that level at .08%, which means that the
percentage of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood must exceed .08%.
However, extensive research, and I can back this up, in
the past 30 years has found out that this limit is too high. In
fact, studies show that most drivers with BAC levels at .05% are
impaired. These statistics come from scientific studies that have
been conducted all over the world.
By lowering the BAC limit the government will be sending a clear
message to the public that there is a zero tolerance policy
toward people who choose to drive after they have been drinking.
It has to do this. The government has an obligation to take
leadership in this matter.
1025
The third area in which changes can be made concerns the
sentencing for drunk drivers. This is where that mindset of a
social ill comes into play. The government does not have it yet
and the judges do not have it yet.
Currently, the sentencing latitude for impaired driving causing
death is anywhere from zero to fourteen years. Historically, the
sentences have been in the zero to three and a half year range
usually. That is a fact.
There have been some sentences in the six, seven, eight year
range, but they make up less than 1% of the total sentences over
the last 10 years. We are not really making some big leaps and
bounds in that sentencing area. These slap on the wrist sentences
are simply not acceptable.
As an example, and this is where it gets personal, in my
hometown of Prince George, British Columbia, less than a block
away from my house, a drunk driver killed three members of the
Ciccone family in 1995. The impaired driver had had numerous
impaired convictions prior to that, and had been in numerous
accidents. The judge gave him a sentence of three and a half
years for taking the lives of a father and two young children.
Three and a half years for a person who, in a drunken state, in
an instant, took three lives, after this person had a record of
alcohol problems and related charges. No one can agree that the
sentence reflected the severity of the crime.
Currently the average sentences for impaired driving are
equivalent to sentences for defamatory libel, possessing a forged
passport or dealing in counterfeit money. How in earth can we
begin to justify the sentences given out for those offences with
the offence of impaired driving causing death? It is beyond
comprehension.
I introduced Bill C-201 in the last Parliament. That bill would
have set a seven-year minimum sentence and up to a maximum of 14
years for impaired driving causing death. The bill was voted
down by the Liberal government, most of the Bloc members, along
with the help of the NDP. Somehow they could justify these slap
on the wrist sentences for drunk drivers who kill. I do not know
how, but they do.
The huge majority of Canadians are in favour of those
recommendations, but the Liberal government, the Bloc and the NDP
said: “No. We cannot justify that. Slap them on the wrist and
turn them loose.”
A national organization with more than 2.5 million supporters,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD Canada, has just released a
survey on Canadians' attitudes toward impaired driving. What is
more important, the philosophy of some Liberal government members
who cannot comprehend the seriousness of this crime, or the
attitude of some Bloc members, or the attitude of the NDP
members? What is more important, their philosophy toward this or
the profound feeling of the Canadian people? The people come
first.
More than 85% of Canadians surveyed by MADD Canada would either
strongly support or support changes to the Criminal Code which
would include minimum sentences for drunk drivers. That did not
matter when Bill C-201 was voted down by the Liberal government.
I want to thank the backbench Liberals who had the courage to
support that bill. I also want to thank the two Bloc members who
had the courage to support that bill. The government could not
support it.
Let me mention some other MADD Canada survey results. Nearly
95% of Canadians believe anyone involved in a crash resulting in
death or serious injury should be obligated by law to provide a
blood sample at the request of a police officer. 95% of
Canadians believe that, but the former justice minister did not
believe that.
This shows the average Canadian wants the two hour time limit
extended or eliminated. We should tell that to the former
justice minister.
1030
As well, three out of four Canadians support lowering the blood
alcohol content level to .05%, as has been done in other
countries with huge success. Of those surveyed, 93.4% feel that
lowering the BAC to this amount will make our roads safer.
Considering the survey results we can clearly see how the
government is in a position to take some real leadership today.
Everything is there for the government to do it. It could
introduce changes which have been recommended by MADD Canada and
by the Reform Party. Today is the day we can take that first
step.
We support lowering the BAC to .05%. We support tougher
sentences for those convicted of impaired driving. We are in
favour of establishing minimum sentences and longer driving
prohibitions for those convicted of impaired driving offences
where injury or death result.
Reform also supports that hard core drinkers charged with
offences be obligated by law to undergo mandatory rehabilitation
treatment. If there is a jail sentence involved, any
consideration of parole should be absolutely dependent on the
convicted person successfully being rehabilitated through
treatment. That is not too much to ask when we are considering
the safety of our families.
Clearly it is time to stop talking about the tragic consequences
of impaired driving. Clearly it is time to take action. The
government can do it today. It is time to put aside all
partisanship in the House and unite in one common fight against
the crime of impaired driving.
Is an NDP member laughing?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Dick Harris: It is time for us, including NDP members
who find this funny, to clearly demonstrate a zero tolerance
policy toward drunk drivers. Yes, we can do this if we want.
It is time to recognize the devastation caused by drunk drivers
and demand through legislation that it come to an end. Yes, we
can do that. It is time for the killing to stop.
I ask all members of the House, including NDP members who find
the subject quite amusing, to recognize their responsibility,
join in the fight against impaired driving and support the motion
today.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley. It is a very contentious issue. I
wholeheartedly support what he has said this morning.
Besides being a member of Parliament, in one of my other lives I
am also a professional harness horse driver. It is interesting
to note that we cannot get on a sulky and race a horse if our
blood level count is over .04. I disagree that it should be
lowered to .05. It should be lowered to at least .04.
The rationale behind the horse racing community is that we have
to be careful and have a great concern for the equine flesh. I
have far more concern for humans and believe .04 should be the
threshold.
The hon. member spoke about lawyers getting involved. There is
such a thing as democracy. If a person is charged with impaired
driving they can go to court. It is their democratic right. They
can have a very sharp lawyer, a Philadelphia lawyer. How would
the hon. member ameliorate the situation with respect to lawyers?
Would he be agreeable to some kind of mandatory sentencing?
1035
It is very difficult because we are getting into the area of
human rights. I agree with the thrust. I am just wondering if
there is a certain component in the hon. member's motion to deal
with the aspect of the lawyers getting involved and getting
someone off.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his support.
The .05 is a recommendation by MADD Canada. If the government
will take the initiative, show leadership and instruct the
committee to go forward with the hearings, the recommendation
of .05, .03 or whatever could come forward. The rationale behind it
would certainly be related to the committee and may show up in
the report as .04 being the recommendation. I understand what he
was saying, and I certainly agree with him.
To address the second question, the problem we have in the
courts today is that there is a profound initiative to try to
keep people out of jail. The courts are backed up. The prisons
are full. The philosophy of provincial governments, under
direction from the Minister of Justice, is not to put people in
jail. Therefore we find that the judges are more open to hearing
suggestions of lower sentences to qualify for the conditional
sentencing provisions.
We find the judges more concerned with getting into the flow of
what the attorney general of the province or what the justice
minister of the country is thinking about keeping people out of
jail. They seem to be more open to lenient sentences.
One way to fix it is to tighten up the latitude the judges have.
They have a latitude now from 0 to 14 years. That is a huge
range. We find people walking out of courts every day who have
been charged with serious impaired driving offences, because the
judges have simply said that they will be given two years less a
day with no rationale. Immediately they qualify for conditional
sentencing.
In a case in my area the judge erred in his decision. When the
decision came down at 3.5 years I got on to the media saying the
judge was out to lunch on his sentence. I stated all the reasons
why.
We also encouraged the crown to appeal the sentence and the
crown did so successfully. Lo and behold all arguments the crown
put forward in the appeal were the things I had said were wrong
with the sentence.
As a result the court of appeal added two more years to the
sentence. The fact is judges have the option of choosing to
accept whatever precedent the defence lawyers are putting
forward. In a majority of the cases they are choosing the
precedents on the low end of the scale. We have to tighten them
up and we can do it through minimum sentencing.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
examining a problem such as this one is to ensure that fewer people
will be victims of accidents caused by impaired drivers.
A study of the statistics would, I think, show that the
problem does not lie with the need to lower the allowable blood
alcohol limit. How many accidents would be avoided if the level
were dropped from 0.08 to 0.07, 0.06 or 0.05?
I think that, as a general rule, the people who cause most of
the automobile accidents when driving impaired are those who are
way above the limit.
Whether we put it at 0.05 or 0.08, generally speaking, the drivers
who are killing people while impaired are those with blood alcohol
levels of 0.20, 0.30 or 0.35.
So making a change of a few tenths of a point is not going to
solve the problem. I do not know what my Reform colleague is
thinking, but is he contemplating changes in the penalties for
impaired driving? This reminds me of the problem of children
playing with matches.
1040
Matches are not banned because they are dangerous, but they
are kept out of the way of children, as is poison in the medicine
chest. And the chest should be locked to keep children out.
Could the same reasoning not be applied to a person incapable
of driving a car, who does not know whether or not he should drive
because he is not sober? It might be possible to attach a boot to
a car for one, two or three months, because the individual drove
while under the influence, even though it was only at a blood
alcohol level of .08 or .07.
This deals with the immediate cause. An individual who is not
sober and cannot get his hands on a wheel will harm no one.
You cannot allow such a person to decide whether he should use his
car, as he is incapable of making a decision.
I would like to know whether the hon. member has given this
any thought. I would like him to comment on whether we should
change the approach and act on the cause of the accident instead of
tightening legislation and creating more criminals without
resolving the problem.
Too many people have lost their licence two, three, four or
five times and have not been dissuaded from using their car when
they have been drinking. So, perhaps the solution does not lie
here.
We could discourage them by using a Denver boot, for example. A
man with his car in the driveway wearing a Denver boot can get as
drunk as he likes, but he will not be able to use the car because
of the boot, or some other similar device. Some way has to be
found to stop him using his car. I would like my colleague's
comments on that.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my
colleague's questions about lowering the blood alcohol content
limit, he is not correct. Many countries including Norway,
France, Denmark, other European countries and some states of the
U.S., have lowered it to .05 and there has been a marked decrease
in the instance of impaired driving. It does work.
What causes an accident or what causes someone to be convicted
of impaired driving is when they make the choice to get in a car.
If ever there was a case for deterrence it is impaired driving,
stronger deterrence. As a matter of fact studies have shown that
the number one reason people who do not drink or do not drive
when when they have been drinking is that they are afraid of
getting stopped by the police and being found in that state. That
is the number one reason.
In answer to the member's question, stronger deterrence overall
should include first offence impaired driving, second offence
licence suspensions, lifetime licence suspension and automobile
confiscation. We have to send a message that it will not be
tolerated, and the government can do it.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I had hoped to rise in the question
and answer period. However I want to make it absolutely clear
that the member is quite wrong in suggesting that anybody in the
NDP takes this as funny.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry that there was not time to
permit the hon. member to ask a question. I am sure he had a
point to make. I dare say he will get an opportunity later in
today's debate to make that point on debate, which is really what
this point of order is. I am sure he will get that opportunity
or someone in his party will.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have the
unanimous consent of the House for 60 seconds to say what I had
in mind when I made the remark. The member accused my party of
not taking this matter seriously. I think the record needs to be
cleared up.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement the hon. member
speak for the minute at this point?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to make clear that I did—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: There is not unanimous consent.
1045
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent, I am sorry.
Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by congratulating MADD on the excellent work they are
doing to draw the Canadian public's attention to the problem of
drunk driving.
I want to repeat what the Minister of Justice said recently
when she met with representatives from MADD. She said that she was
going to raise the issue in the near future, in December, at her
meeting in Montreal with all provincial justice ministers.
[English]
Parliament has the constitutional legislative authority to
create criminal laws. Despite the opposition member's assertion
that this government has not shown a leadership role by making
changes to the Criminal Code, most recently, in the spring of
this year the last Parliament passed amendments to certain
drinking and driving provisions of the Criminal Code which have
been introduced by this government.
On several occasions we made amendments, changes which clarified
that the driving prohibition penalty starts to run only upon an
offender's release from imprisonment. In my opinion that is an
important change.
Parliament has also clarified that the defence can only
introduce evidence of the accused's actual blood alcohol
concentration that is different from his or her breath test where
the evidence shows a BAC reading at or below 80.
Parliament also, despite the member's assertion, extended the
period for a police officer to apply for a warrant to obtain
blood in certain accident situations from two hours to four
hours. Get the facts right.
As we know, each province has the constitutional legislative
authority for such matters as highway traffic, driver licensing
and motor vehicle registration within the province. The
provinces have legislated in these areas with regard to drinking
and driving. Also in the provinces, the enforcement and
prosecution of Criminal Code offences has been assigned to the
attorney general of each province.
Therefore in my view there are important intergovernmental
consultations that should take place in order to come to a full
understanding of the drinking and driving problem. There are
legislative ways to further the progress that has been made to
date.
The Minister of Justice, as I said earlier, will be meeting her
colleagues and will be bringing up her suggestions for amendments
to the Criminal Code.
The statistics on drinking and driving in relation to driver
fatalities and criminal charges suggest that there have been
important changes since the early 1980s regarding drinking and
driving which, incidentally, has been almost overwhelmingly a
male dominated crime apparently.
The recently released results of a public opinion survey
commissioned by the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving
which occurred here in Ottawa this week confirmed that progress
has been made in changing public attitudes about drinking and
driving behaviour.
However, notwithstanding the progress on this problem, as many
members of this House are well aware, the most tragic
consequences of drinking and driving remain a virulent blight on
Canadian society. I agree with assertions of the hon. member
about this.
[Translation]
The Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada is
responsible for recording data for Transport Canada on driver
deaths as a result of traffic accidents. The data come from
information provided by the police and coroners and, since 1987,
the data base contains data provided by all provinces and
territories.
The good news is that, since 1987, the percentage of drivers
with blood alcohol levels exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per
100 millilitres of blood is steadily declining. In 1987, drivers
with blood alcohol levels over 80 represented 43% of driver deaths
as a result of traffic accidents. In 1995, this figure was 35%.
But this is not really good news, and I want to be clear about
this. We do not want to see the level stay at 80.
The tragedy of accidents resulting in the death of drivers
with blood alcohol levels over 80 does not end there. Some of
these drivers are also responsible for the death of their
passengers or other people not even in the car with them. Some
drivers with blood alcohol levels over 80 survive the accident, but
their passengers or other people not in the car are killed. It is
tragic.
When injuries are taken into account, the human suffering over
the years reaches staggering proportions, and intelligent people
naturally feel they have to do something.
1050
But the important question is this: What should we do? The causes
are complex and the solutions to this serious social problem are not
simple. Drunk drivers come from all walks of life, so we cannot simply
adopt stiffer penalties and expect that just by doing that people will
stop drinking and driving.
We have to adopt a whole package of measures, a holistic approach.
For example, fines or prison terms are enough to prevent most of us from
drinking and driving, but they seem to have less effect on certain
persons with an alcohol problem, even if the penalties are heavier.
So we feel that forcing people to follow a treatment and other measures
might be more effective.
[English]
The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has recently released a
brochure discussing the drinking and driving problem. It notes
that for a drinking driver the risk of accident increases
exponentially with an increase in the BAC level. I think we will
all agree on that.
Not surprisingly, drivers with a very high BAC level are
disproportionately responsible for fatal road crashes where
alcohol is involved.
TIRF lists a number of measures that could be taken to further
reduce road crash fatalities. Most of these measures relate to
provincial governments. TIRF notes that many provinces have
begun to implement some of the measures TIRF endorses.
One idea is to have graduated penalties that are linked to blood
alcohol blood concentrations. TIRF notes that some sentencing
judges already appear to do this when they render sentences in
these cases.
[Translation]
Adding several other elements might help to better understand the
problem of drunk driving. According to the Department of Justice, the
Department of Transport is preparing a report on a survey done by police
officers in co-operation with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police. It should help us identify initiatives to assist police officers
investigating crimes related to drunk driving.
In August 1997, the Department of Transport commissioned another
study from the Addictions Research Foundation; it will survey the
literature on the effects of various blood-alcohol levels on the ability
to drive and deal with the issue of using lower blood-alcohol levels in
imposing administrative penalties, including suspension of the driver's
licence, or in the case of criminal penalties in certain countries. This
information will likely be very useful when the legislative options will
be reviewed with the provinces.
It is important to note that the Department of Transport has been
involved for several years with the provinces and other partners in
non-criminal type initiatives implemented under the strategy to reduce
impaired driving. There is no question that measures outside criminal
law have a major impact on the problem.
In fact, it is through the combined efforts of governments, public and
private sector institutions, families and individuals that we have been
able to make progress in this area. It is most likely that initiatives
based on criminal law cannot in themselves ensure further progress.
[English]
I take offence to the opposition member's allegation that the
members of this side of the House have not had the courage to
recognize this great Canadian tragedy or that the government has
done nothing, as was stated. We have and will take action. The
minister has already reaffirmed the government's commitment to
the representatives of MADD she met with last week. I am sure
all members of the House will continue to encourage the minister
and the government to take action.
I will repeat what I said earlier. We have a commitment to take
action.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to what the government member
had to say by way of comment about the exchange so far between
the person who introduced the motion and the government. It goes
back to something I had hoped to say earlier.
1055
I think if we are going to call for a non-partisan debate and a
non-partisan solution to this, we have to be non-partisan in our
rhetoric on this topic.
Earlier when I made a remark off the record about what the
member who introduced the motion had to say, it was in view of
the fact that he had made a very partisan speech implying that
Liberals and New Democrats and others did not care about the
tragedy of drunk driving and the enormous sorrow, injury and the
enormous costs to Canadian society. Then at the end of the
speech, he urged us all to be non-partisan. I found that to be
funny, in the tragic sense of the word. If we want to be
non-partisan about this, let us admit that even though we may
disagree with each other, we all care deeply about the victims of
drunk driving.
I also counsel the government and everyone else who speaks in
the debate in this regard. We cannot get up and call for a
non-partisan debate after we have just finished hammering the
hell out of the other parties for allegedly not caring about
something we all obviously care about but may disagree with each
other about how to deal with it.
I am inclined to be very supportive of what the Reform Party
member said, but I take objection to the argumentation and the
rhetoric in his speech in which he suggested that somehow the
rest of us do not care about this. That is patently false and
patently partisan.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was
anything in my remarks to indicate that the government finds
statistics acceptable. Quite the contrary. I think my remarks
were made in the sense that we cannot have only one approach to
this grave problem, that there has to be a holistic approach.
There is a problem of alcoholism in our society. I do not think
any member in the House would accept the fact that anyone should
drink and drive and kill someone.
I do not think any member would agree with that. Quite the
contrary.
1100
What we are trying to do is make sure the process that we engage
in has the agreement of the provinces because ultimately the
provinces will be responsible for the administration of these
changes to the Criminal Code. As I said in my speech, the
minister is committed to taking action. She told MADD when she
met with them last week that she will raise this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary but the time for questions and comments
has expired.
Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us today, which was tabled by the Reform Party, calls on the
government to bring forward a motion to instruct a legislative committee
to prepare a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which
deal with impaired driving in order to enhance deterrence and ensure
that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.
The Bloc Quebecois, like all Quebeckers, recognizes the seriousness
of the issue raised in the motion put forward by my colleague from the
Reform Party.
Driving while under the influence is a terrible scourge which must be
fought efficiently. However, we must be careful not to go for
sensationalism.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the Reform Party's motion. We are
asking that the motion be referred to a legislative committee, which
would conduct a more in-depth review of the issue and the offences
relating to alcohol consumption and impaired driving.
The Bloc Quebecois, which is always aware of the serious problems
caused by this situation, feels such legislative review should be
comprehensive and not limited to stiffer sentencing. We must not look
only at the issue of sentencing, but at the whole picture.
A few questions should be raised at the committee level. First and
foremost, we have to ask: Is stricter enforcement of the penalties
provided for in the Criminal Code absolutely necessary to ensure better
deterrence among the public? This is one question we must ask ourselves.
The second question is the following: Would improving the judicial
process, which, let us not forget, is a provincial jurisdiction, not be
a solution? We are talking about the administration of justice here.
Again, it extends far beyond a simple matter of stiffer penalties.
Another question: Is drunk driving a high enough priority with the
police?
We know that top officials in the police consider cracking down on
impaired driving a priority. But is it also a high priority for the
police officer who has to deal with impaired driving on the street?
Police officers receive more calls than they can respond to. Is it
a priority for the police officer in his or her car to fight drunk
driving? As I said, for some of them, traffic law enforcement is a
boring and somewhat cumbersome routine, when they would prefer to see
some action. In that context, this is a valid question.
We must bear in mind in dealing with this issue that those involved
in law enforcement, which, I repeat, is a provincial jurisdiction,
should have a say. We should also find out how they feel the fight
against impaired driving could be improved.
I am not convinced that merely stiffening penalties is what the
police want.
1105
As well, the following question must be asked: What are the
reasons fewer people have been charged with impaired driving since
1986? To give you some figures, in 1996, police reported 161,805
cases relating to driving offences under the Criminal Code, which
represents a decrease of 6.9% compared to 1995. As well, there
were 78,894 impaired driving charges, a 6.2% drop from 1995.
What are the reasons for that decrease? One may well wonder,
but an examination of the circumstances may offer some suggestions
for solutions.
Since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, we
should ask ourselves another question: Are the programs for raising
public awareness and education adequate? Is there not some better
way to make people more aware of the dangers of driving while
impaired? Are the advertising techniques being used the right
ones? Should a better program be developed for schools, youth
centres and so on? This must be looked into.
In conclusion, the Bloc is in favour of this motion because it
will open up debate on the question, which is very important, and
the debate must go far beyond the matter of penalties. The
conclusions drawn must be based on more than just some high-profile
cases.
Parliamentarians have a duty to examine this matter coolly and
calmly.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his presentation today
and for indicating that he will support this motion.
He asked if we could be doing more other than making penalties
stronger. The fact is that we do quite a bit of educational work
in schools and in the media. Some very effective advertising is
being run on a constant basis. In particular as we approach the
heaviest drinking season of the year, the ads will pick up
considerably in an attempt to educate people to not drink and
drive.
In spite of all we are doing now, the number of impaired drivers
is still rising. The number of accidents and deaths is still
rising.
What we are saying in the motion is that to complement what is
being done in the education area, we have to consider the effect
that stronger deterrents will have. As I stated earlier, if ever
there was a case for deterrence, impaired driving is the case.
Surveys have shown that the reason some people stop drinking and
driving is because they fear being stopped by the police and
being charged.
The reason some people continue to drink and drive is because
they do not fear the charges. The charges are too light. They
have no fear of having licence suspensions because they will
drive anyway and a strong deterrent does not exist when they are
picked up for driving under suspension.
Deterrence has a huge role to play. If we are going to examine
the Criminal Code we must be prepared to examine the effect
increased deterrence will have, as well as continuing on with the
educational side of it and the treatment side of it.
I am a big advocate of mandatory treatment. When someone is
imprisoned for a substance abuse problem whether it be alcohol or
drugs, the judge must have the authority to impose mandatory
treatment.
I hope I have answered my colleague's questions.
1110
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague for his comments.
He spoke of mandatory treatment. It is indeed one of the
things we should perhaps be looking at. However, this is very much
along the same lines as what I was saying, which is that we will
have to look beyond the penalty. There is the issue of
rehabilitation, but, as my colleague so relevantly pointed out,
there is also the issue of education. He mentioned advertising,
etc.
Some campaigns have certainly been effective, but is there no
way to make them more so? This warrants consideration. Could
prevention campaigns in schools and other institutions be made more
effective?
We could look at that too.
I imagine someone in a bar, having a drink. Is this person
going to decide not to have a beer, because the fine has gone from
$300 to $500? I do not know. As I said earlier to my colleague,
it is worth having a look at. This is why we support this motion.
Let us have a look at the problem, but in a broader context, beyond
the matter of stricter penalties.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I guess
I can relate to this issue perhaps a little more than some of the
others that are here, as my mother and father on their 50th
wedding anniversary were hit by two young men who were drunk. My
mother never walked alone again after that. She had 13 pins put
in her side. My dad was hurt as well. So I can relate to what
is happening.
As well, Mr. Speaker, you will see in the gallery today a
senator who has also had two of her immediate family killed
right here in Ottawa.
I want to say to the hon. member that we support this motion,
but I want to say that there has to be an educational process.
There also has to be a legislative change whereby those who sell
liquor to young people recognize that it is a serious offence.
We have to change the penalty for that.
We support the member and will work with him. I can relate to
this probably more than anyone else, with the exception of the
senator in the gallery.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say
that I sympathize with the member, who was closely affected by
someone who committed a crime by driving under the influence of
alcohol. I sympathize with everyone who is a victim of such a
crime. This is why we are saying a debate like this warrants very
close examination.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know
I speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand here today to
address the issue of drunk driving.
I would like to begin by commending the work of one of my
constituents, Geraldine Dedrick, who is president of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving for the Halifax region. Geraldine Dedrick
herself faced the unimaginable tragedy of losing a son due to an
accident related to drunk driving. I am honoured to stand here
to support her efforts and those of countless others who are
working today so that people tomorrow are spared this tragedy.
This is an important issue in the province of Nova Scotia. The
current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is Susan
MacAskill from Windsor in the Annapolis Valley of our province. I
commend her on her work.
Every single day, people living in the riding of Halifax West
face a very real and possibly fatal threat. Every day in my
riding there are people concerned about someone they know
drinking and driving. It is the same throughout the province of
Nova Scotia and throughout the land.
Since the Criminal Code was amended to deal with persons who
drink and drive, it has been estimated that 20,400 Canadians have
died at the hands of those who choose to drink and drive.
At the same time up to 1.5 million Canadians have been injured
during the timespan over ten years since these laws were enacted.
The death and casualty numbers read like those of war. The
government has to tools at hand to reduce this carnage.
1115
I and my colleagues of the New Democratic Party support the
review and enactment of legislative measures to enhance
deterrents and ensure that we use the tool of legislation to do
what we can to put in place laws to reduce these accidents.
We are not talking about people who have sacrificed their lives
for our country or for any higher ideal. We are talking about
people who have had their lives or their good health ended
because someone has chosen to drink too much, thus turning their
vehicle into a terrible weapon out of control.
Even during this speech it is likely that a Canadian will loose
his or her life due to drunk driving. An average of more than
one Canadian every five minutes is injured due to drunk driving.
An average of one Canadian is killed every six hours. This is
simply obscene.
While clearly the loss of life and limb is paramount, let us not
ignore the incredible toll this takes on our health care system
and the ripple effect of other costs to the taxpayer. This is
not only an issue of death and injury, it is an issue of
responsibility in so many ways.
Clearly the responsibility lies at many levels. There is the
level of the individual. I have chosen not to drink at all. I
know several have made this choice. I know many other
responsible social drinkers who would never climb into a vehicle
with anywhere near the .08 alcohol level.
Then there are others who are social drinkers who occasionally
make the wrong choice about drinking and driving. This wrong
choice is estimated to be responsible for a death every single
day in this country. Then there are the repeat offenders, many
with serious drinking problems who cause much of the carnage.
Then there is the responsibility of the community. More and
more communities are banding and working together to change the
laws. It is largely due to their effort that the backward social
philosophy of one for the road is increasingly becoming a
thing of the past.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many other organizations have
become very sophisticated and involved and have done much of our
homework. This enables us, as legislators, to help address the
problems. There are also many small business owners who serve
alcohol who are undertaking initiatives in their businesses to
curb irresponsible drinking and to reduce the incidents of
drinking and driving. I commend their efforts.
It is foolish to think that the entire problem can be legislated
away. It is no more than criminal not to make every change we
can as Parliamentarians to address the loss of life and health
through drunk driving accidents.
The government should have no fear of addressing this issue if
it is concerned about the polls. Nine out of every ten Canadians
believe this is a problem for the government to address. Almost
three of every four Canadians support lowering the blood alcohol
concentration level from .08 to .05. We could perhaps go lower,
as has been suggested by the hon. member opposite.
We would not be breaking any new ground. Many countries are
ahead of us. Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal and France all have lowered their legal levels
to .05. Some provincial governments have taken the lead on this
issue. Newfoundland has implemented a 24 hour license suspension
with a $100 license reinstatement charge if a person's level is
over .05.
I know there is concern among my constituents of Halifax West
that there should be the capacity, under provincial legislation
in Nova Scotia, to confiscate cars involved in these offences.
Let us explore in committee the possibility of automatically
requesting from drivers breath and/or blood samples in a crash
resulting in serious injury or death. Let us review the current
two hour presumption limit to obtain a breath or blood sample.
Let us review every aspect within our federal jurisdiction to do
our part to reduce impaired driving.
Let us not be afraid to examine the criminal code to expand the
reasonable or probable grounds for which law enforcement officers
can investigate crash scenes that involve death or serious
injury.
I know one of the big concerns in my riding of Halifax West
is the extent to which we are able to determine the role alcohol
plays in accidents causing death. Let us look at ways to ensure
that we know if alcohol has played part in someone's death or
injury due to a traffic accident.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving's statement of beliefs include the
phrase: “While an individuals decision to consume alcohol is a
private matter, driving after consuming alcohol or other drugs is
a public matter”.
1120
I would now like to comment briefly on the impact that has been
mentioned with respect to friends and families, the impact that
one feels over the loss of a loved one.
We need not lose someone through drunk driving to realize the
pain and suffering people go through when they lose a loved one.
I lost a nephew, age 8, through a serious car accident. There
was no alcohol involved but I still remember the pain of that
accident. This young fellow knew I was doing karate and he asked
me to break a board for him one day. He came up with all these
big boards, 2x4s, and wanted me to break them. At that time I
said I would do that for him a little later on. That later on
never came because his life was cut short by a serious car
accident. Add to that the pain and suffering one feels when the
car accident is unnecessary because someone has chosen to drink
and drive.
I would say in response to the comments by hon. member who
introduced the bill that the NDP is not serious about this issue,
we are serious about this issue. We do take these matters
seriously. We do not find them funny. We know the importance of
having this matter adequately dealt with. It is for this reason
that we rise in support of his bill. Let us take action now to
resolve this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my NDP
colleague.
I was particularly struck by one thing he said. I do not want
to stir up bad memories, but I think that, in this motion that we
are supporting as a party, there is a lot of talk about statistics
and the dead. Since the member mentioned having lost an
eight-year-old nephew, I would like to hear what he has to say
about the victims other than those who are killed by drunk drivers.
Not that this makes things any better, but I would like to hear his
views.
If this motion is passed in the House and referred to a
parliamentary committee, I would like the committee to hear from
the less immediate victims, the families, who survive these
accidents with major psychological trauma, and those who survive
with physical injuries. I would therefore like to know whether the
member thinks it important that the parliamentary committee hear
from less immediate victims of accidents caused by drunk drivers.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my French is
not good enough to reply to my colleague in that language. I will
speak in English if I may.
[English]
I appreciate the question because it is a very serious question.
We must remember that not only are the victims the ones who
experience the loss but there are also victims on the other side,
the families and friends of those who have caused the accident
who suffer as well. They have great concerns about a friend or a
loved one's having caused such carnage.
The best we can do in those situations is to try to band
together and lend the support that we as human beings can give to
each other, recognizing that it is too late after the incident
happens to lament and say if we had only done this or that. We
have to move forward from that situation and try to find strength
from our fellow human beings and try to deal with the problem
that exists. We should take every step we can to reduce this
carnage by taking measures to deal with the issue that brought
the tragic situation about.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment the hon. member for Halifax West may
want to comment on or maybe not because it is not something that
he touched on in his speech.
I have done some thinking about this. I, too, and my family have
been touched by this.
1125
One of things we need to consider and which I do not hear often
considered in debates like this is to go beyond all the things we
are talking about here today, all of which are important, and ask
if we cannot somehow rearrange our world so that people are less
dependent on automobiles. We have designed entire cities and
entire ways of life that raise temptation, and people are to be
condemned for submitting to this temptation. We want to do
everything we can to deter people from acting in certain ways.
On the other hand, one of the things we also need to consider is
the way in which we have organized our entire society around the
automobile and thereby enhanced the danger. That is one of the
things that a comprehensive long term strategy might include. If
we were able in the long term to reorganize our cities and
perhaps even reorganize our laws with respect to how large
drinking establishments have to be and where they have to be
located, et cetera, we could in that way also seek to reduce the
number of people on the highways in a state they should not be
in.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
because he has raised a very important issue. I think it is true
that we have not only arranged our lives around the automobile
but we have arranged the automobile so that we try to have more
and more powerful automobiles, ones that go faster and ones that
are attractive to young people. There was a very serious
accident in the Halifax-Dartmouth area that claimed the lives of
a couple of young people. The young person driving had this big
sports car that almost got out of control because it was so
powerful. It was a situation that caused a lot of tragedy to the
people involved.
I think we have to refocus our lives, as my hon. colleague has
mentioned, in a way that we can minimize those situations and put
more focus on the true value of trying to live together and work
together harmoniously.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise in this House to
speak on this issue. As has been indicated by many members
already, there are very few Canadians who are not touched in some
way directly or indirectly by the issue of drunk driving. The
laws that we as members of Parliament examine and the opportunity
that we have in this House to affect and to address problems of a
preventive nature is something that we have to take very
seriously.
There have been many statistics quoted within this House,
financial, economic, but the emotional impact I think is
something that is very difficult to quantity. This very day we
know as a result of a survey released last week by Mothers
Against Drug Driving that between four and five people will die
somewhere in Canada, and that more than 300 people will be
injured as a result of alcohol related crashes, and again
tomorrow and the day after. These are shocking statistics and
ones that made an immediate impression on me and I am sure all
Canadians when this was pointed out so poignantly at the press
conference held by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
A further statistic to quantify this number is that there were
over 1,700 Canadians killed last year, and between the years 1983
and 1991, 1.1 million. Impaired drivers caused over half of
Canada's fatalities in 1995, that number being 3,300. In fact,
it is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk of
a motor vehicle crash any time a person gets behind the wheel
regardless of the level of impairment. It certainly increases
the severity of an accident when a person is impaired and
operating a motor vehicle on the highway.
Canadians witness far too many tragedies in this country on a
daily basis. This is one area where these tragedies can be
prevented and can at least be lowered in terms of their numbers.
It would be naive for me or any member of the House to suggest
that this problem would ever be completely eradicated,
unfortunately. However, it is certainly incumbent on members of
the House, people in the law enforcement society and all
Canadians to do everything in our power to address this most
serious problem.
1130
At the news conference which I mentioned earlier in my remarks,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving indicated in its survey that 80% of
Canadians support the toughening of the Criminal Code as it
applies to this issue. Again, this is an issue that spans all
partisan comment. It is clear, simply from the comments today in
the House, that there is unanimous sentiment that we address this
and do so quickly. I certainly hope that the government is
sincere in its support of this issue. We will soon find out when
the motion is put to a vote.
I want to indicate the support of the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada for the motion that has been tabled. I have
listened very carefully to the comments of my friends in the
opposition as well as those of the government. It would appear
that there is a unified front.
I want to refer again briefly to the results of the survey which
indicated that 94% of Canadians believe that impaired driving is
a problem that the government should address. Three of every
four Canadians believe that the federal and provincial
governments are not doing enough at the present time to address
the problem.
In expressing that sentiment, Canadians have said that they have
a very low tolerance for those who choose to drink and drive.
With a clear majority of Canadians of that right mind, I would
suggest that some of the proposals which have been put forward by
Mothers Against Drunk Driving have to be embraced by the
government. Since a clear majority of Canadians indicated that
they support the lowering of the blood alcohol level as it
applies to the Criminal Code, it is something the government
should certainly take action on.
Eighty-four per cent of Canadians also support changes to the
Criminal Code that would include a minimum jail sentence should a
driver be convicted of an impaired driving offence that caused
death. I would go further and include an offence that caused
injury.
It is painfully clear that too many Canadians are losing their
lives and too many Canadians are being seriously injured because
the laws in this country, as they exist, have little teeth and do
not go far enough to act as a deterrent. However, it goes
further than that.
More can be done, as has been demonstrated by Mothers Against
Drunk Driving and other groups throughout the country that,
without adequate resources, have gone forward and tried to
educate the public. The younger generation will have the
opportunity to see that these very frightening and staggering
statistics are lowered. Attitudes are changing and that has to be
encouraging to all present and to interest groups.
The impact of impaired driving touches us all in a very
significant and real way. The time is here and now to do
everything within our power to address the issue.
The Minister of Justice indicated that she is waiting for a
report to be tabled from the transportation department, as well
as for a meeting with provincial counterparts. I would reiterate
that neither the Ministry of Transport nor the provincial
counterparts have the ability to amend the Criminal Code.
It was 12 months ago that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving
first met with the justice department. Since that time nothing
has changed other than the fact that the statistics have
increased and that more people have lost their lives or been
seriously injured on Canadian highways. I indict the government.
It bears responsibility for those numbers.
Suggestions have been made that by changing the Criminal Code
and the justice system that an immediate impact would be felt. I
concur with that. The suggestions that have been made will be
given further discussion at the justice committee level.
1135
With respect to the motion that has been tabled, keeping in mind
my commentary on the fact that this is a non-partisan issue, I
hope that the Reform Party and other members of the House would
support any initiative that would see this issue addressed,
whether it be at the committee level or a simultaneous attempt to
bring legislation in through the Senate by either the government
or the opposition party, the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada. I would hope that the Reform Party in particular would
support us in that effort.
There has been mention by my friend in the New Democratic Party
that Canadian law is presently out of sync with progressive
countries such as Australia, Belgium, France, Portugal, Finland
and others. This is something that we have to keep in mind. We
live in a global community and we must look to other countries to
see how they address the problem. They have taken the initiative
by lowering the blood alcohol concentration to less than 80
milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
Other specific references to changes that could be made include
a review of the code with respect to reasonable and probable
grounds that police officers must follow in the investigation of
crash sites involving death and serious bodily harm. Police
officers on a daily basis encounter this situation and are
charged with the important task of responding and holding people
accountable for their actions. Giving them the ability to deal
with this in a more effective way with respect to the law's
interpretation of reasonable and probable grounds I suggest would
go further.
With respect to attitudes as they apply to impaired driving,
perhaps a change to the language used in the Criminal Code
designating it as vehicular homicide would help to emphasize the
seriousness of a charge. Creating standards that would enact a
victim's bill of rights would certainly help to include
participation of victims at the trial level and would give them
more support and more input into what was happening in the
aftermath and the task of trying to deal with the problem and
putting their lives back together.
This is why we support a fundamental standard for a victim's
bill of rights that would include not only impaired driving
matters but all matters. It is high time we recognized the needs
of victims within our justice system and I would support
initiatives in that area as well.
I know my time is limited. I put my support forward on the
floor. Members should come together without partisan politics
and create new legislation that will contribute to the saving of
lives. Introducing this issue at various levels will hopefully
do that. We owe it to the memories of those killed on the
highways as well as the safety of all Canadians to ensure that
when Mothers Against Drunk Driving come to Parliament Hill next
year, Parliament will have taken meaningful action.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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.
1140
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”.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will just respond
briefly and thank the hon. member for his comments.
Speaking of blunt instruments, I would suggest that whether it
is a vehicle or legislation, the person who is driving the
instrument and their mindset and level of impairment that will
often affect the result.
I agree with the comment that there is a time and a place for
all of us to put our efforts together and address this most
serious problem. I would suggest that the time is here. It has
been here for some time. I encourage all members to support this
motion and work together at the committee level and throughout
the country to see that we bring these numbers down and hopefully
have a significant impact in the very near future.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened this morning to all members from all parties. We are
about to hear again from a member of the Reform Party, but as the
hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party has stated,
we must throw the politics away.
I am asking that there be something in the educational system to
assist young people. They are responsible young people today.
If they had those stats showing the negative impact of drinking
and driving I am sure that they would work among themselves to
change things around.
In today's society the word “cool” is a big thing. For young
people in high school it is a cool thing to go to the pub. It is
a cool think to be drinking. No one seems to ask anyone any more
“Are you 18 years of age? How old are you?” I have seen
young people in the high schools in my own city with cases of
beer and they are under age.
The penalty for selling liquor to underaged people has to be
increased. But these young people have to be educated also. I
say to our House leader and to all of those who are here, please
let us do something for them as well and help them out.
They do not want to hurt people, like what happened to my
parents, what happened to other people as well. They do not want
to do that. Let us help them.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to address the motion. Surely this goes beyond
politics. This is something that we all have to do something
about.
We have been talking about how important it is for us to finally
do something for generations. We have to make sure that action is
taken. I am not here to criticize the government and say that it
has not done anything over the years because there have been
changes made. However, we are a long way from making sure that
this problem is addressed.
My colleague from Cariboo—Chilcotin earlier said that there
seems to be an acceptance of drinking and driving these days and
sad to say that is probably quite true.
In fact, yesterday morning when I woke up here in Ottawa to
early morning news on one of the stations, before, here is what
the joke of the morning was. A bar emptied out and everyone came
out to the parking lots. This guy staggered toward his car,
tried half a dozen vehicles on his way over to his own vehicle.
Of course the police car was sitting there watching all this.
All the other cars left the parking lot at the bar.
The policeman went over to this fellow who was staggering around
trying to get into his car. The police said to him “I'd like to
give you a test right now. I'm pretty worried about you”. The
guy laughed and said “No. I'm sober. I am the designated decoy
tonight at the bar so everyone else could get home”.
1145
This is not funny. These are the kinds of things that have been
heard on radio programs within the last 48 hours. It is as if it
is some kind of a big joke and all the other guys from the bar
were allowed to drive home drunk.
That is absolutely unacceptable. Until there is a change and
people do not think this kind of stuff is funny any more we will
never accomplish anything. We can certainly set an example here
in parliament, but when we hear that kind of stuff we wonder what
is the use. We get discouraged, yet we need to be vigilant.
We are asking for changes to the Criminal Code that enhance
deterrents and ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of
the offence. Surely we are all agreed in the House that this is
a very serious offence. We must ensure something is done about
it and we do not just ream off piles of statistics and say that
we really are doing well. Frankly all of us should be ashamed.
Maybe the problem is better than it was, but it is certainly not
as good as it ought to be and should be very soon.
We need to realize that for the actions we commit there must be
consequences. We teach that to our children when they are young.
We teach in our classrooms that if one does something there will
be consequences. It seems to me for drunk driving the
consequences many times are just thrown out the window.
We need to realize that we are personally responsible for our
behaviour and our actions. That is a basic tenet with which I
believe all of us agree. As I said, we teach it. However when
it comes to impaired driving we can be cute and get off in the
courts or have someone who has a reputation as a hot-shot lawyer
get the charges dropped. Do they think they are beating the
system? I am not sure. To me it is pretty sad.
Many times drunk drivers have not had to live up to the
principle of real life, the if-then causal effect: if I do
something I had better be prepared to pay the price. I have seen
all too many times when that simply does not happen.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People Against Impaired Driving
and other excellent groups have done tremendous work. What is
the admission to groups like these? It is sad to say but many of
them have been victimized. What a way to get into a particular
group. What a tragedy. The pain is still fresh for these
people. They have experienced the loss of a loved one because of
drunk driving. What a way to earn one's way into a group. It is
tragic.
We cannot kill people. The Criminal Code says we cannot go
around killing people. Why is it that people are let off the
hook or given a conditional sentence when they are behind the
wheel of a car and in an impaired state? It seems like they have
crossed a threshold which makes it okay. We cannot kill but
there are times when we can kill with a car and the consequences
are not quite so painful.
I speak from experience. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers and People Against Impaired Driving are very important.
Years ago when I was small I lived in a home that was afflicted
with alcoholism. I could have started a group when I was six,
seven or eight called KADD, kids against drunk drivers. That was
before many of these groups were organized.
I know how painful it is to live with alcoholism, how terrified
you are when in bed at night and the phone rings and you are not
sure what the phone call will be about.
My father has been sober for over 20 years. I rejoice in that.
It is exciting to have somebody back who was in the clutches or
grips of alcoholism. My heart goes out to people who are
suffering with their loved ones. I am grateful for every day
that my father is sober. He drives sober and I am pretty excited
about that.
I remember going for car rides when I was a kid with somebody
who was impaired. I tried to get out of it but what can you say
when you are six or seven years old. You go for the car ride
because that is what kids are supposed to do. They are supposed
to go with their parents when they are told.
I will never forget turning left in front of oncoming traffic
and screaming “That was too close. Please don't do that”. He
would turn around and say “Is that close enough for you? Let's
do it again” and go back to the very same corner.
It was insanity. Although my father was not exactly sure of
what he was doing at the time because of the state he was in, it
was criminal behaviour. We need to recognize it as such. People
in that condition need to pay the consequences.
I talked earlier about late night phone calls. The one I
remember most clearly was a call that came in the middle of the
night. The police said to my mother “Your husband was out
drinking. He was going across the Burrard Street Bridge and a
young woman on her bicycle has been hit”.
I cannot remember exactly how old I was but we got that call when
I was in grade 1 or grade 2. Thank God that somehow her bicycle
got tangled in the railing of the bridge and she did not go over
into False Creek. She lived, and I am grateful for that.
1150
How many people do not live? One phone call in the middle of
the night can change one's life forever. Obviously we have the
most amount of sympathy for the victims but what about the kids
of the drunk drivers? That affected my life forever.
I am 45 years old. I have never had a drink because somehow in
my little six or seven year old mind I realized the potential for
this was far too terrifying. I do not want to go on a rant about
this. I know there is such a thing as responsible drinking, but
I am here to talk about not just the economic costs of impaired
driving but about the real human costs, the emotional costs
referred to earlier, the incredible pain and the scars left with
somebody forever. They do not just get over it, obviously.
Will lowering the blood alcohol content from .08 to .05 help?
Sure, it will help, but is it not far better to say the deterrent
possibility is far more important and maybe I better make the
choice that I will not drive because I have had too much to
drink? Why let ourselves get into the position where we have to
go for a blood alcohol test? Is it not far wiser to make a
difference in people's lives and say not to doing it?
We are encouraging young people to think ahead all the time.
That is what we need to encourage them with more than anything
else.
I believe in zero tolerance. If you want to call me intolerant,
I guess you can, but the best and safest way to deal with
drinking and driving is zero tolerance: if you blew over, if you
did this, if you have been charged and if you have been
convicted, we will not be tolerant.
Governments should say they believe in zero tolerance and will
not let people beat the system. They should not let them try to
get away with something or to brag to their friends at the bar or
tell jokes on the radio station in the morning: “Ha, I beat
that charge. Look at me”.
What about the victims? What about the mothers? What about the
daughters? What about the sisters and brothers and all the
people whose lives are affected? There is a huge pool of
people's hearts and lives that are affected by these kinds of
tragedies.
Some say if you get caught once maybe that will scare you into
behaving straight. I am sad to say the statistics do not agree.
This speech is not about rhyming off statistics, but let me just
give one. Ontario is not a whole lot different than any other
province in the country. It is bigger but I am sure the
percentages are the same. Some 65% of all driving suspensions
were given to drivers who had been suspended at least once.
What does that say about a deterrent? What is happening in the
country right now? It means sweet nothing. If I know I can beat
the system once, hey, I have a chance to do it again. We need to
make sure that people are literally scared straight.
I spent some time on a tour at the Edmonton maximum institution
a couple of springs ago as a member of Parliament. I will never
forget the sound of that gate going across and going thunk and
locking behind me. If I had any criminal tendencies in me, just
the sound of that gate shutting behind me would have scared me
straight. If I were a teenager or someone involved in petty
crime that would be deterrent enough for me. I did not want to
be in there without the nice guy beside me who had the key to let
me back out.
There should be a deterrent for young people, because they fall
into the category of those most affected, and for those who are
older and say they have beat it for 27 years and there is no
chance they will get caught now. Let us make sure the deterrent
is strong enough so that we will not see repeat offenders time
and time again. Let us make sure that when we talk about zero
tolerance we act on zero tolerance and that people really will be
scared straight. I think that is what it takes.
When people realize the terror of the victims, the little kid
lying in bed at home wondering when the phone will ring and who
will be on the other end of it, it will scare the whole nation
straight. We had better do something about it and really make a
difference.
1155
I appeal to government and all opposition party members not to
just talk about it, send it off to some little committee and say
we have in effect passed this item today. Let us do it, do it,
do it: participaction.
I am thrilled by what I think I am hearing from both sides of
the House today. This might be the Parliament to really do
something about saving lives.
Let us scare straight anybody who thinks about having another
couple of drinks and trying to sneak home without getting caught
by the police. It is our responsibility. We are obligated to do
it.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on
her presentation. I support the intent and essence of this
question. When the protection of human life is involved we have
to do everything we can.
Let me just add my observations. When an issue like this one is
present in society we have to recognize at all times it is not a
simple problem. Failing to understand that could lead us to a
wrong approach in the total management of the issue.
Earlier I heard the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley say
that changes in the past had happened. Yet we continue to see
ongoing problems. I agree with him but to conclude we therefore
only need changes to the Criminal Code aspect of the approach may
be seriously flawed. It may blind our eyes to another approach
which can be equally as effective, if not more.
I listened to the debate. The member told us about the tragic
picture of victims. We all share the sentiments of that loss or
tragedy.
I am raising a question in all sincerity. Maybe we should
pursue a public education approach more aggressively. Painting
a tragic picture of victims appeals to the hearts of those
tempted not to drink, seeing the tragedy of the loss of human
lives rather than Criminal Code amendments alone.
I raise this issue to say that we should not blind ourselves to
an integrated approach. I am pleased the Minister of Justice and
the government have assured us that the issue has already been
raised with provincial counterparts. I would like the Reform
Party to support the government on this initiative as I support
the intent of the motion.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say
thanks. I appreciate the commitment from government that
something will be done.
I do not think there was anything in my remarks or in anyone
else's remarks from either side of the House that tossed it off
as a simple problem. We understand the complexities of
alcoholism. There is nothing simple about it. I do not believe
there is anything simply about understanding the effects of
impaired driving. I do not think anyone intimated that this
morning.
It is certainly not simple, but to dismiss it as complex and say
there are many things we have to work on is partly true. It is
very complex, but we should not just have changes to the Criminal
Code. It is a heck of a first step. That is what we are asking
for today.
When the member talks about public education I agree with it.
As a high school teacher I saw some of the gory videos. They do a
good job but only to a point. That falls under the category we
already have here as deterrents.
Public education programs have been going on for years including
the videos that young people see. People receive licence
suspensions, have to go through rehab programs and watch the
videos. They fall under what is already proposed here in terms
of deterrents. We have dealt with that. There is no way we are
trying to address it as a simple problem. There are all kinds of
deterrents and that is just one of them.
We do not just want to make changes to the Criminal Code. This
is all encompassing. When the committee has a chance to look at
it some excellent changes will be made.
1200
I stand in my place today saying that I agree that it certainly
is not a simple problem. The public education system is just one
part of deterrence.
Another thing which would be an excellent deterrent is to spend
a night in jail if there is a problem and if somebody is charged
or something like that. Boy, I tell you, if I were 16, 18 or 24
years old, and I can relate my experience as an MP and having
gone into a prison and having worked with young people for years.
I know its effect is very sobering in all senses of that word.
Some of these deterrents might make someone say “I better think
about this”.
We cannot just slap something into the Criminal Code because, it
is sad to say, many hot shot lawyers are able to work their way
around the Criminal Code. It needs to be deeper than that so
that many people do not get into this situation. That is what
deterrents are all about. They are in our motion to make sure
that people do not get themselves into the situation in the first
place.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I lend my voice to the member opposite in
congratulating her with respect to her passionate and very
personal account of her experience as it relates to this issue.
She speaks of deterrents both general and specific I assume. I
am interested to hear her comments as they relate to the concept
of having an alternative when a person has gone through the due
process and has been found guilty in a court of law.
With respect to sentencing, what if judges were to have
discretion to impose an alternative to jail giving that person
the opportunity to attend a treatment program? We all know that
there are problem drinkers, that there are alcoholics who simply
cannot get off the booze. Unfortunately there are also those in
the system that have the attitude that they do not want to attend
a treatment program. If that discretion were there, would the
member be supportive of it? Similarly, would Reformers support an
initiative aimed at addressing the problem in the same way if it
were introduced in the Senate of Canada?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, before I get to the
specifics of the question, I see a pretty frightening pattern.
The PC members are always talking about things being initiated in
the Senate. We have been talking with the government about
initiating bills in the Senate. I am not sure if I see some sort
of pattern developing here in that the PCs have a large
representation in the Senate and they are going to start trying
that process as well.
I am in favour of anybody who can do anything to help solve the
problem. As the legitimately elected people in the House of
Commons who have the mandate and authority to be here, it is wise
that things go through this House. If senators want to agree
with that, or if there is something particular they think they
need to bring in, that is fine. But let us not politicize the
Senate any more than it already is.
Speaking about sentencing, deterrents and alternatives, they
already have it in the justice system and they do not seem to be
working. Somebody says “Well, I will just do my three hours of
watching these videos” and stuff like that. The point is to
deter them before they are in there. We can look at all kinds of
alternative sentencing, but do not let them get to that point.
Once we start wiggling around within the justice system, the
member knows all the things that can happen and all the
alternatives that can happen.
His point is that we already have that and it simply is not
working. It needs to go beyond that. Let us catch them when
they are younger. Let us show them that they can be scared
straight before they even start. It seems a whole lot wiser to
me. I am sure everyone would agree that if we can catch them
young, we can catch them well.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for
Edmonton North for her very loquacious remarks. It is rather
regrettable that the hon. member had to suffer the trauma when
she was very young. I know of what she speaks.
I do have a great deal of empathy for her.
1205
I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton North to
elucidate on zero tolerance. I know that it is very difficult
because when lawyers get involved and if you do have the money so
to speak you can beat the charges, but I would like her to
elaborate on the zero tolerance issue please.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, not just technically or
legally but this Parliament because we are in charge of the
Criminal Code must make sure that we send out the signal loudly
and clearly that if someone blows over .08 as it is now, then
that is the way it is. It is not a good thing nor is it
suggestible to try and work through the court system like that.
We could talk about individual rights and everything else, but it
seems pretty clear to me that if we break the law, we break the
law.
That is about as zero tolerant as you could get. If you blow
over whatever the limit is, and the member talked about changing
it to .04 and I could certainly live with that, but once you go
over whatever the law is, you break the law. If you break the
law, you pay the consequences. We should not be tolerant over and
above whatever the limit is that we set.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise in
debate today on what I believe is a very, very important subject
for all of us in this House and of course for Canadians from
coast to coast to coast.
I would like to congratulate the member opposite for proposing
this motion. Even in a very small way the fact that we will
spend the day debating this hopefully being watched by several
thousands of Canadians, perhaps if that will give somebody the
opportunity to have a second thought about getting behind the
wheel of a car tonight, then that in itself is important. Of
course the whole subject is important.
I am the father of a 16 year old who is going through the
process of learning how to drive. I am trying to convey the
reality and the vulnerability of a young person, to convey the
horror that too many of us have felt when our friends were hurt
or killed in needless traffic accidents. Trying to convey that to
our young people so that they understand that is indeed a
challenge. As a father I know it is shared by parents right
across the country to try to convey the importance of that.
Drinking and driving, the abuse of alcohol is a tragedy that too
many times is visited upon Canadians and their families. I
concur with the intent behind this motion. It is absolutely
essential as a Parliament, as a society, and as individual
Canadians, that we address this issue. We need to make progress.
I know it has been talked about already in this debate and some
people have agreed with it and others have not put as much
emphasis on it, but indeed the problem is complex. It involves
many things. We need to understand why generally responsible
people will sometimes be very irresponsible in their use of
alcohol and the activities they choose to partake in, like
driving after they have had too much to drink.
It is a complex problem and as a complex problem it is going to
require complex solutions. There are going to be solutions that
involve the things that are brought forward in this motion. It
is going to involve items like changes to the Criminal Code. It
is going to involve things like penalties. That is important.
Deterrents indeed are important. But the problem, the situation
and indeed more important, the solutions go beyond just that,
although that is important.
We need to deal with the whole idea of education, as I opened my
speech talking about my own personal situation. We need to talk
about the whole issue of education. We need to make sure that
people understand, particularly our young people as they are
beginning in life and are having to cope with new pressures and
new responsibilities. They must understand exactly what the
costs are and what the responsibilities are for them.
1210
The whole issue of enforcement is important. It is not good
enough simply to have the laws on the books. If there are no
means to enforce those laws, then we will not have moved toward a
solution.
There is also the issue of societal attitude. It is absolutely
essential that we continue what I believe to be progress over the
last generation in a change in societal attitude. It is no
longer an acceptable social practice to drink an excessive amount
of alcohol and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. That is simply
not acceptable. When people have an opportunity to interact with
each other, society should provide a negative sanction against
that type of activity.
I recall that I was going to a reception one evening a short
time ago and my nine year old daughter asked who the designated
driver was going to be. That is a sign of how society is
changing and how our school system is trying to get that type of
education brought forward so that the upcoming generation will
understand and will be responsible in their use of alcohol. That
is a very, very important part of what we need to do as a society
in order to address this very difficult problem.
It is also very critical as parliamentarians approach this
subject, that we understand there is a broad range of individuals
and groups in society that need to come together to work on this
problem. Obviously, as parliamentarians we have a very specific
role. We also need to work with our provincial counterparts who
have the responsibility for prosecution and enforcement of the
rules and regulations governing drinking and driving.
As I mentioned, we need to work with the education system to
make sure it is working in getting the point across. We need to
work with organizations like MADD and other groups that have
worked very diligently to raise the awareness and profile of the
issue. We need to work with groups in our individual
constituencies that have specific roles, such as the boating and
snowmobile clubs. These are areas where similar tragedies take
place because of drinking and driving. Together we need to move
toward solutions.
Members have mentioned that we as a government as well as
society have implemented steps in this regard. It was in the
1920s when operating a vehicle while impaired became a criminal
offence. Since that time there have been changes in the Criminal
Code which have enhanced the prohibition of this activity and
which have enhanced the penalties.
I heard the Minister of Justice in a reply to a question the
other day make a very clear commitment to the House that she will
continue to work along those lines. We as parliamentarians have
a role to play in that. We need to work with the Department of
Justice and others and move toward improving solutions.
Speaking as the representative for Parry Sound—Muskoka, my
riding faces a problem similar to many areas, although it has its
own particular and unique nature. There are approximately 80,000
residents in that area and in the summer it attracts roughly
60,000 seasonal residents, people who choose to have summer homes
there. On a long weekend in the summer there could be an extra
100,000 or 150,000 visitors to the area. The whole issue of
responsible recreation is critical and important in an area such
as Parry Sound—Muskoka.
1215
I mentioned a minute ago the whole issue of boating safety. It
is surprising sometimes that an individual driving the 400 km to
come to my area would never for a moment think of having a drink
when they got behind the wheel of their car and drove up the
highway but then would think nothing of having that drink and
operating a boat. That is why I say societal attitudes and
societal changes are so important. It has to be as inappropriate
to get behind the wheel of a motorized boat as it is to get
behind the wheel of a car. That is something where education
plays an important role. I am pleased to note that within my
riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka there is a wide coalition of
individuals and groups working on the whole issue of boating
safety, and obviously a big component of that is to not operate a
boat.
Two years ago in this House on a Friday morning with the consent
of all the parties, the Reform Party, the justice critic whom I
had an opportunity to work with, and the Bloc and its justice
critic, we passed amendments to the Contraventions Act in one
day. Although it does not deal directly with the issue of
impaired boating, it dealt with the whole issue of regulations
and increased enforcement on our waterways to protect boating
safety. That is a small example of things that we have been able
to do in this House and something that has a very direct impact
on Parry Sound—Muskoka and of course other ridings that have
large amounts of water. I was pleased to be able to have a role
in seeing that take place. It was something that my predecessor,
Stan Darling, who had sat in this House for 21 years, had worked
on before.
Also on the issue of recreation in an area like mine in the
winter we have the whole issue of snowmobiling. Again we have a
motorized vehicle that requires people to be operating them
safely and obviously sober. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs has worked diligently with snowmobile owners and snowmobile
clubs over the last several years to educate their membership as
well as to make it clear that as a society we do not accept
operating a snowmobile while impaired. It actually introduced a
program called sled smart where it works with the clubs and with
individuals to ensure this does not happen.
In a rural area like mine I must give credit to the Ontario
Provincial Police and the detachments in my riding and the
officers of those detachments who work diligently on the issue of
education and enforcement to ensure that the tragedies we all too
often hear about are reduced. I do commend those officers, the
work they do within the schools and the work they do in terms of
enforcement. I know they, who all too often are the first ones
on the scenes of those tragedies, are trying to do all they can
to reduce this problem.
Of course in my role as the Secretary of State for Parks, we
have a role in the park system to ensure there is not an abuse of
alcohol. Our park wardens work diligently oftentimes with local
enforcement agencies to ensure that there is responsible
consumption of alcohol. There are times during the year when we
feel it necessary to put bans on alcohol consumption within our
parks. I am committed in my role as Secretary of State for Parks
to ensure that we continue that diligence, that we continue to
work toward preventing the inappropriate use of alcohol.
This is a critical issue for all of us in this House. In
summarizing, I again thank the member opposite for bringing this
motion forward because I think it is important to have this
debate.
1220
I want to leave the House with one thought. Although the
contents of the motion are good and describe part of what we need
to do in terms of the solution, let us not lose sight of the
other part of it. Let us not lose sight of what the boating
community is doing and needs to do in terms of prevention. Let
us not lose sight of what the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs is doing. Let us not lose sight of what the Ontario
Provincial Police are doing. Let us not lose sight of the
actions that we need to take at Parks Canada to make sure this
abuse is not allowed. Let us make sure that we deal with the
totality of the problem. That is not to suggest that any part is
less important than the next, but we must deal with the overall
issue.
I feel strongly about this and I am sure my colleagues feel
strongly about this. I look forward to arriving at a solution
and making progress on this important issue.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his questions.
On the first point, quite frankly, if there is one person who
thinks it is acceptable to get behind the wheel and drive while
impaired, that is one person too many.
Our objective as a society and as parliamentarians is to ensure
that we move as closely as possible to it not being acceptable to
any Canadian.
1225
I am a realist. I do not know if we can ever reach that zero
number. If there is one person who thinks it is acceptable, that
is one person too many.
Whether it is acceptable that somebody places at risk somebody
else through their inappropriate action, in this case we are
talking about getting behind the wheel of a boat or a car or
driving a snowmobile impaired, of course it is not.
We have to deal with two components of that issue. We are
trying to do two things. One, as a society we are saying to that
individual that it is inappropriate and as a society we are going
to apply a sanction against them for doing that. We need to do
that. I think society at large wants to make that point.
We are also trying to make sure the person does not do it in the
first place or that the next person does not do it in the first
place.
When I talked about the need to have a broad based solution that
contains various components, that is what I am saying. As a
society we have to make clear what we consider to be a penalty in
the Criminal Code and say that is not acceptable. That is not
good enough. It is important but we have to do more than that. We
have to take measures so that the next person or the person after
that does not get behind the wheel or does not get into a boat.
We must do both things. That is the objective.
I thank the hon. member for his question and the opportunity to
make those points.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: 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?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with
what the member is saying. I have often said in the House that
one of the important things we need to do as a society is ensure
people understand there are consequences for messing up. If you
get behind the wheel of a vehicle or some other motorised
apparatus and you operate it in an impaired state, you should
realize quite clearly that you are going to pay a price for doing
that. Society is going to provide a negative sanction, a penalty
to you.
I hope we have the opportunity over the next few months to
discuss the most appropriate way to do that and the most
appropriate penalty. We need to analyse that and look at it
carefully. Should it be the same in every instance? Is every
instance the same? Perhaps it is. Perhaps there should be some
discretion. I remain with an open mind to look at exactly what
that should be.
I unequivocally agree with the member. If somebody knowingly
places somebody at risk by operating a vehicle or some other
motorised apparatus in an impaired state, I think most members
would agree society is justified in applying a sanction.
The hon. member has outlined various options that need to be
looked at. We have some on the books now and an examination of
what can be added is appropriate, something I hope we undertake.
1230
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I get into my speech I wish to inform the Chair
that I will be splitting my time with the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I am privileged to stand here in support of the motion of the
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
As I studied politics and took an interest in politics in Canada
and around the world, I realized one thing. People who are
elected to govern or sit in opposition have one primary
responsibility that overrides all else. It is for the safety and
well-being of its law-abiding citizens.
That is what we are trying to do today. We are trying to form a
motion that can proceed and pass in this House in order to
protect the legal, law-abiding citizens in our country.
We all know, from the things that have been said so far, that
tragic things are happening to individuals and to families right
across Canada because of criminals who drink and drive. I call
them criminals because I want everybody to recognize one thing,
that making the decision to drink and drive, whether it is a
boat, a car or an airplane, is like picking up a weapon. It is a
life threatening act which could kill or maim the driver, the
passengers, other drivers and their passengers. It can ruin the
lives of their families and friends who must deal with the
tragedy. It can possibly affect many innocent bystanders.
I am going to get a little personal on this issue. I was not
going to. Normally I like to speak to everybody involved on
anything that is personal. I have not had time to speak to my
wife because I was not going to bring personal happenings into
this today, but I think I must.
When I was 23 years of age, my wife then was 18, I was on the
way to the wedding of my future brother-in-law. My job was to
pick up the flowers to take to the wedding. Another
brother-in-law of mine was in the car too. On the way a vehicle
turned into our path. I was the driver of our vehicle. John, my
brother-in-law, was the passenger.
At the time of impact I remember seeing a small child come
through the window of the vehicle that hit us. I will always
remember seeing the impact of that child on the hood of my car.
That is the last thing I remembered for a long time. I was in the
hospital for nine months. My pancreas was ripped and my liver
was ripped off and my career was changed forever.
My wife Cis spent many months, because of under-insurance of the
other driver involved, picking strawberries and fruit in order to
be on the coast—because we were from the interior—to stay with
me through all of this.
1235
I never got a chance to really talk to the other driver. Alcohol
was involved. The other driver had been drinking but not enough
to be charged with impaired driving. The child involved was his
grandson. That child lived but was in a coma for 19 or 21 days.
The child was left a paraplegic.
Did this accident have to happen? No. When the driver, the
grandfather, was asked about this, he said he could give no
reason for turning into our vehicle at that time. It was a
straight highway. He did not know why he turned into it. I have
often wondered about that. He had been drinking at a function
and he had left there to drive home with his grandson. I wondered
then as I wonder now if different laws had been in place whether
that child would be better off than he is today. It is quite
possible. Would that grandfather have to go through the pain
that he probably goes through every day now when he looks at his
grandson?
One has to take all of that into consideration. My heart goes
out to the families of these tragedies. Last year, just outside
of Vernon where I am from, three young women from
Okanagan—Shuswap decided to drive home after an evening's
entertainment in Kelowna, a neighbouring community. They had
gone only a few miles before they turned into the path of a
logging truck. All of them were killed. Now their families,
friends and loved ones have to deal with that. It is almost
impossible to deal with that type of tragedy. This is all
because we have a system in the country which allows judges to
interpret our laws when it comes to impaired driving.
This happens in my constituency and I know it happens in other
constituencies. It happens every day. As the hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley stated when he spoke to the motion,
4.5 Canadians are killed every day due to impaired driving and
many thousands a year are left as paraplegics or have to suffer
other consequences.
It was just last week that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving
visited the Hill. Its members wanted the public to become aware
of a random poll which they asked the Canadian people at large.
It is interesting to find out, in answer to the question: Should
a driver be convicted of impaired driving causing death, would
you strongly support or strongly oppose a minimum jail sentence?,
that 47.9% answered they would strongly support minimum a jail
sentence for impaired driving causing death, and another 37.6%
answered they would support it. This adds up to a total of 85.5%
who would either support or strongly support a minimum sentence.
This should send a message to us here. These are the people who
pay our wages.
These people put their trust in us to make the laws that will
protect them. That is our job and our obligation. I believe
that if we in the House work together, we can live up to that
trust.
1240
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his comments. I know the member well and he
is a sincere and hard working member of Parliament.
This opposition motion asks that a committee look at the issue
of impaired driving. It asks for two things, enhanced
deterrence, and to ensure that the penalties reflect the
seriousness of the offence. I do not believe that there are very
many people in the House who do not believe that the deterrent
elements should be appropriate, given the seriousness of the
issue. And I certainly do not think that members in the House
would disagree that the penalties should reflect that
seriousness.
Since the member raised the issue, I want to deal with the
consequences. We know that something like 45% of automobile
collisions and injuries are because of the misuse of alcohol. We
also know that 65% of snowmobile collisions and injuries are
caused by the misuse of alcohol.
When a drunk driver kills a pedestrian, that pedestrian did not
die because of alcohol, he or she died because of trauma.
Statistics in Canada probably understate the seriousness.
I thank the member for the comments he made. I think he should
elaborate a little bit on the fact that the consequences are not
simply to the person who misused the alcohol and the victim who
may be involved, but it affects all of us because we all know
someone who has been touched by a preventable tragedy caused by
the misuse of alcohol.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on this and the ripple
effect of pain and suffering and loss, tangible and intangible
that all Canadians feel.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
There is hardly anyone today who has not been affected in one
form or another by the misuse of alcohol.
The survivors and some victims have to live with this forever. I
can speak on that from a personal point of view. I do not think
a week or even two days or nights go by that the memory of that
child does not flash into my mind. I can never get rid of it. I
have to live with that.
My wife lives with the fact that her career changed at that time
also. She chose to give up a well paying job and career
advancements in order to be by my side in the Haney hospital.
While it affected us to a great extent, I cannot imagine what
that child's grandparents had to live with for the rest of their
lives. My brother-in-law John was another victim of that
accident. He sustained head injuries in the accident that he
still suffers with today.
An accident does not just affect the people who are involved,
there are lot more victims that we hear nothing about. We pay far
too little attention to them when we make some of the decisions
in this place.
1245
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the motion before
the House. In my opinion the motion is long overdue. Canadians
have been looking for this for a long time. It certainly
deserves the support of members on both sides of the House.
My good friend from Prince George—Bulkley Valley brought this
motion to the floor of the House in the spring of this year when
the election came along and intervened. I respectfully ask that
we as members of the House of Commons dispense with all our
partisan beliefs in this regard and pass the motion.
The subject before us transcends all the political differences
we might have and should unite us in a common cause. The motion
is not reflective of any particular political party or party
ideology. It is an effort that seeks only to protect Canadians.
Nothing more and certainly nothing less is being asked for.
We have all heard the horror stories associated with drinking
and driving. Some members have already shared their stories with
us. The yearly carnage which is altogether senseless and tragic
must come to an end.
I happened to make a decision a number of years ago to abstain
from alcohol. Part of my reasoning was that I did not want to be
responsible for passing along something to my children which
perhaps I could handle but which they could not. I certainly did
not want to get into the situation where I was responsible for
taking the life of another person while drinking and driving.
Abstinence is still the best preventive. However we have
freedom of choice in the use of this legalized drug. People will
continue to choose to drink. Unfortunately some will choose to
drink and drive.
I do not delude myself into believing that the passage of the
motion will stop people from dying in these kinds of accidents.
However it will go a long way toward giving the family and
friends of victims some semblance of closure and the notion that
justice was served.
The greatest value of this initiative may be in its deterrent
value to new drivers. Indeed they are the ones who need to be
educated at an early age on the perils of driving while impaired.
Those who unfortunately are repeat offenders would only likely be
stopped by some kind of punitive sanction such as a stiffer
sentence.
Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ontario
Students Against Impaired Driving tell us that the status quo in
sentencing can no longer be tolerated.
There have been far too many tragedies. We have buried too many
loved ones. As the father of eight children, every time they go
out in a vehicle at night I pray to God they will come home
safely. It is not because I am worried they will be drinking and
driving. It is the other person who is out there that I am
worried about.
In 1967 my wife's sister, at 21 years of age and newly married,
was driving down a road in Victoria, British Columbia, with her
husband. A drunk driver went through a stop sign and broad sided
their car. She was thrown out on to the pavement, hit her head
and had severe brain damage. She went into a coma for three
months. She lost the use of one of her legs and one of her arms.
Miraculously she has regained a large measure of the use of those
limbs, but today she still lives with the consequences of that
accident.
Her marriage dissolved. She limps. She has constant pain. That
driver got off with a $500 fine and a slap on the wrist in 1967.
That is not acceptable, not at all.
1250
It has been said before by the survivors of these kinds of
accidents, and it deserves to be said again, that victims should
not be paying the penalty for impaired driving.
Here is some information that shows how much of a problem
driving while impaired has become. In 1992 an Ottawa Sun
editorial pointed out that over 13,000 people that year were
killed or injured because someone drove while impaired.
In 1994, 1,414 were killed as a result of impaired driving. This
is roughly three times the number of people murdered in Canada
every year, but one could argue that this is essentially the same
thing. Does it matter whether one holds a gun to the head of
someone and shoots it or whether one is out there driving a car
while drinking?
I ask my colleagues to think about that number, 1,414. If this
Chamber were made four times larger it would not hold all those
people. In 1993, 565 of the 1,315 people who died on Ontario
roads were involved in alcohol related accidents.
I also want to share some additional information with colleagues
as it relates to the cost of drinking while driving, while
intoxicated. By cost I refer to the price in lives and suffering
as well as monetary. Some 4.5 Canadians are being killed by
impaired drivers each day. That is one every six hours according
to studies by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada.
It also found that impaired drivers caused over half of Canada's
3,300 road fatalities in 1995. This means the chances of being
killed by an impaired driver are three times greater in Canada
than being killed as a result of homicide.
Fatalities are not the only sad statistic. In 1993 a Transport
Canada study revealed that over 300 Canadians each day are being
injured as a result of an alcohol related crash. In addition,
these injuries and fatalities effect not only the victims but
society as a whole.
In 1989 Transport Canada found that the minimum losses to
society total $390,000 per fatal crash. That figure represents
the loss in terms of income, property damage and related cost to
health care.
We must bring justice to the families of victims and stiffen the
sentencing of offenders. Members in the Chamber need not take my
word that Canadians find the situation intolerable. In the
recently released paper prepared by MADD and alluded to by my
colleague, we have all the reasons Canadians believe the
penalties should be stiffer. Canadians have spoken and we as
parliamentarians who represent them need to act.
I close on that note. Again I urge members to put aside
partisan politics and vote in support of the motion for the good
of the country.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me thank all members who have spoken today in favour of the
motion. In the last parliament a similar motion was brought
forward. I was very honoured to have seconded it.
We have heard some very moving personal tragedies today. I am
sure every one of us have some to share. A resident in my
riding, a Mr. MacRae who worked in the greater Ottawa area, was
unfortunately hit on one of the major highways. It was a head on
collision with another driver who was intoxicated. His life was
suddenly taken away. He left a young wife and a young child
whose futures were taken away from them.
The member just gave one example of an incident. I believe it
was a $500 fine and a slap on the hand. That is ridiculous.
1255
We have a problem. We could bring forward all the laws we want,
and I think we should, but an area of enforcement has to unfold.
This is where we sometimes lose the game. Most recently we heard
of the Stuckless case in the greater Toronto area. Thirty or
forty young kids were abused during their early lives. The
gentleman was literally given a slap on the hand.
Was it because the law was not there? The law is there. There
are rules but the enforcement side is an area we somehow have to
address as well.
Does the member have any ideas that could be brought forward to
enforce these laws, to make sure the penalties are enforced and
to send a message saying that the laws are there? We could
change the law, implement the law and bring forward motions, but
unless they are enforced the tragedies a previous speaker
referred to will go on and on. They are slaps on the hand.
We have to send a signal to the judges out there. They have a
job to do. They have a responsibility. Unless judges are told
in black in white that they must enforce the law as stated, we
could bring in all kinds of the changes and nothing will happen.
Does the hon. member have any suggestions on how to enforce the
rules and the laws we are trying to bring forward?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question and comments. In a great sense he has answered his
own question. I agree with him wholeheartedly that we have a
system of justice. The laws are in place. The judges are there
but unfortunately they very often do not enforce the law.
Canadians have to scream for this to happen. It will take
public opinion and pressure by parliamentarians and others to
make it to happen.
The laws are there. They are not being enforced. We cannot
have these slaps on the wrist any more. It sends a signal to
every young person that it is okay to drink and drive. It is not
acceptable.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speaker opposite.
This is a very serious and important problem as it affects
Canadians.
As former chairman of Waterloo Regional Police we took very
seriously the whole issue of drunk driving and the results that
would occur for people in that position. We ensured we had good
programs in place, for example RIDE and other methods to ensure
enforcement was there.
Does the hon. member believe additional enforcement on the part
of police services across Canada would be useful to help
ameliorate this devastating problem?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have to get behind our
police forces. I talked to RCMP officers in my riding. There
are disheartened not only by the problems we have with the
enforcement of drunk driving laws but by the manpower problem.
There is a problem with the justice system and judges letting
people off after the police have worked hard to try to bring
people to justice.
It is a very serious problem. I would wholeheartedly support
the hon. member's statements. We have to support our police.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the debate we are having today is an important one
because I do not think there is anyone in the country, certainly
no one in the riding of Thornhill that I know, who would condone
anyone driving when drunk. I do not think they would condone
them driving an automobile. I do not think they would condone
them driving any motorized vehicle.
When we drive we have an obligation to ensure that we have
knowledge of the vehicle, are trained and our judgment is
unimpaired.
We know that these vehicles can kill.
1300
I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, MADD, as its members are referred to, for the
wonderful work they have done in raising public consciousness
over the years on this important issue. I also want to
congratulate all the members of the House in all parties who have
stated very clearly that this is a non-partisan issue.
As we address this issue of driving while drunk, it is important
to note that across the country it is not just the Criminal Code
which is responsible for the deterrence and the punishment for
those who drive while drunk. Every province has a
responsibility. The provinces have the responsibility for
enforcement of the Criminal Code. The provinces also have
responsibility for the highways within their jurisdictions.
As a member of the Ontario legislature for 12 years I am aware
of the progress that the province of Ontario has made. I am also
very aware on a personal level of the tragedies that have
occurred.
I sat in the legislature on the day that it was announced that
the tragic loss of the son of the now Treasurer of Ontario was as a
result of an alcohol related accident. While I may have had my
differences with the hon. member, I want the House to know, that
I and every member of that legislature felt and empathized not
only with the tragic loss but with the senselessnes and its
preventability.
More recently we were aware of the news that the son of a
cabinet minister in Ontario had been charged with driving while
impaired. The thought that went through my mind was when will we
ever learn.
I come to this House not only as a parliamentarian with
significant experience in the legislature in the province of
Ontario after serving on municipal council for six and a half
years, and I am a mother of four children. The youngest is now
25. I remember how I felt when each of them got a driver's
licence. I remember discussing with each and every one of them
the responsibility they had when they got behind the wheel of a
car. I remember discussing with them the responsibility they had
when they saw a friend of theirs who should not be getting behind
the wheel of a car.
I remember discussing with them the support they would receive
from their family and from their friends, but particularly from
my husband and I, if they took a taxi home and left the car if
they had had a drink.
For those who say that these tragedies can be prevented and we
should be doing something about it, I agree. I think that the
deterrents in the Criminal Code and the penalties and the
enforcement of the Criminal Code are only one part of the
solution.
Certainly education and treatment for those with alcohol
problems are all part. The raising of consciousness of this
issue over the last many years has resulted in significant
progress being made. Certainly progress is being made in public
consciousness and awareness.
I was very disappointed when the courts struck down the Ontario
law brought in by a Conservative government that said that if you
failed or you refused to take a breathalyser test that you would
have your licence revoked for 90 days.
I thought it was a good law and a good deterrent. I am pleased
that the government is appealing that decision. It is my hope
that law will be found to be constitutional.
1305
We have to find ways to keep the public informed of the
importance that legislators, parliamentarians and the public who
are interested in public safety, hold this important issue.
I also want to say how very proud I am of the responsiveness of
the Liberal government. There has been a firm and clear
commitment from the Minister of Justice to raise this issue with
her counterparts, the attorneys general. We know that the
solicitors general are also very interested in the whole issue of
drunk driving. I am proud to be part of a government with
ministers who have made that commitment.
The importance of that commitment speaks to the nature of this
country. It is not just an issue for the federal Criminal Code.
It is an issue that requires a national strategy, a national
interest and certainly discussions and action by all of the
provinces across Canada.
In the short time that I have been here, I have learned the
importance of working with the provinces and getting the support
of the provinces for federal initiatives. I also believe this is
in the national interest since this is a federation, but I also
believe it is in the interest of the issue.
I want to go on record today as saying that I do not believe
that a consensus is unanimity. We do not require unanimity in
order to take action. I believe we can move the yardstick
further if we can achieve a consensus among the provincial
partners that have responsibility
enforcement of the Criminal Code. We know
that enforcement takes resources. If they do not dedicate the
resources we do not get the kind of enforcement that we need.
Therefore, it is a partnership.
We also know the public policy which is in the provincial
jurisdiction. I only mentioned Ontario but I know other
provinces have also taken initiatives. We know how important it
is for the provinces to be able to share that information and for
us to be able to target our resources at what is going to be the
most effective way of achieving our goal which is the reduction
of impaired driving incidents, accidents and loss of life.
If that is the goal we all share then it is important to make
sure that we have the research, the data, the information which
will allow us to frame our policies in the most effective way.
It is important to note that the Traffic Injury Research
Foundation, TIRF as it is called, is a facility database for
Transport Canada. That data is very important if we are going to
not only evaluate our programs but also to see the progress that
we are making in achieving our goal. The Traffic Injury Research
Foundation collects data from across this country and that data
is very important.
Similarly, and I speak again from my perspective of Ontario, we
know the work of the Addiction Research Foundation. It is a
world leader in policy development, research, prevention
strategies and, yes, treatment. That is an important part of
this issue as well.
1310
It is important that a matter such as this brings all of those
together. The most appropriate lead is with the Minister of
Justice. She has expressed interest and made a commitment in the
House and to MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
I also believe there is a role for the parliamentary committee
on justice to play. Standing committees can help frame policies
which will impact and help to achieve our goal of a safer
society. I hope we will have an opportunity over the coming
years to discuss these kinds of issues in a non-partisan way.
One thing I have learned is that while we may all agree on the
objectives and the goal, because of our philosophical or
ideological differences, our approach to resolving these issues
and achieving the goals often differ. During the debates it is
important for everyone to remember that we share the same goal,
that of a safer society, of preventing accidents caused by
impaired drivers. We must be responsive to those who say this is
a complex issue.
I recently said to someone that we do not have to say that an
issue is controversial. If it is not controversial, it is not an
issue. If the solutions were simple, we would not be debating
them here, they would have been resolved. The reason we are
having this debate is because the issue is controversial and the
solutions are not simple and the public policy implications are
complex.
I specifically mentioned the legislation in Ontario that was
struck down by the courts. It was well-intentioned legislation.
The provincial government was warned that when it was brought in
that there would be court challenges. The court challenge was
successful and the legislation was struck down.
I believe that as legislators we must not grandstand on these
issues. We must not say that the solutions are simple. These
issues are so important to the kind of society we build that they
must be addressed often in this kind of forum. We must look for
a solution, listen to the experts, collect the data from across
the country, look internationally to see what others are doing,
look at what works and what does not.
No one wants to see tax increases and everyone wants value for
their tax dollars. We must target our resources to those things
that will work cost effectively.
In the debate today I want my message to be very clear. On
behalf of the people of Thornhill who I have the privilege of
representing in the House, I believe they would like to see a
comprehensive strategy, one that includes enhanced education,
prevention, treatment options and strengthening of the Criminal
Code in a way that will achieve the goal of reducing drunk
driving in all motorized vehicles.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking in a non-partisan way
for my constituents in the riding of Thornhill on an issue of
importance to all of us. I believe this is an issue that every
member in the House and every person in the country cares deeply
about. There have been too many needless tragedies. I wish the
solutions were simple. But I know that every member of the
House, each in our own way, will further the cause by
participating in today's debate.
1315
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with very much of what was said by the hon.
member across the way. Debates like this bother me because they
hit home personally.
For several years in the last session I worked with my
colleagues, friends and people across the country on a national
victims bill of rights. We brought this victims bill of rights
to the House, and the justice minister at that time agreed with
the bill. Millions of people across the country were optimistic
that we would finally see a national victims bill of rights. That
bill went to committee and died there and nothing has come of it.
My concern is very much the same as what we are hearing from
parties here, two parties in particular who had the opportunity
over decades to do something about drunk driving. Today on the
Reform Party's presentation we are very likely to get unanimous
agreement on such a motion. How confident does the hon. member
feel about implementing something in this House when the track
record of past governments is zero?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the member
that in fact the track record is not zero. If we are going to
have a helpful thoughtful debate on important issues like this
one, it is important to state the facts clearly.
We know there were amendments to the Criminal Code placed by
this government and passed by this government last spring in the
previous Parliament. We also know that over the course of the
last Parliament there were numerous justice issues brought
forward by this government that were simply not supported by the
Reform Party across the way. I would like to point out the ones
they did not support.
Talk is cheap. When we are talking about a non-partisan issue
such as this one, and we want to have support from all sides of
the House, I say to my colleague from the Reform Party, who would
stand and talk about zero, that he should get his facts straight.
I would ask him, if I can during my response, why it is when it
came to important initiatives to strengthen the Young Offenders
Act the Reform Party voted no. Why is it when it came to gun
control which was supported across the country, the Reform Party
said no? Why is it when it came to strengthening the judicial
review of parole ineligibility, again the Reform Party said no?
I am proud to stand in my place today in support of an
initiative which the justice minister and the solicitor general
of this Liberal government have said is a priority for this
government. I believe with goodwill from all sides of the House
we can make progress, but with an attitude like that and when you
stand in the House and do not give accurate information to the
people watching—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair reminds
hon. members to please address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
debate today on the issue of drunk driving is extraordinarily
important. I congratulate MADD for its important work
nationally. In my own constituency there are very few families
who have not been affected in some way by a drunk driver. The
risk to individuals and to society is great if we let it continue
to grow unabated.
The penalty for someone arrested for drunk driving is
significantly more lenient than the penalty for someone who while
behind the wheel of a car kills somebody, yet the actions leading
up to either of those two conclusions are identical.
The only difference is that one person was lucky enough to be
arrested before he killed somebody. That the two actions are
identical represents one of the greatest arguments for stricter
sentencing, for tougher laws and for stronger enforcement of
those laws.
1320
Earlier I had made a few notes to commend my fellow
parliamentarians on the non-partisan nature of this debate, but I
suppose that is no longer valid. However, I was enjoying the
debate immensely up to that point, so I would ask that we return
to the non-partisan spirit of debate on this very important
issue.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the issues which the
member opposite raised about the variations within the Criminal
Code are exactly the types of issues that should be addressed not
only during debate and discussions perhaps before a legislative
committee, but also by the justice minister and her colleagues
across this country because it is the provinces which enforce the
Criminal Code.
I support a non-partisan debate in this legislature. I said
that during my remarks. However when provoked, if you tease the
bear, I growl. I hope hon. members opposite do not take offence
when I respond in kind.
This is an issue of importance to members of all parties. I too
wish we could debate this issue in a non-partisan manner.
Unfortunately my colleague opposite made that impossible.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, apology accepted. It is too important an issue to start
playing petty partisan politics, regardless of the fact of
whether someone feels they have been provoked. Certainly I could
respond to the long list the member just rattled through and say
that I was provoked. However that would detract from the spirit
of this debate today, which is to address one of the most serious
criminal actions in our country which is killing thousands and
thousands of Canadians and unfortunately all too often they are
very young Canadians.
What specifically is the hon. member prepared to do to ensure
that we bring the issue of drunk driving to its proper
conclusion? What concrete action is she prepared to take? That
is what my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was getting
at. It is fine to support a motion, but what concrete steps will
the government take and which this particular member will
support?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.
member opposite, I am willing to take the Minister of Justice at
her word on the commitment which she has just made to Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, that she will raise this issue when she
meets with her counterparts across Canada. I am not only prepared
to take her at her word, but I am willing to give her the
opportunity to bring forward a report to the House. At that time
there would be an appropriate opportunity for us to consider this
matter in an appropriate forum such as the justice committee.
That is what I said during my remarks.
I would also point out that we may not all agree on the
solutions, because they are complex. However, I believe we all
agree on the goal. I will make my commitment in this House to do
what I can to achieve the goal of reducing drunk driving and to
make changes as necessary to public policy to achieve that goal.
I consider that to be a priority on behalf of my constituents in
the riding of Thornhill.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the House
to misunderstand where I come from. It is not to degrade debate
in this House to ask very legitimate questions. The question is
serious. How do we as members of this House get the government
to move on issues such as this one and on issues such as the
victims bill of rights, on victims of other crimes as well as
drunk driving?
1325
Members in this House should clearly understand that
questions have to be asked because I do not think the confidence
is there that these things proceed as they should. I want the
hon. member to understand that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with
my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.
At the start of my presentation, I want to draw attention to the
fact that in this debate we want to clearly understand that
many thousands of victims are killed every year. I
think the number is up to 1,700 victims of drunk driving or of
accidents involving alcohol.
I noted in my brief remarks a few minutes ago that all too often
it is the young.
We are rapidly approaching one of the
worst possible times of the year for drunk driving. As the
incidents of drunk driving go up, unfortunately so do the
fatalities and the injuries around Christmastime. Another time
of the year is at graduation time with our young people.
Last year a poem appeared in the Alaska Highway News
in my hometown. I want to read a couple of excerpts from it
because it quite pointedly cuts to the real problem.
I went to a party, Mom, I remembered what you said.
You told me not to drink, Mom, so I drank soda instead.
I really felt proud inside, Mom, the way you said I would.
I didn't drink and drive, Mom, even though the others said I
should.
I started to drive away, Mom, but as I pulled out into the road,
the other car didn't see me, Mom, and hit me like a load.
As I lay there on the pavement, Mom, I hear the policeman say,
the other guy is drunk, Mom, and now I'm the one who will pay.
Why do people drink, Mom? It can ruin your whole life.
I'm feeling sharp pains now. Pains just like a knife.
The guy who hit me is walking, Mom, and I don't think it's
fair.
I'm lying here dying and all he can do is stare.
Someone should have told him, Mom, not to drink and drive.
If only they had told him, Mom, I would still be alive.
My breath is getting shorter, Mom, I'm becoming very scared.
Please don't cry for me, Mom. When I needed you, you were always
there.
I have one last question, Mom, before I say goodbye.
I didn't drink and drive, so why am I the one to die?
That really sums up the issue here. It is the innocent who are
being killed by drunk drivers time and time again. I do not
think this government or previous governments have even begun to
adequately address this issue. It is critical that the House act
on this motion.
Impaired drivers have been literally getting away with murder,
with little or no consequence for their deadly habits. We have
all heard the statistics echoed time and time again during the
debate today. Too many families are suffering because the lives
of loved ones were cut short by drunk drivers. Too many
convicted impaired drivers get behind the wheel again and again,
never changing their drinking and driving behaviour. For some,
even killing a child does not stop them.
Scott Wilson was only 15 when he was killed by a drunk driver in
1985. The driver, Owen Bradshaw, hit a hay wagon loaded with a
minor hockey team, their friends and families. Bradshaw fled the
scene as Scott lay dying and 18 other people lay injured by his
criminal act.
This was not the first time he had been caught drinking and
driving, it was the third. He had two previous impaired
convictions. He only received a $175 fine for his first conviction
and spent 30 days in jail for the second. For killing Scott, he
was sentenced to two years imprisonment plus one year for fleeing
the scene of the accident, but he only served one-third of the
three year sentence before being paroled in December 1987.
You would think his conscience would not let him continue to
drive and drink, but he was convicted of drunk driving again in
1991.
On his fourth offence he received a six month jail term and was
prohibited from driving for three years. Did he change? No. On
his birthday last year Bradshaw backed a van into a police
cruiser that had pulled in behind him. When it went to trial the
crown recommended locking him up for three years but the judge
gave him only nine months and recommended that he be granted
immediate temporary passes so he could continue to work during
the day. His ex-wife had told the court how important his child
support payments were to put food on the table for their
children. He should have thought about his family before he
picked up the beer. He should have thought about Scott's family
when he picked up the keys. He has been convicted of drunk
driving five times. How many times has he driven while impaired?
I would doubt that even he knows.
1330
Bradshaw is just one of many drunk drivers with multiple
impaired offences still on the road today. They do not change
even after fines and prison terms. Many continue to drive with
their licences suspended, still drinking and still driving, hoping
the police will not catch them.
Bradshaw, unfortunately, is just one but not even the worst
example. Sadly there are countless others. One man killed five
girls in Winnipeg on his 51st offence.
There are at least two types of impaired drivers, the ones who
get charged once and never drink and drive again, and the ones
who get charged but continue to drink and drive with extremely
high blood alcohol levels. It is the second type in particular
that our laws must focus on, the hardcore drinkers. They will
drink and drive until they injure or kill themselves or someone
else. Yet they refuse to change.
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 12% of hardcore
drunk drivers killed around 1,300 Canadians last year alone. For
these people we must consider an alternative that will save
lives.
Other people here today have talked about the need for stiffer
penalties, and I certainly concur with them. However, I would
like to focus on another deterrent for drunk driving, something
that has been proven effective in both the United States and
Alberta where it has been available since 1990. On Monday last I
introduced Bill C-266, a bill that would empower judges to
sentence impaired drivers to ignition interlock programs. I
believe it is one part of a deterrence package that this House
should seriously consider.
For members who have not heard of it, an ignition interlock is
an electronic device with a breath alcohol analyser, a
micro-computer and an internal memory that interconnects with the
ignition and other control systems of a vehicle. It measures the
blood alcohol level of the driver and prevents the vehicle from
starting if the alcohol level exceeds a certain level. In other
words, it only lets the operator drive if he or she is sober.
It has been proven that current methods of sanction and
rehabilitation do not work for most hardcore drinking drivers.
However, the interlock is an immediate and effective deterrent
against drunk driving for the participants in the program. People
in the program have a licence that only allows them to operate
vehicles with an ignition interlock. Every 30 to 60 days the
internal memory of the interlock is read and recorded. The
report details every driving event, the results of all tests and
any attempts to circumvent the system. Where other members of the
family must have access to the vehicle they too can be taught how
to use the device.
There are currently programs in Alberta, in 30 U.S.
jurisdictions and Quebec will start a program on December 1.
Michael Weinerath, currently teaching at the University of
Winnipeg, evaluated the results of the ignition interlock program
in Alberta. He concluded that the ignition interlock cases were
4.4 times less likely to record a new serious driving violation
and 3.9 times less likely to be involved in an injury collision.
Clearly the interlock system teaches impaired drivers to modify
their own behaviour much more effectively than jail or other
treatment programs. Not only does the interlock keep impaired
drivers off the road when they have been drinking but, more
important, it teaches them to keep themselves off the road when
they have been drinking.
Where a person requires their vehicle for work and a judge
thinks a suspension would be an undue hardship, the ignition
interlock provides the public with an added measure of safety.
The police cannot be everywhere but the interlock can be there
every day and every night, all the time. In most jurisdictions
the interlock is installed for a set period of time but I believe
there is a better alternative.
We could make the program mandatory until such time as the drunk
driver changes his or her behaviour. Some people modify their
behaviour within a couple of months, but others never learn. Those
are the ones we need to stop.
1335
People convicted of impaired driving, particularly those who
have killed or injured someone, should not be able to start their
cars let alone drive if they have been drinking, and the
interlock stops them. If they cannot start their car, they will
not be on the road killing people. And if they are caught driving
a vehicle without the device, then lock them up.
We do not give a lethal weapon to a known sociopath who has been
convicted of murder. So why do we let impaired drivers who have
shown no regard for human life continue to drink and drive? I
say let us consider the ignition interlock as part of an overall
deterrence package. We owe it to Scott Wilson and the hundreds of
other Canadians who are killed by drunk drivers every year.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to dedicate this speech to Sheena, who was taken
away from us some years ago by a drunk driver. The drunk driver
had his licence suspended for that deed.
I start by congratulating MADD Canada. It is a Canadian
organization of volunteers, people committed to trying to rectify
a situation in this country that has grown to be very
unacceptable. This is an organization in which many of the
people have experienced the very problems and situations that
have been raised here today.
The mission of MADD Canada is to stop impaired driving and
support victims of this violent crime. What more honourable
mission could there be?
One has to just do a reality check and talk about some of the
statistics related to drunk driving. I know they have been
mentioned here before, but I want to make yet another point on
this, that 4.5 Canadians are being killed by impaired drivers
every 24 hours, every day of the week. Over 300 people a day are
being injured in Canada as the result of an alcohol related
crash, more than one Canadian every five minutes. Impaired
drivers killed 17,630 Canadians and injured 1.1 million from 1983
to 1991.
If those were by the hands of criminals with guns, if they were
rapes or other types of malicious actions, laws would have been
put in place long ago in this country to prevent them. One
wonders why, after all these years of building up to this, we are
at this time today in 1997 asking the House of Commons yet again
to take action.
A bit before my speech I raised my concern and I want to talk
about it again. We in the House must insist on action from
government, from all members from all parties. But it is the
government which is responsible for implementation. We in this
country cannot wait, beg, hope, appease that something,
somewhere, somehow will be done. If not now, then when? And if
not here in the House of Commons, then where?
1340
Not only has the situation of drunk driving affected our family
deeply, but I have been involved in a number of cases in my
riding of victims of drunk driving, even before I was a member of
Parliament.
I recall a drunk driver who had a history of drunk driving
charges. He was out on yet another binge, on a Sunday, when he
drove through a chain-link fence at one of our school yards. I
was the secretary-treasurer at the time. He killed several young
people and severely injured others.
I recall being in the courtroom when his defence lawyer tried
time and time again to get me to admit that it was a problem with
the fence. It was the fence, he said, that was not strong enough
to keep the drunk driver out.
He did not win that case. He served a very short time in jail.
He is out, probably driving drunk again.
I wondered at the time why we were looking at the fence as the
problem. Why would we sue a school district or any other entity
for the actions of an irresponsible individual? Perhaps way back
then I made my mind up to get involved in politics to change that
shameless attitude.
I am happy to see that members of the House support this motion.
It well explains how bad the situation is in Canada.
I am working with a friend right now who lost his step-son. He
will be driving across the country in the spring, raising the
awareness of the public about drunk drivers.
I would like to read from a letter which he recently sent to me.
This individual's step-son was killed by a hit and run driver who
was suspected of being drunk. We now know he was actually drunk.
He says in his letter that court proceedings are in absolute
shambles. There is no mention of cause of appearance. The
charge appeared for two minutes. He was allowed to leave the
courtroom free. Basically the parents were told nothing about
it. This was just another one of those days in court.
He had previous convictions for impaired driving, going back to
1984. On six occasions his licence was suspended. My friend
asks this question “Why is a person such as this allowed to
drive again, and resulting in eventually killing somebody, my
step-son? The law has to be changed. The law as it stands at
the moment condones drinking and driving by the fact that a
coward like this killed my son”. That is how these people feel.
I know what those people are going through.
It is necessary once again to read into the record where Reform
stands on this matter. There should be no doubt about what we
believe in.
Reform supports strengthening the Criminal Code and other
federal acts to respond to the serious issue of impaired driving.
Our aim is to enhance deterrence and more suitably punish those
who choose to drink and drive. A Reform government would lower
the current blood alcohol content level from .08 to .05. We
would extend or eliminate the two hour sampling time limit. We
would toughen sentences for those convicted of impaired driving,
higher fines, jail times and licence suspensions. We would
establish minimum sentences and longer driving prohibitions for
those convicted of impaired driving offences causing death or
injury. We would ensure that parole is dependent on the
successful completion of an educational or rehabilitative
program. We would encourage the provinces to introduce random
breath tests for deterrence.
We would encourage the provinces to seize and sell the vehicles
of those convicted of impaired driving while under suspension,
with the proceeds going to an anti-drinking and driving fund.
1345
I suspect things like this have been said in the House for many
years. I know my colleagues mean what they say. We have worked
on this issue. We have worked with groups across the country. It
is necessary to emphasize in the House that it is time to act. It
is not the time to sit back and tell a committee to take the
issue, wallow around with it, hope it goes away and make some
minor tinkering changes. We are long past that time.
I encourage my colleagues to put whatever pressure is necessary
on those who make decisions in this esteemed place to get on with
the job of changing the ability of drunk drivers to kill.
MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is looking for a victims
bill of rights. I have some experience with that, having
approached it not from the drunk driving angle but from the view
of other victims of crime. It suitably fits in both places.
Unfortunately I have run out of time. In conclusion I would say
that we must influence this place and get the job done this time.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the member's comments.
The motion before us today concerns the specific area of
drinking and driving and asking the government to put forward a
motion to have a committee draft a bill to deal with deterrents
and penalties to reflect the seriousness of the offence. Every
member of this place should and I hope will support the motion.
It transcends partisan politics.
Since the member is the House leader of the Reform Party I would
ask him for his words of wisdom. I am having difficulty making
it happen but I think it is important.
If the issue unfolds the way it should and the justice committee
deals with deterrents and penalties, it will undoubtedly seek the
input of expertise from across Canada. It is undoubtedly the
case that there will be input with regard to the broader question
of alcohol misuse in Canada. This will possibly bring out
relevant and vital recommendations that should also be dealt
with.
Would the member on behalf of the Reform Party support or move
an amendment to its motion to the effect that any other important
recommendations, observations, et cetera, that should come from
the committee would be referred to the appropriate standing
committee for detailed review? In that way we would not lose the
momentum started by the motion.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem referring
any motion from the House to the committees for action.
Very shortly in the House there will be an amendment to the
motion, which has been agreed to by all parties, to have some
action on a bill by a certain deadline.
To answer the question the best I can, it is incumbent upon all
of us in the House to make sure it is a consolidated,
comprehensive bill that is not watered down, and that it is
brought back to the House early in the spring or later this
winter.
In that way all of us can be proud of the actions we take,
notwithstanding any opposition from any individuals in cabinet or
any other place.
1350
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague. I listened to
his remarks very closely. I never want to refer to it as the
justice system because it is viewed across the land as injustice,
which seems to be inherent in our legal system today. He was
driving at the fact that in today's judicial system there is a
lack of holding people responsible and accountable for their
actions.
Could he elaborate a little more on where he was going with that
reference to drunk driving and to all people who commit
horrendous crimes when we do not yet have a victims bill of
rights in place in the country to address the victims of crimes?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, indeed I refer to what was
once a justice system as a legal industry. I believe that
wholeheartedly today.
The way to hold the criminal and the legal system responsible is
by implementing rights for victims. We have to stop putting the
rights of criminals before the rights of victims. Once we get
into that frame of mind and on that track we will be much better
off as a country.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been an interesting morning. I am also one of
the hon. members on this side of the House who is supporting the
motion very strongly.
It is time for an all-party decision and to get the House to
agree on something. I do not think that will only enhance the
bill. It will also improve the stature of the House of Commons
throughout the country.
I have been involved in a number of legal cases in the last
while. I have been astounded by the issues judges do not have to
address or look at. If they make a mistake they cannot be held
accountable. Maybe that is one of the reasons for the problems
in our justice system.
We used to look at judges as being almost infallible and as
making decisions that people could support. When we look at a
lot of the judgments being made, we wonder whether criminals
dictate or influence the courts. Do they have more rights before
the courts than victims? That is what it seems to me.
Some drunk driving charges are almost unbelievable. Neighbours
in my area through no fault of their own, and not due to alcohol,
lost a daughter and two grandchildren in an accident about 15
years to 20 years ago. The suffering the family is going through
today is unbelievable. We as a House sometimes cannot look at
situations jointly or transparently to see the suffering in
communities.
I will not make my speech too long today because other member
want to participate.
I wish the House could support the hon. member's motion so that
we are addressing it from the point of view that it is affecting
families.
1355
I will be splitting my time with another member, so do not let
me go beyond the 10 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
Often we look at tragedies as something that only happens to
other people. In the speeches today I have heard of incidents
involving families or MPs that I never imagined or had known
before. They have probably affected every member of the House in
some way, even if we do not know it or see it visibly. When I
look back at the emotional stress caused in families that lose a
mother or a father, I am hurt to think of the neighbours I deal
with on a daily basis whenever I am home.
These accidents, these drunk driving incidents or episodes,
could have been easily avoided. In the case I am talking about
the issue was that probably the father who was impaired had some
problems at home not because of drinking but because of emotions
and finances he could not handle.
Often we are not aware that families or certain people suffer
before they turn to the bottle, as we say. When that happens
they become disillusioned and try more or less to drown their
problems by taking off in a vehicle to go to see somebody or to
go to the next bar. That has bad effects.
It is very sad we only realize the hurt of the tragedy after the
fact. We should somehow measure the incidents or the beneficial
effect prevention would have on the emotional strains faced by
families and on the financial side at times. Often when the
drinking problem becomes prevalent in a home mismanagement
occurs. Usually it culminates in some kind of an accident,
whether it is drunk driving or something else.
It has been a privilege to say a few words on the issue before
the House. As I have done before, I urge the House to be
non-partisan, to look at the motion and support it, and to make
the country a better place to live.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 2 o'clock, we shall now proceed to statements
by members. The hon. member for Mississauga South.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the International Association of Firefighters convened
its sixth annual conference in Ottawa. As in the past a vital
part of its visit was to meet with parliamentarians to discuss
issues of mutual interest.
Of particular note was a request that consideration be given to
establishing a registered charitable trust fund for the benefit
of families of police officers and firefighters killed in the
line of duty.
Canadians are well aware of the risk public safety officers face
on a daily basis as they serve our emergency needs. When one of
them loses their life in the line of duty, we all mourn that
loss.
The establishment of a registered charitable trust fund could
provide a tangible opportunity for all Canadians to honour
courageous service and to assist their loved ones in their time
of need.
I therefore encourage all hon. members to give due consideration
to such an initiative in support of Canada's police officers and
firefighters, our everyday heroes on the front lines from sea to
sea to sea.
* * *
1400
FIREARMS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Liberal government has decided to take yet another pot-shot
at law-abiding gun owners in Canada.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has publicly stated his desire
for an international treaty to register, control and restrict the
use of small arms.
Once again the Liberal government is way off target. Rather
than cracking down on the use of firearms to commit crimes, and
rather than strengthening enforcement measures along our borders
to stop the illegal flow of handguns, the minister would prefer
to continue to harass ordinary law-abiding Canadians, even going
so far as to deny them use of their own private property.
The word is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is upset
because he did not win the Nobel Prize for the landmine treaty.
He should not worry because he is a shoo-in for the booby prize
for trampling on the rights of law-abiding Canadians. It is a
disgrace.
* * *
CHILD LABOUR
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week in Oslo at the International Organization of
Labour Conference, Canada joins with 39 countries, children's
right activists, labour representatives and leaders of
multilateral agencies who have come together to draft an agenda
for action on what steps the international community can take to
protect children world-wide from harmful and exploitive forms of
child labour.
Canada's goals are clear. We are committed to full respect for
children's rights, improving children's health through clean
water and sound nutrition, improving the quality of, and access
to, basic education, especially for young girls. And we are
committed to providing protection for children against abuse,
exploitation and violence.
Our CIDA funding approach to child labour targets preventive
measures by focusing on schooling, child care and strengthening
the role of women in society.
* * *
[Translation]
SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF QUEBEC REFERENDUM
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two years ago
today a referendum on sovereignty was held in Quebec. An unprecedented
93% of Quebeckers voted in the referendum without any incident being
reported. Quebec serves as an example of democracy to the whole world.
While it was almost a tie between the yes and the no sides, we in
Quebec have respected the will of the 50.6% of our fellow citizens who
chose to give the Canadian federal system one last chance.
Canada's response to this final request for change from the people
of Quebec was Plan B, threats and blackmail, and the ludicrous and
meaningless recognition of Quebec's unique character in the Calgary
declaration.
After such a display of cynicism and contempt, rest assured that
next time will be the right time. Quebeckers will get their own country
and they will do so democratically, peacefully and with respect for the
various components of Quebec society.
* * *
[English]
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is an important day in our parliamentary history.
The Canadian Association for Parliamentarians on Population and
Development is launched on this day.
This association will give parliamentarians in Canada the unique
opportunity to raise the national awareness of population and
development issues and to influence and shape policy decisions
consistent with commitments made at international conferences and
in Canadian foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you, officials and
parliamentarians from the U.K., Bolivia, Asia, and all the NGOs
who have participated and assisted to make this effort come
alive.
* * *
TAMARA OKEYNAN
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
in my constituency of Wetaskiwin baby Tamara Okeynan will be laid
to rest in the ancestral burial grounds of the Hobbema Indian
Reserve.
With Tamara's birth imminent, her parents who do not own a car
or a telephone, attempted to walk the five kilometres to get a
ride to the hospital. There would be no hospital delivery for
baby Tamara. Time ran out for mother and daughter and the baby
was delivered not in sterile surroundings but on the shoulder of
the gravel road. Throughout the two-hour ordeal the plight of
Tamara's mom and dad were ignored by passing motorists.
We pride ourselves on being a caring nation, on the cutting edge
of technology. Yet despite her parent's valiant efforts a young
life slipped away before she had a chance to experience the
things we all take for granted.
I would like to offer my sympathy and that of all members of
this House to Tamara's parents, Paul and Lorna, and their
families who have been denied an opportunity to know this infant.
* * *
1405
BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past summer five young women from the Brockville Rowing Club
took on the world and won at the prestigious women's Henly
Regatta in England. In the gallery today is the junior women's
coxed four crew of Jocelyn Swift, Caroline Vavro, Danielle Ker,
Tami McBratney the coxswain Crystal Bois D'Enghien, along with
their coach Mr. Chris Marshall.
This championship crew not only carried on the proud and
successful tradition of the Brockville Rowing Club, but also
brought honour to the city of Brockville, the riding of
Leeds-Grenville and to the sport of rowing in Canada.
These young women can serve as an excellent example of team work
to all youth. It is an honour to congratulate these fine young
athletes and wish them well in future competitions, as well as
any other challenges they choose to take on.
* * *
[Translation]
RENÉ LÉVESQUE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 1,
1987, René Lévesque passed away, leaving behind not only the love of an
entire people but also a great void.
With his plan for government takeover of the hydro sector, he gave
French Canadians, who had little hope for a future, reason to hold their
heads up high. “We can do it”, he said repeatedly as a Liberal and
federalist minister at the time.
He turned the independence movement into a popular political party,
the Parti Quebecois, which he lead to victory in 1976 and, while in
office, gave Quebec some of its most forceful legislation, including
legislation on public financing of political parties and on agricultural
zoning, Bill 101 and legislation on occupational health and safety.
He suffered the pain of losing the referendum in 1980, but had the
nobility of soul to respect the democratic choice made by Quebeckers,
convinced that they would eventually get their own country.
To paraphrase Félix Leclerc, he will be, for us and forever, on the
short list of liberators of people.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were
questions this week by the Bloc that I find rather disturbing.
I am referring of course to the questions concerning Mr.
Deslauriers and the unfounded allegations of his relations with a biker
gang.
I congratulate the solicitor general for the integrity, the wisdom
and the caution he showed in answering the questions. Canadians are in
good hands with him.
I also congratulate the Bloc member for Chambly, who has shown that
he has deep convictions and that he is a man of principle. He did not
get caught up in the unfortunate tactics of his leader, who tried once
again to do anything he could to get noticed.
I agree with the member for Chambly who said, and I quote “I am saddened
that at times reputations are destroyed by questions we need not ask and
by doubts we need not have”.
I congratulate him for his courage. He saves the face of his party
today and I invite the leader of the Bloc to consult the hon. member for
Chambly more often.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ten years ago a small group of Canadians concerned for
the future of their country assembled, debated, voted and formed
a new political party, the Reform Party of Canada. Less than a
year later it gained 275,000 votes and went on to great success
the following year with the election of its first MP from Beaver
River and Stan Waters, Canada's first elected senator.
Like a prairie grass fire, the Reform message spread as
Canadians sought better government. Leading the fight for
government to live within its means, for a plan to unify the
country, for a strong justice system, for more accountable
politicians, the party gained over 2.5 million votes and 52 seats
in the 1993 election. Now serving as Her Majesty's loyal
opposition, dedicated to building a new and better Canada,
Reformers look to the future with pride, confidence and
determination. Today we salute the hard work and commitment of
hundreds of thousands of—
* * *
[Translation]
FONOROLA
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, Fonorola from Montreal invested $100 million in optical fibre
equipment to proceed with its 12,000 kilometre telecommunications
network project.
With this investment, 150 new jobs will be created at Fonorola in
Montreal. This type of investment is the result of the confidence shown
by our industries in Canadian society. I hope that this has a snowball
effect and convinces other companies to take an active part in the
economic recovery.
I am pleased to acknowledge the important contribution by the
chairman of Fonorola, Jan Peeters, who lives in Bolton-Est in my
beautiful riding of Brome—Missisquoi.
I would like to congratulate him for his dynamism and for his great
efforts to implement by 1998 a system that will link the whole of Canada
from sea to sea.
He is a fine example of the people we have in Brome—Missisquoi.
* * *
1410
[English]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, equal
pay for equal work sounds obvious. It is not, at least not to
this government, which continues to deny and defy its own law.
Today in Halifax women from my riding have joined women from
across the country to insist that government put its words about
equality into action. Women in the public service have long been
due under human rights and pay equity legislation back pay to
ensure that the work they have done when of equal value to work
done by men is of equal pay. The government should have done
this before deciding to dole out $12.1 million in bonuses to
senior civil servants.
Rosemary Brown wrote in 1973: “Until all of us have made it,
none of us have made it”.
Until the government settles this debt, it continues to deny
equality to all Canadian women. Now is the time, today,
maintenant, aujourd'hui. Justice delayed is justice denied.
* * *
[Translation]
SENATOR JEAN-ROBERT GAUTHIER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks 25th years of life in Parliament for the Hon. Jean-Robert
Gauthier.
Elected to Parliament for the first time on October 30, 1972 as the
member for Ottawa—Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier was re-elected six
consecutive times, before being appointed to the Upper House in 1994.
A champion of Franco-Ontarians and of the French language, Mr.
Gauthier has left his mark on a community which has nothing but respect
for him.
It is to mark his contribution that, yesterday, the Fondation
franco-ontarienne created the Fonds Jean-Robert Gauthier, which will
award scholarships to Franco-Ontarian students who have demonstrated a
commitment to excellence in French.
I take this opportunity to congratulate a man for whom I have a
great deal of admiration, the Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier, Senator.
* * *
[English]
SENIORS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal
government has stripped our seniors of their dignity. This
Liberal government thinks it is okay to decrease benefits for
OAS, GIS and CPP. This Liberal government, cheered on by their
pals in the Reform Party, thinks it is okay to cut transfer
payments to the provinces that result in hospital closures and
downsizing.
Over the past four years seniors have witnessed unprecedented
funding cuts while the cost of living continues to rise. In
addition to this, seniors in Nova Scotia are now faced with the
blended sales tax, which significantly increases the cost of
every day necessities such as home heating fuel, electricity,
phone service and gas.
On June 2, Nova Scotians told the Liberal government that it was
not okay to treat our seniors with such contempt. It is time for
the Liberals to stop their cutback contest with the Reform Party
and start recognizing the plight of a rapidly growing group of
Canadian society.
On behalf of the seniors of West Nova, please stop the cuts.
* * *
MIRAMICHI
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
1994 budget announced that base Chatham was to be closed. This
was a loss to the Miramichi community of 1,000 jobs, and more
than $50 million in annual government spending. It came at a
time when the Miramichi was facing an unemployment rate of 25%
and the community was seriously affected by other federal
cutbacks.
I am glad to report today that the Miramichi has refused to bow
down to this loss. Community leaders, the province of New
Brunswick and our former premier, Frank McKenna, have worked hard
to overcome the difficulties that have besieged us.
Today, Skypark Miramichi, the former base Chatham, is the home
of more than a dozen struggling new industries. This past
summer, the married quarters have been converted into a
retirement living complex. People are coming from all across
Canada to enjoy the recreational aspects of the Miramichi and the
many amenities that our community has to offer.
The people of Miramichi will strive to over the misfortunes of
the past few years and will press on to achieve an even greater
economy for our area.
* * *
DRUNK DRIVERS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, each day in Canada tragedies are caused by drunk
drivers. According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving more
than four Canadians per day are being killed by alcohol-related
crashes.
While an individual's decision to consume alcohol is a private
matter, driving after taking alcohol or other drugs is a public
matter. Nobody is safe from the harm drunk drivers can cause
families and friends. We saw that last August when the world
witnessed the tragic results of a car crash in Paris that claimed
the life of Diana, Princess of Wales.
1415
Finally, I would like to ask my fellow parliamentarians to make
this issue an immediate priority.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Liberals said that their greenhouse gas emission
plan would “incur costs”. In today's Globe and Mail
government officials say that those costs could in fact eat up
any budget surplus that there may be.
How is the prime minister going to pay for Kyoto, raise taxes or
raid the surplus?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a position that keeps in mind every element of
the proposition. There is no way that we will have a policy that
does not deal with the problem of the environment which is
threatening the world.
Every country has been invited to make a contribution and Canada
believes that it has to make a contribution, and we will do it in
a responsible way. I am sure that Canada can grow and at the
same time protect the environment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the prime minister says we need to make a contribution, and we
do. However, the countdown to Kyoto is on. There are only 32
days before the conference starts and Canada is the only country
in the G-7 that has not released a position yet. Maybe the
reasons the Liberals will not make the plan public is that then
we will find out exactly how much Kyoto will cost.
I ask the prime minister again will the jump at the pump be
10 cents, 20 cents or 30 cents a litre?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the researchers of the member for Edmonton North are
very well known to be very incompetent. I want to say again that
it is typical of the Reform Party that it just wants to dress up
a straw man to shoot at, or perhaps a straw woman, who knows?
We are saying that we will be responsible because we have to
make our contribution to the protection of the world environment
and at the same time make sure that Canada will grow, as Canada
has grown since the Liberals came to power.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
he can talk about Reform research all he likes, but those numbers
came from the Conference Board of Canada.
Canadians are sick and tired of these non-answers. We are 32
days away from this conference and Canadians do not know what is
going on. It is shame that the price of cabinet solidarity has to
affect the price of gas.
I ask the prime minister one more time, do not run and hide, do
not dodge or weave from the question, just answer it. How much
cash will Kyoto cost?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the countries of the world are going to Kyoto.
Everybody realizes that they have to make a contribution.
Everybody in the world realizes that there is a serious problem
except the Reform Party of Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know the prime minister is prepared to sock it to consumers for
his diplomatic friends, but where is the finance minister in all
of this? He seems to be laying pretty low. But he is the one
with his hand on the tax lever. Is he going to pull it, or is
the environment minister running finance now?
My question is just how high is the minister going to drive up
taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has worked reasonably well as a team. We
have managed to balance the books in four years. A little
magazine called The Economist this week stated that Canada
is doing the best job in public finances of all the countries of
the G-7.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberals go absolutely ballistic when gas prices go up and down a
couple of cents around every Labour Day weekend. But, boy, when
the finance minister or the environment minister or whoever is
running finance these days wants to raise the price by 30 cents a
litre forever, they blame it on Rio, or I guess on Kyoto now.
Why will the finance minister or the prime minister not put all
the speculation to an end? Why does he not just rule out tax
increases right now? Rule them out.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is again an invention of the Reform Party. Its
members cannot find anything concrete, so they have to use their
poor imaginations to talk about price increases on gasoline. The
people of Canada know how non-serious these people are.
They are just trying to invent problems. We have enough to solve
the real problems and we are solving them so well that they have
to invent problems to attack the government.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Most countries have made their positions known on the
objectives for greenhouse gas emission reduction to be presented at
the Kyoto conference to be held in a few weeks.
Since the Canadian position is not yet known, my question is:
When does the Canadian government intend to make a final decision
on the position it will be presenting in Kyoto?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
definitely before the Kyoto conference.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Canadian position must be supported by the provinces, they
being the ones primarily responsible for this matter, what strategy
does the federal government intend to implement in order to obtain
a consensus on the position to be defended in Kyoto and on its
subsequent implementation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that it what my ministers are involved in at the present time.
They have met with the ministers responsible and we are holding
discussions with the provinces. We are holding discussions with
the energy sector. We are holding discussions with the industrial
sector, which also wants to make a contribution, and with the
environmental protectionists.
Our position will, we hope, be acceptable to all Canadians.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
We know that not all provinces produce the same amount of
greenhouse gases. For example, Alberta, which has 9% of Canada's
population, is responsible for 27% of the greenhouse gases produced
in Canada.
What strategy does the federal government intend to adopt in
order to convince the most recalcitrant provinces to participate in
the collective effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are speaking with all of the provinces that have problems. In
Canada, the problems are not always exactly the same from one
province to another.
I believe that both the Government of Alberta and the people
of Alberta want to make their contribution, because responsible
people are aware of the importance of addressing this problem,
which poses a threat to so many people throughout the world.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to avoid a
repetition of what happened in Rio, how will the federal government
make sure this time that all of the provinces will formally comply
with the objectives set at Kyoto, when we know that only Quebec and
British Columbia followed up on what was agreed to in Rio?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am somewhat disappointed to hear the hon. member telling me that
the Canadian government did not do a good job in Rio, because the
minister representing the Canadian government at that time was, if
I am not mistaken, a certain Lucien Bouchard.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
Canadian NGO representatives, just returned from the OECD
meetings in Paris, confirm that the draft text of the
multilateral agreement on investment is all but a done deal.
This government tells Canadians that our health care, social
programs, environmental and labour standards and our culture will
be protected, but behind closed doors in Paris Canada's
negotiators have completely failed to fight for such protection.
Can the prime minister confirm that this is why no progress on
these essential protections has been made?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clearly inaccurate to say it is a
done deal.
How can she say they are secret negotiations when last week the
OECD invited over 40 international organizations, including the
Council of Canadians?
Some people would have us remove ourselves from the world: no
trade, no investment, no rules and ultimately no jobs.
That may be her position but it is certainly not the position
of this government because Canadians deserve and want much more.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
precisely because trade and investment are so important that we
need to get these rules right, and we need to get them right for
Canada.
Last week in this House the trade minister assured us that he
supports binding commitments on labour and environmental
standards. Today we have learned that the current MAI draft
contains no such safeguards.
1425
Will the prime minister assure Canadians that this government
will refuse to sign any multilateral agreement on investments
that does not contain binding labour and environmental standards?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that Canada has
among the highest labour and environmental standards in the
international community.
Certainly we will not sell short either the environment or
labour. Clearly the MAI also will not undermine any laws or
regulations we currently have on the books that govern both
environment and labour.
The member wants us to abdicate or walk away from the talks but
that is not going to advance either the interest of the
environment or labour. The interest is to stand and to fight for
your interest and principles rather than running away.
Again, that is their position, not ours.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
take the opportunity to correct the prime minister who said that
Mr. Bouchard was the minister of the environment in Rio. It was
myself. I regret to report that neither Mr. Bouchard nor myself
would view that as a compliment.
There must be a lot of smog in the cabinet room these days
because there is a lot of confusion on the government's position.
I would like to help those members out today and ask whether or
not, as they go to Kyoto, they will have a position that will
encourage a tradable permit system as was recommended by the
Commission for Environmental Co-operation put together by NAFTA,
of which the Minister of the Environment happens to be a member.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I
understand that the file was prepared by Mr. Bouchard and he gave
it to the hon. member to take there. I am sorry to link the two
of you but I have no choice.
On the question that the hon. member put, yes it is one of the
things that we want to do to make sure that we have credit for
what we do. Very often our actions help others deal with
problems and we are trying to get credit so that when we are
helping somebody else Canadians will get the credit as with the
fact that Alberta is selling natural gas to the Americans in
order to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
smog has obviously not evaporated because the prime minister did
not understand my question.
My question is whether or not this government is going to
propose a tradable permit system between Canada, the United
States and Mexico, as was recommended by the group on the
environment between the three counties.
Second, will the government also propose a system that will
allow us to take credit for efforts in other countries?
Finally, will there be regional variations in our position to
allow Alberta to have a fair shake?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that we believe in getting credit for what we do
with others. That does not imply only doing it with Mexico and
the United States. We would like to extend it to other
countries.
In terms of within industry or within regions of Canada, it is
another possibility that we are looking at.
* * *
TOBACCO LEGISLATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister is weakening the tobacco bill. First it is race cars,
next it will be tennis, then jazz festivals and then equestrian
events.
The minister knows full well that the path he is on is the wrong
path. Why has he chosen to grovel and snivel at the feet of the
big tobacco companies instead of being the Minister of Health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the new writers for the Reform Party not only engage in fiction
writing but very colourful fiction writing at that.
The hon. member was in his place last year when this government
introduced and then adopted the toughest anti-tobacco legislation
in the western world. That legislation is going to be linked
with significant efforts and substantial sums of money over the
next five years in a co-ordinated effort across this country to
reduce the consumption of tobacco and persuade young people not
to start smoking. That is our objective.
1430
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): In fact, Mr. Speaker,
the rhetoric did sound pretty tough.
I have a quote from the previous Minister of Health. It states:
“Whatever the ostensible intent of the tobacco companies, their
rich, promotional campaigns reach our youth”. Then they sent a
sneaky letter to the race car teams just before the election. To
do what? To give them an exemption.
The health minister in his heart of hearts knows this is wrong.
Why did he not just simply say, no chance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Because, Mr.
Speaker, this is a government that keeps and respects its
commitments. That was a commitment we made and we are going to
keep it.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
We can certainly understand that Canada's position on
greenhouse gas emissions must have provincial support, but we are
concerned at not knowing the federal government's position.
Would the Minister of the Environment assure us that the
federal government's position on greenhouse gas emissions is not
likely to mimic that of the United States, which falls far short,
in view of the stakes?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, responsibilities for meeting Canada's
targets and timelines will be that of all the players and
partners involved in this issue. The federal government will
have to take its responsibilities. Its partners, business,
industry, municipalities, individual citizens, in fact many of
them are already taking these responsibilities.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
consequences of the greenhouse effect seem particularly serious,
obvious and rapid for the St. Lawrence, is it the minister's
intention to use this example to convince participating countries
in Kyoto, including the United States, of the need for quick
action?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, scientists suggest that there can be very
difficult implications for many sectors in our economy. Our
natural resources of forestry, water, fisheries, agriculture and
many sectors could be impacted by the effects of climate change.
Our government will work hard to make sure that Canadians
understand these issues and that we respond accordingly to the
crisis.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the solicitor general said in the scrum that they could not stop
Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald from leaving the RCMP. This is false.
The RCMP Act contradicts that statement.
I ask the government why should Canadians not believe that this
is simply a continuation of the Airbus cover-up?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason Canadians should realize it is not is because
the entire exercise was handled according to the RCMP Act without
any political interference at all, as it should be.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously
the solicitor general does not know anything about the RCMP Act
or the authority of the commissioner.
Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald was forced out. The government now
says that the case is closed. Who is the government going to
hold accountable for botching the government's case against Brian
Mulroney?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only refer the member to the staff sergeant's own
press release which stated that he accepted a job that he was
very happy to take.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
According to the human resources manual of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, no employee of the department may grant interviews
or deliver speeches on controversial matters, without prior
approval.
Who in the government gave Ambassador Jacques Roy authority to
tour Quebec with the Council on Canadian Unity promoting national
unity?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a general practice that we are able to invite
our ambassadors abroad to come to Canada to explain all the
initiatives, all the work and all the accomplishments of Canada
to demonstrate what an extremely valuable country we have and
what kind of contribution we can make to the world.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how does the government explain the fact that, despite the
provision in this manual that neutrality in the public service is
primordial and all employees have a direct interest in maintaining
it, Jacques Roy is directly involved in the political fight in
Canada and Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I cannot help but answer this question, because not so very long
ago agents general of the Quebec government who refused to swear an
oath to the cause were asked to leave their position.
The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois can teach us
nothing we do not already know.
* * *
[English]
CHINA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, torture and the jailing of political dissidents are
still occurring in the shadows of Tiananmen Square. Yesterday the
President of the United States bluntly made it very clear to
President Jiang Zemin that they were absolutely appalled with the
human rights abuses in China.
What message and when is the Prime Minister going to bluntly say
to the regime in China that Canadians are appalled by the human
rights abuses which are occurring now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that we have negotiated
a direct agreement with the Chinese government to deal
specifically on human rights abuses. Under that agreement we have
had two major sessions of dialogue with the Chinese wherein we
have raised human rights abuses. In fact in the dialogue that
took place two weeks ago, we gave him a specific list of all the
political dissidents and asked that they give them a release.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is very nice but I wonder if that action involves
not signing the UN declaration that condemned China for human
rights abuses. This is the first time this country has not done
that.
Once again I ask the Prime Minister what concrete measures is he
going to give to the President of China to illustrate to the
Canadian people that we as Canadians are appalled and disgusted
by the human rights abuses that are occurring there now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the most
effective way of achieving changes on human rights is to build
the capacity within the government itself and within the country
itself.
As a result under the agreement we signed we are helping reform
the legal system to bring in a legal aid program to train judges.
We have under the agreement the opportunity to go to Tibet and
deal directly with the question of religious discrimination.
Further, China has just signed the UN covenant on economic and
social rights, which is one of our priorities which is to get the
Chinese to sign into the agreement on the UN covenant on rights.
In a matter of four or five months I think we have been able to
achieve some—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO LEGISLATION
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Health announced that he was going to table amendments
to his anti-tobacco legislation, so that the Grand Prix could be
televised in Canada.
Can the minister tell us clearly whether or not he intends to
take the necessary action to support other sports and cultural
events?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is at least the fifth time I have stated the government's position
on this issue.
As I said yesterday and last week, we intend to respect the
undertaking we gave a few months ago. We are impatiently awaiting
the Government of Quebec's new tobacco legislation.
* * *
[English]
MEDICAL RESEARCH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
I have a thick file in my office from concerned medical
researchers in this country who are worried that we are falling
gravely behind the other G-7 countries in the funding for medical
research.
What can the Minister of Health say to these people so we do not
lose them to south of the border where there are dollars for
medical research?
1440
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government is committed to maintaining the world class
medical research we enjoy in Canada. The Medical Research
Council is acknowledged throughout the world as establishing a
standard of excellence envied by other countries and this
government has acted in recent years to preserve that standard of
excellence.
Let me mention two items. First of all we have rendered
permanent and we have established stable funding for a network of
centres of excellence across the country for medical research.
Second, through the Foundation for Innovation we are creating the
infrastructure for research in the future.
We will do more. We will ensure that we maintain—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yellowhead.
* * *
AIRPORTS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
July the federal court ruled that the Jasper and Banff airstrips
should remain open. In spite of this court order, Parks Canada
officials ticketed pilots for landing their planes on these
airstrips.
Will the Secretary of State for Parks Canada explain to this
House why his officials deliberately broke the law?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously Parks Canada did not break the law. What the
court indicated was that those airports could not be
decommissioned. They are not being decommissioned. The item is
before the courts. Simply speaking, they cannot be used until a
decision is made. That is what we have put in place and that is
what we are going to ensure takes place.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a court injunction. In my books, if you break that
injunction, you are breaking the law.
Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage shut down these airports
there have been at least a half-dozen emergency landings. Should
the casualties start to roll in, will the heritage minister take
full responsibility and cough up or will she cop out?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is people can land anywhere in an
emergency.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of trade.
In his answer to my leader earlier it appears that the minister
was prepared to answer a question that we did not ask. If he has
now had time to think about the question we actually asked him,
perhaps he could answer it.
Can the minister tell us whether or not Canada is going to
insist at the MAI table on a binding and enforceable set of core
labour and environmental standards? Is that the position of the
government or is it not?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, what I said to his leader earlier
was that Canada and this government enjoy standards in both
labour and environment that are the highest in the world. Second,
Canadian negotiators are delighted to push both files to have an
integral part in the MAI.
Finally, that is what the MAI is all about. We do not want in
the developing world to have those standards so low that that is
where the investment goes. The point is to regulate high
standards and good regulations so it is a level playing field for
both the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, telling us that it is to be an integral part does not
tell us whether it is to be binding and whether it is to be
enforceable.
The minister calls attention to the danger that developing
countries might have lower standards and thereby have an unfair
competitive advantage. That is precisely why there needs to be a
core set of enforceable labour and environmental standards. That
is why we want the government to take that view. We want to know,
is the government taking that view?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope he also lobbies the other
socialist governments and the labour government in Great Britain
as well in terms of advocating that these 29 countries ensure
high standards on both labour and environment.
I mention to the member as well that negotiations are obviously
ongoing. They will really get going in earnest between January
and April. We will be pushing as strongly as we possibly can.
* * *
1445
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question relates to the absurd use of regulations by the
Government of Canada that deliberately and knowingly create
unemployment in Newfoundland and in all of Atlantic Canada.
The clawback on earnings in excess of—
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is zealous in his
question. We have used the word deliberately twice today and I
wonder if we could shy away from using that word. I will let the
member continue.
Mr. Charlie Power: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
There are regulations in the Government of Canada that have
created unemployment in Atlantic Canada and particularly in
Newfoundland. The clawback on earnings in excess of $26,000 from
fishermen at a rate of 100% puts fishermen in the situation where
they simply must stop fishing. The end result of course is
lay-offs in the fish processing industry.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Will he change these absurd regulations as requested by the
Government of Newfoundland and the Newfoundland fishermen's union
so that those Newfoundlanders who can work will be able to do so?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we looked into the situation
of the Newfoundland fishermen as part of the overall reform to
unemployment. That was a very major reform. We looked into
every aspect of the reform that was brought forward. On the
first anniversary of the implementation of the reform there will
be a full report that will look into all aspects of it.
We are very proud of the reform we have done. We think it is
more adaptable to our country's labour market.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister simply refuses or is unwilling or unable to deal
with this problem.
When skippers stop putting their boats out fishermen stop
fishing and plant workers get laid off. The domino effect
creates more unemployment in an already economically depressed
area of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will
he, on behalf of the fishing industry people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, do whatever is necessary to make sure that these stupid
and ridiculous regulations are changed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered the hon.
gentleman very well. A lot of elements are part of the reform.
This is a very good job overall that we as a government had the
courage to do. The 25 year old regime was not serving Canadians
well at all.
I am saying that indeed all aspects of the reform are being very
closely monitored by the government.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Disabled Canadians continue to face unique hurdles in their
efforts to penetrate the workforce and contribute to Canada's
growth with sustained employment.
What action is the government taking to give disabled Canadians
better opportunities to contribute their talents to Canadian
industry?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
a very good question.
Our government is very committed to meeting the needs of
Canadians with disabilities and to helping them get back into the
labour force because that is what they want.
As a matter of fact we are moving on all fronts. I would like
to draw her attention in particular to an agreement that the
Government of Canada and the provinces have reached on new
employability assistance for persons with disabilities to replace
the old VRDP.
We have added $70 million per year in measures to recognize the
extra costs of disability and an opportunities fund of $30
million for disabled persons who want to work.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I bet I know what American congressmen call our Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans. They call him “Our man in Canada”.
Washington has shown no interest in reducing its salmon catch on
the west coast and our minister has shown no more backbone than a
jellyfish.
1450
My question is simple. Why is the minister continuing to ignore
Canadian fishermen? Why does he jump every time the Americans
say boo?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were interested in
British Columbia fishermen, he would recognize the object of the
government is to get the best deal we can for them.
It is not to stand in the House and posture and make remarks
which may appeal to people back home but in the end damage the
case we have to put forward to get a deal between Canada and the
United States so that the interests of our fishermen are properly
respected.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very simple question for the Prime Minister of Canada.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not important jobs
in the public service, such as that of penitentiary warden, are
covered by a code of conduct?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we have put the issue to rest.
It has been pretty well established that the Bloc party was
wandering down the road. I would warn the hon. member that when
he gets lost down that road the leader has a tendency to fire the
driver.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it has been a major disappointment for Canadians to have
the Minister of Health cave in to the tobacco industry. He says
he had no choice but he did. He has a choice to be the minister
of tobacco or the Minister of Health.
We wonder today why he chose to be the minister of tobacco.
Specifically, would he at least agree to hold off on his
amendments exempting race cars until December 4 when the European
Union votes to ban tobacco advertising?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is reacting as though this is some sort of
surprise. The position of the government has been obvious for
many months.
First we introduced the hardest hitting anti-tobacco legislation
in the western world. We put it before the House and the House
adopted it. Then we made it clear in relation to the
international auto sport in Montreal that we were to provide an
exemption for sponsorship. That is the position of the
government.
Let us move on to implement the Tobacco Act and implement the
anti-smoking strategy we have in mind to make sure young people
do not start.
* * *
PORTS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Under Bill C-9 every port and harbour in Canada is relegated to
one of three kinds of categories except one, the port of
Hamilton. Hamilton is the only port in Canada that does not have
to follow the rules.
In the transport committee the other day transport officials
said that the decision was entirely political and had nothing to
do with Bill C-9.
Will the minister tell the House and every port in Canada that
must follow the rules what political pressure was applied and who
in the world could have applied the pressure?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows Bill C-9 is now before
committee.
If he is worrying about political pressure, he might want to
apply some political pressure of his own and raise this matter in
committee where it should be raised.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
This week in Ottawa the NATO secretary general said that the
international community should not abandon Bosnia now nor in June
when the NATO led stabilization forces mandate is set to expire.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House what the
government's intention is with respect to continued Canadian
contribution to that region?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian forces in Bosnia have made a
major contribution to bringing about stability and peace in that
region.
There is a lot that has been accomplished by them and the allies
but there is a great deal more to do. Later this fall the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and I will bring the issue before
cabinet to discuss the matter of our forces going beyond the
period of January to the end of the SFOR mission at the end of
June. Beyond that we will be having further discussions with our
allies.
1455
I am glad two committees of this Parliament will be going to
Bosnia to see first hand what is happening.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I provided the agriculture minister with a
U.S. leaked document that showed western farmers lost at least $1
to $1.50 on their feed wheat when Alberta pool and the CWB dumped
it into the U.S. market at half price.
Could the minister explain to western Canadian farmers why the
same grade of wheat sold in the same timeframe and into the same
market was worth $1 to $1.50 a bushel more when farmers exported
it than when Alberta pool or the CWB—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of agriculture.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the hon. gentlemen provided a rather complex
pile of papers which I have referred to my officials for
analysis.
We have completed a preliminary review of the Canadian Wheat
Board matter to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. On
the basis of that preliminary analysis there would not appear to
be any foundation to the allegations he is making.
I will, however, complete my review and if I discover anything
to the contrary I will report to him.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The federal government is increasing the number of programs
for young people. In so doing, it is overlapping by over $120
million the Government of Quebec's youth programs. Overlap and
waste are back with a vengeance.
If the minister is so concerned about the needs of young
people, why does he not negotiate the transfer to Quebec of job
programs, in line with the clear consensus of Quebeckers, so that
young people can benefit from programs tailored to their needs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the
member views this more as a jurisdictional issue. Our interest is
young people. I think that what the member should be interested in
is seeing that young people can enter the job market more easily.
We have already transferred all responsibility for manpower
training and active measures to the Government of Quebec. This
represents $500 million annually that the Quebec government can use
for job programs.
The member should also know that we are now holding talks with
the government and Mrs. Harel's department to discuss the
elimination of unnecessary overlap and duplication with respect to
youth programs.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of trade. In an attempt this
afternoon to completely deflect from the question we were putting
to the government on whether it would or would not support
binding protection for labour and environment in the MAI, he
suggested we conscript the social democratic countries in our
fight in this regard.
Let me make it clear from the minutes of negotiations that the
U.K. is leading, together with France and other European social
democratic countries, in that fight.
Will the minister answer the question? Is Canada prepared to
support binding protection—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International Trade.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the negotiations started in 1995. The
member is very fond of holding up the minutes of a particular
meeting.
The other day she was saying that we should follow the American
leadership on labour. I can tell her that the Americans have not
been putting forward a binding alternative.
We have made very clear it is in the interest of Canada not to
walk away from the table but to stay there to influence the
debate and ensure that investment can create jobs in this country
and across the globe. We will continue to fight for the highest
standards and not rising to debate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
province of Alberta has clearly stated it will not support any
target the federal government sets for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. This clearly indicates that all
provinces are not on side despite the minister's claims of open
dialogue. Obviously open dialogue does not mean full
partnership.
How does the lack of support from the provinces affect her
strategy, hoping there is one, to implement Canada's Kyoto
targets? Will the prime minister commit today to having any
position derived from Kyoto subject to the approval of the House
to provide Canadians with at least some consultation?
1500
Hon. Christine Stewart (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last month the federal government has had over
100 meetings with a wide variety of partners on the issue of
climate change. We have been negotiating and discussing this
very serious issue constantly.
In setting our targets and timetables and the measures that are
required to achieve them, we will continue this process of
dialogue with all of the partners who will be implicated.
Together we can achieve our objectives.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Members of Parliament and Senators
from Bolivia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland attending the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on
Population and Development.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We will have our usual Thursday question
from the Reform House leader.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask a question of the House leader of that other
socialist government.
I would like to find out the nature of the government's business
for the remainder of this week and the following week.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government House leader had to excuse himself for a moment. I am
sure we will be able to get back to this question momentarily if
members will just give us a few minutes.
The Speaker: That question will be answered in just a
moment.
I have a point of order from the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a question
posed by the member for St. John's West where the Speaker, in
your discretion, sat him down for using the word
“deliberately”.
I can understand the use of that word in the context of a
nefarious purpose where there was an accusation that a person was
deliberately misleading or deliberately misinforming, but I think
the record will show in the context of the question it was
deliberately causing unemployment and for that reason—
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. In the course of
question period when everything is pretty fast, as we can see
now, usually when we come to the word “deliberate” I sort of
pick up on it. I will be happy to look at the blues.
You will know that although I interrupted the member, when we
did go back he had his full 35 seconds. I know that all hon.
members will give the Speaker the discretion to make these
judgment calls. Sometimes I miss them. If this was one of them,
I am sorry, but these things happen.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the
business for the remainder of this week and the business for next
week, and also those issues that are going through the Senate
which should be in this House and not that House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House leader of
the official opposition for his question.
I wish to announce to the House that tomorrow we will consider,
and I hope complete, second reading of Bill C-16, which is the
bill responding to the supreme court regarding the warrants of
arrest. Starting Monday, we plan to resume where we left off on
Bill C-3. Following this, we will proceed with Bill C-12, the
RCMP superannuation bill, Bill C-7, the Saguenay Park
legislation, Bill C-17, regarding Teleglobe, Bill C-14,
respecting drinking water safety, and Bill C-15, the Canada
Shipping Act amendments.
I also wish to indicate that we will discuss through the usual
channels the scheduling of the motion to join with the Senate in
a special joint committee on child custody and related matters.
This is an issue that was raised both in this House and in the
other place.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day. I expect that the
business that I have just announced will probably carry us until
Thursday of next week, and hopefully we could conclude next
Friday by doing the final reading of Bill C-3 if the committee
has concluded its work on that bill, which I hope it will.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—IMPAIRED DRIVING
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar had the floor. I
believe he has four minutes or so remaining in his remarks.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been an interesting day so far, not just the
debate, but also question period.
As I was sitting and thinking of what I was going to say in
these four minutes, I thought I would give an example of how sad
some of these drunk driving cases are.
My brother, who is a little younger than I, lives on Highway No.
3. He had his in-laws visit him during the middle of the day one
summer to look at the crops. They left at about five o'clock in
the afternoon and as they were going down Highway No. 3, his
mother-in-law saw a cardbox lying in the ditch. She said “Hey,
let's stop and pick up that box. It's junk. Let's clean it
up.”
Her husband parked on the gravel shoulder of Highway No. 3. She
was in the middle of the ditch when a drunk driver came along.
He saw the car sitting on the shoulder of the road and drove on
the other side of the car, into the ditch, and killed this woman
instantly. She was in the middle of the ditch, not on the road.
This happened half a mile from my brother's place.
Every time I go by it, I know what it does to me. How often
have I stopped on the road somewhere to pick up something or to
go through the ditch and look at the grain. That tragedy will
never be erased from my mind. That family is going to suffer for
the rest of those people's lives. The grandmother's life was
snuffed out. The grandkids were in their early teens or just
below. I know it affects my sister-in-law because it happened
half a mile from their home. She cannot miss going by that
place.
That is one example from hundreds that have happened in this
country. It should not have happened.
1510
That accident could have been avoided. It was not night time,
it was not dark, it was during broad daylight. But a man was so
intoxicated that he did not know the difference between the
highway and the ditch. He was not injured, he just instantly
killed a mother and a grandmother. I hope people listen to that
example and try and imagine the sadness and the effect it had on
that whole family.
I hope the debate continues in the friendly way we have seen it
develop and that we really do talk about the issue and address
it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague for his
outstanding and eloquent speech.
Drunk driving is an enormous problem, as my colleagues have
mentioned, and successive governments have failed in bringing
forward legislation to adequately address it. As we have heard
before today, more than three people die every day and over 300
are injured every day because of drunk drivers.
I know that drunk driving is a problem in his province as it is
in mine. I know that he has seen in his riding, as we all have,
people who have died or have been injured by drunk drivers. I
would like my hon. friend to give the House his opinions and his
views on what the government can do to try to turn the tide in
this extremely important social problem.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I thank my hon. colleague for the
question. It is a very hard question to answer. When I moved
into the area where I farmed for 35 years, alcoholism was a real
problem. It is not just drunk driving.
The education in our schools, in our homes and probably by
government programs all point out how serious is the issue of
being drunk, whether in a car or on a snowmobile or on a farm
implement. A number of accidents have occurred in our community.
They did not just happen on the road.
I remember one of my neighbours who had been drinking quite
heavily during the day was having problems with his baler.
Luckily the good Lord prevented him from being killed. He stuck
his head into the bale chamber when the tractor was running to
see what was the problem. That is how serious this issue is when
your senses are not 100% clear and you do not really know what
you are doing.
We have to start really hammering this home to young families.
Children have to be educated to know that they have to be
responsible for their actions, whether it is being drunk, whether
it is being disobedient to law enforcement officers. Education
is worth its weight in gold if it can be more or less implemented
in all our homes and schools.
We can never imagine what kind of savings this country would
have emotionally and financially if we did not have the drunk
driving instances, whether on the road or on the farms or on the
sports field. We have seen a number of serious accidents in
boats where boaters should not have been physically behind the
wheel.
I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I hope that adds a
bit to the debate.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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.
1515
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.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for that quick question.
I do not know if he remembers the good old days when discipline
was exercised at home and also in the schools. We knew after
being disciplined by the teacher that it would be worse at home.
Maybe that was a little harsh.
If the fines and the sentence are not deterrents, what is? Why
do we have fines at all? We must have fixed discipline, fixed
sentences for these accidents. I cannot call them crimes but I
guess they are crimes to humanity. When that happens, I think
people will start listening and obeying the law.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, officially this is my maiden speech.
I thank the people in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for
giving me another opportunity to represent them in this House.
For all of us it is an enormous responsibility and an enormous
honour to finally be in this arena where we can fight to make our
country a better place. I know all of us here are grateful for
this. I am extraordinarily grateful to the people of
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for giving me that opportunity.
I also thank my colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley who
has done a yeoman's job for years, in the last Parliament and now
in this one, in fighting for this issue. It is perhaps one of
the greatest social issues which extends across boundaries from
coast to coast. It affects health. It affects welfare. It
affects human beings in so many different areas. In fact it has
been somewhat of a silent horror in our midst for many years. My
colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley has stood out there,
and not alone as we have been backing him, as the point person in
fighting for this issue.
Drunk driving is a problem and social ill that costs us over $7
billion per year. As I mentioned in the question to my
colleague, it kills over four people every day and injures over
300 people every single day. It has a social cost that goes way
beyond that because it affects the family.
I would like to recite a personal situation. When I was working
in the emergency department of a hospital in the the riding of my
colleague for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, a code blue was
called which is a major trauma. An individual was brought in
with massive head injuries. He was dying. We could not save
this young man.
Shortly thereafter the driver of the car was brought in,
absolutely drunk. This individual refused treatment, refused to
communicate with us, refused to have a blood alcohol sample
taken. At the crash site this individual was trying to drag his
nearly deceased friend into the driver's side so the deceased
would be the culprit and he would be free.
The difficulties for the police in trying to prosecute this
individual were massive. For example they had to observe the
blood being taken. It had to be done in a certain fashion.
It had to be done within two hours of the accident. If any of
those are broken, in the words of a defence attorney who said to
me “I am smart. I can get any of these guys off on a
technicality”. What kind of message does this send? What kind
of judicial system do we have in this country that allows
somebody to murder their friend, because that is what it is when
you drive a car and you are drunk, and then allows them to get
off on a technicality? That hole has to be repaired.
1520
And it is not just one hole, there are many. The justice system
we have today has numerous little loopholes that enable people
who are guilty of committing murder through drunk driving to get
off. This has to change.
My colleagues in the Reform Party have put forth many
constructive suggestions to the government. I will name a few. I
ask the hon. justice minister to listen to them and adopt these
suggestions.
One, when blood is extracted that it can be done in greater than
two hours, four hours for example.
Two, that the blood alcohol level be dropped to 55 milligrams
per decilitre instead of the 80 milligrams per decilitre which it
is today, in terms of defining somebody who is impaired.
Three, that when there is a situation where somebody is involved
in a serious traffic accident, a blood sample can be taken
automatically.
Four, that if somebody refuses to have a blood sample taken,
they will be levelled with a criminal charge of refusal to
submit. If someone is innocent they should not have a problem
with this. The only reason they would want to refuse was if they
were guilty, is it not?
Five, we have to remove the barriers to police officers and
enable them to do their job.
Drunk driving is a little window of insight into the
difficulties the police have in performing their duties. For
example, if an individual is caught driving while drunk, it takes
about six hours of the police officer's time to engage in the
paperwork in order to prosecute them. Six hours off the beat.
Six hours of not being able to find and prosecute criminals. Six
hours of time that could be better spent doing something
productive and keeping our streets safe. That has to change. The
paperwork police officers are mired in today prevents them from
doing their jobs and keeping our streets safe.
Six, we have to have a victims bill of rights.
Our house leader put forward a private members bill, a victims
bill of rights which the government refused to adopt. This bill
of rights is rooted in fairness and sensitivity to the victims.
For too long the justice department has taken into consideration
the rights of the criminal and in many cases has ignored the
rights of the victim. That is going to change. It must change.
We have put forth in two successive Parliaments constructive
suggestions, two victims bill of rights that would protect
victims during court proceedings. Many suggestions are very
constructive.
For example, victims must be kept informed of all proceedings.
Victims must have the right to be heard at every stage of the
judicial system. Victims must be informed of when and what
charges are going to be laid. Victims must have the right to be
protected from intimidation. Victims must be able to have time
off in order to attend court and that they do not have to bear an
economic penalty during the course of their ordeal. There must
be no plea bargaining or charges dropped unless the victim is
aware of it. Victims must be made aware of the support services
available to them.
This is not complex. This is rooted in fairness. Again it is
the innocent victims who have been violated through no fault of
their own.
The least we can do as a caring, sensitive society is afford them
the same consideration as we afford the criminals.
1525
My colleague from Lisgar mentioned the aspect of education. Too
often we ignore that. We have to address the children early on
and the earlier the better. If the education system is involved
not only on the issue of alcohol, but also drugs and other
aspects of drunk driving and criminal activity, that will have an
impact. There are some remarkably effective programs which have
been created not only in this country but also in the United
States.
Drunk driving is a social ill. People make mistakes. However we
must have the legislative framework to enable us to do what we
can to ensure that this massive social problem decreases. We
cannot ignore the problem any longer.
In the last Parliament very little time was spent on this
problem, yet it walks across the social spectrum. It waltzes
across many different ministries. It is something which we must
be concerned about.
One need not look any further than the victims. It is not only
the person who is injured in a car accident who pays the price.
Their families, friends and loved ones pay a price too.
I hope that we in this House can take it upon ourselves to
support the very fine motion presented by the hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I am sure there will be unanimous
support for it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have enjoyed the debate today because it has been a very
different debate for this place. It has been very emotional. A
lot of personal stories have come out.
We are seeing consensus building not only in the country, where
I think there has been consensus for quite some time, but also in
the House of Commons among all parties that this issue needs to
be dealt with. I hope that a committee will be struck as a
result of this Reform motion which will bring forward strong
legislation to deal with this huge problem.
The hon. member outlined the social costs, both financial and
personal, of these tragedies to the country.
I would like to relate a story to the House. The first tragedy
that I remember was as a very young boy. I might have been about
five years old. We had to go back to my Dad's hometown of
Minnedosa for a funeral. Actually there were two funerals.
Two of my cousins had graduated from the high school in
Minnedosa and were heading to Brandon for the evening. Minnedosa
is not a big place so they got together with the high school in
Brandon for their celebration. There were five people in the
car. The road is as straight as an arrow from Minnedosa to
Brandon but unfortunately a drunk driver swerved over and hit
their car head on. Two of my cousins were killed as well as
others in the car. In the small town of Minnedosa it was a real
tragedy.
As is so often the case, the drunk driver walked away from the
car. Five kids were killed, but the drunk driver for some reason
was not killed. I do not know if it is because these drivers are
so drunk or what, but very often they are the only ones who walk
away from the scene.
The community was in shock. My aunt, uncle and the extended
family were in shock. I always wondered if my aunt, who recently
passed away, ever recovered.
I can still remember it. I was five years old. I can remember
all the draped coffins at the front of the church. There was
such profound sadness. I was very young so I did not really
understand it all, except I knew that everyone I knew and cared
about was shaken to the core.
1530
That was one of the instances in my life that somewhere along
the line I decided as an adult that I would abstain from alcohol.
I realize it is a personal choice and I do not say it has to be
the choice of a lot of people. Part of it was I wanted to send a
message to those people I cared about. The deaths, the broken
homes and the social cost of irresponsible drinking especially is
just not something I want to participate in. I made the decision
a long time ago. I drank an awful lot of Coca-Colas while others
around me were doing otherwise, but it has never hurt me. It was
triggered really at five years of age when that first tragedy in
my life happened.
Perhaps if there is a minute left the hon. member may want to
tell it again, because I think these personal stories are a powerful
testimony of why change is required. Perhaps he would like to
relate other stories from his life as a physician where he has
had to deal with this horrible social crime.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend,
our whip, for his heartfelt intervention. None of us could have
said it more eloquently, I am sure.
Working in the emergency department I have seen a lot of people
die. I will have to say this. Of all the people I have seen
killed none are perhaps more tragic than those individuals,
particularly the young people who have died in a car accident as
a result of drunk driving. I remember when I was an intern I was
working in the emergency department just before Christmas. One
of my colleagues, a fellow emergency room physician, was there.
He went home. He was moving to Victoria and he was bringing his
family. He was driving to the airport and a drunk driver crossed
over the line and killed him. They brought him into the
emergency department half an hour later while I was still on
shift, and he was almost dead. He did die. You never forget
something like that.
I think it is wise for us to remember that on a cold night, on
any night, one-fifth of the people who are in their cars driving
have been drinking and one out of every 25 is drunk.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to divide my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington on
today's opposition motion about impaired driving. It is true that
this problem has caused, and will cause, much sadness in our
families. This motion is very important for all Canadians.
According to the statistics, there were over 37,000 cases of
impaired driving in Canada in 1995; over 60 resulted in death and
over 500 resulted in injury. These are the sad facts.
In the case of Quebec, we know that the Société d'assurance
automobile du Québec is going to crack down on motorists.
As of December 1, it will be bringing in the toughest measures yet.
It is known that fear of the police and of reprisals has the most
calming effect on motorists. That is why even tougher measures
will be introduced as of this date for those driving while
impaired. Drivers who take the wheel while their licence is
suspended are also being targeted by the Government of Quebec.
Obviously, everyone wants the slaughter to cease. The finger
is always being pointed at young drivers and, effective July 1,
1997, young Quebec drivers with probationary licences cannot drink
any alcohol and drive, or their licences will be revoked.
As of December 1, the highway safety code will carry much
tougher penalties.
Those arrested for the first time for impaired driving will have
their licence taken away immediately by the police, and revoked for
one year. Repeat offenders will be given longer suspensions, from
24 to 36 months, and their vehicle will be confiscated when they
are arrested. They will also be required to go for addiction
treatment.
First time offenders will be required to attend the Alcofrein
program. Previously, only those ordered to do so by a judge had to
attend a three hour information session offered by the Department
of Public Safety at minimal cost.
The facilitators for Alcofrein make errant drivers aware of their
actions and focus their efforts on destroying the myths surrounding
alcohol:
1535
I have recently become aware of an article by Isabelle Mathieu
that appeared in Le Soleil on September 13, 1997. The headline
says “Wake up before disaster strikes” and I would like to read a
few excerpts:
Imagine just for one second that your last, slightly
alcohol-tinged evening with the love of your life ended up in a
ditch, with her dead. For the past two years, that is the
horrible scene that plays out in the head of Francis Laroche.
This young man from Beauport, now aged 22, has not
forgotten the tragedy, let alone accepted it. He has,
nevertheless, agreed to talk about it for the shock value to all
drivers who are still continuing to tempt fate.
On October
2, 1995, at 3:15 in the morning, Francis, his 18-year-old
girlfriend and three other friends were coming back from partying
at a bar in Sainte-Foy. Francis was driving, he had consumed
three beers over the course of the evening and felt that he was
in full possession of his faculties.
“Before we started
out, I said to my girlfriend “Look, I'll blow into the
breathalyser and if I'm over 0.08, I'll hand my keys over to you,
no problem” recalls Francis. But the bar's breathalyser was out
of order that night.
While the five friends were on the
Autoroute de la Capitale near Pierre-Bertrand Boulevard, the
vehicle in front of them changed lanes abruptly. Francis lost
control—
Francis' girlfriend of a year was killed and his three friends
were injured. He ended up with a cut on his head, and when he
took the police breathalyser test, his level was 0.1130 over
the 0.08 limit.
He did not, however, experience any difficulty whatsoever in
performing the physical tests such as walking a straight line.
Later, the Crown could not, therefore, prove that the accident
was directly linked to drinking. In May 1996, Francis Laroche
pleaded guilty to the charge of impaired driving. He got off
with a $500 fine and a year's suspension. His description of
this: “The fine and the rest of it are really secondary
compared to the much worse punishment of causing the death of
my girlfriend”.
There are stories like this every day.
The legal proceedings weighed very heavily on the young man,
whose record had been clean before the accident. “When I was
in the cell at the courthouse, I did not believe it. I could
not believe I was there”, he recalls. “When I walked in the
street, people looked at me. I felt everybody knew. I felt
judged, even by someone who had been drinking and driving for
20 years”.
Can this be prevented? Since the beginning of June, alcohol
has robbed over a dozen people of their lives on Quebec
highways.
In 1996, 412 people were killed, while 1,656 were seriously
wounded and 6,250 received minor injuries. The Société de
l'assurance automobile du Québec has paid out $200 million in
compensation.
“Delinquent drivers are a minority, but they do so much damage
that we hear only about them”, points out Yvon Lapointe, head
of the road safety department of CAA-Québec—
Statistics indicate that the number of young people driving
while impaired is decreasing more rapidly than is the case for
adults. Conclusion: prevention is really working with young
people—
In imposing zero tolerance for impaired driving, the
government is betting that, after three years of total
abstinence when driving as part of the sentence, young drivers
will have learned how to control their own consumption—
There is frequent reference to young people. And in the Quebec
government's bill:
—young people are presented as irresponsible, incapable of
learning caution. The message must be repeated loud and
clear: it is only a small minority of young people who drive
dangerously and risk causing accidents. In their case,
something drastic must be done, I agree. But not in the case
of the 97.4 per cent of young drivers who have not been
involved in injury-causing accidents, whose only crime is
being born after 1972.
1540
We all have a driver's licence. The renewal form asks
clearly: “Do you wear glasses?” It also asks if we suffer from
any illnesses. But I want to go further. This motion introduced
by the Reform Party member is important.
Perhaps there would be agreement on 0.03, 0.05, but I still
say the Government of Canada should require zero tolerance for
several years after a second offence, as is the case for young
people in Quebec.
Drivers of snowmobiles, tractors, motorcycles and boats should
not be left out. The police should also be allowed to do their
job.
When examining the driver's licence of someone they have stopped,
they could see the code on it, as they now do for glasses. There
would be a code for those with zero tolerance. This would perhaps
be a way to reduce the number of accidents.
We will not go that far. In September, and there are
accidents every week, in the municipality of Val d'Or in my riding,
we lost a young leader, a man by the name of Jean Godbout, who was
knocked down by someone over the age of 40 driving in the downtown
area. This was a married man with two young children. His mother
had already lost one son in the Balmoral mine accident in Abitibi.
This brings sorrow to all families. I understand, and we all
understand, that you have just lost the people on whom you counted
the most, those close to you.
The hardest part about these accidents is saying goodbye to a
friend. On behalf of all families, I say that there must be an end
to this slaughter in Canada.
Following discussions, and with the consent of all parties in
the House, I move:
(a) by deleting the words “a legislative committee” and
substituting therefor the words:
“the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights”; and
(b) by changing the period at the end to a semi-colon and
adding the following:
“and that the said Committee, when so instructed, submit its
report to the House no later than May 15, 1998.”
This amendment is a clear indication of the commitment of all
members in the House.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
1545
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the member for Abitibi in the
debate. I certainly agree with his motion. As well, I find
myself largely in support of the original motion as proposed by
the Reform Party.
I enter the debate cautiously because I am not a great fan of
prevention arguments when it comes to crime. I do find, however,
that the motion proposed by the Reform Party is moderate and
quite reasonable in its approach to the problem.
I come to the crime of drunk driving from a different experience
than the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who told how as a
physician he saw the broken bodies of people who were killed by
drunk drivers.
In my earlier days in a former life I was a reporter. I not
only saw people who were injured and dying in hospitals but I saw
the larger consequences beyond the hospitals. That included not
just the families of victims. It also included the families of
persons who committed the crimes. That made me realize that when
dealing with the problem of applying and creating laws we have to
remember to look at it as broadly as possible. The human
condition is very broad and each one of us sometimes only sees a
part of it.
There is a problem with increasing penalties for drunk driving.
I certainly agree we should have penalties that serve as
deterrents, but I have a problem when we want to create penalties
that basically reflect our outrage at the crime. Then penalties
become the vengeance of the state rather than penalties of either
deterrence or rehabilitation.
I use an example from my own life in earlier years as a young
journalist. The drunk driver, a father of young children, had
tried very hard over the years to control his habit and had been
largely successful. One afternoon coming home from picking up
his children from a soccer game he had been to the pub, had
drank, was over the limit, was involved in an accident and one of
his children was killed.
What happens then? As a young reporter I saw the tragedy of a
dead child. There is nothing more heart rending than to see a
child that has been killed in an accident. I do not know why it
is that we can tolerate seeing dead adults, but as a reporter I
could never steel my heart to a dead child.
Later I followed it up and found that the wife and children of
that drunk driver were absolutely devastated, not just because of
the tragedy but because of the expected loss of the bread winner
of the family. They know that he tried very hard to control his
weakness, and despite all his efforts it led to this tragedy.
That brings me to the idea that when we look at justice we must
always remember that justice must have compassion. I would not
want to see the House pass any law that does not give the judge
and the courts some discretion in looking at an entire situation,
not just at the victim, in this case a child, but at the family
of the accused when it is very clear that whatever sentence is
coming down is not a question of deterrence. The individual did
not want to do it in the first place and nothing would have
compelled him to do it other than a psychological weakness.
On the other hand is rehabilitation. There is no doubt we
certainly must have penalties but we have to apply the law with
compassion.
1550
There is a lot of valid criticism, but I think the weakness is
when judges pass sentences that we know are inadequate for the
crime, where there are no mitigating circumstances such as I have
just described, when looking from the outside we see judges pass
a sentence that is far too light for the circumstances of the
crime, be it drunk driving, murder or sexual assault.
We just had a very recent incident in Toronto where a judge
passed sentence on the most horrendous sexual assault case and
most of us feel the sentence was far too light.
The problem is not just looking at the law and considering
whether we should revise the penalties, which is what this motion
proposes. Because it is moderate I cannot oppose that in
principle. We also have to look at the question of who our
judges are and how our judges come to be.
We are experiencing in society some serious reservations about
the way we appoint judges, the way judges become judges. Our
whole court system is predicated on the principle that the judge
should be a person of great experience in life, of great
integrity and of great professional experience.
It is widely felt across the country that perhaps the judges
from the supreme court right down to the provincial court are not
all they should be. That may be because of our current method of
appointing judges. In many instances judges are political
appointees.
I do not want to get into a debate about patronage. In some
ways I think patronage is a very good thing, but when it comes to
judges I have a great deal of reservation about judges being
appointed by any aspect of the political process.
I suggest to my colleagues that if we want better quality judges
so we can have better decisions in cases, be it drunk driving or
be it supreme court decisions, we must set up a new regime for
appointing judges.
Perhaps we need to look at a mechanism of independent
appointment coming from perhaps the governor general, where the
governor general examines the credentials of potential applicants
and ultimately decides who should sit on the bench. Perhaps that
would elevate the quality of judges so decisions made in crimes
like drunk driving, murder or assault may combine common sense,
deterrence, rehabilitation and compassion where necessary; not
foolish compassion, not politically correct compassion, but
compassion when it is appropriate and right.
I would not want to see our courts and laws become the laws of
vengeance. Our courts and laws are there to make society better,
to help individual citizens with genuine problems and to protect
society where necessary. They are there to help not only the
victims but the accused.
This may not be a popular position to take, but there you go,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was quite right. This is not a
popular position to take.
I am sure he need not look to the House because he knows where
most MPs stand on that question. I suggest he look outside the
House, out there to real people land where people are seeing
travesties of justice being committed every day in our courts
across the country by appointed judges who tend to reflect the
philosophy of the government of the day, whether it be federal or
provincial. That is where we are going wrong.
The former minister of justice of this government clearly said
in this House, as recorded in Hansard, that the priority of
the justice system shall be the rehabilitation and reintegration
into society of people convicted of crimes.
1555
I find that philosophy to be absolutely in contrast to what my
party and I believe. It is also in profound conflict with what
the Canadian people think. The philosophy of the former Minister
of Justice is being reflected by judges day after day after day.
Not only that, but current sentencing is reflecting the desire of
provincial and federal governments to cut costs in the prison
systems to the detriment of Canadians by not putting people who
break the law in jail but rather turning them out so they do not
have to pay the costs of keeping them.
There is a fundamental wrong here. When a person commits a
crime there must be consequences. Life is all about choices. We
make some choices that are good and we carry on with our lives.
Some people make choices that are very bad and they must pay the
consequences of that.
I tend to think—and we may get to this in the justice committee
some time during this Parliament—that if there is a way to
ensure that judges sitting on the bench have only one goal in
mind and that is to ensure true justice is given in their
decisions I hope we find it. I hope the hon. member will
contribute to the process of reaching that goal.
What we have now does not work. I do not believe the appointing
of judges is the right way to go. It does not reflect the will
of the Canadian people. I do not buy for a moment that the
Canadian people simply want vengeance or revenge, but they do
want justice.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member
opposite, yes, they do want justice, but I think justice is
always understood as having an element of compassion in it.
My concern about a debate on victims rights and so on is that it
steers into the whole idea of vengeance. When a crime is
committed one can actually set a fixed penalty that is absolute.
We have to give discretion to judges. We have to give judges the
opportunity to be compassionate.
I will leap to the defence of the former justice minister
because I think he tried very hard to choose judges who were very
well qualified. I had discussions along this line with him.
In criticizing the system I want to make it very clear that I
was not criticizing the government or the former justice
minister. I was pointing out that there are judges on the bench
appointed by previous governments who have certainly not
performed in an adequate fashion.
The system is flawed. The former justice minister would agree
that a better way has to be found than relying on the political
arm of government to choose judges. I hope that is the kind of
debate we would have.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this motion moved by the official
opposition, a motion which, all in all, needs a very serious
analysis, given its implications for a society like Canada, and
Quebec as well.
To situate the debate properly, the purpose of this motion is
to require the government to bring forward a motion, pursuant to a
Standing Order, to strike a legislative committee. We have seen
the government bring in an amendment to this, in order to have the
words “legislative committee” replaced by “the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights”.
This, I believe, is an amendment that makes sense, since the
committee already exists. Since the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights is there precisely in order to study motions of
this sort, it is obvious to me that this amendment needs to be
made. We in the Bloc Quebecois approve of this amendment.
1600
In addition, in order to limit the time period allowed the
committee to consider the question, the government is making an
amendment giving the committee until May 15, 1998 to submit its
report to the House.
At first glance, the government appears to be paying careful
attention to the motion tabled by the opposition in this House
today for us to study this topical issue carefully.
Why are we now concerned with this issue, among others? Last
week, a lobby group—and I use the word “lobby” not in its
negative sense, quite the contrary, some lobbies in Canada do good
work—known as MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, came to the
House to meet members of Parliament. They submitted a report,
which, in short, is very well done. However, as with any lobby, we
must examine their report with a critical eye, but in a
constructive manner.
When a lobby group of this sort submits a public survey, the
results must be considered and statements in the report have to be
acknowledged, but we must look at it with a critical eye. We must
find out how and why the questions were asked, who paid for the
survey, and so on.
What catches my attention about this survey is that it points
out the same things already confirmed by the police, by groups who
have studied the situation, among others, in the report about the
national scourge of drinking and driving. I can immediately tell
this lobby group and all those listening that the Bloc Quebecois
also considers drinking and driving to be a scourge both for Canada
and for Quebec. As legislators and elected officials, we must give
very serious thought to this issue.
The main figures pointed out in this document, and it is
important to recall them so that we have a fairly good idea of the
situation, are that 94.3% of those surveyed think that driving
while impaired is a problem that the government must eliminate. I
am not surprised that the percentage is so high, given the
seriousness of the problem, as I said earlier.
In addition, 74.7% of those surveyed think that the provincial
and federal governments are not doing enough to reduce impaired
driving. This may or may not be true, but one thing is certain—it
depends on the question asked, I was not surveyed, you know it is
sometimes easy to get people to say things over the phone, if the
questions asked lead the person answering in one direction rather
than other—there is no doubt that this is a high percentage of
people who think that governments are not doing enough.
The committee that will be created, if the motion is passed by
the House, will, I think, have to take a very serious look at this
finding.
Are the federal and provincial governments, which are responsible
for the administration of justice, making a serious effort to stamp
out impaired driving, or are they not? This is the question we
will have to answer.
I will know more when we examine the issue, but it is
interesting that 94.4% feel that Criminal Code amendments must be
implemented and anyone involved in an accident causing death or
serious injury obliged to provide a blood sample when requested to
do so by the officer, as required by law.
Of those surveyed, 73% support a reduction in the level of
alcohol from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50 milligrams per
100 millilitres, a reduction of 30 milligrams. This is sizeable.
It seems, however, that over two-thirds of the population support
this measure.
1605
Another important point, one I am also anxious to be able to
verify, is that 85% of those surveyed are in favour of amending the
Criminal Code to stiffen the minimum prison sentence for any person
who has caused death or bodily harm. In other words, a person who
has an accident in which another person sustains physical injury or
death would automatically receive a minimum sentence.
At the moment, we know that the Criminal Code stipulates a
prison sentence, but it is a maximum of five years and judges are
given some discretion.
I will come back to the judges a little later.
There is one element which raises a big question mark for me,
because I have read some of the survey questions and am a bit
puzzled by them. It may be true, but it would need to be checked
in committee. It is said that 90.2% of respondents support
adoption of a declaration of victims' rights. What I would like to
know is, what percentage of those surveyed knew what a declaration
of victims' rights was, and what it included.
One thing is certain, the public is currently questioning the
extremely important issue of drunk driving. Every week we read
newspaper reports about accidents resulting in injuries and deaths.
One need only check with the automobile associations in Quebec,
Ontario or the other provinces, to see that the statistics are
damning.
Does the reality really dictate that the legislator must be
pushed into changing the legislative provisions on impaired
driving? Perhaps. Or perhaps it is something other than the
legislation that needs changing. The committee that will be struck
can cast some light on this and report to the House.
One of the questions I have asked myself, particularly when I
meet with the people from MADD, is what goes on in other countries,
how do other countries deal with impaired driving. The maximum
blood alcohol level allowed in the legislation when I was
practicing law was .08. That is what it still is today. But I
realy wondered about the proposal to reduce it to .05. I learned,
however, when I looked into it, when I examined more closely the
information submitted to us today, that .05 was the level already
in Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, even France.
So, this is perhaps not as extreme as it appears. Perhaps it is
not such an exaggeration to consider a lower blood alcohol level in
Canada and in Quebec, if that is what people want.
I have in fact noted a difference in the application of the
rule of 80 mg per 100 ml in the blood, in Quebec and in other
Canadian provinces.
However, nothing is ever all black or all white. Those who
have followed the issue of drinking and driving, lawyers primarily,
those involved in enforcing the law, know that, since 1985, a
series of amendments have been made to the Criminal Code in an
effort to solve the problem, to further discourage people, to focus
on the target group, those most affected by drinking and driving.
Since 1985, an attempt has been made to dissuade them in all sorts
of ways, including through stiffer penalties and simplification of
the job of the police.
1610
Recently, it became possible to obtain a blood sample under
certain circumstances, guidelines were given, the goal being to
help police officers gather evidence to build cases and to
discourage the public from drinking and driving. All this has
taken place since 1985.
In the 35th Parliament, I remember the government members
opposite presenting amendments to increase the maximum sentence in
the case of people who had had an accident while impaired and who
had injured or killed somebody in that accident.
The result is that today we must also take into consideration
the provisions of the Criminal Code, and I think it useful to point
these out so as to give people an overview of the situation.
As it now stands, section 255 of the Criminal Code provides for the
following sentences:
(1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or
254—driving while impaired—is guilty of an indictable
offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction—
In legal jargon, a “summary offence” is less serious than an
“indictable offence”. When someone is charged by way of
indictment, the offence is much more serious, the person must be
represented by a lawyer, and so forth, while someone tried by
summary conviction is not required to be present at the hearing.
It is a less serious offence.
It therefore reads:
—is liable,
(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or
punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum
punishment, namely,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than three
hundred dollars,
(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than
fourteen days, and
(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not
less than ninety days.
A progression can be seen that no longer exists since these
rules were passed. These are amendments made by the legislator over
the years in the wake of certain rulings, certain developments in
this issue, in order to increase the sentence and try to discourage
the public.
—to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253 (a) and
thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years.
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253 (a) and
thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding fourteen years.
As you can see, the sentence is increased if it is a repeat
offence, if the damage is greater, if the other party's injuries
are more serious, or if someone dies as a result of an accident
caused by an impaired driver.
What is being called for, and what we would like to see in the
Criminal Code, I think, is a minimum. In other words, an impaired
driver who has an accident gets, for example, a minimum of one year
or two years in prison.
I see this as dangerous, though perhaps it is necessary, and
I am not saying that it is not. Personally, I am telling you today
that it may be dangerous because all discretion is being taken away
from the court. We are taking away any way, any manner in which a
properly informed judge, a judge who hears the evidence, a judge
who sees the accused, a judge who is familiar with all the facts of
the accident, could assess the case, as he could not do so if a
minimum is set.
Perhaps we will have to come to that, but only a very wise man
could know the answer to that question today.
The opposition's motion, if passed by the House, will enable
us to check whether setting a minimum for such an offence is really
the right thing to do. That is one example. There may be other
things that need examination. I heard one of my colleagues on the
government side talking about the appointment of judges just now.
Yes, there is that aspect, perhaps, but there may be something
else, perhaps in terms of heightening the judges' awareness.
1615
These days, I hear all sorts of things about remarks judges
have made following a decision, remarks that have not always been
so nice. I am not noising around the fact that I am in the same
league, because I am not too proud of the remarks these people may
have made.
Perhaps enhanced awareness is needed. Stiffer penalties in
the Criminal Code are not necessarily the solution. All of this
can be studied in committee. We can look at what exactly should be
considered.
That said, we in the Bloc Quebecois have three points to make
with respect to this motion.
First, we acknowledge the importance of the problem raised by the
motion presented by the official opposition. The motion deserves
our support and very serious consideration in committee.
Second, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion as amended by
the government, which asks to present a motion to set up a standing
committee to discuss the measures provided in the Criminal Code in
order to correct and improve where possible the provisions
pertaining to offences involving the consumption of alcohol and
impaired driving.
Third, the Bloc Quebecois aware of the problem created by
drunk driving considers that legislative study will concern the
matter as a whole and not just the establishment of harsher
penalties. We say “What's worth doing is worth doing right”.
We will do it with assurance, and anyone looking at it afterward
will have no cause for complaint. This is what I want to bring to
the committee. If a committee is going to look at this, we must
look not only at increasing the penalty, but at the whole issue
from A to Z.
I would, however, caution this House, because we will be
dealing with the administration of justice, which is not a federal
matter but a provincial matter. We must be very careful in our
review of these provisions to do a thorough, serious and detailed
analysis in the area of federal jurisdiction. We will not stick
our big mitts in the administration of justice. It is none of our
business. The Bloc will be there to dot the i's and cross the t's,
should the government decided to go a bit further.
I will conclude by saying that, in committee, I will have a series
of questions to put to the people who will come to present their briefs,
make comments on such violations and the changes that need to be made to
the Criminal Code. I think we should also hear from police officers. We
should seek their opinion on this question and on what they would like
to see in terms of legislation, to get a feel for what their priorities
are.
Finally, because I can see you signalling that I am running out of
time, we indeed support this motion, as amended by the government. We
support it because it will allow an informed debate on this question. We
will then report to this House to enact the most useful legislation
possible, legislation that may stop this scourge, which is—again, we
agree on the terminology—a very terrible national scourge.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague of the Bloc. I do
not often have occasion to congratulate my Bloc colleague on an
excellent speech. This issue is so important that it must cross
party lines. We must all try very carefully to avoid trying to
make political capital out of it.
As my colleague said, it is a case that goes beyond simply
increased penalties.
It is not a matter of increased penalties. It is a matter of
finding a solution that is more equitable for victims, for
everyone who is involved in the tragedy of drunk driving. If it
is a matter of changing the mechanism by which we appoint judges,
so be it.
1620
I take it from the remarks of my hon. colleague opposite that he
agrees with me that in matters of justice, justice must be
tempered with compassion. We can only have compassion in the
courts if we give discretion to judges and we can only give
discretion to judges if we have good judges.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. member paying
me compliments like that, I would be tempted to believe there is
something fishy going on here.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: He is being generous.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: He is being generous. Perhaps he is
generous and more practical than you, Madam.
But seriously, having sat on the justice committee with the hon.
member who just made these remarks, I know that, on a number of
occasions, in the interest of advancing certain issues, we have all set
aside our political affiliations and petty partisan concerns.
We have done so with various issues, and I am prepared to do so again
today on this issue, which deserves the full attention of this House.
Before answering his last question, a word about the appointment of
judges, which he mentioned. Indeed, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe
that the appointment of all judges should be carried out in a much more
enlightened, much more transparent fashion, as we requested when a
justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was appointed, recently. Our call
was not heard, and I hope the hon. member will pursue the matter on the
government side so that we can eventually have legislation governing the
appointment of judges to ensure it is carried out in a much more
transparent fashion. And this extends beyond the office of the Prime
Minister, who, with a stroke of the pen, decides who will be a justice
of the supreme court or superior court. These are, after all, very
important positions.
I believe they will eventually come around and share our views, as
they have done regarding many other issues. After all, when it comes to
certain issues, the Bloc and the province of Quebec seem to be 15, 20 or
30 years ahead of the government members sitting across from us.
The last question has to do with the compassion—I guess it is
the right word—that judges can show when no minimum sentence is set.
The word “assessment” could also be used. If we set a minimum sentence
in a legislative provision—and I agree that such a minimum should be
set in some laws—we remove any possibility for the judge to assess
the facts before him.
I would not want to sit on the bench and to hear witnesses,
including victims, describe a situation. Sometimes, the victims are not
completely innocent. As I said earlier, things are not always black or
white.
I can imagine a judge saying: “Sir, I must sentence you to two years in
jail, because the act requires me to do so. In the old days, I might
have given you just six months, with a possibility of treatment in some
institution, because you have a serious alcohol problem and because you
have children”. This is another aspect which should not be overlooked.
Sometimes, five, six or seven children may depend on the
individual. Is society better served by sending that person to jail and
forcing the children to go on welfare? Is this the ultimate purpose of
these changes? If so, I want no part of it.
The issue has to be reviewed very carefully if we want the judges
to have a good understanding of the situation but also if we want to
send a clear message to the population saying that no, it is not
acceptable to drink and drive.
Yes, I am with you all the way on this; yes, you will find me by
your side to further this issue, but I believe we must proceed carefully
and analyze the situation in detail so that we will have the best
legislation possible to fight against this scourge.
I am not sure that by having a minimum penalty of one, two, or
three years, this will help achieve our objective, because I have never
seen any study nor has any study ever been tabled showing that there is
a direct link between increasing the penalty and seeing a decrease in
repeat offences, or in the number of drunk driving cases, of thefts or
anything else.
I think I am still part of the generation that is really committed
to rehabilitation, prevention and education.
1625
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support the comments made by my hon. colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois. It is very important that we not allow the focus
of this motion to be deterred by looking at the broader issue of
justices and the appointment of judges.
While the hon. member on the opposite side has raised some valid
concerns, that justice must be tempered with mercy, the examples
that he cited earlier are among the minority of the tragic cases
that we see resulting from drunk driving. I believe it is
appropriate that the House agree on this motion and refer it for
proper study to a committee so that those issues can be dealt
with.
We should not get lost in the debate. By moving it to another
level and talking about the appointment of judges is a different
issue. It is important to keep the focus on what this motion is
designed to deal with on behalf of the people who suffer the
tragic results of drunk driving.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should not
steer away from the motion we are examining. But at this stage,
everything is possible. If we really want to consider seriously this
issue, we must absolutely not exclude anything.
Are the judges the ones who need education? Is it the procedure by
which judges are appointed that can solve the problem? Is it stiffer
penalties? Is it education? Is it allowing provincial legislation to
deal more adequately with such or such an area? Personally, at this
stage, I exclude nothing.
It will be up to the committee to carry out its work in a very
independent and professional manner, and the Committee on Justice and
Human Rights has shown on several occasions that it can do just that.
When all the parties worked together and set politics aside, we have
done wonders. I think we will be able once again to go over this issue
very effectively and to table a very relevant report in this House.
But in reply to the member, yes, we must maintain a clear
objective, which is to deal with the Criminal Code, if anything in it
has to be dealt with, to achieve the ultimate objective which is to put
an end to the problem of impaired driving. If we have to deal with the
judges, we will do that. If we have to deal with something else, we will
do that also. The committee will report to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am
sure you will agree with us.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to advise you and the House that I will be
sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I
do not think one of us in this House has not been touched by the
tragedy of someone close to us being killed by a drunk driver.
Just to contemplate and hear about a dear friend, somebody who
is working in the community, who is helping other people, who is
a source of inspiration to her entire family and to everyone who
knows her, suddenly vanishing from the face of this earth because
a drunk driver came out of a side road and on to a main road and
smashed right into her car. None of us has lived without
experiencing receiving that kind of news and the senselessness of
it, the helplessness of it, and the determination that we have to
do something about it is our first reaction.
I want to congratulate MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Its
members have done an absolutely phenomenal job in this past week
of meeting with members of Parliament, of informing us, of
putting together what they believe needs to be done to diminish
this scourge on our population, to diminish the number of people
of all ages who fall victim to drunk driving.
1630
They have done a tremendous job of educating the public. They
have done a tremendous job of surveying public opinion and making
it clear to members of Parliament that Canadians from coast to
coast want serious to action be taken on this soon.
This is an issue that I have some history with. When I was
president of the Ontario Association of Municipalities I had
the privilege of working with the attorney general at the time,
the hon. Roy McMurtry. We set up a program for municipalities
across Ontario to develop community action programs on drinking
and driving. I set up a program in the city of Ottawa.
Things have changed a lot since the early eighties. Attitudes
have changed a lot. At that time my children were in their teens
or their very early twenties. It was very encouraging for me to
see young people coming to a party at my home, bringing their
sleeping bags, just in case they had something to drink and did
not want to drive home or just in case their friends felt they
should not drive home.
I remember living through a period of time with a friend who was
a drinking alcoholic. This friend was coming to visit us
regularly. We were trying to provide him with support. I
suddenly realized that every night he visited us he was driving
down my street, endangering my children and other children. At
one point I said to my husband “Ron, you drive him home. You
disable his car and do not let him drive again”. I told him
that I would not ever again have him coming to my home,
endangering someone else's life.
His distributor cap sat on the top of our refrigerator for a
long time. I am pleased to say that for the last 20 years he has
not had a drink.
I tell that story because one of the lessons I learned when I
was involved with the drinking and driving task force in this
region was that what we are dealing with is the problem of
alcoholism. Fifty per cent of first time driving offences are
committed by alcoholics. The end result of their history is
often tragedy. Lives are lost.
I believe it is important for us to deal with the front end.
The first time someone is apprehended, the first time they are
convicted, that is when we have to take serious action. We have
to recognize that half the people we are dealing with in those
first convictions are alcoholics. If we do not deal with
alcoholism, there will be a second and third conviction and a
tragedy.
To demonstrate how important this point is, by the time someone
is convicted a second time of drinking and driving we know there
is a 90% chance they are an alcoholic. Ninety per cent of second
offenders are alcoholics. Therefore losing a licence or spending
time in jail is not enough to ensure that person will not get
behind of the wheel drunk again.
We have to deal with alcoholism. We have to deal with it
seriously. We have to ensure that person, convicted the first
time, does not drive again until the alcoholism is dealt with.
That is a very important and crucial step in preventing these
tragedies.
That does not mean that we do not have to look at the other end
and at what we do when a tragedy occurs and take much stronger
action. We do, but we will always be dealing with the situation
after the fact, after the tragedy, after the death, unless we deal
with the first offence.
We must deal with the problem before that offence. That comes
with the kind of responsibility which my children and their
friends started taking for each other.
We must ensure that we do not pass this off as something light,
unimportant and socially acceptable. We must each take the
responsibility of confronting a friend, however difficult that
may be, to say “I am sorry, but I will not let you get in your
car. I will not drive with you if you insist on getting in your
car”.
That is the kind of responsibility we all have to take. That is
why the last discussion was very interesting. It is not
something that can be solved simply by tougher laws. We all want
to prevent these tragedies, not just to punish after they happen.
We hope we never have to punish. That is why it takes a
combination of effort at this level, through the Criminal Code,
at the provincial level, effort in our own communities and our
own families.
1635
I do not think there is one of us who does not know someone in
our family or a friend or someone we work with who is an
alcoholic. Every time we turn our backs on that and do not take
the responsibility of confronting that alcoholism we contribute
to the tragedies we are talking about today. We also have to take
responsibility.
We also have to get over a hurdle. Training judges is a part of
it. We used to say we have to educate young people, that if we
educate young people the problem will go away. Young people
learn their drinking habits somewhere. Young people learn their
driving habits somewhere. Educating young people to solve a
problem we have created is a nice way of getting out of our
responsibility.
One place that I think we have to change attitudes, and I am not
sure the courts have caught up with public opinion on this yet,
is maybe a person is not responsible for a decision made while
drinking but is responsible for the decision to drink. In my
view, if that decision is made then automatically the decision is
made to take responsibility for everything that person does after
that first drink is taken.
Whether it is a case such as we saw in the courts where
drunkenness was an excuse for raping a 78-year old woman, or
whether it is a case of saying “I was too drunk to know what I
was doing when I got into my car and drove”, I am sorry, but
that is no longer acceptable. You take that responsibility when
you take that drink.
It is a personal responsibility for all of us. Yes, it is
changes in the laws and a combined effort of all levels of
government, continuing and increasing our actions on substance
and alcohol abuse throughout society, which is the source of most
of these tragedies.
I never thought I would say this, but I am grateful to the
Reform Party for bringing forward the motion today. I am anxious
to see it get into committee where at least the federal
responsibility can be dealt with and we can also initiate some
major activity with the provinces, communities and people across
the country to diminish this tragedy. I do not think we can ever
put an end to it.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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.
1640
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.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I guess the theme of
my speech was that the line in sand has to be drawn much sooner
and much earlier in the process which eventually leads somebody
to kill on the highway.
Somebody knew that the young person the hon. member was talking
about was drinking and driving and did not do anything about it.
What we have suggested is that the whole issue be referred to a
committee.
A tremendous amount of research has been done to look at the
views of the experts as well as people who have been victims,
people who have been involved in this and people in the justice
system to find the most effective way.
The member and I both want the same thing, what is going to work
most effectively. I hope he will forgive me if I do not jump to
conclusions about what I hope will be the excellent results of
the review by the justice committee on this issue and a very good
package of recommendations to us.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Ottawa West—Nepean raised some personal experiences
and I think we all have them. Every member who has risen in the
House today has related some tragedy.
I know she talked about things improving, although I sometimes
wonder. In my riding I had a family that had a very tragic
experience. It involved a woman by the name of Joanne Perrotta.
Both her brother and father were severe alcoholics. Her brother
after a heavy night of drinking went out and ran into a transport
truck in 1989 and was killed. Then Joanne, who was a
non-drinker, was working late one night. On her way home she was
broadsided by a drunk driver and was killed.
The next year her father was driving drunk, as he had done
several times, ran over a motorcycle driver and killed him. This
tragedy kept going on and on in that family.
I know there is a public education aspect that is very
important. I wonder if the member would agree that a tough
deterrent for those people who are hardcore is actually a good
method of trying to solve this problem.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the member has
precisely made my point.
What we have to deal with is that alcoholism is the root cause
of most of these tragedies. We have to deal with that. Somebody
who is an alcoholic is not going to be deterred at that moment by
knowing that he may spend three or six months in jail or loose
his license. This just is not going to happen.
We have to deal with the alcoholism. That person should not be
allowed to drive until they have been sober for a period of time
where one can say this person is a recovering alcoholic. The
point also is that there are probably several hundreds of people
who knew those drivers, who knew that they regularly drove drunk
and did nothing about it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Agriculture.
1645
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak on this motion which has to do with a much
broader issue and which I know all members are very sensitive to.
Indeed the issue of alcohol and its impacts and pervasiveness on
our society is one of the most serious issues that a Parliament
could face.
The motion before the House basically asks parliamentarians to
request a House committee to review the issues related to
deterrence and propriety of penalties with regard to impaired
driving.
The issue of drunk driving has been with us for so long. We
have heard the statistics over and over again, to the extent that
I believe the public and parliamentarians have become
desensitized to the seriousness of the problem.
I would like to share with the House and all hon. members some
of the statistics to do with the misuse of alcohol. Over 19,000
deaths per year; 45% of all motor vehicle collisions; 30% of
fires; 30% of suicides; 60% of homicides; 50% of family violence;
65% of snowmobile collisions; one in six family breakdowns; 30%
of drownings; 5% of birth defects; 65% of child abuse; 40% of
falls causing injury; 50% of hospital emergencies. There is over
$15 billion of additional health care, social programs, criminal
justice and lost productivity costs that all Canadians must pay
for. All of these items are directly or indirectly caused by the
misuse of alcohol.
I want to pay tribute to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This
organization has had a long history of advocacy with regard to
alcohol. One of the founders of MADD, Mr. John Bates, has been a
very dear friend and supporter of mine in alcohol related issues.
They were here recently on the Hill. They have done an
excellent job. I believe they are singularly responsible for
this issue finally getting the attention in the House that it
deserves. I congratulate them and thank them for doing a job
very well on behalf of all Canadians.
This is not a simple issue. One thing is clear and everyone
should understand that it is impossible to conceive how anyone
could vote against this motion before the House today. Canadians
should always expect their parliamentarians to determine and
review to make sure that the very best job has been done with
regard to deterrence against behaviour such as drunk driving.
Canadians should also expect that the penalties associated with
criminal offences are updated and appropriately put in place.
That is what they expect of us. This motion does nothing more
than simply ask parliamentarians to ask the justice committee to
do that review and as appropriate to come back to this House with
a bill to make any appropriate changes.
I certainly will be supporting this motion. I believe it
transcends politics and the partisanship of politics. I believe
and I hope that all parliamentarians will support unanimously
this motion so that we can commence the process on dealing with a
broader range of alcohol related problems in Canada.
1650
I went through a list of direct or indirect consequences of
alcohol misuse. I want to comment a little further on some
others. In statistics I received from the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse in its 1995 report, there are some 19,000 deaths
per year.
One of the things I found astounding was an incident where a
person who was impaired while driving a motor vehicle killed an
innocent pedestrian. The pedestrian's loss of life was
attributed to trauma, not to alcohol. When I see statistics
dealing with alcohol, we have to ask questions about the
dimensions: Are there directs and indirects included these
numbers? I believe the numbers are far worse than anybody is
prepared to publish.
Think of things like family violence. About a year ago there
was a special conference on Parliament Hill co-sponsored by
Health Canada, the equivalent agency in the United States and the
National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The cost of
spousal abuse and domestic violence in Canada was estimated to be
$2.1 billion. Imagine the opportunity and the dimensions here and
what we could do if we could get a handle on it.
I believe domestic violence is in much the same boat as drinking
and driving in that we have become desensitized. This is 100%
preventable. It is totally irresponsible and totally against the
family and Canadian values that we hold so dear, yet we do not do
anything about it. We tolerate it for who knows what reason, but
it must stop. We can do better. We must do better.
One in six family breakdowns are due to alcohol misuse. Has
anyone ever considered how pervasive the impacts of family
breakdowns are? After the Vanier Institute said that the divorce
rate was up to 50%, Statistics Canada said no, it is really only
at 33%.
One of the things they all forgot about was the fact that over a
million relationships in Canada are common law and totally escape
the statistical analysis. Seventy-five per cent of common law
relationships break down within the first five years. Of all
those relationships, 60% of them involve children. The real
victims of family breakdown are the children. Yet if we look at
the statistics, one in six of those are directly due to alcohol.
Birth defects. Fetal alcohol syndrome accounts for about 5% of
the birth defects. It costs Canada about $1.2 billion a year to
deal with the additional health care, special needs and social
costs associated with fetal alcohol syndrome.
If Canadians want a tax break, we could easily fund a tax break
by dealing with some of these problems. We cannot have it both
ways. We cannot be irresponsible in our actions and be spending
billions of dollars for our carelessness and our irresponsibility
and at the same time expect that we can do other things as well.
We have ways of ensuring that good things happen in Canada but
we have to find new ways. We have to set a new urgency for all
Canadians that we will not be desensitized any more.
In addition to addressing the issue specifically raised in the
motion, there were two other items. One is health warning labels
on the containers of alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverages are
the only consumer product in Canada that can hurt you if misused
but which do not warn the consumer of that fact. Pills warn you
not to drink when you take the pills, but the drink does not warn
you not to take pills when you drink. It makes no sense.
We have a bill before the House. Hopefully, we will get support.
1655
The last item is Drink Smart Canada. I want to simply read into
the record Drink Smart Canada's message: If you are with a
friend, family member or acquaintance who is drinking and
becoming at risk of hurting themselves and others, you should
intervene in an appropriate fashion to make sure that they do not
become just another tragic statistic.
We all have a role to play here. I am proud to support this
motion and I thank hon. members for bringing it forward to the
House.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, drinking
and driving is a very serious problem. It is a problem that
causes a lot of hardship for families. It causes financial
hardships. It causes hardships for our society.
I would like to relate a story that was related to me and which
I think puts this issue very much in perspective. I was told
that a young man left home one evening and he had been drinking.
He was in an accident and two people were killed. After he came
out of the coma, the people had to tell him that the two people
who had been killed that terrible evening were his parents. When
I was told this, it really gave me shivers and I sensed what this
problem was really all about.
I do support Mothers Against Drunk Driving and I support this
motion. I thank the member for putting it forth.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period today the health minister in
reply to a question from the opposition said that Canada has one
of the toughest anti-tobacco laws in the world. He also
mentioned that this government, Health Canada, was planning on
spending $100 million on tobacco control in the next few years.
Tobacco never killed people on the highway. Tobacco never broke
up families. Tobacco never led to beatings. Yet the government,
and governments traditionally, not just the current Liberal
government but the government before it, Health Canada, has a
whole division and countless employees focused on tobacco.
I wonder if the member for Mississauga South would give his
feelings with respect to why Health Canada does not invest at
least an equivalent amount of money on alcohol control. Why do
we not have a tough alcohol law?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the
Minister of Health or Health Canada, but I do believe that the
member raises a good point. It is up to all parliamentarians to
define the priorities for our government to consider. This
motion has raised this issue to the level where it will get the
attention.
What we need to do is to demonstrate that we are no longer
desensitized to the problem and that we are prepared to advance
this as a starting point with regard to impaired driving, and
also with regard to the broader range of impacts associated with
the misuse of alcohol because of its pervasiveness and the severe
impact it has on all Canadians.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): 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.
1700
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration
of the member. We all do, because we have provincial
jurisdictions that are responsible for the application of the
laws. But I believe this is the kind of work that the motion is
asking the committee to do, to explore these things. I think he
is quite right.
However, I would ask all members to be open to preventive
measures as opposed to dealing in a reactive fashion after the
problem has occurred. We cannot say enough about the value of
public education. We cannot say enough about advocacy groups like
MADD. There is a good group out in B.C., the Alcohol-Drug
Education Service, Mr. Art Steinmann and his group. They are
excellent. They have been working tirelessly in the background.
We need to work with them and support them to make sure that all
Canadians express their views and give us the support we need to
make sure that we have done our job to the extent that we can
influence deterrence, penalties as well as public education.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of this motion. In many ways I am very moved to be
speaking on it today.
Intoxication should not be an excuse for anything. It should
not be an excuse for sexual assault, for death or for murder. We
should not be accepting any level of blood alcohol content as an
excuse.
I do not think anyone should be allowed to drink and drive.
Therefore, my hard line is that we do not have any level that
anyone can say there is room for error. You cannot drink and
then drive.
As long as we say drinking is all right, we will be facing the
tragedy that has happened over the last 30 to 40 years. When
people drink their decision making is impaired. It is impaired
as to whether they decide to drive. It is impaired as to whether
they decide to have another drink or another 10 drinks and then
drive. They should not have any discretion in that area.
In deterrence, if we are going to look at preventive measures,
then we have to have it at all levels.
The Yukon had a Youth Empowerment and Success Program that was
cut, I learned today, by the federal government. This dealt with
the very area in Yukon where there is a large percentage of
drinking and driving: the youth. Pulling out this strategy to
prevent drinking and driving or other drinking related abuses is
now not available.
National statistics show males between the ages of 25 and 35 are
the drivers behind the wheels of those vehicles. Therefore, we
should not allow advertising that glamorizes the drinking
lifestyle, that everybody is happy as long as they have a bottle
of beer beside them.
When it comes to our judicial system I think our judges should
have discretion. I would like to say “Yes, let us just take
away their vehicles and that will solve the problem”, except
that the rest of the family may depend on that vehicle and
someone's employment may depend on that vehicle. Therefore, we
are causing others to suffer who should not suffer because of an
individual's decision to drink and drive.
Our judicial system should have a process for appointing judges.
If we want discretion we need to know whose discretion and how
they got into those positions of trust.
When it comes to enforcement, we have to know that the RCMP are
not letting their friends go when they stop them for drinking and
driving. We have to know that the RCMP are well enough staffed
so that at the peak hours when people drink and drive, between 6
p.m. and 3 a.m., they are there to stop them.
My city of Whitehorse has two RCMP on duty through the night.
That is not adequate to deal with drinking and driving, among the
other responsibilities that they have to take on. If we are
serious about deterrence, we need to be prepared to give the
resources to the RCMP so that they can deal with drinking and
driving.
When I grew up in the Yukon, as a teenager it was still legal to
drink in public. It was legal to drink and drive. That was just
over 20 years ago.
Public attitude has changed dramatically since that time. You
can no longer drink in public and you can no longer drink and
drive. But the attitude still is prevalent, as it is elsewhere
in Canada, that it is all right to drive and to drink.
1705
I commend my colleague across the floor for describing what it
took for her to make a stand and not let her friend drink and
drive. By doing that in our daily lives we will make changes.
I also believe once someone has transgressed, once they have
driven drunk more than once, we do not need to give leniency any
further. At that point we should take away the vehicle or there
should be a substantial fine and there should not be available
legal loopholes to avoid the guilt of what someone has done.
I will finish with my own story on this issue. In Yukon in the
early seventies it was a different atmosphere. I was in a boat
with my father who had been drinking. The boat tipped. After I
watched my father drown, I swam to shore. That left my mother,
who had a part-time job, to raise eight children. Drinking and
driving is not a statistic for me. I thought after many years you
come to grips with trauma of that nature. It is not easy and it
does stay with us.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this debate.
It is our chance to make a statement to our fellow Canadians that
this matter will be taken seriously and we will not allow
drinking and driving. If you are going to drink and operate any
motorized vehicle, you are responsible for your actions. We will
hold you responsible but we will also show compassion. I believe
that is why we are here.
For those reasons, I support this motion.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it was with interest that I listened to the discussion
and to the gentleman on the opposite side when he gave us details
of what alcohol cost Canadians each year. It would seem to me
that if we threw the stuff away we would get our deficit in order
in a short period of time.
I do not doubt the authenticity of the statistics at all. I
believe they are true.
What bothers me more than anything else in listening to the
debate are the words “we must use compassion”. I am a
compassionate person but I have had experiences in my life of
picking up dead children at the scene of an accident, of going to
homes of teenagers who have been killed. It is very difficult to
move toward compassion when you see the person who caused the
crime, who caused the death, go to the courts and within no time
at all be out on the street with a minimum fine and a minimum
restriction.
What bothers me is listening to a teenager who has been given an
alcohol charge saying “I wonder who the judge will be. I would
sure like to get that one because he is not as hard”. It
reminds me of the cowboys lining up to draw a horse. They want
to get an easy horse because an easy horse is easier to ride.
We must be more conscious of what we are dealing with here. The
people who brought this to our attention came as a lobby group.
They did not come asking the government for money, as most lobby
groups do. They did not come asking for anything but that we
take an honest look at this national disgrace. They called it a
national tragedy. It is a disgrace and Canadians can no longer
allow it to go on.
When you ask people what they think of our courts, our courts
are going down this way every day because of the decisions being
handed out.
On my way driving in to the House of Commons I heard a report
about a man who had been bludgeoned to death. The police picked
up the perpetrator's trail, followed the blood trail to a house
and arrested him. However, it has been thrown out of court
because the proper procedure for the search was not followed.
That sort of decision is an example of the decisions which are
ripping the guts out of Canadians. The decisions brought down in
alcohol related incidents are doing exactly the same thing.
1710
Abraham Lincoln said that alcohol has many defenders, but nobody
has ever come up with a defence.
When this motion goes to committee we must listen to what our
constituents are saying. Do not worry about the legal part of
it, first of all we should listen to what our constituents are
saying. They will support the resolution which is before us with
an overwhelming majority and with a great deal of enthusiasm.
It is fine to say that an accident happened and that it really
was not the driver's fault because he was not in control of
himself. He was in control of himself when he started to drink.
When he started to drink he was cognizant of the fact that he
could cause harm to himself and other people. I do not think for
one moment that Canadians are going to continue to listen to our
courts using that as an excuse, permitting those who perpetrate a
crime to walk away free.
I was driving in Saskatchewan the other day when the news
reported that two young ladies had been shot in a service station
at night. I used to work in that area. Then the names were
reported and it shocked me. The one person involved with that
double murder is now walking the streets of Saskatchewan. The
people of that town are livid because of the decision of the
court.
The court is saying that people were not really responsible.
They must have been responsible when they started drinking. They
must be responsible for the deeds which they have done.
I hope when we go to committee we do not let bleeding hearts
take over and not honour the commitment of this motion. I hope
we do not put anything in the way of the Canadian public
receiving justice when it comes to this very serious topic.
I know very well from my experience that we need a victims' bill
of rights. Everybody seems to have rights nowadays. What about
victims' rights? Why are we so afraid of victims' rights? Why
are we so afraid of the mother who has lost a three-year-old
child? Does she not have any rights?
We know more than four people are killed needlessly every day.
Let us suppose that one MP is killed every day for the next 300
days. Just think about it. Are we more important than our
constituents? Not one bit.
I know this much. If four of us were killed in a traffic
accident, if we were clobbered by a drunk driver, and the next
week if four more of us were killed, we would be very quick in
this House to come up with something which is a lot stronger and
a lot more punishing than what the MADD organization is
proposing.
We should not place ourselves above our constituents. Sometimes
I think we do. My constituents are important to me. I know what
they are thinking about this. Every newspaper in my constituency
carried my article in support of MADD. I received very good
reports from that article.
1715
They want something more than what we have at present. If we
come out of committee with no changes and with nothing more than
what we have at the present time we have failed abysmally. We
have to show the Canadian public now that we in the House are
serious. We are the highest court in the land. We make the
decisions and the judiciary carry them out.
I am not saying we should not allow a judge leniency. I am
saying that we have to make the message clear to the Canadian
people. The message we are giving right now is not a very good
one. Let give all the emphasis possible as legislators and bring
some credit back to the House. We will gain respect quickly if
the motion goes forward and we do something more than what I fear
may happen.
I will be supporting the motion and I wish it all the best in
the final result.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amend-ment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the amendment
carried.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on
the main motion, as amended.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to prepare and bring in
a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal
with impaired driving in order to (a) enhance deterrence; and (b)
ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Carried.
(Motion agreed to)
1720
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the House agree to
say that it is 5.30 p.m., so that we may continue with the business
of the House immediately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.20 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NEWFOUNDLAND UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should be
established to study the severe unemployment problem in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is no with a great sense of pleasure
that I arise today to present my private member's motion that the
House establish a committee to study the chronic unemployment
problem in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The unemployment rate in Newfoundland is one of the most glaring
failures of Canadian Confederation. I am under no illusions
today that by simply introducing this resolution we will solve
the unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I have
to start somewhere. I promised the good people of St. John's
east, many of whom are unemployed, that I would bring their
concerns to the floor of the House of Commons.
Every poll that has ever been done in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador indicates the one pressing problem that
has always been on the top of the agenda is unemployment. As we
talk about the unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador
today the Canadian economy is rebounding, but in Newfoundland the
situation seems to be worse than ever.
Right now in Newfoundland we are losing people at the rate of
approximately 7,500 per year. That may not seem to be all that
serious in the Canadian context, but when we consider a small
province like Newfoundland and Labrador with a population of only
a half million people losing 7,500 people per year is very
serious indeed. It has a devastating effect upon the collective
well-being of the people.
Only a few weeks ago I had a meeting on a little island off the
coast in my riding. It is not too far from St. John's. It is a
small place called Bell Island. It used to be a great mining
town from the late 1800s up to 1966 when I believe the mining
operation closed down.
Until recently it had a population of about 10,000 or 12,000
people. Now the population has gone down to about 3,500 people.
I had a meeting with the mayor of that island, Gary Gosine, who
indicated that he could drive around his town almost on a daily
basis and point to houses that are empty because people are
leaving to go elsewhere. They do not have any jobs there and the
population of that little area has gone down from 5,200 or 5,300
people down to 3,500 people in a very short period of time.
We are losing people at the rate of 7,500 per year. For a
population of a half million that is devastating.
The Newfoundland unemployment problem has been studied many
times.
When I served in the Newfoundland House of Assembly we set up a
royal commission to look at the problem. There were no obvious
or quick solutions at that time. Our economy is largely a
resource based economy. We depend upon fish, minerals and paper
products. It is a resource based and export based economy.
1725
The new global economy is a knowledge based economy. While we
do have somewhat of a high tech industry in Newfoundland it is a
very small one. In spite of that we are to a small extent in the
business of exporting some of our engineering skills in the
marine area and in the offshore oil and gas sector. The growth
we are experiencing in these sectors is not enough to even
remotely offset the bleeding that is occurring in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Two areas of our economy that have been hit very hard over the
last number of years is the fishery and the public sector. The
northern cod fishery is in a very bad way. About 30,000
fishermen and plant workers are on TAGS in Newfoundland, the
Atlantic groundfish strategy as it is known. Most TAGS money has
been used directly by people to keep bread on the table.
As the auditor general pointed out only recently in his report,
the millions of dollars spent on training through TAGS was really
a waste of time, a waste of energy and worst of all a waste of
money. Most people were in a holding pattern. They were waiting
for cod to come and therefore were not all that interested in
moving on.
Many fisher people, especially the older generation of
fishermen, got involved in the fishery back 25, 30 or 35 years
ago. They had limited formal education. When TAGS came out they
found themselves in the position of probably having to get a high
school education before they could move on to the various
technical schools they were expected to become involved in and
enrolled in.
I have always said it is bureaucratic insanity to expect people
with limited education who have been on fishing boats for 25 or
30 years to suddenly upgrade to a high school education, get into
a technical institute and sit down in front of a computer. For
what purpose? I do not know. A lot of the money spent on
various training programs, we have to agree with the auditor
general, fishermen and other people, was a waste of money.
A lot of these people have been waiting for the fishery to
rebound but it has not rebounded. The reality today is that the
federal TAGS program is about expire. The vast majority of the
people on TAGS are at a loss what to do next. They have hung on
but it seems now that they will be hung out to dry.
Politicians in the House have shouted across the floor that TAGS
was a mistake and should have ended sooner than later. I agree
the TAGS could have been a much better program. It could have
encouraged people to leave the industry through licence buyout
and early retirement programs. Training money should have been
directed to people who were either young enough or enthusiastic
enough to want to go ahead with a career change. It could have
encouraged people to leave the industry.
Most of all I keep saying the federal government could have been
brutally honest with people and not given them an indication that
their future prospects in the fishery were good.
Instead, we are faced with thousands and thousands of people
whose incomes will soon be cut off, who have not returned to the
fishery, who have not retrained for this new economy that we are
into, who cannot afford to move away to find work and whose
immediate prospects happen to be welfare.
1730
I get hundreds of people coming through my constituency office
in St. John's on a weekly basis. My mind goes back to the Prime
Minister at his town hall meeting where he was talking to an
unemployed woman looking for a job. The Prime Minister, in a
cavalier way, said “Well, maybe you can move on to another part
of our country”. At the same time, while the Prime Minister was
making that kind of a submission to that woman, he had terminated
the mobility assistance program. These people, already facing
unemployment, are now also faced with having to stay where they
are because they do not have the money to move on.
The public sector plays a very important role in the
Newfoundland economy, a much bigger role than it should play
probably. Federal transfers for equalization in health and
education make up about half of our provincial budgets. We do
have our share of equalization payments. The unemployment
insurance system provides income to large numbers of seasonal
workers.
When the federal government decided a while ago to get its
fiscal house in order, it was devastating for the Newfoundland
economy because the federal transfers to the provincial
government went down hill drastically and, of course, the
provincial government started to make its cuts to make up for the
federal government's transfers going down.
The provincial government then passed the cuts on to the various
municipalities as well who in turn made all kinds of cuts which
again had a devastating effect on the economy. The lay-offs at
all levels of the public sector not only reduced the services,
they also flooded the job market with some of the best and most
well-educated people we had. That is why the Liberal Party is
doing so poorly in Atlantic Canada. It has not really got into
showing the people of Atlantic Canada that it cares about the
unemployment problems that we have.
We cannot impose the kinds of dynamics of a central Canadian
economy or a western Canadian economy on the people in the
Atlantic region because it makes no sense at all.
We can talk about the problem all day but what are we going to
do about it? I want to make a few suggestions, although I stand
the chance of running afoul of some of the more right wing
attitudes that are displayed in the House every now and then.
First, the TAGS program cannot be cut off cold turkey. That
cannot be done without a transitional program. Thirty thousand
people cannot be thrown on to the streets with nothing to do and
nowhere to go.
We need licence buy-outs. We need training programs that will
address the real jobs that are out there. We need a generous
retirement program. If these initiatives happen to go beyond
what might be considered to be normal, well so be it. Just as
Quebec is a distinct society in its own way, then Newfoundland,
when it comes to the kinds of economic circumstances that we have
to live with, is distinct as well. The alternative is to do
nothing and to run the risk of an awful lot of social unrest.
Newfoundland, like the other provinces, needs a better deal in
the equalization program. We need a better deal in
Confederation, in particular in equalization. It keeps us from
starving but it also keeps us permanently poor as well.
1735
Much has been said about the Voisey's Bay nickel mine in
Newfoundland. I have a great deal of confidence that it will be
a great mining industry when it is fully developed. It is worth
billions of dollars.
We must never forget, however, that every dollar Newfoundland
gets in taxes and royalties is subtracted dollar for dollar from
our equalization entitlements. To be one dollar better off, we
must first raise a billion dollars a year in extra revenues just
to overcome the loss of the equalization.
In the case of Hibernia, we had a special management deal
whereby we would only loose 70¢ in equalization dollars. This is
a good start. We need a better formula than that if we are ever
going to catch up and go out on our own. The formula needs to be
extended to all major resource developments. On paper we have a
lot of resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. Under the current
arrangement, we will never break free and close the poverty gap.
I realize I am running out of time. Maybe later on I will have
a chance to say a few more words. I appreciate the opportunity
to say a few words on this.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion
we are debating asks the government to spend resources to study
the employment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to
read it again so the people who are watching understand what the
motion is intended to do.
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should
be established to study the severe unemployment problem in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would like to assure the member that the government is aware
of this very serious issue and recognizes the need for long term
structural solutions. I do not think that anybody on this side
of the House would contest the fact that we need to pay serious
attention to regional disparity.
Historically my party has been the one to most seriously address
many of the regional problems that the member would have us
examine.
Earlier studies led us to employment insurance reform, the first
major reform in 25 years. We knew that we had to have more in
the way of active support for work. We knew that we needed to
invest in people who have invested in themselves. We knew that
helping Canadians back to work was the only solution to problems
of Atlantic Canada and that is what the employment insurance
reform sets out to do.
While I am in favour of understanding a problem before leaping
into it, there is a time for study and a time for action. The
government believes the time for action is now. We are doing it
in a partnership with the provincial government.
Over the last 10 years many studies, both comprehensive and
specific, have examined the unemployment situation in
Newfoundland and Labrador. One example, and the member mentioned
it, a royal commission of the Government of Newfoundland, known
as the House Commission, looked at the problem in the late 1980s.
This led to a comprehensive analysis of the province's economic
position and became the basis of the province's strategic
economic plan. That plan is still being put into practice.
Today I want to talk about some of the things we have done to
make the problem better. From everything I have seen the people
in the member's riding are probably more interested in our
solutions than our ability to talk more about their problems.
Rather than revisit the whole issue again we want to better use
our resources to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get
back to work. That is why in 1997-98 the government will invest
$89 million in active employment measures for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
1740
Here we are talking about targeted earning supplements, targeted
wage subsidies, job creation partnerships, self-employment
assistance and skills, loans and grants. But we have also
learned that it is more important than ever for us to work even
more closely with the provinces.
Thanks to the labour market development agreement we signed with
the province, both levels of government will co-manage the
programs that will get Newfoundlanders working again. The
agreement means made in Newfoundland solutions that are tailored
to the particular circumstances that characterize the
Newfoundland economy. This kind of partnership recognizes that
each side has something to offer and that no solution is really
possible unless both levels of government work together.
One of the components of employment insurance reform is working
especially well. We have heard a little bit of it in the House,
but I want to mention it. The program that we launched, called
the transitional jobs fund, of some $300 million in July 1996, is
now starting to have an effect in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That fund works with the private sector and with the provincial
and municipal governments, as well as with community groups.
Like the labour market development agreement, the fund works
because it is based on partnership. As of October 14, that
transitional jobs fund had provided $26 million to 70 projects in
Newfoundland and Labrador. That money leveraged another $85
million.
The question that is always asked in this place is, did all that
money create jobs? You bet it did. So far, the transitional jobs
fund has created some 2,016 new jobs in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Let us take just one example so we can put it in people terms
when we talk about the 2,016 people who have found new
employment because of the transitional jobs fund. Let us start
by talking about the Millennium Diagnostic Services. We have
helped create 46 permanent full time jobs there. Some of those
people probably live in the member's riding. Millennium is
setting up a private sector blood testing facility. This
facility will provide services to the Canadian Blood Bank
Corporation and has big export plans. Even more jobs will
probably be created in the future.
We are not talking about make work either. We are talking about
medical personnel, lab technicians and support personnel, exactly
the sort of people that Newfoundland needs in a high tech world.
Those are well paying jobs.
I could go on because there are a number of different issues we
could put together, but I do not want to spend a lot of time on
the success stories. I want to talk about where we need to go in
the future.
The other successful program is the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency. As of 1996, the agency reported that it
had created or saved 82,000 full time long term jobs. The
premise of the member's motion suggests that the government of
Canada does not know which way to turn, but the evidence says
otherwise.
The 46 people in St. John's who got the new jobs, or what is
going on with the other 2,016, or the 82,000 that we have saved,
tell this House that the problem is no longer just finding data,
the problem is finding jobs. We are not interested in waiting
any more. We have the information we need and we will only
conduct new studies on specific issues as they arise.
For example, Mr. Eugene Harrigan, the associate head of human
resources development's Ontario region, will lead a review of the
impact of the end of the Atlantic groundfish strategy on program
clients, their communities and provincial finances. This will
help the government and our partners to develop forward looking
solutions.
We have programs that are working and we have results.
Things are happening. Now that we are working more closely than
ever with the province, even better things will start to happen.
1745
In the short time that I have, I have given the House concrete
examples of how real people at real companies are being put back
to work. I want to thank those people in the programs who are
trying to help depressed areas like Newfoundland and Labrador. I
want to emphasize that we are on the right track. People have to
be patient and give those programs an opportunity to work.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been in the House a short while and I have heard the term study I
do not know how many times.
I would like to read the motion of the hon. member for St.
John's East which we are debating today:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should
be established to study the severe unemployment problem in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well there is a new idea. They are talking about studying the
problem again. Let us look at the history of studies.
First of all we have a regular standing committee which looks
into the issues of the fisheries. The Government of Newfoundland
has just completed an analysis of the TAGS program and the
problems in Newfoundland. We have the government across the way
which says that studies are not the way to go but indeed it has
hired Eugene Harrigan to go ahead and study TAGS when the auditor
general has already put out a study on TAGS. Those are four
studies I count so far.
We do not hear the Tories apologizing for NCARP, the northern
cod adjustment and recovery program. They do not apologize for
that at all. Indeed they had a little bit of a tag team going.
They had John Crosbie and they had curly, their current leader,
doing a tag team on it. Curly was the environment minister and
he ignored the scientific studies that came out indicating that
the fish stocks were depleting and did not do anything about it.
John Crosbie knew at the time—
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think that certain respect has to be shown to people who are
being addressed in the House. I believe that would only be fair
and I would ask you to rule on that.
The Deputy Speaker: I assume that the hon. member for
Calgary West in his remarks is referring to the hon. member for
Sherbrooke. If so, I think he would want to refer to him as the
hon. member for Sherbrooke rather than by some other
nomenclature.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the leader
of the fifth party was in a tag team with John Crosbie to hide
the fiasco that was the Atlantic fisheries when there was
overfishing. The Tories were more than willing to pull the wool
over their own eyes and over the eyes of Atlantic Canadians.
Mr. Crosbie at the time knew that if the fishing continued,
there indeed would be overfishing in the Atlantic fisheries, but
he knew it would cost him his seat. It would cost him votes in
Atlantic Canada so they let it happen.
The leader of the fifth party—and some call him curly—went
ahead and ignored that. They worked in tandem.
Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans made recommendations
which were ignored. That is another study.
Add it all up. There has been study after study after study.
Indeed I will say that both the Tory and Liberal governments know
how to do studies, of that I am convinced. I have no problem
saying that. However, I believe that the people of Atlantic
Canada are getting tired of studies. They have been studied to
death. They have had all the studies they need to have. They
are looking for a few solutions.
Let us look at what some of the retiring politicians of Atlantic
Canada have had to say with regard to a solution for the problem,
rather than studying it again.
Let us look at the issue of taxes. Atlantic Canada, including
Newfoundland where the Tory member is from, has taxes above and
beyond that of the rest of the provinces in this country. One has
to wonder whether or not the taxes are so high because they go to
pay for the highest salary for a premier in this country. That is
right. Brian Tobin draws in $150,000 a year. He is the highest
paid premier in the country and the people in Newfoundland pay
the highest taxes in the country. One has to wonder whether
there is a correlation, especially when they are paying him a
pension of $3.4 million as he sits as the premier of
Newfoundland.
Maybe that is where some of the taxes are going.
1750
Let us look at what Frank McKenna, a good Liberal, had to say
about this. On his retirement from politics he said to cut
taxes. The federal government has been squandering money in
Atlantic Canada for years. Why not save the money that it is
squandering in terms of all these different types of programs
because they do not seem to be lowering the unemployment rate. It
has not worked over the last two decades. Why not give Atlantic
Canadians lower taxes? That might actually create growth and
stimulate jobs.
As a matter of fact there is another study that can be tossed
onto the other ones that the Tories would like to initiate. This
is one by University of Moncton Professors Donald Savoie and
Maurice Beaudin who were looking at the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency. They concluded that unemployment insurance
had killed the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic Canada.
Once again I am afraid that I have to point to the previous Tory
record on this. It was under their government that people could
work for 10 weeks and collect 42 weeks of benefits in
Newfoundland. To have that as a government policy and assume it
is not going to kill the entrepreneurial drive is foolish.
However it was the Tory policy that wiped out the entrepreneurial
spirit.
Then we also saw what happened with the Liberals across the way
and the Atlantic groundfish strategy. They assumed that by
subsidizing people to continue fishing or to take them away from
fishing when there were too many fishers with the technology that
was in the marketplace at the time, that it would somehow solve
the problem. Well no it did not solve the problem of overfishing
because a lot of those people still have not had their licenses
retired. Now we are back to square one. It is tweedledum and
tweedledee. The Tory or Liberal solution, there is none.
We can also look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business has said about the region. Peter O'Brien, the Atlantic
Canada director, along with the premier of New Brunswick, Frank
McKenna—
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
I think the hon. member should stop blaming the past and help
us find constructive ways for the people of Newfoundland. That is
the point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I do not believe this is
a question of privilege or a point of order. It is a point of
debate.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, that is so like the Tories
to have caused the problem, to have started the fire and when
they start to feel the heat of it what do they do? They say that
it is a point of privilege and not a matter of debate. Well the
world's smallest violin gets played for them.
The premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna said the federal
government should stop giving grants to Atlantic Canadian
businesses and use the savings to stimulate businesses in the
region with lower tax rates. Sounds pretty logical to me. If I
were operating a business in Atlantic Canada and I was taxed at
the highest tax rates in the country, I would certainly consider
moving if I could, because what is the point of keeping a
business in an area where I would be taxed to death.
Both of those parties are complicit, indeed they are. Let us
look at some of the taxes that these two wonderful governments,
the Tory government and the Liberal government, have brought to
the people of Atlantic Canada. Right now the federal government
and its finance minister are more than happy to brag about the
overpayment of taxes in terms of employment insurance. Right now
there is a surplus of about $15 billion that they have sucked out
of the Canadian economy and they brag that the budget has been
balanced. It has been done on the backs of those people who are
not getting work because of the high employment insurance tax.
Once again the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has
called for a 25% cut in the EI premiums because it would create
more jobs. Even Department of Finance studies indicate that high
payroll taxes cut and restrict the number of jobs. But no, we do
not hear those solutions coming from the Tories. Instead they
try to say that the hon. member should be quiet and not mention
their past blemished record. They did not have solutions then
and they do not have solutions now. All they can propose is a
study.
Unfortunately a study is not going to cut it.
1755
Then we look at something else that is coming down the pipe and
it is payroll taxes once again, the Canada pension plan. The
government is going to suck out $11 billion and it is proud to do
it with a 9.9% roughly 10% tax. It thinks that somehow that is
going to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. Surprise, surprise.
Once again it is a failed government program that is not going to
create jobs in Atlantic Canada. More taxes do not create jobs.
At the end of the day when we look through all of this, what do
we have here? We have Tories who with their ministers in their
previous government ignored environmental studies. We have
people who kept taxes high. We have people who sucked off
multimillion dollar pensions.
Then we look across the way hoping for another solution and we
look to the Liberals. There we have the harmonized sales tax.
They thought that by raising value added taxes it would be a
benefit. They kept EI premiums high by taking out $15 billion
more than they should have and they thought that would do good.
Then they raised the Canada pension plan and they are going to be
taking $11 billion out on that.
We have these two parties both proposing studies and raising
taxes when they were in power. The Tories want a special study,
a special committee to look at it and the Liberals have hired
Eugene Harrigan to look after the problem that they created with
the Atlantic groundfish strategy. Once again both of them are
proposing more, new and expensive studies, both of them are
raising and keeping taxes high and they expect that somehow the
problem is going to be looked after.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, congratulations for properly identifying
my riding, which comprises four regional county municipalities.
I am happy to rise to speak to the motion of the member for
St. John's East, which provides:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee
should be established to study the severe unemployment problem
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think we can see what the hon. member is trying to o, which
is to draw the attention of the House to the unemployment problems
in his region. This is fully justified.
When we take a closer look, we might ask ourselves whether the
unemployment problem in Canada is not much greater than that. When
we look at eastern Quebec—particularly the Lower St. Lawrence and the
Gaspé, which are of concern to me—all of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and not only issues of areas but of categories, such as
young people or older workers aged 50 or 55, who are affected by
technological change in business, we realize it is perhaps not a
special committee on employment that we need in Canada, but a
national priority on the part of the Canadian government.
We heard over and over again about the need to reduce the deficit
for four years, and everyone agreed that this was true. Now, the number
one problem in Canada is unemployment. We have this situation where
there are no jobs for unemployed workers, either because they do not
meet job requirements or because there are simply too few jobs to go
around because, in our society, productivity gains often end up in the
pockets of the very wealthy and seldom in the hands of people who could
use this money to create employment.
I am inclined to say that the good will displayed by the hon.
member needs to be spread around. The unemployment situation in Canada
is not the result of natural law. It must be remembered that, in the
late 19th century, the Atlantic region was an autonomous region.
Is it the result of power struggles then? I think so.
Just think of how Canada was built. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, there
was a very clear understanding in Canada. Ontario was to be developed to
be the home of the manufacturing industry and related jobs. As for the
people in the maritimes and Quebec, who supplied the natural resources,
since they could not be given jobs year round for lack of an appropriate
regional diversification policy, they were given transfer payments. This
worked pretty well until the tap was turned off.
Things are topsy turvey in this country. Instead of diversifying
economic activities in the regions that depended on natural resources
and then imposing stricter standards, if necessary, it was decided to
impose stricter standards and not to diversify the regional economy.
1800
This led to the results that we know. We are on the verge of a
social disaster. There are people in our ridings who do not have the
proper training for the available jobs, who are looking for work, and
who are unhappy. They can no longer work enough weeks to qualify for
employment insurance benefits to last until their next job. They have to
go through the spring gap, a period of 10 or 15 weeks without any
income.
What can we do to correct this situation? First, there must be a
clear and specific political commitment on the part of the federal
government to the effect that it will indeed make the fight against
unemployment a priority.
Recommendations are being made in that regard. Let us not forget
that two weeks ago the human resources development committee of this
House passed a resolution to say to the finance committee and the
Minister of Finance that employment and employment insurance must be
given priority in the next budget. A majority of opposition members
prevailed, so that the human resources development committee will have
to convey this message to the finance committee. This step must lead to
concrete measures.
Unfortunately, the proposal before us today is not a votable item.
I would like to see many more motions on which members could vote.
We could have amended it, based on the human resources committee's
recommendation, and arranged to have Parliament require the federal
government's priority for the coming year, when it concocts its
budget, to be the reduction of unemployment.
If that choice were made, if that were put on the table, it
would automatically result in the need to develop policies to
diversify our regional economies. It would mean that, since
priority was being given to employment throughout Canada, there
would be a way of seeing that forestry workers who no longer had
work in the forests could find jobs in wood processing. We should
have programs to help companies develop these new products that can
be sold on the American and European markets, and elsewhere.
This means that, in the dairy sector, we could place greater
emphasis on exporting our milk, creating new products and
developing specialty niches.
It means that, in the tourism sector, we could overhaul the program
the federal government has just created.
It has just created a $500 million fund to help major tourist
centres compete better internationally. This is very interesting
where centres already exist, such as at Mont-Tremblant.
As a member representing a region where the tourism industry
is still growing, where there are not necessarily any existing
infrastructures, I can tell you that what we need are more flexible
programs that will meet these regions' needs.
If the federal government gave priority to jobs, a motion like this
one today would not be necessary because that is what would be required
on a government-wide basis. This would mean that when the government's
procurement policies are developed, there would be an assessment to
ensure that the impacts are desirable, sufficient and in keeping with
the taxes paid by each region of Canada.
Tomorrow morning, if we did a profile on that, if we went around
the national capital, around Ontario, we would see that they are not
doing too badly when it comes to having their share of these programs.
If you come in our area, try to have one of your small or medium size
firms register with the computerized bidding system and see if it will
succeed in obtaining a contract from the Department of National Defence.
It is quite an experience because, often, there are already many
contracts, many people who have been tendering for two, three, ten,
twenty or thirty years. It is the person who will get the contract who
ends up drafting the call for tenders.
It is much easier, in such cases, to get the contract.
It is actions such as these, in all areas, that the government
should be promoting. For that to happen , there must be a commitment
from the Prime Minister, from the government, saying that yes, our
priority will be the fight against unemployment; yes, in ten years, we
will assess Quebeckers, Canadians, and we will see where we are at that
time.
We must evaluate how we are utilizing our human resources as
quickly as possible during this mandate. Are we making full use of the
potential our young people have to offer? Are we making full use of the
potential of people in their thirties who can only rely on one contract
at a time? This is another aspect of the unemployment issue. We must
also look at how other types of income can be provided to people who do
not now have sufficient annual income from their jobs.
Two weeks ago, we learned that the number of self-employed workers
was increasing dramatically in Quebec and in Canada. More and more
people are creating their own jobs, they do not have an employer, and
they are not eligible for employment insurance.
1805
Why can we not innovate and allow these people to become eligible?
In this way, they would have a chance to continue working in these
areas, to develop their entrepreneurial skills and also to benefit a
little from a social security net that would protect them from a lack of
jobs or a lack of contracts.
This motion was tabled in a good faith and deals with a problem
found in the regions that the member mentions. But this is also a
problem that exists thoughout Canada.
I would like to add that people from western Canada should refrain
from passing judgment on how people from eastern Canada or elsewhere did
things.
What we are doing today could be done to look at all kinds of ways.
The grain transportation subsidies, which existed for some years in
the west, could be looked at for instance. I do not think they
should judge. What needs to be looked at instead is how to ensure
that each government, as long as we are still part of the system,
has a proper mastery of its tools, how we could have a government
machine that responds more quickly to requests.
I will conclude with this point. As long as the federal
government brings in such things as the youth strategy, which
parallels similar programs already in place in a province, and
forces young entrepreneurs to go knocking on two separate doors for
a solution to their problems, we are not on the right track. The
right track, and this is perfectly clear, requires areas of
jurisdiction to be clear, economic markets to be wide open, and we
must show confidence in the potential of the people in our regions.
Ottawa is not where the solutions to unemployment lie, they
are in each of the regions of Quebec and of Canada. People must be
able to lay these solutions out on the table and have them heard,
they must be made a priority, and we must be assessed according to
the way we respond to that priority. This is the challenge we
are giving to the present government.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking today in support of Motion No. 177, which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee
should be established to study the severe unemployment problem
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
At the same time, I would add New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova
Scotia, and, going even further afield, British Columbia, on the
Pacific coast, with all its fisheries problems.
Before I proceed with my speech, I would like to make a few
comments to my colleague in the Reform Party. He spoke about Frank
McKenna and said we should listen to what Frank McKenna has said.
[English]
I will say this in his language to make sure he will not have to
get the translation. For the 10 years Frank McKenna was in power
in New Brunswick I never once heard him say that he did not need
any programs. However, on the same week that he took his
resignation he said he did not need those programs and now we
have to break the tax. Maybe this was because he wanted the
support of the Reform Party out west if he were ever to become
the prime minister of the country. I can tell the House he never
said that when he was in power.
When we talk about the reduction of taxes to health and how much
the government is spending, the Reform Party is in the wrong
place. If Reformers want to save money for the country, they
should follow what their leader did before the election when he
said he would not move into Stornoway or use a limousine. Now
they are using taxpayers' money to live at Stornoway. As if
Stornoway was not good enough, it needed over $100,000 for
repairs.
[Translation]
Clearly, unemployment rates in Newfoundland and Labrador have
reached critical levels, despite the government's promises to
invest in manpower training and economic restructuring.
Like the Conservatives before them, the Liberals cut social
services and deregulated industry. The result? The rich get
richer, but the ordinary folks continue to suffer.
[English]
The Liberals were elected on a promise of hope. Instead they
embraced the idea that we could no longer afford the things we
value as Canadians. Unemployment and the economic insecurity
that goes with it are facts of life that we have to accept.
[Translation]
Accepting the insecurity that goes along with unemployment is
out of the question. Never will the NDP support the Liberal view,
which ignores human suffering. Never will the NDP say that nothing
more can be done for the workers in this country.
1810
Recently, in his first speech in the Atlantic region since the
election that saw the number of Liberal seats there drop from 31 to
11, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that cuts were
inevitable and that people in the Atlantic provinces were going to
thank him. For what?
I doubt that the thousands of unemployed are ready to thank
the Prime Minister for the cuts that have plunged them into
terrible poverty.
In his speech, the Prime Minister also admitted that the
Atlantic provinces had suffered the most from federal cuts. He
said that, because we depended more on the federal government than
other regions in the country, we had naturally, yes naturally, been
at a disadvantage.
When is this government going to wake up and realize that
entire communities are suffering because of the Liberals' failure
to act? The problems in Newfoundland are problems that can also be
found in my region of New Brunswick. People want to work but
cannot find employment because the region's economy has not
recovered from the fisheries crisis.
The TAGS program was supposed to eliminate this problem and
make it possible to reinvest in manpower, to support communities
financially, in order to diversify the economy and alleviate
suffering. But, as with everything the Liberals have undertaken,
it was just a knee-jerk reaction lacking long term vision.
This program was so badly managed that cheques were
distributed to people who had been dead for some time.
If a private company had been run like this, it would have gone
belly up in no time.
Now the government comes to us and says “Sorry folks, but we
have run out of money, and we have to close down the program”. Can
a government give this kind of answer when these people have paid
taxes for years and devoted their energy to the economic
development of their community, particularly when the crisis they
find themselves in is again due to the government's mismanagement?
Well, enough is enough. People do not just want to survive.
All they are asking is to be able to work and earn a decent living.
[English]
The TAGS program did nothing to build on Atlantic Canada's
strengths; on the fishermen's tenacity, determination and
expertise; on the fishing culture and heritage; or on the
community's determination to survive.
[Translation]
As elected representatives, we must offer constructive criticism of
these types of government programs. We have a duty to tell the Prime
Minister it is not enough to help his friends the bankers; he must also
think about ordinary people.
What people from the Atlantic region need is a proactive approach
that takes into account the structural problems of regional economies.
This is why it is so important to establish a parliamentary committee to
look at the unemployment crisis. It is the first step toward a proactive
approach that will identify the region's fundamental problems, thus
making us aware of the communities' real concerns, instead of applying
a band-aid solution.
People in Newfoundland also need short term projects to fill the
void left by the expiry of TAGS.
They need an early retirement program for older workers who will
probably not have an opportunity to re-enter the labour market. This is
also true for people in New Brunswick, in the Gaspe Peninsula and in
Nova Scotia.
The NDP believes we must tackle the serious issue of unemployment
right now. It is possible to set up long term job creation policies that
will ensure decent salaries for families. We believe a full employment
policy must the government's top priority.
As we know, job creation remains Canadians' first concern. There
must be a more balanced approach than the ones proposed by the Liberals,
the Conservatives and the Reformers.
These are irresponsible approaches, as they never take into account the
impact of the policy on small Atlantic communities.
They always come up with proposals that serve Toronto bankers at
the expense of fishers in Harbour Grace.
There is another way of acknowledging the suffering of people,
which is to offer solutions to alleviate it. Newfoundland is not an
isolated case. We must face the real problems that ail the Atlantic
region. This government must have the courage to put forward proactive
measures for the short and the long term.
The people of Newfoundland deserve to have a courageous government
that is listening to them. Is this government able to fulfil their needs
and meet their expectations?
1815
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I support a
study of the problem in the EI program as my colleague from St.
John's East has suggested, but I propose that it be for all of
Atlantic Canada.
Many people in my riding of West Nova are employed in the
resource sector which means seasonal jobs. The negative changes
to the EI program have caused a serious and devastating impact on
our local economy. If payroll taxes were reduced, specifically
EI premiums, it would permit business to create jobs and
therefore reduce the dependency on the EI program. That would be
very positive for our area.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that if the
hon. member for St. John's East speaks now, he will close the
debate.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank all hon. members for their submissions in this debate.
I reiterate that the unemployment problem in Newfoundland is
devastating. The official unemployment rate in Newfoundland is
higher than anywhere else in Canada. For a number of years it
has had a 20% or 21% official unemployment rate. However, the
fact of the matter is that an awful lot of communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador have unemployment rates of 60%, 70% and
75%. A number of communities are shutting down all along the
coast of Newfoundland, which is causing a lot of social unrest
among people. This is an issue that has been with us and on the
agenda for many years. It just does not go away.
I appreciate the submission of the government member. I am well
aware that half the provincial budget of Newfoundland and
Labrador comes from federal transfer payment. We are well aware
of it and very grateful for it. I have heard much of the
rhetoric before, but with respect we need creative solutions to
this devastating problem. We have to look at the problem in its
own right.
The hon. member for Calgary West stood a few minutes ago in this
place and talked about this problem as if it were some kind of
joke. If the member for Calgary West thinks it is a joke, if he
thinks that a 20% unemployment problem in Newfoundland is a joke,
he had better think again because it is no joke. The member is a
joke but this is no joke.
The member for Calgary West has nothing to add to the debate. He
had the nerve to stand in his place today and say to the people
of Newfoundland that maybe they should move or that maybe the
people of Atlantic Canada should go away.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West on a
question of privilege.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nowhere
in my speech did I ever mention that the people in Atlantic
Canada should move.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that is not a
question of privilege. The hon. member for St. John's East.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary
West might think this is a joke, but it is no joke. I can tell
him that.
He said a moment ago in his speech that the smallest violin
plays for Atlantic Canada. What a terrible remark to make to the
people who are moving away from Newfoundland in droves every
year. Some 7,500 people per year are moving out of Newfoundland.
All we hear from the member for Calgary West of the Reform Party
is that the smallest violin plays for Atlantic Canada. What a
shameful remark. The hon. member has a red face now, but I think
when he gets back to his office and he gets a call from his
leader he will have a much redder face.
What a terrible remark for somebody to make.
1820
If the leader of the Reform Party had looked after it himself
instead of costing the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars,
there might have been something we could have donated to the
unemployed people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We hear jokes from the Reform Party about the unemployment
problem in Atlantic Canada, but we do not hear any creative
solutions.
As I said a moment ago, one creative solution, and I know I do
not have a lot of time to talk about it, is to change the
equalization formula for Newfoundland so that we can take
advantage of some of our resource based industries. We are
waiting for Voisey's Bay to be developed. That industry is worth
billions and billions of dollars. We have to realize that we
will have to give away one dollar in equalization payments for
every dollar we raise in taxes and royalties.
In summing up, if we had a fairer equalization formula applied
to Newfoundland as it applies to its resource based industries,
we would be a whole lot better off.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from
the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my riding of Waterloo—Wellington is a mix of urban, rural and
suburban areas. Approximately 30% of the wealth of my riding is
generated as a result of agriculture and agribusiness. Needless
to say, farming is very important to the economic well-being of
Waterloo—Wellington.
Farmers throughout Canada are very concerned about our supply
management system and what might happen to it. Over the years
farmers have come to rely upon the supply management system to
ensure the viability of the family farm.
It is a system which has brought stability to agriculture
throughout Canada and it is a system which has ensured a
reasonable rate of return for farmers as a result.
There are always those who would strip away the supply
management system, so it is important for the federal government
to take a lead role in protecting the interests of farmers by
protecting the supply management system wherever and whenever
possible.
This protection often is reactive. For example, the government
will have to defend our system before a tribunal as a result of
the American challenge. Government also needs to be proactive.
Therefore the next meeting of the World Trade Organization will
be crucial in this matter.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food outline exactly what steps the government will be
taking at this meeting to maintain a viable and strong supply
management system?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the question of the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington. I am
well aware of his support of his constituents who count on a
strong supply management system.
When the government took office in 1993 the negotiations of the
Uruguay round were just coming to a conclusion. The issue of how
to protect supply managed industries was front and centre in
those negotiation. We moved quickly and decisively to achieve
very substantial tariff protection for those industries,
protection that has allowed supply management to continue
operating effectively in Canada.
We defended our rights to impose those tariffs when the U.S.
challenged us under NAFTA. We were successful in that case
because we all worked together, federal and provincial
governments and industry.
We are seeking the same kind of collaboration as we prepare for
the next round of WTO agriculture negotiations. We are working
closely with all stakeholders to identify Canada's agrifood trade
interests.
We will defend those interests in the Canadian position when the
negotiations begin in 1999.
1825
Our strength is in a clear and united position representing the
interests of all parts of the Canadian agrifood system. In
collaboration with industry and the provinces, that is exactly
the kind of position we propose to develop in time for the 1999
WTO negotiations.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.)